Wheras I can count the number of people I know who DON'T own a gun on two hands. It's all in where you live, and what the culture is.Kmarion wrote:
I know not one American obsessed with firearms. As a matter of fact the number of friends I have that own guns can be counted on one hand, and three of them are in the military.
In which you often take swings at me.Parker wrote:
dont flatter yourself.
i dont follow you around, i just post in the gun related threads.
My part in it is you taking issue with what I say, and, rather than attacking my arguments, attacking me. And that thread had nothing to do with you and you know it.Parker wrote:
now i know you dont agree with me, but i dont just start acting like a dickhead. at least be man enough to own your part in it, or i can find the thread where you had to apologize cause you went over the line.
What can I say, when you start being an ass I respond in king.Parker wrote:
as much as you dont like to see those videos, they are only posted once the debate has gone seriously downhill. i have started plenty of debates with you where, at the start they were fine, but by the end we were BOTH flaming. own it or not, thats the way it is bubs.
No, you're right. You start of laughing at me without actually making any points and then you post the videos when I call you out.Parker wrote:
you act like i say "guns are cool" then post a video and that is my debate. you know that is not the case........
I was talking about the other side as in taking a swing at someone's character rather than arguing based on their logic and facts.Parker wrote:
"it's nice to finally see the other side." what the fuck? you have seen my "other side" in plenty of posts you might not have read them but they have been there.
Ah! There it is! Does it feel good to be back to your old spot? Rather than telling me why the points I raised are wrong, you tell me that I must be wrong because of my "experience".Parker wrote:
see the thing i question with you, and i think this is why our shit winds up in flames, is your experience.
You just did.Parker wrote:
i wont question your experience,
I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the points I raised are wrong.Parker wrote:
if its agreed then please, lets debate, however i dont want rehash past experiences.
Given that she was paraphrasing Voltaire, I'm pretty sure it should still be contributed to him.DesertFox- wrote:
Au contraireSondernkommando wrote:
3. DesertFox: that's Voltaire you're quoting, not Evelyn Beatrice Hall (whoever that is).
Ok then, where are the statistics?The_Mac wrote:
I don't think Gun Control is effective anywhere. In Britain, violent crime rate went up. I've been shown charts by UKies denying this, but these charts show non violent crimes, like pickpocketing and burglary. Real statistics report that violent crime has been reported as going up.
And I disagree. His logic generally consists of "You guys don't know what you're talking about so go away".Stingray24 wrote:
I don't dispute there is rational and reasonable debate on the subject and I said I feel his logic beats anything from the other side.
And I don't care about the size of the gun he shoots at a shooting range, yet he keeps on posting those videos. I just didn't want him to think that I was critical of him because he takes the opposing view. Gunslinger often does, yet I have great respect for him, because he actually argues the point.Stingray24 wrote:
Feel free to address violent history. I was hoping we could continue the thread as it was before you chose to take a poke at Parker. Your feelings could be passed along in PM, I for one, don't care what your opinion is of him because it has nothing to do with this subject.
Right, that's what had me confused. I was asking Ty because possums are native and should not be killed. BAD TY! BAD MOD! STOP KILLING THE POSSUMS! Shoot some kittens instead.Stingray24 wrote:
It was either a possum or a big friggin rat. Opossum is the correct term, but they're referred to as possums also.
Tacked: *DO NOT FEED THE TROLL*m3thod wrote:
Ban Guns.
Edit: Post submission-skimming, user concludes thread headed nowhere others haven't been. User declines aged argument transfer. cycle cycle cycle
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-04-25 22:15:32)
Dude, we shoot and kill native animals all the time here. Opossums are pests. They carry rabies, tear up trashcans and make messes, and attack small domestic animals. I shoot one every chance I get. Ditto for the migrating armidillos. Those bastards need to die too. I got to shoot one when I went up to see my parents last weekend. It went splat with a big red streak.Bubbalo wrote:
Right, that's what had me confused. I was asking Ty because possums are native and should not be killed. BAD TY! BAD MOD! STOP KILLING THE POSSUMS! Shoot some kittens instead.Stingray24 wrote:
It was either a possum or a big friggin rat. Opossum is the correct term, but they're referred to as possums also.
Last edited by blisteringsilence (2007-04-25 22:54:58)
good or bad i think firearms are an intristic part of american culture and society. it can never be removed, ban or no ban.
But there should be tighter regulations;
1. limiting the number of guns per person/ household (for self defence/ hunting etc)
2. limiting the type of guns manufactured (who really needs an AK-47 or M16 at home? those weapons belong on the battlefield, you want to use one? join the military)
3. stricter checks on the buyer before purchase, longer waiting periods
4. gun owners are made to go for mandatory classes (weapons n ammo handling) and regular health checks (mental)
its only a matter of how much will and determination the american govt & people have to change/ amend the bills/laws to make their country a safer place for all who stay and visit there
please note, i'm not an american but have traveled there b4, its a great place.
i have served in my nation's military, i know the power of an M-16 (my issue was the carbine) and what havoc it can do in the wrong hands. and a glock is so simple to use, as we all now know....
these are just my opinions, you are free to disagree with them in a mature debate..
But there should be tighter regulations;
1. limiting the number of guns per person/ household (for self defence/ hunting etc)
2. limiting the type of guns manufactured (who really needs an AK-47 or M16 at home? those weapons belong on the battlefield, you want to use one? join the military)
3. stricter checks on the buyer before purchase, longer waiting periods
4. gun owners are made to go for mandatory classes (weapons n ammo handling) and regular health checks (mental)
its only a matter of how much will and determination the american govt & people have to change/ amend the bills/laws to make their country a safer place for all who stay and visit there
please note, i'm not an american but have traveled there b4, its a great place.
i have served in my nation's military, i know the power of an M-16 (my issue was the carbine) and what havoc it can do in the wrong hands. and a glock is so simple to use, as we all now know....
these are just my opinions, you are free to disagree with them in a mature debate..
Last edited by tthf (2007-04-25 23:05:58)
Whether or not there is a current rise in violent crime in the UK, it's still WAY below that in America. I've heard this arguement far too many times now.The_Mac wrote:
I don't think Gun Control is effective anywhere. In Britain, violent crime rate went up. I've been shown charts by UKies denying this, but these charts show non violent crimes, like pickpocketing and burglary. Real statistics report that violent crime has been reported as going up.
Over the past few decades the percentage of Muslims in America is rising, and the percentage of Muslims in Saudi Arabia isn't. Does this mean there's a higher percentage of Muslims in America and America is a larger suppporter of Muslims laws?
So do you agree that if 51% of the people in your country vote to make guns illegal you'll happily watch them ammend the second ammendment and give up your guns? After all it'd be the will of the people.Sondernkommando wrote:
1. In Switzerland, every male is in the army reserve and has at home an assault rifle with 1 pack of ammunition. Yet somehow Switzerland is not having any problems.
2. Government represents the will of the people, so if US citizens enjoy owning firearms, they will continue to do so. Only in dictatorships do citizens get "what's good for them".
3. DesertFox: that's Voltaire you're quoting, not Evelyn Beatrice Hall (whoever that is).
i cant speak for him fodder, but i can say that i would give up my firearms.PureFodder wrote:
So do you agree that if 51% of the people in your country vote to make guns illegal you'll happily watch them ammend the second ammendment and give up your guns? After all it'd be the will of the people.Sondernkommando wrote:
1. In Switzerland, every male is in the army reserve and has at home an assault rifle with 1 pack of ammunition. Yet somehow Switzerland is not having any problems.
2. Government represents the will of the people, so if US citizens enjoy owning firearms, they will continue to do so. Only in dictatorships do citizens get "what's good for them".
3. DesertFox: that's Voltaire you're quoting, not Evelyn Beatrice Hall (whoever that is).
one condition being that my safety from criminals with firearms would be guaranteed......but then we go back to your post earlier when we were talking about time tables and the ability to even do that.
I don't remember seeing any automatic shotguns being used in the Olympics, you'd better get practicing with the types of weapons that are used. Plus, it's fairly horrific that people wouldn't accept a slight inconvenience to their hobby if it meant saving lives and restructuring their country for the better.blisteringsilence wrote:
No, I would not accept using a less than optimal weapon. I am a serious competetor. Someday, I would very much like to shoot in the olympics. That's why I won't take money for winning a tournament, beyond my entry fee. Just like I wouldn't use anything other than my pump gun for hunting waterfowl. I plan to eat those birds. If I miss them, I don't get to eat them.PureFodder wrote:
If it was a successful way to reduce the number of people getting killed, surely you could accept using a shotgun that isn't perfecty designed for your particular purpose? Speed limits aren't good all the time, when there's a huge stretch of road, perfect visibility and nobody for miles, we still accept driving to the speed limit. It's an inconvenience, but overall the sacrifice is worth the lives saved.blisteringsilence wrote:
Well rationed and well thought out. There are a couple of fundamental flaws, however.
First and foremost, I'll start with the shotguns, since that's what I compete with. I own 7. And use each of them for different purposes. I have an automatic shotgun that I use for uplands birds, a pump action for waterfoul, a pump action I use for home defense, a single barrel that I use for trap, a double barrel I use for skeet, and two double barrels that I use for sporting clays/FITASC/5 stand.
Each is different. I have different shotguns becuase I have different needs. There is no one shotgun that will be good for all purposes.
Same with rifles. You use different calibers for different purposes. I have a .270 for deer, and a .300 win mag for things bigger than deer. I used to have a .223 for keeping the pests down, but I gave it to my brother.
My dad, on the other hand, has rifles in 6 different calibers. Again, for different purposes. There is no one "good" caliber for all purposes.
Handguns are the same way. Here, the issues are trading off stopping power for concealability. And again, there is no "perfect" compromise.
If these people were in China, that means that one in 66 subjects hunt at least once a year. I have no idea why you want to move all the American hunters to the UK and move 20 million UK citizens somewhere else. In the US approximately 1 in 15 hunt.blisteringsilence wrote:
The problem here is that the American public is more likely to accept controls on handguns before they will laws restricting shotguns and rifles. There are 20.6 million active hunters in the US. That means, if these people were in the UK, that one of three subjects hunt at least once a year.PureFodder wrote:
Apologies for the really old data, but the FBI don't seem to keep up to date with their stats, from 1995 300,000 guns stolen each year which results in 78% of traced guns originating from the US. Criminal dealers that criminals get their guns from get their supply largely from stolen firearms. That's not just from domestic burglary and mugging, but from theft from firearms shops and depots. Criminals will not likely burgle a house or mug someone with the express desire to steal a gun, but what will happen is they find one while stealing a stereo and looking for jewelry, wallets etc. pocket it and sell it to a dealer who can then supply a criminal who wants a gun. Theft is the largest supplier of firearms into criminal hands hence curbing legal firearm ownership will have a dramatic effect on the numbers of illegally owned firearms.blisteringsilence wrote:
Next is the point Parker brought up. Criminals really don't want to steal a gun to commit a crime. It's way easier to just find a criminal dealer who sells weapons under the table. And with our porous border and minimal port security, it's easy to get guns in here illegally.I started with the automatics, semi automatic rifles and pump/auto shotguns as they are the ones that have the least practical use and have the largest potential for damage. I agree that the worst offenders in terms of criminal usage are handguns, but people are much less likely to accept restrictions on the type/number of handguns being owned and potential give them up completely if they believe the criminals are running around with assault rifles.blisteringsilence wrote:
Penultimately, I feel compelled to bring up again that rifles and shotguns are not the weapon of choice for the vast, vast majority of criminals. They use .22 revolvers and glocks. Putting unnecessary restrictions on weapons that are almost never used in the commission of a criminal act is kind of useless.
So what you think is actually stopping this is the American public's lack of logic?blisteringsilence wrote:
And those people use the weapons you propose banning first. It'd fly like a lead zepplin. You'd never be able to sell it, no matter how logical it seems.
If we start with the handguns and limit everyone to two handguns each, does that sound fair enough. Beyond that you run into problems based on number of limbs on the human body that can safely use a firearm.
Nobody gave you a garuntee of safety from criminals with explosives and WMDs yet you accept not owning them?Parker wrote:
i cant speak for him fodder, but i can say that i would give up my firearms.PureFodder wrote:
So do you agree that if 51% of the people in your country vote to make guns illegal you'll happily watch them ammend the second ammendment and give up your guns? After all it'd be the will of the people.Sondernkommando wrote:
1. In Switzerland, every male is in the army reserve and has at home an assault rifle with 1 pack of ammunition. Yet somehow Switzerland is not having any problems.
2. Government represents the will of the people, so if US citizens enjoy owning firearms, they will continue to do so. Only in dictatorships do citizens get "what's good for them".
3. DesertFox: that's Voltaire you're quoting, not Evelyn Beatrice Hall (whoever that is).
one condition being that my safety from criminals with firearms would be guaranteed......but then we go back to your post earlier when we were talking about time tables and the ability to even do that.
Still 51% means the democratic majority, hence by your definition, if guns were forced to be legal despite a populace who were against it then the government would in your eyes be a dictatorship?
yes i accept not owning explosives and WMDs. the problem with that however, is that those things arent as prolific here as firearms are. if the gangbangers walked around with pipe bombs, then yes lol, i suppose i would want an AT4 or something along those lines. that went a little overboard, but i hope you see my point.PureFodder wrote:
Nobody gave you a garuntee of safety from criminals with explosives and WMDs yet you accept not owning them?Parker wrote:
i cant speak for him fodder, but i can say that i would give up my firearms.PureFodder wrote:
So do you agree that if 51% of the people in your country vote to make guns illegal you'll happily watch them ammend the second ammendment and give up your guns? After all it'd be the will of the people.
one condition being that my safety from criminals with firearms would be guaranteed......but then we go back to your post earlier when we were talking about time tables and the ability to even do that.
Still 51% means the democratic majority, hence by your definition, if guns were forced to be legal despite a populace who were against it then the government would in your eyes be a dictatorship?
regarding the democratic majority, yes it would be a dictatorship.
It is not that simple to amend the constitution...
I really don't see the point in limiting the number of guns a person can own. You can only use 2 at a time. Yes, there is the possibility that a person could walk in and fire off 6 full magazines from 6 different guns, but how often are more than 2 guns used by the same person in a crime?
I really don't see the point in limiting the number of guns a person can own. You can only use 2 at a time. Yes, there is the possibility that a person could walk in and fire off 6 full magazines from 6 different guns, but how often are more than 2 guns used by the same person in a crime?
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2007-04-26 10:09:17)
The point being, if someone breaks into your house and you forgot to lock your safe/they break into it/your firearms are hidden in the sock draw. If you only own 2 handguns, 2 handguns end up in criminal hands. If you own 50 handguns 50 handguns end up in criminal hands.RAIMIUS wrote:
It is not that simple to amend the constitution...
I really don't see the point in limiting the number of guns a person can own. You can only use 2 at a time. Yes, there is the possibility that a person could walk in and fire off 6 full magazines from 6 different guns, but how often are more than 2 guns used by the same person in a crime?
Ammending the constitution really is that simple. It'd been done enough times already. Plus limiting the number of handguns per person to two in no way viloates the second amendment anyway.
Last edited by PureFodder (2007-04-26 11:04:13)
PureFodder wrote:
So do you agree that if 51% of the people in your country vote to make guns illegal you'll happily watch them ammend the second ammendment and give up your guns? After all it'd be the will of the people.Sondernkommando wrote:
1. In Switzerland, every male is in the army reserve and has at home an assault rifle with 1 pack of ammunition. Yet somehow Switzerland is not having any problems.
2. Government represents the will of the people, so if US citizens enjoy owning firearms, they will continue to do so. Only in dictatorships do citizens get "what's good for them".
3. DesertFox: that's Voltaire you're quoting, not Evelyn Beatrice Hall (whoever that is).
Acutally, it's not that simple. The constution cannot be amended by majority vote. You have to have 2/3 of the senate approve the amendment, and then 3/4 of the states have to ratify it. It's a huge amount of work, and the simple number of rural states where hunting is part of the way of life will ensure that no amendment restricting the 2nd will pass. And any quota system will be seen by the american public, as well as the supreme court, as a violation of the second amendment.PureFodder wrote:
The point being, if someone breaks into your house and you forgot to lock your safe/they break into it/your firearms are hidden in the sock draw. If you only own 2 handguns, 2 handguns end up in criminal hands. If you own 50 handguns 50 handguns end up in criminal hands.RAIMIUS wrote:
It is not that simple to amend the constitution...
I really don't see the point in limiting the number of guns a person can own. You can only use 2 at a time. Yes, there is the possibility that a person could walk in and fire off 6 full magazines from 6 different guns, but how often are more than 2 guns used by the same person in a crime?
Ammending the constitution really is that simple. It'd been done enough times already. Plus limiting the number of handguns per person to two in no way viloates the second amendment anyway.
I disagree wholeheartedly. The Italian trap and double trap teams all shot identical Beretta UGB25 Xcels. I DO practice with the weapons used. I shoot a Beretta D10 Trident in competetion sporting clays. The guys who took 2nd, 4th, and 8th at last years world championship all shoot them too. I took 42nd. Out of 650. And again, restricting the ownership of shotguns and rifles isn't going to make any measurable headway into decreasing firearms crime in the US.PureFodder wrote:
I don't remember seeing any automatic shotguns being used in the Olympics, you'd better get practicing with the types of weapons that are used. Plus, it's fairly horrific that people wouldn't accept a slight inconvenience to their hobby if it meant saving lives and restructuring their country for the better.
The point I was trying to make is that it is a sizeable portion of the citizenry. If you look at the breakdown by state, you'll see that there are areas of the country (where I live is an example) where 1 in 2 citizens hunt and shoot.PureFodder wrote:
If these people were in China, that means that one in 66 subjects hunt at least once a year. I have no idea why you want to move all the American hunters to the UK and move 20 million UK citizens somewhere else. In the US approximately 1 in 15 hunt.
No, what I think is stopping regulations is that Americans will not agree with your logic and conclusions. They might just go, wow, that purefodder guy is just some dude on thie internet, why should we listen to him? We don't have to go overseas to listen to someone propose bad ideas, we have plenty of politicians here that are full of them.PureFodder wrote:
So what you think is actually stopping this is the American public's lack of logic?
If we start with the handguns and limit everyone to two handguns each, does that sound fair enough. Beyond that you run into problems based on number of limbs on the human body that can safely use a firearm.
You are never going to get quotas. Some people like to collect weapons, some have many different weapons for many different purposes, and some want lots of guns just to piss off Europeans.
i think that bubbalo has a crush on parker, sorry parker i feel for ya man
I guess at the end of the day, if you think that problems of widespread firearms ownership (ie. massively well armed criminals, accidental shootings, high homicide and violent crime rates, school massacres etc.) outweigh the benefits (illusion of protection, shooting wildlife, shooting inanimate stuff, the ability to collect them) then that's your problem.blisteringsilence wrote:
You are never going to get quotas. Some people like to collect weapons, some have many different weapons for many different purposes, and some want lots of guns just to piss off Europeans.
By the way, you get it wrong with the Europeans commenting on US gun ownership. We aren't getting pissed off because you have guns, we're trying to save thousands of American lives each year. Sorry for trying to help.
Yay!
Why the hell do you guys care about america's gun laws? Why do you care what america, if you don't live in it?
PureFodder just answered that question.Sgt.Kyle wrote:
Why the hell do you guys care about america's gun laws? Why do you care what america, if you don't live in it?
PureFodder wrote:
We aren't getting pissed off because you have guns, we're trying to save thousands of American lives each year.
What a thing to pick then. Thousands more are killed by alcohol and traffic accidents. Hell, alcohol probably plays roles in many of the firearm deaths. With that in mind, oftentimes you might be treating the symptoms and not the disease.Big McLargehuge wrote:
PureFodder just answered that question.Sgt.Kyle wrote:
Why the hell do you guys care about america's gun laws? Why do you care what america, if you don't live in it?PureFodder wrote:
We aren't getting pissed off because you have guns, we're trying to save thousands of American lives each year.
Why don't you donate your time to a cause you might actually have impact on?PureFodder wrote:
We aren't getting pissed off because you have guns, we're trying to save thousands of American lives each year.
How about you combat obesity? It kills 10000x more people in this country than guns do.
Or maybe you should learn 2 things about Americans, you can take away every freedom they have except for 2 things: the right to eat a fucking whopper and own a gun.
And I'm a gun toting liberal vegetarian, your worst nightmare apparently.
I want to be able to visit it without being fucking well shot at for being foreign, inquisitive, innatentive, or simply there.Sgt.Kyle wrote:
Why the hell do you guys care about america's gun laws? Why do you care what america, if you don't live in it?
It's a shame you think that happens or even could occur.Skorpy-chan wrote:
I want to be able to visit it without being fucking well shot at for being foreign, inquisitive, innatentive, or simply there.Sgt.Kyle wrote:
Why the hell do you guys care about america's gun laws? Why do you care what america, if you don't live in it?
Last edited by DesertFox- (2007-04-26 19:22:18)
come on over and ban mine. my newestm3thod wrote:
Ban Guns.
http://www.kimberamerica.com/pistols/ul … arrylg.php
She shoots great! I sleep with her too.
oh yea...
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2007-04-26 21:50:20)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
I think the threat of guns saves more lives. How many criminals do you think stopped what they were doing when confronted with a gun?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Guns DO save lives. They also take them quite often.
Do you think a Police Officer would be useful if he went around saying, "STOP or I'll say STOP AGAIN!"