Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteSo, is that a culturally condescending judgment or what? "I don't understand why you like this thing, so I could possibly find myself joining opposition to it."
I mean, since when does one have to "get it" in order to be willing to leave those who enjoy something alone??
Just a quick off-topic question. Do you feel the same way as you've stated above about other issues, e.g. gay marriage?
Blues,
Dave
Yes. If someone's not gonna harm me or bother me by pursuing their interest, fine with me.
You get these idiots who take a $15,000 Honda Civic and put $17,000 worth of engine, suspension and other mods into it, deck it out with spoilers and decals so that it just can't help but attract cops and speeding tickets, and add an obnoxiously loud stereo that just doesn't even seem to have midrange or tweeters in it whatsoever, for all the damned bass you hear -- and I just don't get it. But I'm don't take any kind of active stance in opposition to them doing it, and I don't question them for it -- I just know that other people have other interests that don't necessarily coincide with mine. Like that guy inthe article JohnRich posted, who seems to just live to collect beetles! WTF? But hey, them as likes it can have it! You won't see me getting all judgmental and condescending just because I don't get it.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Kennedy 0
OHHH...
That must be the problem.
Gun banners are convinced guns are just like those things...
Of course, you were talking movies, and they're talking reality...
That must be the problem.
Gun banners are convinced guns are just like those things...
Of course, you were talking movies, and they're talking reality...
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Balls 0
QuoteOhh, don't forget your white house is white because we beat your ass and burnt it.
This is the only come back Canucks have for "Evil Americans." I spent 2 years in the Great Crappy North and you wouldn't believe how many times I heard this. The funny thing is they weren't even a country when it happened.
Screw Canada
----------------------------------------
....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
Newbie 0
QuoteQuote"Not in true standing with why the constitution exists - but that's pretty normal."
With all due respect to The Constitution, it doesn't mean a thing in Newbie's country.
So yeah, it is pretty normal.
Then maybe he should not comment about OUR Constitution, and how WE do things?
I mean since it does not affect him and all.
Ron, i think that would be missing the point of Speakers Corner, no?
Besides, my fiancee is a US citizen - which means part of YOUR Constitution may one day become part of MY Constitution.
"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts
Kennedy 0
QuoteBesides, my fiancee is a US citizen - which means part of YOUR Constitution may one day become part of MY Constitution.
In which case you have invalidated Nac's defense of your position, and should answer Turtle.
ps - good choice of fiancees; straight white teeth make things so much nicer.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Newbie 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteSo - then - you want ONLY the military and police (and the like ) to bne able to possess guns.
Nice -
Not in true standing with why the constitution exists - but that's pretty normal.
No, as I mentioned above, in an ideal world you should be able to protect yourself (within the limits of reason). I also understand why it is some advocates for gun control still want armed protection for themselves/their families.
However, owning a firearm for defence, hunting whatever, to me, should equate to the heightened sense of responsibility that goes along with that, as well as having some kind of compulsory safety/proper usage training. At times, this doesn't happen/isn't thought about, hence problems can arise.
You are trying to dictate policy with no backing.
You say should and could - but offer no ways or means.
It is good the way it is - if it isn't broken - don't fix it.
I'm not trying to dictate anything. Offer no ways or means? Ok how about if you want a gun, you have to have it registered, along with your details, have compulsary cooling off periods, detailed background checks, training for the type of gun you are buying and some kind of "responsibility" training, to be laid down in law (i.e. if this gun is mislaid and falls into the wrong hands, we will be coming after you). Personally i don't see any of this as an infringement on my rights. Hell i can still own a gun right? (as long as the background check turns nothing up). Yet you still will have people saying "no way should i have to register SH*T, it's my god given RIGHT!).
I would say the problem in the US is far from "not broken" at least in major metropolitan cities. Go and speak to any cop who has just worked a weekend shift in a major city in the US and ask him if gun's aren't a problem.
"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts
Newbie 0
QuoteQuoteno, don't get confused - it's simple. The arguement could go thus - don't deny those who require guns as tools for their jobs (law enforcement, close protection bodyguards etc). Some people are more likely to be targeted by nuts than you and i (celebs/politicans). They will require heightened security.
So according to you, only cops and military should have guns. Uh huh. Why is that? You do know that, at least here in the US, cops have a higher crime rate than people who carry concealed, right?
Also, you think that being tageted by a nut requires being famous? Why should people who can afford 24/7 bodyguards be the only ones who can protect themselves.
If you want to play probabilities, no one in the US is likely to be a victim (overall likelihood of crime victimization is around 4%).
If you realize a gun can be necessary to protect oneself (as you stated via acceptance of bodyguard carry), why deny it someone who wouldn't make as many headlines?
Everyone from the Clinton Justice Department to unaffiliated researchers have found between 1.25 and 3.5 million Defensive Guns Uses each year here in the states. Couple that with the fact that active physical resistance with a gun lead to the lowest probability of being hurt in a crime, and you must ask, would you rather there be another two million crimes each year?QuoteGun control does not necessarily equate to a blanket ban on guns.
Show me one anti-gun politician who is not pushing for a blanket ban. To counter your argument, I inform you thus:Quote“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.” – Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995
QuoteAnd if you can find me an environmental protestor, picketing a major oil company driving a Humvee, i will put on the monkey suit and dance down the street while playing the banjo.
OK, so maybe even the eco-freaks have more sense than anti-gun logic. I'll buy that.
man i really need to stay out of the gun threads...
Kennedy, as i have now mentioned several times in this post, in an ideal world people should be able to protect themselves with whatever they want (within reason - i.e. no, i don't think an AK47 is necessary for home defence, but a handgun is). This, however, is not an ideal world. I'm sure you, John Rich, peaceful jeffrey etc are all RESPONSIBLE gun owners. I just think that there are people out there who aren't, and don't equate the ownership of a gun to the necessary level of responsibility. Oh course, a gun is not a hammer, but it has the ability to do damage far more quickly to more people than a hammer could, so that's why you need a certain heightened level of responsibility to go with that. Again, i'm not having a go at you, i'm sure you are responsible, but not everyone is as accountable.
I also stated i can understand why those who are pro gun control want certain armed protection. That's it, no more no less.
"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts
Newbie 0
QuoteQuotethe term hoplophobe seems to be oxymoronic - who in their right mind wouldn't (or shouldn't) have an irrational fear of something that they have no knowledge or understaning of, of something that can kill you and everyone around you in mere seconds, particularly if you pick it up and hold it incorrectly (i.e. putting a finger on the trigger and pulling).
How is that fear deemed "irrational"? To me, it's irrational people wouldn't have an inbuilt fear of guns if they know nothing about them.
Nac not directing this at you BTW, just tagged it onto your post, as i found the definition of the word to be stupid.
I will go on record that it is 100% always bad to have an "irrational" ANYTHING. It shows that you have allowed the smart part of your brain to freeze and stop thinking, and let raw fear do the job for you. You seem to be... well... advocating irrationality! How bizarre!
By the same token, whuffos have no idea how to use a parachute correctly, right? Should they have an irrational fear of parachutes and skydiving?
What about a person who walks near a swimming pool and doesn't know how to swim? He should have an "irrational fear" of it -- or should he maybe have instead a "healthy respect for the potential danger"?
You condition the "inbuilt fear" to be for those who don't know anything about guns. Well, how about we address that by teaching people -- kids and adults alike -- so that they don't have to fear guns irrationally, and so that if they encounter them, they'll know how to handle them safely? Got something against education?
Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
of course i don't have anything against education, nor am i advocating irrationality by any means. Simply, i understand where this irrational fear in people can come from. I like you, believe irrational fear to be a bad thing, but people are phobic, which by it's nature is a fear of something that can be completely irrational. I am terrified of spiders. Why? Who knows. I have some theories (being scared by them when i was very young etc). Do i know it's completely irrational that i'm scared of this tiny thing i can crush? Of course! Do i want to do anything about it? I would love to, but you know, what i can't even get near to them to try and overcome my fear. Maybe someday i will go on a course to get over my fear, but right now, i would prefer to stay away from them.
Can this apply to people and guns? Of course. And i can understand that. That's all i was saying. The idea that it's irrational to be scared of a harmless house spider is obvious. The idea that it's irrational to be scared of a device like a gun if you know nothing about them, is well, not irrational to me. It's understandable. (yes education is an answer to curing that irrationality, but some people, like me, prefer not to be educated on matters that concern irrational phobias for whatever reason).
"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts
Newbie 0
QuoteQuotethe term hoplophobe seems to be oxymoronic - who in their right mind wouldn't (or shouldn't) have an irrational fear of something that they have no knowledge or understaning of, of something that can kill you and everyone around you in mere seconds, particularly if you pick it up and hold it incorrectly (i.e. putting a finger on the trigger and pulling).
Do you fear a hammer, just becuase someone can crush your skull with it in seconds if you're not careful?
Do you fear a pen, just because if you slip you can cause sever disfigurement or death?
Pciking up a gun and holding it does not cause it to fire, no matter how many cops say "it jsut went off."
Why wouldn't you want to know how to pick up and handle it safely, rather than allowing an inanimate object to terrify you?QuoteHow is that fear deemed "irrational"? To me, it's irrational people wouldn't have an inbuilt fear of guns if they know nothing about them.
I don't fear pieces of metal and plastic, no matter their shape.
I do, however, have a very healthy respect for the power and responsibility that comes everytime I ahndle a firearm. There are four very simple rules that help me do so.
1. Every gun is loaded. Everytime you put it down, somebody loads it when you're not looking.
(check the chamber, everytime you pick it up)
2. Never point the firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy.
(if you don't point it at anything valuable, you can't shoot anything valuable)
3. Always be sure of your target and what's beyond it.
(know what you're shooting at, and what you mighth it is you miss or shoot through)
4. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
(last back up to all other rules, avoids accidental discharges)
Kennedy can you HONESTLY compare the destructive power of pen's and hammers to a handgun?? I really don't think you can. Of course, it's the HANDLER of these we should worry about - but the nut with a gun is far more dangerous than the nut with the hammer/pen/knife.
As i said in my post to Jeffrey, yes education is helpful in addressing peoples phobias - but frankly, sometimes people don't want to address them, and that's not difficult to comprehend, whether you are pro, anti or fence sitting on guns.
"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts
Newbie 0
QuoteQuoteBesides, my fiancee is a US citizen - which means part of YOUR Constitution may one day become part of MY Constitution.
In which case you have invalidated Nac's defense of your position, and should answer Turtle.
ps - good choice of fiancees; straight white teeth make things so much nicer.
i did answer Turtle.
And contrary to popular belief, some of our ladies in the UK actually have GREAT teeth
Brit babe
"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts
tkhayes 140
QuoteIf we had never invented the automobile, people would not be killed by or in them -- but we'd have some other mode of transportation, and they'd probably get killed by or in those.
Yes, but the automobile (and household poisons and knives and other ways of dying) actually have some OTHER useful purpose in life, whereas a handgun does not - it was designed solely for the purpose of killing.
QuoteWe also have thousands FEWER unnecessary killings than a lot of other countries -- notably countries that attempt to BAN people from owning guns. Check out Brazil, and lots of African nations. Or how about places where there have been GENOCIDES. It's much easier for a government to do that to people who don't have guns.
do you REALLY believe that if we polled Americans that own guns, their first reply would be "I own a gun because I m afraid that the government someday will try to commit genocide?" Most people either hunt or have it for self defense. (meaning they too are willing to kill someone)
QuoteIt not only sponsors, it WRITES legislation and works to get it passed, that provides for still penalties for those who use guns criminally. Do a google search for "OperationExile" which has been a rousing success at getting felons who use guns put away in FEDERAL PRISON by allocating sufficient prosecutorial resources to do the job. It is the "gun lobby" that pulls all the weight when it comes to getting things done about gun violence and gun accidents. How many actual safety training programs does Handgun Control Inc. have? How about Violence Policy Center? How about the "Million Moms"?
Which only reinforces my earlier points - let's put EVERYONE in jail who has commited a crime - which is pretty much all of us. We have all done something wrong in our lifetimes - legislation that you seem to support is typically hypocritical. How about eliminate the problem from the root? If the guy never had a gun in the first place, he would not have been able to commit a gun-related crime.
DO they really support gun safety? Are they lobbying to have everyone go through safety programs? I do not see any such legislation on the table. It is a smoke screen to get you to believe that they really care, when they really just care about some 200 year old amendment that has little relevance today.
I guess I was wrong all along - I guess it is OK for kids to pick up Dad's gun and shoot their brother and call it an 'accident'.
I guess it is OK for me to shoot that guy who tried to mug me, when all he really wanted was the $20 in my pocket, but now he carries a gun because he thinks I might have one too. Do people really deserve to die for petty crimes?
I guess it is OK when I get pulled over for speeding that 2 cops to approach my car, with holsters un-snapped, in case there is a shoot-out - since I might have a gun in my car. (And if I get shot because I flinched the wrong way, for that to be a 'tragic accident').
I guess it is OK for me to live in a country where I have to worry about getting in a fender-bender and having the other guy get into a fight with me and maybe shoot my ass just because he has a gun in his glove box.
I love walking down the street wondering who might try to kill me - great peace of mind.
It is the same kind of paranoid fear the government loves to keep you in so they can convince you of pretty much anything they want.
I guess it is OK for all these people to be dead - nice to know that human life is worth so much......
TK
Ron 7
QuoteHow about eliminate the problem from the root? If the guy never had a gun in the first place, he would not have been able to commit a gun-related crime.
Great lets eliminate the root cause...Not the device.
The cause is some jackass that wants to harm others. It has been shown time after time that if a person wants to kill someone..they will do it even if they don't have a gun...The 9/11 hijackers didn't have a gun, the Menendez brothers didn't use a gun to kill thier parents, OJ didn't use a gun to kill Nicole and Ron, Dalmer didn't use a gun, Cain didn't use a gun to kill Able, Auhbern Callaway tried to hijack a DC-10 using a HAMMER Austrailia and the UK have high non gum related crimes....See, violence is going to happen anyway as long as one guy wants to kill another.
A gun is just a tool. And I have seen you enjoy weapons as well...Need I mention Theo's trailer and you being drunk with a shot gun? Did you see me shooting that night? Nope. You all were drunk and with firearms...I got away from there as fast as I could.
You want gun saftey? Don't drink and shoot.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
SkyDekker 1,145
QuoteThis is the only come back Canucks have for "Evil Americans." I spent 2 years in the Great Crappy North and you wouldn't believe how many times I heard this. The funny thing is they weren't even a country when it happened.
Screw Canada
If it was so bad, why did you stay here for a full two years?
tkhayes 140
QuoteThe cause is some jackass that wants to harm others. It has been shown time after time that if a person wants to kill someone..they will do it even if they don't have a gun...The 9/11 hijackers didn't have a gun, the Menendez brothers didn't use a gun to kill thier parents, OJ didn't use a gun to kill Nicole and Ron, Dalmer didn't use a gun, Cain didn't use a gun to kill Able, Auhbern Callaway tried to hijack a DC-10 using a HAMMER Austrailia and the UK have high non gum related crimes....See, violence is going to happen anyway as long as one guy wants to kill another.
I disagree. More people are killed by guns in 6 months in the USA than were killed in ALL the incidents that you describe. Yes, death and murder happen. But LESS of it would happen if the gun was NOT the tool.
Violence will still happen but to a lesser degree if the gun was not there - and less of it. Most burglars do not enter a house to kill, they enter a house to steal. They carry a gun now because the owner might have one.
And by eliminating the root cause, I did not mean the person - but the social aspect of a culture that seems to endorse and promote violence with violence.
Putting people in prison already does not work. They get out, and they learn to be better criminals in prison. Are you going to put everyone away for life
just because they committed a gun crime? Or do we try to stop the problem BEFORE it becomes a gun crime? Not much point in your argument if the gun crime has already been committed. THat was the point in my post. The guns cause more 'accidents' than society (a civilized society) should tolerate.
Has anyone defined 'violent crime' in this discussion? Everyone likes to state that it is on the rise, but is someone pushing someone down on the sidewalk, kicking them and stealing their money considered a violent crime? Probably, but do I need a gun to defend myself from that?
Does the mugger deserve to DIE because he took my wallet? Does he carry a gun and shoot my ass off first because he thinks I might have a gun? Then you use that as a reason why I should have had a gun in the first place to defend myself, because now your arguement was that he was planning to shoot me anyway.
It is a spiralling cyclic arguement that has no end.
I doubt most violent crime would still end in death if the gun was not involved in the picture.
Should we be proud that American hopitals are the best in the world at handling gunshot wounds? Shoudl paramedics have to wear flack jackets in the field for fear of being shot?
Paranoid and delusional.
If there were NO handguns, then no one could be killed by a handgun. That is a fact - as far at it may seem, it is still a fact.
America lives in total denial that there is a problem and the fact that it is OK for so many innocent people to die by handguns each year is beyond my comprehension.
If it was YOUR kid that got shot by his friend's gun, would you stand there and defend to the death his right to have that gun?
QuoteA gun is just a tool. And I have seen you enjoy weapons as well...Need I mention Theo's trailer and you being drunk with a shot gun? Did you see me shooting that night? Nope. You all were drunk and with firearms...I got away from there as fast as I could.
Actually I was not drunk that night and we were shooting just fine with a well-prepared plan, direction of shotting, safeguards in place and several trained people there to help out.
I have EXTENSIVE firearms training, have competed in handgun, rifle, trap and skeet competitions over the years, been shooting since I was 6 years old. My uncle had a collection of more than 300 pieces, and I learned a lot from him. I own 13 various guns right now (no handguns), but do not shoot much any more. My guns are locked in a safe 24/7 because I do not acutally believe that I will (or should) ever need a loaded gun at my disposal for fear of my house being broken into.
I have 5 dogs - how about we trade the guns for dogs if burglary is what people worry about?
So my background is one of experience. I believe that people should be forced to learn to use the tools that you so widely support. Then it might actually be safer. But some redneck with a 357 magnum in his glovebox is 'not' a needed weapon.
And it is more likely to do some innocent person harm than ever defend him when needed.
TK
Ron 7
QuoteI disagree. More people are killed by guns in 6 months in the USA than were killed in ALL the incidents that you describe.
Got any proof that over 3,000 people were killed by guns in the US in 6 mths?
And if so how many of those were ACCIDENTS?
QuoteYes, death and murder happen. But LESS of it would happen if the gun was NOT the tool.
That I don't agree with. Have any kind of proof? Most serial killers don't use guns. Most crimes of passion don't use guns.
QuoteViolence will still happen but to a lesser degree if the gun was not there - and less of it. Most burglars do not enter a house to kill, they enter a house to steal. They carry a gun now because the owner might have one.
I say if they guy breaking in has a gun...He is up to no good. If you want to take away the home owners right to carry and have a gun...Well now the intruder can be more aggressive without repercussions.
Take away the guns from the good guys and now the good guys become easier targets.
QuoteHas anyone defined 'violent crime' in this discussion? Everyone likes to state that it is on the rise, but is someone pushing someone down on the sidewalk, kicking them and stealing their money considered a violent crime? Probably, but do I need a gun to defend myself from that?
Do you LIKE being kicked and beat up while being robbed?
And agin if you take away the means to defend yourself, you become an easier target.
QuoteThe guns cause more 'accidents' than society (a civilized society) should tolerate.
Thats an education issue, not regulation...What is it the canopy folks tell me? You should not regulate what you can educate.
Hey, I am FOR responsible ownership. I am FOR training, I am FOR gun safes. I don't like the idea of an untrained idiot with a gun. But I like the idea of a trained law abiding citizen with a gun.
QuoteDoes the mugger deserve to DIE because he took my wallet?
Do you deserve to be mugged? If he was not breaking the law...then there would be no problem. When you break the law, you risk the repercusions. It's clear that jail time is not enough of a deterant.
QuoteI doubt most violent crime would still end in death if the gun was not involved in the picture.
And I disagree. People have been killing other people since man has been around.
QuoteIf there were NO handguns, then no one could be killed by a handgun. That is a fact - as far at it may seem, it is still a fact.
Yep, but it is as logical as "If no one skydived, no one would die from skydiving." They are both facts, but both are stupid arguments.
QuoteAmerica lives in total denial that there is a problem and the fact that it is OK for so many innocent people to die by handguns each year is beyond my comprehension.
Not in denial. But your side thinks the solution is to ban anything that can hurt you....And that has been proven to not work.
Plus the Constitution grants us the right to have weapons. Like it or not, it was the fore thought of our fore fathers to give us that right for many reasons.
An armed man is a free man. An unarmed man has no recourse other than what the powers that be GIVE him. And the powers that behave a tendency to TAKE rights.
QuoteIf it was YOUR kid that got shot by his friend's gun, would you stand there and defend to the death his right to have that gun?
It would suck, but I would blame the friend, not the gun. Just as I would not balme the car that killed my friend.
You want to blame the gun.
QuoteActually I was not drunk that night and we were shooting just fine with a well-prepared plan, direction of shotting, safeguards in place and several trained people there to help out.
Ok for the sake of argument lets say you didn't drink...I don't agree, but lets just say.
You are telling me that NO ONE was drinking? That is utter bull shit.
QuoteI have EXTENSIVE firearms training, have competed in handgun, rifle, trap and skeet competitions over the years, been shooting since I was 6 years old. My uncle had a collection of more than 300 pieces, and I learned a lot from him. I own 13 various guns right now (no handguns), but do not shoot much any more. My guns are locked in a safe 24/7 because I do not acutally believe that I will (or should) ever need a loaded gun at my disposal for fear of my house being broken into.
Good for you..And its your RIGHT to not want a weapon for defense...But why do you insist on taking away MY RIGHT to have one?
As for my training...Well you know I have a large chunk of training via Uncle Sam. Why should I not be allowed a weapon? Have you ever even SEEN me with a weapon? I don't treat them like toys...You don't see me shooting at the DZ EVER. And you never see me with weapons and alcohol at the same time.
QuoteI have 5 dogs - how about we trade the guns for dogs if burglary is what people worry about?
Dogs are a GREAT alarm, and a deterant..However, I can't take my Lab everywhere I go...I can take my Glock.
QuoteSo my background is one of experience
As is mine.
QuoteI believe that people should be forced to learn to use the tools that you so widely support. Then it might actually be safer.
I agree. I am FOR training. But I am also FOR the right of a trained guy to carry a weapon.
QuoteBut some redneck with a 357 magnum in his glovebox is 'not' a needed weapon.
And it is more likely to do some innocent person harm than ever defend him when needed.
If he treats it like a toy, YES...But if he treats it like atool, NO.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Oh yeah?! Not even if they're haunted by evil ghosts or imbued with demonic powers, like that house in Amityville, or the one in the woods in The Evil Dead, or those cursed antiques in Friday the 13th: the Series??! Those inanimate objects scare the shit out of me!
-
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites