Yeah, I agree with this. Id say its more of a social problem then a gun problem. We have all these dumb people who they are "hard" and will "jack you for your car" sort of shit going on.

how can you not see that without weapons your ass would have been owned?

it is because you are a complete idiot. u cannot have it both ways, we dont live in a perfect world, the only reason why you are not a nation of germany is due to arms.

your entire country is based on a bunch of pussies such as yourself who once again if a war were to start would be all on american cock begging for help because you do not have arms to defend yourself with.

your mother used to love when the nazis would spread her ass cheeks wide and tear her a new asshole, is that why you hate women so much? because your mother was a slut?

Haha... yeah.. and suicides accounts 77 per cent of their 5,083 number... Ofcourse those who want to kill themselves will find another way now that they don't have guns... How dishonest it is to use that stats as a proof that the ban as worked..

What happened in Australia isnt that gun crimes has increased but crime did..
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=15304

Holy fucking shit!! You are insane! Ok, no more discussing with you anymore :1orglaugh :1orglaugh Fucking lunatic. Im starting to notice a trend. pro gun owners seem not to be the brightest people around.

Guns in the past didn't create the problems today. The history line for this on-going crime wave of issues is far because of guns, but a major lag of gov aid, mass poor and poverty, materialism, drugs, like a million things.. guns are just part of the pie - far from the creator of the problem.

Now i know for sure. Youre fucking with me right? I explained TWO TIMES ALREADY that im not takling about guns during wars or ww2.

Youre just messing with me rigth? You cant be this simple????

Can someone explain please explain what im trying to explain to him for the 3rd time already??

God, know i know how Spacedog was able to own your ass. You are really fucking simpleminded. Damn.

Ok, no more discussing with you as well. It doesnt make sense. You have no clue whatsoever :1orglaugh

So you are saying because it worked for one city it would not work for a whole country or are you agreeing with Minte and saying the problem comes with population density thus about 80% of the gun related deaths in the US are gang vs. gang.

Also, do you know where Kennesaw is? It is a suburb of Atlanta. It is not a small city stuck in the middle of no where.

Franck do you or do you not like stiff cock in your ass more than your mother?

Ive said it before

because we have large urban areas with un-fathered children who were never taught right from wrong, and have no qualms about pulling the trigger on someone.

It happens everyday.

School shootings dont happen everyday.

Inner city gang violence...yes

"Every good communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, the Communist Party must control the guns."

Mao Tse Tung

in canada they have more guns per capita then us and alot less crime.The founding father argument doesnt work on this, back then it was if the government got fucked up they could rise up but that was muskets against muskets.Times have changed ,I think everyone should have a right to have gun but it should be a more complete of a check.

Franck if there was a stiff cock infront of you right now would you or would you not suck it harder than your mother?

Me: Guns laws in America are fucked up
MetaImbecile: Without guns we wouldnt have saved your asses.
Me: Ok, but im talking about the gun problem in the US now and not about guns used during wars.
MetaImbecile: Without guns we wouldnt have saved your asses.
Me: Uhm, i'm talking about THE GUN PROBLEM IN THE US IN 2007.
MetaImbecile: Without guns we wouldnt have saved your asses.
etc.

Oh man...

Franck if your mother had a stiff cock would you suck it or ride it?

Frackfurter: Can i have a stiff cock in my ass
Franckfurters mom: yes son, u can use mine

Wow a WorldNet Daily article from 2000 with absolutely no footnotes or references. :1orglaugh

There is one place to source crime statistics in Australia and that's the Australian Institute of Criminology.

Here are some reasonably up to date stats.

Lowest number of homicide incidents since the start of the National Homicide Monitoring Program: http://www.aic.gov.au/media/2007/20070205.html

Reduction in the number of armed robberies: http://www.aic.gov.au/media/2006/20060712.html

Rate of crime victimisation declines in Australia: http://www.aic.gov.au/media/2005/20050427.html

You gun freaks love to twist the facts.

I seriously, seriously, like really fucking seriously, hope that this piece of total bollocks is not taught as basic history in any school in America or anywhere for that matter

This thread is not about gun control...it's about a new word Franck learned today. imbecile

One deficient in judgment and good sense: ass, fool, idiot, jackass, mooncalf, moron, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, simple, simpleton, softhead, tomfool. Informal: dope, gander, goose. Slang: cretin, ding-dong, dip, goof, jerk, nerd, schmo, schmuck, turkey.

Here is a compiled list of words you can pick from for tomorrows bash US thread.

w0rd!

i already said it. franck is a red sock a communist TERRORIST :mad:

put him into gitmo!
:1orglaugh

mmmh.. you see, Australia, in 2002, had the Highest number of homicide incidents since the start of the National Homicide Monitoring Program.. well after the gun ban.. So how does that fit with your reasoning that gun ban is a good thing? Obviously, Australia's stats thru 2005 don't seem to be conlcusive one way or the other...

http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/homicide.html





Please.. stats are only relevent if you compare them to pre-ban period.. nice try :thumbsup


lol.. says the guy who cherry pick stats that fits his agenda... I'm atleast objective enough to admit when stats aren't conclusive.. :thumbsup

...you are missing the point. Hitler did not choose to invade Switzerland because there were x number of pop guns under x number of beds after all your average Panzer division is unlikely to be fazed by a lightly armed militia.

Seriously after sweeping through the low countries and France, North Africa, Norway and then opening a second front against the Soviet Union it is beyond reason that anyone would argue Hitler was wary against invading a landlocked country (which he surrounded) because the average Swiss citizen was armed. The whole thing would have kicked off at breakfast and be over by lunch.

Diane Feinstein: "US Senator, If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" (Statement on TV program 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)

This bitch has a carry permit from San Francisco

Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.


Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.



President Theodore Roosevelt: "The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world... The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!" – President Theodore Roosevelt's last message to Congress.


And finally

Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."

150.......

You obviously didn't notice the dip after that. We are now down to 249 murders a year in a country of 20 million people. The USA has 15x the population of Australia. 249x15 = 3735

According to these stats United States had 16,611 homicides in 2004: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

16,611/15 = 1107.4

That means the US homicide rate is well over 4 times the rate in Australia.


What you mean to say is stats are only relevent if you agree with them.


Just pointing out the facts. I linked to the site, all the stats are there. Go for your life! :thumbsup

I just popped in so I can be called an imbecile too.. :)

A dip? lol The fact that I said those stats weren't conclusive one way or the other went obviously over your head... Since 1996, it went up 2 times and went down between about 2003 to 2005... I can't conclude anything from those stats.. good or bad.. nor can you..



sure.. http://www.shootersgl.com/forum/imag...n_rolleyes.gif

word! what else to say...

Learned it a long while ago but to recap. Hitler was fine invading the Soviet Union and the Red Army with its 300 plus divisions and 5 million or so troops but was crapping himself at invading Switzerland. Hmm. ok

The Nazi's did have a plan to invade Switzerland and came close to enacting on at least two occasions. The geography of Switzerland is more of a clue as to why they did not carry out the plan. The invasion itself would have been quite swift as the Swiss had no real means to halt an advance but the armed populous would have retreated to the Alpine strongholds in the Alps which also contained the tunnel and communication links with Italy which would have been blown. In addition Switzerland is devoid of natural resources so invading would have bought no benefit whasover. In short invading would have been a pain with no real strategic benefit. Besides it was surrounded by the Third Reich and franky was not going anywhere in a hurry so why bother.

The second reason was Swiss industrial exports. Given they were surrounded they could only be sold to one market and they helped sustain the Third Reich in return for raw materials and gold (many neutral countries did this ie make yourself useful to stave off invasion. Sweden is a case in point).

The other reason is that Swiss banking system was useful to the Nazi's - ie laundering gold and the story of Swiss Banks and holocaust victims do not make comfortable reading. Equally though Switzerland was not sympathetic to the Nazi's and much was done to ensure Switzerlands neutrality which in turn allowed them to accept refugees including Jews which they accepted as much as they dared without provoking German military action.

Hitler. did not invade Switzerland because the pain involved was not worth the gain. The fact that the Swiss army is more of a loose but highly trained militia was a factor but then so was the strength of the Red Army or the Fench Army at the time but in the case of the latter two the gain was judged to have outweighed the much greater pain involved.

If its the man that kills, and not the weapon, and everyone should the right to carry it for protection, why not let every country in the world have nuclear bombs? Its not the bomb that kills, right?

Very well said. :) :)

Also why this sudden belif that you will kill the criminals (why if they are two or more?) before they shot you? And what make you belive that anyone is out to get you or kill you? Must people probably want your money or car or whatever, Why not just give them your money or what they want??

:2 cents:

I find this comment quite interesting.

Is it the criminals who are going on these gun rampages? Seems to me it is usually the mentally unstable who do?

Not the first time i see american propaganda on this board, huh? :upsidedow

Though I am a gun pro but I really agree with you. Actually, there are two possibilities.

Either no one should have gun.

or

Everyone should have.


No like US itself, who likes to have Nuclear Bomb but don't like others to have just because they think others are irresponsible. And is not even agreed to destroy the whole shit.

By the way, first option is for ideal world, and since we do not live in an ideal one so let the second option be true.
Give everyone a gun so that other party is aware that if he uses his tool he will get a bullet in his ass.

For example, if Japan had Nuclear Bomb in WW2, USA would never dare to bomb poor Japanese. Unfortunately, Its true. :2 cents:

two of the quotes were not american

but if your just not into reading, here's one last quote from a peace loving man

The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

Look at the disparity between the US and Canada. Kinda weird considering Canada has almost exactly the same guns per capita as the US does (actually, more IIRC). Obviously guns themselves aren't the problem otherwise Canada would have similar gun-related death rates as the US.

and that Indian kid in Toronto was just passing by. You don't have problems. Oh, and Jamaican boys...

Best post I've seen all year !

Exactly fucking right.

Every person on this planet should be a responsible enough human being to be able to take care of a gun or a nuclear weapon. However, that's just not the case, due to so many factors in human behavior breeding more fucked up human behavior, that it becomes ridiculous.

It's the people and the proliferation of people that should be kept in check, not inanimate objects.

I'm not for eugenics or some shit, but fuck -- I'm surprised we lasted so long as a species where every Tom, Dick and Harry can fuck and make babies with Nancy, Sally and Shakula. What's even worse is that anyone holding true to a "religion" are puking out many more offspring than free-thinkers who just want to live.

franck and other whiney non americans.....this is an American problem.

why dont you mind your OWN fucking business and stick to reading the news about whatever gunless pussyville country you live in k :2 cents:

holy shit... if they really teach you that fairy tale it's even worse than i thought :1orglaugh