But a car serves an alternate, legitimate purpose. What other purpose does a gun serve but to do harm to others?
No, because you can prevent the creation of weapons, then rapidly destroy the supply.rdx-fx wrote:
exactly the point. It's as impossible to accurately round up all the psychos amongst us, as it is to ensure that there are no guns in the hands of those psychos.
Exactly! Jesus Christ, stop bringing up the car argument! We all know that the car isn't just here for killing, and that it has an alternative use that is used more than the one you are implying. Cars are here for driving, not for killing.Bubbalo wrote:
But a car serves an alternate, legitimate purpose. What other purpose does a gun serve but to do harm to others?
@rdx-fx:
My point was that since you can't outlaw one, you should outlaw their means of killing people - therefore minimizing the number of deaths.
-konfusion
\Ender2309 wrote:
............i live in the #1 most dangerous city in the united states.......
Without doing any research.............Detroit?
Interesting. I just bought 100 rounds for my friend. He want to go to the shooting range and didn't have time to get some ammo. So I went into a shop, showed my ID (to confirm that I am a swiss citizen and over 18) and got all the ammo I asked for. There is no limit. If I want to I could enough ammunition to invade another country. We cannot get all types of ammunition here, but for any gun that is legal it's possible to get (basically all types of pistol ammo, shotgun ammo, 5.56 x 45 mm NATO rounds, ...)Vilham wrote:
They cant get any ammo legally..The_Mac wrote:
I find it interesting how assault rifles are encouraged in Switzerland, assault rifles no less, and they have some of the lowest crime rates in the World.
As well as the fact that after Britain's gun control laws were passed, the crime rate went up in the UK. Great critical thinking skills.
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
Who's suggesting politicians should have guns?rdx-fx wrote:
Poses the more important question;
If the average citizen is too dishonest and irresponsible to tend to anything of importance, what the hell makes you think a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats are going to be more responsible and honest?!
And killing your enemies is a way to improve your power. It was the way communities were run before the concept of rights was invented. Does that mean we should still kill people we dislike to further our own ends?rdx-fx wrote:
Hunting is also a way to put food on the table.
It was how you got meat, before it became common to have someone else kill the animal for you..
But how will they acquire guns if the only working weapons are in the hands of police and the military (or at least, how will they do so on a large scale).rdx-fx wrote:
I just do not think that outlawing one of their tools of violence (guns) will either 1) prevent the 'bad guys' from getting their hands on guns
Do you honestly think that 32 people could be killed with a knife? No, they could simply overpower the knifer with sheer numbers.rdx-fx wrote:
or 2) prevent them from killing people in other ways,
A problematic statement:rdx-fx wrote:
I've been avoiding using one of the pro-gun saws, just in an attempt to not devolve into a 'slogan flinging match'... y'know, the one that goes 'if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns'..
1) Yes, which means anyone found with a gun can be arrested before they do harm
2) It fails to acknowledge that if you legalise guns there are many more guns, and therefore there are more people with them. If they're outlawed there are fewer criminals with guns, even if all those in possesion of a gun are criminals
3) Even if everyone has a gun, it assumes that those who are merely defending themselves are more skilled than the criminals, which will range from (at best) possible to (at worst) unlikely.
Except that we've already shown that it's fundamentally flawed.rdx-fx wrote:
<sarcasm> oh noes.. not the car argument.. it burnnzzzzz.. it burnzzzz... it's like kryptonite for the anti-gun crew</sarcasm>
Yes, because pointing out that what once was a necessity isn't always a necessity is trolling. Maybe you just don't have an adequate answer.rdx-fx wrote:
No on multiple counts, Bubbalo.Bubbalo wrote:
And killing your enemies is a way to improve your power. It was the way communities were run before the concept of rights was invented. Does that mean we should still kill people we dislike to further our own ends?
Stop trolling and add something useful to the discussion.
I have always taken the american right to own fire arms as a safegaurd against the principles of freedom in the country. In other words, the government should never abuse its powers because when push comes to shove you have a country which is armed to the teeth which will overthrow you. If for some reasons, there is a military coup in England tomorrow, what will the people do? Yell, scream and whistle against it?
Ehr .... just to turn that around Soup, if there where a millitary coup in the US what would you do ?superfly_cox wrote:
I have always taken the american right to own fire arms as a safegaurd against the principles of freedom in the country. In other words, the government should never abuse its powers because when push comes to shove you have a country which is armed to the teeth which will overthrow you. If for some reasons, there is a military coup in England tomorrow, what will the people do? Yell, scream and whistle against it?
Who would you fight against and how sucessful a fight would that be against a well trained "enemy" ?
How would you organize a rebellion, cause you must surely have thought about the possibillity ?
And have you though about that the coup might allready have happened ?
And how much does it take for the US citizens to rebell against it government, they have allready taking many rights away from you, how many more before you use the 2nd ammendment to its full potential ?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Yeah I was talking about KNIVES and not any bladed device. I'd like to see your source for your above quote because knives are so old that it is impossible to identify what the very first one was used for. However logic would dictate that as soon as the blade was invented, the spear (i.e not a knife!) would be used for hunting whereas the humble knife would do the cutting once you'd killed the animal.Ender2309 wrote:
not to mention that he's historically inaccurate...the first bladed device was used for hunting...and warring.Parker wrote:
LOL=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Stupid an ignornat, knives were designed to faciltate cutting materials such as food and materials. Guns were invented to kill and maim...
another person from europe thinks he knows what will solve all these shootings.
let me tell you something, its not a fucking invasion i fear. i live in the #1 most dangerous city in the united states, highest homicide rate, period. i have comfort in knowing that my kimber 1911 will spit pure fire if need be to protect my family and myself. see, you dont understand because you dont have to deal with gangbangers and drive-bys.
dont think for a second you know what you are talking about when you try to dictate OUR rights.
oh and as far as knives go, i have seen alot of knives that are used as tools. on the other hand i have seen MANY knives that were made with the intention of being used in combat. the very design of said knives are to withstand the abuse of stabbing into bone, cutting flesh and the ability to penetrate the body much more than other knives. you dont get to decide that knives are tools and firearms are weapons, sorry it just doesnt work like that.
My point wasn't about the timeline of a knife anyway and what its original prupose is irrellavant to my reply. I was pointing out what the primary use of a knife is today vs the primary use of gun today and this stills stands
Knives = Used everyday for cutting up food, materials etc
Guns = To kill or maim another person.
Says it all. Guess we're all just ignornat.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Stupid an ignornat, knives were designed to faciltate cutting materials such as food and materials. Guns were invented to kill and maim...
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-04-18 02:51:07)
By your logic you should also be allowed grenades, missiles etc etc In modern warefare/overthrowing a government how useful is a pistol?superfly_cox wrote:
I have always taken the american right to own fire arms as a safegaurd against the principles of freedom in the country. In other words, the government should never abuse its powers because when push comes to shove you have a country which is armed to the teeth which will overthrow you. If for some reasons, there is a military coup in England tomorrow, what will the people do? Yell, scream and whistle against it?
P.S Also, wasn't there an overthrow a few years ago somewhere in Eastern Europe when the public stormed the parliament building without guns but by sheer numbers against armed guards?
P.S.S If your government did suddenly go crazy then I'm sure the rest of the World would send there armies over.
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-04-18 03:00:41)
No...guns = a tool to hunt, shoot targets or other peaceful activities. Unfortunately random asshats shoot other innocent people and cause all kinds of trouble then we have to debate about a topic in this forum that should have died long before it was posted because we will never get anywhere with it and will never change the world by arguing back and forth on some game stats website.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Guns = To kill or maim another person.
Edit: I'd also like to point you over here http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=70445 just read what old CameronPoe has to say and you will understand what most of us pro-gunners here in the USA are feeling.
Last edited by bob_6012 (2007-04-18 03:58:44)
You do know you can go to these things called supermarkets don't you?bob_6012 wrote:
No...guns = a tool to hunt, shoot targets or other peaceful activities.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Guns = To kill or maim another person.
Target practice is exactly that, practising to learn to shoot other living things.
I could apply your attitude to terrorist training camps in the middle east. On their own they can keep you fit, teach you survival skills and self defence but you would condone those would you?
Look, when I say hunt I mean wild game that needs to be hunted, will you please get off the whole cow and chicken thing, I'm talking about completely different animals here. I can't go to the local supermarket and get venison (deer) anymore than you can at your market. So target practice can be considered training to shoot at a living thing, so what? Does that mean when I go out and practice with my target rifle, the one in my sig, I'm visualizing killing innocent people, of course not, I'm interested in getting the best grouping of my rounds at a specific distance. Can I take my "skills" and put them to "evil" use, yes I can but I'm not and I never will.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
You do know you can go to these things called supermarkets don't you?bob_6012 wrote:
No...guns = a tool to hunt, shoot targets or other peaceful activities.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Guns = To kill or maim another person.
Target practice is exactly that, practising to learn to shoot other living things.
I could apply your attitude to terrorist training camps in the middle east. On their own they can keep you fit, teach you survival skills and self defence but you would condone those would you?
Last edited by bob_6012 (2007-04-18 04:10:36)
No, they would be in possession of a gun, and therefore illegal. It thus makes senserdx-fx wrote:
1) That's alot of honest, harmless people to arrest.
This is an old argument, and has been countered on various occasions above.2) Look at the counter argument - there are more decent, honest people than there are psychopaths. Say, 1 in 10 people have a gun currently.. 1 in 100,000 are potential psychos. Good guys that can shoot back outnumber the bad guys by 10,000 to 1. Take all the guns away from the law-abiding people, you're down to zero guns for the good guys, and, perhaps, taken away the guns from a few of the potential psychos.
Because any gun owner would automatically go Rambo, or something, and kill the guy before he has a chance to kill anyone? Are you serious?Look at all of the really bad gun incidents you care to mention.. about ALL of them were incidents where a psycho with a gun/knife/boxcutter intimidated and then killed a bunch of people that were unarmed, and didn't have police protection hovering over them.
People do massacres where they are known. It happens at school, because they are humiliated there, and they want revenge and a feeling of power. You rarely have that in a gun range. These people are usually guys with almost no active life - people who you barely notice are there.Have you ever heard of a homicidal psycho walking onto an Army Gunnery Range, and trying to kill a bunch of people? How long do you think that lone gunman would last against, say, 50 trained people with guns at their sides?
You can, in that case, easily decide that a bad guy must have had a criminal record? Have you noticed how rarely any of the people in these massacres had a criminal record? Do you think that they afford worse guns because of it? Do you seriously think that the bad guy can't afford a good gun?3) I've lived (most of my life) in Montana and Alaska. Both states where it's a pretty safe assumption that everyone probably has at least one gun in their vehicle at all times. The good guys know this - the bad guys know this. The good guys can afford better weapons than the bad guys, because they have an honest job and no criminal record.. and the good guys tend to be either former military, or hunters.
Having a couple of items stolen vs a couple of deaths. Make your choice, I've made mine.Also, in my direct personal experience, the people in those states are alot more polite, alot more helpful towards their fellow man, alot less likely to have their home broken into by some crackhead, and more likely to actually put themselves at risk to defend others from some random asshat thief/mugger.. rather than just video tape it for YouTube.
-konfusion
What you can't buy Venison from a supermarket? Are you kidding me?bob_6012 wrote:
Look, when I say hunt I mean wild game that needs to be hunted, will you please get off the whole cow and chicken thing, I'm talking about completely different animals here. I can't go to the local supermarket and get venison (deer) anymore than you can at your market. So target practice can be considered training to shoot at a living thing, so what? Does that mean when I go out and practice with my target rifle, the one in my sig, I'm visualizing killing innocent people, of course not, I'm interested in getting the best grouping of my rounds at a specific distance. Can I take my "skills" and put them to "evil" use, yes I can but I'm not and I never will.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
You do know you can go to these things called supermarkets don't you?bob_6012 wrote:
No...guns = a tool to hunt, shoot targets or other peaceful activities.
Target practice is exactly that, practising to learn to shoot other living things.
I could apply your attitude to terrorist training camps in the middle east. On their own they can keep you fit, teach you survival skills and self defence but you would condone those would you?
www.sainsburytoyou.com search for venison
Not sure why you can't do that in the US seems a bit weird to me.
Are you even reading what I'm saying? No I can't get venison here in the US, but you're missing the focusing on the wrong part of the story here. I use my guns for peaceful purposes why should I have them taken away from me because someone purchased a couple of firearms, legally I might add, and then went on a killing spree? It does not make sense to me, it's obvious, and has been for quite some time that you are not willing to change your opinion any more than I am, however I am trying desperately to figure out why you are so passionate about American citizens having their right to bear arms taken away from them.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
What you can't buy Venison from a supermarket? Are you kidding me?
www.sainsburytoyou.com search for venison
Not sure why you can't do that in the US seems a bit weird to me.
Why should people who don't misuse poisons have them taken away? Because they represent a threat to society. Why should people who want to take liquids on a plane not be allowed to? Because it makes it difficult to ensure other's safety.
I wouldn't mind a ban on pistols and automatics. Too easy to conceal and too easy to kill multiple people.
Paitently waiting for a chance to jump into the conversation...
Now, when someone comes into you home to rob it, you have to get the gun, the bolt and the the ammo out. You then have to put the gun together, then load it before you can take out the 'bad guy'. If they were armed, they would probibly stopped you half way through. If they were unarmed, then they might have even run off when they realised what you were doing. Either way, the responsible use of the gun ment that the gun itself wasn't fired during the 'defence' of the house.
Also, why do people need automatic and even semi-auto rifles to go hunting? Can't bolt action do the job? Hell, if you hit the deer, it's dead. If you miss, it runs away. You don't need to fill it with 30 rounds in 3 seconds to get the same kill.
An another thing. Ya keep touting that it's "our constitutional right to bear arms".
Ya know what? Until 1967, Aboriginals weren't even considered citizens of Australia - until we changed the fucking constitution!. OMGlolZ America... you can do that too.
now, without proof reading, i'm hitting submit
* Gun is used, for ease, to indicate any firearm... as opposed to the whole artillery 'gun' thing.
Mcminty.
I'm ok for the weapons as long as it's regulated and people know how to responsibly use them. We come to the troubling part. Responsible use of weapons means that when they are in your home, the weapon, the bolt and the ammunition should be locked in seperate areas. As a minimum, the bolt and the weapon itself should be locked seperatly.bob_6012 wrote:
I use my guns for peaceful purposes why should I have them taken away from me because someone purchased a couple of firearms, legally I might add, and then went on a killing spree? It does not make sense to me, it's obvious, and has been for quite some time that you are not willing to change your opinion any more than I am, however I am trying desperately to figure out why you are so passionate about American citizens having their right to bear arms taken away from them.
Now, when someone comes into you home to rob it, you have to get the gun, the bolt and the the ammo out. You then have to put the gun together, then load it before you can take out the 'bad guy'. If they were armed, they would probibly stopped you half way through. If they were unarmed, then they might have even run off when they realised what you were doing. Either way, the responsible use of the gun ment that the gun itself wasn't fired during the 'defence' of the house.
Also, why do people need automatic and even semi-auto rifles to go hunting? Can't bolt action do the job? Hell, if you hit the deer, it's dead. If you miss, it runs away. You don't need to fill it with 30 rounds in 3 seconds to get the same kill.
An another thing. Ya keep touting that it's "our constitutional right to bear arms".
Ya know what? Until 1967, Aboriginals weren't even considered citizens of Australia - until we changed the fucking constitution!. OMGlolZ America... you can do that too.
now, without proof reading, i'm hitting submit
* Gun is used, for ease, to indicate any firearm... as opposed to the whole artillery 'gun' thing.
Mcminty.
But doesn't that defeat the purpose of weapons for self defence?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I wouldn't mind a ban on pistols and automatics. Too easy to conceal and too easy to kill multiple people.
Not if you still have rifles and shotguns. Killing someone isn't the point of self defence.Bubbalo wrote:
But doesn't that defeat the purpose of weapons for self defence?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I wouldn't mind a ban on pistols and automatics. Too easy to conceal and too easy to kill multiple people.
So, you're going to wander down the street with a rifle in case you get robbed?