Ban sought on .50-caliber rifles [Archive]

grinner

05-05-2004, 01:08 PM

Ban sought on .50-caliber rifles

By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Democratic lawmakers are eyeing a ban on .50-caliber sniper rifles that can fire armor-piercing bullets and could cause catastrophic damage if used in attacks against airplanes and chemical-storage containers.
Rep. James P. Moran, Virginia Democrat, yesterday introduced a bill to ban the commercial sale of .50-caliber sniper rifles, with exemptions for military and law-enforcement use.

He said these weapons, which are less regulated than handguns, are accurate at 2,000 yards and can pierce the metal shells of rail cars carrying hazardous cargo and low-flying passenger aircraft.
"Just imagine if a terrorist got their hands on one of these guns and trained their sights on a train pulling hazardous cargo through the heart of Washington, D.C. It's a horrifying scenario that only a terrorist would want to see unfold," Mr. Moran said.
He said there is evidence that members of the al Qaeda terrorist group have purchased 25 of the weapons. Mr. Moran said the weapons, which are sold legally to hunters and sportsmen for shooting competitions, should only be for military use.
A study conducted by the District-based Violence Policy Center (VPC) showed that rounds from a .50-caliber rifle can penetrate armor plating. In addition, explosive rounds for such weapons are available on the market.
"There is something gravely wrong with the virtually unregulated sale of these antiarmor guns in an era when our president tells us daily that we are in a war against terrorism," said Tom Diaz, VPC senior policy analyst, who urged Congress to pass Mr. Moran's bill.
But gun advocates said the bill is just another move to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.
"Since 9/11, gun-ban groups and politicians have shamelessly tried to tie their failing agenda for gun control to the terrorist attacks," said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association.
"The sad fact is that terrorists using box cutters, not guns, were the cause of those attacks."
The office of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay did not return calls for comment.
But the Texas Republican has torpedoed other Democratic efforts at gun control in the past, saying that there was no point in bringing to the floor this year a bill to extend the federal assault-weapons ban because "the votes aren't there."
The Senate has also proven a difficult place for gun restrictions, having defeated the assault-weapons extension over a provision to grant gun makers immunity from many civil lawsuits.
Only a few jurisdictions, such as Contra Costa County in California, have banned sales of the weapons. The New York state Assembly also has passed a bill to ban such sales, but the state Senate has yet to vote. link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040503-103240-2772r.htm) Looks like another weapon I need to save up and buy before the ban...

Twich

05-05-2004, 01:20 PM

It is only accurate at two thousand yards if you're a good shot.

And if they already have them, the ban won't do much good now will it? And....does he think that putting another law in place will stop the terrorists? That they won't get them through an illegal source somewhere else??

generic_screenname

05-05-2004, 01:33 PM

stellar

05-05-2004, 01:34 PM

The answer, as my fellow Democrats have yet to discover, is not to ban the weapon but to ban the sale of the weapon to felons and non-citizens. Make it illegal for a felon or non-citizen to buy weapons and make it illegal for suppliers to sell to felons or non-citizens. Everything takes care of itself.

And anyone who uses a firearm in a crime has to go to prison... Abu Dabi prison. That should stem the tide.

talyn3

05-05-2004, 01:39 PM

The answer, as my fellow Democrats have yet to discover, is not to ban the weapon but to ban the sale of the weapon to felons and non-citizens. Make it illegal for a felon or non-citizen to buy weapons and make it illegal for suppliers to sell to felons or non-citizens. Everything takes care of itself.

I'd agree with that, and it's like Twich said, they'll still get them from somewhere else regardless, but it'd be a little harder.

Twich

05-05-2004, 01:43 PM

talyn3

05-05-2004, 01:47 PM

The kind that go BOOM!!!

It says ".50 cal sniper rifles" so, those kinds.

DentArthurDent

05-05-2004, 01:52 PM

why bother shooting a gun at a plane when you can just walk on to the tarmack and throw a bunch of roofing nails into the landing zone? or if you are a real zealot, how 'bout a molotov cocktail in a taxi area? Why not watch the fuel deliveries into a busy gas sttation in a busy intersection, and then molotov that truck?

Frell, as usual they are targeting terrorists that wont obey the law anyway:

that's why they're terrorists!

enforce the FRELLING LAWS THAT ARE THERE ALREADY! we don't need more.

Frellster

05-05-2004, 02:56 PM

Um, OK - ban 'em, don't ban 'em. Doesn't affect my life either way. I happily don't own any guns.

trinamick

05-05-2004, 03:01 PM

But it's a freakin' sniper rifle! Why would a normal person need that? How about everyone that wants a gun gets one of those big honkin' old timey shotguns. That way, there'd be no concealed weapons because you'd have to carry it around with you for everyone to see. And people wouldn't mess with you because you have a big honkin' gun.

:band:
I got an AK-47, well you know it makes me feel alright
Got an Uzi by my pillow, helps me sleep a little better at night
There's no feeling any greater
Than to shoot first and ask questions later
Now I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day

Well, you can't take my guns away, I got a constitutional right
Yeah, I gotta be ready if the Commies attack us tonight
I'll blow their brains out with my Smith and Wesson
That ought to teach them all a darn good lesson
Now I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day

(Oh yeah, I'm)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
(Oh baby, I'm)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
(Oh I'm so)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
Better watch out, punk, or I'm gonna have to blow you away

Oh, I accidently shot daddy last night in the den
I mistook him in the dark for a drug-crazed Nazi again
Now why'd you have to get so mad?
It was just a lousy flesh wound, Dad
You know, I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day

Oh, I still haven't figured out the safety on my rifle yet
Little Fluffy took a round, better take him to the vet
I filled that kitty cat so full of lead
We'll have to use him for a pencil instead
Well, I'm so trigger happy, trigger happy every day

(Oh yeah, I'm)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
(Oh baby, I'm)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
(Oh I'm so)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
Better watch out, punk, or I'm gonna have to blow you away

Come on and grab your ammo
What have you got to lose?
We'll all get liquored up
And shoot at anything that moves

Got a brand new semi-automatic weapon with a laser sight
Oh, I'm prayin' somebody tries to break in here tonight
I always keep a Magnum in my trunk
You better ask yourself, do you feel lucky, punk?
Because I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day

(Oh yeah, I'm)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
(Oh baby, I'm)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
(Oh I'm so)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
Better watch out, punk, or I'm gonna have to blow you away

grinner

05-05-2004, 03:15 PM

generic_screenname

05-05-2004, 03:27 PM

I think the easiest solution is to just make all guns legal and outlaw bullets.

grinner

05-05-2004, 03:28 PM

I think the easiest solution is to just make all guns legal and outlaw bullets.

Bullets are easy to make.

generic_screenname

05-05-2004, 03:29 PM

it's kind of scary that you know that.

grinner

05-05-2004, 03:31 PM

why? what is scary about it. There are tons of books about how to make them.

grinner

05-05-2004, 03:32 PM

gunpowder isn't that hard to make... the casings are probably the most difficult to make of any part of the bullet.

generic_screenname

05-05-2004, 03:40 PM

You can have 'em. Me? I'd rather bludgeon something/someone with a brick or something. Messier, but gives you a greater feeling of accomplishment. :D

trinamick

05-05-2004, 03:40 PM

A guy that lives next door to my sister has every type of gun imaginable. He even has a FULLY automatic machine gun set up in his basement. At one time I think he worked for the gov't or something. He is off the wall - we speculate that he's in the witness protection program. He even has his gun room booby-trapped, in case someone breaks in! :eek:

trinamick

05-05-2004, 03:42 PM

it's kind of scary that you know that.

I know how to make bullets. Half my family reload their own bullets. It's a heck of a lot cheaper. Several of my uncles have reloading rooms built in their homes. I think it's just an excuse to get away from their wives.

grinner

05-05-2004, 03:45 PM

I know how to make bullets. Half my family reload their own bullets. It's a heck of a lot cheaper. Several of my uncles have reloading rooms built in their homes. I think it's just an excuse to get away from their wives.
that wouldn't be the first time I heard that... as I know that is why my buddy reloads his own ammo. He does it whenever things get incredibly stressed for him... you won't see him for a day or two... he just reloads ammo.

Paul Cousins

05-05-2004, 03:57 PM

There are only two types of people who want to ban guns.

1. Fools who wish everyone to be defenseless.

2. And those who own guns themselves and who want to have power over everyone else.

DentArthurDent

05-05-2004, 04:29 PM

There are only two types of people who want to ban guns.

1. Fools who wish everyone to be defenseless.

2. And those who own guns themselves and who want to have power over everyone else.

oh, man do I wish it were THAT simple...

Paul Cousins

05-05-2004, 04:44 PM

oh, man do I wish it were THAT simple...

But it is that simple. :)

Third EYe

05-05-2004, 05:12 PM

I think we should ban some forms of thought first, and if that's successful, I'm all for the banning of this weapon.

I like your reasoning DentArthurDent.

BaseLine

05-06-2004, 01:33 AM

I think the easiest solution is to just make all guns legal and outlaw bullets.

This was also an idea of Chris Rock:

You don't need no gun control, you know what you need, we need some bullet control. We need to control the bullets.
That's right, I think all bullets should cost $5,000 dollars—$5,000 dollars for a bullet... you know why? Cause if a bullet cost $5,000 dollars, there'd be no more innocent bystanders.

Everytime somebody gets shot you go like: "Damn, he musta done something, shit they put $50,000 dollars worth of bullets in his ass!"

People would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost $5,000 dollars: "Man I'd blow your f*cking head off, if I could afford it! Gonna get me another job, I'm gonna start saving some money, and you a dead man! You better hope I can't get no bullets on lay-away!"

Sponge

05-06-2004, 02:20 AM

Another agreement with DentArthurDent here :aok:

Terrorists and other criminals will do what they do irrespective of the current law on anything. Placing further restrictions on the freedoms of law-abiding gun owners will not stem the tide of terror in the slightest.

It's people attitudes/personalities that are the problem here, not any weaponry or other equipment they may have.

Darth Buddha

05-09-2004, 09:54 PM

Fallacy #1: Oh, they'd still get them....

Is that the experience in countries that have banned guns outright? No. Gun violence declined radically. There is still some, but nothing compared to ours. So they'll get them anyway? Boy, those spoon fed by the NRA do have some strange ideas, don't they?

The REAL problems: House Invasions, for starters. We will see a rise in NON gun related crime. No brainer, when you get right down to it.

The biggest difference is in the rising numbers of "hot" robberies, i.e. house invasions. Primarily because the robbers know they won't be looking at a firearm when they break in.

Fallacy #2: Banning guns completely is the only answer...

How do we know that is the answer if we haven't tried less harsh restrictions. And probably not on gun owners but on gun sellers and manufacturers for starters. Sell a gun illegally is the problem... so register the gun only to the dealer and if it is tied to him, (and if you know any gun dealers, you know it happens ... I am personally aware of MANY such sales, though none to me). Suddenly DEALERS will be demanding PRIVATE ID checks.

Open the Gun manufacturers up to product liability, for producing fingerprint resistant grips, for failing to put safety devices on the weapons that are even equal to those available 80 years ago.. and suddenly you'll see safer guns, too, and no more "resistant" grips. After all, such a weapon is designed for crime. The NRA should be all over that... if they are consistant, that is.

Fallacy #3: Banning 50-cal weapons will make us safer..

What is the evidence of a 50-cal weapon EVER being used as these folks are claiming? EVER. Is a terrorist going to waste time buying a several thousand dollar, rare, large, difficunt to conceal, difficult to obtain weapon that will doubtless leave more of a paper trail than a more conventional weapon? These anti-gun folks do have rich imaginations, don't you think?

DentArthurDent

05-09-2004, 11:19 PM

I get your point Buddha. I think we've come to the point in the conversation when we realize that the answer is VERY difficult. The thing that I see with various arguments that include 'well, [this country] did this' is that we ain't them. I mean the US is frelling big in size AND numbers plus the tradition of ownership is ingrained in us. The other thing is that man do politicians and pundit make the numbers fit their arguments... Here is an article about the swiss [way old but still relevant]: http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/swiss.html that shows how both sides play the numbers. But even if it works well in switzerland, it is a SMALL country, and scrupulously neutral. Something we are not. The anwer is going to be predicated on a lot of things, that we ouselves, as Americans, figure out. The first and foremost is RESPONSIBILITY. Crime is the problem, NOT GUNS but why is it such a problem? Long ago we decided "I am NOT my brother's keeper" Very few people know or care who their neighbors are, and ignore anyone they DON't KNOW. This makes any criminal feel their odds of being caught are low.

Ah frell this is a HUGE issue, that really needs a like 12 hour conversation to even get down to brass tacks on... but suffice it to say that everyone battles back and forth about guns when it is the responsibility to own one or not own one that is the issue. Just like it's the responsibility to take care of the earth, to vote, to pay taxes, etc... I suppose that leads me to my favorite Mark Twain saying: "Always do right -- this will gratify some and astonish the rest." and yet it's to bad most are astonished...

AFD

Sponge

05-10-2004, 12:50 AM

Interesting, Darth Buddha...

Your comments in fallacy #1 goes a bit pear-shaped when it comes to me, at least - though not in a really important way. I live in Australia - the NRA don't live here :D .

As for the other two, that's not bad at all. I don't really think that civilians should have access to full-auto weaponry myself. But that's the one major restriction I'd make.

It came up a few years ago over here in Oz that there's a UN treaty, sponsored by Japan, that a whole bunch of nations signed up to. This commits the signatories to disarming their civilian populations. Don't know what the cut-off date is, or which nations signed on (apart from us). If one of the major parties in the next federal election here in Oz stated that they'd repeal that piece of stupidity, that would be a good start - followed by an in-depth review of the rest of the gun legislation we've got.

Eve11

05-10-2004, 07:35 AM

Gun violence declined radically.

Then sword violence increased dramatically, and they're thinking about some sword control legislation to combat that.

Seriously, if people want to kill each other they will do it, via guns or box cutters or knives or bludgeons. Terrorists will get weapons one way or the other.

I have not shot a .50 cal (I always chicken out because they are very loud and I think they probably have a bit of recoil on them). But I have shot a lot of other kinds. This past April at Geeks With Guns I shot a Mac 10 (a little fully automatic 9mm with a retractable stock) and a ... forget the name... M-40 maybe? A large tri-stand mounted, belt-fed machine gun from WWII. That was pretty cool. There was also an AK-47 but the line was long and it kept overheating, as well as an M-1(?) -- whichever one is the fully automatic version of an AR-15. They also had some incendiary rounds for the semi-auto .50-cals. It was pretty cool to see.

There were a lot of students from my school there who came out and had a good time. Not to mention, as the rat-tat-tat-tat-tat noises from the fully auto guns echoed through the rest of the range, we got a lot of local guys stopping by with their kids and such, looking at the collectors pieces, talking to the owners, occasionally getting in line and paying the $10 or $20 to fire off a magazine. They were not wackos or paranoid conspiracy freaks or rednecks, just everyday people.

grinner

05-10-2004, 07:53 AM

I have not shot a .50 cal (I always chicken out because they are very loud and I think they probably have a bit of recoil on them). But I have shot a lot of other kinds. This past April at Geeks With Guns I shot a Mac 10 (a little fully automatic 9mm with a retractable stock) and a ... forget the name... M-40 maybe? A large tri-stand mounted, belt-fed machine gun from WWII. That was pretty cool. There was also an AK-47 but the line was long and it kept overheating, as well as an M-1(?) -- whichever one is the fully automatic version of an AR-15. They also had some incendiary rounds for the semi-auto .50-cals. It was pretty cool to see.

The .50, depending on how it vents, either has one heck of a kick or not much of one at all. I have shot both types... and the ones that kick... can hurt if you get your arm in the wrong place.

Is this... MP40 what you shot?
http://www.civil-defence.org/products/ballistics/photos/firearms/mp40.jpg
if yes... I am jealous. I have shot Mac10's, Uzi's, Tec-9 and other guns... but never a MP40

Darth Buddha

05-10-2004, 08:14 AM

Then sword violence increased dramatically, and they're thinking about some sword control legislation to combat that.

Seriously, if people want to kill each other they will do it, via guns or box cutters or knives or bludgeons. Terrorists will get weapons one way or the other.Sorry, doesn't work that way. A sword (or a bayonette) is far more difficult to use than a gun.

A gun is a cowards weapon compared to more direct weapons. You kill at a distance. You don't have to get up close and personal. The most logical replacement for gun would probably be a bow or crossbow... I don't think they've seen an increase there.

The bottom line is that guns make killing EASIER. I'm sure a Bayesian like yourself could probably argue what that means to rates of killing far better than I can.

There were a lot of students from my school there who came out and had a good time. Not to mention, as the rat-tat-tat-tat-tat noises from the fully auto guns echoed through the rest of the range, we got a lot of local guys stopping by with their kids and such, looking at the collectors pieces, talking to the owners, occasionally getting in line and paying the $10 or $20 to fire off a magazine. They were not wackos or paranoid conspiracy freaks or rednecks, just everyday people.Eve11, that isn't relevant to gun crime. Moreover, the survivalist Turner Diaries types don't do much damage relative to the number of they. They do knock over banks now and again, or kill radio show hosts.

"Gun Nuts" aren't the major source of our problem. Our problem is teenage kids (inner city primarily, but more in the suburbs and even rural areas now) and petty criminals. That's the bulk of gun violence -- perpetrated with cheap handguns most of the time.

So your firing of guns you don't even own isn't really on point.

My point is this. Gun violence is a tough issue. More laws on users isn't going to help much.

Didn't help with automobiles, did it? Once we took a public health approach to cars in terms of mandated safety features and restricting sales things improved. That's called a public health approach. It is sorely needed in the area of hand guns... and probably no where else. I'll dig up some articles on this subject... but the leading proposals in this area end up affecting legitimate gun owners NOT AT ALL. No extra registrations, lists, or whatever.

That's NEVER going to happen so long as folks are willing to mouth lies told by the NRA or by Handgun Control. Lies that are on their face unsupportable or asinine. THINK FOLKS!

NebariNookiee

05-10-2004, 08:51 AM

Just remember one thing -- Gun Control works - Just ask Hitler.

BaseLine

05-10-2004, 08:58 AM

Just remember one thing -- Gun Control works - Just ask Hitler.

Firstly: The Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box.
Secondly: The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist.

Darth Buddha

05-10-2004, 09:01 AM

Moreover, a public health approach like the one used for cars doesn't actually take away any guns.

I wish I had a copy of the fellow from Harvard whom I saw speak on this. I was SO ready to reject him as an anti-gun nut... but he had some damned good points. Blew my freaking mind.

Actually, I think I will try to get an e-mail address on him. Maybe I can get the slides and permission to post some of his arguments.

NebariNookiee

05-10-2004, 09:17 AM

Firstly: The Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box.
Secondly: The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist.

And not having an armed civilian population unable to defend and protect itself from the tyrannical dictatorship of the Nazi party didn’t help matter either. Why do you think no one has or ever will outright invade the United States? Because of the fact that our civilian population is so well armed. Think about this – Imagine if China wanted to invade us – man to man they outnumber more than 3 to 1 – however our populous alone outguns their military more than 50 to 1. It would be suicide to invade us on our own soil.

To strip a civilian of his right to bare arms – they cease to be civilians and become subjects. And I understand that this isn’t about an outright ban on weapons – but how much more do we have to endure before that day comes? When will that day come when we are forced to become subjected to tyrannical forces that wish to strip us of our fundamental right to protect ourselves?

BaseLine

05-10-2004, 09:34 AM

And not having an armed civilian population unable to defend and protect itself from the tyrannical dictatorship of the Nazi party didn’t help matter either. Why do you think no one has or ever will outright invade the United States? Because of the fact that our civilian population is so well armed. Think about this – Imagine if China wanted to invade us – man to man they outnumber more than 3 to 1 – however our populous alone outguns their military more than 50 to 1. It would be suicide to invade us on our own soil.

I don't think the reason that your country has never been invaded is about gun ownership. It's more about having nuclear weapons at your disposal. Remember the cold war? And having a gun at your disposal doesn't necessarily mean that you can defend yourself. You'll have to learn to use it properly. Just look at the number of civilians threats your army can eliminate in a conflict zone.

To strip a civilian of his right to bare arms – they cease to be civilians and become subjects.

I'm proud to be a subject then.

And I understand that this isn’t about an outright ban on weapons – but how much more do we have to endure before that day comes? When will that day come when we are forced to become subjected to tyrannical forces that wish to strip us of our fundamental right to protect ourselves?

Who are those tyrannical forces. Where are they?

Darth Buddha

05-10-2004, 09:39 AM

I agree with you to a point, NN. I think the right to keep and bear arms was put there to keep OUR government honest. Just as arms made it possible for the Colonies to throw out the Redcoats, the founding fathers wanted us to be able to rebel if necessary.

As an aside, I do wonder how they'd have felt about the Civil War, though. However, as we have another crusader in office who wants to fight "evil" and bring "freedom" to other countries, it woudl seemt he mentality of the Civil War has won through.

However, I don't think that our weapons nowadays would repel anyone. Consider a foreign invader: another lesser power, if they defeated our military (or if our military were deployed elsewhere so as to be unable to defend the Republic) would vanquish our local gun nuts rather more easily than our forces are doing overseas. We have fewer weapons, and an occupier that isn't trying to win the hearts and minds would have far less concern about civillian casualties than U.S. troops usually do.

Moreover, if the U.S. military were used to, say, declare martial law, what chance do we stand against helicopter gunships and tanks? Are U.S. citizens willing to die en masse to rebel as other cultures are?

Mind you, I am overall more against gun control than for it... but I can't see that the citizen's weaponry is a serious factor to any attempt to govern us martially.

Twich

05-10-2004, 09:46 AM

NN...Mr. Twich says "AMEN!"

:D

NebariNookiee

05-10-2004, 09:54 AM

So Mr. Twich whole heartedly gives up all rights abilities to defend one's self-- and also hands over all personal freedoms to those who rather you fall in line and do what your told regardless of right or wrong.

I see.

Darth Buddha

05-10-2004, 10:00 AM

You are running away with that, NN. That's just inflammatory, polarizing, and of course, of dubious logical merits. Good if you just want to draw battle lines rather than solve things, though.

Moreover, I think Twich is agreeing with YOU.

But let's say that we open up "finger print resistant" grips to regulation as being equivalent to a thieves tool kit. Let's say we open up Gun Manufacturers who don't use the best gun safeties available. Let's say we land on illegal gun sales and scrutinize the hell out of Gun Dealers and track only large bulk gun purchases (say more than ten... as bulk purchases are often middle men who then sell in, say, NYC).

Does this impact the private gun owner? Nope. Does it make it harder for a private gun owner to get guns? Nope. Won't make the illegal gun sales or middle men go away completely. But it WILL make life a little more difficult for them... and make those who make such sales subject to even more penalties.

Twich

05-10-2004, 10:12 AM

What the hell....? I WAS agreeing with you and so was hubby.

Damn...I'm SO leaving this forum cause somehow, somewhere I always get completely misunderstood or taken out of context.

Enjoy your meanderings folks. I still love you all, but I can't be with you in this forum. I'll see you in Scapeyland. :bigwave:

NebariNookiee

05-10-2004, 10:34 AM

My remark was aimed at the “Subject over citizen” point. (Twich! Nothin' but love for you! I've been putting my foot in my mouth a lot lately)

And again I don’t mean to piss anyone off or attack anyone. (I seem to be apologizing a lot lately)

The point I’m trying to make is criminals are going to get hold of these guns no matter what actions you take to stem them – why? Cause that’s what criminals do – to enact measures that do nothing but make it more difficult to obtain guns do nothing to improve safety nor keep guns out of criminal hands. Security devices only go so far – and can easily be cracked (I’ve seen this first hand – these security locks are a joke and these fingerprint verification devices really are nothing more than false hope) The Black Market will always be there – there will always be folks who attempt and succeed in skirting the law. That’s just a cold hard fact. When you take away folks abilities to defend themselves, their family and their property the only people who win are the criminals – Look at Britain – their crime rate is out of control. How easy is it for a civilian to obtain a gun? Criminals are going to get guns – period.

I see the problem here in America is different. Our problem is there are too many stupid people out there who 1) don’t respect the weapons they own, 2) have never received proper training to handle and keep said weapons and 3) believe that the best way to protect their kids from the weapons is to hide them. Our problem isn’t the criminals – it’s the morons who are a danger to themselves and others.

I don’t feel safe being unarmed, 20 locks on my door, and 911 on speed-dial. I don’t trust the police enough to protect my family my property or me. I don’t trust the Government and military enough to protect my person or my freedoms.

What I do trust is my finger resting on that trigger with my family’s would-be killer staring down the barrel of my gun.

And like I said before – banning assault weapons only stop honest law abiding citizens from obtaining them. Criminals will get them no matter what safeguards you put into place. So what was the point in the first place? To help monitor their sale? Any CEO at any company will tell you how effective that is.

mfa96

05-10-2004, 10:41 AM

I am just curious- if banning machine guns or assualt rifles helps save even one innocent life, isn't it worth it?

NebariNookiee

05-10-2004, 10:44 AM

Banning does nothing but make it harder for law-abiding citizens to get the guns. The criminals will get them regardless.

If you really want to save a life – look at the activities of the criminals – not the weapons they use. In other words – what are they doing to require the guns in the first place?

grinner

05-10-2004, 12:13 PM

I am just curious- if banning machine guns or assualt rifles helps save even one innocent life, isn't it worth it?
nope

Vampgrrl

05-10-2004, 12:51 PM

Liberty and freedom always trumpt security...

I hate to bring out old cliches but they are true. I plan on buying and learning to shoot my first firearm in a few months .

stellar

05-10-2004, 12:52 PM

I agree. The mantra of preserving life is irrevelant to fundamental rights of citizenry. Murder is illegal. If you commit murder, you've broken the law and it matters not whether you used a machine gun or a brick... it's just as easy to kill with a brick - you just have to be closer.

grinner

05-10-2004, 12:52 PM

what are you going to get? Handgun or long-gun?

stellar

05-10-2004, 12:53 PM

Or a long handgun?

grinner

05-10-2004, 12:54 PM

a long-gun is a rifle... sheesh...

trinamick

05-10-2004, 12:56 PM

You can kill someone with your hands, but they let you keep those...

generic_screenname

05-10-2004, 01:00 PM

I'm still working on trying to kill people with my mind...hrmph!!! Nope. Nothing yet...

ayando

05-10-2004, 01:02 PM

If I remember rightly a .50 was actually used by a merc sniper in the employ of the ira back in the late eighties early nineties. Think he was some form of ex marine or seal.

ayando

05-10-2004, 01:05 PM

Anyway what we all really want to know is when they're going to start selling death stars on the open market.

DentArthurDent

05-10-2004, 01:11 PM

I'm still working on trying to kill people with my mind...hrmph!!! Nope. Nothing yet...

woah there G_S you could sprain something doing that... I just want to influence people to give me their money, but yeah it's kinda hard, they always seem to want something in return... :D

BlackThorn

05-10-2004, 01:18 PM

How about banning all kitchen utensils, tools, bottles, plastic bags, glass of any kind, rocks, rope, strings, belts, cleaning products, water, cars, electricity, sticks, branches (might as well ban trees too), dirt, dental floss, pillows, pens and pencils, books, doors, windows, etc . . . There are a couple million more. The point is almost anything can be used as a weapon to inflict pain and/or death upon another human being. Actually, just looking around my room, I'm having a hard time seeing anything I couldn't use to harm or kill someone if I put my mind to it.

How about, instead of creating more laws that only serve to take responsibilities away from the populace, we work to create a more responsible populace? Wait, that would be too much work.

mfa96

05-10-2004, 01:23 PM

NebariNookiee

05-10-2004, 01:30 PM

It amazes me how many people put their righteousness above someone’s right to protect themselves.

A gun is a tool -- it is also a deterrent of crime. Simply pointing a gun at someone intent on doing something bad can and will make them think twice.

And how about all of the lives saved by guns? You never seem to hear about those do you – know why? Cause then somebody’s holy crusade crumbles. Just remember – for every crime committed with a gun at least 10 crimes were prevented due to a law-abiding gun owner using his Constitutional right to protect himself with his guns.

Don’t believe me? – Look it up.

grinner

05-10-2004, 01:42 PM

It still amazes me that people put their desire to own a gun over someone's life- even in the hypothetical.

Kitchen utensils, bottles, rocks, etc have a purpose other than killing people. Guns are created for one purpose- killing.

Should we be a more responsible people? Of course- and maybe, just maybe, until we are, we should put our toys away until we know how to properly use them.
Ephedra was designed as a weight loss medicine... but killed 150 people in 5 years but was a very successful weightloss medicine that was Banned. Cigarettes have killed millions of people in the last 5 years... but aren't banned. How many people last year were killed in the US by Assault weapons?

Here are some interesting figures for the year 2002 in the United States:

US Highway Deaths: 42,815
US Flu Deaths: 36,000
US Gun Deaths (homicide, suicide, accidental): 28,163.
US Cigarette Deaths(includes all deaths attributed to diseases from cigarette uses): 500,000+

When are cars going to be banned? They killed 150% more than guns... or cigarettes? Or even better... what about the Flu... those pesky viruses...

trinamick

05-10-2004, 01:43 PM

I'm still working on trying to kill people with my mind...hrmph!!! Nope. Nothing yet...

Uhh..the lady I work with just fell over and isn't breathing...I think you're more powerful than you realize...

generic_screenname

05-10-2004, 01:58 PM

Oops.

I don't have a problem with the flu being banned. And definitely diarrhea. There's just no reason for that, ever.

NebariNookiee

05-10-2004, 02:05 PM

I've found that diarrhea is good for those who give a sh!t. :D

Sorry -- I'll go home now.

mfa96

05-10-2004, 02:20 PM

Ephedra was designed as a weight loss medicine... but killed 150 people in 5 years but was a very successful weightloss medicine that was Banned.

Thank you for making my point- it kills people, it's banned- and ephedra killed far less people than guns.

Cigarettes have killed millions of people in the last 5 years... but aren't banned. How many people last year were killed in the US by Assault weapons?

Here are some interesting figures for the year 2002 in the United States:

US Highway Deaths: 42,815
US Flu Deaths: 36,000
US Gun Deaths (homicide, suicide, accidental): 28,163.
US Cigarette Deaths(includes all deaths attributed to diseases from cigarette uses): 500,000+

When are cars going to be banned? They killed 150% more than guns... or cigarettes? Or even better... what about the Flu... those pesky viruses...

Again- the purpose of a car is not to kill.

We are trying to ban the flu- every vaccine we create is an attempt to erradicate a germ. We've done well in this country with smallpox, measles and mumps. We've banned them pretty well.

Cigarettes and guns share one thing as to why they aren't banned- money.

Personally I am not for the elimination of all guns. I fall somewhere in the middle, but lean left. I understand responsible citizens wanting to defend themselves- but think assault rifles are unecessary. I do think we need a longer waiting period to buy a weapon, and all weapons need to be registered, and that the gun show loopholes need to be closed. I think the resposible citizens should give it a rest if they are inconvenienced, so we can make sure that irresponsible citizens don't get guns. Innocent's lives are worth more than anyone's right to own a gun.

And NN, diarrhea is good for some people who want to give til it hurts....

NebariNookiee

05-10-2004, 02:31 PM

You know – I’ll go so far as to say that I wish guns didn’t exist period. I’d much prefer swordplay to a gun fight any day. But the idea of a homeowner owning a gun is to protect his property - A father/mother owns a gun to protect their children and family - even police use guns to "protect" us from the “bad guys” – and in every case – the owner of said guns prey they never have to use them. However -- sometimes it's inevitable.

Is one innocent life worth it? What if that life could have been saved by a gun? Or a sword? A sword’s sole purpose is to maim and kill. So are arrows. So are spears. So are clubs. If you’re going to get rid of one – get rid of it all.

grinner

05-10-2004, 02:54 PM

I was actually arguing AGAINST the ban on Ephedra... but... whatever.

Martincore

05-10-2004, 03:39 PM

I don't think I'll ever understand the American gun-mentality.
I live in a country, where guns are illegal. You can buy hunting-rifles, of course, but no handguns or stuff like that (I don't know the rules very well, I've never been that interested), I'm sure I could get one if asked around, but I have no reason to. I've never even seen a real gun, and I don't really care to.
We have stick-ups here as well, usually some guy stole a rifle from a hunter or something, even though there are quite strickt laws about how to keep your weapons locked up, some parts of it in one safe, and some in another, but if people wants to get to the weapon, they always will, so there will always be some guns on the marked. But even so, burglars and petty criminals, don't normally have guns. This is both good and bad: As for the burglars, if they come into a house and find somebody home, they normally run. Not because they are afraid that the guy in the house has a gun, but because that's a human reaction when you get spottet somwhere you're not supposed to be. But if somebody tells you to give him your money in the middle of the street, and his only weapon is his fist, or maybe a knife, people sometimes think "I can take this guy!", and puts up a fight... I was personally raised to just give the guy my money, and memorize what he looked like, my ensurance will pay for whatever was lost anyway (and mind you, I pay good money for my ensuranse, so it'd better! ;) ).
We don't have a lot of killings around here, and when there is one, it's normally done with a knife or a rifle (or sometimes anti-tank missiles, but that's only if Hell's Angels are involved). The thing is: if you want to kill somebody in Denmark, you will have to get your hands dirty, and people in general don't want that. Simple as that.
Okay, back to the topic: I don't have a gun, I don't need a gun, and I don't want a gun. I've never been afraid to walk alone on the streets, I've never been afraid when I was home alone, and I've never been afraid when a car passed me slowly, because I know the chances of meeting a person with a weapon are slim to none, especially as long as I don't piss anybody off.
There was a lot more I wanted to say on this topic, but half of it I've forgotten, and the other half I'm leaving out because I don't want to get too political. Bottom line: Guns are bad, People are generally nice, but seriously, I wouldn't even trust a nice guy with a gun.

grinner

05-10-2004, 03:45 PM

Martincore

05-10-2004, 03:57 PM

well... I'm not too keen on toasters....

trinamick

05-10-2004, 03:58 PM

I had a toaster go bad on me once. I haven't been the same since.

Martincore

05-10-2004, 04:00 PM

I bet you haven't! burnt hand and all... was it your gun-hand it attacked?

trinamick

05-10-2004, 04:03 PM

No, gun hand is still ok, but it was a close call. I think it was stalking me.

Martincore

05-10-2004, 04:06 PM

the toaster from hell, no doubt! I hate it when demons posses kitchen appliance... it sucks!

B Sharp

05-10-2004, 04:40 PM

so you are anthropomorphizing an inanimate object when you ascribe that guns are bad...

are there any other tools that you can or want to give human characteristics to? Cause if guns are bad... and can make you scared of a 'good' person... is there any other tools we need to be worried of?

yes, a gun is inanimate, but many inanimate objects are anthormorphized in our conversations. As I'm sure you know, many languages (including English) even assign a gender to objects.

In many human societies, guns are not considered a useful 'tool' because they are weapons. A weapon is defined by Websters as 'an instrument of combat; something to fight with; anything used, or designed to be used, in destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy, as a gun, a sword, etc.'.

There are societies where guns are still considered useful tools (e.g. as a party noisemaker during celebrations), and then there's the society where you and I live grinner, where felons can buy weapons for use as their tools, and you can still use them to hunt and have fun making large holes in things.

I personally don't find guns a practical or useful tool.

Mike0812

05-10-2004, 04:55 PM

Personally, I'd prefer a sword. It takes a lot more skill to properly use a sword than a gun. A brick would seem too messy. Then again, I heard of someone who supposedly almost beat a man to death with a Coke can, or was it Pepsi? Course, if you're facing some kind of Samurai master, then yeah, I think I'd take the gun :D . After all, except for the movies, what matters is who's able to walk away in the end.

Mike

generic_screenname

05-10-2004, 05:00 PM

There are societies where guns are still considered useful tools (e.g. as a party noisemaker during celebrations) And they never seem to figure out that if they shoot bullets straight up into the air, THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK DOWN ON THEM!!

Third EYe

05-10-2004, 05:01 PM

B Sharp

05-10-2004, 05:42 PM

If it kills ban it?

Get rid of cars, belts, rope, knives, idiots, people who (banned topic), lions, tigers, sharks, razor blades, alcohol, heroine (oh yeah) and almost everything you see and use daily.

Ban bricks, cause if one hits you in the head, holy crap, your dead!

Cars are restricted use only- we license users, require significant education for use, and patrol where they are used.

Lions, tigers, sharks- we're doing our best to eradicate them, except for those we have behind bars of some sort.

For razor blades, most of us use the ones that are shielded in some way- the use of straight razors has fallen off dramatically since the introduction of the 'safety' razor.

alcohol and drugs have uses that are restricted (by prescription, age limits).

The same is true for bricks....if used as a weapon, yep, they're banned. if you want to make something with them, then it's best to use the building code. in some places, you gotta be a union member with proper training. I'll bet the training includes something about how not to drop them on other people's heads if you're working above them. The building code was written to ensure that those pesky bricks don't actually fall off the building and come down on someone's head.

"Idiots" can be people who are "unlearned, ignorant, as distinguished from the educated", in which case we require that all get an education. An "idiot" can also be "a human being destitute of the ordinary intellectual powers, whether congenital, developmental, or accidental; an innocent", in which case I find it better to see if I can help them in some way, like being really patient when they make silly statements.

So- all of the objects you named (and many others) are regulated in some fashion, and are manufactured in such a way as to minimize the harm they do to others. We even hold the manufacturers to standards in this area, and if the product causes harm, we have laws to allow the users to sue the manufacturers for damage they might do. We have testing agencies that perform certification tests to ensure that devices meet some specific characteristics that reduce the risk of injury. Even the little packet of moisture reducing chemicals in appliances...you know, the packet in there that says "do not eat".

Since guns by nature are weapons, what could be more natural than to require AT LEAST the same amount of restrictions we place for the use of simple, ordinary objects and devices?

And since they are by their very nature intended for combat, or causing injury, is it unreasonable to suggest that we should limit the way they are manufactured, used, licensed, etc. in a sligthly more significant way than other devices?

Martincore

05-10-2004, 05:52 PM

B Sharp: I love your reasoning, it's just beautiful! :)

B Sharp

05-10-2004, 06:00 PM

Martincore- thanks, nice to hear that my reasoning equipment is still working ok....wasn't sure, since most of my posts either kill the thread, or cause an argument...

DRD2001

05-10-2004, 06:09 PM

Anyway what we all really want to know is when they're going to start selling death stars on the open market.Yes! That is what I want. No more antique rifle and handgun for me. But here is the real question, are Death Stars self cleaning?

Welcome to the board! :hi:

Mike0812

05-10-2004, 06:28 PM

BlackThorn

05-10-2004, 06:47 PM

Cars are restricted use only- we license users, require significant education for use, and patrol where they are used.

I find it interesting that, despite all this, the amount of people who die per year by vehicular deaths is still far more than the amount who die by guns.

Martincore

05-10-2004, 07:25 PM

I think it's all about having a different perspective. Denmark is NOT America and vice-versa, obviously. Different history, different experiences, different geographical location, different genesis, some differing values BUT both at their core, liberal democracies. [...]

I basically agree with you, and I would comment, but I'm afraid it would become too political...

Blackthorn said:
I find it interesting that, despite all this, the amount of people who die per year by vehicular deaths is still far more than the amount who die by guns.

I don't know the numbers, but I suppose (read: hope) there are still more cars in America, than there are guns... anyway, apart from killing people in the streets, the cars are also killing our planet, so banning cars doesn't seem like a bad idea to me... (wow! look at me, going all Greenpeace! ;))

stellar

05-10-2004, 07:42 PM

I think there are about 150 million cars in the U.S. and about 250 million guns.

The right to keep and bear arms is garaunteed. Not only is it a provision for self defense and national defense, but it also is an insurance policy against a president seizing power or against a coup detat or other military circumvention of the constitution. That right is as important as the freedom of speech and the seperation of church and state and every other benefit and resposnsibility of citizenship; and to infringe upon any of those rights or provisions to the slightest degree is IMHO damaging to the nation.

Martincore

05-10-2004, 07:46 PM

I rest my case.

grinner

05-10-2004, 08:15 PM

I think it's all about having a different perspective. Denmark is NOT America and vice-versa, obviously. Different history, different experiences, different geographical location, different genesis, some differing values BUT both at their core, liberal democracies.
No the United States is NOT a liberal democracy... the United States IS a Constitutional Republic. We got into this argument before in this forum... but the plain fact of the matter is, is that the US is a Republic. Now, what do you mean when you state that the US is a liberal democracy? What does your terminology mean? Do you mean liberal as in the opposite of conservative? A democracy vs. a republic? Or something else entirely. I don't grok what you are saying.

Mike0812

05-10-2004, 08:25 PM

What does your terminology mean? Do you mean liberal as in the opposite of conservative? A democracy vs. a republic? Or something else entirely. I don't grok what you are saying.

What I meant was the core values i.e. free speech, respect for individual human rights, free press, free elections etc. Your basic values that I think we all hold dear. I remember reading that thread. I didn't mean anything with respect to conservative or liberal, at all. It was in a general sense, say between a dictatorship or a true liberal democracy, not just in name only, like some claim to be. I hope that's more clear.

Mike

Eve11

05-11-2004, 04:54 AM

Grinner, I think it was an M-240. Much bigger than what was in the picture. Had it not been on the tri-stand, I wouldn't have been able to hold it up.

In reference to I think DB who said my argument wasn't on topic for this thread:

I understand responsible citizens wanting to defend themselves- but think assault rifles are unecessary.

The reason I introduced the GWG experience was solely as a counter to the "guns are bad and unnecessary" argument. When you talk about crazy people, or wingnuts who want to get deadly assault rifles for no other reason than that they are sick people, I just want you guys to know who you're really talking about. You're talking about my boyfriend (who owns a pretty extensive collection), you're talking about my college friends, the people I meet at the diner... you're talking about everyday people. And maybe there is a higher concentration of those people in Western PA than in cities, but just because someone is more rural or grew up differently or isn't noticeable in big cities doesn't mean that they don't exist and that the laws that are made to combat wanton criminal behavior don't affect them.

If you want to combat murder and gun violence in the city, why don't you start with combating the REASON that human life is so damn cheap? When someone can make thousands of dollars in dealing illegal drugs it gives them a really good incentive to murder. Guns make it easier, I won't argue that, but could you not get the same kind of reduction in crime not by banning guns, but by giving people a lot less monetary incentive to use them against each other?

stellar

05-11-2004, 05:11 AM

*cough* Democratic-Republic *cough*.

Eve11

05-11-2004, 05:49 AM

One more thing and then I'll release the floor:

As for assault weapons being unneccessary and having no purpose, what I'm trying to say is that they do have a purpose: recreation, for those who know how to use them and have fun shooting them at ranges. Even if you don't agree with the idea of protection, or of insurance against the government, you still have that fact. And the bottom line is, assault rifles are around because people want them.

And I think the most pertinent analogy I can come up with to the idea of banning them because they serve no purpose and all they are is dangerous is that assault rifles are just like sleek red sports cars. Why do we need sleek red sports cars? The speed limit in this country is 65 mph; you can do that in a beige Volvo. For red sports cars the insurance is higher, and people behind the wheel can potentially be a danger to themselves and to others. There is absolutely no reason to make them. Except people like them. People want them. And it's not illegal to own them, so people have them.

Darth Buddha

05-11-2004, 06:47 AM

Here are some interesting figures for the year 2002 in the United States:

US Highway Deaths: 42,815
US Flu Deaths: 36,000
US Gun Deaths (homicide, suicide, accidental): 28,163.
US Cigarette Deaths(includes all deaths attributed to diseases from cigarette uses): 500,000+

When are cars going to be banned? They killed 150% more than guns... or cigarettes? Or even better... what about the Flu... those pesky viruses...grinner, you are on a roll. You've hit on MAJOR big issues from a couple of angles.

REPORTING OF DEATHS:

Did you know that the government has interfered with and stopped any effort to amass total handgun deaths? Die in an auto accident, and it gets tallied. Die in a firearms accident and there is NO national register! Best analyses suggest that they are under reported.

Flu deaths aren't mandatorily reported either. The "upsurge" in recent years of flu deaths may just be better reporting!

Cigarrettes as cause of death aren't reported that way, so they aren't very crisp either. In most cases, they are overestimated.

So the numbers for gun deaths aren't nearly as concrete as the Highway Deaths.

HOW WERE AUTO DEATHS DRIVEN DOWN:

In the 50's and 60's an enforcement approach to bad driving and an education approach were tried with auto deaths. This failed, miserably.

Eventually we switched to a public health approach. We required cars to be safer... and forced the industry to implement and develop things they would not have done so on their own. Remember how hard they resisted the seat belt?

You make the cars safer, you make the roads safer with impact absorbing structures at key places, etc. Lo and behold. Auto deaths went down.

Moreover, selling an automobile is rarely done via cash... so the credit checks etc. amount to one hell of a background check. Auto insurance kicks that up another notch.

Aside fromt he insurancce bit (which would provide the government a data base), we can go with a public health mandate to make guns safer, to make gun safes safer (you know, like the one that mounts under a bed where you have to put your fingers in the grooves and depress your fingers to do the combination... almost as fast as the nightstand drawer?), etc., will reduce gun deaths.

It may not be the end all be all. But as a first step, it is the least intrustive on gun owners.

The bottom line is that folks need to realize that the gun manufacturer's and seller's interests are NOT always the gun owner's interests. The NRA is largely a lobbying group for the gun industry.... and not for gun owners. It is time to subject the former two groups to some scrutiny.

Eve11

05-11-2004, 07:26 AM

The thing is, the vast majority of gun deaths are not due to safety accidents or the like; they are drug-related homicides. Making guns "safer" in this case via things like trigger locks or regulations on how guns can be stored etc aren't going to bring those numbers down. Or at the best, they will reduce the small percentage of accidental gun deaths by a little bit, with a hell of a lot of overhead and inconvenience.

ETA: The least intrusive on law-abiding gun owners is to start by considering gun crimes in the context of the illegal drug market and to see what you can do to deter people from using guns to kill other people.

Lord Loser

05-11-2004, 07:52 AM

BTW Eve, that was probably an M-2 you fired. Big, .50 cal, mounted on a tripod, jeep, or tank. The oldest active firearm in the military today IIRC.

grinner

05-11-2004, 07:56 AM

*cough* Democratic-Republic *cough*.
whatever... ask any Poli-Sci Prof what the US is... and they will say... a Constitutional Republic. Get over your democratic bias.

Darth Buddha

05-11-2004, 07:57 AM

First, Eve11, I don't know if you are familiar with the reporting issues I mentioned above, but there ARE no hard statistics on accidental deaths. Ergo your statement regarding the number of such deaths is speculation based on speculation. Your premise is specious.

Second, many of the safties etc. WERE used before the gun industry was exempted from ALL product liability. This was quite some time ago. If the expense and inconvenience had been so great, they would NEVER have existed. Their absensce is the result of governmental interference in market and product safety concerns. If you want to buy the NRA line regarding safeties, be my guest. But your premise here is shakier than the "accidental death" numbers you quote above.

Third, the type of drug violence you are referring to is usually sustained by gun sales in lax jurisdictions feeding guns into more stringent jurisdictions. Cracking down on gun sellers and more stringent regulations for gun dealers in general would reduce the availability of such arms.

If that were not the case, then WHY would so many arms used in urban areas come from large volume dealers in the least restrictive jurisdictions in the first place? This occurs for one reason: it is easier than dealing with the local jurisdiction. Sure, guns can be stolen, but that is ANOTHER crime, with ANOTHER chance to catch these folks. Another opportunity for finger prints. Another investigation.

More generally to all above arguers: To just state "criminals will get guns no matter what so don't bother with it" is only viable if you believe that "all drug laws should be aboloished because addicts will get drugs no matter what." There ARE ways we can make this more difficult for illegal arms to hit the streets, there ARE ways we can make guns safer, ALL WITHOUT INFRINGING ON THE RIGHTS OF THE LEGAL GUN OWNER.

I find the dogmatic points of view being voiced here to be extremely disappointing. They represent the unthinking, unswerving, and useless subscription to one or another spoon fed positions of the inflexible nuts on either side of this issue.

You may wonder where I get all this information. I did get some via public health lectures on the subject (which is a novel approach to gun violence), but second because my father commanded three different crime labs during his time as a PA State Police Lt. One of which was in Greensburg, Eve11, not far from your current haunts.. I've talked to (and drank with, on occassion) the ballistics folks who tell me how rare an assault weapon in (one in a couple of years), how frequently cheap, dangerous, and essentially disposable guns are involved (most of the time), and where they come from. I've also lived with (for a short time)a fellow who was essentially an illegal arms seller who was shut down from the ATF. His homemade cyanide shotgun shells and home fashioned 40 mm grenade launcher were most... erm... impressive.

If you and others want to bury your heads in the sand and say "there is nothing we can do" because the NRA tells you so, fine. Sooner or later there will be some radical event that will turn the tide sufficiently against gun ownership and it will be gone, never to return, FOREVER. And in large part those who have said there is nothing we can do will be at fault... because they've created one of these infamous two alternative situations that our politicians create these days where only the extremes are considered.

Cut and run or stay the course. Keep all drugs illegal or legalize them all. Support your president or support terrorists. Support racial quotas or be a racist. All of these are bullshit. Too bad so many folks buy into them.

If this is really about the rights of gun owners, there is plenty we can do... if it is just about the gun industry's interests, however.. then I guess there is nothing we can do. Personally, I am sick to death of both sides and their endlessly propaganda. I am sick of their purely panic button argumetns.

I'VE SEEN THE FOLKS WHO POST ON THESE THREADS OPERATE CRITICALLY AND INNOVATIVELY IN OTHER THREADS.

SO THINK ABOUT SOLUTIONS FOR YOURSELVES HERE TOO!

grinner

05-11-2004, 08:01 AM

mfa96

05-11-2004, 08:05 AM

grinner

05-11-2004, 08:10 AM

Do you know how much damage a modern Flintlock will do? Or a Modern Musket? Have you ever seen one fired? You think that .50 rifles should be banned??? when a Modern Musket WILL go thru a solid 24 inch thick brick wall.

Vampgrrl

05-11-2004, 08:16 AM

It's still no different than cars. I own a sports car, it is designed to go WELL over the speed limit and it's MADE for the purpose of taking corners at a high rate of speed, and pretty much designed for breaking every traffic law they have on the books. I do however, enjoy my car greatly...I use it in a responsible fashion.

Plus the right to bear arms is in the US Constitution to give the people, the citizens a means to protect themselves from an opporessive government. And dont say that it won't happen because no government lasts forever, it eventually will happen. And dont say that small arms wont make any difference either, look at Iraq or any conflict where you have rebels surviving against a much larger overall force.

BaseLine

05-11-2004, 08:22 AM

I thought the right to bear arms was for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. It's over 200 years that it's been written, times have changed. Is this right still needed?

grinner

05-11-2004, 08:25 AM

Darth Buddha

05-11-2004, 08:30 AM

How is my opinion that there should be no NEW Anti-Gun laws Dogmatic? Ban this... ban that... I am sorry... but the 2nd Amendment is quite clear about the CONSTITUTIONAL right to Bear Arms. ANY infringement upon that Right is UnConstitutional.Sorry, grinner, that was aimed at the "crimimals will always get guns" line.

I consider those who are PROPOSING new gun bans on weapons that haven't demonstrated themselves to be a probem, or solely on the cosmetic appearance of the firearm TO BE ANTIGUN DOGMATIC!

Problem here is that we don't have a vociferous anti-gun character for me to define my position against....

I agree, 100%, with you opinion on this subject.

fermicat

05-11-2004, 08:31 AM

How is my opinion that there should be no NEW Anti-Gun laws Dogmatic? Ban this... ban that... I am sorry... but the 2nd Amendment is quite clear about the CONSTITUTIONAL right to Bear Arms. ANY infringement upon that Right is UnConstitutional.

I wish there was more concern for some of our other rights that are being infringed..... first by the "War on Drugs" and now by the "War on Terror". Infringement of these other rights is also UNconstitutional and should be stopped. The 4th amendment has been hit particularly hard.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

mfa96

05-11-2004, 08:36 AM

stellar

05-11-2004, 08:38 AM

I thought the right to bear arms was for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. It's over 200 years that it's been written, times have changed. Is this right still needed?

Many people think that the seperation of church and state is antiquated since there is little chance of the U.S. starting a national church (e.g. Church of England). They are wrong and so are the people who bring up the lack of current needs for militias.

It's a freedom... one that can be removed if you as an individual abuse that freedom. To remove that freedom from everyone without cause is subjugation and subjugation is not American... traditionally.

BaseLine

05-11-2004, 08:38 AM

Not really... at anytime... Average US citizens can be called upon to defend the Nation. It hasn't occured in years... but that doesn't mean that the Right isn't needed. So, yes this right is still needed.

But still, if someone would get called upon to serve in the military, then they would get weapons training and a weapon. So why do civilians need guns if they would get them when they get called upon to defend the nation (I understand that it also can be used for recreation, but I just have a problem with the reasoning of the right to defend one self).

grinner

05-11-2004, 08:39 AM

I wish there was more concern for some of our other rights that are being infringed..... first by the "War on Drugs" and now by the "War on Terror". Infringement of these other rights is also UNconstitutional and should be stopped. The 4th amendment has been hit particularly hard.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I agree 100% with your statement.

I am also against the 17th Amendment as being UnConstitutional... I am against a Federal Income Tax that is UnConstitutional... I am against the Federal Reserve Bank(which was created to manage the US economy and to take the US off of the Gold/Silver Standard)... I am against the Welfare State... there are a number of issues that are as bad or worse than the Patriot Act.

grinner

05-11-2004, 08:42 AM

But still, if someone would get called upon to serve in the military, then they would get weapons training and a weapon. So why do civilians need guns if they would get them when they get called upon to defend the nation (I understand that it also can be used for recreation, but I just have a problem with the reasoning of the right to defend one self).
Nope. A Militiaman is an Irregular Soldier. Irregular Soldiers are required to bring their OWN weapon. They don't get training from the government... as that would be Conscription. They are to be used as Reserves for the Regular Army.

stellar

05-11-2004, 08:44 AM

I wish there was more concern for some of our other rights that are being infringed..... first by the "War on Drugs" and now by the "War on Terror". Infringement of these other rights is also UNconstitutional and should be stopped. The 4th amendment has been hit particularly hard.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Nice to see you back in the mix Fermicat!

I agree that the fourth amendment is being beaten like it owes John Ashcroft money.

Still... ALL rights in the preamble are canonical to me. They're sacred and shouldn't be mussed about. I'm the only person I know who's a member of the ACLU and NRA - they are both defenders of liberties.

Eve11

05-11-2004, 08:58 AM

DB, Sorry for the non-scientific approach. You are quite right that I am not going with any hard and strong facts and more so approaching it via a feeling. I am still learning a lot in this area. I learn a lot from these threads. It's a shame I can't devote more time to them because I really do want to participate, and in some cases it means I put forth an argument that is not completely and totally backed up with data. But man, when I start to try and look at the data, every side says something different. You're right; it would be really nice to know the truth. I guess, I'm treating it more like an informal conversation than a structured debate, but it doesn't mean that I don't respect everyone's opinion or I am not willing to admit when I'm wrong.

I'm not actually disagreeing with you or following the straight NRA case -- I don't automatically agree with them. I appreciate your analyses and following through and your thoughts on regulation, as well as your insights from growing up with law enforcement. I guess, what I was specifically disagreeing with is the automobile-safety-public health argument applied to the gun-safety-public health argument. The thing that doesn't ring true for me is the idea that making a gun itself safer will put a big dent in gun deaths, not the same way that adding seatbelts to cars reduced auto accident deaths. Now, regulations on sellers are a different thing. Making it harder to get guns via restrictions might do some good -- but it would have to be a national thing. I mean right now, like you said, you can buy a gun in a low-restrictive state like PA and then carry it over into Trenton NJ (which has extremely restrictive gun laws) or Washington DC and kill someone with it.

This was quite some time ago. If the expense and inconvenience had been so great, they would NEVER have existed.

There is nothing wrong with having safeties available, but forcing people to use them is another issue. Specifically I am really only talking about trigger locks and some possibly spurious half-thought information I had about some kind of legislature that was going to make it mandatory to keep all guns trigger-locked or something. Perhaps you can tell me the harder facts on that one: I admit I was going off half-cocked there.

More generally to all above arguers: To just state "criminals will get guns no matter what so don't bother with it" is only viable if you believe that "all drug laws should be aboloished because addicts will get drugs no matter what."

See now this is another whole can of worms that I do actually think deeply about. Libertarians would say that this statement is true. The fact of the matter is, we've been waging the war on drugs for 30 years now, and I can still go right down the street and get drugs. And the fact that they are illegal make them extremely profitable. So, the libertarians say, learn from prohibition and end the ban, then regulate. Get rid of the need to commit awful crimes for drugs and drug money. You're proposing this argument as though it is completley preposterous, when it's not, and there are 30 years worth of evidence to back up the idea that drug users can still get drugs, quite easily, even though they are illegal. (Would it apply to guns? Don't know. It's hard to use Washington DC as an example -- they do have a lot of murders despite the outlaw-ing of guns -- because there is not a national ban and as I stated earlier it's pretty easy to buy a gun in PA and take it into DC.)

Of course that argument is simplistic. For one, while I wouldn't mind my kids (if and when I have them) trying out alcohol when they get older, I sure as hell wouldn't want them to experiment with heroin. And making it legalized is kind of like saying, "this is okay if regulated and done in moderation" like alcohol and tobacco (Actually I wouldn't want my kids smoking either). And ending prohibition, while it did end the era of liquor-trafficking gangsters with tommy-guns, did not end the problems this country has with alcohol.

Right, so what am I saying here? (looks back over last paragraphs) -- regulation can be a good thing if done correctly but regulation for regulation's sake is not good; you need to be able to study how and if the regulation is effective, and repeal it if it is not working. Making the ownership/use illegal of items that when misused by a small minority of people lead to harm is not a good thing. But as with everything there is always a gray area, and one has to look at each situation in its own context.

Selena

05-11-2004, 09:16 AM

This thread is driving me nuts! Every time I see it my eye does not see the word ban ... it sees Ben :shrug: ... and that is most disconcerting.

generic_screenname

05-11-2004, 09:20 AM

This thread is driving me nuts! Every time I see it my eye does not see the word ban ... it sees Ben ... and that is most disconcerting.

Me too! The first time I saw it I thought it said "Ben sought on .50-caliber rifles." Like he was wanted for illigal possession of firearms.

stellar

05-11-2004, 09:26 AM

What about "Ben on whalehunting"?

"Ben on marrying first cousins??

Selena

05-11-2004, 09:28 AM

I'm sure he would not be in favor of a first cousin marriage - although he is a southern boy and there are some strange customs in the south.:shrug:

And I don't think he'd be into whale humping either.

generic_screenname

05-11-2004, 09:29 AM

What about "Ben on whalehunting"?

"Ben on marrying first cousins??

Those sound like the first two Volumes of a Time Life video series. A new volume arrives every month. Keep only the ones you like; cancel anytime.

Selena

05-11-2004, 09:30 AM

:whisper: Are we in the process of hijacking this thread?:innocent:

fermicat

05-11-2004, 09:31 AM

Old-time southerns who married their cousins didn't marry first cousins. Ever hear of "kissing cousins"? Those are the ones they married. I'm glad THAT particular tradition has been abolished. [It has.... hasn't it?]

Selena

05-11-2004, 09:32 AM

I dunno! But I did kiss my cousin once when I was about 16 :yuck:- ewww - it wasn't very nice at all.

LiLOrion

05-11-2004, 09:51 AM

I agree that the fourth amendment is being beaten like it owes John Ashcroft money.

:roflmao:

Paul Cousins

05-11-2004, 10:34 AM

1. I'm sure he would not be in favor of a first cousin marriage - 2. although he is a southern boy and there are some strange customs in the south.:shrug:

3. And I don't think he'd be into whale humping either.

1. Incest is illegal in the south, but I am almost positive that it is still legal in New York City and Washington D.C. because the native citizens in both those cities are crazy. And I have not even started on royality yet.

2. So you consider it strange saying 'please' and 'thank you'; and also holding the door open for someone.

3. I think you're mistakenly thinking of PETA and ELF/ALF members.

stellar

05-11-2004, 10:46 AM

But I did kiss my cousin once when I was about 16 :yuck:- ewww - it wasn't very nice at all.

Are you sure you're not a native Tennessian?

generic_screenname

05-11-2004, 11:03 AM

ELF/ALF

Elf ALF?

Paul Cousins

05-11-2004, 11:20 AM

Elf ALF?

Earth Liberation Front/Animal Liberation Front; their enviromental terrorist fanatics who are guilty of commiting literally dozens of acts of arson over the past 6 years; and those are just the ones they have admitted too.

DRD2001

05-11-2004, 12:05 PM

ayando

05-11-2004, 12:15 PM

They also have ties and connections with PETA. And PETA is know to give them money to help with special "projects".

ELF I believe, claimed responsibility in burning down a Universities research building, where they were developing a drought resistant strain of wheat.

So why isn't the government going after these terrorists?

It seems that most governments are reluctant to pursue homegrown terrorists, possibly to try and distract other nations from the fact that these 'elements' can exsist in so called first world countries. (or something along those lines. early evening and already drunk to much beer. lifes good)

stellar

05-11-2004, 01:09 PM

Is it ironical that ALF consumed cats as food?

ayando

05-11-2004, 01:12 PM

Is it ironical that ALF consumed cats as food?

Most definately

Martincore

05-11-2004, 03:00 PM

It seems that most governments are reluctant to pursue homegrown terrorists, possibly to try and distract other nations from the fact that these 'elements' can exsist in so called first world countries.

... don't get me started on the whole anthrax-thing!

grinner

05-11-2004, 03:14 PM

why not?

Martincore

05-11-2004, 03:33 PM

sorry Grinner, I thought it was obvious. Apparently it wasn't, but I'm not gonna go there... :)

grinner

05-11-2004, 03:39 PM

So... what are your opposition to the way the Anthrax scandal was handled? What is obvious?

Martincore

05-11-2004, 03:48 PM

...

Lord Loser

05-11-2004, 06:02 PM

Martincore. You should stop trying to understand the American postion on firearms. You never will. To you it's no more than a privilege, or desire. To a great majority of Americans, it is a birthright. It's foundational. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. It's in our founding document.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

That comes from the Declaration of Independence. One of the new Guards for our future security, was the right to keep and bear arms, another was private property ownership. I cannot fathom how anyone in your situation could ever understand why firearms are viewed the way they are over here. I can only make one observation: There were a lot of people over on your continent in 1944 who were glad to see the Yanks coming, and they were indeed glad they were well armed.

Martincore

05-11-2004, 06:30 PM

Martincore. You should stop trying to understand the American postion on firearms. You never will. To you it's no more than a privilege, or desire.

[...]

I can only make one observation: There were a lot of people over on your continent in 1944 who were glad to see the Yanks coming, and they were indeed glad they were well armed.

First of all: I do not look upon it as a privilege, even less a desire! That being said; I do get your point, and will not investigate, nor comment further on it.

On your latter observation: You never get tired of pulling that card, do you? ;) It's the best way ever to get a European to shut up!
... so I think I'll end this in German: Ich will Ihr allein lassen, ich habe nichts mehr zu sagen, auf wiedersehen, Tchüss! ;)

stellar

05-11-2004, 06:35 PM

Viele von uns konnten von dieser aussage erlernen.

mfa96

05-11-2004, 06:38 PM

Fifteen's my lmit on schnitzengrueben...

Lord Loser

05-11-2004, 06:46 PM

Please don't take my post the wrong way, MC. I'm intrigued by the perspectives of others, especially those of different lands. But the firearm issue is like asking someone to describe why their favorite color is red. They don't know, it just is.

As for playing my cards, when you've got a good hand... :P

Kathleen

05-11-2004, 07:08 PM

I've managed to read through all 138 posts, and I have a very simple comment to make.

We don't need new laws, we don't need new mandates, we don't need new regulations. What we NEED to do is enforce the ones that are already in place.

Also, there as a comment made on page 2 of this thread.. hrmm.. let me get it..

They were not wackos or paranoid conspiracy freaks or rednecks, just everyday people.

The inclusion of "rednecks" into this statement was, to me, highly offensive. I live in an area that is extremely rural. I'm also married to a "redneck". He's an ex-cop, and he loves guns. I grew up around and have shot guns my entire life. I'm what my husband calls an "upper-class redneck". We ARE everyday people, too. Sure, there are those "rednecks" out there that occasionally go nuts with their guns, but for the most part, us "rednecks" use our guns to go out and kill animals to consume. We also use them to protect our families. We "rednecks" value life just as much as those "uptown folks", and we also believe that guns are to be used responsibly. We teach our children about gun safety and the do's and don'ts of using guns from the time they are very young. My son is not quite 7 years old, and he understands the consequences of using a gun. Also, we've taught him that guns don't kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. The gun is just used as the means of the crime. The same can be said for just about anything else that is used to commit a murder/injury on someone.

if this doesn't make any sense, please forgive me. I had a tooth pulled yesterday, and the medication has me a bit foggy.

Eve11

05-11-2004, 08:06 PM

Kathleen, I certainly didn't mean to offend. Those three stereotypes and derogatory words are often associated with gun owners and what I meant was that I saw that day a bunch of people -- some college students, some families, some hunters, some rural, some ex-military or retired law enforcement etc etc. but that the point was that they are all everyday American people. And it hurts to take rural = redneck, ex-military gun collectors = paranoid conspiracy theorists, etc. It was kind of a facetious comment and I guess was worded poorly, or maybe I should've included quotation marks around the words "wackos", "paranoid conspiracy theorists" and "rednecks", because I really did mean exactly what you pointed out in your post above. I guess I meant that I saw rural hunters, cops, army, and the like, and in those people I didn't see the stereotypes.

stellar

05-11-2004, 08:18 PM

I'm what my husband calls an "upper-class redneck".

Does that mean you wear shoes in the baby pool, or does it mean that you drink your Coors out of a bottle?

Take it from this coonass - I wouldn't have it no other way, no. ;)

BaseLine

05-12-2004, 07:13 AM

There were a lot of people over on your continent in 1944 who were glad to see the Yanks coming, and they were indeed glad they were well armed.

1. That was military, not civilian. We're discussing the issue of the civilians right to bear arms.
2. There were other forces involved in liberating parts of Europe from the Nazi occupation forces. Yes, U.S. forces helped liberate parts of Europe, but Canadian and British forces were also largely responsible for the liberation of Holland for example. And I thank them all for it, every allied soldier who fought for our freedom. But I see in no way the relation of this argument to the civilians right to bear arms. It's an argument that doesn't hold up in this discussion.

Lord Loser

05-12-2004, 07:45 AM

Gotta run Baseline, but I'll be glad to discuss this when I get back.

Kathleen

05-12-2004, 10:01 AM

Does that mean you wear shoes in the baby pool, or does it mean that you drink your Coors out of a bottle?

Take it from this coonass - I wouldn't have it no other way, no. ;)

What's wrong with wearing flip-flops in the kiddie pool? Those little rocks HURT!!! :rollin:

Darth Buddha

05-12-2004, 10:04 AM

Earth Liberation Front/Animal Liberation Front; their enviromental terrorist fanatics who are guilty of commiting literally dozens of acts of arson over the past 6 years; and those are just the ones they have admitted too.You know, I wouldn't have considered them terrorits a while ago... but they sure as hell have escalated things.

The problem is that terrorist is too BROAD a term to really be accurate. If you include ALF/ELF's arsonist past and compare it to say 9/11, there is a difference of kind in terms of intent, and a massive difference of degree.

WMD is another one. Grouping SARIN gas (and I've dosed rats on similar compounds for a behavioral study, so I know JUST how bad this crap is) in the same group with fission weapons or even fusion weapons is just silly. The category is so wide as to be meaningless.

Some of this word abuse is deliberate, some accidental. But we need some new words!

Paul Cousins

05-12-2004, 10:34 AM

You know, I wouldn't have considered them terrorits a while ago... but they sure as hell have escalated things.

The problem is that terrorist is too BROAD a term to really be accurate. If you include ALF/ELF's arsonist past and compare it to say 9/11, there is a difference of kind in terms of intent, and a massive difference of degree.

After the ALF/ELF burned that multi-million dollar Sky Lodge to the ground a few years back, they entered the big leagues of terrorism. And also there is some evidence, nothing hard, that they started a one or two of those major forest fires this country has had over the past 3 to 4 years.

Their fanatics Buddha, and they might target YOU personally someday because you do enviroment studies based on science and you do NOT parrot THEIR message

stellar

05-12-2004, 10:45 AM

Still, they need a prefix. Calling what they do, terrorism makes the real terrorists (Al Queda, et al) seem a little friendlier.

What soft evidence are you talking about?

Weetabix

05-12-2004, 01:09 PM

There were a lot of people over on your continent in 1944 who were glad to see the Yanks coming, and they were indeed glad they were well armed.Why do you people always need to bring that back everytime some europeans do not agree about something in America ? Like BaseLine said it has nothing to do with the discussion.

To a great majority of Americans, it is a birthright. It's foundational. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. It's in our founding document.
And that is why I don't think America will ever resolve her gun violence issue unfortunately. Or until a very very long time.

stellar

05-12-2004, 01:46 PM

And that is why I don't think America will ever resolve her gun violence issue unfortunately. Or until a very very long time.

I agree that we will never resolve our gun violence issue. More specifically, we'll never resolve our violence issue. IMHO we're a violent people. We're capable of great acts of good, kindness, heroism, and joy, but fundamentally we are savage. I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily - it's a piece of my culture and I've embraced the understanding of it. I think of it as a special skill. Sometimes the world appreciates it, sometimes it's like we're the turd in the punchbowl... cest la vie.

Paul Cousins

05-12-2004, 08:23 PM

Still, they need a prefix. Calling what they do, terrorism makes the real terrorists (Al Queda, et al) seem a little friendlier.

What soft evidence are you talking about?

I have read several news articles over the past couple of year that the FBI was investigating them for the forest fires, but nothing has come of it yet.

Like I said in my last post; "nothing hard".

stellar

05-13-2004, 04:13 PM

I have read several news articles over the past couple of year that the FBI was investigating them for the forest fires, but nothing has come of it yet.

Like I said in my last post; "nothing hard".

Do you believe that a militant environmental group would start forest fires? Your opinion.

Paul Cousins

05-13-2004, 08:40 PM

Do you believe that a militant environmental group would start forest fires? Your opinion.

Yes, their fanatics and their M.O. is arson for the most part...

Lord Loser

05-13-2004, 08:43 PM

Now that we're up an running, I'll address your posts.

1. That was military, not civilian. We're discussing the issue of the civilians right to bear arms.
2. There were other forces involved in liberating parts of Europe from the Nazi occupation forces. Yes, U.S. forces helped liberate parts of Europe, but Canadian and British forces were also largely responsible for the liberation of Holland for example. And I thank them all for it, every allied soldier who fought for our freedom. But I see in no way the relation of this argument to the civilians right to bear arms. It's an argument that doesn't hold up in this discussion.The basis of your arguments are that civilians are somehow different from military personnel. That militaries are "allowed" to posess firearms while civilians shouldn't be. It is an interesting postion, but that would mean that there are at least two classes of people, those "qualified" for military service, and the average unqualified person on the street.

Now a class system is also against our foundation. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Now if all Americans are created equal, there is no justification for a class system of any kind. That means everyone has the same rights that everyone else has. The founders of our nation, had to determine how to ensure that no one group of people had the ability to enslave any other group, and so they provided a system of private property ownership and the ability to defend one's private property through the possession of firearms. You see, Monarchies cannot exist with an armed populace, and the government of an armed populace derives it's just power from the consent of the governed. (read my earlier posting of the Declaration of Independence)

Another interesting tidbit, is that America had no standing army before the end of WWII. Armies were formed for a conflict, then disbanded. That has since changed, but the underlying foundations haven't.

Why do you people always need to bring that back everytime some europeans do not agree about something in America ? Like BaseLine said it has nothing to do with the discussion. The liberation of occupied Europe is still a touchy subject, it appears. First of all, I'm not "you people". I am one man, speaking as such. Would you be as calm if I said "You French are always..." ? Furthermore, it has a lot to do with the discussion at hand. The european populace, for the most part, was unarmed and was therefore subjugated by an armed force. Whether or not you would have been able to defeat the German army, by having an armed populace, is something that none of us will ever know.

And that is why I don't think America will ever resolve her gun violence issue unfortunately. Or until a very very long time.Again, I must challenge your major premise. America does not have a "gun violence issue". You have children on your subways that steal from the unsuspecting, does that mean you have a serious crime issue that you'll never resolve? The French government has admitted to using methods of torture to obtain information, does that mean you have serious torture issues to resolve? I would argue no on each. European values are not ours, nor are we (some of us, anyway) asking our values to be yours. As I stated before, I don't think you have the ability to understand our position on firearms, as I cannot understand your position against them. I can see the impass, and I accept it.

Frunium Slip

05-13-2004, 10:19 PM

Interesting views...

Just chiming in to say, I in no way advocate banning guns, but I would like to see a better registration policy. I always wondered why we couldn't accomplish it much like cars, I fill out my part, you fill out your part, the ATF then does it's job... with the proviso that there would be no gun confiscation following, and there is just not a historical precedent for that, which is why most gun owners are dead set against any form of personal registration...

And also to mention that not just anybody can own an automatic weapon, first they are highly restricted since the Federal Firearms Act of 1934, local police check (including fingerprints) background check, FBI, and none may be sold to the public that were manufactured after 1986... and expensive since this ban... (the 1991 ban on 'assault weapons' was really about semi-automatic versions of assualt weapons... which you can readily buy without the ever dangerous bayonet lug... a waste of time and effort altogether, unless you are a collector of historical type memorablilia and can't afford the real thing...)

Fit me into that recreational fire arms user category...

PS side note, during the concealed weapons class which I took, there was a scenario where you had to try and stop a knife weilding character from 7 yards away, most people in the class did not draw their weapons in time, even knowing what was gonna happen... Also, the kind auxilarly officer with the local police who helped me with the finger printing had decided that no one should have a gun, but got highly offended when I asked if that included the police, she stated that they were trained, I stated, so was I...

I have also seen a few people at a local indoor range who could not scratch the target ( a 2'x3' paper) at 7 yards... So if you are buying a weapon for self defense, please learn how to use it, for it might prove to be more dangerous to yourself than any criminal...

Martincore

05-13-2004, 10:26 PM

Now that we're up an running, I'll address your posts.

The basis of your arguments are that civilians are somehow different from military personnel. That militaries are "allowed" to posess firearms while civilians shouldn't be. It is an interesting postion, but that would mean that there are at least two classes of people, those "qualified" for military service, and the average unqualified person on the street.

Now a class system is also against our foundation. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

yes, CREATED equal, but not TRAINED equally... ( sorry, I know I promised not to comment, but this was a giveaway...)

...oh, and just had to ad, that the Russians actually "won" the war in Stalingrad... (check your (European) history) ;)

StarsGoBlue

05-13-2004, 10:50 PM

I swore I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but I've read several things that just hit too close to home to not say anything.

Arguing constitutionality is fine. Using logic and statistics to back positions on issues is great. Being an optimist, and hoping that those in possession of guns are responsible users, is cool. Being a pessimist/realist/whatever, and saying that if guns are kept out of the hands of terrorists and criminals and the mentally ill, there wouldn't be a problem, I have nothing to say against that. And I recognize that guns have different purposes and significance in different areas of the country, and between rural/suburban/urban regions, and for individual users.

But I bet there are people in this forum, on this board, who have seen up close and personal what guns can do, in flesh and blood and images you can't shake. For some, having a gun may have saved a life, or lives, or protected property or those near and dear to them.

For others, and including myself with them, well I've seen what an AK-47 can do to a schoolyard full of children.

This is another of those issues in which it's unlikely that any of us will change our opinions, for whatever reason. And for myself, if the government wants to ban a weapon that might be used in terrorist activity---referring specifically to the original post of the thread---well, I'll take it one case at a time, and I'm okay with it.

Paul Cousins

05-13-2004, 11:42 PM

For others, and including myself with them, well I've seen what an AK-47 can do to a schoolyard full of children.

Oh, playing straight from the socialist play book; throw out logic and play on the people's feelings.

Well I have something for you; if bullying were not allowed in school, if teachers did not turn a blind eye to bullying, then events like that would never get to that point.

StarsGoBlue

05-13-2004, 11:53 PM

Oh, playing straight from the socialist play book; throw out logic and play on the people's feelings.

Well I have something for you; if bullying were not allowed in school, if teachers did not turn a blind eye to bullying, then events like that would never get to that point.

Neither. Speaking from direct experience, and with none of the inflammatory language that you seem to prefer, and simply to point out that for some people, the issue of gun control isn't abstract, or about logic, or about what the founding fathers intended or the morality of man---but a deeply personal and, yes, emotional---issue.

And here's something for you. Not all people who turn guns on others were bullied, not every school condones bullying, and not all teachers turn a blind eye to bullying.

Paul Cousins

05-13-2004, 11:58 PM

Neither. Speaking from direct experience, and with none of the inflammatory language that you seem to prefer, and simply to point out that for some people, the issue of gun control isn't abstract, or about logic, or about what the founding fathers intended or the morality of man---but a deeply personal and, yes, emotional---issue.

And here's something for you. Not all people who turn guns on others were bullied, not every school condones bullying, and not all teachers turn a blind eye to bullying.

Well I am speaking from direct experience also, and THEY DO turn a blind eye.

You can only push someone so far until they push back harder.

StarsGoBlue

05-14-2004, 12:53 AM

In your experience.

And since to discuss this further would stray from the topic of this thread, I'm done.

Third EYe

05-14-2004, 05:10 AM

Emotions have no place when it comes to the gun control issue. When you get right down to it, emotions are dangerous. I'm much more affraid of a person's emotions than I am an gun. I've never seen a gun jump off a chair and hit someone because they said something the gun didn't like.

I'm going to start a campaing to ban playgrounds, especially monkey bars. I feel strongly about this. They are not safe, kids are always hurt at playgrounds, they even lose limbs and sometimes die. It's an offense to the mind to think that we allow our children to play in such dangerous conditions. Where's the love?

NebariNookiee

05-14-2004, 07:30 AM

I discovered the best way to show your kids the dangers of playing with weapons -- if you're interested.

Go to your local butcher and see if you can find a cow's head -- a calf would be perfect too. Take the head and set it up as a target. Now -- with your children watching, take a 12 gauge shotgun and shoot the head at 10 paces. Besides the mess it makes it also makes for a great visual aid when trying to drive home why you should NOT play with guns.

I tried this with my kids. It drove the point home pretty well.

Weetabix

05-14-2004, 09:56 AM

The liberation of occupied Europe is still a touchy subject, it appears. First of all, I'm not "you people". I am one man, speaking as such. Would you be as calm if I said "You French are always..." ? Furthermore, it has a lot to do with the discussion at hand. The european populace, for the most part, was unarmed and was therefore subjugated by an armed force. Whether or not you would have been able to defeat the German army, by having an armed populace, is something that none of us will ever know.
It's not that a touchy subjetc, it's more that I have noticed (sorry for the "you people"...was cranky ;)) more than once that I've been brought to that point everytime I had a discussion with Americans where I was not agreeing about something that was involving their country (and whatever was the subject of discussion)
So yeah sometimes it really get on my nerves to have the "we saved your asses " thrown at me like that, just because I'm not on the same side. I'm not keeping counts of who owns who.
And don't worry I have a loooooot of "You Frenchs are always..." I should make a list ;)

As for knowing if the Frenchs civilians could have defeat the Germans if they were all armed...Honestly I don't think so.
There was the Resistance, there was a lot of guns and weapons at that time (certainly more than now, just because much more people were hunting and there were still some guns of the First War). Now the question is : is a civilian able to do the same things as a soldier ?. To be a resistant you needed to have the spirit of a combattant : be able to kill, ready to get killed or tortured and to have some soldier skills were certainly a plus. Even if your job was only to carry messages and documents.
Plus what civilians can do againts such powerful things as tanks, planes, bombs and gaz ?
The greatest losts of french civilians were on the roads where people were shot by Germans planes while exoding.
So unless you have enought planes and tanks to give to all the civilians of a country...

Again, I must challenge your major premise. America does not have a "gun violence issue". You have children on your subways that steal from the unsuspecting, does that mean you have a serious crime issue that you'll never resolve? The French government has admitted to using methods of torture to obtain information, does that mean you have serious torture issues to resolve? I would argue no on each. European values are not ours, nor are we (some of us, anyway) asking our values to be yours. As I stated before, I don't think you have the ability to understand our position on firearms, as I cannot understand your position against them. I can see the impass, and I accept it.
I perfectly do understand the position of Americans on firearms. But I see it as a problem not a good thing (may I ? ;)). So as an issue, I think the whole thing is that it's part of a constitution which the country has been built on. It's deep in the culture and mentality. And we all know that the hardest things to change are mentalities (for those who want some changes of course).
Of course we do have violence in France (and all the shits that come along in a society) and I'm just glad that it is not worsened by any weapon endorsement (I try to imagine those young picpockets you talk about in the metro with guns :eek: ).
America still has the higher percentage of deaths by weapons of Occident...
I have never asked to you or anyone to adopt my values, I was just giving my opinion.
And sometimes giving your opinion is to think different right ?

If not, where's the fun of arguing ?

Damn...that's exhausting to write all that in english. My brain's smoking.

B Sharp

05-14-2004, 10:48 AM

....I perfectly do understand the position of Americans on firearms. But I see it as a problem not a good thing (may I ? ;)). So as an issue, I think the whole thing is that it's part of a constitution which the country has been built on. It's deep in the culture and mentality. And we all know that the hardest things to change are mentalities (for those who want some changes of course).
.......And sometimes giving your opinion is to think different right ?

If not, where's the fun of arguing ?

Damn...that's exhausting to write all that in english. My brain's smoking.

Like yours, my brain smokes when I type, and I grew up with this language. I'm trying to figure out what exactly it's smoking, though- and it refuses to tell me.

I'm not sure you can state that you "perfectly do understand the position of Americans on firearms"- as LordLoser said, we're individuals (dammit!), and based on this thread, we obviously have different opinions on this topic. I have different opinions on it myself, depending on what time it is, what I just read and who posted it, what I just ate...

I certainly agree that the hardest thing to do is change how I think... Maybe if I could actually figure out what my brain is smoking and why this topic (and many others) causes such a strange internal conflict, it would not be as difficult.

Paul Cousins

05-14-2004, 11:11 AM

Go to your local butcher and see if you can find a cow's head -- a calf would be perfect too. Take the head and set it up as a target. Now -- with your children watching, take a 12 gauge shotgun and shoot the head at 10 paces. Besides the mess it makes it also makes for a great visual aid when trying to drive home why you should NOT play with guns.

Actually that is illegal (in some places in the U.S.) and dangerious to do over health issues; that is why most gun organizations recommend using a watermelon instead.

By the way, no one here who actually knows how to use a gun treats a gun like a toy.

grinner

05-14-2004, 11:14 AM

come on... I play cops and robbers all the time with my AK and the neighborhood kids... don't you? [/sarcasm]

NebariNookiee

05-14-2004, 11:19 AM

My point was addressed to those who do and would. I know people who have been trained in how to handle guns yet continue to treat them like a plastic prop -- twirling them on their fingers, comically pointing loaded guns at people's heads for a laugh. I know one guy who almost blew his winky off when his gun went off in his pants strap. Fortunately he only blew a 2 1/4-inch hole in his artery -- lost his right leg over that little stunt.

My point is even those who have been trained can still neglect to use common sense.

And besides -- a watermellon is impressive -- but nothing gets the point home better than splattered brain matter.

Lord Loser

05-14-2004, 07:04 PM

Weetabix and Martincore, thanks for your posts. You are both entitled to your opinions, and I would never suggest otherwise. As much as I think you are incorrect in those opinions, they are yours.

BTW Martincore, I do know that the Russians defeated them at Stalingrad, but I've never considered Russia to be part of the European continent. More Asia.

scrape_medic

05-14-2004, 09:49 PM

I am just curious- if banning machine guns or assualt rifles helps save even one innocent life, isn't it worth it?
You'd think!

Erm....who wants to invade america anyrate?

psst LL...russia is european AND asian AND oriental

Paul Cousins

05-14-2004, 10:59 PM

You'd think!

Erm....who wants to invade america anyrate?

Well Mexico is doing a good job of invading the U.S. right now.

BaseLine

05-15-2004, 12:19 AM

BTW Martincore, I do know that the Russians defeated them at Stalingrad, but I've never considered Russia to be part of the European continent. More Asia.

I've taken the following snippet from wikipedia:

The Battle of Stalingrad was a major turning point in World War II, and the bloodiest battle in human history. The battle is taken to include the German siege of the southern Russian city of Stalingrad (today Volgograd), the battle inside the city, and the Soviet counter-offensive which eventually trapped and destroyed the German and other Axis forces in and around the city. Total casualties are estimated at between 1 and 2 million. The Axis powers lost about a quarter of their total manpower on the Eastern Front, and never recovered from the defeat. For the Soviets, who lost well over one million soldiers and civilians during the battle, the victory at Stalingrad marked the start of the liberation of the Soviet Union, leading to eventual victory over Nazi Germany in 1945.

stellar

05-15-2004, 08:20 AM

Well Mexico is doing a good job of invading the U.S. right now.

I knew we'd agree on something eventually.

Third EYe

05-15-2004, 02:10 PM

I knew we'd agree on something eventually.

great, all that's left is organized anarchy

Paul Cousins

05-15-2004, 03:41 PM

great, all that's left is organized anarchy

You're practically reading my mind... ;)

stellar

05-15-2004, 07:35 PM

He's a witch!!!

Burn the witch!!!

Third EYe

05-15-2004, 08:27 PM

Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!

Lord Loser

05-15-2004, 08:37 PM

psst LL...russia is european AND asian AND orientalNot according to the Risk map... :P

Third EYe

05-15-2004, 08:49 PM

Not according to the Risk map... :P

I use the LOTR version, it's not even on there.

Lord Loser

05-15-2004, 09:17 PM

I'd expect as much from an anti-frog nazi...

Third EYe

05-16-2004, 06:03 AM

that's what you get

mfa96

05-16-2004, 01:44 PM

Like most things this issue is not that black and white. I'll be damned if I let someone force their way into my house rape my wife, threaten my children, and kill my family. If I can save my family from becoming victims by challenging the intruders with my gun, then I am doing my job as a father and a husband to protect them. If that means the death of the intruders, so be it. They chose to do what they did, and they knew the risks.

First welcome Poseidon- may you have many great Adventures here! (sorry- couldn't resist).

However, if you read my post, I said innocent life- which an intruder threatening to rape your wife isn't...

Poseidon

05-16-2004, 01:44 PM

I am just curious- if banning machine guns or assualt rifles helps save even one innocent life, isn't it worth it?

Like most things this issue is not that black and white. I'll be damned if I let someone force their way into my house rape my wife, threaten my children, and kill my family. If I can save my family from becoming victims by challenging the intruders with my gun, then I am doing my job as a father and a husband to protect them. If that means the death of the intruders, so be it. They chose to do what they did, and they knew the risks.

Since your talking about innocent lives, maybe you should look at the innocent lives guns save, or don't they matter? See it's not as black and white as you may think?

Oh, yeah, I'm new here.

mfa96

05-16-2004, 01:47 PM

I never said it was black and white.... I just posed a question.

Poseidon

05-16-2004, 01:49 PM

First welcome Poseidon- may you have many great Adventures here! (sorry- couldn't resist).

However, if you read my post, I said innocent life- which an intruder threatening to rape your wife isn't...

My wife is innocent and so are my children. If I didn't have access to a weapon , how can I protect the innocents in my house?

Poseidon

05-16-2004, 01:53 PM

Ah, sorry I took the statement to be a black and white issue. May I ask, how do you feel about banning guns?

mfa96

05-16-2004, 06:55 PM

Here you go Poseidon...

Personally I am not for the elimination of all guns (most of the time). I fall somewhere in the middle, but lean left. I understand responsible citizens wanting to defend themselves- but think assault rifles are unecessary. I do think we need a longer waiting period to buy a weapon, and all weapons need to be registered, and that the gun show loopholes need to be closed. I think the resposible citizens should give it a rest if they are inconvenienced, so we can make sure that irresponsible citizens don't get guns. Innocent's lives are worth more than anyone's right to own a gun.

Third EYe

05-16-2004, 10:53 PM

Paul Cousins

05-17-2004, 01:27 AM

Ah, sorry I took the statement to be a black and white issue. May I ask, how do you feel about banning guns?

(sarcasm) Well how do you feel about living in a tyrannical police state... :rolleyes:

BaseLine

05-17-2004, 02:57 AM

(sarcasm) Well how do you feel about living in a tyrannical police state... :rolleyes:

There is a way in between. We have a form of gun control and just look at our cops. They don't do shit.

Third EYe

05-17-2004, 07:25 AM

There is a way in between. We have a form of gun control and just look at our cops. They don't do shit.

Move to Denver, they will shoot you even if you don't ask. Being deaf and/retarded is a threatening offence and you will be shot, add being black to that and they will shoot you more than once. Nail clippers will get you shot immediately. Driving home will get you shot in the back, now that's just altruistic.

Yes, here in the Denver Metro area the police love to shoot at anything that moves. If you haven't been shot at lately, just dial 911.

stellar

05-17-2004, 07:37 AM

The longer period thing really doesn't sit well for me. What if I have to defend myself right now, I got the cash, but I didn't think ahead and have to wait 5 days, however, the guy threatening me didn't follow the law and he got his gun that morning off a guy named Gun Guy.

I'm toast

Absolutley. Ther should be no federal regulation or waiting periods for gun purchases. If we simply hold the gun seller criminally/financially responsible if he sells a gun to a fellon/non-citizen, if and when that gun is used in a crime then the system will regulate itself.

That way if the guy threatening you wasn't supposed to have a gun and he bought one and shot you then he would be going to jail as well as Gun Guy and Gun Guy would also be sued by your grieving family. With that incentive, it would make it harder for people who weren't supposed to have a gun get a gun.

There would be no mandatory waiting period. The waiting period would be regulated by the gun seller and competition would insure that their waiting period is as short as possible.

Third EYe

05-17-2004, 07:51 AM

Well, I'm saying that Gun Guy is going to exist whether they enforce the existing laws or make useless new laws. He's the illegal gun trader, or arms dealer.

The laws we need exist, they are indeed severe enough, but they are rarely enforced. The same people who want new laws and ultimately to ban all gun powder weapons are the same people who do all they can to surpress the current laws enforcement.

Whenever there is a crime commited with a gun, just send that prosecution up to the federal level, this will be a start. Next step, stop parolling people, if you don't have enough room in the prisons, send the excess to Syria or Liberia.

You can't control what actions another person will take given an endless possibility of circumstances, so holding the legal gun trader responsible for crimes commited with a weapon he sold to a citizen of the United States is not a reasonable solution from my vantage point.

Let's assume that a certain to die idiot decided it would be a good idea to invade my home, and because I was watching TV and didn't want to get out of my chair, I shoot this cocky moron dead center tearing his heart apart, rather than get up and take the personal approach and snap his neck. I could argue that it was self defence, but assume again that a jury says no, cause I admit to being lazy, and I didn't even try to call a liberal to come talk this situation to a healthy peace loving conclusion that only a polyanna would agree is possible. So, I go to jail, according to a jury, this is justified, my imprisonment that is. Now, should the legal gun dealer go to jail as well since he sold me the weapon 10 years ago?

stellar

05-17-2004, 09:06 AM

You miss my point. The gun dealer didn't break the law in selling you a gun because it was legal for you to have bought that gun. Whatever you choose to do with it after you legally bought is your choice and if you commit a crime then only you are liable.

If a person who cannot legally buy a gun, e.g. felon, non-citizen, etc., buys a gun then he has broken the law and the person who sold him the gun has broken the law as well. That's strike one. Any felonous use of that gun by the fellon is also a crime commited by the dealer who unlawfully sold it to him.

And the way to lighten the prison population is stop imprisoning non-violent drug offenders. Problem solved.

Third EYe

05-17-2004, 09:57 AM

I agree with you there, I did misunderstand your previous post.

I don't agree that all non-violent drug offenders should be released. Just because violence wasn't commited during the circumstances that lead to the detainees arrest, doesn't mean a crime wasn't commited. Theft is a crime I take seriously.

Just to clarify one point, I don't own a gun presently, and if someone breaks into my home and I catch them, in my home, the odds of them leaving unharmed are slim. I've been robbed twice before, and one attempt. The two times I was robbed, the perpetrators were addicts, they were caught, not by the police (they are often useless in such crimes) but by me. The one who attempted, but I was home, was hospitilized with a cranial fracture, broken ribs and internal bleeding. I never used a weapon. This was prior to me becoming a lazy couch dwelling slob.

He was also an addict. I'm an addict who never commited such crimes, which is why I probably never spent any time in jail. Those who do robberies are usually, not always, drug addicts. I'm sympathetic to the addicts plight, but not to people who rob others to support thier habbits.

Think of a particular community, any that has a serious crime and drug problem. Release all the non-violent drug offenders that came from that one community, and the watch the results. I'm sure you will an increase in 911 calls, vandalism, drug sales, overdoses, unreported robberies (usually criminals stealing from criminals)

I don't think that is the answer, although a few people in prison probably should be released. I personally don't know any,and I know people in prison.

Paul Cousins

05-17-2004, 09:59 AM

There is a way in between. We have a form of gun control and just look at our cops. They don't do shit.

To paraphase the Communist Mao: "Those with the guns are the ones with the power."

In other words, give up your guns and you become nothing more than a serf/slave.

It's a good lesson from a very evil person.

B Sharp

05-17-2004, 10:00 AM

My wife is innocent and so are my children. If I didn't have access to a weapon , how can I protect the innocents in my house?
alarm system in the house?
martial arts training for you, wife and children?
baseball bat?
big dog(s)?

seems to me that having a gun (or any weapon) for "self defense" is no guarantee that you can defend your family, even if the attacker has a gun. Based on my one and only personal experience with this, having some training and education on what to do if an attack occurs is the best way to go.

grinner

05-17-2004, 10:39 AM

Bah, I installed alarms for years... and the ONLY thing that they prevent is the malicious vandalism. If someone is going to rob you... and alarm system won't stop them. Heck, I could get around 90% of all alarm systems. They would never go off.

stellar

05-17-2004, 10:45 AM

I don't agree that all non-violent drug offenders should be released. Just because violence wasn't commited during the circumstances that lead to the detainees arrest, doesn't mean a crime wasn't commited. Theft is a crime I take seriously.

Agreed. But I meant those drug offenders who are in prison because of multiple counts of possesion, or posessing too much, or sales. If you commit a crime like theft, or murder, or whatever... I'm not particularly interested in the motive for that crime. The crime is enough.

But then again, I'm for legalization. That maybe another thread.

I own three handguns(.22, 9m, .40), a 12-gauge shotgun, a blowgun, nunchucks, and an assortment of menacing looking knives. I also have an alarm system. No dog though. If someone is so commited to breaking in my house to go inside after they've set off the alarm then they're in real trouble.

grinner

05-17-2004, 10:50 AM

If someone is so commited to breaking in my house to go inside after they've set off the alarm then they're in real trouble.
do you have your alarm on a cell backup? If not... I could get around it.

stellar

05-17-2004, 10:53 AM

Can you get around three handguns, a 12-gauge shotgun, a blowgun, nunchucks, and an assortment of menacing looking knives?

grinner

05-17-2004, 10:55 AM

what if you're not home. That is why I was asking

stellar

05-17-2004, 11:02 AM

Does cell backup mean when the power is cut the system is still on? When I lose power my system still works. So I guess I have something that powers it during power outages. Maybe I do have a cell backup.

However, if the phone line is cut it wouldn't be monitored, just make noise.

Maybe I should get a friggin shark with a friggin laser beam attatched to his friggin head.

grinner

05-17-2004, 11:12 AM

A cell backup is a Cellular Phone... be it using DataBurst or an actual Cell number. What type of alarm system do you have? For most Ademco systems, I would HIGHLY recommend their AlarmNetC. This is a DataBurst system that works like a pager... in that it sends out on the data wave network and not on the actual voice carrier network. The benefit of this, is that since it runs on the data carrier network, of which there are 2 sides(A and B), you don't have to actually pay for a number every month... which would be in the range of $60 a month. Since it is a runs on the Data carrier, it only costs less than $10 a month... but you have your service plan on top of that. If you have a DSC(Digital Security Corporation) alarm panel, they also are getting into the data carrier network, theirs is called the SkyRoute... that isn't as user friendly as the Ademco version. The there is the big daddy systems... TelGard from Telurad. This bad boy comes in 3 varieties... one uses the actual voice network... expensive and the other 2 use data wave carriers. The cool thing about these, is that they work with ANY alarm panel, whereas the Alarmnet and the SkyRoute only work with Ademco and DSC respectively. All in all, I would rather work with Ademco devises... partly because those are what I initially worked with, but also because they are more user friendly.

what you are referencing is the battery backup.