ON guns. Intresting link/survey included

[Gonz]

Good job defining the problem, Gonz. Do you have a solution to offer?

[curly]Certainly[/curly]
I already practice what I preach. I can't force the rest to do likewise so the problem can't be fixed until I annouce my intention of ruling the world.

If you want an absolute fix, here it is.

Stop relying on government.-It is there for the defense of the nation & to provide for the common good. Not to pass legislation on every soccer mom whim or weak-kneed pansy assed request.

Take responsibility.-If gangs are moving into your neighborhood, move them on. Video cameras & groups of citizens scare bad guys more than the police. Your park needs cleaned? Organize a Saturday park cleaning committee & go clean it. Nobody showed up? Do it yourself. One person with the will can do more than 1000 people in a meeting. Assume you have to take care of yourself & DO IT.-It's not my job to raise your kids, feed your family, pay your rent or send your daughter to college. It's not your job to do those things for me. For eons, mankind has gotten by on his will, wits & strength. Go hunting, grow a garden, learn to can, start a fire without a 20lb propane tank. Prepare for the worst & be pleasantly surprised.

Don't buy more than you can afford.-Your kid does not care where you live as long as the family is together. That 40,000SF house means you work 17 hours a day. Then don't buy it. Living in "Splendid Woods by the Deer Creek Estates" only impresses idiots who live in "Not so splendid woods by the skunksprings meadows" It's a cave to keep the rain & snow off your head, nothing more. Work 8 hours & spend more time with your family. They really don't suck that much. Your kids will listen to you if you're a parent. Does Gramma (or some stranger) spend 10 hours a day with your kids? Guess what-you're nothing more than a ATM with a bald spot and they are the parent.

Question authority.-That authority is given by the people & can be taken away. Of the people, for the people, by the people isn't just a catchy slogan. It's our best defense from tyranny. That domination of your life is from the press, the schools, the government & business. Don't buy it without bargaining. You don't like Wal-Mart? Don't shop there. It really is that easy. Vote-every one counts. Just because the LA Times made it a headline doesn't mean it's true. Read everything, always. Don't act like a sheep & you won't be treated like one.

 

[A.B.Normal]

LANDOVER, Maryland (AP) -- A 4-year-old boy who shot and killed his sister and wounded his brother understands what he has done, his father said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/South/09/29/children.shot.ap/index.html

 

[chcr]

Hey, Gonz? Don't question authority, question everything. I guess A.B.'s link is an acceptable cost of your right to bear arms without having to answer for the consequences. I would like to reiterate that the arms the framers of the constitution were referring to are very different from the arms available today.

Edit: Got a little carried away there. Got any solutions that have any chance at all of working???? Note that I am not for more gun control, I just don't see another realistic solution.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

Yes you can...it's called gun-control.

But you are only dis-arming the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WITH GUN CONTROL....THE ONES WHO ARE NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM.

IT WONT HELP THE SITUATION AT ALL...WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND.

I think that we can come up with a list of items and update it every once in a while. I'd say...guns, atomic weapons, flamethrowers, mines...hmmm...lemme think about it. Things designed specifically to kill.

Are you going to outlaw knives, house holders, steps, cars industrial chemicals, etc etc also?

Wrong...it takes away the gun. One less weapon.

Wrong...one less opportunity for self-defense. If you had it your way, the entire population should be fodder for murder with no options for self defense. Is that what you want?

No...that'd mean that there'd be one more person with a gun and the 'right' to use it.

Yeap...and one more opportunity for self defense.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

One point AE...being self-aware and intelligent doesn't stop people from also being fearful, unthinking and basically violent individuals. I may trust you with a gun...mostly because you're so verbose about gun-safety that I can almost believe that all of your guns are safely stored. Your high emotions when you talk about self-defence and the use of guns for that purpose also tends to scare the crap out of me. Sorry...but that's the truth. I can see you shooting someone. I can see you getting shot. If you don't mind...I'll close my eyes now.

Point taken, as heartfelt as it was.

In all honest if some aims to kill me they would still have at least a fifty percent chance of succeding...but Ill hedge my bets. I would still like to have a fighting chance...and if Im not armed and they aim to kill me I have less than a twenty percent chance.

Id never reach for a weapon unless I just had to. In all likely hood if I got it out, they guy would run (criminals who use weapons are more cowardly than about anything on the face of the planet), Id live another day, and a crime would be averted.

And why do you have such a hard time believeing people dont lock up there guns, almost as many safes are sold as guns (some safes hold lots of guns).

Once again your view is being clouded by the huge press that the less than .1% of gun owners have misfortunes and applying that to everyone...thats is very flawed logic.

 

[Gonz]

I guess A.B.'s link is an acceptable cost of your right to bear arms without having to answer for the consequences.

Yes. Until knives, rocks, Mr Clean, dieffenbachia, stairs, siblings, etc are outlawed.

 

[MrBishop]

But you are only dis-arming the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WITH GUN CONTROL....THE ONES WHO ARE NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM..

Yes...my God, I think he's got it!!! YES>>>Take all guns away from people...erase the f@#ing second stupic amendment and take the fuckin' guns away...then anyone with a gun (other than the army or the police) arrest them, take their guns and melt them into a giant penis for all I care...if someone is seem with a gun, arrest them, get a warrant, remove their guns, search their homes and remove any guns found...destroy those too! You know what you'll have then? Peace!

IT WONT HELP THE SITUATION AT ALL...WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND..

What is so hard for you to understand is that you think...however illogical that it might be, that guns actually save lives. Guns don't save lives...they exchange them for somebody else's life. That's NOT a solution! It's THE problem!

Are you going to outlaw knives, house holders, steps, cars industrial chemicals, etc etc also?.

Those aren't weapons! Guns are weapons...their sole use is to kill,maim, injure harm.

Wrong...one less opportunity for self-defense. If you had it your way, the entire population should be fodder for murder with no options for self defense. Is that what you want?.

If it saves the life of one child. One kid who's accidentaly shot by a sibling, friend, family, or themselves. Yes! Yes! A Million times YES!

Yeap...and one more opportunity for self defense.

Nope...another opportunity for the death of a human being.

 

[MrBishop]

Yeah...so I'm tired and cranky...my kid's not sleeping and my contract's not being extended. I need to relax.

AE..why don't we just agree NOT to agree. I'll never make you put down your guns, you'll never convince me that I should pick one up. You're American and have one set of 'rights', I'm Canadian and I have another. I jsut happen to be one of those wierd canucks that thinks that Canada, and not America, is the greatest place to live.

Shoot me!

 

[Gonz]

You know what you'll have then? Peace!

Nice thought. There were wars & squabbles long before guns. Killings & maimings were a favorite of many empirical armies. Not a gun in sight. Guns evened the odds.

 

[A.B.Normal]

Guns evened the odds.

And nukes evened the odds between the US and USSR ,doesn't mean every country/person should have them.

 

[Luis G]

Some stuff that needs no prove:
1. On countries with gun control/banning, the number of criminals with guns is way below the number of criminals with guns in countries with no gun control.
2. Most criminals want your money or something else, they don't want to kill you.
3. If the guy has planned to kill you, he has it easier to get a gun to accomplish his task. Even if you have one for self defense, do you really the guy will give you the chance to use it?
4. When was the last time you heard/known of a school shooting in a country with gun control/ban?
5. How about a guy shoting at his coworkers at the office?

If you are so paranoid about your security, I suggest you to move to a better area or stop visiting those places, if you search for trouble you'll most likely find trouble.

 

[ris]

Some stuff that needs no prove:
1. On countries with gun control/banning, the number of criminals with guns is way below the number of criminals with guns in countries with no gun control.
2. Most criminals want your money or something else, they don't want to kill you.
3. If the guy has planned to kill you, he has it easier to get a gun to accomplish his task. Even if you have one for self defense, do you really the guy will give you the chance to use it?
4. When was the last time you heard/known of a school shooting in a country with gun control/ban?
5. How about a guy shoting at his coworkers at the office?

If you are so paranoid about your security, I suggest you to move to a better area or stop visiting those places, if you search for trouble you'll most likely find trouble.

1. the number of criminals with guns may be lower but as i have pointed out earlier gun related crime and gun legislation don't appear to have a direct corellation - there are countries with relatively relaxed gun control that do not have a serious level of gun related crime [like switzerland].

2. i'd agree with that, unless you are in one of the gangs or groups taking part in action against each other or one of those rare random attacks.

3. yes, in reality they're going to shoot well before you get a chance to know anything about it.

4. both the uk and germany have experienced school shootings within the last 10 years. ours was the dunblane massacre where an adult walked into a primary school and attacked children and teachers before killing himself. following the attack the uk government [with support fromt eh public] made it extremely difficult to legally become a handgun owner. i believe the shooting in germany was peer-based in the manner of columbine.
recently in the uk we have seen a series of child killings with firearms that have all been gang related and shocked many deprived urban communities. last december two girls were killed by accident in a driveby shooting in birmingham and last month a child was murdered after she saw her fathers killer. i don't think in either case widespread gun ownership would have prevented their deaths.

5. i'm not sure we've ever seen that in the uk, i guess if you are disgruntled here you just do it with a stiff upper lip, old boy

 

[MrBishop]

Nice thought. There were wars & squabbles long before guns. Killings & maimings were a favorite of many empirical armies. Not a gun in sight. Guns evened the odds.

Agreed...up until "...in sight." That arguement seems to say that the ownership of guns by the populace is there to protect tehm from their own GVT/empire/kingdom.

That doesn't echo right with me.



deBish
Postal-Boy for the anti-Gun Lobby

 

[Gonz]

more proof that those damnedable weapons need to be outlawed

30 September 2003
A strict Muslim who slit his daughter's throat because he believed she had become too Westernised pleaded with a judge yesterday to sentence him to death.

When Abdalla Yones learnt that his 16-year-old child, Heshu, had begun seeing a Christian teenager he stabbed her 11 times. After breaking down the door of the bathroom where she had barricaded herself in, he slit her throat leaving her to bleed to death.

Yesterday, as the 48-year-old Kurd was sentenced to life after becoming the first person in Britain to admit an "honour killing", the policeman at the head of the investigation, Commander Andy Baker, warned anyone who carried out a similar murder - whatever religion they were - would suffer the severest penalties.

oh wait, that was a knife in a gunless society, sorry

independent

 

[Squiggy]

I think grenades should be legalized...For those days when just killing the other guy isn't quite enough to satisfy the spirit....

And imagine how much fun it would be to use them for hunting....

 

[MrBishop]

[font=verdana,arial]POLICE SHOOTING: Suspect bought gun[/font]
[font=verdana,arial]Purchase was made legally despite man's history of mental illness[/font]
By GLENN PUIT
REVIEW-JOURNAL </B>
</B>


</B>The suspect accused of killing a man and wounding two police officers last week bought a gun days before the shooting despite a lengthy history of mental illness, according to police and the suspect's attorney.
On Thursday, police say Frank Lyles, 26, of Las Vegas, fatally shot a man to death on Bonanza Road, near Martin Luther King Boulevard. A police officer responding to the shooting was shot in the face and a second was wounded by shrapnel.
Both officers will survive.
Las Vegas police Lt. Tom Monahan confirmed Monday that days prior to the shooting, Lyles was able to purchase a firearm at a local gun store. Monahan declined to release the location of the gun store, but he said the seller followed the law and conducted an appropriate background check on Lyles.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Sep-30-Tue-2003/news/22268999.html


Visitor May Have Left Gun Used By Md. Boy
By Nancy Trejos and Avis Thomas-Lester
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 30, 2003; Page B01 The gun that a 4-year-old boy used to shoot and kill his 5-year-old sister and wound his older brother Saturday night may have been left at their home that day by an acquaintance of his father's, relatives and a family friend said yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19584-2003Sep29.html

Tuesday September 30, 2003

Man charged with pointing gun at and chasing car





Maryland State Police said they arrested a Cavetown man in connection with an alleged road rage incident that included the brandishing of a handgun.

Police said they charged Richard A. Jones, 41, whose exact address was unavailable, with two counts each of first- and second-degree assault and reckless endangerment following an incident Monday evening on Maryland Route 66.

Police allege Jones pointed a gun at two people at approximately 7:40 p.m.

Jones, driving a Chevrolet van, was traveling north behind a Honda Civic and began tailgating and flashing high beams at the motorists, who were not identified, police said.

Police alleged that Jones then drove in front of the Honda and began slamming on his brakes.

http://www.herald-mail.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=63827&format=html


Hmmm...anyone can get a gun, people are stupid and irrisponsible with their guns and people with guns tend to use them to live out their rage. Oh...and kids get killed by guns.

OH BTW....all three incidents were posted online within the past 4 hours of me typing this. These didn't occur a month apart, a week apart or even a day apart...we're talking hours here! I thin that this is indicative of the gun-malady!

 

[Gonz]

That arguement seems to say that the ownership of guns by the populace is there to protect them from their own GVT/empire/kingdom.

Yep, that's about right. It helps with taking out the badguys too.

I could assume the no guns for anyone stance IF the the government had no access either. The police couldn't carry & the military had to use sticks to train & when a war breaks out, the guns are then removed from a locked underground vault by a diverse group of civilians. No guns would have to mean no guns.

 

[MrBishop]

Yep, that's about right. It helps with taking out the badguys too.

I could assume the no guns for anyone stance IF the the government had no access either. The police couldn't carry & the military had to use sticks to train & when a war breaks out, the guns are then removed from a locked underground vault by a diverse group of civilians. No guns would have to mean no guns.

What if the people who are trying to protect themselves from the GVT happen to be in the wrong? Drug dealers come to mind. Here's a large group of people being repressed by the GVT.

I like your idea about no-one carrying. No sticks though...real weight props with laser registered hits/misses and a mechinized 'kick-back' upon firing. Why not have limited persons with guns? Cops with guns...make a more powerful impact on criminal elements (although the Bobbies seemed to have gotten along without them for decades). Military...only while on base or excersize...that's the case already, no? Hmmm


BTW..>Thanks for the new sig-idea

 

[AnomalousEntity]

What if the people who are trying to protect themselves from the GVT happen to be in the wrong? Drug dealers come to mind. Here's a large group of people being repressed by the GVT.

I like your idea about no-one carrying. No sticks though...real weight props with laser registered hits/misses and a mechinized 'kick-back' upon firing. Why not have limited persons with guns? Cops with guns...make a more powerful impact on criminal elements (although the Bobbies seemed to have gotten along without them for decades). Military...only while on base or excersize...that's the case already, no? Hmmm


BTW..>Thanks for the new sig-idea

I might actually go along with it...if 100% of all guns were banned period.

Go back and read the US constitution...it speaks specifically to the problems involved with armed authority and a disarmed civil public...they are speaking form experience...not theory or nice ideals like many of the points made here.

Of course there is no such thing as a "perfect system" However, I believe it is the "lesser of two evils" to leave as much power and power of force in the hands of the public at large rather thanto concentrate all of it within the confines of authority which can at any poin it chooses, become a cruel, tyrannical, dictatorship, which wrongly assassinates it citizens, takes all of their money in the form of "taxes", subjects them to near slavery, and completely throws out rule of law and human rights...what would be there to stop them?

Lets ask the Jews, or the cubans, or the Chilieans, or or the Iraqi how it worked out for them and how much of their personal rights, and freedom they felt like they had being an unarmed people against a well armed dictator, crime lord, military faction etc etc....

 

[chcr]

This has been quite a discussion. Remember that I own guns. I do not hunt (nothing against, just afraid of getting shot by a drunken moron), so you know what the guns are for. I keep them safely locked away, unloaded, with trigger locks. The problem is, people with no business owning guns (not criminals but law abiding citizens) can acquire them easily. As I say, like driving, you should have to qualify for gun ownership somehow. As I've also said, I'm not sure this is a workable solution, but I know that when something doesn't work, only an idiot keeps doing the same thing.