Live by the gun, die by the gun!!

[Cabra West]

The aversion to guns shown in this thread reminds me of a question asked in another:

Why should my freedom be sacrificed for your sense of security?

I agree! Who the hell needs road legislation? We should be free to drive wherever, whenever, and however fast we bloody well like. Who cares about other people's security?
And to hell with food safety and pharma regulations... they too should be free to feed us whatever they like, why should they need to be concerned about anybody's security?

[Peepelonia]

In the much loved hypothetical situation of military dictatorship, the military would likely use overwhelming indiscriminate force - dictatorships have no issues about arbitrary internment and execution.

So?

At least the rebellion stands a chance; at least those who wish to be free can go out in a blaze of glory, on their own terms, rather than as captives or slaves.

My what emotive language you are using there, it almost seems that this part of your life is not goverened by rational thought at all!

[Unchecked Expansion]

In the much loved hypothetical situation of military dictatorship, the military would likely use overwhelming indiscriminate force - dictatorships have no issues about arbitrary internment and execution.

So?

At least the rebellion stands a chance; at least those who wish to be free can go out in a blaze of glory, on their own terms, rather than as captives or slaves.

Just pointing out that the Iraq War is not the best example of lightly armed rebels triumphing over evil dictatorship

[Cabra West]

In the much loved hypothetical situation of military dictatorship, the military would likely use overwhelming indiscriminate force - dictatorships have no issues about arbitrary internment and execution.

So?

At least the rebellion stands a chance; at least those who wish to be free can go out in a blaze of glory, on their own terms, rather than as captives or slaves.

You do realise that most of those fighting in te names areas do so for their ability to enslave and control others, not for "freedom", right?

[Gimmadonis]

You'd rather be a slave than dead?

How pathetic.

[Sidebody]

This brings to mind a story I read about Northern Ireland. I don't live there but the story was about how pretty much everything has been made illegal, even BB guns and painball guns. The story was about the next layer of laws being proposed to make "glass" glasses illegal in public places because in the absense of other weapons, it was normal for the people of NI to break these glasses and attack each other.

Ah bullshit. Fun ain't it

[Zoharland]

The aversion to guns shown in this thread reminds me of a question asked in another:

Why should my freedom be sacrificed for your sense of security?

I agree! Who the hell needs road legislation? We should be free to drive wherever, whenever, and however fast we bloody well like. Who cares about other people's security?
And to hell with food safety and pharma regulations... they too should be free to feed us whatever they like, why should they need to be concerned about anybody's security?

They are not the same.

In the case of road legislation and food safety, having those regulations actually decreases the chance of people running into each other on the road or getting sick from ill-grown food.

Banning guns doesn't decrease violent crime. Men who want to murder their wives will murder them, thugs and gangbangers will continue to murder each other in the streets, etc.

[Hairless Kitten II]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

By that logic we should ban cars, knives, anything that could possibly be used to murder someone else.

And let me tell you, thats a lot of things.

Ever killed one with a knife? Well, it isn't easy.

With a gun it's just *PANG*

[Timesjoke]

This brings to mind a story I read about Northern Ireland. I don't live there but the story was about how pretty much everything has been made illegal, even BB guns and painball guns. The story was about the next layer of laws being proposed to make "glass" glasses illegal in public places because in the absense of other weapons, it was normal for the people of NI to break these glasses and attack each other.

Well, if you believe that, of course you will believe other nonsense about how useful guns are as well.

It certainly makes sense that if you ban one thing for an excuse of "possible" harm then why not something else?


My point is these kinds of stories are not even representing 1% of legal gun ownership but this less than 1% is all the anti-gun crowd can ever talk about.



***Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

*** Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."

***Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state. FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.



facts are facts, "legal" guns pretect way more than they harm society.

[Peepelonia]

You'd rather be a slave than dead?

How pathetic.

Heh yeah baby, this is why I love the gun control debate so much. Only three pages in and already we witness the loss of logic, of well thoughtout reasonable arguments and see instead all of the normal 'why do you hate freedom' type posts that we all can connect with.

Bloody marvoulose!

[Mando-ade]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

By that logic we should ban cars, knives, anything that could possibly be used to murder someone else.

And let me tell you, thats a lot of things.

However a gun is designed to kill primarily. It is a weapon. A kitchen knife is a tool, a car is a mode of transport, a shoelace is a piece of clothing. To have a gun, especially a handgun, is to be prepared to kill

A gun is a weapon for self-defence.

Self defence is still killing. I'm simply making a point on the nature of weapons

Bullocks, I can hit the guy in the arm or leg and that will make him stop and think for a second.

[Bluth Corporation]

In the much loved hypothetical situation of military dictatorship, the military would likely use overwhelming indiscriminate force - dictatorships have no issues about arbitrary internment and execution.

So?

At least the rebellion stands a chance; at least those who wish to be free can go out in a blaze of glory, on their own terms, rather than as captives or slaves.

My what emotive language you are using there, it almost seems that this part of your life is not goverened by rational thought at all!

Far from it, the emotions are felt so strongly because of how strongly I rationally value the ideas I'm presenting.

[Dunroaming]

Inthe Uk, if someone breaks into your house and you use your non-licenced gun to kill that person, you will properly be charged (and probably convicted) of manslaughter. Everyone has the right to self-protection, but that right does not permit the use of excessive force.to do so. If the burglar is carrying a gun and threatens its use, that is a different matter. You will still be charged with the offence of having an illegal weapon.

[Zoharland]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

By that logic we should ban cars, knives, anything that could possibly be used to murder someone else.

And let me tell you, thats a lot of things.

Ever killed one with a knife? Well, it isn't easy.

With a gun it's just *PANG*

It could be relatively easy if you know what you're doing.

You downplay what one can do with a knife.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

By that logic we should ban cars, knives, anything that could possibly be used to murder someone else.

And let me tell you, thats a lot of things.

However a gun is designed to kill primarily. It is a weapon. A kitchen knife is a tool, a car is a mode of transport, a shoelace is a piece of clothing. To have a gun, especially a handgun, is to be prepared to kill

A gun is a weapon for self-defence.

Self defence is still killing. I'm simply making a point on the nature of weapons

Bullocks, I can hit the guy in the arm or leg and that will make him stop and think for a second.

So you'd aim for areas with highly vulnerable arteries? Shooting a gun at a person is an attempt to kill them. That's not a value judgement. I doubt anyone in a self defence situation spends time lining up the perfect shot that will graze them just so.

[Peepelonia]

In the much loved hypothetical situation of military dictatorship, the military would likely use overwhelming indiscriminate force - dictatorships have no issues about arbitrary internment and execution.

So?

At least the rebellion stands a chance; at least those who wish to be free can go out in a blaze of glory, on their own terms, rather than as captives or slaves.

My what emotive language you are using there, it almost seems that this part of your life is not goverened by rational thought at all!

Far from it, the emotions are felt so strongly because of how strongly I rationally value the ideas I'm presenting.

And yet you present them in an emotional manor?

[Cabra West]

They are not the same.

In the case of road legislation and food safety, having those regulations actually decreases the chance of people running into each other on the road or getting sick from ill-grown food.

Banning guns doesn't decrease violent crime. Men who want to murder their wives will murder them, thugs and gangbangers will continue to murder each other in the streets, etc.

You know, plain looking at the numbers will tell you they do so far less frequently.
People here, it's virtually unknown that people would get killed by burglars. Shootings of any kind are rare enough to make national news every time.

[Bluth Corporation]

Inthe Uk, if someone breaks into your house and you use your non-licenced gun to kill that person, you will properly be charged (and probably convicted) of manslaughter.

Then law in the UK is wrong.

[Peepelonia]

Bullocks, I can hit the guy in the arm or leg and that will make him stop and think for a second.

Have you ever actulay done that? Have you ever actulay seem what a bullet pasing through a body does? Do you really belive what you just typed?

[Cabra West]

...
*** Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."
...

facts are facts, "legal" guns pretect way more than they harm society.

You know... I'm rather speechless. Here, neither citizens nor police kill "crooks". They get caught, tried, and imprisoned.

[Gimmadonis]

Ahem...
http://www.thegamersmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/spy.jpg
Gentlemen.

[Cabra West]

Inthe Uk, if someone breaks into your house and you use your non-licenced gun to kill that person, you will properly be charged (and probably convicted) of manslaughter.

Then law in the UK is wrong.

It's very effective at keeping the population alive and fairly safe, from what I can tell.

[Gimmadonis]

Inthe Uk, if someone breaks into your house and you use your non-licenced gun to kill that person, you will properly be charged (and probably convicted) of manslaughter.

Then law in the UK is wrong.

It's very effective at keeping the population alive and fairly safe, from what I can tell.

Someone with a gun breaks into your home and is looking for you.

Now, you don't have a gun.

Wtf are you gonna do?

[Peepelonia]

...
*** Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."
...

facts are facts, "legal" guns pretect way more than they harm society.

You know... I'm rather speechless. Here, neither citizens nor police kill "crooks". They get caught, tried, and imprisoned.

Whats even worse is this 2% of innocent people. What is 2% 1527?

[Cabra West]

Someone with a gun breaks into your home and is looking for you.

Now, you don't have a gun.

Wtf are you gonna do?

Same thing I would do if I had a gun:

Run away and call the neighbours. Then call the police.