The ''Should Fire-Arms be allowed'' thread

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

I decided to make this thread cause everyone kept on posting about this topic in the off topic section. And everyone seemed to be too lazy to make one here.
So what do you think? Should Fire-arms be allowed? Should everyone be able to buy a gun?
Do you think guns should be allowed so you can protect yourself or do you think the police is for that job?

And do you allow me to buy my fighterjet n kill all? Burn loose :cool:

[Total_Overkill]

Eurofighter;65607']And do you allow me to buy my fighterjet n kill all? Burn loose :cool:

If you had enough $$$ to buy the aircraft, the fuel, the armaments, and the training lessons.... why the hell would you want to do THAT?! i mean... think of the mountain of coke you could have in your room! or something... but no! you want a jetfighter :rolleyes:

[|Crimson|]

I've been thinking about this for ages now and I have yet to discover one valid reason for giving everyone the chance to easily buy powerful and effective killing machines.

How does it make sense!? HOW?

[NicholasJohnson]

Total_Overkill, I'm curious about the LAW missile you said you found for sale in Alaska (in the VA tech thread).

According to the WIKI article on the LAW, ( Click Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M72_LAW#Surplus_Demand) ) it says that
Expended LAW tubes may be found on the US military surplus and gun show market, and purchased by militaria collectors.


Note the term "expended". It is perfectly legal to buy military rockets, grenades, etc in the USA as long as the explosive item in question has been made inert. What you saw was most likely either the tube or an inert rocket. I have purchased inert ordnance from the internet and it is perfectly legal to own/ship such items.

[Total_Overkill]

Total_Overkill, I'm curious about the LAW missile you said you found for sale in Alaska (in the VA tech thread).

According to the WIKI article on the LAW, ( Click Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M72_LAW#Surplus_Demand) ) it says that


Note the term "expended". It is perfectly legal to buy military rockets, grenades, etc in the USA as long as the explosive item in question has been made inert. What you saw was most likely either the tube or an inert rocket. I have purchased inert ordnance from the internet and it is perfectly legal to own/ship such items.

Ah yes, i did see the launcher and the missle/rocket, and your right, 100% certain that the rocket on display was infact inert, for safe purposes if nothing else... BUT im sure that some where, in some state, that it probably is legal *under the right conditions* to have such a weapon, in tact and service-able... after all it is America :D

Then again, an "inert" missle/rocket is just as dangerous in the hands of a nutjob anyway, whats to stop him from rebuilding/refueling/re-arming the damn thing? not much... (granted it would most likely be far less effective then the original but *shrug* a rocket launcher is still a rocket launcher, even if it doesnt level half a city block)

To a dedicated psycho, 1 schematic on the internet is all it would take to rebuild it :rolleyes:

[NicholasJohnson]

BUT im sure that some where, in some state, that it probably is legal *under the right conditions* to have such a weapon, in tact and service-able... after all it is America

1. Sources, please. Instead of "it probably is legal cuz its redneck America," you should point to evidence of something being legal instead of resorting to stereotypes. :P Statements like that do nothing to support your argument. Strange, I have found inert ordnance for sale in Belgium, whose gun laws are a far cry from America.

2. How would a nutjob go about rebuilding inert weapons? Most are filled with epoxy to destroy their explosive capability. If someone were to get their hands on a live grenade, it would be through illegal means. EOD (Explosive-Ordnance-Disposal) has to go through surplus ordnance and destroy it, via rendering it inert (not sure if EOD are the ones who make them inert) or blowing it up (that is in fact what EOD does to old ordnance).

[enigma]

From what ive read, the US government can change and has made admentments to the constertution ... so why not just edit the one about being allowed to own firearms?

As it does seem (and i will generlise here a little bit) to people outside of the US that without having easy access to firearms we wouldnt see events such as whats just happened, happening what appears to be every year.

One could say, that here in the UK we dont have such events happening like this due to the inability to buy guns easily.
The last mass attack/killing at a school if i remember rightly was when i was a kid and some dude went in with a machete.

However just to be fair, there does seem to be a raise in stabbings in our schools.
However i have know gun to be a common weapon of crimnals here too. Where i came from in Liverpool there was alot of gang violance (not gangbangers but like you know the mob lol) - bullet holes in pub windows, one pub got blown up, shootings and drive bys were always reported when i was a kid and in fact if you check the news those last two still seem to happen quite a bit...

[enigma]

Jackson, TO :No need for fancy weapons - drain pipes and fireworks .... that happened last year here in the northwest :rolleyes:

[NicholasJohnson]

^Exactly, nuts usually make pipe-bombs, they can't go buying 155mm cartridges at the local surplus store.

[enigma]

Am not even talking about pipebombs ...

Sorta mix what ive just said and what you were talking about and i guess you can picture the event i heard happened aroundn last Devils Night/Halloween.


:(

[Total_Overkill]

^Exactly, nuts usually make pipe-bombs, they can't go buying 155mm cartridges at the local surplus store.

True, but i was kind of reffering to the fact that the nutjob could potentially rebuild the explosive, and if not, he has the launcher, in which he could design his own ordinance around... sure it might only be the equivelant of a pipe bomb missle, but its still a pipe bomb missle.

I will attempt to do some digging in regarding to owning explosive ordinance in the U.S, but i still am pretty sure its legal to some degree, and not just cuz itz r3dn3ck @mericaas LOLZ BBQ :D

[NicholasJohnson]

Make sure the legality of the ordnance is not something stupid like dynamite in dam-building or fireworks (which are regulated in a lot of places, especially the dry areas). ;)

[Thanato]

Dosn't that Ammendment state that you have to be part of a State Regulated Militia for the defence of that state it be able to have a Fire Arm? And if so. . . then that means that it is not in the US constitution for Yanks to own fire arms unless they are in a State Run Militia that is required for that states defence.

~Thanato

[Total_Overkill]

Make sure the legality of the ordnance is not something stupid like dynamite in dam-building or fireworks (which are regulated in a lot of places, especially the dry areas). ;)

I was reffering to military ordinance but you do bring up a good point, what about demolition explosives? their on par with military grade, and would be "easier" to obtain (barely) im not specifically talking about C4, but more over what the demolition industry uses (forget what it is)

[enigma]

I forgot about these examples, a few years back the cops cracked down on some gangs or whatever ... in responce they set off carbombs outside the cop stations!
I think thats when the Matrix Team was created (they started busting peoples doors down and havnt stopped lol)


Ive just been reminded of all the revenge attacks, the hit and runs, the cops busting down the doors of peoples houses near where i lived etc etc
Ive just been told that the latest one is ... a bunch of dudes are being hunted down for putting some guy in the hospital! ... that aint going to be pretty.
am so glad i moved! Ive been told the area i came from is a real hell hole now ... worse then it was. I pity the people from where i currently live who ive heard over the years go on and on about how they would love to move to Liverpool because its soo quite and crap around here!

I should note am not dissing my home city ... just mentioning alot of its shady side other then that ... its a really great place!
Awesome catherdrils and buildings, great history, good place to shop, allot of unique places like Quiggens etc
And we Scousers are some of the most friendliest people in the UK ... the polls say so! :D

[enigma]

Dosn't that Ammendment state that you have to be part of a State Regulated Militia for the defence of that state it be able to have a Fire Arm? And if so. . . then that means that it is not in the US constitution for Yanks to own fire arms unless they are in a State Run Militia that is required for that states defence.

~Thanato

Like the National Guard?

[Total_Overkill]

Dosn't that Ammendment state that you have to be part of a State Regulated Militia for the defence of that state it be able to have a Fire Arm? And if so. . . then that means that it is not in the US constitution for Yanks to own fire arms unless they are in a State Run Militia that is required for that states defence.

~Thanato

i remember it says something about the militia's but i know it does not have to be state sponsered, im rusty on the whole thing but i believe that some where in the wording it allows citizens to have guns to keep the government in-line :cool:

[NicholasJohnson]

Dosn't that Ammendment state that you have to be part of a State Regulated Militia for the defence of that state it be able to have a Fire Arm? And if so. . . then that means that it is not in the US constitution for Yanks to own fire arms unless they are in a State Run Militia that is required for that states defence.

~Thanato




The 2nd Amendment (which is a part of the "Bill of Rights", 1st Amendment is freedom of the press, speech, religion) says:


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And yes, this can be amended. But in order to amend the Constitution you have to have something like a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and the state legislatures of a majority of the 50 states.

[Thanato]

I am not english teacher but I think that has terrible grammer lol.

~Thanato

[enigma]

They were the ye olde English guys who couldnt speak probley so we booted them out the country :p

[NicholasJohnson]

Yep, you should read actual writings from people back then, supposedly there was no one set standard of English spelling, really strange looking when you first read some of the letters from Washington, etc

[Total_Overkill]

I am not english teacher but I think that has terrible grammer lol.

~Thanato

Well you can blame that on the documents age and the language of the time... that being said the American people were SUPPOSED to revise their lil constitution every 20years :rolleyes:

[NicholasJohnson]

Well you can blame that on the documents age and the language of the time... that being said the American people were SUPPOSED to revise their lil constitution every 20years :rolleyes:

What are you talking about? Supposed to revise every 20 years? I am taking a course on the Constitution and have not come across such a thing. Was this the Jeffersonian letter talking about the need for an armed rebellion every 20 years?

[Total_Overkill]

What are you talking about? Supposed to revise every 20 years? I am taking a course on the Constitution and have not come across such a thing. Was this the Jeffersonian letter talking about the need for an armed rebellion every 20 years?

No, but an armed rebellion every 20years would work wonders on government corruption :D i like it! (not counting all the negative aspects it would have)

i guess i'll have to look this up to.... *sigh* i feel like im in friggin history class again :(

[enigma]

When you think about it, the West ... a few countries really are the most stable countries in the world ... not facing uprisings, rebellions or civil wars in centries.

When you think about it, i guess the dudes in charge have done something right to keep our peoples on the stright and narrow!

[Total_Overkill]

When you think about it, the West ... a few countries really are the most stable countries in the world ... not facing uprisings, rebellions or civil wars in centries.

When you think about it, i guess the dudes in charge have done something right to keep our peoples on the stright and narrow!

SHHHH!!!! dont jinx it man, we're close enough to WW3 as it is :p

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

I live in the 'dangerous' sub-urbs of Amsterdam and the only time i ever see a real gun is with a cop. I've never seen one fire nor ive seen wounded people or even dead people and i would like to keep it that way.
In holland any kind of weapon is forbidden. You could be arrested for carrying basicly anything that hurts on the streets.
I think its really good because it makes sure only a real small group is able to get a gun. Average Joe will never be able to shoot someone down. And if he would be he could immediatly be arrested for having a weapon.
The only way someone near you would be able to own some kind of weapon is that he's part of some kind of criminal organisation. So you being a 'normal' person wouldnt know him anyway :D
So why would you need a fire-arm if no one around you has one?

[NicholasJohnson]

Some blog that has links to stories of gun-wielding psychos from Europe, to prove that this is not an "American" problem:

Click Here (http://claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_04_15_archive.html#2815563305364369688)

And no, I am not a reader of his, I was sent a link to it and found it interesting.

[enigma]

Eurofighter;65666']I live in the 'dangerous' sub-urbs of Amsterdam and the only time i ever see a real gun is with a cop. I've never seen one fire nor ive seen wounded people or even dead people and i would like to keep it that way.
In holland any kind of weapon is forbidden. You could be arrested for carrying basicly anything that hurts on the streets.
I think its really good because it makes sure only a real small group is able to get a gun. Average Joe will never be able to shoot someone down. And if he would be he could immediatly be arrested for having a weapon.
The only way someone near you would be able to own some kind of weapon is that he's part of some kind of criminal organisation. So you being a 'normal' person wouldnt know him anyway :D
So why would you need a fire-arm if no one around you has one?

Aye its the same here ... although all the negatives i pointed out do give one a bit of a :eek: picture :P

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

Some blog that has links to stories of gun-wielding psychos from Europe, to prove that this is not an "American" problem:

Click Here (http://claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_04_15_archive.html#2815563305364369688)

And no, I am not a reader of his, I was sent a link to it and found it interesting .

No ofcourse not all these psychos live in america but in america they can easily be the gun-wielding psycho in stead of just being the psycho.

[Total_Overkill]

Eurofighter;65666']I live in the 'dangerous' sub-urbs of Amsterdam and the only time i ever see a real gun is with a cop. I've never seen one fire nor ive seen wounded people??

Ya, people have this nasty habit of NOT WAVING GUNS AROUND when they dont plan on using them :D , i personally have 2 handguns fitting, nice and snug inside my leather jacket (because of past experiences), no one would ever know the difference, unless i was searched.


Eurofighter;65666']In holland any kind of weapon is forbidden. You could be arrested for carrying basicly anything that hurts on the streets.

Oh shit.... its a shame i was born with limbs :D


Eurofighter;65666']I think its really good because it makes sure only a real small group is able to get a gun.

You'd be suprised how "small" that group would actually be :rolleyes:


Eurofighter;65666']Average Joe will never be able to shoot someone down. And if he would be he could immediatly be arrested for having a weapon.

Yes well, if you gun somebody down, your not exactly an "Average Joe", and again, its up to the cops to arrest him, and he has a gun, its not like any one else could stop him.


Eurofighter;65666']The only way someone near you would be able to own some kind of weapon is that he's part of some kind of criminal organisation.

What are the chances of cops, and military officers having weapons in their homes protecting them from criminal backlash? and why should they be the only ones with the priviledge to protect themselves in such a manner?


Eurofighter;65666']So you being a 'normal' person wouldnt know him anyway :D So why would you need a fire-arm if no one around you has one?

A normal person wouldnt know a criminal until he was beaten and mugged in a dark alley >.> not all criminals are big, tattooed and ugly... and then again, whats to stop mr.big/tattooed/& ugly from just randomly raping any women he wants? the women has no defense against some one 250 pounds heavier then her, hell most men couldnt even resist against that.

While control on weapons is a good thing, to strict or to lax can both cause problems, its all about the middle ground.


(sorry for nit picking at your post)

[JonasDahlin]

Some blog that has links to stories of gun-wielding psychos from Europe, to prove that this is not an "American" problem:

Click Here (http://claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_04_15_archive.html#2815563305364369688)

And no, I am not a reader of his, I was sent a link to it and found it interesting.

It doesn't matter what country your in, there will always be psychos and sociopaths.
So the best thing would be to make it harder for them to get a gun.

(sorry about the edit Jackson, I thought I pressed quote button)

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

Ya, people have this nasty habit of NOT WAVING GUNS AROUND when they dont plan on using them :D , i personally have 2 handguns fitting, nice and snug inside my leather jacket (because of past experiences), no one would ever know the difference, unless i was searched.

So in holland on a hot a sweaty day overkill is walking around and his big and even sweatier leather jacket. You will have to keep it hidden all the time. One glimps and people will call the police because it's really strange if theyre forbidden.


Oh shit.... its a shame i was born with limbs :D That dont make no sense at all lol


You'd be suprised how "small" that group would actually be :rolleyes: I wouldnt say thats a real good argument. You do not know this country or have any numbers of the amount of fire-arms in holland. I live here and i know its pretty damn rare.


Yes well, if you gun somebody down, your not exactly an "Average Joe", and again, its up to the cops to arrest him, and he has a gun, its not like any one else could stop him.
Average Joe could be Average Joe for his whole life until that day on which he freaks out because of someth. He wont be able to kill his whole family just because his wife left him and he doesnt have a gun. He could go get his kitchen knife but you can escape from that much easier.


What are the chances of cops, and military officers having weapons in their homes protecting them from criminal backlash? and why should they be the only ones with the priviledge to protect themselves in such a manner?
They dont have them in their homes. They have to leave them on the station when theyre not on duty.
Policemen know the rules and the laws. They know what to do and what not. Before theyve even became officer they were heavily tested to see if theyre fit for this job and not triggerhappy.


A normal person wouldnt know a criminal until he was beaten and mugged in a dark alley >.> not all criminals are big, tattooed and ugly... and then again, whats to stop mr.big/tattooed/& ugly from just randomly raping any women he wants? the women has no defense against some one 250 pounds heavier then her, hell most men couldnt even resist against that.
The way he works/thinks/acts can tell you a lot of someone. No not all criminals are mr.big/tattooed/& ugly but not all mr.big/tattooed/& ugly are criminals either.
And if that woman gets attacked why should she be able to kill that man? It makes her just as bad as that man. The police should just do as much as possible to prevent things like that to happen. And the woman might wanna try to do some excersize to be able to run away.


While control on weapons is a good thing, to strict or to lax can both cause problems, its all about the middle ground.
I see no problems when people arent allowed to have weapons.


(sorry for nit picking at your post)

dont worry i just did it back :D

[Total_Overkill]

Eurofighter;65683']So in holland on a hot a sweaty day overkill is walking around and his big and even sweatier leather jacket. You will have to keep it hidden all the time. One glimps and people will call the police because it's really strange if theyre forbidden.

o_O well, ok, i admit its a more common thing around here for people to wear un-seasonably warm clothing (Canada... lol) so yes, granted. but im sure some one can stash a revolver in their khaki's or something, police have ankle holsters, those dont stick out. In short, its very easy to conceal a gun, even easier for a knife, you never really know who has what.


Eurofighter;65683']That dont make no sense at all lol

Sure it makes sense, if you had my brain at least :D
(The human body, in itself is a weapon, thus anything i can hold also becomes a weapon, trivial, i know, but sooner or later we're bound to see, "Man arrested for threatening people with a paper clip!" ;) )


Eurofighter;65683']I wouldnt say thats a real good argument. You do not know this country or have any numbers of the amount of fire-arms in holland. I live here and i know its pretty damn rare.

Well lets look a little deeper into it, (granted im no expert on Holland, and you at least live there), Police officers will have a handgun at home for protection, same as Military officers, Criminals will have weapons, Gun collectors are bound to have them, the odd home will have a pistol or something, illegal or not, government officials... probably although more likely its their bodyguards that do. Thats a significant chunk of the population right their, personally i'd say all that equals to about 10%, although that statistic is completely baseless and just theoretical.


Eurofighter;65683']Average Joe could be Average Joe for his whole life until that day on which he freaks out because of someth. He wont be able to kill his whole family just because his wife left him and he doesnt have a gun. He could go get his kitchen knife but you can escape from that much easier.

True, cant really argue that point


Eurofighter;65683']They dont have them in their homes. They have to leave them on the station when theyre not on duty.
Policemen know the rules and the laws. They know what to do and what not. Before theyve even became officer they were heavily tested to see if theyre fit for this job and not triggerhappy.

I do not believe that, it would be dangerous for them to NOT have a weapon, they are protectors of the law, criminals regularly take revenge against cops, so cops having a gun at home is warrented (whether or not its the same one they use at work doesnt matter). My point was not about whether the cops are mentally fit to wield them, its about "Why should the police be allow to defend themselves against the criminal element with fire-arms, and your average citizen not? what does your average joe parent have to protect his/her children if some gun-tottin nightstalker comes around?"


Eurofighter;65683']The way he works/thinks/acts can tell you a lot of someone. No not all criminals are mr.big/tattooed/& ugly but not all mr.big/tattooed/& ugly are criminals either.
And if that woman gets attacked why should she be able to kill that man? It makes her just as bad as that man. The police should just do as much as possible to prevent things like that to happen. And the woman might wanna try to do some excersize to be able to run away.

Cop; "Heh, we're real sorry mam, but its your own fault for not being fit enough to fight off the rapeist, better luck next time" :mad:
(Excersize is a good thing, ill grant you that, but you had a poor example)
Self defense does not make you the same as the aggressor... i dont really know how to argue this, i thought it was common sense that the innocent are always better then bad guys



Eurofighter;65683']I see no problems when people arent allowed to have weapons.

In an idealic society (Holland? hopefully) this maybe true, but not to the rest of the world, weapons are an equalizer, you take away guns, axes/swords/bats/crowbars make a return, you take those away, the dude whos 6'5" 300lbs is gonna be king shit of the block.


Eurofighter;65683']dont worry i just did it back :D

Feels good dont it? :D

[JonasDahlin]

In an idealic society (Holland? hopefully) this maybe true, but not to the rest of the world, weapons are an equalizer, you take away guns, axes/swords/bats/crowbars make a return, you take those away, the dude whos 6'5" 300lbs is gonna be king shit of the block.

You don't have to have lethal weapons like guns if you feel the need for protection, pepperspray and Tazers works good as well.

Or else you can just hire the local mafia :D

[Total_Overkill]

You don't have to have lethal weapons like guns if you feel the need for protection, pepperspray and Tazers works good as well.

Or else you can just hire the local mafia :D

True... but pepperspray and trazers are not always effective, you average "mace" is REALLY weak compair to police/military grade, and most tazers arent even worth looking at, you have 1 shot, then you better drop it and run because the guys gonna get up and crap-kick you before you can reload, again police/military grade are better then anything the public can get their hands on, but like all none lethal protection...

I'll give the example of Bear Mace, here in Canada, some times it works, some times it pisses the damn bear off :(

same goes for humans, take a gander at Youtube, you'll find lots of videos where people continue to charge while being zapped or sprayed (some times both :D )

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

o_O well, ok, i admit its a more common thing around here for people to wear un-seasonably warm clothing (Canada... lol) so yes, granted. but im sure some one can stash a revolver in their khaki's or something, police have ankle holsters, those dont stick out. In short, its very easy to conceal a gun, even easier for a knife, you never really know who has what.

Well some time ago even though im not pro it they put in a law which makes it able to let police check persons on weapons when theyre suspiscios.


Sure it makes sense, if you had my brain at least :D
(The human body, in itself is a weapon, thus anything i can hold also becomes a weapon, trivial, i know, but sooner or later we're bound to see, "Man arrested for threatening people with a paper clip!" ;) )
lol some years ago someone got murdered here with a pencil! It was widely on the news cause no one could believe anyone would be able to lol!


Well lets look a little deeper into it, (granted im no expert on Holland, and you at least live there), Police officers will have a handgun at home for protection, same as Military officers, Criminals will have weapons, Gun collectors are bound to have them, the odd home will have a pistol or something, illegal or not, government officials... probably although more likely its their bodyguards that do. Thats a significant chunk of the population right their, personally i'd say all that equals to about 10%, although that statistic is completely baseless and just theoretical.
As i told in my other post. Those people arent allowed to keep them at home. When their shift ends they need to leave them at the office which is being checked.


True, cant really argue that point
w00t! :D


I do not believe that, it would be dangerous for them to NOT have a weapon, they are protectors of the law, criminals regularly take revenge against cops, so cops having a gun at home is warrented (whether or not its the same one they use at work doesnt matter). My point was not about whether the cops are mentally fit to wield them, its about "Why should the police be allow to defend themselves against the criminal element with fire-arms, and your average citizen not? what does your average joe parent have to protect his/her children if some gun-tottin nightstalker comes around?"

3rd time they dont have firearms at home! lol
If he gets attacked off-duty he needs to rely on his skills and the cops on-duty. It's very rare a cop gets killed by revenge here.
The police comes in way more dangerous situations than avarage Joe. The police hunts for this criminals with guns citizens do not. The cop knows when to use his gun and when not, the (most) citizens not.
Because no guns are allowed there are less gun-tottin nightstalkers around so less need for that kind of ''protection''.


Cop; "Heh, we're real sorry mam, but its your own fault for not being fit enough to fight off the rapeist, better luck next time" :mad:
(Excersize is a good thing, ill grant you that, but you had a poor example)
Self defense does not make you the same as the aggressor... i dont really know how to argue this, i thought it was common sense that the innocent are always better then bad guys

Murder is way more of a crime than raping. Dont get me wrong theyre both bad. But murder is the worst crime there is.
Why would you want a gun in stead of a good excersize in getting away? Just because the gun is easier?


In an idealic society (Holland? hopefully) this maybe true, but not to the rest of the world, weapons are an equalizer, you take away guns, axes/swords/bats/crowbars make a return, you take those away, the dude whos 6'5" 300lbs is gonna be king shit of the block.

And he'll be arrested for being it :)


Feels good dont it? :D
muahahah feel the paaaain :p

[Total_Overkill]

Eurofighter;65701']Well some time ago even though im not pro it they put in a law which makes it able to let police check persons on weapons when theyre suspiscios.

Yes, it varries country to country (state to state, province to province)
Some times its legal, some times its not, as long as your cops arent generally corrupt, its a good thing.


Eurofighter;65701'] lol some years ago someone got murdered here with a pencil! It was widely on the news cause no one could believe anyone would be able to lol!

Pencil? Shit... i knew it could happen... next up, paper clip and eraser!


Eurofighter;65701']As i told in my other post. Those people arent allowed to keep them at home. When their shift ends they need to leave them at the office which is being checked.

Yes, i read what you said, but i could not believe it... the whole concept is just so... "foreign :D " to me (i still dont believe it ;) )


Eurofighter;65701']w00t! :D

Indeed


Eurofighter;65701']3rd time they dont have firearms at home! lol If he gets attacked off-duty he needs to rely on his skills and the cops on-duty. It's very rare a cop gets killed by revenge here.
The police comes in way more dangerous situations than avarage Joe. The police hunts for this criminals with guns citizens do not. The cop knows when to use his gun and when not, the (most) citizens not.
Because no guns are allowed there are less gun-tottin nightstalkers around so less need for that kind of ''protection''.

I STILL DONT BELIEVE IT! :p and just because there is "less need" doesnt mean that there ISN'T A NEED


Eurofighter;65701']Murder is way more of a crime than raping. Dont get me wrong theyre both bad. But murder is the worst crime there is. Why would you want a gun in stead of a good excersize in getting away? Just because the gun is easier?

Killing in self-defense is not murder... and you cant always "get away"


Eurofighter;65701']And he'll be arrested for being it :)

Lol.... whats this now? bodybuild profile'ing?


Eurofighter;65701']muahahah feel the paaaain :p

Bloody wanker! let me have the last word! *cries* ;)

[JonasDahlin]

True... but pepperspray and trazers are not always effective, you average "mace" is REALLY weak compair to police/military grade, and most tazers arent even worth looking at, you have 1 shot, then you better drop it and run because the guys gonna get up and crap-kick you before you can reload, again police/military grade are better then anything the public can get their hands on, but like all none lethal protection...

I'll give the example of Bear Mace, here in Canada, some times it works, some times it pisses the damn bear off :(

same goes for humans, take a gander at Youtube, you'll find lots of videos where people continue to charge while being zapped or sprayed (some times both :D )

It's true that some of these things are completly shit, I've tested a tazer on myself, and the thing felt like a bee sting at the best. but here in sweden we have a pepper spray that will make you go blind for an hour, wich i think is a better way then killing a person.

And btw if you're high on meth or some other drug, then even bullets won't stop you. I've seen people taking a whole clip of 9mm and still charging forward.

[Total_Overkill]

It's true that some of these things are completly shit, I've tested a tazer on myself, and the thing felt like a bee sting at the best. but here in sweden we have a pepper spray that will make you go blind for an hour, wich i think is a better way then killing a person.

Yes with pepper-spray the effect is really either hit or miss, and if you've been maced with stronger stuff before... you'll be able to walk straight thru the consumer versions, granted, you might not be able to see very well if you raw eye is sprayed :rolleyes:

And of course it is a better method then killing the person, but who says you have to kill with a gun in the first place? 3 to the knee then run you ass off.


And btw if you're high on meth or some other drug, then even bullets won't stop you. I've seen people taking a whole clip of 9mm and still charging forward.

Ah ha... yes good point, but i find this old mantra best... "1 in the head, leaves'um dead" and if you in the position where crazed meth addicts are trying to kill you... i think you should move ;)

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

I STILL DONT BELIEVE IT! :p and just because there is "less need" doesnt mean that there ISN'T A NEED

Yup but this will be small occasions which you will have to accept. The overal murder rate is lower and the rate of guns being used for crime is lower. I think sacrifising your right to carry guns for that is good. Ok i wont be able to pop the next guy who attacks me but hell I learn techniques to escape from these bitches.



Killing in self-defense is not murder... and you cant always "get away"

Well think about this: Someones attacked in the woods by some assrapingpervert. Turns out the someone being attacked is world champion boxing and kicks this guys ass so bad he dies from it.
But its logical the wolrd champion gets punished for the murder. Because he could have stopped and ran away.
But with a gun, every shot can be lethal.



Lol.... whats this now? bodybuild profile'ing?

No if he would be king of the block he would be arrested for his criminal activity else he wouldnt be king of the block would he? :p



Bloody wanker! let me have the last word! *cries* ;)
NEVERRRRR! :cool:

BTW: gonna sleep now I'll be back tomorrow muahahaha!!!!1

[Total_Overkill]

Eurofighter;65710']Well think about this: Someones attacked in the woods by some assrapingpervert. Turns out the someone being attacked is world champion boxing and kicks this guys ass so bad he dies from it. But its logical the wolrd champion gets punished for the murder. Because he could have stopped and ran away. But with a gun, every shot can be lethal.

Ya thats the "Best Case Scenario" but what about every one who would not be able to fight back? You sister, daughter, wife, whatever... not every one has the strength to resist, or the endurance and speed to run away. Weapons used for protection are equalizers in these situations, and they help. Yes they can be used for doing bad things, but remember! so can a pencil :p

Once again, Self-Defense is not murder, never has been.... unless Holand has done something with its las regarding that... :confused: i hope not


Eurofighter;65710']No if he would be king of the block he would be arrested for his criminal activity else he wouldnt be king of the block would he? :p

I mean "King of the Block" because he would most likely be the biggest, toughest guy around that no body around him could feasibly mess with (not 100% just generally), thus he has nothing to fear, and could pretty much do what he wanted, more then the next shmuck could (whether or not he followed the laws), you cant exactly get arrested for intimidation (unless Holand has a law against that :confused: )


Eurofighter;65710']NEVERRRRR! :cool:

MEANY!!


Eurofighter;65710']BTW: gonna sleep now I'll be back tomorrow muahahaha!!!!1

Ya thats right! you go to sleep, all safe in your little gun-less, anti-violence country where.... oh.... damn it >.<

[Appleskates]

Keep in mind that the V Tech shooter was a man, fully developed, not a schoolboy. It just happened to be at a university, and was absolutely insane.

I believe that anyone who has had any history of crime/ violent behavior or psychiatric problems should be prohibited from owning a gun. Besides that, people should be able to own a gun at the age of 25 (imo)

Why? For defense, and so America can defend itself if a dictator ever siezes power. Our country is young. I have no doubt that it could happen.

[Total_Overkill]

Why? For defense, and so America can defend itself if a dictator ever siezes power. Our country is young. I have no doubt that it could happen.

Heh, and your a stones throw away from that as well... you only have, what left? 3 amendments? - Guns - Freedom of Religion - and you dont have to quarter a soldier in a time of peace >.< (which your NOT in btw)... everything else has stipulations under the whole "Freedom Act and/or the Patriot Act" thing you guys have in place now, your voice can be supressed, your may never see a court room, torture? shit... you could basically dissappear out of existance if the President gave the "all clear" and now its legal for him to do it :mad:

I hope you guys get all that fixed REAL quick

So yeah... Guns and Religion... why can i smell trouble? :rolleyes:

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

You guys have posted alot so I don't even want to read it all. I think guns, no matter what caliber, machine guns, handguns, sniper rifles, assault rifles, and submachine guns should all be legal to own. I am completely for the right to bear arms (no it's not a misinterpretation). Of course we should have background checks before the sale and maybe an annual mental checkup at the authorities for safety. License the firearms, do whatever, just don't take them away or limits its capabilities.

Besides protection from criminals, they are very fun to shoot. No we're not a bunch of red-necks, some of you don't even know what a red-neck is and make a generalization and say it's an American. We will reply to that with a "Fuck off." Every month there's on average, 20 new true stories of armed citizens protecting their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I tell you right now, that when I become of legal age I will carry a conceal carry license for a handgun. The weapon is only to be drawn in a life threatening situation, which can happen when you least expect it.

Quote me on this: Expect anything, be prepared for it, and be ready to act upon it.


Banning firearms would defy that rule. Plus what happens as they get rid of firearms? People start defending themselves with a quiver and bow, next that will be banned. Spears, banned. Catapults, banned. Stones, you can't ban that.

[Total_Overkill]

You guys have posted alot so I don't even want to read it all. I think guns, no matter what caliber, machine guns, handguns, sniper rifles, assault rifles, and submachine guns should all be legal to own. I am completely for the right to bear arms (no it's not a misinterpretation). Of course we should have background checks before the sale and maybe an annual mental checkup at the authorities for safety. License the firearms, do whatever, just don't take them away or limits its capabilities.

Besides protection from criminals, they are very fun to shoot. No we're not a bunch of red-necks, some of you don't even know what a red-neck is and make a generalization and say it's an American. We will reply to that with a "Fuck off." Every month there's on average, 20 new true stories of armed citizens protecting their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I tell you right now, that when I become of legal age I will carry a conceal carry license for a handgun. The weapon is only to be drawn in a life threatening situation, which can happen when you least expect it.

Quote me on this: Expect anything, be prepared for it, and be ready to act upon it.


Banning firearms would defy that rule. Plus what happens as they get rid of firearms? People start defending themselves with a quiver and bow, next that will be banned. Spears, banned. Catapults, banned. Stones, you can't ban that.

Ya we touched base on all that, well maybe not "stones" :D but there was that pencil incident in Holand (apperantly :rolleyes: )

Although im not really sure its a good idea to make sniper rifles, machine guns, and sub-machine guns available to the general populous. Those cannot even be described as self defense weapons, they are meant for killing, nothing more. Some SERIOUSLY strict laws and requirements would have to be in place for such weapons. However i find pistols, shotguns, and rifles to be different and i have no problem with these being used for defense or recreational purposes.

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

Heh, and your a stones throw away from that as well... you only have, what left? 3 amendments? - Guns - Freedom of Religion - and you dont have to quarter a soldier in a time of peace >.< (which your NOT in btw)... everything else has stipulations under the whole "Freedom Act and/or the Patriot Act" thing you guys have in place now, your voice can be supressed, your may never see a court room, torture? shit... you could basically dissappear out of existance if the President gave the "all clear" and now its legal for him to do it :mad:

I hope you guys get all that fixed REAL quick

So yeah... Guns and Religion... why can i smell trouble? :rolleyes:

I suggest you do not speak without proper knowledge in hand. That is very offensive. We have many more amendments added to our constitution since 1776, and very little has been removed. May I ask out of curiosity what country you reside in at the moment?

Every citizen must be tried in a court of law, no president can change that. Everybody, including the president must strictly follow the law. The only all clear he can give is the launch codes to the nuclear missiles after multiple authorizations. The United States' back-bone is a Constitutional Republic (Democracy), probably the fairest governmental system known to man.

The loony at Virginia Tech had emotional and mental trouble, who claimed to be a "martyr" (sounds like radical Islam doesn't it?). I believe the casualties could have been prevented by half the amount if the police had the proper training for the type of situation. Unfortunately law enforcement doesn't posses the necessary skills for such a crisis, not even the SWAT has it. They are law-enforcement, who are to try to keep the suspect alive for court, not terminate the person, even if he is killing. I propose the law-enforcement all over the country take part in special warfare drills for these fast-reaction scenarios.

[Total_Overkill]

I suggest you do not speak without proper knowledge in hand. That is very offensive. We have many more amendments added to our constitution since 1776, and very little has been removed. May I ask out of curiosity what country you reside in at the moment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act

I know, I know, its Wiki... not always the greatest source but its just so damn easy... I read thru it while i was previously debating American rights and Amendments with Eurofighter, everything i said is in there (and more :( ), i guess 1 exception would be the "torture" thing, but the U.S was already caught with that whole bunch of tripe and your government DID pass a new law that allows some degrees of torture (i really hope they removed that)
In essence, your President now has the right, to by pass almost any of your "rights" if he sees fit. Its not that your Bill of Right has been removed, but its been modified so that it can be suspended.


Every citizen must be tried in a court of law, no president can change that. Everybody, including the president must strictly follow the law. The only all clear he can give is the launch codes to the nuclear missiles after multiple authorizations..

Well... your about to be surpised :(



The loony at Virginia Tech had emotional and mental trouble. I believe the casualties could have been prevented by half the amount if the police had the proper training for the type of situation. Unfortunately law enforcement doesn't posses the necessary skills for such a crisis, not even the SWAT has it. They are law-enforcement, who are to try to keep the suspect alive for court, not terminate the person, even if he is killing. I propose the law-enforcement all over the country take part in special warfare drills for these fast-reaction scenarios.

I agree with everything said there, except for warfare drills, thats not exactly a good terminology for the point your trying to make, but yes, train police for "High Risk" scenarios

[BillSpargo]

Every month there's on average, 20 new true stories of armed citizens protecting their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I tell you right now, that when I become of legal age I will carry a conceal carry license for a handgun. The weapon is only to be drawn in a life threatening situation, which can happen when you least expect it.

Cause and effect. When someone arms oneself for self-defence, then the perception will be created in the criminal's mind that a greater use of force would be required to achieve their desired result. An escalation is the logical response. The criminal mind is often a desperate one.

What training will you get in diffusing or responding to threatening behaviour. Do you think you'll attain a competency to deal effectively with these situations, with an equivalency to those professionals who deal in these matters daily.


The loony at Virginia Tech had emotional and mental trouble, who claimed to be a "martyr" (sounds like radical Islam doesn't it?). This is a general response rising from the quoted part of your post."
Martyr" has Christian (Latin and Greek) origins. General misunderstanding of uses and origins of words (this can also be said of the Arabic word "jihad" - trans. "effort") by the public, media and politicians causes a skewed understanding within the general population when these words are first used then later interpreted by the ill-informed. They are also used to obfuscate an issue by those with a sinister agenda.

[Lt. Hanley]

What a fatuous statement! It seems you've been sold the line.
An open and transparent democracy with strong freedoms of press and human rights is what will keep a government in check.

I have not been sold the line. The 2nd Amendment came about as a compromise between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the ratification process of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were concerned with a permanent standing army and an over centralized government; one that could become, in their minds, tyrannical. Therefore, as a compromise to ratify the constitution, a Bill of Rights was amended. The 2nd Amendment is about "guaranteeing the security of the free State," whether from a tyrannical government or foreign invaders, through the right to keep and bear arms. A "check" if you will.

I am not denying what you stated keeps governments in check. It does. Our system of government, with it's three branches and a representative style of government, is full of checks and balances. It would be extremely difficult for a tyrannical government to come about. But should it, the 2nd gives the citizenship the ability and means to protect itself.

James Madison's Federalist Paper #46 adresses this issue from the Federalist point of view. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

[Fallschirmjäger]

If you have the right things needed like people saying your stable,a place for your firearms etc..,but other countries are different,lik here in NZ the licence's are done every 10 years,where you have to do all the things again,the test i forget?.
But this part is why i gave mine back realy after the 10 years,as i could not meet there standars,i did want to and still want to have some rifles etc..

[BillSpargo]

I have not been sold the line. The 2nd Amendment came about as a compromise between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the ratification process of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were concerned with a permanent standing army and an over centralized government; one that could become, in their minds, tyrannical. Therefore, as a compromise to ratify the constitution, a Bill of Rights was amended. The 2nd Amendment is about "guaranteeing the security of the free State," whether from a tyrannical government or foreign invaders, through the right to keep and bear arms. A "check" if you will.

I am not denying what you stated keeps governments in check. It does. Our system of government, with it's three branches and a representative style of government, is full of checks and balances. It would be extremely difficult for a tyrannical government to come about. But should it, the 2nd gives the citizenship the ability and means to protect itself.

James Madison's Federalist Paper #46 adresses this issue from the Federalist point of view. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
My point was on how people lean on these laws and how they use them as the main basis for the plethora of firearms in the US, where I would argue that most people want guns for the simple reason that they like to shoot. I'm not against gun ownership by any means, but the variety in firepower and limits and loopholes in the acquisition of firearms, user competency and securing of weapons in homes, gun clubs, vehicles and on a person is a great concern.
My father is a sporting shooter who used to compete, mainly with pistols. While he has a more lenient view on firearms due to this and also the industry he works in, I don't think our views in the most part are different.

Another question to Bravo or to anyone else for discussin. If you were invited to enter someone's home or workplace would you declare that you were carrying weapons and would you be offended if you were asked to leave?
Does a shopkeeper have the right to refuse service if they object to you carrying a weapon on their premises in the US?
Would you have a secure place in a vehicle if you owned one to store a firearm, especially if the first scenario arose and you wanted to stay? - not putting it in the glovebox.

[Cias]

this whole thread is kinda pointless, no matter what... some people will always have fire arms.. no matter what any one says. look drugs are illegal.. millions of people do them.

[scottdog]

Guns do not protected you, helmets, kevlar and cover protects you. I would rather see every student wearing kevlar then them carring weapons at my school.

[Thanato]

Well there is the idea of the Kevlar Covered books that this one guy put forward lol. . . personaly I think that police should be trained to act quickly instead of waiting outside. I have been in a gun related lock down at my school. . . 4 hours for the police to get to the school seal it off and complete a sweep of the school. . . my high school isn't that big just over 1000 students. This happened when i was in Grade 11. . . so about 3 years now.

~Thanato

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

What i think is really strange in the state that the recent shooting has been on (i believe its virginia) is that kids of 12 can get some kind of firearms. I mean youre gonna leave a gun in the hands of a kid? Theyre not aware enough of the world around them to posses such things. The strangest thing i think is that its not allowed for people under 21(!!!) to drink alcohol. They can destroy their own life or lifes of others with a gun but theyre not allowed to drink alcohol or get drunk. They are given the chance to kill some innocent person but they cant even watch porn which wouldnt harm anyone...
I mean that is some twisted society!

[Total_Overkill]

Eurofighter;65795']What i think is really strange in the state that the recent shooting has been on (i believe its virginia) is that kids of 12 can get some kind of firearms. I mean youre gonna leave a gun in the hands of a kid? Theyre not aware enough of the world around them to posses such things. The strangest thing i think is that its not allowed for people under 21(!!!) to drink alcohol. They can destroy their own life or lifes of others with a gun but theyre not allowed to drink alcohol or get drunk. They are given the chance to kill some innocent person but they cant even watch porn which wouldnt harm anyone...
I mean that is some twisted society!

Its the same in Canada man, children are alonged to use hunting rifles, but only for hunting, they can only get a temporary gun permit, and must be supervised by there parents (who's gun must be registered in their name).

I never did like the idea of a deadly weapon being in the hands of something that still cries when they skin their knee :rolleyes:

On another side, i have no problem with children hunting with "bows" since they lack the physical strength to be able to kill a human.

Yes, it is a bullshit law, guns require more responsibility then driving and maintaining a car, so i would love to see the age limit be "put up" a little more, maybe... 17?

[enigma]

wow ... may to many posts and quotes ... however i feel the need to introduce you to strutter direct...

The answer to everything.... (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2650067302874866457&q=strutter+direct)

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

Ugh... yes this is a senseless thread. From now on I will try to keep from speaking about these kinds of topics until the time is necessary (like when the gun ban arises from the grave).

[enigma]

lol i didnt mean that, sorry i convey the wrong message over ... there was just lot more responce then i had expected ... but still think that vid is the answer :p

[Minicow]

However just to be fair, there does seem to be a raise in stabbings in our schools.
However i have know gun to be a common weapon of crimnals here too. Where i came from in Liverpool there was alot of gang violance (not gangbangers but like you know the mob lol) - bullet holes in pub windows, one pub got blown up, shootings and drive bys were always reported when i was a kid and in fact if you check the news those last two still seem to happen quite a bit...

And there you go.

Of course rates of gun crime will go down if you ban guns, and murders might as well. The question is what happens to your other crime rates. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but violent crime rates skyrocketed after the UK banned guns. Leaving violent crime rates, with the exception of rape and murder, far higher than in the US.

So, let's look at the facts. Britain has no guns, a very high violent crime rate in general, but low murder rates. The USA has a large number of guns, a moderate violent crime rate, and a rather high murder rate. Switzerland has a gun in nearly every household (at least as far as I can tell with the magical internet), and one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

Yeah, I can clearly see how guns cause crime and violence.


Eurofighter;65795']What i think is really strange in the state that the recent shooting has been on (i believe its virginia) is that kids of 12 can get some kind of firearms. I mean youre gonna leave a gun in the hands of a kid? Theyre not aware enough of the world around them to posses such things. The strangest thing i think is that its not allowed for people under 21(!!!) to drink alcohol. They can destroy their own life or lifes of others with a gun but theyre not allowed to drink alcohol or get drunk. They are given the chance to kill some innocent person but they cant even watch porn which wouldnt harm anyone...
I mean that is some twisted society!

You need to be 12 to operate a firearm. But you can not own one at that age, and you must be supervised during use.

[NicholasJohnson]

I recall my "twisted" :rolleyes: society allowing me to get the merit badge for rifle shooting....at age 12. And most "twisted" Americans living in Europe have...guns where they work! Why? Most of the Americans living in Europe have kevlar helmets in their cars. Do the math.

I have been around weapons on a daily basis for my entire life and thus have no reason to be afraid of an inanimate object. I have fired rifles and shotguns at ranges, but never unsupervised and without a strict safety instruction. American kids do not get to walk home with .22 cal rifles from gun stores nor use them unsupervised...adults have to purchase (note the term purchase, which is different than possession) such items for them and supervise the use. BB guns/airsoft are another matter, you have to be 10 I think to own a Daisy airgun (and shockingly, I owned one at age 10!) I agree with you on the whole drinking/voting/driving age in the states, it is ridiculous to let 18 year olds vote, join the army, etc but not buy beer.

Also, on the whole "rapist victims should exercise more", are you aware of how small adult women are compared to adult men? Like it or not, most women are weaker than the average man physically.


A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. ... From Ernest Jones' Life and Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. I, ch. 1 (1953)

Whoops.

[Saden]

Eurofighter, I've been seeing some of your arguments about murder being worse, and that they should exercise more etc. But a few years ago, a guy went to a barbershop to get his hair cut. Some dumbasses who had some beef with him, go in, pull him off his chair and bring him to the back. They were grabbing him, about to stab him, but he pulled out a gun and shot all three. It's hard to run away, when there are six arms holding onto you, holding you to the ground. So, even if you're the fittest man in the world, if you are surprised, and you are held down by a group of people (unless they are weak little shits) there is little you can do other than try to get some sort of weapon/gun.

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

You need to be 12 to operate a firearm. But you can not own one at that age, and you must be supervised during use.
Yeah but not every superviser is a good one. And kids of 12 easily make mistakes and accidently fire the gun.


Eurofighter, I've been seeing some of your arguments about murder being worse, and that they should exercise more etc. But a few years ago, a guy went to a barbershop to get his hair cut. Some dumbasses who had some beef with him, go in, pull him off his chair and bring him to the back. They were grabbing him, about to stab him, but he pulled out a gun and shot all three. It's hard to run away, when there are six arms holding onto you, holding you to the ground. So, even if you're the fittest man in the world, if you are surprised, and you are held down by a group of people (unless they are weak little shits) there is little you can do other than try to get some sort of weapon/gun.
Yeah theres always a chance you cant get away or something. But how small is that chance? Just because you have that tiny ass chance of being attacked and needing to use a gun you're making it possibe that mad men and criminals (actually the same) can walk around with with firearms without being punished. Therefore youre supporting crime. And increasing the chance you will need that gun youre carrying.

[JonasDahlin]

I think the best thing would be to have a psychological evaluation on everyone who want's a gun and a lie detector test to see what the persons intentions with the gun are.

[Minicow]

Eurofighter;65826']Yeah but not every superviser is a good one. And kids of 12 easily make mistakes and accidently fire the gun.

I've never seen a child accidentally fire a gun when under supervision. I don't know how kids are where you live, but here they do a fine job of being responsible with guns, assuming they've been around guns long enough for them to lose the "mysterious and forbidden" aspect, and have been properly educated in the dangers of firearms and their operation.


Yeah theres always a chance you cant get away or something. But how small is that chance? Just because you have that tiny ass chance of being attacked and needing to use a gun you're making it possibe that mad men and criminals (actually the same) can walk around with with firearms without being punished. Therefore youre supporting crime. And increasing the chance you will need that gun youre carrying.
You're making the ridiculous assumption that banning guns means that criminals can't get them. If they are willing to break the law and kill someone, why would they give a damn about possessing an illegal weapon?

Banning guns would certainly reduce the number in circulation, and make them harder to find, but completely impossible? Of course not. If someone wants to, they'll always be able to get a gun. But a law-abiding citizen won't break the law to obtain a gun, hence the name "law-abiding citizen." Once more, that means criminals can still get them, albeit at a higher price and risk, but they can still get them. Citizens will be completely incapable of getting them.

[Saden]

If I wanted to, right now I could go into the shady area of Toronto, or Ottawa and with some proper connections, I could get an already illegal gun. I could get myself a semi-automatic AK-47. All AK variants have been banned, unless you have been grand fathered in, and trust me, these have not been grandfathered in.

[Total_Overkill]

If I wanted to, right now I could go into the shady area of Toronto, or Ottawa and with some proper connections, I could get an already illegal gun. I could get myself a semi-automatic AK-47. All AK variants have been banned, unless you have been grand fathered in, and trust me, these have not been grandfathered in.

Wait... what? i know about the grandfather clause, but i was under the impression that its legal to have a semi-auto (burst and full being illegal)... guess i should warn my local gunshop :D

[Thanato]

Depends on the Type of license you have I belive.

~Thanato

[Manstein]

Yeah theres always a chance you cant get away or something. But how small is that chance? Just because you have that tiny ass chance of being attacked and needing to use a gun you're making it possibe that mad men and criminals (actually the same) can walk around with with firearms without being punished. Therefore youre supporting crime. And increasing the chance you will need that gun youre carrying

Actually it's not legal for criminals to own firearms in the US. The trouble is that criminals, by their nature, do not obey the law. Thus they still obtain weapons, regardless what the laws are.

If I understand you correctly, Eurofighter, you are encouraging the disarmement of law abiding citizens on the basis that having a gun makes them more dangerous. This is a quote from Florida Department of State, Concealed Weapons/ Firearms License Statistical Report and "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," by John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School and David B. Mustard, graduate student, Department of Economics, Journal of Legal Studies, January 1997.

"Making it legally possible for civilians to carry concealed weapons does not make society more violent or result in shootouts at traffic accidents. The rate of criminal misuse of firearms by the hundreds of thousands of persons licensed to carry concealed firearms in Florida is so low as to be statistically zero. In fact, homicide, assault, rape, and robbery are dramatically lower in areas of the United States where the public is allowed easy access to carrying concealed firearms in public."

When I first heard about the VT shooting, and realized that the campus was a gun-free zone, my first thought was "Jeez, if only one of the people he'd encountered had been armed, many lives would've been saved."

[enigma]

When I first heard about the VT shooting, and realized that the campus was a gun-free zone, my first thought was "Jeez, if only one of the people he'd encountered had been armed, many lives would've been saved."
Or many more would have been killed or wounded...

Jackson, iirc a dude i worked with use to fire a Lee Enfield when he was younger and got some marksmen badge. If you join the Cadets from what ive been told they let you handel a L85 although a modified one (but there i dont know how modififed, as in does it fire real bullets etc)

I think before we start throwing statistics at each other, UK - 60 million people, USA - something like 300 million?

These high crime rates we talk about for the UK, well personally ive never seen much crime go on.
Ive seen people moving drugs around, vandalism and the odd shop robbery reported.
The most i know of crime is the organised sort, where its in the area but not a daily violent thing on the doorstep up pushing up statistics (i do statistics for a living i know there all bullshit do you know hard it is to keep statistics right?).
We use to laugh about there usally being around 10 people dying on a weekend which was reported on the new/telitext however this included natural deaths and accidents over the north of England.

In the UK guns are illeagel ... i dont believe i have ever seen one around in the last 20 years. Ive seen there effects but these are one off events (happening every now and again)... as far as i can tell.


But here is a question for you, a dude sells guns in Africa for example, hes classed as a gunrunner, thats illeagel and the results of his actions are attributed to him.
In this example, that guy in that gun shop who sold the dude who went on the rampage says hey you cant blame me... what did he think selling guns would do ... make everyone put little flowers in there hair, form a big circle and sing songs about love and bloody peace?
There offensive weapons designed for one thing only ...


Saden: As a child i was told that if i went to the right areas i could buy myself a sawn off shotgun for the right price ...a black market of guns is in my opinion then an open market where there available to everyone.

Minicow, you sound a little deluded there dude.

Jackson: Chill and stop taking everything as an insult to America :P

[Wide Awake]

What i think is really strange in the state that the recent shooting has been on (i believe its virginia) is that kids of 12 can get some kind of firearms. I mean youre gonna leave a gun in the hands of a kid? Theyre not aware enough of the world around them to posses such things. The strangest thing i think is that its not allowed for people under 21(!!!) to drink alcohol. They can destroy their own life or lifes of others with a gun but theyre not allowed to drink alcohol or get drunk. They are given the chance to kill some innocent person but they cant even watch porn which wouldnt harm anyone...
I mean that is some twisted society!


Ok you can't own a firearm at 12. 18 is the minimum age for rifle and shotguns and 18-21 is the minimum age for handguns(changes state to state). Now given parents will buy there kids guns not everyone follows the law. Now you say that people can own a handgun but can't drink and they can ruin their lives and other peoples lives. 2003 deaths from handguns with kids of 19 or younger involved 2,500. Deaths from under aged drinking 15,000 not including the 1 million non-fatal car accidents and 1 million assaults attributed to alcohol. Alcohol kills more people then guns do and they ruin more lives then guns do. getting rid of guns lowers the rate of shootings in a country and then you have to take into account the already massive numbers of guns already in circulation in the US(alot of them not registered so they cant come into you house and take them cause they don't know you have them).

[Manstein]

But here is a question for you, a dude sells guns in Africa for example, hes classed as a gunrunner, thats illeagel and the results of his actions are attributed to him.
In this example, that guy in that gun shop who sold the dude who went on the rampage says hey you cant blame me... what did he think selling guns would do ... make everyone put little flowers in there hair, form a big circle and sing songs about love and bloody peace?


If one guy buys a gun legally and uses it illegally, I fail to see how the gun shop owner is liable. You can't hold someone liable for an action that is entirely legal. The burden the guilt lies entirely with the killer. Also, attempting to equate selling guns legally in the US with selling them illegally in Africa fails because they aren't both legal.


There offensive weapons designed for one thing only ...

They can just as easily be used to defend as attack. A study by Professor Gary Kleck at the University of Florida indicates that civilians alone use firearms somewhere around 1.5 million to 2 million times each year to thwart a crime or to protect themselves. Further, his study indicated that very few of these incidents resulted in death and only a slightly higher number resulted in injury.

[enigma]

Look at this way ... why do barkeepers tell you they cant serve you because you have to much ...

When i start puking on people and have given myself some form of achohol posing ... yes its my fault for getting that drunk, its there fault for letting me that goddam drunk by taking my money.

Seriously wake up lol

[Manstein]

seriously wake up? There's a difference between someone who's already drunk being refused another drink, and someone who enters a gunshop looking to purchase a gun, and passes all the background checks. Again, it's not comparable in a legal liability sense.

By that logic, the sporting goods store is liable if you buy a bat and then hit someone with it, or the car dealer is liable if they sell you a car when you have a bad driving record and you get into an accident, or worse, run someone over on purpose with it, or McDonald's is liable for your medical bills due to your weight problem because they didn't refuse to serve you that big mac when obviously you've had too many already.

[enigma]

Dude you give someone a gun what the hell do you think there going to use it for ... background check them all you want ...

background checks only work if you have been caught ...

And as for Mcdonalds ... i believe Supersize me proved a point enough ;)
Techically the sporting goods store is selling you sport equipment to go and play sports. .. a gun dealer is selling you a gun yea not a good comparison.

[Manstein]

Dude you give someone a gun what the hell do you think there going to use it for ... background check them all you want ...

You are obviously operating under the assumption that guns are only ever used to attack and kill people, allow me to quote myself from 3 posts ago.


They can just as easily be used to defend as attack. A study by Professor Gary Kleck at the University of Florida indicates that civilians alone use firearms somewhere around 1.5 million to 2 million times each year to thwart a crime or to protect themselves. Further, his study indicated that very few of these incidents resulted in death and only a slightly higher number resulted in injury.

This is a major reason why between 80 and 100 million people in the US own firearms. Operating under the presumption of guilt in matters regarding firearms is simply foolish considering how many people own guns legally and how few of those people use them in crimes.

The point is that the gunshop owner did everything he is supposed to do before selling a gun to someone. You cannot hold him responsible for what someone else does a few days later.

And if you consider my reference to sporting goods and McDonalds a bad comparison, how about a knife? would you consider a merchant legally liable if someone buys a (let's assume it's not a kitchen knife) knife from him and then stabs someone else with it?

[Minicow]

And as for Mcdonalds ... i believe Supersize me proved a point enough ;)
Techically the sporting goods store is selling you sport equipment to go and play sports. .. a gun dealer is selling you a gun yea not a good comparison.

Why isn't it a good comparison? I'd hope most gun dealers (there's got to be a better word) sell their arms with the assumption you'll use them in a lawful manner. IE: To "play sports," in a manner of speaking, or use it in self defense.

I really doubt they assume, "This guy's going to go kill someone... Ah well, at least I get money in the process." A average gun owner, in fact, doesn't go off and kill someone. They generally go off to a shooting range, off into the woods to hunt, or simply keeps it at home for security.

I'm a gun owner, my father is a gun owner, my uncles are gun owners, my brothers are gun owners, my sister is a gun owner, many of my friends are gun owners. Believe it or not, we actually don't go off and kill people every weekend. No one I know ever has. Shocking!

[Saden]

Why isn't it a good comparison? I'd hope most gun dealers (there's got to be a better word) sell their arms with the assumption you'll use them in a lawful manner. IE: To "play sports," in a manner of speaking, or use it in self defense.

I really doubt they assume, "This guy's going to go kill someone... Ah well, at least I get money in the process." A average gun owner, in fact, doesn't go off and kill someone. They generally go off to a shooting range, off into the woods to hunt, or simply keeps it at home for security.

I'm a gun owner, my father is a gun owner, my uncles are gun owners, my brothers are gun owners, my sister is a gun owner, many of my friends are gun owners. Believe it or not, we actually don't go off and kill people every weekend. No one I know ever has. Shocking!

You mean to tell me that you have a gun, but you DON'T go and kill people? Oh. My. God. The Irony!

[enigma]

Why isn't it a good comparison? I'd hope most gun dealers (there's got to be a better word) sell their arms with the assumption you'll use them in a lawful manner. IE: To "play sports," in a manner of speaking, or use it in self defense.

I really doubt they assume, "This guy's going to go kill someone... Ah well, at least I get money in the process." A average gun owner, in fact, doesn't go off and kill someone. They generally go off to a shooting range, off into the woods to hunt, or simply keeps it at home for security.

I'm a gun owner, my father is a gun owner, my uncles are gun owners, my brothers are gun owners, my sister is a gun owner, many of my friends are gun owners. Believe it or not, we actually don't go off and kill people every weekend. No one I know ever has. Shocking!

Techically i implied that they would use them to shoot stuff .... didnt imply the murder of anyone ;)
In fact you add to my point,
you take them to the woods - to shoot stuff
you keep them at home for "secuirty" to shoot stuff


Manstein: I read your post, yet i cannot see how an a weapon which in its own nature is something designed to be used agressivly in the attempt to maine or kill someone or something can be used defensivly.
By defence, you are in effect talking about shooting someone...

Then only weapon to my knowledge which is truely defensive, since it cannot be used offensivly is a nuclear bomb.

[Manstein]

Manstein: I read your post, yet i cannot see how an a weapon which in its own nature is something designed to be used agressivly in the attempt to maine or kill someone or something can be used defensivly.
By defence, you are in effect talking about shooting someone...

Actually no, according to The National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994:

In 91.7% of successful gun defenses, the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during the survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

[Saden]

Defending just means pointing the gun at somebody, or trying to shoot them in a non lethal way. Sure they get shot, but I doubt they'd hurt anyone after that.

[Appleskates]

Heh, and your a stones throw away from that as well... you only have, what left? 3 amendments? - Guns - Freedom of Religion - and you dont have to quarter a soldier in a time of peace >.< (which your NOT in btw)... everything else has stipulations under the whole "Freedom Act and/or the Patriot Act" thing you guys have in place now, your voice can be supressed, your may never see a court room, torture? shit... you could basically dissappear out of existance if the President gave the "all clear" and now its legal for him to do it :mad:

I hope you guys get all that fixed REAL quick

So yeah... Guns and Religion... why can i smell trouble? :rolleyes:

There's a fine line between outright oppression and national defense. The Patriot Act does indeed toe the line, but I will only speak out once the right to own a gun is lost. In my view, gun ownership is the ONE thing which props up the Patriot Act from being crushed by the citizens. And in case you don't live here, it really isn't that bad. It's only if you advocate violent overthrow of the government and scream "death to the infidels" a lot.

[Total_Overkill]

It's only if you advocate violent overthrow of the government and scream "death to the infidels" a lot.

Death to America! Down with the Infidels! *Arabic warcry*
.... Oh, just a minute, i think that was the door bell....
.... FBI? wtf? Patriot Act? Arrest? Suspected terrorist?....
.... Hey get away from me! dont touch me asshole! you cant do this!...
.... Im not even an American citizen! your laws do not apply!...
.... *Tasered* Ah god dammit....

*Transmission Terminated*

:D

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

Actually no, according to The National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994:

In 91.7% of successful gun defenses, the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during the survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

manstein i think enigma is tryin to tell you that guns are made/invented to kill. They arent designed to scare people. They are designed to be a good and powerfull killer. People are scared of it because it is a powerfull killer. It scaring people is a side-effect.
I think in a modern and civilised countries you dont need guns or weapons. If the chance is that bad you will need to use it than mayb that country needs to question itself in what kind of state it is...

[SpicEwEazle]

You guys have posted alot so I don't even want to read it all. I think guns, no matter what caliber, machine guns, handguns, sniper rifles, assault rifles, and submachine guns should all be legal to own. I am completely for the right to bear arms (no it's not a misinterpretation). Of course we should have background checks before the sale and maybe an annual mental checkup at the authorities for safety. License the firearms, do whatever, just don't take them away or limits its capabilities.

Besides protection from criminals, they are very fun to shoot. No we're not a bunch of red-necks, some of you don't even know what a red-neck is and make a generalization and say it's an American. We will reply to that with a "Fuck off." Every month there's on average, 20 new true stories of armed citizens protecting their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I tell you right now, that when I become of legal age I will carry a conceal carry license for a handgun. The weapon is only to be drawn in a life threatening situation, which can happen when you least expect it.

Quote me on this: Expect anything, be prepared for it, and be ready to act upon it.


Banning firearms would defy that rule. Plus what happens as they get rid of firearms? People start defending themselves with a quiver and bow, next that will be banned. Spears, banned. Catapults, banned. Stones, you can't ban that.
Oh come on this self-defence argument is just crap. In Australia semi-automatic and automatic rifles are completely illegal. You have to be part of a registered gun club, and hold a fire-arms license to even keep a fire-arm at your house, and even then they are just hand guns, shitty .22s and shotguns. On top of that you have to have a purpose made gun cabinet, which is really expensive. There are a few exceptions, such as farmers who get of slightly easier. All of this happened because of the port-arthur massacre. concealing a weapon is also illegal. You know what has happend? gun related deaths, and crimes involving firearms have dropped dramatacilly. There is not anarchy in the street and people are not being killed by criminals because they can't shoot back. That said we also hase stringent restrictions on other weapons as well.

I can understand the joy of shooting, what ever the weapon. But if you are going to use an assualt rifle it should be kept on the premises of a gunclub, and not even owned by an individual. You do not need AKss, M82s, M2s etc to defend your home. you don't need really a firearm at all. That is what police are for.

Oh Total_Overkill in australia and many other countries, police are issued a sid arm , and it is returned to storage at the end of everyday. If they want to own a firearm at home the same rules apply to them as everyone else.

[Manstein]

Eurofighter;66340']manstein i think enigma is tryin to tell you that guns are made/invented to kill. They arent designed to scare people. They are designed to be a good and powerfull killer. People are scared of it because it is a powerfull killer. It scaring people is a side-effect.

If you want to ignore the facts I presented you can. According to the research, in the US, the vast majority of the time guns are used defensively, no one is wounded or killed.


I think in a modern and civilised countries you dont need guns or weapons. If the chance is that bad you will need to use it than mayb that country needs to question itself in what kind of state it is...

I won't argue with your opinion, but you might want to present some facts before you start making such sweeping statements.

[OliverMarshall]

16 teens die every day in the states from guns and around 30,000 americans die each year because of guns.


Also Minicow they have guns in their household since they've been trained for two years with it in mandatory military service, so they know how to use it. Also yes guns are kept in the home, but they don't have any ammunition.

[Timblesink]

I think it should be legal to own guns in every country in the world in preparation for the inevitable Zom-Pocalypse. :)

[enigma]

Manstein, statistics are all BS ... i work with them for a living. People change the goal posts so your stats get changed to suit them, people get ignored or added on etc

*section edited out due to misreading*


I won't argue with your opinion, but you might want to present some facts before you start making such sweeping statements.
It wasnt such a sweeping statement :p


:)

[|Crimson|]

Oh come on this self-defence argument is just crap. In Australia semi-automatic and automatic rifles are completely illegal. You have to be part of a registered gun club, and hold a fire-arms license to even keep a fire-arm at your house, and even then they are just hand guns, shitty .22s and shotguns. On top of that you have to have a purpose made gun cabinet, which is really expensive. There are a few exceptions, such as farmers who get of slightly easier. All of this happened because of the port-arthur massacre. concealing a weapon is also illegal. You know what has happend? gun related deaths, and crimes involving firearms have dropped dramatacilly. There is not anarchy in the street and people are not being killed by criminals because they can't shoot back. That said we also hase stringent restrictions on other weapons as well.

I can understand the joy of shooting, what ever the weapon. But if you are going to use an assualt rifle it should be kept on the premises of a gunclub, and not even owned by an individual. You do not need AKss, M82s, M2s etc to defend your home. you don't need really a firearm at all. That is what police are for.

Oh Total_Overkill in australia and many other countries, police are issued a sid arm , and it is returned to storage at the end of everyday. If they want to own a firearm at home the same rules apply to them as everyone else.

Well said. Very well said.

[Manstein]

To top that off your using a bais source for information which is over 10 years old.

The study may be 10 years old, but I have yet to see you present any evidence to the contrary. And I don't see where the bias is in the study, it was done by a major US university.


16 teens die every day in the states from guns and around 30,000 americans die each year because of guns.

A criminal homicide involving a firearm occurs in the United States about once every half hour -- but two-thirds of the fatalities are not completely innocent victims but themselves have criminal records.
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Murder Analysis by the Chicago Police Department

[enigma]

The study may be 10 years old, but I have yet to see you present any evidence to the contrary. And I don't see where the bias is in the study, it was done by a major US university.

Appogiles, misread the source information you provided, will edit the pervious post.
Am not presenting evidence to the contray, i have only established what my opinion is and what a gun is that is all.

[Jensen]

Canadian small-arms laws are very much the best gun-laws you can get. Here in Norway it is still to strict.

[Manstein]

Appogiles, misread the source information you provided, will edit the pervious post.
Am not presenting evidence to the contray, i have only established what my opinion is and what a gun is that is all.

fair enough

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

If you want to ignore the facts I presented you can. According to the research, in the US, the vast majority of the time guns are used defensively, no one is wounded or killed.


I think you did not understand or want to understand what im saying. Companies that make guns do NOT make guns because they look scary. Else they might start putting pictures of michael jackson on it.
Weapons are made to do harm. Thats why they scare off people and can be used in defense ways without fireing. :rolleyes:

[Total_Overkill]

Eurofighter;66499'] Companies that make guns do NOT make guns because they look scary. Else they might start putting pictures of michael jackson on it.


Lmao... i think your on to something there! :D

(also note, grenade launcher that fires inflated MJ blow up dolls)

[Manstein]

I think you did not understand or want to understand what im saying. Companies that make guns do NOT make guns because they look scary. Else they might start putting pictures of michael jackson on it.
Weapons are made to do harm. Thats why they scare off people and can be used in defense ways without fireing.

I never said guns weren't dangerous, of course they are. That's exactly why they are so effective at stopping crime. In most cases the mere sight of a firearm is sufficient to stop a crime from being perpetrated against you. However, if the situation arose where I needed to defend myself or my loved ones, it makes sense to use the most effective tool available, in my mind.

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

Yes. Um if there's anyone who would like to challenge the right to bear arms then please PM me with the stuff and if I can't answer it myself I will submit it to the NRA-ILA.

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

Yes. Um if there's anyone who would like to challenge the right to bear arms then please PM me with the stuff and if I can't answer it myself I will submit it to the NRA-ILA.

Or watch Bowling for Columbine...

[JonasDahlin]

Yes. Um if there's anyone who would like to challenge the right to bear arms then please PM me with the stuff and if I can't answer it myself I will submit it to the NRA-ILA.

Of course you have the right to bear arms, I mean how would it look if everyone were armless? :D
(Sorry couldn't resist it)

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

Eurofighter;66660']Or watch Bowling for Columbine...

Eh?

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

Eh?

well I'm anti gun and youre pro gun. So for people who have questions anti watch that movie cause its good :) and for pro theyll ask you :D

[CBowling]

Eurofighter;66660']Or watch Bowling for Columbine...

Whenever I saw Bowling, I immediately thought my last name.....

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

Aww crap, now I gotta use money to see it?

[PF-Kenny]

The reason for the right to keep, own, and bear arms is to maintain the capability of the people to initiate a revolution. To take away that right would be tantamount to taking away all the other rights, as it is there to protect the rest. Although I see no need at this point in time for a revolution, there may be such a time in the future, and due to this the right should be preserved

There are massive quantities of guns in the United States. Even if a law was passed that banned them there are such huge quantities of them that it would be impossible to get them all, which would mean that the only guns that would be used would be those used by criminals. A law banning guns might possibly work in some countries to cut down violence, but this isnt one of them

Guns are essential for self defence. Criminals are less likely to break and enter houses where there is a high probability of the occupants being armed. Just having a gun can make you safer, even if you dont have to even point it at anyone, let alone shoot it.

[scottdog]

Guns are essential for self defence. Criminals are less likely to break and enter houses where there is a high probability of the occupants being armed. Just having a gun can make you safer, even if you dont have to even point it at anyone, let alone shoot it.

If i was a criminal in the USA i would shoot the homeowners with my newly bought gun first before taking anything :)

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

If i was a criminal in the USA i would shoot the homeowners with my newly bought gun first before taking anything :)

That's why I support the registration and background checks. Maybe an annual (or bi-annual, 5 years, w/e) check or reregistration to make sure the owner has not sold or lent the firearm to any persons beside his close relatives. By lent I mean letting a person borrow the weapon without keeping an eye on both of them. Say you bring your buddy to the range and let him shoot your rifle some, that's OK, to leave them unattended would result in disciplinary action.

BTW, good luck gunning against an armed family.

[Saden]

We should follow Isreal's example. Well, a friend of mine who used to live there said that almost everyone carried a glock, or another kind of firearm, that's why there were RARELY any street shootings. Not sure if he's right, correct me if I'm wrong.

[PF-Kenny]

If i was a criminal in the USA i would shoot the homeowners with my newly bought gun first before taking anything :)

the average thief doesnt want to be a murderer... If they know they will have to kill someone to rob someone, they will likely go somewhere else

[scottdog]

the average thief doesnt want to be a murderer... If they know they will have to kill someone to rob someone, they will likely go somewhere else

So why kill them for just breaking and entering, im sure they could claim it insurance (unless it was personal stuff). But i mean most people are only theifs because they don't have the kind of money for a decent life, and you should leave it to the police to comprehend them.

[Manstein]

So why kill them for just breaking and entering, im sure they could claim it insurance (unless it was personal stuff). But i mean most people are only theifs because they don't have the kind of money for a decent life, and you should leave it to the police to comprehend them.

Scottdog he was responding to your statement that you'd kill the homeowner first if you were going to rob someone.

So what you're saying is that homeowners should just let the thief take whatever he wants as long as you have insurance on it, even if you're there to protect it?

If you really think most people are theives only because they don't have money for a decent life, how do you explain the tons of whitecollar criminals? How do you explain the people who don't have money but aren't criminals? Are you saying that poor people have a right to commit crimes, as long as they commit them against people who aren't poor? Also, I think (or at least I hope) you meant to say "apprehend", and not "comprehend"

[enigma]

Background Checks do not work.

They only work if you have been caught.

In other circumstances, other people may only find out if you openly disclose it because who ever they have been referred by cannot disclose that information.

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

We should follow Isreal's example. Well, a friend of mine who used to live there said that almost everyone carried a glock, or another kind of firearm, that's why there were RARELY any street shootings. Not sure if he's right, correct me if I'm wrong.

Agreed. Everyone, including the women, must serve in the IDF. And Israel being a hot spot there is a ton of patriotism along with that so just about everyone is willing to serve. When not in uniform (off-duty) everybody carries a weapon, many times I've seen some chicks carrying around rifles slung over there backs. Now that's two sexy's in one. I'll post a picture if I can find it again.

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

Although they aren't that hot. (Link to the hot ones when I find it)
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/csite/218.jpg

Clicky (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1669904/posts)
I think I'm gonna visit Israel some day ;)

[Fallschirmjäger]

I have seen many over the years too on the Wargamer forums,there are stacks in this thread below of them and other countries too,oh and sorry for going off topic.;)

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.asp?m=133056&mpage=40

[scottdog]

Scottdog he was responding to your statement that you'd kill the homeowner first if you were going to rob someone.

So what you're saying is that homeowners should just let the thief take whatever he wants as long as you have insurance on it, even if you're there to protect it?

If you really think most people are theives only because they don't have money for a decent life, how do you explain the tons of whitecollar criminals? How do you explain the people who don't have money but aren't criminals? Are you saying that poor people have a right to commit crimes, as long as they commit them against people who aren't poor? Also, I think (or at least I hope) you meant to say "apprehend", and not "comprehend"

No i am not saying just let him take whatever he wants, if you yell out he will probly drop what he was taking and run. what im trying to say is that they shouldn't have the right to kill him.
Is there a death penalty in America for stealing?

[SuperSoldier]

No i am not saying just let him take whatever he wants, if you yell out he will probly drop what he was taking and run. what im trying to say is that they shouldn't have the right to kill him.
Is there a death penalty in America for stealing?

You don't have to kill them you could just wound him and wait for the police. I think it's illegal here anyway to shoot a criminal if he's not a direct threat but you could scare him off with it instead or shoot him in the leg.

[Manstein]

No i am not saying just let him take whatever he wants, if you yell out he will probly drop what he was taking and run. what im trying to say is that they shouldn't have the right to kill him.
Is there a death penalty in America for stealing?

The laws regarding use of deadly force in defence of property are different in each state. I don't know most of them well enough to say.

In Texas you are within your rights to use deadly force against anyone who breaks into your house, as far as I know.

In Louisiana you are within your rights to use deadly force against someone who tries to carjack you.

And what do you propose to do if you yell out and he doesn't drop and run? What if he attacks you? What if he ignores you and continues to steal?

[chip360]

I believe they should make full-automatics legal in Cali again

[Saden]

I believe they should make full-automatics legal in Cali again

So you can put a few mags in the local mugger :p

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

Yeah that'll be the justice system in action.

I'm the fucking judge now, guilty or not guilty?
Not guilty you say?
Oh I'm sorry I must have heard you incorrectly, you said guilty.
Bam!
Who stole my wallet?
That's right you did.
Here I'll give you some more money, how's another $5 dollars sound?
OK I'll give it to ya!
$5 dollars in bullets!
Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam!
Reloading!
How many clips do I have?
Well let's see each round is $.20. You do the math.
*Mugger has a stroke*

[TheDGP]

I believe that guns should be permitted to anybody in any state but with an age limit such as 18 or 21. I believe this would lower crime rates substantially for the sole reason that criminals won't know who has the guns or not and they will be less likely to mess around with people. Jackie Mason has some pretty good opinoins of this http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jn9cX5BaqYc.

[aag567]

Saw a magazine showing a book which talked about gun disarment and the genocide that followed, it also said the Nazis used gun laws to disarm their victims.