yeah and you're still killed by both of them, your point? swat has snipers, boom you're deadcyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
yes i heard of them, what if they didnt get there in time? the SWAT uses M4 carbines and MP5's as their main weapons, but AK-47's overpower those two weapons by ALOT. AK-47's can break a brick, M4's can only put a hole through it.jonnykill wrote:
Ever hear of S.W.A.T ?cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
"Each citezen has the right to bear arms" US constitution.
Unless they write an admentmend against it then i say keep the guns.
I say every1 is allowed pistols and rifles, no SMG's... rifles should be bolt action only since if sum1 got an ak... the poilce hardly can do shit...
Poll
For or Against Gun Control?
| Against Gun Control | 22% | 22% - 33 | ||||
| Losen some and tighten others | 18% | 18% - 27 | ||||
| Keep the same | 3% | 3% - 5 | ||||
| Tighten | 18% | 18% - 27 | ||||
| Take away all | 14% | 14% - 21 | ||||
| Guns for everyone | 18% | 18% - 27 | ||||
| Don't know | 4% | 4% - 6 | ||||
| Total: 146 | ||||||
If the shoe fits wear it by all means. The israelis are all armed now The got wise if you didn't.B.Schuss wrote:
somehow I feel that this is directed against germany, although I fail to see the relevance as far as gun laws are concerned. If you are trying to argue that jewish gun ownership could have prevented the holocaust, I am afraid you have just reached an all-time low.Horseman 77 wrote:
John Lennon Couldn't "Take the Piss out of " Yoko Ono, and Paul Mccartney's
" Lucky Break " Was a song about him Trashing The best thing that ever happened to all four of them.
On that note I would trade one dead singer for 6 million people who were incenerated by an over zealous government who disarmed them first.
Do what you will in your own contry. Europe doesn't have a lot that needs to be Emulated in the Americas, Thanks anyway.
If I did reach an all time low I would have to stoop to talk to you with your unsolicited insults.
yeah which would you rather be on the recieving end of a crack head with his "powerful" AK or a highly trained specialist with an M4 or a sniper rifle...???krazed wrote:
yeah and you're still killed by both of them, your point? swat has snipers, boom you're deadcyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
yes i heard of them, what if they didnt get there in time? the SWAT uses M4 carbines and MP5's as their main weapons, but AK-47's overpower those two weapons by ALOT. AK-47's can break a brick, M4's can only put a hole through it.jonnykill wrote:
Ever hear of S.W.A.T ?
No guns in civilian hands....Law enforcement only. Soldiers only....
neither, a bullet doesnt need to know how good a shot the person who fired it iscoke wrote:
yeah which would you rather be on the recieving end of a crack head with his "powerful" AK or a highly trained specialist with an M4 or a sniper rifle...???krazed wrote:
yeah and you're still killed by both of them, your point? swat has snipers, boom you're deadcyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
yes i heard of them, what if they didnt get there in time? the SWAT uses M4 carbines and MP5's as their main weapons, but AK-47's overpower those two weapons by ALOT. AK-47's can break a brick, M4's can only put a hole through it.
The United States already has enough gun control laws on the books. What we really need is for the US public to stop oking 'feel good' laws that really do nothing new, and stop electing talking heads that never deliver on what they promise in the first place.
The answer has never been and will never be more gun control laws, it is obvious that these never work. The answer is to enforce the laws that are already there and deal with the root cause of gun crime. The people that commit the crimes.
If we need more prisons then we need to build them in your back yards, you need to pay more taxs to help support the prison, you need elect people that will carry on with that vision and if they don't, then you need to elect some one different.
The answer has never been and will never be more gun control laws, it is obvious that these never work. The answer is to enforce the laws that are already there and deal with the root cause of gun crime. The people that commit the crimes.
What I mean with that is crimes against people will only end when we as a society are willing to pay the price for dealing with the criminals, what ever that may be.King Solomon wrote:
Injustice will end only when those not harmed by the act become angered.
If we need more prisons then we need to build them in your back yards, you need to pay more taxs to help support the prison, you need elect people that will carry on with that vision and if they don't, then you need to elect some one different.
God some of you Americans are paranoid.={OGC}=Quik_Draw wrote:
I think the fact that Americans HAVE the right to bear arms includes two distinct elements I see that pale inthe whole argument, but, two I return to as my BASE reasons for opposing control...
#1...No offense to our buddies anywhere else in the World, but, I think a very STRONG deterrent to anyone invading our shores has NOTHING to do with facing our military or gov forces...Its dealing with the regular joes protecting their properties that most are either up to their eyeballs in debt holding on to, or, spent their lives turning it into their "Private Idahos"...Piss off the masses, you got a REAL, CAPABLE, ARMED rebel fight on your hands...It would tak YEARS to contain, secure, and MAINTAIN...ANY (Pardon the pun) "FLAGS" in this country...I'm in if that were ever the case...
#2...A populace that is unarmed is VERY easy to control and manipulate at the whim of government elements that dont like the idea of "By the People, For the people"...A captive audience is easiest to sell...
We defend our homes...Without that edge, we are vulnerable to ANYONE who wants to push past us...NOT ON MY WATCH!!! Stand to the END!!!
I'm no revolutionary...Just like having the RIGHT to defend my family from the freaks out there today...Police won't show up until AFTER the fact...CALL THEM, ASK THEM...I prefer to COVER the HOME BASE until the cavalry DOES find the time to arrive!!! Break in my house at your own risk...THAT IS DETERRENT!!!
OUT!
I mean your paranioid about other countrys.
Your paranoid about your own Govenment.
Hell I bet your paranoid about your own neighours.
Who do you trust that what I would like to know, I Mean Most of you are Armed with firearms, so who do you trust?
I am only paranoid about people wanting to take away something I legally bought and have never commited a crime with.paranoid101 wrote:
God some of you Americans are paranoid.
I mean your paranioid about other countrys.
Your paranoid about your own Govenment.
Hell I bet your paranoid about your own neighours.
Who do you trust that what I would like to know, I Mean Most of you are Armed with firearms, so who do you trust?
Why do they want it? I have done nothing wrong. I have never used it in even a remotely illegal way.
What is accomplished by me surrendering it? Nothing really.
So I ask again, why do I need to surrender my legally purchased firearms when I have done no wrong and will never do any wrong with them?
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6932
Guns are the shit; they go bang and then some shit over der goes boom. I have gone shooting once at a rifle range. My stand on guns is as followed:
I believe that the only place they belong is on the battlefield and in rifle ranges. I don't really like the idea of killing other members of my kingdom (animal). I think that a civilian should not be able to kill another animal, fishing is OK I guess. (Fish only have 3 second memories ne way) (bugs are OK too ). Guns, in the hands of civilians belong only in a rifle range. A soldier may only use his/her gun on the field or range. Guns being alowd in the outdoors and in the streets (if u have a lisence) are just too dangerous. Only bounty hunters, cops, soldiers, and Arnold Schwarsteneger may carry guns at all times.
I believe that the only place they belong is on the battlefield and in rifle ranges. I don't really like the idea of killing other members of my kingdom (animal). I think that a civilian should not be able to kill another animal, fishing is OK I guess. (Fish only have 3 second memories ne way) (bugs are OK too ). Guns, in the hands of civilians belong only in a rifle range. A soldier may only use his/her gun on the field or range. Guns being alowd in the outdoors and in the streets (if u have a lisence) are just too dangerous. Only bounty hunters, cops, soldiers, and Arnold Schwarsteneger may carry guns at all times.
This is a question for americans as its about your gun laws.
I hunt and have a .22 rifle which will stop prity much anything I wanta eat. I think assault rifles & hand guns are made for a purpous........... to kill humans in war or policing and therefore shouldnt be allowed in the hands of joe public.They were built for police and soilders who are trained in ROE etc. Some control is needed. I dont think that everyone is resposable enough to own a gun.
I hunt and have a .22 rifle which will stop prity much anything I wanta eat. I think assault rifles & hand guns are made for a purpous........... to kill humans in war or policing and therefore shouldnt be allowed in the hands of joe public.They were built for police and soilders who are trained in ROE etc. Some control is needed. I dont think that everyone is resposable enough to own a gun.
I don't think that everyone is responsible enough to own a car. Does that mean we should make them illegal as well?JahManRed wrote:
This is a question for americans as its about your gun laws.
I hunt and have a .22 rifle which will stop prity much anything I wanta eat. I think assault rifles & hand guns are made for a purpous........... to kill humans in war or policing and therefore shouldnt be allowed in the hands of joe public.They were built for police and soilders who are trained in ROE etc. Some control is needed. I dont think that everyone is resposable enough to own a gun.
I don't think limiting car ownership would be a bad idea. But a bad comparison... assault rifles are made for killing humans, cars are not. You can't look at this as a responsibility issue, because you could apply it to a lot more than cars and guns. Assault rifles and hand-guns have a purpose, killing people.atlvolunteer wrote:
I don't think that everyone is responsible enough to own a car. Does that mean we should make them illegal as well?JahManRed wrote:
This is a question for americans as its about your gun laws.
I hunt and have a .22 rifle which will stop prity much anything I wanta eat. I think assault rifles & hand guns are made for a purpous........... to kill humans in war or policing and therefore shouldnt be allowed in the hands of joe public.They were built for police and soilders who are trained in ROE etc. Some control is needed. I dont think that everyone is resposable enough to own a gun.
Irrelevant analogy - cars are the mainstay of our economies as they provide entire populations to arrive at work in a timely fashion. They aren't used for self defense, they are used for personal transport for members of society. Geez...always gotta' have that one person to make some r*****ed analogy.atlvolunteer wrote:
I don't think that everyone is responsible enough to own a car. Does that mean we should make them illegal as well?JahManRed wrote:
This is a question for americans as its about your gun laws.
I hunt and have a .22 rifle which will stop prity much anything I wanta eat. I think assault rifles & hand guns are made for a purpous........... to kill humans in war or policing and therefore shouldnt be allowed in the hands of joe public.They were built for police and soilders who are trained in ROE etc. Some control is needed. I dont think that everyone is resposable enough to own a gun.
(P.S. Yeah...you see that word all asterisked out? I know you do. But y'know what? You can't say I made a personal attack because its definition is up in the air! So NYAH!!!)
(P.S.S. Honestly, I don't think he was saying that "because not everyone is 'responsible enough' to own a firearm, nobody should have them", I think he was just saying that there needs to be a tighter methodology behind selection of possession eligibility.)
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-05-16 07:49:50)
I am still waiting for an answer as to how the world will be safer if I, as a law abiding citizen, surrender my fire arms.
And I really want a really good God damn reason why as a law abiding citizen that I have to surrender my fire arms.
And I really want a really good God damn reason why as a law abiding citizen that I have to surrender my fire arms.
crooks get their guns anyhow, its only the private guys like us who want to protect our families (if i had one) or similar that are hindered in getting a gun with these restrictions.
For example nearly every swiss male has an assualt rifle in their bedroom closet, ammo can be bought if you are 18 freely and nothing ever happens.
For example nearly every swiss male has an assualt rifle in their bedroom closet, ammo can be bought if you are 18 freely and nothing ever happens.
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.
He is the one who said "I dont think that everyone is resposable enough to own a gun.", so that is obviously part of his argument.
And IMO using cars is a valid analogy. More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by pistols or assault rifles (or guns in general for that matter).
And IMO using cars is a valid analogy. More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by pistols or assault rifles (or guns in general for that matter).
True enough, but cars are not intentionally used to kill people, like guns are. Car accidents (key word: accidents) cannot be compared to intentional shootings.atlvolunteer wrote:
He is the one who said "I dont think that everyone is resposable enough to own a gun.", so that is obviously part of his argument.
And IMO using cars is a valid analogy. More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by pistols or assault rifles (or guns in general for that matter).
There isn't much you can really compare guns to, as they are the primary instrument used to kill people with, and there aren't really any secondary alternatives whose primary use is killing someone.
I have a question for you: what is the murder rate in your country?max wrote:
crooks get their guns anyhow, its only the private guys like us who want to protect our families (if i had one) or similar that are hindered in getting a gun with these restrictions.
For example nearly every swiss male has an assualt rifle in their bedroom closet, ammo can be bought if you are 18 freely and nothing ever happens.
I don't think anyone thinks that a law abiding citizen surrendering their firearm(s) would make things safer, it's the non-law abiding citizens that people are concerned about. Fact: If you make guns available to anyone, law-abiding or not, they will fall into the hands of people that will use them for murder.Burning_Monkey wrote:
I am still waiting for an answer as to how the world will be safer if I, as a law abiding citizen, surrender my fire arms.
And I really want a really good God damn reason why as a law abiding citizen that I have to surrender my fire arms.
Make a civilian owning a gun taboo, make it illegal for a civilian to own a gun, and you effective remove the capability for the average criminal to get his hand on a gun. Yes, some will still be able to get their hands on them, but it cracks down on the gray area that a gun owner can use to validate owning a firearm when they have only illegal intentions for it.
People should be able to protect their families, but they don't necessarily need firearms to do it. Perhaps if society was less reliant on guns, we would have better security systems. Perhaps if there were less guns in general, there wouldn't be such a worry about someone breaking into your home with a firearm, threatening the lives of your family. Yes, it is a valid concern if you cannot defend yourselves. Perhaps we should be concerned about options used to prevent situations where you would need to defend yourself, rather than what you would do if that situation actually came about.
But, all those ifs and buts aside, no one has the balls to really implement what would be necessary to limit guns in a way that would actually reduce crime and the death rate by guns in a significant way.
The reason crime is so high in america is there are so many ways that a criminal can empower himself to be able to commit crime. If you remove the means for a criminal to empower himself, then you directly reduce the amount of crimes being committed.
I am Anti-guns in civilized society, but then I am afraid of the goverment.
I want to be able to keep an M1A1 in my garage for home defense or times when trafic is real bad.
I want to be able to keep an M1A1 in my garage for home defense or times when trafic is real bad.
What is the ultimate goal of restricting gun control in the general population?Naughty_Om wrote:
No guns in civilian hands....Law enforcement only. Soldiers only....
It seems to me that from the outset, the goal is to eliminate violent crimes that involve guns. I think it's been stated in the thread already, but I'll just point it out again. People who intend to use guns for illegal activities are not buying at "Petes Pistol Emporium." They are coming out of the grey and black markets.
That having been said, there is a logical neccesity for some manner of regulation (People with histories of drug abuse, psychiatric disorders, women (just kidding), etc.).
The notion that violence can be legislated out of our collective conciousness is so absurd that it's embarassing to even discuss.
Oh, and as for quoting Naughty, then not really replying to what he said directly. I just wanted to point out that I thought his contribution was misguided.
I am by no means speaking for all of the police forces throughout the world, but I can speak for my little corner of it. I know 3 local cops, and 2 state troopers. We aren't close friends, but friends nonetheless. 4 of 5 I would classify as having some form of Borderline Personality Disorder; It is my belief that it is the specific type of job that draws those people to it... but that is just speculation on my part.
JP
Last edited by JP3 (2006-05-16 09:00:41)
Interesting way to kill a half hour reading over these posts and seeing the different viewpoints.
My personal beliefs on the subject are as follows.
To own a "fully automatic" (rock and roll) firearm or machine gun you have to have a Class III Federal Firearms License.
The purpose of instituting these laws are to impose stiffer sentences on idiots who use firearms to commit crimes.
Criminals get their weapons whatever way they can. They don't buy them from a gunstore. They buy them from someone who got them from someone, who got them from someone, who stole it from somebody.
Typically you will always get caught using your own firearm. Because they are registered. Most new weapons have their ballistics data on file. The grooves on a fired round, how it gets scored on it's travel, the position of the indention mark of it's firing pin, etc.
What are the statistics of people committing crimes with untraceable weapons and people committing crimes with guns they bought?
Now, gun shows need to be regulated a little better. They need to know who's buying what and who sold what to who. Its not a solution but its a step.
Hunting, I'm for it. I don't hunt much because there are SO many many things I'd rather be doing at 5AM that don't involve bright orange, lugging around gear, or dragging a huge fucking carcass back through 3 or 4 fields.
Assult Rifles. Broad definition yes. But the purpose was to keep flash supressors, bipods and high capacity clips away from your average militia knucklehead. But if Criminals are using illegally obtained rifles with these on them then they get a stiffer sentence.
People think Assult Rifles means fully automatic machine guns. It's not quite the same. Assult Rifle is a term describing a type of automatic rifle generally defined as a selective fire rifle or carbine, chambering intermediate-powered ammunition. They are categorized between the larger and heavier light machine gun, which is intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and the smaller submachine gun, which fires a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. It's a broad definition.
I personally own a firearm because I know my police response time and I need something that will keep me breathing until they arrive. 3 to 10 minutes is entirely too long a time to wait. I have a very real risk of having "unwanted visitors" let's say. I'm not into anything illegal, nor have I ever been. Just to put that out there. But there are certain people (not of a clandestine sort) that would like to see me harmed, or teach me a lesson, and for nothing I've ever done, except in someone else's imagination. So....I keep my home defense handgun at the ready.
Brings me to the point of, what about kids getting guns.
If they are properly secured in a safe or vault, that aren't keyed they're secured. But also outta sight is outta mind. If they don't see it or know about it, then they won't be tempted to go after something they don't know is there. Now people with arsenals need heightened security. Like large vaults that are safe type.
I've got a pretty interesting system built by someone who's a real electronics guru. My gun box has a single multi tumbler key (like pop machine keys) and TWO Thumbprint readers. There's also a card and a battery that allows the thumbprint readers to function. So only I can enter the box. I put both thumbs in place hit the button on my right index finger and the lock pops. It was tested on his store counter with only my prints and his prints in place. We tried dusting, gloves, fake fingerprints of latex and no luck. So I'm pretty certain my kids won't get into it, but then again they've never seen it, no do they know where it is.
Plus as I'd much rather have an intruder shit himself and run away, it's locked and loaded with one blank round chambered. That way with the blank, even if the wad hits him he's going to get the fuck outta Dodge, and then I know I have at least one chance before I really have to plug him. I'd much rather have to talk to the cops about discharging a firearm in a residential area than talking to them about plugging some son of a bitch who tried to get in my house. Plus with the apartment setup I have a clear shot from my bedroom to the front door.
So in summary, I don't believe firearms are wrong if owned by responsible people.
But it's these people who want to carry to be bad ass, or entertain dreams of pulling it and putting it in someone's face because they disrespected them who shouldn't have them.
My personal beliefs on the subject are as follows.
To own a "fully automatic" (rock and roll) firearm or machine gun you have to have a Class III Federal Firearms License.
The purpose of instituting these laws are to impose stiffer sentences on idiots who use firearms to commit crimes.
Criminals get their weapons whatever way they can. They don't buy them from a gunstore. They buy them from someone who got them from someone, who got them from someone, who stole it from somebody.
Typically you will always get caught using your own firearm. Because they are registered. Most new weapons have their ballistics data on file. The grooves on a fired round, how it gets scored on it's travel, the position of the indention mark of it's firing pin, etc.
What are the statistics of people committing crimes with untraceable weapons and people committing crimes with guns they bought?
Now, gun shows need to be regulated a little better. They need to know who's buying what and who sold what to who. Its not a solution but its a step.
Hunting, I'm for it. I don't hunt much because there are SO many many things I'd rather be doing at 5AM that don't involve bright orange, lugging around gear, or dragging a huge fucking carcass back through 3 or 4 fields.
Assult Rifles. Broad definition yes. But the purpose was to keep flash supressors, bipods and high capacity clips away from your average militia knucklehead. But if Criminals are using illegally obtained rifles with these on them then they get a stiffer sentence.
People think Assult Rifles means fully automatic machine guns. It's not quite the same. Assult Rifle is a term describing a type of automatic rifle generally defined as a selective fire rifle or carbine, chambering intermediate-powered ammunition. They are categorized between the larger and heavier light machine gun, which is intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and the smaller submachine gun, which fires a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. It's a broad definition.
I personally own a firearm because I know my police response time and I need something that will keep me breathing until they arrive. 3 to 10 minutes is entirely too long a time to wait. I have a very real risk of having "unwanted visitors" let's say. I'm not into anything illegal, nor have I ever been. Just to put that out there. But there are certain people (not of a clandestine sort) that would like to see me harmed, or teach me a lesson, and for nothing I've ever done, except in someone else's imagination. So....I keep my home defense handgun at the ready.
Brings me to the point of, what about kids getting guns.
If they are properly secured in a safe or vault, that aren't keyed they're secured. But also outta sight is outta mind. If they don't see it or know about it, then they won't be tempted to go after something they don't know is there. Now people with arsenals need heightened security. Like large vaults that are safe type.
I've got a pretty interesting system built by someone who's a real electronics guru. My gun box has a single multi tumbler key (like pop machine keys) and TWO Thumbprint readers. There's also a card and a battery that allows the thumbprint readers to function. So only I can enter the box. I put both thumbs in place hit the button on my right index finger and the lock pops. It was tested on his store counter with only my prints and his prints in place. We tried dusting, gloves, fake fingerprints of latex and no luck. So I'm pretty certain my kids won't get into it, but then again they've never seen it, no do they know where it is.
Plus as I'd much rather have an intruder shit himself and run away, it's locked and loaded with one blank round chambered. That way with the blank, even if the wad hits him he's going to get the fuck outta Dodge, and then I know I have at least one chance before I really have to plug him. I'd much rather have to talk to the cops about discharging a firearm in a residential area than talking to them about plugging some son of a bitch who tried to get in my house. Plus with the apartment setup I have a clear shot from my bedroom to the front door.
So in summary, I don't believe firearms are wrong if owned by responsible people.
But it's these people who want to carry to be bad ass, or entertain dreams of pulling it and putting it in someone's face because they disrespected them who shouldn't have them.
This has never happened in our history. Every study, every time its ever been attempted, it has had the exact opposite effect. It has always been followed by a Rise in Crime and Violence.Torin wrote:
Make a civilian owning a gun taboo, make it illegal for a civilian to own a gun, and you effective remove the capability for the average criminal to get his hand on a gun. .
Another non issue.Torin wrote:
Yes, some will still be able to get their hands on them, but it cracks down on the gray area that a gun owner can use to validate owning a firearm when they have only illegal intentions for it..
All the statistics show a criminal will never attempt to purchase a gun legally to use for a crime.
It is in fact a little bit frustrating to have to make this point again so late in the Argument.
What then is your response when the Alarm goes off a 2:00 am and there are intruders in your home?Torin wrote:
People should be able to protect their families, but they don't necessarily need firearms to do it. Perhaps if society was less reliant on guns, we would have better security systems..
So if a magic magnet took all the guns away.... Criminals would never think to form groups to over power their victims. Does the term ( Gang ) ring a bell?Torin wrote:
Perhaps if there were less guns in general, there wouldn't be such a worry about someone breaking into your home with a firearm, threatening the lives of your family. Yes, it is a valid concern if you cannot defend yourselves. Perhaps we should be concerned about options used to prevent situations where you would need to defend yourself, rather than what you would do if that situation actually came about..
Or what if it happens to be a Woman who hears her Alarm go off?
This argument makes no sense what so ever.
Rudy Guiliani Did! and it cleaned up New York City in an instant. The Secret, No Parol for violent fellons.Torin wrote:
But, all those ifs and buts aside, no one has the balls to really implement what would be necessary to limit guns in a way that would actually reduce crime and the death rate by guns in a significant way..
There are infact " No bad neighborhoods in Mannhattan now. Even Harlem is now very Upscale.
The obvious common denominator to every crime is The Criminal. Simply go after the criminal. Simple.
You have come to this conclusion how? It defies any reasoning at all.Torin wrote:
The reason crime is so high in america is there are so many ways that a criminal can empower himself to be able to commit crime. If you remove the means for a criminal to empower himself, then you directly reduce the amount of crimes being committed.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-05-16 18:45:54)
Thus criminals only..............no thanks.Naughty_Om wrote:
No guns in civilian hands....Law enforcement only. Soldiers only....
What is Nazi Germany. SCORE !Naughty_Om wrote:
No guns in civilian hands....Law enforcement only. Soldiers only....
I will take " totalitarian goverments " for 600 Alex!