Gun Control

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Hey,


Should Lead up to A Good Debate.What your guys Thoughts on Gun Control? Should it be the same,Strict,Less-then-Normal?Should there be a law for how old you can be,just to get a BB gun, or should guns be banned from Everyone,expect for Police and Armed Forces? See No Understanding of why we should banned guns expect for Armed Forces. I save my argument when this thread grows,your thoughts?

[Lemur]

Excuse me, but some of us are still busy establishing that John Kerry is a bad person. Please be respectful of this.

[Don Corleone]

Jaysus, young lad, you really do like to let bombs off dontcha...

Everyone knows firearms are completely and utterly unnecessary. If somebody breaks into your house and threatens the lives and/or virtue of your children and wife, simply but politely ask them to stop. If they refuse, offer them a flower. If they still refuse, beg. If they still refuse, call the police, but ask them to come nicely. They'll write you a nice report when they arrive 3 hours henceforth. That should give you enough time to clean up your children and wife to make them presentable for the police when they arrive.

If one inisists on this foolish notion of defending one's family and property, one must be a foul villian that we must shackle immediately.

Translation: even the good Leftys I know think we should ask rapists nicely to stop, but we have no right to defend ourselves from them. Reason #1 why I'll never be a lefty.

[Kralizec]

Translation: even the good Leftys I know think we should ask rapists nicely to stop, but we have no right to defend ourselves from them. Reason #1 why I'll never be a lefty.

Think of the women!

Of course there's always going to be incidents where innocent people end up getting shot, but we have to remember that there are foul people out there preying on our women. If widespread firearm ownership saves even one woman from getting raped, isn't it worth it?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Seriously though, as this is one of the pet reasons why people keep supporting easy acces to firearms, it would be nice to have some stats on this. How widespread is firearm ownership among women? How many would-be rapists were avoided by civilian owned guns?

[Don Corleone]

Hey, laugh at me all you want Kralizec, there are several fates that I can imagine as being worse than death, one of them being comforting my wife after she was raped while I was forced to watch. Having known more than a few women that have been raped, some forcibly, I'd prefer not to go to that craps table.

If you think it's all a big laugh, bully for you. If you're such an expert on crime prevention, why aren't you putting your knowledge to work and why are you wasting your time posting useless answers to stupid rubes like me? In other words, go piss up a rope.

[KukriKhan]

Gun Control

Using both hands.












And lifting the lid.

And putting it down when you're done.

And washing.

Yeah. That's it.

[AntiochusIII]

If you think it's all a big laugh, bully for you. If you're such an expert on crime prevention, why aren't you putting your knowledge to work and why are you wasting your time posting useless answers to stupid rubes like me? In other words, go piss up a rope.

Yah, sure. While I'm not exactly the recipient meant, I'll assume you have a bad day or something and is a little less sensible than you usually are; no disrespect meant.

*sigh*

And I was about to launch myself upon a grand monologue denouncing Teh Evil Guns with a pseudo-Shakespearean Ye Olde Englische soliloquy and a bombastic Sinatra voice. Guess not.

[Kralizec]

Well, it's been a couple of hours now and after re-reading my own posts I feel I do owe an apology to Don Corleone, and of course to rape victims. It was pretty tasteless and that wasn't apparent to me before, I'm pretty slow when it comes to that. Sorry.

[Tribesman]

There's lots more solid info available, folks

Yeah you can always rely on the NRA for solid bias

Three out of four violent crimes committed in the United States each year do not in any way involve firearms.

So 25% of violent crime does involve guns then .

Crimes with firearms have risen dramatically since the ban on handgun ownership was passed by Parliament.

Yep since possesion of an unlicensed gun is a crime with firearms , possesion of a relica weapon is a crime with firearms , incorrest storage of ammunition is a gun crime , having the wrong type of gun cabinet is crime with firearms .
Do you remember the recent Metropolitan police swoop that added over 800 gun crimes to the figures ? all for one individual arms dealer , and mainly over storage and paperwork "gun crimes"

The last place you want to look for "solid" info would be the NRA , no more than you would rely on an anti-firearm group for "solid" info .

[Xiahou]

Translation: even the good Leftys I know think we should ask rapists nicely to stop, but we have no right to defend ourselves from them. Reason #1 why I'll never be a lefty.

Maybe you haven't heard about the SNiVeL defense?

Do The SNiVeL:

*

Step 1: "S" is for Safe - Assume a safe, fetal position, preferably under a table or other cover.
*

Step 2: "N" & "V" are for Non-Violent - Remember, remain non-violent. Moves that could be interpreted as 'self-defense' may only serve to further provoke your assailant. Offer no resistance.
*

Step 3: "L" is for Limp - Remain limp while begging and groveling for your life!!! This is no time for pride or courage, so cry like a girl, you fool!!! This will always serve you better than a firearm, which would only inject more violence into the situation. Finally, stay limp until your assailant has finished beating you like a rented mule. He will eventually tire from pummeling you mercilessly and choose to move on to a more entertaining endeavor, such as beating your spouse and/or children.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Jaysus, young lad, you really do like to let bombs off dontcha...

Everyone knows firearms are completely and utterly unnecessary. If somebody breaks into your house and threatens the lives and/or virtue of your children and wife, simply but politely ask them to stop. If they refuse, offer them a flower. If they still refuse, beg. If they still refuse, call the police, but ask them to come nicely. They'll write you a nice report when they arrive 3 hours henceforth. That should give you enough time to clean up your children and wife to make them presentable for the police when they arrive.

If one inisists on this foolish notion of defending one's family and property, one must be a foul villian that we must shackle immediately.

Translation: even the good Leftys I know think we should ask rapists nicely to stop, but we have no right to defend ourselves from them. Reason #1 why I'll never be a lefty.

You must be joking....Right?

So ok, Let me get this. Say,someone breaks into my house, wants to kill me,my wife and kis,for example. I'll go up to him and ask him to stop,instead of blowing his head clean off his body for threating my family? Ok,mabye I was to blunt in what I would do with him, but plain and simple.
Now if he breaks in just to Rob, I might get Push him around abit, broken arm should teach him then.

One Reason that Makes me believe is this,is the following that happen 2 houses away from me, where I live

2 houses down from me, in the Summer of 2005, This Family that lives that, were letting their Kids camp outside. Ok, so one night, the youngest one, I guess at that time 11 or 12 mabye, look outside the camp, and Saw a Man,yes a Man, standing not to far away from the tent. So they ending up running inside, and calling the cops, and the Cops Search Their Backyard,The House Next to Us,their backyard, and my backyard, and Never found the guy,that you go.
I don't even wanna think what would have happen if the kid didn't wake up and saw him when he did......




and Lemur,your post

"Excuse me, but some of us are still busy establishing that John Kerry is a bad person. Please be respectful of this."

How does this have to do with John Kerry? Explain?

[Prince of the Poodles]

Lemur was being funny I think.... it was funny to me anyway.

[Lemur]

How does this have to do with John Kerry? Explain?

As POP said, I was making a funny. I think it's telling of the mood of the Backroom that of all the issues in the world, it's Kerry's self-destruction that has taken up two long threads, and shows no sign of dying. They're still going at it! And they'll probably keep going at it through the weekend. It's kind of astonishing. All of the facts are now known, all the damage has been done, and they're still going at it. And to think I get accused of milking! They got a dairy farm in there!

CR, I am guilty of extremely poor writing. What I meant to express was that the likelihood of a gun being used in self defense is lower than the likelihood of it being used by a family member in an accidental discharge. You would never know it from my sloppy phrasing, but that's the idea I was going for. My bad.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

ah ok, SOrry about that Lemur.I took it differently, my bad.

I know, but the first Kerry thread lasted how long? my Iraq Thread lasted Ages before this Stuff came along (Over 6 pages for mine)

[Ice]

You must be joking....Right?

So ok, Let me get this. Say,someone breaks into my house, wants to kill me,my wife and kis,for example. I'll go up to him and ask him to stop,instead of blowing his head clean off his body for threating my family? Ok,mabye I was to blunt in what I would do with him, but plain and simple.
Now if he breaks in just to Rob, I might get Push him around abit, broken arm should teach him then.

One Reason that Makes me believe is this,is the following that happen 2 houses away from me, where I live

2 houses down from me, in the Summer of 2005, This Family that lives that, were letting their Kids camp outside. Ok, so one night, the youngest one, I guess at that time 11 or 12 mabye, look outside the camp, and Saw a Man,yes a Man, standing not to far away from the tent. So they ending up running inside, and calling the cops, and the Cops Search Their Backyard,The House Next to Us,their backyard, and my backyard, and Never found the guy,that you go.
I don't even wanna think what would have happen if the kid didn't wake up and saw him when he did......

Warman, he was being sarcastic.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Ice,I didn't take it like That,not untill I read some of the later post did I see he was being sarcastic, not a joking person.

[Vuk]

Jaysus, young lad, you really do like to let bombs off dontcha...

Everyone knows firearms are completely and utterly unnecessary. If somebody breaks into your house and threatens the lives and/or virtue of your children and wife, simply but politely ask them to stop. If they refuse, offer them a flower. If they still refuse, beg. If they still refuse, call the police, but ask them to come nicely. They'll write you a nice report when they arrive 3 hours henceforth. That should give you enough time to clean up your children and wife to make them presentable for the police when they arrive.

If one inisists on this foolish notion of defending one's family and property, one must be a foul villian that we must shackle immediately.

Translation: even the good Leftys I know think we should ask rapists nicely to stop, but we have no right to defend ourselves from them. Reason #1 why I'll never be a lefty.

Nice one!


In Hawia women were being raped left and right, more so than in anyother state. They legalized firearms and made training programs for women who wanted to take them - in a matter of months, the rapes occuring in Hawaii dropped to half what they had been!
It isn't just women who have to be able to defend themselves though, it's guys to. People have a fundamental right to defend themselves! The founding fathers saw this when they added they bill of rights and the 2nd amendment, but because of the policy of selective incorparation (which is unconstitutional) many states do not let their citizens bear arms. The crime rate in Swisterland which requires all its citizens to own and be able to operate firearms, is the lowest in the world except militant states!!

[AntiochusIII]

In Hawia women were being raped left and right, more so than in anyother state. They legalized firearms and made training programs for women who wanted to take them - in a matter of months, the rapes occuring in Hawaii dropped to half what they had been!

Err, source please.

It isn't just women who have to be able to defend themselves though, it's guys to. People have a fundamental right to defend themselves! The founding fathers saw this when they added they bill of rights and the 2nd amendment, but because of the policy of selective incorparation (which is unconstitutional) many states do not let their citizens bear arms. The crime rate in Swisterland which requires all its citizens to own and be able to operate firearms, is the lowest in the world except militant states!!

I do not believe any of us actually have the superior decisive intelligence to interpret that pathetically vague passage of an Amendment and be sure that we're absolutely correct about it.

So the choice would be: be an arse and a partisan hack to assume you know everything about that particularly controversial Amendment and shout down everyone else, or know nothing and try to find a better ground for our arguments. The Constitution has been beaten enough -- the document wasn't written so that people can bring it up as the ultimate law when it agrees with them and silently avoids mention when it isn't so receptive.

Oh, and the Swiss is an old, old example; one that ought to be dropped already. See, I doubt they were the country with an extremely low crime rate because of the metal pieces called guns -- I think it's the social, cultural, and political aspects of that peculiar country that contribute to a safer environment...or may be it's just the weather.

[Vuk]

Papewaio: No swearing.
Papewaio: No attacks on others.
Papewaio: No attacking other cultures
Papewaio: Please come again.

[Kralizec]

A state agency should keep tabs on who keeps firearms, what firearms and their rifling profile of the weapon.

In that case I have no major gripes with firearm ownership. If companies are forced to supply a blueprint of every weapon, bullets at a crime scene can be easily used to narrow down the list guns that were possibly used.

Restricting the actual possession of firearms...that's a bit of a toughy. In the USA there are already so many weapons in circulation that it's a nigh impossible task, let alone disarming the confirmed criminal circuit.

I feel that any to-be owner of a firearm should pass some sort of exam. It doesn't have to be very difficult, just some basics. It could save people, and puts some extra responsibility on the owner should someone get hurt.

[Pannonian]

Let the Americans use whatever controls they want to use, and let us use whatever controls we want to use, as we're obviously seeing this from very different perspectives. Your world is not our world, and the rules are different.

[KukriKhan]

Let the Americans use whatever controls they want to use, and let us use whatever controls we want to use, as we're obviously seeing this from very different perspectives. Your world is not our world, and the rules are different.

Wow. Wisdom. Right here on our stage.

Cut it out Pannonian, you'll give the Tavern a bad name. :)

In 3 hours since warman's drive-by posting, we've gone to page 2...likely page 3 by the time he wakes up and wonders: "Hey! Where's my Cheerio's, and whatever happened to all those threads I started?"

[Keba]

One word, licensce.

A test instituted for ability to own a weapon responsibly and a liscensce issued by the goverment/local police station authorizing you to own a weapon.

And no automatic ones, hand cannons or whatever. Hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols (though with a more thorough test for this one).

Though I still think it a stupid idea to pump what you're going to eat full of lead.

[Redleg]

One word, licensce.

A test instituted for ability to own a weapon responsibly and a liscensce issued by the goverment/local police station authorizing you to own a weapon.

And no automatic ones, hand cannons or whatever. Hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols (though with a more thorough test for this one).

Though I still think it a stupid idea to pump what you're going to eat full of lead.

Registration of weapons when buying them is now a requirement for the ownership of firearms in United States. So the "licensing" of them is basically alreadly done. Most states do not allow individuals under 18 to hunt unless they have taken a hunter's safety course. With no hunting license - an individual can not legally take a deer.

poaching still carries some very stiff penalities - for instance many states still allow for the seizing by the state all property in the possession of the poacher when they are caught.

Most hunters don't pump what they are going to eat full of lead - two shots is the typical hunter, a good hunter only uses one shot. Unfortunately that one shot can often ruin a bit of the meat that you are after.

I typical aim just behind the front shoulder of the deer, (its a heart shot) kills the animal very quickly, and I never shoot until I am sure about my shot.

[Fragony]

I really don't understand why we aren't allowed to have guns, police is taking a monopoly on the use of violence but they are completily useless. Every household should have a gun in case something goes wrong, why become a victim

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Consider the following list of quotations, drawn (for the most part) from those writing during the founding of our republic or shortly after its creation.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html

It would seem that many did view the right to keep and bear arms not only a tool of personal defense, but a potential defense against government tyranny. Some even defined "arms" as any of the tools of the soldier.

I may choose to foregoe the ownership and use of my own M60 for personal defense -- there are a few practical drawbacks -- and the claymores are a little finicky for long-term emplacement, but its hard to view restrictions on weapons ownership as constitutionally correct for any non-felon.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Consider the following list of quotations, drawn (for the most part) from those writing during the founding of our republic or shortly after its creation.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html

It would seem that many did view the right to keep and bear arms not only a tool of personal defense, but a potential defense against government tyranny. Some even defined "arms" as any of the tools of the soldier.

I may choose to foregoe the ownership and use of my own M60 for personal defense -- there are a few practical drawbacks -- and the claymores are a little finicky for long-term emplacement, but its hard to view restrictions on weapons ownership as constitutionally correct for any non-felon.

Of Course there would be drawbacks for having a M60 or M-16,whatever. Depending on the gun, I don't think it be nice for you to be shooting at a Murderer in your house, and ending up killinng him and shooting your next door nebiour in the back by a stray bullet..

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Cannons were limited. If one reads some of the older laws, one will quickly find that merchant ships could not be armed if they sailed from the United States

That doesnt apply as it only limits arms outside the borders of the US. Any citizen could own any cannon he could afford.

'As the link provided above shows that yes indeed their was legislation to prevent the arming of the civilian population.'

If you notice they quickly saw the folly and error of this. They we were about vessels from another nation docking not american ones. On top of that it again didnt apply to what a citizen could 'carry' in the US only in the harbors.

'If we had a higher percentage of the population under federal arms then that arguement might hold sway with me - however research would indicate that from the very beginning their were two main positions on the 2nd Amendment. '


So as we increase and decrease the size of the armed forces and police the meaning of the 2nd amendment changes?

[Redleg]

That doesnt apply as it only limits arms outside the borders of the US. Any citizen could own any cannon he could afford.

Sorry Gawain - it does apply because it was American Flagged Merchants that were living out of American Ports.

'As the link provided above shows that yes indeed their was legislation to prevent the arming of the civilian population.'

If you notice they quickly saw the folly and error of this. They we were about vessels from another nation docking not american ones. On top of that it again didnt apply to what a citizen could 'carry' in the US only in the harbors.

They were forced to notice the folly of the legislation because of the action resulting from war. Even though they changed the legislation it does show that the founding fathers had some restrictions on arms. Which goes to the arguement about gun control.

'If we had a higher percentage of the population under federal arms then that arguement might hold sway with me - however research would indicate that from the very beginning their were two main positions on the 2nd Amendment. '


So as we increase and decrease the size of the armed forces and police the meaning of the 2nd amendment changes?

[/quote]

Not at all - nice attempt but that was not what I stated. The arguement about the tryanny of the government as evoked by the police and the military does not hold sway with me. In otherwords I simply reject that arguement. One can not adequately demonstrate that the size of the military prevents the people from revolting and overthrowing the government. One can not adequately demonstrate to me that when the people desire to overthrow the tryanny of the government that the lack of military grade weapons has prevented the overthrow of the government. The are plently examble were inadequate equiped rebels overthrew a government that they no longer could tolerate.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. The Federalist debates during the drafting of the constitution demonstrate that the 2nd Amendment had several interpations, and yes even drafts even while it was being ratified. Weapon control legislation has been ongoing for some time now, and it passes review of the courts and congress multiple times when it deals with any weapon outside of those that are considered personal arms.

And are you arguing that court approval of laws make them right?

As Gawain said, there were no restrictions on owning cannons in the USA.

The arguement about the tryanny of the government as evoked by the police and the military does not hold sway with me. In otherwords I simply reject that arguement. One can not adequately demonstrate that the size of the military prevents the people from revolting and overthrowing the government.

Once again, need does not matter in the slightest. We are talking about a right enshrined in the constitution- we do not have to demonstrate need. Your belief is based on several assumptions - what if those do not com true?

Why should we restrain ourselves from fully exercising our rights because of a belief we do not need them?
This is especially problematic when we talk of the 2nd amendment - the one that was designed for a 'doomsday scenario'. That means, to arm ourselves for scenario we cannot forsee. Prudence dictates we prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Arguing that we shouldn't prepare for the worst because we're pretty sure it won't happen is not smart.

Crazed Rabbit