I'd be willing to bet most anti-gun people have never fired one, held one, owned one, nor do they probably have enough information to really make a judgement on them. They simply read the things other anti-gun people flood the public with on how bad they are, and believe it.
wow. beautiful. i'm obviously missing something, being one of these unenlightened types that have never fired/owned a gun blah blah blah. it must be a truly worthwhile and moving life experience where you realise how lucky and powerful you are, gun in hand.
please, please explain to me how exactly i am unable to "make a judgement on them" and how i am being hoodwinked by the bad press (oh you naughty naughty press!) because, you know, i'm still having trouble getting past the guns=weapon=injury/death thing. silly me.
wow. beautiful. i'm obviously missing something, being one of these unenlightened types that have never fired/owned a gun blah blah blah. it must be a truly worthwhile and moving life experience where you realise how lucky and powerful you are, gun in hand.
please, please explain to me how exactly i am unable to "make a judgement on them" and how i am being hoodwinked by the bad press (oh you naughty naughty press!) because, you know, i'm still having trouble getting past the guns=weapon=injury/death thing. silly me.
Maybe I should be talking, but could you can the sarcasm? We freaking know you hate guns. Its patently obvious. "Ignorant" doesn't mean stupid. It means a lack of experience. Was he wrong?
Maybe I should be talking, but could you can the sarcasm? We freaking know you hate guns. Its patently obvious. "Ignorant" doesn't mean stupid. It means a lack of experience. Was he wrong?
OK - sarcasm aside, coming from the UK, guns aren't something we have/buy/use unless you go shooting little birds that can't fly very well, so I am genuinely intruiged why people feel the urge to have them unless they're involved in some kind of criminal activity.
i honestly can't see what purpose (other than what i've said before) a gun serves - and whether i have actually had first hand experience of them is kind of irrelevant as far as making a judgement on them goes, isn't it? i could see how that might matter if you're talking about performance sports cars or something that requires a degree of technical knowledge, but guns?
I'd be willing to bet most anti-gun people have never fired one, held one, owned one, nor do they probably have enough information to really make a judgement on them.
I've held a gun and fired one, never owned one personally.
What do you mean, information on guns to make a judgement? Do you mean technical info or something?
edit: do you feel the same way about drugs, about heroin for instance? You can only make a judgement if you have tried it?
For every reason to not be allowed to own a gun, there's two reason's why its perfectly safe and okay to have one.
Really, is that a fact?
People get sick of "guns don't kill people, people kill people", not because its untrue. They tire of hearing it due to the level of truthiness in that statement.
Nope, I get sick of it for the level of untruthfulness in it.
Truthiness is a satirical term coined by Stephen Colbert in reference to the quality by which a person claims to know something intuitively, instinctively, or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or actual facts.
I basically agree with this, regarding some of the posters here. Its clearly fear and ignorance. Not all, though ... People like hippiemom and Cosmo are gun owners who believe in some controls. At least, I think Cosmo is a gun owner?
...
I have owned guns in the past, but, no longer do. I got swept up in the paranoid frenzy in the late 70s/early 80s about the blacks and Mexican gangs that the local televison news was feeding us.
Now, I don't want that shit in my house. I'm no longer afraid.
Then you owned a gun for the wrong reason to begin with. Most gun owners arent swept up in a paranoid frenzy, nor are they scared. With or without their guns. I only know a handful of people who got licences to carry. And all of them carried it for work purposes, being that they carry large sums of money. The guy with a 9mm in his closet, who only has it in his house if shit hits the fan, and only uses it 4-5 times a year to shoot at the range, isnt scared, nor paranoid. And that gun owner is the norm. The frenzied ones are the only ones you end up reading about.
wow. beautiful. i'm obviously missing something, being one of these unenlightened types that have never fired/owned a gun blah blah blah. it must be a truly worthwhile and moving life experience where you realise how lucky and powerful you are, gun in hand.
please, please explain to me how exactly i am unable to "make a judgement on them" and how i am being hoodwinked by the bad press (oh you naughty naughty press!) because, you know, i'm still having trouble getting past the guns=weapon=injury/death thing. silly me.
I dont believe I adressed you. Stick around skippy, you read enough posts around here, you'll understand my stance. Have a good day.
i could see how that might matter if you're talking about performance sports cars or something that requires a degree of technical knowledge, but guns?
Because guns require no technichal knowledge. You clearly know alot about guns. Thanks for chipping in.
I just don't understand why people's emotions cloud their judgment so much around this issue ... Well, correction ... I DO understand why. School shootings are a horrible, horrible thing to comtemplate, and people attempt to look for explanations that have nothing to do with human nature or psychology. Seriously, though ... Is this a good approach? I posted a thread that contained links to a few pieces on the psychology of school shooters. It sank like a stone. No one cares to explore this topic in ways that are likely to be helpful. Instead, they clamour for more laws, and attribute causality to objects. Indeed, if people couldn't get guns, they couldn't shoot anyone. The failure in judgment comes in when one assumes that stricter laws (like an outright ban) will actually prevent dangerous people from doing harm. They may not. Fundamentally, why is it acceptable to deprive a school shooter of a gun, and then forget about him as if the problem has now been solved? We still have a very disturbed and dangerous person out there. Sure, maybe he kills fewer people ... Or maybe he uses another weapon instead and still manages to kill several victims (in Japan, slashings and stabbings replace shootings at schools. People still die in these attacks.) ... Or maybe he just works a bit harder and does manage to acquire an illegal gun, and goes on to kill a bunch of people despite the laws? Or maybe he really doesn't do anything but seethe and stew? All these are possibilities. My question is this ... Why can't we do something for these people? Something besides preventing everyone else from owning a gun?
What do you mean, information on guns to make a judgement? Do you mean technical info or something?
I mean that many people only hear all about how bad guns are, but you don't get big media stories on the millions of gun owners who never have accidents, shooting sprees, nor criminal acts. And since "guns idn't their thing", then they're bad. Its piss poor thinking.
Truthiness is a satirical term coined by Stephen Colbert in reference to the quality by which a person claims to know something intuitively, instinctively, or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or actual facts.
Im aware of it. I watch his show. I enjoy it. He can be funny as hell sometimes. I'M flipping truthiness on him. No need to be petty because I used "you guys word".
Clearly fear and ignorance?[/quote]
Yes, you clearly suffer from both, along with a small dose of paranoid frenzy apparently.
You're still talking about a total ban, which almost nobody here wants, they want stricter laws... how could that harm anyone?
You might say anti-gun people let their emotions (fear and ignorance) cloud their judgment but you could say the same about pro-gun people...
Then most of us shouldnt even be arguing. I think most legal law abiding gun users ALSO want either stricter rules/punishments for those want to who violate the law.
You're still talking about a total ban, which almost nobody here wants, they want stricter laws... how could that harm anyone?
You might say anti-gun people let their emotions (fear and ignorance) cloud their judgment but you could say the same about pro-gun people...
edit: do you feel the same way about suicide bombers, terrorists, junkies, paedophiles...
Stricter in what way, then? You guys keep saying that, yet in many places, laws are already more than strict enough, with all the licensing requirements, permits, training courses, background checks, waiting periods ... What more do you want? Much more, and we are inching towards ban territory. And sorry, I don't believe in just adding restrictions to people's lives, in the absense of any clear evidence that society will benefit. Maybe that's an ideological difference between you and I.
You asked me what we should do for people ... I don't know ... Give them psychological treatment in a secure facility? Institute better mental health screening programs at schools, to catch these people before they blow up? Address issues that make people vengeful and dangerous, like bullying, poverty, hanging out with the wrong crowd? These are just off the top of my head.
And what are you bringing up suicide bombers and pedophiles for? I don't get the question.
Lets find out, you give me one, and I'll see if I can give you two. Got time?
I actually don't have time but here's one; the death of an innocent person by a gun.
Im aware of it. I watch his show. I enjoy it. He can be funny as hell sometimes. I'M flipping truthiness on him. No need to be petty because I used "you guys word".
I thought it was funny how you used that word in that context. I didn't mean anything by it, I didn't even know you were politically right.
Stricter in what way, then? You guys keep saying that, yet in many places, laws are already more than strict enough, with all the licensing requirements, permits, training courses, background checks, waiting periods ... What more do you want? Much more, and we are inching towards ban territory. And sorry, I don't believe in just adding restrictions to people's lives, in the absense of any clear evidence that society will benefit. Maybe that's an ideological difference between you and I.
Maybe stricter laws in the places where you don't have to go through all those things and can just buy a gun whenever you want without even a background check?
How can you ever have evidence of it if you're not willing to try.
You asked me what we should do for people ... I don't know ... Give them psychological treatment in a secure facility? Institute better mental health screening programs at schools, to catch these people before they blow up? Address issues that make people vengeful and dangerous, like bullying, poverty, hanging out with the wrong crowd? These are just off the top of my head.
And what are you bringing up suicide bombers and pedophiles for? I don't get the question.
Yes, of course ... If a suicide bomber ever surrended without commiting the act, I would hope that they would receive some form of help. And pedophiles? We already treat them. We don't just castrate them and turn them lose in the wilds to fend for themselves.
Man walks into school with gun, planning on killing children. This time, police swat teams storm the school, and with their GUNS they shoot and kill the criminal in question. No kids die. Those guns saved lives. Countless examples of this occur every day. And yes I know thats the police. Idk about you, but i dont want to live in a country where only those in charge have guns.
Yes, of course ... If a suicide bomber ever surrended without commiting the act, I would hope that they would receive some form of help. And pedophiles? We already treat them. We don't just castrate them and turn them lose in the wilds to fend for themselves.
If you mean helping them to go see allah, I'd gladly help them.
Then you owned a gun for the wrong reason to begin with. Most gun owners arent swept up in a paranoid frenzy, nor are they scared. With or without their guns. I only know a handful of people who got licences to carry. And all of them carried it for work purposes, being that they carry large sums of money. The guy with a 9mm in his closet, who only has it in his house if shit hits the fan, and only uses it 4-5 times a year to shoot at the range, isnt scared, nor paranoid. And that gun owner is the norm. The frenzied ones are the only ones you end up reading about.
...
Are you saying that people do not purchase and own guns for 'protection'? If they are for protection... protection from whom or what? What is the shit that is going to hit his fan?
I owned a gun over 25 years ago for protection... protection from home invasions... protections from car jackers. Two new forms of crimes that popped up in the late 70s/early 80s. Protection because of the fear of these new forms of crimes.
I finally came to my senses and stopped being afraid. I'm not worried about home invasions or car jackings... they can have my car, my wallet and all the shit in my house... it's only stuff to me. and if they choose to kill me over bullshit used material goods... well, i think I'm ready to face my God if they decide to end my stint here. I am not afraid.
...
P.S. I am not a cop or an armoured car driver... I don't need a permit to carry a weapon in public.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Because guns require no technichal knowledge. You clearly know alot about guns. Thanks for chipping in.
Glad to see another using my favourite weapon of choice - sarcasm. Of course, as a piece of machinery, guns are a technical piece of equipment made up of lots of bits and pieces but my point was that the bottom line is they serve ONE purpose - to kill - and to try and intellectualise the subject by discussing "it's a wonderful piece of technology with a beautiful smooth action" or "this one is so much better than this one because it's more reliable" whatever, cleverly detaches the individual from the device's sole purpose.
Yes, there is skill in sport shooting - the accuracy, keeping it functioning - but that doesn't mean it's a positive thing for anyone to think that guns are something more than what they actually are.
(btw i like what you're saying above me here, cosmo... )
Not the poster you were speaking to in particular, but in general, I'd be willing to bet most anti-gun people have never fired one, held one, owned one, nor do they probably have enough information to really make a judgement on them. They simply read the things other anti-gun people flood the public with on how bad they are, and believe it. For every reason to not be allowed to own a gun, there's two reason's why its perfectly safe and okay to have one. People get sick of "guns don't kill people, people kill people", not because its untrue. They tire of hearing it due to the level of truthiness in that statement.
Well, I guess I'm sortof anti-gun. And I have never fired a handgun, true. I have however fired AG-3 (standard army issue automatic in Norway), the kind of gun you can put on top of a tank, think we called it a 12-7, and, hell, I've demolished an outcrop of rock with an artillery shell. Yes, I have been in the army, which is where I tried all this stuff. And yes, I hate it all. Never been a truer pacifist than after 12 months of military service.
But I live in Norway, and we dont have that issue at all. People just dont fucking have handguns. Unless they are shooting-range enthusiasts or hunters, in which case they mostly have rifles anyway. The police dont carry guns, and criminals usually dont have guns. We had this case last year, a bunch of yahoos executed a well-planned robbery of a money-storehouse with army-like precision, automatic guns and all that stuff. It came to a shoot-out in which a police officer died. When they caught these guys, they were slapped so hard with prison sentences you wouldn't believe it. They all got 15-20 years, and in addition they got what is usually reserved for the criminally insane, in that they may not get out even then, unless they are vouched for by psychiatrists. This is an extremely rare exception.
I don't see why people should have guns "for protection" or whatever. But then again, I dont live where you do. Maybe it is needed there, I dunno. But from mine, and most europeans' angle, the whole "love my guns" stance is absurd, as we truly dont see the need for guns nor the problem with controls on weapons.
But I'll restate I dont have a problem with private ownership on guns. A complete ban would be drastic. But I also have no problem with strict regulation and control of them.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
...
Are you saying that people do not purchase and own guns for 'protection'? If they are for protection... protection from whom or what? What is the shit that is going to hit his fan?
I owned a gun over 25 years ago for protection... protection from home invasions... protections from car jackers. Two new forms of crimes that popped up in the late 70s/early 80s. Protection because of the fear of these new forms of crimes.
I finally came to my senses and stopped being afraid. I'm not worried about home invasions or car jackings... they can have my car, my wallet and all the shit in my house... it's only stuff to me. and if they choose to kill me over bullshit used material goods... well, i think I'm ready to face my God if they decide to end my stint here. I am not afraid.
...
P.S. I am not a cop or an armoured car driver... I don't need a permit to carry a weapon in public.
Cosmo, I certainly agree with your position of not using lethal force to protect property, I believe there are laws in most states prohibiting that. I also respect your decision about personal ownership for yourself, I like your stance here. I have to say though that I see a distinct difference in "not being afraid" and "not being a victim"
Glad to see another using my favourite weapon of choice - sarcasm. Of course, as a piece of machinery, guns are a technical piece of equipment made up of lots of bits and pieces but my point was that the bottom line is they serve ONE purpose - to kill - and to try and intellectualise the subject by discussing "it's a wonderful piece of technology with a beautiful smooth action" or "this one is so much better than this one because it's more reliable" whatever, cleverly detaches the individual from the device's sole purpose.
Yes, there is skill in sport shooting - the accuracy, keeping it functioning - but that doesn't mean it's a positive thing for anyone to think that guns are something more than what they actually are.
(btw i like what you're saying above me here, cosmo... )
Many would say they see some other purposes for guns along with "to kill". Like for defense, protection, peace of mind, intimidation, admiration, commerce, collecting or whatever. There's some validity to that position.
how about making guns extremely difficult to have, full checks to be made, guns licenced, handguns to be kept in authorised safes, etc..
and at the same time you can go and search for the religious extremists people appear to fear so much
more kids have died in the states in the last two years as a result of being shot by ACCIDENT in a handgun misuse scenario than renegade 'Muslims' have killed since the year 0....
i fail to see your correalition... its a poor analogy
banning islam = saving childrens lives,, theres and ours
muslim ideology= nazi ideology
banning islam = saving childrens lives,, theres and ours
muslim ideology= nazi ideology
what the fuck are you on about
are you comparing the 99.9% of law abiding Muslims to the Nazis?
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
banning islam = saving childrens lives,, theres and ours
muslim ideology= nazi ideology
I can't believe i'm seeing this again. And i thought the thread had taken on a more logical approach to the discussion of gun law and gun crimes in america. But no, someone has to go and insult a whole race of people by saying banning a religion will save lives!!! Unbelievable!!! This is one of the most racist remarks i have ever encountered on the message board. I'm really ashamed!!!
If Pearl Jam was a beer, they'd probably be the best beer in the world!!
I can't believe i'm seeing this again. And i thought the thread had taken on a more logical approach to the discussion of gun law and gun crimes in america. But no, someone has to go and insult a whole race of people by saying banning a religion will save lives!!! Unbelievable!!! This is one of the most racist remarks i have ever encountered on the message board. I'm really ashamed!!!
This is exactly the point I was trying to make with my initial post.
It is wrong to punish the vast majority because of the actions of a tiny minority, whether that be Muslims or gun owners.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make with my initial post.
It is wrong to punish the vast majority because of the actions of a tiny minority, whether that be Muslims or gun owners.
Thanks for making my point.
but your point hasnt been made in the slightest...
are you seriously saying that more legislation and control on your handgun is a "punishment" thats comparable to banning someones religion???
thats insane... making someone go through a series of administerial procedures and test to have a gun is a whole lot more different than banning someones religion..
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Comments
wow. beautiful. i'm obviously missing something, being one of these unenlightened types that have never fired/owned a gun blah blah blah. it must be a truly worthwhile and moving life experience where you realise how lucky and powerful you are, gun in hand.
please, please explain to me how exactly i am unable to "make a judgement on them" and how i am being hoodwinked by the bad press (oh you naughty naughty press!) because, you know, i'm still having trouble getting past the guns=weapon=injury/death thing. silly me.
free your mind... and your ass will follow...
Maybe I should be talking, but could you can the sarcasm? We freaking know you hate guns. Its patently obvious. "Ignorant" doesn't mean stupid. It means a lack of experience. Was he wrong?
OK - sarcasm aside, coming from the UK, guns aren't something we have/buy/use unless you go shooting little birds that can't fly very well, so I am genuinely intruiged why people feel the urge to have them unless they're involved in some kind of criminal activity.
i honestly can't see what purpose (other than what i've said before) a gun serves - and whether i have actually had first hand experience of them is kind of irrelevant as far as making a judgement on them goes, isn't it? i could see how that might matter if you're talking about performance sports cars or something that requires a degree of technical knowledge, but guns?
free your mind... and your ass will follow...
I've held a gun and fired one, never owned one personally.
What do you mean, information on guns to make a judgement? Do you mean technical info or something?
edit: do you feel the same way about drugs, about heroin for instance? You can only make a judgement if you have tried it?
Really, is that a fact?
Nope, I get sick of it for the level of untruthfulness in it.
Truthiness is a satirical term coined by Stephen Colbert in reference to the quality by which a person claims to know something intuitively, instinctively, or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or actual facts.
Clearly fear and ignorance?
naděje umírá poslední
Then you owned a gun for the wrong reason to begin with. Most gun owners arent swept up in a paranoid frenzy, nor are they scared. With or without their guns. I only know a handful of people who got licences to carry. And all of them carried it for work purposes, being that they carry large sums of money. The guy with a 9mm in his closet, who only has it in his house if shit hits the fan, and only uses it 4-5 times a year to shoot at the range, isnt scared, nor paranoid. And that gun owner is the norm. The frenzied ones are the only ones you end up reading about.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I dont believe I adressed you. Stick around skippy, you read enough posts around here, you'll understand my stance. Have a good day.
Because guns require no technichal knowledge. You clearly know alot about guns. Thanks for chipping in.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/shooting/4743694.stm
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I just don't understand why people's emotions cloud their judgment so much around this issue ... Well, correction ... I DO understand why. School shootings are a horrible, horrible thing to comtemplate, and people attempt to look for explanations that have nothing to do with human nature or psychology. Seriously, though ... Is this a good approach? I posted a thread that contained links to a few pieces on the psychology of school shooters. It sank like a stone. No one cares to explore this topic in ways that are likely to be helpful. Instead, they clamour for more laws, and attribute causality to objects. Indeed, if people couldn't get guns, they couldn't shoot anyone. The failure in judgment comes in when one assumes that stricter laws (like an outright ban) will actually prevent dangerous people from doing harm. They may not. Fundamentally, why is it acceptable to deprive a school shooter of a gun, and then forget about him as if the problem has now been solved? We still have a very disturbed and dangerous person out there. Sure, maybe he kills fewer people ... Or maybe he uses another weapon instead and still manages to kill several victims (in Japan, slashings and stabbings replace shootings at schools. People still die in these attacks.) ... Or maybe he just works a bit harder and does manage to acquire an illegal gun, and goes on to kill a bunch of people despite the laws? Or maybe he really doesn't do anything but seethe and stew? All these are possibilities. My question is this ... Why can't we do something for these people? Something besides preventing everyone else from owning a gun?
Do something for them, like what?
You're still talking about a total ban, which almost nobody here wants, they want stricter laws... how could that harm anyone?
You might say anti-gun people let their emotions (fear and ignorance) cloud their judgment but you could say the same about pro-gun people...
edit: do you feel the same way about suicide bombers, terrorists, junkies, paedophiles...
naděje umírá poslední
Noone says you have to.
I mean that many people only hear all about how bad guns are, but you don't get big media stories on the millions of gun owners who never have accidents, shooting sprees, nor criminal acts. And since "guns idn't their thing", then they're bad. Its piss poor thinking.
Apples and oranges.
Lets find out, you give me one, and I'll see if I can give you two. Got time?
Cant argue with your opinions on facts.
Im aware of it. I watch his show. I enjoy it. He can be funny as hell sometimes. I'M flipping truthiness on him. No need to be petty because I used "you guys word".
Clearly fear and ignorance?[/quote]
Yes, you clearly suffer from both, along with a small dose of paranoid frenzy apparently.
Then most of us shouldnt even be arguing. I think most legal law abiding gun users ALSO want either stricter rules/punishments for those want to who violate the law.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Stricter in what way, then? You guys keep saying that, yet in many places, laws are already more than strict enough, with all the licensing requirements, permits, training courses, background checks, waiting periods ... What more do you want? Much more, and we are inching towards ban territory. And sorry, I don't believe in just adding restrictions to people's lives, in the absense of any clear evidence that society will benefit. Maybe that's an ideological difference between you and I.
You asked me what we should do for people ... I don't know ... Give them psychological treatment in a secure facility? Institute better mental health screening programs at schools, to catch these people before they blow up? Address issues that make people vengeful and dangerous, like bullying, poverty, hanging out with the wrong crowd? These are just off the top of my head.
And what are you bringing up suicide bombers and pedophiles for? I don't get the question.
I actually don't have time but here's one; the death of an innocent person by a gun.
I thought it was funny how you used that word in that context. I didn't mean anything by it, I didn't even know you were politically right.
naděje umírá poslední
The ability to save the life of my daughter should the situation arise.
There's my two for now, Im pressed for time right now as well.
I use the word tongue in cheek. No worries.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Maybe stricter laws in the places where you don't have to go through all those things and can just buy a gun whenever you want without even a background check?
How can you ever have evidence of it if you're not willing to try.
Would you do the same for these people?
naděje umírá poslední
What situation exactly?
And that's really only one thing.
naděje umírá poslední
Yes, of course ... If a suicide bomber ever surrended without commiting the act, I would hope that they would receive some form of help. And pedophiles? We already treat them. We don't just castrate them and turn them lose in the wilds to fend for themselves.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
If you mean helping them to go see allah, I'd gladly help them.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Are you saying that people do not purchase and own guns for 'protection'? If they are for protection... protection from whom or what? What is the shit that is going to hit his fan?
I owned a gun over 25 years ago for protection... protection from home invasions... protections from car jackers. Two new forms of crimes that popped up in the late 70s/early 80s. Protection because of the fear of these new forms of crimes.
I finally came to my senses and stopped being afraid. I'm not worried about home invasions or car jackings... they can have my car, my wallet and all the shit in my house... it's only stuff to me. and if they choose to kill me over bullshit used material goods... well, i think I'm ready to face my God if they decide to end my stint here. I am not afraid.
...
P.S. I am not a cop or an armoured car driver... I don't need a permit to carry a weapon in public.
Hail, Hail!!!
Glad to see another using my favourite weapon of choice - sarcasm. Of course, as a piece of machinery, guns are a technical piece of equipment made up of lots of bits and pieces but my point was that the bottom line is they serve ONE purpose - to kill - and to try and intellectualise the subject by discussing "it's a wonderful piece of technology with a beautiful smooth action" or "this one is so much better than this one because it's more reliable" whatever, cleverly detaches the individual from the device's sole purpose.
Yes, there is skill in sport shooting - the accuracy, keeping it functioning - but that doesn't mean it's a positive thing for anyone to think that guns are something more than what they actually are.
(btw i like what you're saying above me here, cosmo...
free your mind... and your ass will follow...
Well, I guess I'm sortof anti-gun. And I have never fired a handgun, true. I have however fired AG-3 (standard army issue automatic in Norway), the kind of gun you can put on top of a tank, think we called it a 12-7, and, hell, I've demolished an outcrop of rock with an artillery shell. Yes, I have been in the army, which is where I tried all this stuff. And yes, I hate it all. Never been a truer pacifist than after 12 months of military service.
But I live in Norway, and we dont have that issue at all. People just dont fucking have handguns. Unless they are shooting-range enthusiasts or hunters, in which case they mostly have rifles anyway. The police dont carry guns, and criminals usually dont have guns. We had this case last year, a bunch of yahoos executed a well-planned robbery of a money-storehouse with army-like precision, automatic guns and all that stuff. It came to a shoot-out in which a police officer died. When they caught these guys, they were slapped so hard with prison sentences you wouldn't believe it. They all got 15-20 years, and in addition they got what is usually reserved for the criminally insane, in that they may not get out even then, unless they are vouched for by psychiatrists. This is an extremely rare exception.
I don't see why people should have guns "for protection" or whatever. But then again, I dont live where you do. Maybe it is needed there, I dunno. But from mine, and most europeans' angle, the whole "love my guns" stance is absurd, as we truly dont see the need for guns nor the problem with controls on weapons.
But I'll restate I dont have a problem with private ownership on guns. A complete ban would be drastic. But I also have no problem with strict regulation and control of them.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Cosmo, I certainly agree with your position of not using lethal force to protect property, I believe there are laws in most states prohibiting that. I also respect your decision about personal ownership for yourself, I like your stance here. I have to say though that I see a distinct difference in "not being afraid" and "not being a victim"
1998 Seattle 7-21
2000 Seattle 11-06
2003 Seattle Benaroya 10-22
2005 Gorge 9-1
2006 Gorge 7-23
Many would say they see some other purposes for guns along with "to kill". Like for defense, protection, peace of mind, intimidation, admiration, commerce, collecting or whatever. There's some validity to that position.
1998 Seattle 7-21
2000 Seattle 11-06
2003 Seattle Benaroya 10-22
2005 Gorge 9-1
2006 Gorge 7-23
muslim ideology= nazi ideology
what the fuck are you on about
are you comparing the 99.9% of law abiding Muslims to the Nazis?
:(
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Ignorant, racist & discriminatory remark. I would erase your post if I were you... if nothing else, just to be able to save face.
hi rita! you coming to the lemonheads??
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
I can't believe i'm seeing this again. And i thought the thread had taken on a more logical approach to the discussion of gun law and gun crimes in america. But no, someone has to go and insult a whole race of people by saying banning a religion will save lives!!! Unbelievable!!! This is one of the most racist remarks i have ever encountered on the message board. I'm really ashamed!!!
This is exactly the point I was trying to make with my initial post.
It is wrong to punish the vast majority because of the actions of a tiny minority, whether that be Muslims or gun owners.
Thanks for making my point.
but your point hasnt been made in the slightest...
are you seriously saying that more legislation and control on your handgun is a "punishment" thats comparable to banning someones religion???
thats insane... making someone go through a series of administerial procedures and test to have a gun is a whole lot more different than banning someones religion..