How most criminals get guns...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

Exactly. I want a fucking F22 so I can protect myself. I want grenade launchers, and I want an H&K MP7. If we're supposed to be able to protect ourselves against the government, I at least need equality. A little Glock pea-shooter isn't going to do anything.

How about nuclear weapons? I think the world would be MUCH safer if we all just had a big red button that we'd all carry around in our pockets that would end the world with 1 press. Think about how much safer we'd be. :)

To those making the argument that because cars cause more fatalities than guns, we should ban cars... or since spoons lead to choking deaths, we should ban spoons; There's 1 critical difference. Cars are specifically designed to transport people. Spoons are designed to feed people. Guns... are designed to kill people. See the distinction? :) It's small, but it's there.

To reiterate my original point... if we put guns in the hands of everyone in society, we're putting our lives in the hands of those people too. Sorry, but if anyone decides to put a bullet in your head at any moment... you will NOT have the ability to defend yourself from that...

Let's touch on the "you're going to die either way, if someone wants to kill you. Banning guns won't make you safe" argument. Sure, someone could stab you. Someone could run you over. Someone could throw you off a high-rise building. Someone could drown you. Lots of ways someone could kill you without a gun. But here's what I find unsettling; Guns give you point-and-shoot access to end anyone's life with the click of a finger. People die in firearms accidents all the time. Even police die in firearms accidents, and they've got more training than 99% of society. Those accidents wouldn't be possible if it wasn't so incredibly easy to just simply pull a trigger to take someone's life.

There was a drive-by shooting in Jack London Square in Oakland a few weeks ago. I believe 5 people were shot, none fatally. Do you think if guns weren't accessible to the shooter, that drive-by shooting would have been a drive-by stabbing? Can you imagine him jumping out of his car, and stabbing people? No, that would have presented a problem for him. He was shooting people because it was the easiest thing to do without the potential of getting caught. Do you think he would have just simply ran everyone over? I'm guessing probably not. But because of the ease of pointing a gun, and pulling it's trigger... that's the tool that made it happen so easily and conveniently.

The goal should be eliminating the convenience of killing, not attempting to make it more convenient to kill people.

no, this is very untrue :2 cents:

Yes 15% stolen, and that will be 100% stolen once gun control is full throttle ;)

Also, there is a difference between stolen and "sold" something that was procured legally, then put into black market.

Why do we ban nuclear weapons? Why do we ban automatic weapons? Why do we not sell military weapons to the public? I think it's something to do with the potential of everyone killing eachother with them.

Why stop there? Why do we get to "protect" ourselves with panzy-ass pea shooters but not rocket launchers?

In order to protect myself, I need a

http://bushwarriors.org/wp-content/u...red-button.jpg

so I can make this happen. For protection.

http://chandrakantha.com/articles/in...967_H_Bomb.jpg

:thumbsup

- Was responding to ThunderBalls' replies about "SWAT" busting down doors of people. Gladly, it has not happened that I know of... yet. Just because it hasn't, doesn't mean it won't.

- Same goes for this.. just because something has never happened before, doesn't mean it won't. Preparation is key to success.

Interesting read, but the pro gun bunch probably think that is the FBI trying to take away their rights in a conspiracy.

Like it has been mentioned. At the time when your constitution was written, the people in power had rifles, and the people who weren't in power had rifles.

These days it is Handguns and Rifles Vs Tanks, Missiles, Helicopters, Nukes etc.

yes. Your body, your decision.

If you want to do drugs all day, you are allowed to do that. It's your body. Personally I think it's very stupid to do drugs all day, but I have no right to decide how you should live your life.

Don't be surprised if other people refuse to hire you or allow you to come near their home or children when you decide to do drugs all day, but the fact remains that as long as you don't cause damage to another human or his property, you can put whatever substance you like in your own body.

No, I won't.

http://cdn1.iconfinder.com/data/icon...Arrow-Down.png

People tend to go for the All or Nothing sides of this thing. Prevent one giant ammo clip = taking my rights away. Well.. no it doesnt. Not even close. In my state you already can't legally own the AR 15 rifle that punk had in Colorado.

The federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004 on the very date the senate was forced to have a debate on whether or not we should have a constitutional ban on gay marriage in case you wanted some trivia that illustrates some of our f'ed up political agendas in this country.

In regards to that Colorado kid.. I would bet anything that THAT particular punk ass loser would never have done jack shit with guns if they had not been completely legal for him to buy. Someone ELSE might have, but not THAT pansy.

Drive By Stabbings!!!!


http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2530/4...ee0c55034e.jpg

Exactly. And I think that pretty much applies to most people. Most people don't have connections in the seedy underworld of illegal gun suppliers. And that eliminates the only source for the vast vast majority of people.

actually not so
http://www.natvan.com/national-vangu...gunhitler.html
"Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his predecessors, substantially amel ior a ting it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped). Hitler's government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler's government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated."

Guns make pussies feel like real men.

Yep. They're basically penis extensions. Similar to lifted trucks.

I'm disappointed nobody wanted to discuss my scenario with everyone carrying a gun. :)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NiWVku8_KH...randma+gun.jpg

Can you show me one incident where an armed gun man walked into a room and popped smoke bombs with 200 people, ten of which were armed, and they were able to take him out without hurting anyone else?

You seem to think that everyone is James Bond and can instantly go from fun loving movie goer to SWAT team in seconds flat. Sure thing, because anyone can just suddenly drop into a combat situation and take care of business while surrounded by their family.

I'm former US Marine who taught advanced infantry tactics to Marine NCOs and Marine Officers, I have more assault rifles in my house than you do, and I run every day of my life. And if you think I'm going to be to go from stuffing my face with popcorn to a gun battle in seconds and have any luck of hitting my target, your kidding yourself.

You wouldn't think it needed explaining. Ironically, it means gun owners who don't go around blowing people away are misusing their firearm. :upsidedow

Whether he did or not is academic anyway. The whole "Hitler disarmed Germans" is just a bunch of copy and pasted NRA guff mindlessly parroted by gunloons, along with stuff about Switzerland and trying to make gun killings about mental illness, rather than something that might eat into the profits of gun manufacturers. Ironically these mass murders end up increasing sales of guns; now there's a conspiracy worth looking into.

Let's say Hitler did disarm Germans, what's the point the NRA is making? That Germans would have stopped WWII? The Holocaust? Nobody even knew about the Holocaust till after the war ended and, until they started losing, most Germans were perfectly happy with their army restoring German pride in cities around Europe. Likewise with their shiny new Volkswagens, and swanky autobahns.

The idea that armed citizens would have stood a chance against a regime that kicked the shit out of multiple world superpowers is absurd.

Someone posted a video in another thread of some old geezer blazing away at two robbers in an internet cafe. Despite being about 3 feet away he didn't get a single shot on target and carried on shooting at them after they left the shop, firing out of the door into the street.

I think the robbers were armed, so it's fortunate they ran rather than shooting back.

This shit is getting really fucking old. I wish you would all stop crying about guns.

Guns are legal. Murder is not. You're aiming at the wrong target.

Knives are legal, baseball bats, clubs, and hammers are legal, people get murdered with those all the time as well. There is no difference, murder is murder no matter what the tool is. Legally owning a gun does not make anyone a bad person. Murdering people is what makes them a bad person.

Wash the sand out of your vaginas.

[QUOTE=xenigo;19080276]Guns... are designed to kill people./QUOTE]But they still need a human to aim and pull the trigger. You can take it to the range and shoot a few targets or you can make a decision to aim it at a living person. You can use it for sport, for self defense or you can make a decision to use it for evil. You can also make a decision to use a knife, a car or a baseball bat for evil. See the difference? It is all about the decision you consciously decide to make. Why blame an object for the crime a criminal decided to commit? Stop making excuses for criminals.

There clearly must be a difference since about twice as many murders are committed with a gun than with every other method of murder put together.

More murders are committed with a knife than with a spoon. Clearly there must be a difference.

Or let's just say people are fucked and we are doomed as a species.

/thread

^
^ Clearly. I don't recall anyone saying otherwise.

Sure you can use anything for evil. Nobody's debating that.

What I'm saying is that killing someone with a baseball bat, and killing someone with a gun are two entirely different types of events. Police distinguish a crime using a baseball bat, or a knife as being a crime of passion. It's something intimate. It's something that requires some emotional fuel. You don't just go up to anyone and bludgeon them with a baseball bat.

You don't pull up next to the dude that just cut you off on the freeway, and bludgeon him with a baseball bat or knife. No, you smoke him with your Glock. Why? Because it's quick & easy and you probably won't get caught. You can do it without ever being seen getting out of your car.

Walking down the street, you could have any number of high-powered rifles pointed right at you... and you'd never know it. Anyone could kill you at any moment, and you would never see it coming. You think you're going to "defend" yourself from that by firing back? Who are you firing back at, exactly... if you just took a high-velocity round to the chest or skull? Would you even be able to identify the shooter?

Even standing in your own home, within sight of a window... anyone on the roof top of another building within view could snipe you. I don't think there's going to be anyone defending themselves from that.

If someone's coming for you with a baseball bat, you'll most likely see it coming. You can run like a motherfucker in the other direction and probably get away.

The reason why military weapons are illegal for civilian use is real simple; It's because it makes killing people too easy. Along the lines of what I've described. But why are we drawing the line at semi-automatics and small capacity clips? Why is there any distinction at all? A little killing is A-OK, but a little more is wrong? Anything more and we might hurt ourselves?

Fuck, put me on the list of people wanting to own an ICBM... I want to be really prepared.

http://www.acus.org/files/images/nuclear-ICBM.jpg

:thumbsup

In Israel, lots of people have guns but hardly any gun-related violence compared to the US.

Unlike in the United States, where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution?s Second Amendment, Israel?s department of public security considers gun ownership a privilege, not a right. Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year.

Not all Israelis, however, may own guns. In order to own a pistol, an Israeli must for two years have been either a captain in the army or a former lieutenant colonel. Israelis with an equivalent rank in other security organizations may also own a pistol.

In addition, residents of West Bank settlements, and those who work there, may own pistols for self-defense.

Other groups of Israelis, such as professional hunters and sharpshooters, or people transporting dangerous goods, may also own firearms. And Israelis may keep unloaded guns they inherited or received as a gift.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012...-violence-down

The Indians who posed the real danger only had bows and arrow. Often the Army was called in to save citizens.

You're assuming that 100% of the people will support the anti Government movement. Plus what they have stored will take a long time to run out.

And you as an American are brought up the be a conspiracy theorist. So tell us all what it would take for 100% of the citizens to turn against the Government. Yet keep the police and Military loyal?

Wow, the level of understanding as it concerns basic morals and ethics is extremely low here.

(1) Do you own your body? Most would answer yes.. (Self ownership, the most basic form of property rights)

(2) Do you have the right to defend yourself if another individual initiates violence upon you? Most would answer yes.

(3) What is the most effective and efficient manner by which you can defend yourself, assuming the attacker is pointing a gun at you? Most would answer: a gun.

Then logically, yes, it is within the best interest of everyone to carry a gun for self defense.

Fucking shit is not rocket science.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Oh man, stop it.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I can't believe there are still dumbfuck gunloons who come out with totally subnormal semantic points about "subjects" and "citizens". Especially when they don't even have a single clue what the words actually mean. 'British subject' essentially meant someone who was born or lived in a territory under the rule of Britain. That's it. And that was a long time ago, when British territory covered quite an extensive area of the planet. British people are (fucking obviously) British citizens, and I have no idea where you'd get such a stupid idea that that they're not. Even a half-second Google on the term "British citizen" would put you right.

England is known as the 'Mother of Parliaments', due to its 800 year history of Parliament. Whereas a mere 150 years ago the USA was still flat out enslaving its own 'citizens', the Brits had a modern parliamentary democracy before any other existing country on the planet, and before the USA was even conceived. Carry on pretending that was a 'tyranny' the Revolutionaries fought against though. The English had a Bill of Rights, with a 'right to bear arms', over a century before the US Bill of Rights was ratified. Where do you think the idea came from?

Americans use the English the language, based laws on English law, were infused with the concept of democracy from Britain, even took the flag and national anthem from Britain. So much for 'independence' from the 'tyranny'. The only thing that changed in the Revolution was the 'tyrant' moved a few thousand miles to the west.

Most who? I would put money on most people answering 'bullet proof vest', 'running away' or 'comply with the attacker's demands and let the police catch him later'. If you can explain how a gun can stop a speeding bullet though, be my guest.

In 1776 only about 30% of the population supported "the anti Government movement".

Do you know what year it is? What century? Millennium? In 1949 millions of Americans couldn't even sit on a fucking bus where they wanted. So much for the benefits of American 'citizenship'.

I swear, if any other country had a bunch of people continually fixated about life as it was decades or centuries ago they'd be locked up for their own safety. Yet in the US, clowns like you do it all the time and somehow expect to be taken seriously.

It's already been explained to you that Britain has had a parliament for 800 years, and been a modern parliamentary democracy since before the USA was a glint in anyone's eye. 'The Crown' is simply a symbolic title for the (democratic, parliamentary) British state, since the Monarch has been little more than a figurehead since the 'Glorious Revolution', almost a century before the American Revolution, that resulted in the English Bill of Rights.

Feel free to post again if you need any more lessons on history or reality.

Well said :thumbsup If anything it would of been more of a blood bath in a dark theater full of smoke. Also the nutjob was wearing tactical armor.

And you wonder why America has to go across the world and assist in other Country's wars & political agendas? You can call us cowboys, you can call us rednecks. When push comes to shove, all American's will fight for what they believe in -- as a group. It doesn't take 100% attendance or agreement with the politics parts. It takes a few intelligent people that are armed and willing to protect the weak.

You, not being in the USA, have no clue or understanding what it is to be an American. Brits have always hated on USA with our "hamburgers" and USA has always made fun of the toothless tea drinkers. It is what it is. If you are not an American -- you have absolutely no right to even think about our policies or discussions, specially when it comes to our rights.

We understand, the last thing the world wants is a group of people who can & will defend themselves. Most of this drama directed towards the USA is mainly fed by jealousy. If it wasn't, the rest of the world wouldn't care what the USA does.

---------

In regards to comparing other countries, such as Israel, to the USA... come on now. Are you all that ignorant? Have you ever been to Israel? Do you not understand that the other parts of the world -- "Police" are in fact Military, or Military trained. They will shoot to kill. Hell, sorry but stealing a candy bar and getting your hand chopped off if you get caught -- doesn't sound like a good pay off to me.

Fear of death is a stronger motivation than fear of jail time. We, USA, are more civilized-- and possibly more nieve to think the best of people. Do I think some crimes should have an "eye for an eye" mentality... sure. Will it happen in the USA? Probably not... because even criminals have rights. That is the difference between countries. So please, stop comparing countries and their citizens.

So a minority can take over the US with the guns they bought from stores.

Does it get more far fetched?

First paragraph = true I was over doing it a bit with that statement.

Cannons etc were stolen from military bases which help level the playing field. Lots of arms were taken etc. Which is all (sounds easy enough) you would have to do again if your government tried to imprison your citizens.

Second paragraph = true to some extent, the civillians have access to the parts, where would their loyalties lie in the time of a new civil war (the makers of weapons)? I don't know. Maybe they will back the government, I'm sure they line the pockets of arms dealers more than the general public. But you can use your guns to take over those places right? So that's all good, hoorah! 2nd ammendment! Woo!

Third paragraph? :1orglaugh Ok then! Why has nobody who opposes the patriot act taken that up with Mr Obama, or Mr Bush when he was in charge? Why are you not out there demanding the bankers who caused financial collapse be held accountable?
I'm a British and European citizen, in the UK the Royal family has no power, not anymore, they are merely there as a symbol.

You do know the original settlers in North America were only there because they wished to seperate from the Church not the Crown right? They were still English "subjects" at the time.

:1orglaugh

The irony of all your ramblings are hilarious.

By your logic, If it wasn't for the British army, you would all be speaking French or Spanish way before WW2.

Note, If you hadn't joined in at all, Hitler or Stalin would have eventually taken over your beloved country aswell.

When did I say I'm not an American? And please spare me the generalized cliched banalities about what it is to be 300 million different people.

I think you'll find there are lots of hamburger joints in Britain. Which you'd know if you weren't so scared to set foot into the big wide world out outside.

Who the fuck are you to tell anyone else what they're allowed to talk about?

Ah. People in countries that have double digit gun deaths are jealous of the fact that tens of thousands of Americans are killed with guns every year. Of course.

I don't remember making any point about Israel, other than laugh may ass off at the idea that extremist illegal settlers have guns, as well IDF protection, for self-defense.

And now for something completely different: some facts.

Unlike the US which, even after Hitler's ally attacked Pearl Harbor, did not declare war on Germany, Britain declared war on Germany in defense of an entirely different country. Despite the fact that Hitler admired Britain and its Empire and saw Britain as a natural ally. It was in the interests of Britain to stay out of the war, but they stood up and did the right thing.

If the US so altruistically helped Britain then why was the country "totally broke" after the war? If the US was so charitable, why was Britain still paying off the last of the post WWII loan to the US a mere five years ago?

American companies were doing business with Nazi Germany even during the war. I'm sure that was very helpful to Britain, other victims of the Nazis and to the USA when it finally did the right thing. Companies like IBM, Ford, Standard Oil making vast profits from the most diabolical regime in history.

The USA definitely won the war. While Britain sustained bombing for six years, being in the war longer than any other country, from beginning to the bitter end, and other countries were devastated with millions dead, the US mainland remained totally untouched by WWII, and for the price of a few hundred thousand dead, emerged as the world's richest and most powerful superpower, from being an isolated backwater nobody gave a shit about before the war.

What do you imagine we're speaking now? American? Stop being such a complete fucking embarrassment for five minutes. Fuck man, it's idiots like you, spouting clueless and inane shit like that, who make life impossible for sane, normal Americans.

Carry on projecting.