# Why I don't carry a gun!



## Roose Hurro (Feb 22, 2009)

Posted 22 February 2009 02:46 AM  
http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/500103904/m/4701029443

------------------------------------------------

*Why I donâ€™t carry a gun!* (Ladies, please ignore the gender, this is not meant to exclude you and probably just as appropriate).


My old grandpa once said to me, "Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and
usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin'.


I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.


I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.


I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because when you least 
expect it there are real threats in the world.


I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.


I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I 
understand the limitations of government.


I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.


I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot anyone. I carry a gun because 
I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed with my boots off, and not on a sidewalk somewhere 
tomorrow afternoon.


I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I 
die and go to Heaven, I want to be a cowboy.


I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men 
should know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.


I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because, 
unarmed and facing armed thugs, I am inadequate.


I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life 
and the people who make it meaningful to me.


"Police Protection" is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves. 

Police do not protect you from crime; they usually just investigate the crime 
after it happens, call someone in to clean up the mess and then try to solve the crime.


Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take 
an ass whoopin'."


Remember the average response time to a 911 call is over 4 minutes.

The response time of a handgun is 700 to 1400 FPS. Add a couple of seconds for the draw.


----------



## Toto (Feb 22, 2009)

Good for you.


----------



## Xipoid (Feb 22, 2009)

What I find rather funny is that MARTA has a list of banned items on their property. You are not allowed to have food, drink, drugs, alcohol, or any form of a lethal weapon except for firearms (they explicitly list that right on the warning in nice big text). You can't bring a knife, but your Glock is perfectly fine.


----------



## KittenAdmin (Feb 22, 2009)

Amen... also the best thing about america's right to bear arms is that the population IS the army, if ever we get invaded :3


----------



## Jonnaius (Feb 22, 2009)

The right to bear arms is one of the reasons stopping me from moving to america this second.

The biggest one is that I'm too young and broke xD


----------



## Albino-Kitsune (Feb 22, 2009)

*rolls eyes* Oh for god's sake. 

Okay, fine, enjoy that penis extension. 

That's really all I can see a gun as.


----------



## Seas (Feb 22, 2009)

One of the few things I actually like about the USA is the right to bear firearms.

Nice post OP.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 22, 2009)

KittenAdmin said:


> Amen... also the best thing about america's right to bear arms is that the population IS the army, if ever we get invaded :3



Actually, America is the country more likely to DO the invading (Iraq, anyone?).


----------



## Jelly (Feb 22, 2009)

I'd love to see that with less contradictions, but ultimately, I don't think you can deliver.
Needs more meatloaf.

(LOL, IM NOT PARANOID, IM GOING TO BE DEAD TOMORROW AFTERNOON *HEAVY MOUTH BREATHING*)


----------



## Ratte (Feb 22, 2009)

Awesome.


----------



## Werevixen (Feb 22, 2009)

I live in Belgium. I don't carry my gun because it's too damn big, and noone else has a gun here, save for a mailicious or paranoid few.


Me? I'm a hunter. A furry hunter.


----------



## Devious Bane (Feb 22, 2009)

I don't carry a gun because I don't have one to carry.
I don't carry a gun because you're basically screwed if someone has you at point blank range anyway.
So what do I carry? A walking stick, a small knife, and myself.


----------



## Raithah (Feb 22, 2009)

I dunno; it just seems dangerous to have every Tom, Dick and Jane packing heat wherever they go. Carrying a weapon purely for self-defense is one thing, but you don't get a switch that shuts it off when something makes you emotional. All I'm saying is that people can do stupid things when they're aggravated, and it's better not to give them the (easily available) option of doing something lethal.


----------



## Yaoi-Mikey (Feb 22, 2009)

Honestly the problem is that too many bad/stupid people have guns in america, we go a bit insane with our "Right to bear arms" crap sometimes, you don't need a gun, especially not a big one, at the most maybe a rifle or a shotgun if you're in the country, if you're in a city carry a taser or mace or somethin, not a damn 45.


----------



## Wreth (Feb 22, 2009)

Just make guns illegal worldwide, that would solve so many problems =<


----------



## KittenAdmin (Feb 22, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Actually, America is the country more likely to DO the invading (Iraq, anyone?).



 We made them better.

Say otherwise and we'll invade you too!

Also... that's a dumb idea... because criminals don't follow the rules. So making rules against guns will do nothing but take protection away from innocent people.


----------



## vivatheshadows (Feb 22, 2009)

Cant we all remember Herbert Hoover's famous words? "A Chicken in every pot and a cap in every ass."


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Feb 22, 2009)

KittenAdmin said:


> We made them better.



Yeah, less Iraqis <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3


----------



## KittenAdmin (Feb 22, 2009)

John_Galt said:


> Yeah, less Iraqis <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3



This guy is now my favorite person.


----------



## Laze (Feb 22, 2009)

Clearly I've lead a very sheltered life, as I've never even seen an *actual* gun, let alone been given the opportunity to own one. And I'd rather not.


----------



## Ratte (Feb 22, 2009)

vivatheshadows said:


> Cant we all remember Herbert Hoover's famous words? "A Chicken in every pot and a cap in every ass."



Best.  Quote.  Ever.


----------



## Devious Bane (Feb 22, 2009)

xXxKirai_KainashixXx said:


> Best.  Quote.  Ever.


Seconded.


----------



## Ratte (Feb 22, 2009)

Devious Bane said:


> Seconded.



Wasn't that on FG or some shit?

I think it was.


----------



## PriestRevan (Feb 22, 2009)

Fuck the U.S. 

---

In other news, you don't need a gun.

/waits for the conservative rednecks to disagree


----------



## Ratte (Feb 22, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> Fuck the U.S.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...



-shoots-


----------



## KittenAdmin (Feb 22, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> Fuck the U.S.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...



/laughs at the starry eyed liberal who thinks everyone is a good person

See you in a hole somewhere because you couldn't protect yourself. :3


----------



## Ratte (Feb 22, 2009)

KittenAdmin said:


> /laughs at the starry eyed liberal who thinks everyone is a good person
> 
> See you in a hole somewhere because you couldn't protect yourself. :3



I <3 you c:


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 22, 2009)

Albino-Kitsune said:


> Okay, fine, enjoy that penis extension.
> 
> That's really all I can see a gun as.



I'll mention that to our medal winning Commonwealth and Ontario Winter Games shooting teams the next time I see them.  I'm sure the ladies and junior girls shooting will be amused.   Fortunately, Canadian women sport shooters kick ass on the world stage, I doubt they'll give a shit what _you_ think.

Mind you, now that you mention it, the Worlds, Pan American and CommonWealth medal winning Dr. Susan Nattras (and Officer of the Order of Canada) does look like a bit of a dyke. Maybe she's compensating?  Nah, couldn't be.  Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.


----------



## Ratte (Feb 22, 2009)

Guns are great.  Just know when to use one.


----------



## pheonix (Feb 22, 2009)

It says it right in there, if you carry a gun you're too old to take an ass woopin. Take out the old part and it's 100% true. Now guns are awesome and such when it comes to shooting random objects and hunting (recreational use) but if you have a gun to shoot someone you're a coward. Learn to fight and take an ass woopin. But I understand those people who carry guns for protection but with great power comes great responsibility. There's too many people holding the power too take a life in this world.


----------



## PriestRevan (Feb 22, 2009)

KittenAdmin said:


> /laughs at the starry eyed liberal who thinks everyone is a good person


^(this coming from the guy who thinks everyone can make it in the world)

I never said I thought everyone was a good person.

That's just you putting words in my mouth.



> See you in a hole somewhere because you couldn't protect yourself. :3


 
Oh no, I'll die. /sarcasm

---

Besides, I prefer a good ol' fashioned knife.


----------



## KittenAdmin (Feb 22, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> ^(this coming from the guy who thinks everyone can make it in the world)
> 
> I never said I thought everyone was a good person.
> 
> ...



Correct. Anyone can make it in the world. 

Where does that say everyone is a good person? *reads a couple times*

Lol... good luck with your knife. Especially when criminals can buy guns on the streets illegally.

BLAM


----------



## PriestRevan (Feb 22, 2009)

KittenAdmin said:


> Correct. Anyone can make it in the world.
> 
> *Where does that say everyone is a good person?* *reads a couple times*


 


> _/laughs at the starry eyed liberal who thinks everyone is a good person_


 


> Lol... good luck with your knife. Especially when criminals can buy guns on the streets illegally.
> 
> BLAM


 
Because the chances of a criminal shooting me is REALLY high. 

...

Either way, I'm sick of hearing about how teenagers got their hands on their parent's gun(s) and shot up a school.


----------



## Doubler (Feb 22, 2009)

How many people who want nothing more then to kill/maim you do you guys think are really out there?

From the way some of you talk about self-protection I'd almost get the impression the US is filled with murderous psychopaths lurking around every corner.

The local criminals here still tend to prefer not to hurt someone, or at least not draw attention to oneself. A weapon of any kind is a tool; mostly carried when deemed useful and mostly used when deemed necessary.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Feb 22, 2009)

Maybe if you stop looking like such a mark, criminals would leave you alone...


Slouch less....confident more....


----------



## KittenAdmin (Feb 22, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> Because the chances of a criminal shooting me is REALLY high.
> 
> ...
> 
> Either way, I'm sick of hearing about how teenagers got their hands on their parent's gun(s) and shot up a school.



Lol... because THAT happens more than homicide!

Hahaha... somebody quote this guy...

You're being COMPLETELY ridiculous... backing everything with emotion instead of facts... just like an average liberal. Bravo.

Do I really need to go find the homicide counter of how many people are mugged or killed in the US every five seconds?

And haven't you heard? In Virginia, a law has been passed so that teachers can now carry firearms :3

Perfect.


----------



## PriestRevan (Feb 22, 2009)

KittenAdmin said:


> Lol... because THAT happens more than homicide!
> 
> Hahaha... somebody quote this guy...
> 
> You're being COMPLETELY ridiculous... backing everything with emotion instead of facts... just like an average liberal. Bravo.


 


> In 2005, 11,346 persons were killed by firearm violence and 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm. Most murders in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.


 
In retrospect, that's actually not alot of people, considering America as a overall population of: 303,824,640. 

---

And you're talking about me being ridiculous. You sound like someone who thinks a murderer is just around the corner, waiting to shoot you. 

Lets be honest, most criminals aren't going to shoot you unless you show some kind of retaliation. Criminals just want your shit.



> Do I really need to go find the homicide counter of how many people are mugged or killed in the US every five seconds?
> 
> And haven't you heard? In Virginia, a law has been passed so that teachers can now carry firearms :3
> 
> Perfect.


 
Okay, first and foremost, a mugging isn't a big deal. Get over it.

Secondly, Virginia is a fucked up state.


----------



## KittenAdmin (Feb 22, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> In retrospect, that's actually not alot of people, considering America as a overall population of: 303,824,640.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...



So you can give them all your shit... I'll keep my shit and make them run away.

And you're right... Virginia voted Democrat in last year's election. It is fucked up D:


----------



## vivatheshadows (Feb 22, 2009)

Laze said:


> Clearly I've lead a very sheltered life, as I've never even seen an *actual* gun, let alone been given the opportunity to own one. And I'd rather not.



What a sad sad existence....



xXxKirai_KainashixXx said:


> Wasn't that on FG or some shit?
> 
> I think it was.



It was? ohh yeah it was! sorry ive a terrible memory...


----------



## PriestRevan (Feb 22, 2009)

KittenAdmin said:


> So you can give them all your shit... I'll keep my shit and make them run away.


 
And, because the chances of you shooting them first is REALLY HIGH. 



> And you're right... Virginia voted Democrat in last year's election. It is fucked up D:


 
If we had it your way, we'd basically have a walking corpse running this country right now.

... and when we finally buried that corpse, we'd have a MILF running this country.


----------



## KittenAdmin (Feb 22, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> And, because the chances of you shooting them first is REALLY HIGH.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol... most thieves value their lives more than your possessions.

And I wont argue with you about the election because it has already gone by, and there is nothing to achieve.


----------



## PriestRevan (Feb 22, 2009)

KittenAdmin said:


> Lol... most thieves value their lives more than your possessions.


 
And the only reason they value their lives is because you shoot back.


----------



## Laze (Feb 22, 2009)

vivatheshadows said:


> What a sad sad existence....



Just because I've never really been exposed to firearms?


----------



## PriestRevan (Feb 22, 2009)

Laze said:


> Just because I've never really been exposed to firearms?


 
Personally, that would sound like a nice existence to me.

A little bit of a ignorant existence (no offense to you), but still a nice one.


----------



## Ratte (Feb 22, 2009)

vivatheshadows said:


> It was? ohh yeah it was! sorry ive a terrible memory...



Holy shit I remembered something.


----------



## Seas (Feb 22, 2009)

gunfacts.info

For the gun control fanatics.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Feb 22, 2009)

If we don't have guns, people will still kill each other with melee weapons like knives and shit.

I'm a target shooter. I shoot a 9mm for _fun_, at _inanimate objects._ I'm not killing anyone with a gun and nobody is killing me with a gun. I don't understand why because _some_ people shoot _some_ other people, that we should _all_ not be allowed guns.

Cars kill people too. Should we ban cars? So many more people would be alive if it weren't for car accidents. 115 killed each day and 1.2 Million killed World Wide each year because of car accidents. That's more than guns.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Feb 22, 2009)

Attorney At Lawl said:


> Cars kill people too. Should we ban cars? So many more people would be alive if it weren't for car accidents. 115 killed each day and 1.2 Million killed World Wide each year because of car accidents. That's more than guns.



Well maybe when guns become as regulated as cars we can have this debate.

And also cars aren't designed to kill things.

That's kind of a big one

: /


----------



## PriestRevan (Feb 22, 2009)

Attorney At Lawl said:


> If we don't have guns, people will still kill each other with melee weapons like knives and shit.
> 
> I'm a target shooter. I shoot a 9mm for _fun_, at _inanimate objects._ I'm not killing anyone with a gun and nobody is killing me with a gun. I don't understand why because _some_ people shoot _some_ other people, that we should _all_ not be allowed guns.
> 
> Cars kill people too. Should we ban cars? So many more people would be alive if it weren't for car accidents. 115 killed each day and 1.2 Million killed World Wide each year because of car accidents. That's more than guns.


 
Yeah, but the main difference between weapons and cars is that most people don't drive a car with the intention of killing/hurting someone.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Feb 22, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> Yeah, but the main difference between weapons and cars is that most people don't drive a car with the intention of killing/hurting someone.



Not everyone is carrying a gun with the intention of killing someone either.

I still think that maybe we just need less-lethal ammo. I mean, they make rubber bullets that work. Can they kill someone? Sure. But it's a lot less of a chance. Then I still get to shoot targets, and everyone except rabid GUNS R BAD fans will be happier.


----------



## Doubler (Feb 22, 2009)

What exactly is wrong with a shooting range for shooting at targets?


----------



## Ratte (Feb 22, 2009)

Doubler said:


> What exactly is wrong with a shooting range for shooting at targets?



There's always someone who thinks it's just _terrible_.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Feb 22, 2009)

Doubler said:


> What exactly is wrong with a shooting range for shooting at targets?



Exactly, that's what I just said four posts above. I agree totally.

Like I said, less-lethal ammo. Target shooters can still shoot targets, people can still defend themselves with firearms, but less people die.

Of course, there's enough fully lethal ammo out there to last criminals for a while, but still. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.


----------



## Doubler (Feb 22, 2009)

Uhm, you misunderstood. It was an honest question, not a rhetorical one. Even with heavy gun control there will still be shooting ranges. I could go shoot a gun any time I like, I just won't be taking it home 

The 'only criminals have guns then' argument is a bit flawed, since it discounts police. Moreover, criminals won't be likely to carry guns if they're not likely to need one. They tend to attract a lot of attention when gun distribution is so limited.
To me, guns seem a bit of a vicious circle. One carries it because they feel the need to protect themselves from people who carry it because they feel the need to protect themselves from... etc. This also means the circle is incredibly hard to break once established. Like disarmament after an arms-race.


----------



## Takun (Feb 22, 2009)

Guns, the great equalizer.  


I don't own a gun, because I'm not a faggot.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Feb 22, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> because I'm not a faggot.



Yeah you are.

You're a gay faggot.

I have proof.

You listen to Radiohead.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 22, 2009)

Lawls.

All you had to do was post that link, in fact you didn't even quote any of that as if it's your own words.

What a stupid, pointless post/topic; this adds to the stupidity because none of this is even your own words, it's completely copy+paste of what somebody else said. Good job, go back to school or something.

You don't need to carry a gun; explain to me all those times that any of you people personally needed one in a real experience, come on now, don't be shy; give a gun to a pussy and he is no longer a pussy, he can now kill others that piss him off or would hurt him.
As if being hurt a little is worth taking lives, but what ever....

Non-pussies don't need a gun, because they don't rely on a penis extension to always be there, saving their life in every possible situation, like your average gun-nut redneck enthusiasts.


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 22, 2009)

I carry a gun because I hunt. And then I lock it in a closet afterward because I don't like the idea of someone accidentally dying because I can't keep my gun properly.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 22, 2009)

Shenzi said:


> I carry a gun because I hunt. And then I lock it in a closet afterward because I don't like the idea of someone accidentally dying because I can't keep my gun properly.



Nice job, you get cookies.

Though, before you get more than one; do you hunt for sport, pleasure/boredness, or is there a actual reason?


----------



## vivatheshadows (Feb 22, 2009)

xXxKirai_KainashixXx said:


> Holy shit I remembered something.




awww your such a cute wittle goui <33333


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 22, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Nice job, you get cookies.
> 
> Though, before you get more than one; do you hunt for sport, pleasure/boredness, or is there a actual reason?


I eat the animals I kill and collect taxidermy animal parts (some of my interests are a tad morbid x3).

No antibiotics, no cruelty (that can be debated, though) and I know where my food is from. Plus everything I can't use (entrails, etc) I feed to buzzards. I hope that's what you mean...my reason to hunt is an empty freezer. I wish I had a better reason really...


----------



## lilmissnobody (Feb 22, 2009)

I never got the big deal about guns. There's more guns around here than in a lot of big cities and nobody's ever gotten shot, even accidently. It's liberal paranoia, nothing else.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Feb 22, 2009)

lilmissnobody said:


> There's more guns around here than in a lot of big cities and nobody's ever gotten shot, even accidently.



I highly, highly doubt that nobody has *ever* gotten shot in your city.


----------



## lilmissnobody (Feb 22, 2009)

Attorney At Lawl said:


> I highly, highly doubt that nobody has *ever* gotten shot in your city.



It's a small town, and no, I'd have heard about it. Everybody hears about everything around here.


----------



## ceacar99 (Feb 22, 2009)

> Non-pussies don't need a gun, because they don't rely on a penis extension to always be there, saving their life in every possible situation, like your average gun-nut redneck enthusiasts



hrmm.... reminds me of the fact that while many of the men in the nfl are considered massive, strong and capable they also often try to have a firearm close at hand when not at the stadium. they dont always have it on their person but many have been reported to have a handgun in their glove box.

simple fact is, no matter how strong or fast you are your not likely to stand a chance against a guy with a gun unless he's a real dumnshit.....

http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2008/12/2/677498/guns-and-the-nfl
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/the-nfl-gun-culture/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/157511/guns_violence_and_the_nfl.html?cat=14

the articles provided often have a viewpoint that discourages guns in the nfl, but it serves my purpose of demonstrating that those rather large strong men feel threatened and ARE threatened enough that they feel like they have to carry firearms.


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 22, 2009)

lilmissnobody said:


> I never got the big deal about guns. There's more guns around here than in a lot of big cities and nobody's ever gotten shot, even accidently. It's liberal paranoia, nothing else.


Then obviously you guys aren't using your guns right. :neutral:


----------



## lilmissnobody (Feb 22, 2009)

Shenzi said:


> Then obviously you guys aren't using your guns right. :neutral:



Explain.


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 22, 2009)

lilmissnobody said:


> Explain.


It's a joke.


----------



## lilmissnobody (Feb 22, 2009)

Shenzi said:


> It's a joke.



Ah.


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 22, 2009)

Attorney At Lawl said:


> Like I said, less-lethal ammo. Target shooters can still shoot targets, people can still defend themselves with firearms, but less people die.



.38 and .45 wadcutters (PPC, NRA-Bullseye) are still lethal to 100m.  And all subsonic match grade .22 rimfire is deadly too, depending on shot placement.  Hell, the stuff I shoot at 800-1,200m (typically .308 or 6.5x55) is arguably twice as lethal as factory hunting rounds...faster velocities and higher ballistics coefficients equates to more energy on target at longer ranges.

Less lethal?   Please, lets not turn sport shooting into Airsoft.*


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 22, 2009)

Hey, I go away for a bit, and you guys and gals have this up to three pages already... good job!



John_Galt said:


> Well maybe when guns become as regulated as cars we can have this debate.
> 
> *And also cars aren't designed to kill things.*
> 
> ...



I've brought this up before, but I'll bring it up again here:  It doesn't matter what a thing is designed for, all that matters is how many lives are taken by abusing a thing.  Cars kill more people each year in the US than guns... that is a provable, statistical fact.  You can't just dismiss the figures by saying:  "Well, cars weren't DESIGNED to kill."  All that matters is, people died.




PriestRevan said:


> Yeah, but the main difference between weapons and cars is that most people don't drive a car with the intention of killing/hurting someone.



I don't own guns to kill people, I own them for the same reason I own a fire extinguisher and a smoke alarm.  I hope never to need my gun the same way I hope never to hear my smoke alarm or to ever need that fire extinguisher.  So far, I've never needed to use either my guns or my fire extinguisher to protect my life and property.  And I hope I never will...




Doubler said:


> What exactly is wrong with a shooting range for shooting at targets?



Nothing... that's where I go to shoot targets, since I no longer live on ten acres in the middle of nowhere, with an outdoor range of my own.




Doubler said:


> Uhm, you misunderstood. It was an honest question, not a rhetorical one. *Even with heavy gun control there will still be shooting ranges.* I could go shoot a gun any time I like, I just won't be taking it home
> 
> The 'only criminals have guns then' argument is a bit flawed, since it discounts police. Moreover, criminals won't be likely to carry guns if they're not likely to need one. They tend to attract a lot of attention when gun distribution is so limited.
> To me, guns seem a bit of a vicious circle. One carries it because they feel the need to protect themselves from people who carry it because they feel the need to protect themselves from... etc. This also means the circle is incredibly hard to break once established. Like disarmament after an arms-race.



Are you sure about that?  Even without heavy gun control, people complain about the noise, or some government/environmental reg gets broken, and the range is shut down as a danger/nuisance.  It's getting harder and harder to find good ranges anymore.  Also, I find it odd that I can take my registered vehicle home... but not my registered gun?  Why would I leave my car parked in someone else's locked garage?

As for criminals?  Yes, if guns are taken out of the hands of the law-abiding, then only criminals will have guns... and they WILL use them, just as they did before.  Only now, with the comfort that their victims can't shoot back.




NewfDraggie said:


> Lawls.
> 
> All you had to do was post that link, *in fact you didn't even quote any of that as if it's your own words*.
> 
> ...



I didn't, because they're not.  

Huh, Newf?  I posted this last night, before going to bed, and I get back this evening to find it's hit three pages already... also, the point is to stimulate discussion and/or comment, which it has done successfully.  Just because it isn't my words doesn't mean a thing.  I found it of interest, and shared it here, and provided the original link for reference.  Plenty of people here have quoted the words of others before.

As for your next paragraph?  It is pointless.  Why?  Because it has no basis in reality.  Yes, it's your opinion, and you're perfectly free to share it, pointless or not, but it simply shows how you HAVEN'T DONE YOUR HOMEWORK on the subject.  I own guns.  However, I'm perfectly capable of killing people with my bare hands, if I so chose... which I don't.  Having a gun in my pocket won't change who I am.  As long as no one threatens me with a deadly weapon, any gun I carried (not possible, really, since I live in Kalifornia) would remain in my pocket.  If someone came at me with fists, I would respond with fists... better yet, I'd respond with my brain, so I didn't have to use more than a finger or two.  And tell me something, Newf... if someone intends you harm, how do you know that harm will be "little"...?  A fist can kill or maim.  What's hidden in that fist can also kill or maim.  I'd rather not have my blood on the ground, or end up with an expensive emergency room visit.  I've been up to my armpits in plaster enough times, thank you...

And sorry to disappoint you, Newf, but my penis is large enough as it is... I don't need to make it any bigger.  Oh, and it isn't the gun I rely on... by carrying a gun, I'm relying on myself, not the state or some (at-that-exact-moment-absent) police officer, for my own protection, should need arise.




Shenzi said:


> I eat the animals I kill and collect taxidermy animal parts (some of my interests are a tad morbid x3).
> 
> No antibiotics, no cruelty (that can be debated, though) and I know where my food is from. Plus everything I can't use (entrails, etc) I feed to buzzards. I hope that's what you mean...my reason to hunt is an empty freezer. *I wish I had a better reason* really...



Why?  Your reason sounds perfectly good to me...




lilmissnobody said:


> *I never got the big deal about guns.* There's more guns around here than in a lot of big cities and nobody's ever gotten shot, even accidently. It's liberal paranoia, nothing else.



Neither have I.  I got my first gun from a hardware store, same place I could buy a hammer or chainsaw.  A tool is a tool.  Oh, and don't forget The Texas Chain Saw Massacre...




Irreverent said:


> .38 and .45 wadcutters (PPC, NRA-Bullseye) are still lethal to 100m.  And all subsonic match grade .22 rimfire is deadly too, depending on shot placement.  Hell, the stuff I shoot at 800-1,200m (typically .308 or 6.5x55) is arguably twice as lethal as factory hunting rounds...faster velocities and higher ballistics coefficients equates to more energy on target at longer ranges.
> 
> Less lethal?   *Please, lets not turn sport shooting into Airsoft.**



I hear ya there...

I'd love to get hold of a rifle in 6.5x55, for the very reasons you state.  Everything I've heard about that cartridge points to its ballistic and terminal efficiency.


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 22, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Why?  Your reason sounds perfectly good to me...


Because I feel like I'm being selfish. I know I gotta eat, but I don't like hurting things if I can help it. Though I admit hunting probably cuts down on the number of animals going through suffering in the meat market.

Oh, sorry for not responding to your counter-argument in your other gun thread, I was gone for the weekend. It's a bit late to add a counter-counter so I'll sit that one out. x3


----------



## Doubler (Feb 22, 2009)

> Are you sure about that? Even without heavy gun control, people complain about the noise, or some government/environmental reg gets broken, and the range is shut down as a danger/nuisance. It's getting harder and harder to find good ranges anymore. Also, I find it odd that I can take my registered vehicle home... but not my registered gun? Why would I leave my car parked in someone else's locked garage?


If you want a reassurance: there's plenty of shooting ranges in this country, and fire-arms are illegal/heavily regulated.

As for the car: race drivers don't get to drive their cars home if they're not street-legal even if they wanted to. Why? They're not safe.

I also have to wonder why you think criminals are all psychopaths. Why would a criminal happily use a gun against people who are no threat to him, who do not threaten him? Why would he carry one (let alone use it) if it would only garner unwanted attention? And why haven't those countries that do not allow guns turned into anarchistic hell-holes run by criminals yet?
And what makes you discount law enforcement as 'law-abiding citizens'?

Edit: ugh, it's 5 in the morning and I'm tired. I thought you were saying 'they' would eventually shut down ranges on other pretenses, but you weren't suggesting anything of the sort. Sorry.


----------



## jagdwolf (Feb 22, 2009)

The real point of guns in the hands of private citizens was best summed up by the man i respect the most.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950) 

backed up by......

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison. 

to protect me from this.....

"Government begins at the end of the gun barrel." - Chairman Mao 
Gun registration is not enough. Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno 

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 22, 2009)

Shenzi said:


> Because I feel like I'm being selfish. I know I gotta eat, but I don't like hurting things if I can help it. Though I admit hunting probably cuts down on the number of animals going through suffering in the meat market.
> 
> *Oh, sorry for not responding to your counter-argument in your other gun thread*, I was gone for the weekend. It's a bit late to add a counter-counter so I'll sit that one out. x3



No problem, Shenzi... RL comes before Internet.

You really shouldn't feel selfish.  Meat is meat, whether it comes from a store or not.  I know I enjoyed what wild small game I was able to hunt, when I had ten acres to hunt on... all for the cost of a couple rounds of .22 rimfire, and my time and effort.  I also think it tastes better, with all the time and effort involved.  Because it was a task I performed, not something someone else put out the time and effort for.  A job well done, if you will.




Doubler said:


> You're making a straw man of people in favour of gun control. If you want a reassurance: there's plenty of shooting ranges in this country, and fire-arms are illegal/heavily regulated.
> 
> As for the car: race drivers don't get to drive their cars home if they're not street-legal even if they wanted to. Why? They're not safe.
> 
> ...



I'm not making anything of anyone... and the fact you have plenty of shooting ranges IN THE NETHERLANDS has nothing to do with the situation IN THE UNITED STATES.  Different country, different culture, different situations.  I've seen ranges disappear, and I have read and heard about ranges disappearing, so, in America, the possibility is real.

Ummm... excuse me?  Race cars... not safe?  Race cars are the safest cars on the road... I've seen the vids of crashes, drivers not only surviving horrendous, triple-digit wrecks, but walking away from them.  The only reason race cars aren't driven home is because they are RACE CARS, not STREET CARS.  That, and the regs for race cars differ from those of street cars... you see, quite a few race cars don't even have lights or turnsignals or speedos or window glass or insulation or...

... do you get the picture?

Way back when racing first started, many race cars were simply modified street cars, driven to the track, raced, then driven home...

Ummm... Doubler?  What do you know about crime and criminal behavior?  You're whole statement is fantasy.  A criminal... a VIOLENT criminal... will use any form of intimidation they can get their hands on, whether or not they think the victim is armed:

http://rkba.org/research/wright/armed-criminal.summary.html


jagdwolf, thanks for your input...


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Feb 22, 2009)

Yeah, the right to bear arms is a critical right, but there should be limitations to it.
Example: You don't need an automatic rifle for anything or a very large handgun.


----------



## Doubler (Feb 22, 2009)

> I'm not making anything of anyone... and the fact you have plenty of shooting ranges IN THE NETHERLANDS has nothing to do with the situation IN THE UNITED STATES. Different country, different culture, different situations. I've seen ranges disappear, and I have read and heard about ranges disappearing, so, in America, the possibility is real.


Of course I can't talk about the US. However, knowing my fellow countrymen if even they don't complain about the ranges, few other people would 
But if you're genuinely worried I certainly won't dispute you. Hope that trend doesn't continue, but it has little to do with the subject at hand.



> The only reason race cars aren't driven home is because they are RACE CARS, not STREET CARS. That, and the regs for race cars differ from those of street cars... you see, quite a few race cars don't even have lights or turnsignals or speedos or window glass or insulation or...


That's what I was suggesting. 
At a certain point even a car is better left under lock somewhere else. I thought it was fitting to mention race cars specificly since we were talking about 'sports' and why if you fired a gun at the range you wouldn't be allowed to take it home 

I don't quite see how your link supports your position, by the way. Granted, I skimmed it, as I'm going to turn in in a few minutes, so perhaps I missed something. But take a quote like this one under 'motivation':


> In fact, many respondents stated that a man who is armed with a gun is "prepared for anything that might happen" -- an opportunity to commit a crime or the need to defend oneself against the assaults or predations of others.  Therefore, while handgun carrying among felons is in part a rational response to the nature of their criminal activities, it is, in equal measure, an element of the lifestyle arising from early socialization and from fear.


It actually casts a bit of doubt on your statement.

I'll be checking this thread again first chance I get. I hope to get your position clear


----------



## PriestRevan (Feb 22, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> I don't own guns to kill people, I own them for the same reason I own a fire extinguisher and a smoke alarm. I hope never to need my gun the same way I hope never to hear my smoke alarm or to ever need that fire extinguisher. So far, I've never needed to use either my guns or my fire extinguisher to protect my life and property. And I hope I never will...


 

"I" and "they" are two different situations. 

You might not buy a gun to kill someone... someone else might.


----------



## jagdwolf (Feb 22, 2009)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> Yeah, the right to bear arms is a critical right, but there should be limitations to it.
> Example: You don't need an automatic rifle for anything or a very large handgun.


 


guess what......the government is armed with such, so should the citizens that are ment to keep the government in check.  I mean when it comes down to it if we all have muskets and the government has automatics, who gonna win.

The government is the servant of the people, not the other way around.  As to personal protection.  If I have to wait for a cop to save my ass from someone with a bat or a knife or a tire iron, im gonna be dead or badly hurt.  Why should I have to wait for that and why should I have to suffer.  Why I love Montana and the new bill that gonna get passed.


----------



## Qoph (Feb 22, 2009)

I say, stay out of trouble and you won't get shot.  Don't give anyone a reason to shoot you and they won't.  Most shootings are from drug deals, gang wars, etc., and the victims aren't generally innocent bystanders.  Unless they're a complete psychopath, they aren't going to shoot random people, and if they are a psychopath then they'll probably find some way to kill anyways.

I support the right to own a gun, but we really need more regulations/checks to make sure that the people that get them aren't going to use them for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Takun (Feb 22, 2009)

Look, let's be serious.  You think that any stockpile of weapons we can get in this day and age would make any fucking difference against our government?  

Really.


Be honest.


Now I don't give a fuck if you have a gun.  Really.  But let's be reasonable here.


----------



## Qoph (Feb 22, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Look, let's be serious.  You think that any stockpile of weapons we can get in this day and age would make any fucking difference against our government?
> 
> Really.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I mean they could just nuke everywhere outside of DC if they wanted to.

Also, in the unlikely situation that someone randomly shot at you in the street, you wouldn't have time to react before it happened.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Feb 22, 2009)

VandalPride said:


> Yeah, I mean they could just nuke everywhere outside of DC if they wanted to.



Yeah because that's a totally reasonable reaction, amirite


----------



## jagdwolf (Feb 22, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Look, let's be serious. You think that any stockpile of weapons we can get in this day and age would make any fucking difference against our government?
> 
> Really.
> 
> ...


 

Thats the same thing that the british thought back in 1776.  And thats the very same reason that the government tries to ban guns.  There are not that many politicians and there are not that many secret service personal to stop them.  Besides, there are militia's that are much more prepaired to answer our governments threats.  

Besides, everyone may not agree, but it is our duty to make sure that the government keeps in step with what we want not the other way around.  Its amazing here in montana on open radio people are openly talking about an armed relvolution as the only viable answer to the corruption that is coming out now.  But thats ok, there were many Tories back in 1776 who loved the british, and many colonist who did not want any part of the war.

It will always be that way.  And always has.  Major governments have been toppled by a handful of people.  Don't think this will come to a western style shoot out.  Trust me, someones gonna park a big one on DC one day, and it will come from with in.  And im not talking nuclear.  

just my 2 cents, feel free to give change


----------



## Qoph (Feb 23, 2009)

Attorney At Lawl said:


> Yeah because that's a totally reasonable reaction, amirite



What I mean is that they pretty much have the power to do what they want without even having to see us.  Whether we have guns or not won't affect the outcome.


----------



## Runefox (Feb 23, 2009)

OK. So you're saying you need to carry guns because there are evil people out there? Huh.

OK, let's say you're walking home one day, and I'm walking behind you. I pull out a gun and point it (from a short distance) at the back of your head, bark "Freeze! Wallet on the ground, NOW!", and you're going to whip around, pull your gun and blow me away before I can react? Surely, there are a few people in this world who CAN, but the likelihood that you, Joe Average, will be able to do it, is a statistical impossibility unless I'm a complete fucktard. The same goes for if I have a nice knife on me. Even a steak knife will do, actually. Grab you from behind, knife to the throat - You're going to shoot me? Pointless endeavour. What are you going to do? Hope that other pedestrians (who actually give enough of a shit to help out), if there were any around, would carry?

It gets a little different when you're defending your home, and honestly, I'm all for it, though I'm a little sceptical that this is actually as big a problem as people make it out to be. Scary, yes, but I'm not totally sure you need to carry a hand cannon and keep it loaded just for the possibility that something like that could happen. If you've got a wide-open enough home, you should keep a shotgun or rifle locked and unloaded for something like that. If you've got a tighter space to move in, then a pistol is probably best, but it's not like you need to sleep with it under your pillow and carry it around with you or anything.

Though honestly, it speaks wonders for the state of the United States and other parts of the world where violent crime rates are high. Really, when you think about it, where is the government that's supposed to be protecting you from these things? Where are the education and social systems that are supposed to be keeping people off the streets and reducing the number of people who are forced/willing to go to such lengths to make a few dollars? Honestly, it seems a lot like a feudal system whenever I think about people talking about the need to defend themselves in this day and age.

I guess I'm really lucky in a way. The area of the world I live in has a very low violent crime rate, and the closest I've come to a real firearm has been my .177 air rifle (not airsoft) and a police revolver during a high school field trip half a decade ago. While I'd love to be able to pick up an AK-47 and go down to a range (we don't have ranges here, to my knowledge), I have a strong sense that no civilian should ever have any right, nor need, to own a working one, or any other automatic weapon.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Feb 23, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> I've brought this up before, but I'll bring it up again here:  It doesn't matter what a thing is designed for, all that matters is how many lives are taken by abusing a thing.  Cars kill more people each year in the US than guns... that is a provable, statistical fact.  You can't just dismiss the figures by saying:  "Well, cars weren't DESIGNED to kill."  All that matters is, people died.



I think it matters. They weren't "abused". Most car accidents are just that. ACCIDENTS.

I'm not dismissing anything, it's just...They're not comparable in my eyes. As someone not that interested in owning a gun or preventing gun ownership. 

I mean you can say cars are more dangerous than guns, but then airplanes are way safer than either cars or guns, so...

Where does that get you?

People die from choking on ballpoint pens.

People die from a lot of different things, most of them stupid.


----------



## Takun (Feb 23, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> Thats the same thing that the british thought back in 1776.  And thats the very same reason that the government tries to ban guns.  There are not that many politicians and there are not that many secret service personal to stop them.  Besides, there are militia's that are much more prepaired to answer our governments threats.
> 
> Besides, everyone may not agree, but it is our duty to make sure that the government keeps in step with what we want not the other way around.  Its amazing here in montana on open radio people are openly talking about an armed relvolution as the only viable answer to the corruption that is coming out now.  But thats ok, there were many Tories back in 1776 who loved the british, and many colonist who did not want any part of the war.
> 
> ...




Technology was way different back in 1776, that's why.  The type of weapon that a civilian can get when compare with the weapons of the military isn't even close.  Blessing and a curse.  If the government gets out of control, we're pretty fucked as civilians for awhile.

We have to keep weapons out of the hands of radicals....but then what if we become the radicals?

Bah, this just makes me more depressed.

My personal $.02.  Right to bear arms.  We should have it.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 23, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> My personal $.02.  *Right to bare arms.*  We should have it.



But what about sunburn?


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Feb 23, 2009)

Oh hey, did I get in in time to see Roose be a retard again? I always _love_ that part of his threads :V


----------



## Takun (Feb 23, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> But what about sunburn?



Multi-tasking.  I fail at it.  =|


----------



## Werevixen (Feb 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Nice job, you get cookies.
> 
> Though, before you get more than one; do you hunt for sport, pleasure/boredness, or is there a actual reason?




I huntin' wabbits because they're a fucking plague here, it's just pest control. I don't lock up my gun as my closet doesn't have a lock, but I put it high up and out of sight nonetheless.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2009)

I -love- how in every thread Roose creates about firearms (and there's a lot of them), if you disagree he will say you're not educated enough and either post a ton of links, tell you to do homework, or insult your opinion while saying it's your right to have one; like a moron his entire life seems to revolve around guns and getting everybody gun aware, as if the government is out to get the people; a criminal lurking around and a gun will stop him.

Me as a criminal, you can have a Minigun on your car, a RPG in your trunk, carrying a rifle/shotgun and a handgun ready to be drawn, at all times no less, and I will still get what I want from you; if that's killing you I'd be able to do it with my bare hands, a knife, or my own firearm without any issue. Not only would you not be able to draw the firearm or use any of your weapons, you wouldn't even see it coming.

A criminal doesn't shout out to you (usually) before he stabs you in the back or slices your throat. If he wants to kill you, you're dead; if he wants to take your money it's just that, money. It's not worth killing him over it, or getting killed yourself.

Apparently Roose compares a firearm to a fire extinguisher, but these things are -mandatory- in most places, unlike firearms; fire extinguishers are created to protect and save lives, unlike firearms; fire extinguishers can't be used to kill somebody no more than a stick can be, unlike firearms which give you that extra reach and power.

You don't need them. If you think you do, you're lying to yourself.
Having anymore than a firearm at home is pointless; you really, really don't need to be carrying it on you at all times, only a officer needs to do that. It won't save your life; if a criminal wants you dead, you're dead; if you pull a firearm he's going to shoot/stab first, or shoot somebody else. If you shoot first, you go to jail for murder (unless he's shooting up the place or stabbing people, but how many times in the past year have you seen that in your hometown?)


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 23, 2009)

Runefox said:


> While I'd love to be able to pick up an AK-47 and go down to a range (we don't have ranges here, to my knowledge),



While the AK-47 and variants is deemed prohibited by the CDN government, the SKS, CZ585b and Valmet Hunter (if you can afford one, about $3-6K) are not.  Government policy doesn't have to make sense.

And as for ranges in NL......at least two dozen, if not more.  And that's just the centre fire ranges, not including clays or trap.   PM me if you want some links.


----------



## jagdwolf (Feb 23, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Technology was way different back in 1776, that's why. The type of weapon that a civilian can get when compare with the weapons of the military isn't even close. Blessing and a curse. If the government gets out of control, we're pretty fucked as civilians for awhile.
> 
> We have to keep weapons out of the hands of radicals....but then what if we become the radicals?
> 
> ...


 

Yes there were not ak 47's and rpgs back then.  but technology existed.  rifles and pistols were evolving just as they are now.  blunderbuss to muskets,  catapults to cannons.  thats one of the main reasons it said bear *arms*.  See back then if you could afford it you could have a cannon.  Yes a cannon.  that was not limited to the military.  Fast foreward to present.  Its not only about self protection, its about keeping the government in check. 

As to what I would do if someone were to put a gun to my head, I would give them my wallet.  However, let me put this to you.  IF that were the case would you really want to risk that if it were not me, and someone else, that I was not there to witness it.  Its not the fear of the victem, its the possible 10's of other people who would put a gun to your head.  See, if I saw that happening, I would defend the victems life.  Give you one chance to put your gun down or die.  Thats what is meant by everyone having the right to bear arms.  Its not the victem you have to worry about, its the other armed citizens.


----------



## Takun (Feb 23, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> Yes there were not ak 47's and rpgs back then.  but technology existed.  rifles and pistols were evolving just as they are now.  blunderbuss to muskets,  catapults to cannons.  thats one of the main reasons it said bear *arms*.  See back then if you could afford it you could have a cannon.  Yes a cannon.  that was not limited to the military.  Fast foreward to present.  Its not only about self protection, its about keeping the government in check.
> 
> As to what I would do if someone were to put a gun to my head, I would give them my wallet.  However, let me put this to you.  IF that were the case would you really want to risk that if it were not me, and someone else, that I was not there to witness it.  Its not the fear of the victem, its the possible 10's of other people who would put a gun to your head.  See, if I saw that happening, I would defend the victems life.  Give you one chance to put your gun down or die.  Thats what is meant by everyone having the right to bear arms.  Its not the victem you have to worry about, its the other armed citizens.



There still wasn't the huge gap in gear and weapons there are now.  Helicopters, riot gear, and the like.  If there really was a revolution, I'm sure the only thing holding the government back would be it's reputation.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Feb 23, 2009)

I don't carry a gun because I don't have any need for one. If I were to just carry a gun with me at all times, then I would probably use it once every ten years and be a Dale Gribble for the other ten.


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 23, 2009)

I carry a gun because I have penis envy


----------



## jagdwolf (Feb 23, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> There still wasn't the huge gap in gear and weapons there are now. Helicopters, riot gear, and the like. If there really was a revolution, I'm sure the only thing holding the government back would be it's reputation.


 

Point well made and taken.  I am not suggesting that it would be a cake walk, and there would be a lot of blood shed, but I also am very sure, keep my muzzel shut, that there would be strikes on major political targets that would be very devistating.  If you think about this logicly  if you were fighting to take over a small town of 30K who has a law enforcement of say 500. (thats really pushing it) and 20% of the 30k were armed and hunting, how long do you think the 500 would survive, second you would hit there base of operations and possible cut power to the grid.   

People are not stupid, and were not all gamers sitting behind a computer pawing off.  There are some go olde boys around the country and gangs that are not all yeehaw, pop me another cold beer, and where the 4 wheeler.

But were not there yet.  But good points none the less.  thanks for sharing!


----------



## Nargle (Feb 23, 2009)

If this world wasn't such a scary flippin' place, I'd disagree more with the OP. I HATE guns, and violence. But unfortunately you aren't going to stop criminals with intent to kill from getting their weapons from other sources if you ban them here. All that will do is leave the good guys vulnerable, since they're the only ones who would actually give them up anyways. 

That being said, I still won't carry a gun, even though I'm a young vulnerable female in a pretty flippin' scary world. That's because I don't trust myself with it, and I never want to accidentally make a mistake that could take someone's life. I've known people (People close to me, not some distant news story) whose kids have found their gun and shot themselves. Even though I don't plan on ever having kids, I still don't want to be near a dangerous object that could potentially take a life. 

Hopefully a tazer, some pepper-spray and a little caution on where and when I'm going will suffice =/


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 23, 2009)

Nargle said:


> and a little caution on where and when I'm going will suffice =/



Situational awareness is everthing and the first layer in any defense in depth.  A firearm is always a last resort, when all other means have failed.  The fastest draw is when the pistol never leaves the holster....because you de-risked and de-escalated before you had to go to condition one.


----------



## jagdwolf (Feb 23, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Situational awareness is everthing and the first layer in any defense in depth. A firearm is always a last resort, when all other means have failed. The fastest draw is when the pistol never leaves the holster....because you de-risked and de-escalated before you had to go to condition one.


 


*****Paw Claps........well put!

And hey Nar,   did you get that job?


----------



## Tryp (Feb 23, 2009)

Isn't carrying a gun for self defence just another way of saying you don't trust anyone?

If you really want to defend yourself against "armed thugs" (assuming you live in a ghetto), why not take martial arts lessons.  Many martial arts teach how to disarm an opponent faster than they can draw a gun on you.

Also, there are many countries in the world that are much safer, and have much lower gun ownership rates than America.  Examples: Japan, Australia, most of Western Europe, etc.  

High gun ownership rates don't have to translate to high rates of gun crime, such as in Switzerland.  However, the reason the Swiss have such a high ownership rate is because their isn't a large standing army, but rather, compulsory military service and a well-trained militia.  The problem is how easily available guns are in the U.S.  That Glock you just got so easily can also be obtained by a criminal with even more ease.

Crime is related to poverty.  Every once in a while you get someone who will do anything to increase their standing in the world.  Notice the countries I mentioned that have low crime rates also have low poverty rates.

Guns won't make the streets safer, and people with guns won't make the streets safer.  It's the people who help addicts find treatment, who help the poor find work and improve their lives, they make things better.


----------



## Nargle (Feb 23, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> And hey Nar,   did you get that job?



Unfortunately, no =( I am trying elsewhere, though. **Crosses fingers**

If all else fails, apparently I can get student loans to cover my cost of living, but I seriously don't want to be in that much debt ;_; I'm already going to a super expensive school...



Tryp said:


> Isn't carrying a gun for self defence just another way of saying you don't trust anyone?



If you trust complete strangers, then that's a problem =/

Leaving yourself completely vulnerable when there is even a SMALL chance of danger is pretty stupid, in my opinion. Just like Roose said, would you want to live in a house with no fire extinguisher, even though you've never had a fire in your life? There's still a small chance that some wires may spark and start one. Better safe then sorry, yah know?


----------



## Runefox (Feb 24, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Situational awareness is everthing and the first layer in any defense in depth.  A firearm is always a last resort, when all other means have failed.  The fastest draw is when the pistol never leaves the holster....because you de-risked and de-escalated before you had to go to condition one.


Yep, and that's why the biggest risk to carrying a gun around with you is the temptation to use it as a first-response, which is why our police force here in Newfoundland only within the last decade were, after a long, unpleasant debate, allowed to carry firearms, and why more and more police forces are using tasers and other less-than-lethal means of incapacitation.

It's not bad enough that a gun is pretty much useless in self-defence (not home defence) to begin with if you're not paying attention to your surroundings, but there are also lots of morons out there who would sooner feel that false sense of security and draw it when trouble comes along, not to mention morons who feel invincible with a Glock strapped to their chest/thigh and are willing to take bigger risks that put them in situations where self-defence is a problem.


----------



## Giorgio Gabriel (Feb 24, 2009)

Tryp said:


> Isn't carrying a gun for self defence just another way of saying you don't trust anyone?
> 
> If you really want to defend yourself against "armed thugs" (assuming you live in a ghetto), why not take martial arts lessons.  Many martial arts teach how to disarm an opponent faster than they can draw a gun on you.
> 
> ...





All your fancy martial arts won't stop Paco from putting two in your skull when he wants to jack you up.  You'll be laying out with your fuckin top blown off after trying to disarm the thug, and he'll have made off with all your possessions.

Calling the police won't help you when said criminals are in the house taking all your shit and killing your family.  Putting a canister of shot in their flesh is the best deterrent for these types of people.


----------



## the_last_centaur (Feb 24, 2009)

I don't carry a gun cos my lisence dosn't let me carry it anywhere else than clubs and ranges


----------



## alaskawolf (Feb 24, 2009)

i dont own a gun, i don't really have a big need for one at the moment. a lot of my friends own a gun, ok all my friends own guns lol. hunting target practice etc, their are many uses for one

if i need one ill borrow one, it is good to have one when your walking around the woods here though


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 24, 2009)

Tryp said:


> Also, there are many countries in the world that are much safer, and have much lower gun ownership rates than America.  Examples: Japan, Australia, most of Western Europe, etc.



A quick google of the literature will prove this very wrong.  In Japan, England Canada, and Australia, the general trend in gun crime is upward (actually through the roof); despite a general downward trend in overall crime due to an aging population.  Which is causing a call for even stricter gun controls.....which wont effect criminals.  The irony of gun control is that it is one of the few areas of the law where its total failure requires ever more of the same.

What Canada has spent on gun control since 1993 would pay for 2 MRI machines for EVERY hospital in Canada.  With 30K+ auto fatalities per year, and less than 2k gun fatalities (of all types) Canadians are not getting good value for their investment.

Odd these threads keep popping up here.  I'm still waiting for a furry thread to pop up on http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/index.php.    Maybe I should start one.


----------



## hlfb (Feb 24, 2009)

This thread inspired me to go toss 300rds of 40S&W downrange this afternoon. 

Thanks!


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 25, 2009)

hlfb said:


> This thread inspired me to go toss 300rds of 40S&W downrange this afternoon.



4 more boxes and you could finish the case.


----------



## vivatheshadows (Feb 25, 2009)

hlfb said:


> This thread inspired me to go toss 300rds of 40S&W downrange this afternoon.
> 
> Thanks!



How far?


----------



## jagdwolf (Feb 25, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Unfortunately, no =( I am trying elsewhere, though. **Crosses fingers**
> 
> If all else fails, apparently I can get student loans to cover my cost of living, but I seriously don't want to be in that much debt ;_; I'm already going to a super expensive school...
> 
> ...


 



well heres hoping you can get one hun.  even for spending cash so you dont go too deep in debt.

good luck


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 25, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> The irony of gun control is that it is one of the few areas of the law where its total failure requires ever more of the same.



Whereas the proponents of _looser_ gun laws appear to have an approach similar to putting fires out by spraying gasoline onto the flames... ("A school shooting? Why, people need *more* guns...")


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 25, 2009)

vivatheshadows said:


> How far?



50 metres max, one would hope.   ( AA batteries have a better balistic coeffiecient than .40S&W :razz: )



Mayfurr said:


> Whereas the proponents of _looser_ gun laws appear to have an approach similar to putting fires out by spraying gasoline onto the flames... ("A school shooting? Why, people need *more* guns...")



Spray enough gasoline quickly enough, and you'll put the fire out.

Peer reviewed academic research does sort of have that effect, when emotion says one thing and logic says another.  Kilian, Columbine, L'ecole Polytechnic, Dawson College*, Virginia State, West Nickel....the list of massacres that could have been avoided or prevented with an armed citizenry can never truly be calculated, even with 20/20 hindsight.  

There's one gun for every 12 people on the planet, you can't get rid of them all.  Criminals and and the insane don't follow the rules, so you might as well arm the other 11 people.  You can bet the Amish are arming their teachers now.



*might be an exception to the rule, as the Montreal police first on site broke _every_ one of their department's rules and engaged the attacker instead of hunkering down and waiting it out like they did at L'ecole Polytechnic; with drastically different results.


----------



## Bambi (Feb 25, 2009)

> I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I
> understand the limitations of government.


 
Subjective point is _subjective._



> MARTA


 
Moving the A------ American R---- through Atlanta.

Solve the puzzle, or buy a vowel.



> There's one gun for every 12 people on the planet, you can't get rid of them all. Criminals and and the insane don't follow the rules, so you might as well arm the other 11 people. You can bet the Amish are arming their teachers now.


 
The problem with the school shooting argument is what I'll call, "El-Oh-El's Dilemma":

lol, a student at ROFLMAO university, never leaves his dormroom without being armed. Today is a special day because lol is about to be shot at by a certain Senore' lulz de'XD. Anyway, lol is not the only student who came armed. So, ... anyway, he's mindin' his business yo, walkin' to his thang, when BAM! Senore' lulz de'XD starts walkin' up to him, wit' his gat in his hand. Without a second thought, lol pulls out his piece and starts blastin'. Afterward, Senore'lulz de'XD dies. Nobody quite understands what happened, and what would cause Senore'lulz to pull a gun on lol ... but what nobody really understands is who fired first. Does that make lol the gunman, or does that make Senore'lulz the gunman?

That doesn't matter nethire yo, cuz another gun-totin' badass holds lol up, saying, "You just shot this person. I bet he wasn't a threat to you, because you shot first. It's obvious: He was going for his weapon in self-defense. I saw you shoot him first, so you're the gunman." Ah, shit. Now lol is in some srsd business. Now, he can't protest his innocence as much as he'd like to, because he did fire first. Soon, more ppl from the crowd acknowledge this fact to. Eventually, teh crowd gets angry, and before the cops show up, the ppl shoot lol in the chest and take his gun from him, believing they got the school shooter.

Moral?

For every school shooting you'd think would've been prevented, more would've been caused as a direct result of having weapons on campus.


----------



## vivatheshadows (Feb 25, 2009)

im alittle wishywashy on this subject, though my father gave me his .223 rifle but i only use it for screwin off at ranges and stuff like hittin quarters and dimes and crap. 

But there are violent people out there. It is cool to defend yourself in case of a home invasion but there are those who buy guns just for home invasion so i gotta say incase everyone is willing to give peace a chance then lets keep blowin each other to Kingdom Come in defense or offense because there are always nut cases out there.


----------



## Qoph (Feb 25, 2009)

I applied to ROFLMAO University but I got denied.

On a serious note, I think campus police would be a better alternative than just sticking guns in every classroom.


----------



## hlfb (Feb 26, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> 4 more boxes and you could finish the case.


I finished the ziplock bag.  I load my own.


----------



## ShadowCoon (Feb 26, 2009)

I just carry around a false wallet so that, should I get mugged, my assailant gets away with nothing. The chances of me ever needing a gun to defend myself are slim to none. :3

Besides, from what I've seen, guns tend to cause more problems than they solve.


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 26, 2009)

Bambi said:


> Soon, more ppl from the crowd acknowledge this fact to. Eventually, teh crowd gets angry, and before the cops show up, the ppl shoot lol in the chest and take his gun from him, believing they got the school shooter.



Ah, the lynch mob mentality.  A possible, yet highly unlikely scenario; but granted, its still a possible risk. But is it probable?  This is one of the many fundamental flaws with gun control.  Its obsessed with what _might_ happen; regardless of the likelihood of it happening.  Do you deny people the right to self defense because of something that _might_ happen once in one hundred million incidents? One million?  One hundred thousand?  Or even one hundred?



> For every school shooting you'd think would've been prevented, more would've been caused as a direct result of having weapons on campus.



While I acknowledge it could happen, I'd challenge you, in the face of documented, positive post incident root cause analysis (typically after action reports, public inquiries and coroners reports) to quantify it.  What's the likelihood?  With an unarmed citizenry, the likelihood of someone stopping a rampage before "the authorities" arrive is known and documented....its statistically zero.

Or put another way...."A ship in the harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for."  Life's rough, wear a helmet.


----------



## hillbilly guy (Feb 26, 2009)

Yaoi-Mikey said:


> Honestly the problem is that too many bad/stupid people have guns in america, we go a bit insane with our "Right to bear arms" crap sometimes, you don't need a gun, especially not a big one, at the most maybe a rifle or a shotgun if you're in the country, if you're in a city carry a taser or mace or somethin, not a damn 45.


a 45. is good for protection the .32 couldnt stop a cat and the 9mm is a pice of crap if im gona shot someone i want to make shur it goes down on the first shot and i know for a fact the .45 will do the job. 
but yea i dont use a pistol i have some hunting rifles and my shotgun to protect my house and my family and when im on the road all i cary is my knife its all you realy need plus i can use it for more then just a weapon it comes in handy as a tool to


----------



## Seas (Feb 26, 2009)

Bambi said:


> lol, a student at ROFLMAO university, never leaves his dormroom without being armed. Today is a special day because lol is about to be shot at by a certain Senore' lulz de'XD. Anyway, lol is not the only student who came armed. So, ... anyway, he's mindin' his business yo, walkin' to his thang, when BAM! Senore' lulz de'XD starts walkin' up to him, wit' his gat in his hand. Without a second thought, lol pulls out his piece and starts blastin'. Afterward, Senore'lulz de'XD dies. Nobody quite understands what happened, and what would cause Senore'lulz to pull a gun on lol ... but what nobody really understands is who fired first. Does that make lol the gunman, or does that make Senore'lulz the gunman?
> 
> That doesn't matter nethire yo, cuz another gun-totin' badass holds lol up, saying, "You just shot this person. I bet he wasn't a threat to you, because you shot first. It's obvious: He was going for his weapon in self-defense. I saw you shoot him first, so you're the gunman." Ah, shit. Now lol is in some srsd business. Now, he can't protest his innocence as much as he'd like to, because he did fire first. Soon, more ppl from the crowd acknowledge this fact to. Eventually, teh crowd gets angry, and before the cops show up, the ppl shoot lol in the chest and take his gun from him, believing they got the school shooter.
> 
> ...



A more likely scenario, with strict gun control laws in place, would end up in  ~30 people getting slaughtered like cattle because they didn't have a chance to defend themselves against a school-shooter.
You suppose that is more acceptable than the scenario you have described?


----------



## Bambi (Feb 26, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Ah, the lynch mob mentality. A possible, yet highly unlikely scenario; but granted, its still a possible risk. But is it probable?


 
Certainly.

People are a risk to themselves naturally -- I was going to introduce this point by citing a case that developed during the wake of Hurricane Katrina, but wasn't sure if it was entirely appropriate. You'll have to give me sometime on a few of my sources, otherwise I'll have to go on "what if's".



Irreverent said:


> This is one of the many fundamental flaws with gun control. Its obsessed with what _might_ happen; regardless of the likelihood of it happening. Do you deny people the right to self defense because of something that _might_ happen once in one hundred million incidents? One million? One hundred thousand? Or even one hundred?


 
Well, here's the problem: we won't know the odds of something bad happening until we actually allow students to carry firearms on campus. On the other hand, both sides appear to using "what if's" -- I' am of the position that firearms should be carried only by Law Enforcement officials, not by young, stupid students who might abuse their rights just to do something incredibley naive or fatal.

However, this does not mean I'd be willing to hear the position from you that an armed student body would be a protected one. I seem to recall that there was a school shooting stopped by someone who was armed ... do you remember the name of the event? If I could, I love to bring it up as of this point.


Irreverent said:


> While I acknowledge it could happen, I'd challenge you, in the face of documented, positive post incident root cause analysis (typically after action reports, public inquiries and coroners reports) to quantify it. What's the likelihood? With an unarmed citizenry, the likelihood of someone stopping a rampage before "the authorities" arrive is known and documented....its statistically zero.
> 
> Or put another way...."A ship in the harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for." Life's rough, wear a helmet.


 
This is true.

My concern isn't about the firearms themselves, but the people who might be behind them. I'd almost prefer not to take any chances with students carrying weapons on campus, but I'd be open to see the results.



Seastalker said:


> You suppose that is more acceptable than the scenario you have described?


 
What I suppose is more acceptable is law and order. Dumb, naive, power-tripping college students don't need guns. We don't need the campus beer jocks with pistols shooting student dorms, or people forming on campus gangs due to social, mass-hysteria.

I saw a demonstration that involved someone being armed stopping a school shooter, and I was impressed. Suppose you could motivate students to actually treat the campus atmosphere seriously, than I'd might slide a little bit from my current position.


----------



## Seas (Feb 26, 2009)

Bambi said:


> I saw a demonstration that involved someone being armed stopping a school shooter, and I was impressed. Suppose you could motivate students to actually treat the campus atmosphere seriously, than I'd might slide a little bit from my current position.



Yes, the most important factor of allowing students to carry guns inside the campus is the matter of self-control. They should learn that the weapons are not tools of expressing their sudden emotions, but to defend their , and others' lives against aggressors.


----------



## Kommodore (Feb 26, 2009)

I see no reason why an adult should not be allowed to carry a weapon on school campus. Chaos like that which Bambi described would not happen, because frankly few people are actually going to carry weapons on them. And while the likelihood of a confusing shootout happening in a large open and sparsely populated area are relative high, it is less so in a more cramped situation, where more casualties from a lone gunman are more likely to account. 

This isn't an issue of law and order as I see it, a college student is an adult, so adults are either competent enough to carry weapons or they are not, and I say they are.


----------



## Kommodore (Feb 26, 2009)

Goddammit double post


----------



## vivatheshadows (Feb 26, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> I see no reason why an adult should not be allowed to carry a weapon on school campus. Chaos like that which Bambi described would not happen, because frankly few people are actually going to carry weapons on them. And while the likelihood of a confusing shootout happening in a large open and sparsely populated area are relative high, it is less so in a more cramped situation, where more casualties from a lone gunman are more likely to account.
> 
> This isn't an issue of law and order as I see it, a college student is an adult, so adults are either competent enough to carry weapons or they are not, and I say they are.



Well the one problem i see with your argument (though it is a valid one) is that you can hope that someone will do the right thing if allowed to carry a gun to school. But the fact of the matter is the uncertainty involved in it all. Someone may be the most cool headed person that you know but if they were to get into a fight or something they will most likely lose their temper and blow the other guy away. Although a counter point to my argument is that if there happened to be such an incident another student may see it and pull 'their gat out you' (sorry couldnt resist) and shot that person in the act of protection, but still there is just too much uncertainty (in my mind) for such an idea that it should not be entertained.


----------



## Kommodore (Feb 26, 2009)

That is very true, people can be hot headed, and being hot headed or irrational with a gun is not a good thing, and you can never count on people to act rationally. At least not when considering law, I don't think. 

But for it boils down more to the question of is it okay to carry a gun or not. Since I think it is, I don't see the point in restricting its use for some people (and I am talking about regular citizens here, not the insane or felons, that just complicates the matter) and not for others. Why should a law-abiding adult be denied the ability to carry a weapon on campus by the government? I don't think they should be. If the school doesn't want you to, that's different, and _private_ school should have that choice, but it should not be a law. 

And as an aside, for gun laws, you cannot compare two different countries. At all. Culture, geographic isolation, poverty, current weapons availability ect. all play into a countries gun crime. So saying "because country X did this gun crimes went down, so it will work in country Y" is not valid.


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 26, 2009)

Bambi said:


> Well, here's the problem: we won't know the odds of something bad happening until we actually allow students to carry firearms on campus. On the other hand, both sides appear to using "what if's" -- I' am of the position that firearms should be carried only by Law Enforcement officials, not by young, stupid students who might abuse their rights just to do something incredibley naive or fatal.



So screen them.  We don't let everyone drive a car, and we certainly don't allow just anyone to fly an airplane, or operate in a hospital.  It should be possible to build a discipline that screens and passes motivated individuals while not impacting non-motivated individuals.  Might not fly in the US, but its a tenet of the "CanadaCarry" organization up here.



> However, this does not mean I'd be willing to hear the position from you that an armed student body would be a protected one. I seem to recall that there was a school shooting stopped by someone who was armed ... do you remember the name of the event? If I could, I love to bring it up as of this point.



Not off hand, but its late and i've had a rough day.  Let me dig.

And you've uncovered the one flaw in my argument......successful use of firearms may be under-reported simply because its a non-event (bad guy held at bay until police arrive, everyone lives) or a singular event (bad guy dispatched, "billions saved", nothing to see folks move along) and not newsworthy. 



> My concern isn't about the firearms themselves, but the people who might be behind them. I'd almost prefer not to take any chances with students carrying weapons on campus, but I'd be open to see the results.



And maybe the compromise is you don't enable students, you enable the admin and support staff.



> What I suppose is more acceptable is law and order.



Of course.  But extra police patrols, campus beat cops etc cost money....and the school always needs x^n priorities first.  Socially, (at least in the Canadian context) one of the cheapest forms of gun control is to simply deny offenders bail.  Based on the statistical reality that 2/3rds of shootings are committed by people already awaiting trial on bail.  Doesn't eliminated the first time offenders, but its a start.  Of course this approach also raises a host of other legal issues that still have to be teethed through.



> I saw a demonstration that involved someone being armed stopping a school shooter, and I was impressed. Suppose you could motivate students to actually treat the campus atmosphere seriously, than I'd might slide a little bit from my current position.



I've seen a demonstration video on what un-armed students can do to improvise (basically an en-mass attack....some die, but not all) defenses in barricade situations.  It was enlightening.  I've also attended executive protection/defense courses for frequent flyers (all the rage in late 2001) and I can tell you, its changed the way I look at things when boarding a commercial aircraft.


----------



## vivatheshadows (Feb 26, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> That is very true, people can be hot headed, and being hot headed or irrational with a gun is not a good thing, and you can never count on people to act rationally. At least not when considering law, I don't think.
> 
> But for it boils down more to the question of is it okay to carry a gun or not. Since I think it is, I don't see the point in restricting its use for some people (and I am talking about regular citizens here, not the insane or felons, that just complicates the matter) and not for others. Why should a law-abiding adult be denied the ability to carry a weapon on campus by the government? I don't think they should be. If the school doesn't want you to, that's different, and _private_ school should have that choice, but it should not be a law.
> 
> And as an aside, for gun laws, you cannot compare two different countries. At all. Culture, geographic isolation, poverty, current weapons availability ect. all play into a countries gun crime. So saying "because country X did this gun crimes went down, so it will work in country Y" is not valid.



Well yes that is true that people shouldnt be denied the second amendment's right to bear arms. But on a school campus may be a bit much because (again) i have to cite the uncertainty of it all. because even if someone were a law abiding upright citizen that could easily change in an instant *snaps fingers for dramatic effect* because even the most upright and moral citizens can be tipped over the edge. I feel that there is a time and place for everything, such as having a weapon in your home to protect against an intruder that is something i believe in whole hearted but a school is supposed to be a bastion of knowledge and security for its student. I think the whole school shooting thing could be put to a minimum if there were a cache on school grounds for the officers that patrol there to use as well as them being familiar with the school they potrol.

Also the whole Country v. Country in Gun Safety and Crime Prevention thing is stupid because like you said one thing may work great for one country but increase the crime rate in another.


----------



## Kommodore (Feb 27, 2009)

Again, this isn't a high school campus filled with minors, it is a college filled with adults. Young adults, but adults nonetheless. There is uncertainty in every situation, period. If you, like me, think adults should be allowed to carry weapons in public, then it does not matter if it is on a campus or not, its all relative. 

Besides, why shouldn't I be able ta buta' cap in sum bitches ass fo lookin me up? *ahemcughsputtercough* ?


----------



## vivatheshadows (Feb 27, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Again, this isn't a high school campus filled with minors, it is a college filled with adults. Young adults, but adults nonetheless. There is uncertainty in every situation, period. If you, like me, think adults should be allowed to carry weapons in public, then it does not matter if it is on a campus or not, its all relative.
> 
> Besides, why shouldn't I be able ta buta' cap in sum bitches ass fo lookin me up? *ahemcughsputtercough* ?



Now i never said anything about carrying a weapon out in public. But i just dont see the logic in letting college students carry weapons, sure they may technically be adults but once you turn twenty one you dont gain this all knowing and infinite wisdom of the universe you are still illogical and irrational everyone is, it doesnt matter what age they are. Though granted they are less illogical than say a High school student but i think it'd be too much of a risk. To me it seems that in Theory it may be a good idea but in practice it wouldnt because, you are trying to appeal to a persons higher sense of judgement that sometimes isnt really there in the heat of the moment. Though it may be alright if looking at it from a defensive side there is always someone who will use a weapon offensivly it doesnt really matter what age. 

An' nigga' you cant be goin' 'round wavin' yo' gat up in er'rybodies face 'sup wit 'dat shit you tryin' ta get shot o sum shit?


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 27, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> And as an aside, for gun laws, you cannot compare two different countries. At all. Culture, geographic isolation, poverty, current weapons availability ect. all play into a countries gun crime. So saying "because country X did this gun crimes went down, so it will work in country Y" is not valid.



On the other hand, school shootings are practically a US-only phenomenon (yes, there was that one in Finland last year). How is it that US students seem to shoot each other up on a depressingly regular basis, while students elsewhere in the developed world almost never do so?

If it's not the ready legal availability of firearms to the socially inept, disgruntled and/or disaffected, what _is_ the reason?


----------



## vivatheshadows (Feb 27, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> On the other hand, school shootings are practically a US-only phenomenon (yes, there was that one in Finland last year). How is it that US students seem to shoot each other up on a depressingly regular basis, while students elsewhere in the developed world almost never do so?
> 
> If it's not the ready legal availability of firearms to the socially inept, disgruntled and/or disaffected, what _is_ the reason?




The people that buy the weapons arent socially inept, disgruntled or disaffected its their kids that are, and usually the parents dont know it until its too late. Kids in the U.S. take shit WAY to seriously someone says that another person is gay then there is an excuse to shoot someone. It is also the blatant violence that we are all expsed to from the media. most shows on an American channel are usually "Worlds [Blankiest] [Blank]" i dont think that it is a problem specifically pertaining to the weapons themselves but the culture we in the U.S. are exposed to.


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 27, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> If it's not the ready legal availability of firearms to the socially inept, disgruntled and/or disaffected, what _is_ the reason?



Remembering that correlation does not mean causation, here's a couple of somewhat sweeping generalizations that might explain this correlation:

1. There are several _Cities_ in the US with populations larger than some  European countries, and 

2. There are States in the US that are generally bigger than average European country​So so on a per capita basis, US school-shootings may not be disproportionate to population size.   Hell, the states of New York and California individually contain larger populations than all of Canada.

3. European countries tend to be truly Socialist (as is Canada), with cradle-to-grave health care, free K-12 education, plus heavily subsidized social programs, welfare and subsidized post secondary programs.​The US generally lacks the level of investment in social programs that _may_ (and the jury is still out on this one) nip anti-social behavior in the bud.  With Europe's liberalized drug and alcohol laws, you'd expect an increase in impaired driving deaths and there isn't one.  Ready access to something doesn't always imply an increase in [insert negative thing here] deaths.

Finally, it needs to be remembered that the guns used in the Columbine school shooting were secondary to the perpetrators plan.  Their original plan was to detonate a 20lb propane cylinder in the fashion of a "fuel air bomb."  Had it been successful, the entire school would have been vaporized, and the death toll of students, media and first-responders would have been around 4,500.  If that had happend, would be be talking about baning BBQ's right now?


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 27, 2009)

The difference between could of and did are completely different.

Guns could of never been invented, but they do so we go by actual figures.

In the United States of America 16,929 murders were committed in 2007; that's 5.6 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, 70% of that were firearms.

To give a comparison to those figures I always use Canada, because we're so close and have gun restrictions but the same sort of mind-set people.
Canada 2007 murder rates were 1.85 murders per 100,000 people, 605 total that year; 30% was with firearms.

With those figures we could easily say that if the USA has more gun restriction they would have a lot less murders with firearms, and more than likely a lot less murders in general; if we were to implement that now though it would be worse because they all have this mindset. It's like giving a kid candy then taking it away from him, he will cry; don't give the kid candy anyway and he won't have anything to cry about.


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 27, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> In the United States of America 16,929 murders were committed in 2007; that's 5.6 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, 70% of that were firearms.
> 
> To give a comparison to those figures I always use Canada, because we're so close and have gun restrictions but the same sort of mind-set people.
> Canada 2007 murder rates were 1.85 murders per 100,000 people, 605 total that year; 30% was with firearms.
> ...



Again, correlation does not mean causation.  Your numbers in both cases disregard the fact that gun deaths (and I suspect your stats include accidents and suicides) in the US are trending down, primarily due to an aging population.  While at the same time, gun laws in the US are being liberalized (more concealed carry, "shall issue" states etc).  Easier access to firearms and fewer deaths?  Who knew?

Sadly, despite tight restrictions on handguns since 1937, (and re-registering the lot of them in 1993 at a price of $6B CDN) gun deaths in Canada are in the increase, even though overall crime is trending down.   The conditions in Toronto and Vancouver to-day certainly can't be explained as outliers in the data. Similar trends in the UK, Japan and Australia are also well documented.

So the oddity is that, while unrestricted access to firearms _may not _necessarily mean an increase in gun deaths, restricted access to firearms _almost_ always does.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 27, 2009)

No, murders only; that's what I said, murder.


----------



## hillbilly guy (Feb 27, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The difference between could of and did are completely different.
> 
> Guns could of never been invented, but they do so we go by actual figures.
> 
> ...


 
i would bet at least %60 of that %70 of murders with a firearm are not with guns peaple got from a gun store you got to remember thare are alot of guns that are sold underground, why should that deal with the peaple that follow the law and got thir guns on the right side of the law. so gun restriction wont matter if you want to kill someone you shur can find alot of way to get a gun and thats eaven if you use a gun


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 27, 2009)

hillbilly guy said:


> i would bet at least %60 of that %70 of murders with a firearm are not with guns peaple got from a gun store you got to remember thare are alot of guns that are sold underground, why should that deal with the peaple that follow the law and got thir guns on the right side of the law



Woah, woah, woah; we're dealing with nations on a very, very large boarder; you're saying all of the guns are from underground, none from a gun store? Are you stupid?


----------



## hillbilly guy (Feb 27, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Woah, woah, woah; we're dealing with nations on a very, very large boarder; you're saying all of the guns are from underground, none from a gun store? Are you stupid?


no no no 
im just saying that alot of guns used in murders are ileagal anyway any one with any scence wouldnt use thir gun to kill someone thay can trace it back to you way to easy. if thay want some one dead thay go get a gun thay can shoot a toss 
yea some guns are took from a store im not saying thay aint just that a lot of gun are never purchased at a gun store, but from some guys basement 
yes alot of guns are from stores all but one of mine are (i made one) but guns used for a crime mostlikely aint


----------



## Takun (Feb 27, 2009)

If I was you, I'd spend all that time used on guns to learn proper English.


----------



## hillbilly guy (Feb 27, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> If I was you, I'd spend all that time used on guns to learn proper English.


foR ta main piece i don"t Give an craP most peeple Get the Point:

and i dont spend alot of time on guns i spend maby a box of shells a year so shove off it aint like im writeing a letter to the president


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 27, 2009)

hillbilly guy said:


> foR ta main piece i don"t Give an craP most peeple Get the Point:
> 
> [...] so shove off *it aint like im writeing a letter to the president*



Ah, the last refuge of the "illiterate and proud of it" brigade...


----------



## Takun (Feb 27, 2009)

hillbilly guy said:


> foR ta main piece i don"t Give an craP most peeple Get the Point:
> 
> and i dont spend alot of time on guns i spend maby a box of shells a year so shove off it aint like im writeing a letter to the president




That's fine.  Hope you enjoy no one taking you seriously online.  Ever.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 27, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The difference between could of and did are completely different.
> 
> Guns could of never been invented, but they do so we go by actual figures.
> 
> ...



I did the math, and with the figures you provided (16,929 - 5.6 - 100,000), I came up with a total US population in 2007 of 302,303,571.428... but I Googled and came up with 305,186,613 for mid-2005.  So, somewhere, either I made a mistake in my calculations, or your figures for 2007 are bogus.  Please provide links to confirm your claim... thank you.

Oh, by the way, according to your figures, the total population of Canada in 2007 would be 32,702,702.7027...

Oh, and another thing... those percentages also need to be confirmed.  Thank you, Newf...




NewfDraggie said:


> No, murders only; that's what I said, murder.



But you're forgetting something important, Newf... those murder figures include criminals murdering criminals.  You know, gang violence?  If you could find the figures for gang and crime related murders, and separate them from the "normal" murders, then what?


----------



## Aquin (Feb 27, 2009)

I might get a gun license, I'm a rather small guy irl and it would be good to have in a city with high crime rates. 

Of course, something i learned in personal defense, there is a equal level of threat to consider. I'll only carry a gun when i know how to defend myself well enough in court encase something like that should happen.


----------



## coolkidex (Feb 27, 2009)

Good for you?


----------



## Eerie Silverfox (Feb 27, 2009)

Albino-Kitsune said:


> *rolls eyes* Oh for god's sake.
> 
> Okay, fine, enjoy that penis extension.
> 
> That's really all I can see a gun as.


 
... Uh, do you have a problem with penises?


----------



## vivatheshadows (Feb 27, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Ah, the last refuge of the "illiterate and proud of it" brigade...


ahh come on be nice... 

he be up in dem dere wes virginia hillz minin dat coal


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 28, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> But you're forgetting something important, Newf... *those murder figures include criminals murdering criminals.*  You know, gang violence?



And your point is... ?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 28, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> And your point is... ?



Criminals killing criminals... if you don't get the point, then you just don't get the point.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 28, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Criminals killing criminals... if you don't get the point, then you just don't get the point.



Don't blame me if you're unable or unwilling to explain your views. 

I assume that in YOUR view that a criminal killing another criminal isn't actually murder?

If that's the case - Bullshit.

Murder is murder.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 28, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Don't blame me if you're unable or unwilling to explain your views.
> 
> I assume that in YOUR view that a criminal killing another criminal isn't actually murder?
> 
> ...



Obviously, you don't get the point...

Criminals break the law.  Criminals are bad.  Criminals need to be removed from society.  If they are killing each other, then they are not killing the innocent.  So, in order to compare statistics of murder properly, you need to separate criminals killing criminals from criminals killing innocents.  Gang related and non-gang related.  Understand?  Or need I go into excruciating detail on every single little point...?  Yes, murder is murder.  But murder comes in many forms, these two being a major statistical separation factor.  Far as I'm concerned...


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 28, 2009)

No... murder is murder, even a criminal killing another is still murder; there's no way you're this stupid, I call troll at this point.

As well, here's those links for proof you want (all this talk about homework all the time and you can't get the first google result for USA murder count)

This site says 4.2802 murders per 100, 000 people in the USA; 1.49063 murders per 100, 000 people in Canada; as for the percentage of murder commited in USA and Canada with firearms use this: Crime in Canada; "Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada."


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 28, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> No... murder is murder, even a criminal killing another is still murder; there's no way you're this stupid, I call troll at this point.
> 
> As well, here's those links for proof you want (all this talk about homework all the time and you can't get the first google result for USA murder count)
> 
> This site says *4.2802 murders per 100, 000 people in the USA*; 1.49063 murders per 100, 000 people in Canada; as for the percentage of murder commited in USA and Canada with firearms use this: Crime in Canada; "Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada."



Strange, how your figures changed from your original posted "facts":



NewfDraggie said:


> In the United States of America *16,929* murders were committed in 2007; that's *5.6* murders *per 100,000* inhabitants, 70% of that were firearms.
> 
> To give a comparison to those figures I always use Canada, because we're so close and have gun restrictions but the same sort of mind-set people.
> Canada 2007 murder rates were *1.85* murders *per 100,000* people, *605* total that year; 30% was with firearms.



Also, it would be nice to have figures not coming from a publicly editable site such as Wiki...

And yes, murder is murder... I have no idea why you keep flogging a dead horse, when that isn't the issue.  The issue is, how much of that 70% of gun-related murders in the US are gang-related... gang members (criminals) killing gang members (criminals)... and how much of that is criminals killing INNOCENTS (the law-abiding).  In other words, are the figures of 30% in Canada mostly criminals killing innocents, while most of the 70% is criminals killing criminals?

But, hey, lets compare even further:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Note that the US is #24 on the list.  And Canada is #44, even better, hmmm?  But that still makes 23 nations worse than the United States...

Here is another list, more specific to what we are discussing here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

The US is at #8, and Canada is at #20.  Note that on this list, Canada is only 12 slots below the US, while on the other list, the spread was 20 slots.  Canada is lower on murders as a whole, but is closer in murders by gun.  And though the number has decreased, there are still 7 nations more gun-violent than the United States.  Canada jumped up 24 slots, while the US jumped up only 16 slots.

Oh, and here is the link I got these links from:

http://progunprogressive.com/?p=35

This is a notable paragraph:



> Whatâ€™s even more interesting to me is that when you consider the list of most murderous-via-firearms nations, we do crawl up the list considerably. I can already hear the nimrods at GunGuys.com going â€œA-ha!! Gotcha! See? Guns really do cause murder!â€ Not so fast, you gun-grabbing twits. Think about what that means: firstly, murder is murder no matter how itâ€™s actually committedâ€“guns arenâ€™t causing the murder, they simply happen to be the tools murderers use in affluent societies where technological advantages and free markets exist. Conflating the type of weapon with the practice of killing is a logical fallacy; how the murders are committed is irrelevant when considering where the most murders occur. Secondly, the fact that we are eighth in murder by firearm but twenty-fourth overall in murders per capita should make something glaringly obvious even to the most vehement anti-gunners: in countries where they donâ€™t use guns to do the dirty deeds, criminals simply find other ways to get the job done!



Oh, and do pay attention to the last paragraph:



> Letâ€™s focus on getting rid of the social conditions that cause crime and the criminals themselves instead of frivolous and fruitless attempts at disarming the general populaceâ€“a failed policy that ultimately inhibits the law abiding citizens ability to defend the home and the self while doing little to deter criminals.



I'd also recommend reading the comments section...


Further, you might want to read this:

http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law-enforcement-corrections/criminal-offenses-crimes/8898526-1.html ... careful, my comp didn't like this site!  So, perhaps these will be safer for everybody (no adware crap):

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/04/americans_are_good_at_murder.php

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1995/11/international-00025.php ... this has a very interesting viewpoint...


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 28, 2009)

It's 2008, not 2007. It was easier to link one link for both rather than two; my argument still stands even if the number has changed by one point, Canada was also lower, so that balances perfectly.

Learn2debate, dumbass.

Gangs are gangs, every country has them; stop focusing on a insignificant factor for a stupid argument, seriously; go take images of gang member killing people in your area if it's such a large number surely you can find some images yourself with a camera.
Also the countries above the USA..did you even look at the names? ...seriously? This is also murder in general on that site, clearly not firearms.

But yes, the USA is better than: South Africa, Colombia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Belarus, and Costa Rica; even if some of those are getting their firearms from the US...but you can have your cookie.

Race...Americans aren't a unique race; Americans are...fuck you're stupid. I can't argue with somebody with the intellect of an infant any longer.

(Sorry for all the edits, and insults ;3)


----------



## Bambi (Feb 28, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> I see no reason why an adult should not be allowed to carry a weapon on school campus. Chaos like that which Bambi described would not happen, because frankly few people are actually going to carry weapons on them.


 
I disagree.

The gun culture in the United States is such that some people aren't going to use their weapons for defense, but intimidation, attention, or worse. On the other hand, I know many people who carry concealed weapons not having this problem so there stands a chance it might not be too big of a problem. However, when the problem arises people will take it very seriously -- to that extent, I still believe college campuses are no place for firearms (unless they're being carried by Law Enforcement.)

The greatest obstacle as I see it to the, "Firearms on Campus" piece, _is the people. _The social environment of the United States is such that the right to carry firearms _on campus_ would likely arouse unwanted states of paranoia, mass-panic, and mass-hysteria in the residing (_or attending_) student body. It stands to reason that these negative states of psychological attentiveness would lead to bitter results as students tried to understand their newest, social obstacle: the free right to carry weapons. Suffice to say, it would inflame already existing social tensions between students, and would likely escalate matters to a more fatal scope. I don't consider a group of people, armed with mass-hysteria, anxiety, and firearms to be a good mix. Add that to the fact if proper security devices are not in place, students would likely start resolving social disputes with these weapons. 

On the other hand, the second greatest obstacle is the campus itself. Except for well-funded academic sites, halls, dorms, laboratories, and classrooms keep students well within arms reach of one another. Close-quarters environments are not good enough places in my mind for a legally armed student to be. If a problem should arise he or she might stand a chance at stopping a school shooter, but keep in mind that this is also at the risk of hitting someone else. What becomes more of a problem out of this situation is confusion -- what if our school gunman is in Hallway B, and several students carrying handguns are scattered in the hallways next to him. If one student manages to shoot that gunman from Hallway C, but everyone else in Hallways A and D cannot figure out who the shooter is, than our hero will likely become a target. Firearms on college campuses, even in the wake or morning of a problem starting would stand a good chance at turning our schools into warzones. I don't like the thought of that.

Sure, we could screen the students -- but if we were, I'd like the evaluations to almost be harsh (not making it impossible to get a firearm, but making it harsh on the people who simply _want it, to have it) _so as to avoid potential problem students from getting armed. On the other hand, the social environment of a college campus is so complex that the actual reason to have the academic body armed would be lost in its most certain immaturity.


----------



## JamestheDoc (Feb 28, 2009)

I'm a pacifist, not much for fighting of any type at all.  Though I do think guns are interesting, I doubt I'd ever own one anytime soon.  And if I did, it'd sit on a wall or in a case and look nice until I decided to shoot at paper targets or someone broke into my home.

Firearms are deadly, that's obvious.  But the average responsible gun-owner isn't the problem, it's the people that buy guns illicitly.  Recently a lot of the local rednecks have been complaining that Obama's putting a big tax on firearms and may even ban assault-grade weapons again.  I kind of think something like that would help, but not cure, the problem.  If guns cost more, or are outlawed, people selling to criminals on the streets will charge more, and criminals tend not to have a lot of money unless we're talking about the mafia.  But they tend to be pretty good at selecting other criminals to take out.

There are cases where a gun-owner was truly saved by the fact they had a firearm and knew how to use it (that's a good set of words, "knew how to use it").  There are crazies out there, the chances of the average to have a stalker or have their home broken into (okay the home braking into is a little more common than stalkers) aren't too high, but they exist.  And when that gun-owner kills or injures the miscreant and protects his family, he'll probably stand by the ability to own a gun, seeing it saved his life and the lives he cares about.

But there are also plenty of cases in where owning a gun has caused pain and injury to those who don't deserve it.  And in most of those cases the firearms are not registered and have their serial numbers scratched off.  It's not gun-owners in general that are the problem, it's the illegal gun-owners.  Usually, if a person goes through the trouble to have a gun legally (background check, having the firearm registered to their name, waiting seven days, and getting a permit to carry if they so desire) they're doing it for protection or recreation.  Those who have to crawl under all the red tape to get a gun (a convicted criminal is going to have a hard time buying a gun properly when it comes to the background check) are probably going to end up hurting an person who doesn't deserve getting shot.

It's better to have and not need something, than to need something and not have it, I guess.  Like the advanced first aid kit I keep in my house and in my car.  I probably won't need to start an endotracheal tube at home or drain the chest cavity at home, and I don't drive an ambulance, but if something were to happen I'd be very glad I had the tools necessary to save somebody.  And if I were a gun owner, I'd be glad that if the situation ever occurred, I'd at least have a chance to take out the other guy in defense of myself and those I care about.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 28, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Obviously, you don't get the point...
> 
> Criminals break the law.  Criminals are bad.  Criminals need to be removed from society.  If they are killing each other, then they are not killing the innocent.  So, in order to compare statistics of murder properly, you need to separate criminals killing criminals from criminals killing innocents.



You're still talking bullshit.

The only reason you want to separate out criminal-on-criminal killing is in a pathetic attempt to make US stats sound better than they are - rather like during the Olympics when American TV networks ranked US#1 by total medal count when actually China was leading by _gold medal_ count...

Oh, and your links? 

Murders with firearms (per capita)
United States: #8 (0.0279271 per 1,000 people)
New Zealand: #*31 *(0.00173482 per 1,000 people) 

Murders (per capita)
United States: #24 (0.042802 per 1,000 people)
New Zealand: #*52 *(0.0111524 per 1,000 people) 

And as for the quote _"guns arenâ€™t causing the murder, they simply happen to be the tools murderers use in affluent societies where technological advantages and free markets exist"_ - well, New Zealand and the US are a similar level for technology access and free markets, so I don't see this applying here.

Yes, there's the usual stuff in our local media about rising crime etc., but guess what: *no-one* here - even the local gun lobby - is advocating US-style pistol carry laws. I suspect that's because that particular "cure" is ranked worse than the disease.

The only thing I agree with in your recent posts is the quote about getting rid of the social conditions that cause crime. But again, it seems that US society is strangely disinterested in that approach, preferring the mantra of "Capitalism, free markets and self-reliance uber alles" along with punishing the poor for being poor over anything approaching the assistance given by other Western developed democracies to their people.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 28, 2009)

Bambi said:


> The gun culture in the United States is such that some people aren't going to use their weapons for defense, but intimidation, attention, or worse. On the other hand, I know many people who carry concealed weapons not having this problem so there stands a chance it might not be too big of a problem. However, when the problem arises people will take it very seriously -- to that extent, I still believe college campuses are no place for firearms (unless they're being carried by Law Enforcement.)
> [...]
> Sure, we could screen the students -- but if we were, I'd like the evaluations to almost be harsh (not making it impossible to get a firearm, but making it harsh on the people who simply _want it, to have it) _so as to avoid potential problem students from getting armed. On the other hand, the social environment of a college campus is so complex that the actual reason to have the academic body armed would be lost in its most certain immaturity.



This.
A very well-constructed and thought-out post.


----------



## Werevixen (Feb 28, 2009)

That NationMaster site as completely bullshit sources, looking it up, Belgium still has the death penalty according to them...


... LIFE SENTENCE HERE IS 25 YEARS, PEOPLE, AND WE DON'T DO CONSECUTIVE PUNISHMENTS!


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Mar 1, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> Just make guns illegal worldwide, that would solve so many problems =<



But Russia never follows the rules, and neither does Africa, or china...
So what would happen then?


----------



## Tudd (Mar 1, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> But Russia never follows the rules, and neither does Africa, or china...
> So what would happen then?



Umm, criminals by definition...


----------



## SnowFox17 (Mar 1, 2009)

In Aus we have a show called Good News Week, which basically pokes fun at the News of that week.

One Episode was about how the teachers of Texas are allowed to now carry handguns in class to protect the children, or themselves. One of the comedians said this:

"We are going to learn subtraction today, if i shoot a studnet with this, how many do we have left?"


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It's 2008, not 2007. It was easier to link one link for both rather than two; my argument still stands even if the number has changed by one point, Canada was also lower, so that balances perfectly.
> 
> Learn2debate, dumbass.
> 
> ...



http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

Newf, click on the link again and re-read the header... it's in very large print, so you shouldn't be able to miss it.

Yes, those countries may be getting their arms ILLEGALLY from the US, but that is not the point.  They have higher levels of gun-related murders due to the nature of the people there, not to the ILLEGAL import of weapons.  THAT is a separate issue, not under discussion here.

Further, you again seem to not be paying attention:  Gang violence in America (and elsewhere) is very commonly race-related... Blacks killing blacks, Latinos killing Latinos, Asians killing Asians... all of them, killing each other, due to bigotry and inter-racial hatred.  Amongst other factors.

http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/echoes/echoes-17-03.html

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4519818.stm

If you want to learn more about the subject, Newf, plug the words *"racial violence"* into your browser, like I did...




Mayfurr said:


> You're still talking bullshit.
> 
> The only reason you want to separate out criminal-on-criminal killing is in a pathetic attempt to make US stats sound better than they are - rather like during the Olympics when American TV networks ranked US#1 by total medal count when actually China was leading by _gold medal_ count...
> 
> ...



Mayfurr... though I don't agree with your bullshit assessment, thank you for doing your homework, and thank you for your reasoned, non-insulting commentary.

The only reason I want to separate out criminal-on-criminal killing is due to the nature of gun control proponents... you know, their claim that gun control will prevent innocent deaths, the death of innocents.  If we want to compare statistics, then, based on that claim, then we must ONLY use the statistics of criminals killing innocents.  Furthermore, statistically speaking, some countries have more gang-related violence than others... look at South Africa, if you want an example (not necessarily the best).  Myself, I'm curious as to how much gang violence affects the figures, and if it is significant or not. 

So, when it comes to New Zealand, I would have to ask how much gang-related violence your coutry has, compared to the US and other coutries with high (higher) levels of gun-related violence (murder).  I would expect NZ's gang-violence levels to be lower per capita than the US's... but I don't really know.  The whole issue is certainly complex, and fraught with controversy.

And thank you very much for your last paragraph, Mayfurr... it's the whole crux of the matter.  Crime cannot be stopped by banning the tools of crime, it can only be stopped (really, lessened, though we can always hope) by dealing with the human side of the equation.




SnowFox17 said:


> In Aus we have a show called Good News Week, which basically pokes fun at the News of that week.
> 
> One Episode was about how the teachers of Texas are allowed to now carry handguns in class to protect the children, or themselves. One of the comedians said this:
> 
> "We are going to learn subtraction today, if i shoot a studnet with this, *how many do we have left?*"



The same as we started with, only one student is now dead and the teacher is now in prison for murder...




Werevixen said:


> *That NationMaster site has completely bullshit sources*, looking it up, Belgium still has the death penalty according to them...
> 
> 
> ... LIFE SENTENCE HERE IS 25 YEARS, PEOPLE, AND WE DON'T DO CONSECUTIVE PUNISHMENTS!



Hey, nobody's perfect... mistakes and misinformation is nothing new or unusual, when it comes to the media and to the dissemination of information.  Especially over the web...


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 1, 2009)

You racist bastard. Seriously.

You biased, racist, redneck little dick.

Header? I see *NATION MASTER* as the header, am I missing something here or is this significant?


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 1, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> The same as we started with, only one student is now dead and the teacher is now in prison for murder...



"Now for advanced mathematics.

If it takes two students 45 minutes to kill 7 people while firing 45 rounds per minute, how long does it take for one student to kill double the number of people using the same gun, assuming a 25 round magazine and an average of five seconds to reload?

For extra marks, calculate the non-parole period of the sentence per bullet expended, for each scenario.

Remember, show your working..."


----------



## Sinister South Paw (Mar 1, 2009)

When are people going to get the fact that violence and fear only inbreeds and comes back stronger? Gun for gun and the world shoots itself. And eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and the world is full of blind gumming mother fuckers.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You racist bastard. Seriously.
> 
> You biased, racist, redneck little dick.
> 
> Header? I see *NATION MASTER* as the header, am I missing something here or is this significant?



This header, Newf:



> Crime Statistics > *Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country*



Also, your isults are unnecessary, and very immature.  Not to mention possessing no basis in reality... if you want to deny the existance of racially motivated violence, fine.  Plug your ears, close you eyes and shout "LA LA LA!" all you want.  It won't change the facts.




Sinister South Paw said:


> When are people going to get the fact that violence and fear only inbreeds and comes back stronger? Gun for gun and the world shoots itself. And eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and the world is full of blind gumming mother fuckers.



When are people going to get the fact that people are people and people are violent?  Well, actually, only some people are violent, while others are not.  Those who are violent will be violent whether or not guns are available, while those who are not will not be affected by the ownership of an inanimate tool.

Let me put it to you this way... my guns are less "violent" than the fork I eat my meals with.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 2, 2009)

This is funny. Successful troll is successful.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> This is funny. Successful troll is successful.



Says the troll...?


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 2, 2009)

Why would you say "...?"?


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 2, 2009)

yknow guns really dont belong in school. MAYBE  teacher(thats a maybe) but students just simply aren't in the right position to safely and responsibly carry a weapon like that. think about all the hazing, the drinking and the moronic bullshit that goes on in college? then think of adding a whole lot of weapons to that....


----------



## Nargle (Mar 2, 2009)

> Criminals killing criminals is okay



Err, who said those "criminals" deserved to die? I didn't know something like shoplifting or selling drugs was punishable by death. If the person's not about to shoot you and the only way to save your life is to shoot them first, then frankly, they're still innocents, regardless of their affiliations with any gangs, or previous crimes they've committed.


----------

