guns and bullets

mikepegg44

dunkman wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Do we kill each other here at an alarming rate...the answer to that is obviously yes, but the answer to the reason why isn't simply the legality of guns, as pointed out earlier, Vermont is one of the most lax gun states in the union with an almost zero murder rate.

then the biggest reason for the huge scale of mass shootings in the States is what? you have more people with mental issues than anywhere else? Cos if it's not the legality of guns and it's not the lax gun laws and if "guns don't kill people, people do" then why is this? are you suggesting that the US has a much higher amount of people with mental disorders than every other nation in the world?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111202/ns/ ... al_health/

I would say yes...
also, later in the article it talks about the untreated mental illnesses in developed countries...if the number is that high, and we have the highest rates of mental illness, put that together with a huge population and you get massive amounts of people with mental illness.
You cannot simply blame guns. That is too easy. And quite frankly I don't want to live in a country where everything we are allowed to do is based on what the vast minority of people cannot handle. Hopefully that makes sense to you as I am not sure how to write it a different way. An example being alcohol. I wouldn't want alcohol illegal because some people cannot handle it. I wouldn't want driving to be illegal because some people cannot handle it, I wouldn't want gardening to be illegal because some people use fertilizer to create bombs, I wouldn't want ....I could go on for days. But the fact is, these things happen, and if all we do is focus on the tools the mass murderers use we will never solve the problem of why they were driven to mass murder in the first place.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

there have been several documented cases where police pepper spray someone in a rage and it doesn't work.

eMMI wrote:

One thing that stuck with me while reading this thread again was the notion of "killing for self protection". Maybe I'm incredibly naive in thinking that self protection shouldn't make you a killer. Pepper spray was mentioned, you'd think that would be enough. Especially with all the comments about making sure that if you shoot someone, they die and don't stick around lying about what happened. :? Anyway, just writing out some of my thoughts.

HeidiJam wrote:

hmmmm.... wonder how far he would have gotten if other responsible law-abiding citizens were allowed to conceal carry. You keep bringing up areas that are gun free zones... There is probably a reason why someone who wants to kill alot of people is going to an area where no one is allowed to carry guns...

It's been mentioned here before that no mass-shootings have been prevented or cut short by someone carrying a weapon on them. (Except a security guard sort of person (?), I forget the details, but they were not a civilian.)

dunkman

Paul David wrote:

there have been several documented cases where police pepper spray someone in a rage and it doesn't work.

cattle prods?

there have been several documented cases where a person tried to kill more than 6 people with a bat and it doesnt work

p.s. your quoting and then writing above the quotes is highly annoying.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

dunkman wrote:

p.s. your quoting and then writing above

Paul David wrote:

is this better?

dunkman wrote:

the quotes is highly annoying.

dunkman

not really Paul David... not really.. it was actually more annoying... so annoying in fact that i shot my computer out of anger and frustration.

which brings me to quite a funny point actually... my wife and I watched a documentary on the Columbine killers last weekend... and on it one of the killers journals was read out and it was about how he didnt have a girlfriend or love... and then the narrator said "... and both Klebold and Harris died as virgins" ... and then my wife just said to me "all those boys needed was a good shagging"

redrock

nuffingman wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

Heetderks said she began carrying a gun every day after she was raped some years ago.

"I'm not physically strong enough to fight off a man," she said of her assailant. "If I had a gun, I would have killed him."

Wouldn't pepper spray be a better idea?

This is the most recommended means of defense for women. Pepper spray or similar, can be held in the hand, out in the open, with no problems. When attacked, the majority of women are approach from behind, usually with an arm around the neck and the assailant stopping the victims arms flying about to avoid being hit. The woman has little chance of reaching wherever for her gun should she have one. Also, womens clothes are not conducive to carrying a concealed weapon and, in general, those carrying will have their gun in a bag. Again, not handy to just 'pop out' for defense. Naturally, these statements are for a majority. Some ladies do have holsters, etc. The focus is the approach of the assailant.

he still stands

why are we talking about bats? I'd think if a person wanted to kill someone or a group of people the next choice would be a bomb. Perhaps a crossbow. Maybe a sword. You could kill lots o' people with those weapons among many others that aren't as harmless as a large stick. Unless we're talking about regressing to being neanderthals automatically once guns are made illegal? I'm confused. :?

But it doesn't matter... the argument should be about our civil right to carry guns and not allowing the government to decide how they can best keep us safe. No thanks.

keeponrockin

he still stands wrote:

why are we talking about bats? I'd think if a person wanted to kill someone or a group of people the next choice would be a bomb. Perhaps a crossbow. Maybe a sword. You could kill lots o' people with those weapons among many others that aren't as harmless as a large stick. Unless we're talking about regressing to being neanderthals automatically once guns are made illegal? I'm confused. :?

But it doesn't matter... the argument should be about our civil right to carry guns and not allowing the government to decide how they can best keep us safe. No thanks.

Agreed. What if however was as a society voted on these bans?

he still stands

keeponrockin wrote:

he still stands wrote:

why are we talking about bats? I'd think if a person wanted to kill someone or a group of people the next choice would be a bomb. Perhaps a crossbow. Maybe a sword. You could kill lots o' people with those weapons among many others that aren't as harmless as a large stick. Unless we're talking about regressing to being neanderthals automatically once guns are made illegal? I'm confused. :?

But it doesn't matter... the argument should be about our civil right to carry guns and not allowing the government to decide how they can best keep us safe. No thanks.

Agreed. What if however was as a society voted on these bans?

Well, I have a problem with external interference even if a majority of people think I should be restrained or coerced. My own goals, self-reliance, and liberty are superior to any institution, society, or government. Maybe that makes me an anarchist, but so be it. Regardless, I can't imagine that if put to a vote, people would vote for the government waging war, costing BILLIONS of our dollars, against its own citizens. And it would be war - many people who own guns would fight to the death to keep them.

The irony here is that I don't own guns.

pandora

he still stands wrote:

The irony here is that I don't own guns.

I don't own a gun either....irony, I don't know...
Seems to me, it is about protecting our rights, that is the basis to this debate.
How strongly some of us, even those who choose not to own a gun,
feel about keeping the right to own a gun if one so chooses.

he still stands

yeah I guess it would be irony if I fought for gun rights and was shot by a gun.

Ugh I hate it when people misuse that word and I done and did it!

dunkman

you are getting hung up on the right to have a gun.. a 'right' passed to you some 200+ years ago... thats insane... it'd be like me adhering to the 1803 law of me being allowed to beat my child slave for 30 minutes per day to aid production.

its a 'right' passed to you by a man who lived in a completely different era... the same men who owned black slaves... why is it a right cos he said so? seems very Koreshian to me... 263 years ago its was declared a right for Scottish people to kill dogs on a Saturday if they barked... should i still go by this right? Or have we as a society deemed this right to be obsolete, the same as the right to have a gun to form a militia against a Govt. is obsolete? just as wheelwrights as a job has become obsolete..... times change... what happened 300 years ago has little relevance in current day.

usamamasan1

dunkman wrote:

it'd be like me adhering to the 1803 law of me being allowed to beat my child slave for 30 minutes per day to aid production.

nope, nothing like that at all.


I guess "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is no longer relevant because "some man" wrote that down over 200 years ago too huh?
Gun ownership is as important now as ever.

usamamasan1

in other news, just got this from my friends at the NRA. At least everyone in California isn't batshit crazy.

JOIN THE NRA!

California Court Strikes Down Ammunition Law!



In an important victory for California gun owners, the Fresno Superior Court ruled today that California's new ammunition regulation law is unconstitutional, and blocked further enforcement.

The law, passed last year as AB 962, would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called "handgun ammunition" to be registered. In an unwritten ruling from the bench, Judge Jeffrey Hamilton found the law unconstitutionally vague on its face and issued an injunction against its enforcement. For now, at least, mail order ammunition sales to California residents can continue, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law.

The lawsuit-funded by the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation as part of a joint Legal Action Project-was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition is covered by the new law. Plaintiffs in the case include Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker, the CRPA Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, ammunition shipper Able's Ammo, collectible ammunition shipper RTG Sporting Collectibles, and individual Steven Stonecipher. Mendocino Sheriff Tom Allman also supported the lawsuit.

The ruling comes just days before the ban on mail order sales of so called "handgun ammunition" was set to take effect. Many of the nation's largest mail-order and online ammunition retailers had already announced that they would soon end sales to California residents. If the law had gone into effect, it would have required that "handgun ammunition" be stored out of the reach of customers, that ammunition vendors collect ammunition sales registration information and thumbprints from purchasers, and that vendors conduct transactions face to face for all deliveries and transfers of "handgun ammunition."

Fortunately, the court agreed that AB 962 is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it fails to provide sufficient legal notice of what ammunition cartridges are "principally for use in a handgun," and therefore regulated as "handgun ammunition" under AB 962. The law gives no explanation of how to determine what cartridges are "principally for use in" handguns.

The state is likely to appeal this important victory, and anti-gun lawmakers in Sacramento will undoubtedly try again to destroy lawful ammunition sales in California. Only the ongoing support and activism of California gun owners can block those efforts, so please watch your e-mail alerts and visit www.nraila.org for updates on this critically important issue.

Byrnzie

usamamasan1 wrote:

The law, passed last year as AB 962, would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called "handgun ammunition" to be registered.

And this would have been batshit crazy how exactly?

Godfather.

you guys are pissing in the wind, we will always have the right to own a gun if you all like it or not and even if by some slim chance we lose that right due to some dripping non-thinking prick there would millions of people that keep their unregistered guns anyway.

Godfather.

satansbed

Byrnzie wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

The law, passed last year as AB 962, would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called "handgun ammunition" to be registered.

And this would have been batshit crazy how exactly?

yeah i dont understand either, unless he was being satirical

dunkman

Godfather. wrote:

you guys are pissing in the wind, we will always have the right to own a gun if you all like it or not and even if by some slim chance we lose that right due to some dripping non-thinking prick there would millions of people that keep their unregistered guns anyway.

Godfather.

fucks sake man... after 30-odd pages of this havent you worked out that people are asking for tighter regulations and NOT to take away your beloved guns.... simply to have more stringent controls over who has that 'right'...

fucking unbelievable

mikepegg44

dunkman wrote:

you are getting hung up on the right to have a gun.. a 'right' passed to you some 200+ years ago... thats insane... it'd be like me adhering to the 1803 law of me being allowed to beat my child slave for 30 minutes per day to aid production.

its a 'right' passed to you by a man who lived in a completely different era... the same men who owned black slaves... why is it a right cos he said so? seems very Koreshian to me... 263 years ago its was declared a right for Scottish people to kill dogs on a Saturday if they barked... should i still go by this right? Or have we as a society deemed this right to be obsolete, the same as the right to have a gun to form a militia against a Govt. is obsolete? just as wheelwrights as a job has become obsolete..... times change... what happened 300 years ago has little relevance in current day.

When did we as a society deem this right to be obsolete? you cannot compare those ridiculous laws you brought up with the right to own a gun. The child slavery law violates human rights, me owning a gun does not violate human rights. That is a poor argument.
Point to me a situation where lax gun control laws are the sole reason for crime and violence. As brought up before, vermont has extremely lax gun control laws, why aren't there shoot outs in the streets every day? maybe it is because guns aren't the problem...something else is causing it. Again, why punish those who aren't going to commit crimes with their weapons?

dunkman

mikepegg44 wrote:

dunkman wrote:

you are getting hung up on the right to have a gun.. a 'right' passed to you some 200+ years ago... thats insane... it'd be like me adhering to the 1803 law of me being allowed to beat my child slave for 30 minutes per day to aid production.

its a 'right' passed to you by a man who lived in a completely different era... the same men who owned black slaves... why is it a right cos he said so? seems very Koreshian to me... 263 years ago its was declared a right for Scottish people to kill dogs on a Saturday if they barked... should i still go by this right? Or have we as a society deemed this right to be obsolete, the same as the right to have a gun to form a militia against a Govt. is obsolete? just as wheelwrights as a job has become obsolete..... times change... what happened 300 years ago has little relevance in current day.

When did we as a society deem this right to be obsolete? you cannot compare those ridiculous laws you brought up with the right to own a gun. The child slavery law violates human rights, me owning a gun does not violate human rights. That is a poor argument.
Point to me a situation where lax gun control laws are the sole reason for crime and violence. As brought up before, vermont has extremely lax gun control laws, why aren't there shoot outs in the streets every day? maybe it is because guns aren't the problem...something else is causing it. Again, why punish those who aren't going to commit crimes with their weapons?

honestly man i simply can't be fucked anymore... if you can't see the correlation between the ease of acquiring a gun and the vast amount of shootings you have then its no point discussing it... of course other things play a part, the mental state, upbringing, societal pressures, money, drugs, etc... but the ready availability of a handgun in the US also plays a major contributing factor... we have mental issues here in the UK, problems with drugs, alcohol, society, money... the same ills and concerns as the US.. but what we don't have is an easy access to a gun... and what we don't have is multiple gun shootings and multiple deaths.

"something else is causing it"... what? what do you or anyone in America think causes the huge amount of shootings compared to other countries? I personally think that the ease of getting a gun plays a major major part of that fact.