So this is what we are expected to learn


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @KenW said:

    @slyadams said:

     You are a troll, plain and simple really and I'm done with you.

    I do have to thank you for one thing, though. You are great proof that England needs to put more effort into urging its' citizens to use condoms and other forms of birth control.

    Who do I need to contact in Her Majesty's government to pass this proof along? 

    Gordon Brown. He's the one instigating the 'effort' to make carrying a piece of cutlery, or an implement capable of sharpening an pencil, an illegal offense for those over 16 (18 previously.)

    Those under 16 are naturally innocent, so the parents will get a 'good talking to' instead.

     

    Then again, maybe not...



  • @PJH said:

    @KenW said:

    who didn't know the difference between a gun permit and a Firearm Owners Identification Card.

    Basically what I was asking MPS for. But instead he insisted on setting up straw men.

     

    So then KenW was right, and the only way to make you understand this is to use bold?

    My reply to you:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @PJH said:

    Would you mind explaining the following quote from the referenced article? Which isnt talking about 'federal ID.'

    Thing is Bubba is a baby. There are no age restrictions for a gun permit in Illinois, as the toothless baby picture on Bubba's Firearm Owners Identification Card shows.

     

    Yes, your news source is obviously a bunch of idiots. It is not a gun permit. It is a foid, It gives the kid no real rights above anybody else. It simply means one less piece of paperwork he may have to go for when he gets old enough to buy a gun. This is not at all as uncommon as you might think. This is basically the [grand]parents reserving his right to a gun now, since the whole system is under attack from clueless anti-gun advocates.Whether it will actually mean anything later is yet to be seen, but at least they are trying.

    Are you really that dumb that you couldn't understand what I was saying due to a few extra words in there?

    Do we need to hold your hand and baby talk for you?



  • @PJH said:

    Gordon Brown. He's the one instigating the 'effort' to make carrying a piece of cutlery, or an implement capable of sharpening an pencil, an illegal offense for those over 16 (18 previously.)

    See, this is the problem with arguing against anti-gun people.  You ask a rhetorical question like "well, a kitchen knife can also be used to kill someone, are you going to outlaw them next?"  Then they actually do it.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    You ask a rhetorical question like "well, a kitchen knife can also be used to kill someone, are you going to outlaw them next?"  Then they actually do it.

    You know there is a debate going on here in the UK as to whether pointed kitchen knives should be on sale.  Apparently a lot of the knife crime here involves kitchen knives rather than hunting/bowie knives etc.

    I heard a debate on the radio with a celebrity chef saying most amateurs can do fine with a blunt ended knife so there's no real justification for selling pointed knives.  I can see the day when you need a license to own a screwdriver.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Ha ha ha, you really are just plain retarded, aren't you?  Let me guess: you live in some wussy, backwater European country that would probably be a dictatorship today if not for the US, right?  I bet you spend a lot of time furiously writing letters to the editor, scolding smokers for buying cigarettes and generally making everyone around you wish for your death. 

     

    Helping throw down Hitler wasn't a "favor" to Europe, it was the right and necessary thing to do. You're basically saying that the only reason we fought the Nazis was so we could come back later and demand that all of Europe bow down and kiss our feet. This makes you almost as much a tyrant as Hitler was.

    I think any American who was alive and fought during that time would agree that you are a scumbag.

     



  • @upsidedowncreature said:

    You know there is a debate going on here in the UK as to whether pointed kitchen knives should be on sale.  Apparently a lot of the knife crime here involves kitchen knives rather than hunting/bowie knives etc.
    When will the government realize that the true danger is untied shoelaces? How much longer can we be expected to sit idly by while innocent people skin their knees tripping over untied shoelaces? Somebody think of the children!



  • @bstorer said:

    How much longer can we be expected to sit idly by while innocent people skin their knees tripping over untied shoelaces?

    Some people might think you were being sarcastic there.

    Obviously the continuing quest to eliminate all risk from everyday life is one of, if not THE most pressing issue of the day for government and businesses alike. Since Health and Safety put stickers on all the company microwaves saying "Caution-Hot Items" I haven't suffered third degree burns from a ready meal once. They haven't done the kettles yet so I keep losing skin off my limbs when I'm making a drink but at least it's progress and anyway caffeine's bad for you too.



  • @smxlong said:

    Helping throw down Hitler wasn't a "favor" to Europe, it was the right and necessary thing to do. You're basically saying that the only reason we fought the Nazis was so we could come back later and demand that all of Europe bow down and kiss our feet.

    Really, where did I say that all?  Certainly not in the snippet you quoted.  I didn't even mention Hitler, dumbass.  I was bashing the poster for criticizing US laws and culture when those same were probably instrumental in securing the freedoms he or she enjoys today.

     

    @smxlong said:

    This makes you almost as much a tyrant as Hitler was.

    So, telling ignorant foreigners who have nothing better to do than troll the US because they are jealous to shut the fuck up makes me almost as bad as Hitler.  Goddamn you are stupid.  Please tell me you aren't from the US.

     

    @smxlong said:

    I think any American who was alive and fought during that time would agree that you are a scumbag.

    However I am adored by the elite Zombie Attack Squadron, which fought in the Rhineland.  Seriously, you don't know a single veteran, do you?  You think they would be pissed off because I told some European douchebag that he had little ground to criticize my country, especially after all we've done for Europe?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I was bashing the poster for criticizing US laws and culture when those same were probably instrumental in securing the freedoms he or she enjoys today.
    Yeah, we backwater Europeans can't imagine what we would do if we couldn't drink Coca-Cola, eat a Big Mac or watch Ally McBeal.

    Oh, and your laws are also essential to us. We would die of boredom, if we couldn't read the news about how you can sue anyone for anything in the USA.


    Thank you very much, our beloved USA, for being our idols for so long. And special thank go to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, home of our favourite female lawyer, the MIT and ... er ... um ... Well I'm sure there has got to be more things you Massachusettsians are famous for.



  • @julmu said:

    Yeah, we backwater Europeans can't imagine what we would do if we couldn't drink Coca-Cola, eat a Big Mac or watch Ally McBeal.
    Ally McBeal? Do you live in the part of Europe that's stuck in 1998?
    @julmu said:
    Oh, and your laws are also essential to us. We would die of boredom, if we couldn't read the news about how you can sue anyone for anything in the USA.
    Is this sarcasm? Clearly you all care if your news organizations are printing it.
    @julmu said:
    And special thank go to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, home of our favourite female lawyer,
    Who would that be?



  • @bstorer said:

    @julmu said:
    And special thank go to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, home of our favourite female lawyer,
    Who would that be?

    He's talking about Ally McBeal again.  Amazingly.  His reply contained two Ally McBeal references and didn't actually address anything I said.  Europe is depressing the hell out of me right now.

     

    PS: pstorer, I think your signature image might be a bit too large. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    He's talking about Ally McBeal again.  Amazingly.  His reply contained two Ally McBeal references and didn't actually address anything I said.  Europe is depressing the hell out of me right now.
    Holy Christ! I didn't know she had anything to do with Boston, BECAUSE AMERICANS DON'T WATCH SHITTY SHOWS FROM THE LATE 90'S!
    @morbiuswilters said:
    PS: pstorer, I think your signature image might be a bit too large. 
    Really? I wonder if anyone feels that way about yours...



  • @bstorer said:

    Holy Christ! I didn't know she had anything to do with Boston, BECAUSE AMERICANS DON'T WATCH SHITTY SHOWS FROM THE LATE 90'S!

    That's why you Americans with your gargantuan penises are so fantastic. You have all these new fancy 3rd millenium shows like Grey's Anatomy while we are forced to watch old lame shows from the late 90's.

    @morbiuswilters said:
    He's talking about Ally McBeal again.  Amazingly.  His reply contained two Ally McBeal references and didn't actually address anything I said.  Europe is depressing the hell out of me right now.

    I know it's hard to see the connection between culture and Ally McBeal or laws and your fucked up Anglo-American judicial system but don't worry - you'll get it some day. Just watch some Ally McBeal reruns and use your brain instead of your amazing 124-foot golden penises.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    @julmu said:
    And special thank go to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, home of our favourite female lawyer,
    Who would that be?

    He's talking about Ally McBeal again.  Amazingly.  His reply contained two Ally McBeal references and didn't actually address anything I said.  Europe is depressing the hell out of me right now.

     At least we're finally doing something usefull

     

    PS: pstorer, I think your signature image might be a bit too large. 

     

    At least yours is better than that huge IRC transcript you had before 



  • @julmu said:

    Just watch some Ally McBeal reruns and use your brain instead of your amazing 124-foot golden penises.
    1. It's actually platinum. I mentioned that earlier.
    2. If you had a 124-foot wang, why would you ever need to think again?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @DOA said:

    However it also means that you wont get shot in a road rage incident.

    Unless that person illegally has a gun. Also, defense against an armed person isnt limited to him having a gun. What if he has a baseball bat? Will you stand there and be beaten to death?A normal person does not stand much of a chance against a raging lunatic with a baseball bat. I, for one, prefer to know that if such an individual is threatening my life (newsflash: you can kill someone very easily with your HANDS, let alone a blunt object) I have a way to defend myself. Perhaps your strict laws and lack of freedom have made it such that you are unconcerned about losing your life in your everyday commute, but I have a little more hope left I guess.

     

    So wait, wait. Here's your argument:

    1. Tighter gun laws may reduce, but do not completely eliminate, gun crime.

    2. Therefore tighter gun laws are worthless.

    So on that line of reasoning...

    1. Murder laws may reduce, but do not completely eliminate, murder.

    2. Therefore murder laws are worthless.

    Or hell, let's go all the way:

    1. Criminal laws may reduce, but do not completely eliminate, the crimes to which they pertain.

    2. Therefore criminal law is worthless.

    While on the topic, I also like your implication that the only means of self-defense is a gun. You're quite right, there is absolutely no other way around it; regardless of all the ways of killing people you listed in your post, guns are simply the only way to go when it comes to partially killing someone.


  • @curtmack said:

    So wait, wait. Here's your argument:
     

    No, that is your quick, delusional view of my argument.

    Guns aren't the problem, people who kills others illegally are the problem.

    Also, no one (including myself) are arguing against gun laws. We are just arguing against taking away the freedom from responsible people. 

    Unfortunately too many people here only see black and white. They think either everyone has a gun, or no one has a gun. This is likely simply because they have no clue what gun ownership and the community around it is like.

     @curtmack said:

    While on the topic, I also like your implication that the only means of self-defense is a gun.

    Yes, because a murder has no problem beating you to death in the street with a hammer, but I do. 

    Self defense and murder are two very different things.

     



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

     @curtmack said:

    While on the topic, I also like your implication that the only means of self-defense is a gun.

    Yes, because a murder has no problem beating you to death in the street with a hammer, but I do. 

     

    I guess curtmack meant tasers, pepper spray and similar self defence tools. Anyway, I don't like those too much. Here's a little story that happened a few weeks ago in Vienna:

    It happened in a tramway, a man and a woman (not related) started to argue about a rather minor issue. (IIRC, one of talked too loud on the cell phone or something like that).

    Eventually, the woman tried to attack the man with pepper spray. She didn't affect him too much, but several other passengers required treatment in the hospital.

    Conclusion: So-called non-lethal weapons are even more likely to be used carelessly.



  • @ammoQ said:

    I guess curtmack meant tasers, pepper spray and similar self defence tools.

    I know you said you don't care for them anyway, but I would like to point out all of these are useless against someone with a gun, whereas a gun at least gives you some chance at defending yourself.  Also, it's possible to become resistent to tasers and pepper spray if you have had them used on you enough times.  And what kind of people are going to get tased and sprayed a bunch?  Repeat criminals.  Also, tasers and sprays affect individuals differently to begin with, so it's quite possible you will only end up with a very angry criminal on your hands.  Finally, non-lethal weapons are far less intimidating than guns are.  And the intimidation factor is a large part of self-defense. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    And the intimidation factor is a large part of self-defense. 
     

    Not to mention, someone on PCP or other drugs may not respond at all to non lethal weapons. A proper self defense weapon should take someone down no matter what.



  • First of all, hell the topic has changed since page 1.

    Second, I think we all should walk around with guns, we would really have to be nicer to each other that way. On a side not, I'm really on favor of using guns for non-lethal self defense, let me explain that before you go "WTF" over me, a couple of months ago two druged guys broke into my cousins house, her husband -who hunts on spare time- arrived and smaked one guy on the head and shot another on the leg, tho when he went deeper inside the house to check on her the guys fled, but still it's a day saved by a gun in the right hands.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Not to mention, someone on PCP or other drugs may not respond at all to non lethal weapons. A proper self defense weapon should take someone down no matter what.
     

    You tell 'em. My last job was at a small back-alley web design place. One day, one of the other guys who worked there had spent 12 hours straight working on a site in PHP when I came over and casually suggested he take a break and maybe go home for the day. Thing is, he freaked out and came at me. If another guy there at the time hadn't had a conceal-and-carry, I might not be here today. That stuff really messes you up. True story.



  • @indigoparadox said:

    If another guy there at the time hadn't had a conceal-and-carry, I might not be here today. That stuff really messes you up. True story.
     

    Thanks for the story. This kind of stuff happens everyday. But of course the media has no interest in these things....





  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    This kind of stuff happens everyday.
     

    Edit timeout, but here:


    I find the statistic in the second link that citizens who conceal carry are over 5 times less likely to shoot an innocent person than a police officer is very interesting.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I find the statistic in the second link that citizens who conceal carry are over 5 times less likely to shoot an innocent person than a police officer is very interesting.
     

    Nice to see it all on paper isn't it?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I find the statistic in the second link that citizens who conceal carry are over 5 times less likely to shoot an innocent person than a police officer is very interesting.
     

    Okay, I have to say I am one of the least 'gun control' people out there (though I do take issue with arguments suggesting the second amendment should extend as far as tanks and anti-aircraft missiles) but that is one of the statistics I've always found annoying so I have to ask:

    Isn't this statistic somewhat misleading, if used to imply citizens are more 'gun responsible' than police?

    Police deal with innocent people under very suspicious conditions because its part of their job - they seek out and insert themselves into these situations.  Not every split second decision in determining if a suspect is "innocent and of no threat" or "is about to kill" can be right.  It goes with the job.  Civilians with guns vs police with guns exist in completely different situations. 

    It would be like stating Air Force bomber pilots kill x times more innocent people than ground forces - I am sure that is true - but does that make Air Force pilots more reckless or irresponsible?  Naturally no - it just means they are in situations that bring about higher colatoral damage.  

     

    What implication do you feel can be drawn from that statistic?

    I actually support pro-gun over anti-gun views 90% of the time.  Its just I find some statistical quotes to assume natural implications that I find disingenuious.  Since I can't find any other conclusion that can be implied from that statistic, and have heard (a few years back) Ann Coulter use that statistic (or a similar one of the same nature) to support the idea that citizens are more responsble with firearms, I have to ask what it implies to you.



  • @BeenThere said:

    What implication do you feel can be drawn from that statistic?
     

    I think you are taking this a bit out of context. 

    The point of the statistic is to prove that CCW holders don't just wildly 'shoot first and assk questions later' like so many people try to imply.

    It is not stating the cops are irresponsible at all. 

    In fact, one of the statistics is that of the CCW confrontations, only 8% ended in a fatal or mortal shooting. That is pretty significant right there. Fact is, there is a lot of scrutiny on us CCW people to make sure we are on the up and up, and (somewhat sadly) that makes a lot of people very hesitant to use the gun in fatal way. (An unlawful discharge is much easier to fight than murder/manslaughter.)

    Anyway, please don't take this to mean anything like that. You will find MANY/MOST of the CCW people in the US are very respectful of the law, and view them as partners. CCW people don't have any extra legal abilities, but have often come to the aid of police officers in need.Therefore, many cops really appreciate and respect good CCW people and encourage them to share in training and such.

    Cops play a very active role in testing and writing for CCW publications, and many ex-cops often go on to train and write for these publications. 

    It is a very large community, and I don't think you would find many CCW people who would berate cops or be very critical of them. The only thing they would likely tell you is that cops cannot be everywhere all the time. And first responders are very important. Look at the statistics, and you will see that they are also very important to the public.

    @BeenThere said:

    to support the idea that citizens are more responsble with firearms,

    Again, not to really argue as we both are on the same page, but no one is really saying that (with context missing it might sound that way of course). Instead, these statistics are brought up more when anti-gun nuts decide to call CCW people 'cowboys' and irresponsible and such. Like a complete retard (happened here) saying that CCW people might somehow shoot holes in airplanes... this is a good statistic to bring up. 



  • @BeenThere said:

    Isn't this statistic somewhat misleading, if used to imply citizens are more 'gun responsible' than police?

    Police deal with innocent people under very suspicious conditions because its part of their job - they seek out and insert themselves into these situations.  Not every split second decision in determining if a suspect is "innocent and of no threat" or "is about to kill" can be right.  It goes with the job.  Civilians with guns vs police with guns exist in completely different situations. 

    It would be like stating Air Force bomber pilots kill x times more innocent people than ground forces - I am sure that is true - but does that make Air Force pilots more reckless or irresponsible?  Naturally no - it just means they are in situations that bring about higher colatoral damage.

    If you interpret it incorrectly, it can be misleading.  Your point is obviously correct.  I wasn't saying "citizens are 5 times more responsible than police officers" but making the point that citizens are extremely responsible in their own right.  A lot of the people here have said that CCW will end up in a situation where dozens of people are gunning each other down.  What the statistic shows us is that police are more 5 times more likely to shoot an innocent person.  How often do you hear about police killing an innocent, though?  It happens, sure, and there have been some high-profile cases, but it's still a rare event.   Now consider that CCW individuals are far less likely to shoot an innocent person than the police are.  So the claim that CCW will result in wide-spread "OK Corral" scenarios is show to be the patently absurd bullshit it is.

     

    I respect the police and what they do and I realize that given the nature of the job, innocent people will be killed.  There is also corruption amongst the police -- as there is with any human institution -- but I feel that the vast majority are good.  And when a shooting occurs it is investigated thoroughly to ensure no foul play was at work.  I'm merely making the point that civilians are far less likely to hurt an innocent, making that an invalid argument against CCW. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I'm merely making the point that civilians are far less likely to hurt an innocent, making that an invalid argument against CCW. 
     

     That is a fair statement.  I think that raw statistics concerning the number of civilians gun owners in ratio to the number of innocents hurt by civilian owners would be a better and less potentially misleading stat. 

    Personally I find the direction somewhat secondary to what I feel the real argument (that means something to me at least) which is: whether people should be forced rely on others (law enforcement) to defend their lives or have access to the means to defend themselves.  The statistics gun control proponents usually bring up involve the likelihood that a civilian will harm an innocent vs an assailant , which I think is still leaning towards an innocent (haven't read recent statistics) but I find it hard to find that as a reason to remove an individual's access due to an aggregate statistic's leaning.

    To me, that's like saying people driving SUVs are more likely to cause accidental harm to others than those driving compacts, therefore everyone must be forced to drive compacts only.

    I really wish the argument would generally revolve more around an individual's rights to reasonable means of lethal self defense against lethal threat instead of reading deeply into the meaning of the second amendment vs. a macromanaged social[ist] impact study where the many outweight the few.

     

    On the original topic I do see where you are coming from, I reacted more due to how I have seen that statistic used by people in general.   

     

    (Disclaimer:  I do tend to misspell when I am drinking, and it is Saturday)



  • @BeenThere said:

    I really wish the argument would generally revolve more around an individual's rights to reasonable means of lethal self defense against lethal threat instead of reading deeply into the meaning of the second amendment vs. a macromanaged social[ist] impact study where the many outweight the few.
     

    I agree, and I think morbius will as well. The second ammendment argument to me is crap. It was intended for mostly a different reason, because our forefathers never dreamed that anyone would try and take away the obvious right to defend one's self.

    The second ammendment does speak to me though, as I have mentioned before, as an implied way to keep the government in check.

     

    When you are a government, and you have a few million gun owners in your country, you don't dream of suddenly trying to rule them by dictatorship. If a government tries to take your weapons of defense away, you should be very suspicious and get as far away as possible.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    When you are a government, and you have a few million gun owners in your country, you don't dream of suddenly trying to rule them by dictatorship. If a government tries to take your weapons of defense away, you should be very suspicious and get as far away as possible.
     

    Well, I think if (when) the government does (has) tried such things, its generally due to over zealous "protect us from ourselves" types, more than plots diabolical, to which the reaction should be anything but getting far away.  Should we ever get to the situation where our own brothers/sisters/sons/daughters in the armed forces are dedicated to lethally suppressing our resistance (armed or otherwise) to a dictatorship in our country, the problem has gotten far far more out of hand than can be solved by civilian armed resistance.

    I think an armed civilian population is more or less a thin veneer coated on a myrid of other problematic issues of creating a dictatorship - and if our armed forces were ever convinced to turn on us in that cause, that our own cause would already be pretty much lost.  If they can win over the armed forces to their mindset, chances are even the best armed civilian population would be too deeply divided to resist such things.





  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Japan's strict anti-gun laws protect citizens from psychos.

     

    18 wounded. 6 dead. 33% fatality rate from a psycho with a knife. Compare that to the near-100% of a psycho with a gun and you can decide what you'd rather have. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    This kind of stuff happens everyday.
     

    Edit timeout, but here:


     

    To quote Mr. Twain: there are only 3 types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. But if you insist.

    [url]http://www.csgv.org/site/c.pmL5JnO7KzE/b.3509309/k.22A7/Assault_Weapons_Frequently_Asked_Questions.htm[/url]

    Assault weapons are not banned. Why would you need an assault weapon to "defend yourself"? Why aren't they banned then?

    [url]http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gvstats/firearmoverview/[/url]

    Your hobby costs you about $80 billion every year (tax money spent on medical care and imprisonment)

    You are 30 times more likely to be lethally shot in the US than in Brittain. (I've taken the pop. differences in this calculation)

    A gun owner is 6 times more likely to shoot his wife after a domestic dispute.

    [url]http://www.csgv.org/site/lookup.asp?c=pmL5JnO7KzE&b=3509285[/url]

    40% of the gun sales are done without your beloved background-check.

    I had a much larger post whipped up, but my session timed out so this one contains only the most significant things I could remember 

    And it happened twice, but this time I had copied the post



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    When you are a government, and you have a few million gun owners in your country, you don't dream of suddenly trying to rule them by dictatorship. If a government tries to take your weapons of defense away, you should be very suspicious and get as far away as possible.

    Weapons are IMO not a big obstacle when an evil government wants to turn a democracy into a dictatorship. Once they control the media, people simple will not know what realy happens to them. "Poland attacked us! We must defend our country!"

    Add strict surveilance, so those (assumedly armed) civilians cannot organize themself. Done. Ok, to those gun owners might kill a Gestapo man now and then, but why should a dictator care about them more than anyone else? 



  • @dtech said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Japan's strict anti-gun laws protect citizens from psychos.

     

    18 wounded. 6 dead. 33% fatality rate from a psycho with a knife. Compare that to the near-100% of a psycho with a gun and you can decide what you'd rather have. 

    Near-100%? A quick look at wikipedia shows that fatality rate is usually around 50%.



  • @dtech said:

    Compare that to the near-100% of a psycho with a gun and you can decide what you'd rather have. 
     

    You should really stop watching movies. They are making you sound like an idiot when you post.



  • @dtech said:

    Assault weapons are not banned.
     

    Not federally (anymore) but most states ban them. Try doing FULL research, not just what suits your needs for the moment.

    @dtech said:

    Why would you need an assault weapon to "defend yourself"?

    Who argued this? You are just throwing up ridiculous statements now.

    @dtech said:

    Your hobby costs you about $80 billion every year

    My hobby costs me a lot, but I know it isn't $80 billion. Ammo isn't that expensive yet.

    @dtech said:

    You are 30 times more likely to be lethally shot in the US than in Brittain.

    You are (attempting to) quote statistics from the most left wing party out there, and I have never seen any evidence to support this. We have even show you the complete opposite in many cases.

    If you actually knew who you were getting this info from, you would be embarrassed and ashamed.

    @dtech said:

    A gun owner is 6 times more likely to shoot his wife after a domestic dispute.

    That flies directly in the face of all law enforcement research and statistics out there. 

    @dtech said:


    40% of the gun sales are done without your beloved background-check.

    No one here has argued any merits in background checks for the purchase of a firearm. The only argument that has been made is for CCW permits.

    Also, you are referring to a 'gun show' which is a private sale between two people... a loophole certainly, but not really the issue.

    Sorry, but you again miss the facts and prove you don't understand what is being discussed.



  • @ammoQ said:

    Weapons are IMO not a big obstacle
     

    Then please go argue this with our founding fathers, I didn't write the second ammendment. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Then please go argue this with our founding fathers, I didn't write the second ammendment. 

    MasterPlanSoftware is kidding, of course. He's actually the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson, which explains both his jungle fever and his love of powdered wigs.



  • @bstorer said:

    He's actually the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson
     

    Well yes, but I wanted to include "And congress shall not take any form of weapons away from people who are responsible and law abiding."



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @bstorer said:

    He's actually the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson
     

    Well yes, but I wanted to include "And congress shall not take any form of weapons away from people who are responsible and law abiding."

    I know, but then Charles Cotesworth Pickney was all like, "Well, then you think people should be allowed to drive tanks, should such a thing be invented," and Rufus King was like, "But what if some day part of the Northwest Territory becomes a state called Illinois, and a baby gets a Firearm Owners ID card?!" So you said, "Fine, we'll leave it out, but I get dibs on being on the nickel!"



  • @bstorer said:

    I know, but then Charles Cotesworth Pickney was all like, "Well, then you think people should be allowed to drive tanks, should such a thing be invented," and Rufus King was like, "But what if some day part of the Northwest Territory becomes a state called Illinois, and a baby gets a Firearm Owners ID card?!" So you said, "Fine, we'll leave it out, but I get dibs on being on the nickel!"

    Gentlemen, I believe this thread has acheived epic status.  In fact, I am willing to say that this is the only truly epic thread that I have ever read on TDWTF.  Congratulations to all who made it possible. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Not federally (anymore) but most states ban them. Try doing FULL research, not just what suits your needs for the moment.

    [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_assault_weapons_ban#Assault_weapons_bans_in_other_States]According to wikipedia[/url] only NY, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and CA have such a ban.

     

    @dtech said:

    Why would you need an assault weapon to "defend yourself"?

    Who argued this? You are just throwing up ridiculous statements now.

    Your main argument is (in line with the second amandament) that guns are needed to protect oneself. Assault weapons are clearly not needed to protect oneself. Thus assault weapons should be banned. 

    My hobby costs me a lot, but I know it isn't $80 billion. Ammo isn't that expensive yet.

    Stupid American language with no difference in 2nd person singular and 2nd person plural. Ofcourse I meant plural, meaning "the American societety". 

    You are (attempting to) quote statistics from the most left wing party out there, and I have never seen any evidence to support this. We have even show you the complete opposite in many cases.

    And you quoted statistics from one of the most pro-gun organisations. Your point being?

    @dtech said:


    40% of the gun sales are done without your beloved background-check.

    No one here has argued any merits in background checks for the purchase of a firearm. The only argument that has been made is for CCW permits.

     

    One of you argued directly that guns are not that dangerous because "bad people" could not get them thanks to the background check on a CCW (required to buy guns I presume). Also, I think the etiqette "Gun Show" fits more to things like [url=http://www.big1web.com/webs/000494/images/gunshow_1.jpg]this[/url], [url=http://hornscustomrifles.com/pic/9-2005/0001-222-008.jpg]this[/url] or [url=http://www.big1web.com/webs/000494/images/gunshow_1.jpg]this[/url] than "private sale". Because there is no background check with those "private sales" "bad people" can easily get a gun. I don't think a psycho or a criminal really feels bad because he doesn't have a CCW for his gun.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @dtech said:

    A gun owner is 6 times more likely to shoot his wife after a domestic dispute.

    That flies directly in the face of all law enforcement research and statistics out there. 

     

    (Emphasis added) 

    I don't trust that number either. A few people who do not own a gun might get their grip on one just in order to shoot their wife, but I'd guess a large majority would avoid that hassle and just use a knife, hammer etc.

     



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @ammoQ said:

    Weapons are IMO not a big obstacle
     

    Then please go argue this with our founding fathers, I didn't write the second ammendment. 

     

    A lot of time has passed since then. What assumedly was true several hundreds of years ago is not necessarily still valid. 



  • @dtech said:

    According to wikipedia only NY, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and CA have such a ban.
     

    Right, all the states we arguing about. I am not going to be arguing about Kansas gun laws, because I am not familiar with them. Unlike some people, I would prefer to know what I am talking about before arguing.

    @dtech said:

    Assault weapons are clearly not needed to protect oneself. Thus assault weapons should be banned. 

    Your logic falls very short here, but no one so far has argued that assault weapons should not be banned. Why do you keep stating this?

    @dtech said:

    Ofcourse I meant plural, meaning "the American societety". 

    Blame the language, but your point still makes no sense.

    @dtech said:

    And you quoted statistics from one of the most pro-gun organisations.

    Um no. Again, your lack of understanding of how these things work is getting in your way again.

    @dtech said:

    CCW (required to buy guns I presume)

    Wrong. Go look it up instead of arguing this over and over and over again. In fact it has been explained a few times in this thread, but since the information does not suit you, you obviously skip right over it.

    @dtech said:

    "Gun Show" fits more to things like this, this or this than "private sale".

    It is a private sale. The same way a flea market or tag sale is a private sale.

    @dtech said:

    I don't think a psycho or a criminal really feels bad because he doesn't have a CCW for his gun.

    He is still breaking the law. And that is what we are arguing here.

    Everyone argues bad people shouldn't have guns. Well they are not allowed to. The restrictions have a few loopholes, and they are being worked on everyday.

    However, taking them away from good people is just stupid, and that is what you cannot seem to get your head around. And you also like to avoid that argument by stating obvious points every post.



  • @ammoQ said:

    I don't trust that number either. A few people who do not own a gun might get their grip on one just in order to shoot their wife, but I'd guess a large majority would avoid that hassle and just use a knife, hammer etc.
     

    I agree. 

    Normally I would be willing to take up the statistic fight, especially against a left wing, hysterical place like the brady campaign. However, those numbers are just so ridiculous I cannot even start to think about how you would actually justify that. The brady campaign is known throughout this country for just trying to shovel pure fear on the gun debates. They used to be fairly influential, but they have been attacked and taken apart many times over by people with actual facts. You don't hear much about them anymore.

     

     



  • @ammoQ said:

    A lot of time has passed since then. What assumedly was true several hundreds of years ago is not necessarily still valid. 

     

    In my view, nothing has changed. The forefathers gave us certain rights that should never change. This is one of them. 

    Regardless of motivation or the time period, I like the reasons they had, and whether our country would win or not, it is important that we remember our country was won against oppressors, and will continue to hold back oppressors.

    This is another one of the reasons I am for not banning guns. Because our government is supposed to be a small government. One that does not intrude on our freedoms. Just because other governments do, and their people (think/know/whatever) they are happy, that doesn't mean I would ever want to have my government rule me like that.


Log in to reply