billvon 2,400 #26 September 1, 2006 >What we need to do is construct an arena out of plate steel >and concrete where each rival gang can play a game of paintball and >settle their differences -- only without the paint. We could sell tickets! People could go into the arena and watch them kill each other. We'd give them each a handgun so they wouldn't get hurt, of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #27 September 1, 2006 Quotelets just enforce the gun laws that are already on the books, shall we? There are TOO MANY gun laws currently on the books, and they are contradictory from state to state and city to city. We need a few, uniform gun laws that make sense, protect the rights of sane law abiding adults, can't be circumvented by crossing a state line or city boundary, and that severely punish those that abuse them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #28 September 1, 2006 Quote>What we need to do is construct an arena out of plate steel >and concrete where each rival gang can play a game of paintball and >settle their differences -- only without the paint. We could sell tickets! People could go into the arena and watch them kill each other. We'd give them each a handgun so they wouldn't get hurt, of course. No, do it by closed circuit televsion, like The Running Man. Richard Dawson could host. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #29 September 1, 2006 >No, do it by closed circuit televsion, like The Running Man. Richard Dawson could host. I'd go along with that - as long as he was in the arena too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #30 September 1, 2006 QuoteNo, do it by closed circuit televsion, like The Running Man. Richard Dawson could host. Man, if you could bring Dawson back from the grave . . . that would be cool.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #31 September 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteNo, do it by closed circuit televsion, like The Running Man. Richard Dawson could host. Man, if you could bring Dawson back from the grave . . . that would be cool. __________________________ No way! He's too damned kissy-kissy! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #32 September 2, 2006 QuoteThe shotgun is typically more lethal, yet it also is less likely to kill someone well behind the intended target. Were these sort of people pushed to use 12gauges, we would be better off. I like that idea. If these animals only exterminated each other without actually killing human beings, who would actually worry that much about gang violence? It would become a self regulating problem by keeping their population down with little or no risk to people. Richards My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trae 1 #33 September 2, 2006 in reply to "If these animals only exterminated each other without actually killing human beings, who would actually worry that much about gang violence? It would become a self regulating problem by keeping their population down with little or no risk to people. " .............................. If that all works in your hometown then yo'all can try sellin' it round the world. I just luv seeing genocidal capitalism in its infancy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #34 September 2, 2006 QuoteIf that all works in your hometown then yo'all can try sellin' it round the world. I just luv seeing genocidal capitalism in its infancy I do not see how what I suggested implies genocide. Is this defnition wrong?... "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." I am also curious about the implied link between capitalism and genocide. I have seen examples of non capitalistic societies committing genocide so can you explain the link between the two? Curious. Richards PS...Quoteyo'all ? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #35 September 2, 2006 QuoteQuotelets just enforce the gun laws that are already on the books, shall we? There are TOO MANY gun laws currently on the books, and they are contradictory from state to state and city to city. We need a few, uniform gun laws that make sense, protect the rights of sane law abiding adults, can't be circumvented by crossing a state line or city boundary, and that severely punish those that abuse them. That actually makes a helluva lota sense, john. I just don't want to see what your idea of "a few, uniform gun laws that make sense" are. I'm afraid they would be too restrictive from what the second amendment intended. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #36 September 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuotelets just enforce the gun laws that are already on the books, shall we? There are TOO MANY gun laws currently on the books, and they are contradictory from state to state and city to city. We need a few, uniform gun laws that make sense, protect the rights of sane law abiding adults, can't be circumvented by crossing a state line or city boundary, and that severely punish those that abuse them. That actually makes a helluva lota sense, john. I just don't want to see what your idea of "a few, uniform gun laws that make sense" are. I'm afraid they would be too restrictive from what the second amendment intended. Why would you think that? My opposition to government interference in all areas of life has been well established, hasn't it? Can you find any posts I've made advocating more government?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #37 September 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotelets just enforce the gun laws that are already on the books, shall we? There are TOO MANY gun laws currently on the books, and they are contradictory from state to state and city to city. We need a few, uniform gun laws that make sense, protect the rights of sane law abiding adults, can't be circumvented by crossing a state line or city boundary, and that severely punish those that abuse them. That actually makes a helluva lota sense, john. I just don't want to see what your idea of "a few, uniform gun laws that make sense" are. I'm afraid they would be too restrictive from what the second amendment intended. Why would you think that? My opposition to government interference in all areas of life has been well established, hasn't it? Can you find any posts I've made advocating more government? You are consistantly on the "anti-gun" side of gun arguments. edit... but in principle John, I whole-heartedly agree with you! Few, consistantly applied laws which support law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with VERY minimal government interference. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #38 September 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotelets just enforce the gun laws that are already on the books, shall we? There are TOO MANY gun laws currently on the books, and they are contradictory from state to state and city to city. We need a few, uniform gun laws that make sense, protect the rights of sane law abiding adults, can't be circumvented by crossing a state line or city boundary, and that severely punish those that abuse them. That actually makes a helluva lota sense, john. I just don't want to see what your idea of "a few, uniform gun laws that make sense" are. I'm afraid they would be too restrictive from what the second amendment intended. Why would you think that? My opposition to government interference in all areas of life has been well established, hasn't it? Can you find any posts I've made advocating more government? You are consistantly on the "anti-gun" side of gun arguments. edit... but in principle John, I whole-heartedly agree with you! Few, consistantly applied laws which support law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with VERY minimal government interference. You and John Rich make the same error of interpretation. I absolutely do not believe the "more guns less crime" argument, nor do I believe that owning and carrying a gun would make me and my family safer by one iota. Equally, I do not believe that law abiding sane adults who wish to own a gun (or anything else, for that matter) should be prevented from doing so by the government. Those two beliefs are not contradictory.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #39 September 3, 2006 FWIW, I agree with John also. Simple, easier to enforce, etc. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #40 September 4, 2006 QuoteYou and John Rich make the same error of interpretation. I absolutely do not believe the "more guns less crime" argument, nor do I believe that owning and carrying a gun would make me and my family safer by one iota. Equally, I do not believe that law abiding sane adults who wish to own a gun (or anything else, for that matter) should be prevented from doing so by the government. Those two beliefs are not contradictory. No, they aren't necessarily contradictory. Unfortunately John, we live in a world of generalizations. When a lot of what you say SOUNDS like the anti-gun, gun-banning liberal crowd, you tend to get labelled w/ that label. And the fault lies squarely w/ me for applying that label to you. However, I have to say from personal experience that possessing guns HAS made me and my family safer. I've posted about one incident before, so I won't bore you w/ the details a second time. As far as the "more guns, less crime" hypothesis, thanks to your information, I'm re-evaluating that. But the idea certainly makes sense to me. I mean, If law abinding citizens are armed and willing to defend themselves and others against armed thugs, wouldn't it follow that armed thugs would reconsider their actions? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #41 September 4, 2006 QuoteThere are TOO MANY gun laws currently on the books, and they are contradictory from state to state and city to city. We need a few, uniform gun laws that make sense, protect the rights of sane law abiding adults, can't be circumvented by crossing a state line or city boundary, and that severely punish those that abuse them. The federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate guns. Yeah, I know, they do it to some degree anyway, using the ruse of "interstate commerce" to justify it. But the for the most part, gun laws are a function of state government. And I like it that way. To change things to the federal level would require a federal power grab necessitating a constitutional amendment, and that is very unlikely to happen. No state is going to want to give up its authority over gun laws, to comply with what someone else dictates to them. Texas shouldn't have to put with Illinois gun laws, or vice versa. Let each state's citizens decide for themselves. That does produce inconsistency from state to state, but that provides citizens with the freedom to choose a state in which to live that best represents their personal beliefs. However, within states, the gun laws should be uniform, and most states have "preemption" laws to accomplish that. Cities, counties, etc. are not allowed to pass laws which are more restrictive than the state laws. That makes sense too, because such a patchwork quilt of varying gun laws makes it too haphazard for ordinary citizens to conduct their daily lives without becoming criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #42 September 4, 2006 QuoteI mean, If law abinding citizens are armed and willing to defend themselves and others against armed thugs, wouldn't it follow that armed thugs would reconsider their actions? Certainly, although they may not reconsider their actions as you may have liked. Some of them may decide to take an honest job, and some of them may decide to shoot you before they rob you so you can not shoot back. On an average you would have less crime but deadlier and i am not sure that is what i would like if i get the short stick. I am quite happy with a society that has few guns but allow you to insure your belongings so when you get robbed it is just a small dent in the ego. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #43 September 4, 2006 Quote The federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate ... That applies to an awful lot of things that are regulated by the feds.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #44 September 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate ... That applies to an awful lot of things that are regulated by the feds. Indeed it does, and I think we would both agree that they shouldn't be sticking their nose into business that isn't theirs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #45 September 4, 2006 QuoteSome of them may decide to take an honest job, and some of them may decide to shoot you before they rob you so you can not shoot back. On an average you would have less crime but deadlier... Incorrect assumption, as proven out by FBI crime statistics. QuoteI am quite happy with a society that has few guns but allow you to insure your belongings so when you get robbed it is just a small dent in the ego. Another incorrect assumption. If only we were so lucky as to be assured that the robber was only interested in our property, and not our life. Example to the Contrary Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #46 September 5, 2006 >We need a few, uniform gun laws that make sense, protect the rights > of sane law abiding adults, can't be circumvented by crossing a state > line or city boundary, and that severely punish those that abuse them. Yep. Sadly, I think many gun nuts would portray this as "the government taking away your guns." We do need simpler, more consistent laws, even if it means a change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #47 September 6, 2006 QuoteIncorrect assumption, as proven out by FBI crime statistics. Ohh, and i can google up some statistics that proves how the U.S has a huge rate of assaults and roberies that end up with the victim dead. But that is the nature of internet, we can prove whatever point we want to make getting the statistics that better prove our points. I think you are incorrectly assuming that your statistics are somehow better than mines. QuoteAnother incorrect assumption. If only we were so lucky as to be assured that the robber was only interested in our property, and not our life. Well John, you got me there. I was just thinking that most normal people don´t upset the rest so much that they want to kill him. I truly don´t know if it is paranoia what you have, or really you have upset people so much that someone wants you dead. I don´t want to add paranoia, but i will tell you something. If someone wants to kill you, you are as good as dead, no even your will save you. See John, someone crazy enough to want to kill another person and face the consequences doesn´t have to play fair, thay can shoot you from behind when you are not aware, or do a drive by like the gangs, etc, etc. Believe me, insure your property, be reasonably nice to people and you will be okay. Quote Example to the Contrary Funny thing is that the gunless victim in your example, survived. A gun is not that useful for the victim, because the attacker will always have the initiative, and if the atacker has already drawn the gun or the knife it is much safer to comply than to resist. Possible exception is if you see it coming (but you can avoid it then more often than not by fleeing) and rapes. However considering that a very high proportion of rapes happen while the woman is intoxicated, incapacitated or done by a person known to the victim, i see chances that the victim´s gun can be used against the own victim. I will concede that the person who can better use a gun in a crime is someone who is not the victim but happens to be armed and near. However, that brings other issues like people not trained/current trying to help and making things worse, or just plain gun nuts who want his 15 minutes of glory. I am willing to admit that a gun can be useful sometimes, but to me, the disadvantages of an armed society far outweight the benefits. You seem to think that the gun is the solution to any problem society faces. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #48 September 14, 2006 Lame attempt at starting trouble. I bet this is a knee jerk reaction to the other poll. I would expect a moderator to behave better. Maybe actually charge and punish those who use guns in a crime? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #49 September 14, 2006 >Maybe actually charge and punish those who use guns in a crime? Basically what I said. Have simple gun laws and enforce them. (Or are you just making a knee-jerk lame attempt to start trouble too?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #50 September 14, 2006 QuoteI am quite happy with a society that has few guns but allow you to insure your belongings so when you get robbed it is just a small dent in the ego. And your insurance rates, and mine, and our neighbor, and the guy in the next town, and . . . . See where that one goes? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)