Guns for protection...

[Radhnoti]

Thought this was an interesting article:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=744693

Yes, I know there's another gun thread just a bit down. But, it was getting WAY too big. :)

[Dark Knight]

"British law does not support the view that an Englishman's home is his castle. Norfolk farmer Tony Martin is serving five years in jail for shooting dead a teenage burglar in his home. "

Here in the USA people are looking to take that right away.

[Black Jack]

Shows what idoits can accomplish in there goal for a fantasy land of safety.

From a weaponry point of view, a firearm is the ultimate protector, period.

[The Willow Sword]

Whereas i fully advocate the proper and LEGAL carrying and storage in the home of a firearm ,,i DO NOT ban with the NRA whos main goal is to arm every hick redneck with conflict resolution difficulties. GUNS are not always the answer,,and we have seen an increase in violence in people these days. the resort to using a firearm to settle a dispute is becomeing more of an easy but costly way out of a situation. in the constitution it says that we have the right to bear arms. HOWEVER the constitution was written up during a time of WAR and SEIGE in this country by a foreign power,,and i am tired of these gun toten militants that take advantage of our constitution to satiate their PARANOIA. we are not at war within this country. we are having to deal with a society that is becomeing ever more violent as the years go by, and gun carrying is or seems to be the most viable solution to the violence problem. i do not begrudge a man his living and his rights,,but i do not condone the overbearing male testosterone attitude that it is cool to carry OR that it is our RIGHT to carry based on a law that was written hundreds of years ago during wartime. it in fact it is NOT COOL TO have or own a gun. it is a serious thing that the media has glamourized on and made to be like owning a playstation or a cellphone. whereas i would not hesitate to blow somebody away who was violating my home and life,,i do not associate any PRIDE or JUST in that act. it is Murder any way you look at it, whether it be in defense or aggression,,it is MURDER and one should not feel happy to do so...I DONT. why should any of you who carry a weapon? do you do this to compensate for a LACK of testosterone or nads? sorry i am ranting and maybe i shouldnt but when i post on this REALITY forum i am being just that REAL.
but it doesnt mean that i have to like it or be all gung ho about it. we all have questions in this forum about how to do this to somebody or how to do that to hurt mame or kill. i always say use a gun,,,for i say that because i go on the precept that if one were to do this that means that THIER VERY LIFE IS IN DANGER,,,not some rooster fight or an ego exhibition as we have seen with the VIDEO of the 4 punks taking on an even bigger punk.
ill conclude,,im getting ****ed,,,,,,,,,,whew its nice to share feelings,,,,,my woman counselor says i should do it more often,,,get in touch with my feminine emotional side,,,i should go take a midol now.
Many Respects,,The Willow Sword

[Black Jack]

:(

It's really sad that there are people like you Willow Sword who do not take the natural born rights and freedoms they have with the pride and respect they deserve.

People have died for the very freedoms you are bashing now, the same freedom which has given you freespeech, no matter how retarded you might sound.

If you don't appreciate the beauty and wisdom of the freedoms that the Constition gives you, then you are more than free to take your self somewhere else, someplace where you feel more comfortable, I would not miss you and your nutless kind one bit.

The reason people carry weapons, and yes I do carry multiple knifes and tools on me, and if I had a CCW I would carry a firearm as well, is for self protection for oneself and there loved ones.

I own firearms, my friends own firearms, my family owns firearms, and all good and responsible people should have the right to be able to do so.

The fact that you put all gun advocates into the redneck category and your random posting manner on the subject shows that you don't no jack sh!it about the subject at all.

Whats more frightening is the fact that there are a lot of people like you out there. :rolleyes:

[red_fists]

Black Jack.

I somehow disagree with you on one aspect.
Guns are not the "ulimate protector".

There are many situations where you get attacked/mugged and you can't get your gun out in time.

In some countries many people have been shot with their own "ultimate protector" by muggers and the gun disappeared underground.

Guns are still considered more of an offensive and fairly slow weapon.
Guns need to be drawn, aimed and fired.
Just my viewpoint.

[The Willow Sword]

If you had read my post with ANY sort of objectivity you would understand and be able to comprehend the fact that i am not going against the constitution OR the freedom and rights fought and died for by MY family and yours.
so i make a braod generalization on people who carry guns,,you know what? I CARRY A GUN. go back and reread my statement. and i have a question for you,,,,,so you arent a red neck,,you dont live in a trailer or live in a violent neighborhood or innercity? what then do you and ALL your family NEED with fire arms? its your God given right RIGHT? or your constitutional right RIGHT? well then sir by god excersise your right to do whatever it is that you feel that you need to do based on what rights and freedoms others have apparently given you. i am just lucky that it IS a right for me to carry and if it wasnt i would STILL Carry one. but i respect the law and the government(to a degree). my POINT in my earlier post is that GUNS arent the only answer but they ARE a necessity in these days and times when faith in people have been dashed by violence and terrible conflict resolution skills.
You SIR as well as i are on a rant. but i think that YOUR rant blinds you to the message that i am trying to send. I AM A GUN ADVOCATE i just dont LIKE the fact that it has come to THAT. and i certainly do not need to be a part of a club of other gun toters to complain and moan about some bleeding heart liberal who wants to take that right away from us (who own guns responsably and LEGALLY. ) you got problems with gun regulations,?,,well if you are an upstanding citizen and not a criminal puke piece of crud then you should NOT have a problem with going through proper channels to aqquire a fire arm legally and SAFELY in this country.
and I AM PROUD TO BE IN THIS COUNTRY and will fight to protect it. you have me mistaken for someone else SIR black jack.
get your head on straight and go back and REREAD what i posted earlier and you should probably REREAD THIS POST AS WELL.
Many respects,,,The Willow Sword

[wushu chik]

I have a gun...I have a CCW, and I carry my gun when needed. But, othr than that...it's in MY ENDSTAND unloaded and the bullets are somewhere else where MY KIDS can't find them!! And, that's the MAIN reason I carry my gun, and have it in my room. Because of my kids. If someone comes into my house uninvited...they are going to get blasted, and it's NOT going to be shoot to hurt, shoot to incopasitate....it's SHOOT TO KILL.....but that's just me.

~wen~

[AdrianUK]

Ok heres the english spin from someone living just outside london

1. Guns under pillows

Our current laws ban all handguns, the vast majority of gun owners have shotguns. Handguns were legal at one point the licence requirement was you had to have locked metal cabinets for gun and ammunition bolted to a concrete wall, these would be checked by the police before issue of a licence. You also needed to provide good reason for ownership, self defence was not an option

2. Tony Martin

He shot a 16 year old (unarmed) who was running from the house, the boy was shot in the back while running the length of the guys garden

3. Street Crime

Yes its up in the citites, most of the time the target is mobile phones and the weapon is a gun or bare hands. There has been a rise in the use of soft pellet guns that look like normal guns but real firearm usage I don't think has increased much.

In summation we were never allowed to carry guns so the removal of ownership affected a minority of target shooters.

I am not supporting an opinion on ownership here, for the record, I have never owned a gun though I would have considered one for defending the home. Course we are still allowed to have swords etc in the home

Anyway thats just my understanding of the situation in a non gun carrying country !

Peace

[Mr Punch]

I like your style of advice in ma posts and real situations.

But don't assume that the English are idiots thinking we are living in a fantasy world of peace, or that we are idiots for not having guns. I've lived in one of the highest violent crime areas in UK (Balsall Heath, Birmingham) for a long time. My friends, loved ones and I have plenty of experience of street and bar fights, and muggings, armed and unarmed, and tackling burglars (oh, and riots!). I'm always telling my (Japanese) students to wise-up when they visit the green-and-pleasant-land. As Adrian says, crime IS on the rise...

I don't know your background/current situation, but I fully support your wanting to uphold your right to carry a weapon. In the UK, I don't think we need this... yet. I hope we won't. And yeah, gun crime is on the rise too, but mostly it's dealers popping each other, with no outside casualties.

If I ever feel threatened (or my family/loved ones) by gun crime, I will campaign very strongly to be allowed to carry one.

Tony Martin slept with teddy bears. He is a sad freak. I'm not saying he shouldn't have rights, I'm saying he's disturbed. And shooting an unarmed boy, running away from him, and then claiming that he didn't even notice the gun going off, is not the behaviour of a responsible man.

Don't go accusing us of being stupidly thinking we're living in a fantasy land, and I won't accuse you of being a twisted paranoiac!!!:D Your country is hell of a lot more dangerous than ours. Period. Good advice on most other things though!

Adrian: those pellet guns can kill you too, if someone shoots you close range, or in the eye. There have been a few cases. While they aren't 44s they are 'real' guns, and nothing to be complacent about.

[Mr Punch]

:D The article doesn't make sense either. The stats don't add up, and frankly, the survey is a bunch of reactionary crap. I haven't got time now, and I may not have much of a chance to post for a month, but basically, find the actual questions, and tell me this survey isn't a bunch of horse****...!:D

[Mr Punch]

Sorry about the hit-n-run post, but I'm off back home to kick some ass in the hood!!!:D :rolleyes:

[scotty1]

Good post Mat.

Didn't a girl get shot in the head in the East End a few weeks ago? And the sick thing is, he went for her mobile phone, she struggled, he ended up with it and THEN shot her.

What price human life? Less than a ****ing mobile phone it seems.

[Mr Punch]

"Guns feature alongside baseball bats and hammers among the arsenal kept by almost one in 10 worried householders," security firm Micromark said on Tuesday, citing a telephone survey of 1,000 people.

The company said eight percent of those sleeping next to a weapon had a gun, equating to about 100,000 homes.

1000 people in a (random?) survey by a security firm: almost one in ten have weapons... 8% of whom have a gun... That's less than 8 people in a thousand...:D And when does a hammer become a weapon? OK, on the still veryrare occasion when some ***** breaks into your house when your in it!!

etc... this is typical scaremongering crap! Come on, you don't believe that media hyped crap either do you?:p

[Black Jack]

Willow Sword,

I am an atheist so the god given thing is not what I am about, its more of a basic freedom thing, and your post IMHO still came across as anti-firearm with your generalizations, generalizations you admited to, calling people who want a vermont style carry rednecks and basically questioning why people would want to own a weapon in the first place.

If I read more into thats becuase it was how your post came across to me. I believe in CCW's for responsible law abiding citizens, people I believe you called rednecks, let me know if I am wrong.

Mat,

Number 1. The crime rate in England has been on a steadfast rise since banning law abiding citizens from owning handguns to protect themselves.

I can post stuff on it if we really want to go there.

Number 2. I like England, I just wish you guys fought a LOT harder to keep those all so important rights, you just fell victim to the U.N. minset, something we are fighting right now here in America.

Look at Canada, New Zealand, the tough and rumble Aussies, they to have fallen to that mindset. Check out the Sweden I believe, everyone there has a firearm, no big deal, and hardly any violent crime.

Number 3. Both America and England despite having or not having firearms are both some of the most safest places on earth to live, random violent crime is rare and good awareness skills are the real key, but its better to have a firearm and not need it then to need it and not have one, for some its a personal totem, and like I say when you ban the responsible public from owning firearms all you are doing is giving the criminals a bigger advantage, as criminals don't obey laws.

Number 4. America of course is going to have more violent crime on a pure numbers scale as we are much bigger, but on a percentage scale I hear England is not faring very well of late.

My bottom line is that I think you are a smart enough, decent enough, and responsible enough person to decide for yourself if you wish to own a handgun, be it for whatever purpose you choose that tool for, it bothers me we governments decide for you.

Red Fist,

By ultimate protector I was speaking from a hypothetical weapon based point of view, the real ultimate protector is your mind, but for tactical defensive weapons its the firearm.

[Dark Knight]

England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America's. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America's." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the most recent restrictions.

[Dark Knight]

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain 'one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.' Declared Dan Rather: 'This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.'"

[Dark Knight]

"An Ohio appeals court Wednesday agreed with a lower court that a state ban
on carrying concealed weapons is unconstitutional. For many years, Ohio law
has barred people from carrying concealed weapons and from having a loaded
gun in their vehicles. The lawsuit challenging the concealed carry ban was
filed by five people who said it violated their right to self-defense."

- CNSNews.com, 4/11/02

[Black Jack]

Dark Knight,

I know! What great news! A real win for gun freedom.

[umgong]

Willow Sword,
You are more than invited to move to our great state of Kalifornia, especially in so Cal, where you don't have the right to bear arms in much of our counties in the state. You are not allowed (read permitted) by the people who run this state to carry.
So you'll be more than happy not to have the option of "murdering" (your words) any perp who wishes to mess with you or your family outside of your house. You are also not allowed to carry most martial art weapons in defense of your life. Of course, the bad guys have no qualms of attacking you with their "illegal" carry gun and with at least several of them against one of you.
In some of the areas, most of the residents are afraid to go out at night because of the lowlife that come out at night. You'd enjoy living all of your life that way.
We are not at war? Many of those folks are already under siege conditions from the bad guys. At night, many of the areas are run by gang guys....you are taking your life in your hands by going out at night in many of the areas. There has also been a rash of home invasion, where they come to your house, kick the door, and have their way with you, your wife, your daughters
...etc.
Come and live in those conditions every day of your life and then I'd like to hear your ranting.
Unless you're one of those elitists who can afford to have a bodyguard(s) and a driver and live in a gated community.

Most of the "gun" guys that I know that carry legally? They carry responsibly....not because they think it's "cool", but because they accept the responsibility that protecting their lives and the lives of their loved ones is their responsibility. All of them....and I mean all of them (over 500 of them) refuse to carry if they are going to any drinking establishment. These are guys throughout the United States.

I'm sorry that you know the "other" guys that carry guns....I'd change who I hang around with, but it's your life.


Red Fists?
Most of the guys I know are average folks who might go to the range twice a year or maybe a little more. A couple of them are competition guys, but most of them are just average people.
Almost all of them can shuck that pistol out of its concealed holster in one (1) second or less. I believe the average time is .5 or 1/2 a second. Is that too slow?
Please define "offensive" weapon? In all of our discussions (almost daily by e-mail) most of them would not draw or "brandish" their weapon unless they were sure that a deadly threat is presented by the aggressor.

I find out that my friends help define who I am. I suggest picking them wisely. Never know when you need some to "watch your six."

Oh, by the way, guys, we just heard on the news that in the Los Angeles area, the number of violent crimes have tripled since two years ago. But they don't let us "legally" carry in Los Angeles County.

In surrounding counties (San Bernadino & Orange Counties) their incidents are going down, their sheriffs have been issuing permits to carry on a general basis....any applicant that qualifies.

Go figure.

[The Willow Sword]

So YOU are an Atheist? so in effect you have no real spiritual morals or values ,,no belief in a higher power other than yourself?
to me THATS the WORST type of person to own a fire arm. and your anti-government remark about them deciding for us? sounds to me like you are a militia man. or am i wrong about that? oh but thats what i am reading into with your posts,, boy i am just coming up with all sorts of wild conjecture and BS arent i? get a brain Black jack and stop being a beeeotch. and as for my redneck comments,,,,,i AM a Kentucky RedNeck so i have a right to say whatever it is i want to about em. if you will refer to my first post i SPECIFICALLY said rednecks with horrible conflict resolution skills. not all rednecks. hey i am proud to be an educated KY Redneck WITH shoes. wish more would follow the cue.
UMGONG, i am not blind to the inner city violence and the gang realted crime and crime in general in this country of ours. If you want to really think that we are at WAR in this country then i guess you will live with that paranoia,,WE HAVE CHOICES TO MAKE as americans and decent citizens, you CHOOSE to live in a bad area and you CHOOSE to feel like you are at WAR with everyone around you then LIVE with that choice. BUT on the comapssionate side of YOUR situation i would say this simple thing to you: Why dont you MOVE to a better area and let the INGRATES who take advantage of our system and freedoms kill themselves? if they were a REAL THREAT to our NATIONAL SECURITY do you honestly think that it would be happening right now? what our country has for crime and violence is no different than any other country out there with the same **** problems as us. when you go around with this "we are under seige"mentality you make yourself suseptable to the demons who make it hard for others to live. so you live in an inner city? GET OUT,,get some education,,work the system properly be you white black yellow or red and you will MAKE IT OUT. christ people stop whining and complaining about everything,,,,,you think the GANGS out there do? no man they have got thier system down,,they make thier money and they live thier life,,it goes against our national morals and law but hey thats life. i dont like em anymore than i like militia groups and racist hate organizations.
i have a question for the UK residents,,,,,,,Do you guys still have trouble with the IRA? i have not heard a peep in the news about it.
Many Respects, The Willow Sword.

[GreyMystik]

i'm an agnostic with no belief in a power higher than myself, does that make me a terrible person to own and/or use a firearm?

[Black Jack]

Pleazzzzzzzz!

Give me a break with your ignorant clap trap Willow Sword, its the same carbon copied bs that one hears over and over again, at least get some new material of your own insight.

There are two points I have to point out, even though it is going to be hard because your post is so funny its absurd, ready kiddy.....

1. When the state government bans a weapon, such as a firearm, knife, or anyother defensive tool for what it believes is for your own protection, which it never is, then they are making the decision for you.

How hard is that for you to comprehend? Do you need me to use caps or something?

I am not anti-government, I am anti-big government and no I am not milita, though I see nothing wrong with those who choose to join there local state milita's.

2. Here is where you go from beyond the realm of a numbskull to a clear cut *******.

You attack the fact that I am a atheist, as someone who has no morals just because I know there is no god or higher power or santa claus or easter bunny or father time, just because you are a fool that believes in the occult, fairy tales, and the hilarous idea of god and christian dogma does not make you any more moral than me, in fact IMHO it makes you a fool, but that is despite the point.

Morals are passed down from one's family and one's enviroment not a make believe gray haired white retard who you think floats around above you on a cloud.

You want to see a higher power, you see it everyday you stand in front of the mirror to brush your teeth, its that simple.

[red_fists]

Originally posted by umgong

Red Fists?
Most of the guys I know are average folks who might go to the range twice a year or maybe a little more. A couple of them are competition guys, but most of them are just average people.
Almost all of them can shuck that pistol out of its concealed holster in one (1) second or less. I believe the average time is .5 or 1/2 a second. Is that too slow?


Was that measured in a real situation or on a Gun range?
Or does that also apply to the averge Lady that carries her gun in the Purse.

Whipping your Gun out becomes a different game when you are surrounded by 3 armed muggers.

Yes, they are good for home defense, but for street survival I would not stake my life on it.
I am not against guns perse, but still feel that they are overrated.
I also believe that all weapons should be carried openly.
And, yes, I used to carry one, but not anymore.

Peace.

[red_fists]

Another atheist here.

BTW, you can send me to hell or tell me that I worship the Devil.
Since I don't accept God I don't accept the concept of Hell or the Devil either.

[Dark Knight]

"Was that measured in a real situation or on a Gun range?
Or does that also apply to the averge Lady that carries her gun in the Purse."

The average for people who go through the courses (Gunsite, Thunder ranch...) is 2 seconds for draw and double tap (Two Shots). Thats not the police ofiicer or competitior, thats the person who went through a self defense class.

Also there are many very nice designs for holsters that are purses.

"Whipping your Gun out becomes a different game when you are surrounded by 3 armed muggers. "

Shoot the first one and the other two prb dont want to play.

"Yes, they are good for home defense, but for street survival I would not stake my life on it. "

So when they ask for your wallet, you reach back to the inside the waisteband holster, draw out the 45 and stop the robbery right then.

[red_fists]

Originally posted by Dark Knight

So when they ask for your wallet, you reach back to the inside the waisteband holster, draw out the 45 and stop the robbery right then.

Not in my Experience.
When I was mucked 2 Guys grapped my arms from behind while the 3rd held a Knife to my Throat. and started to search me for Wallet, Car keys, Bank Cards and a Gun.

If I had packed in that situation I would be dead now, as in that place the Mugger and Hijackers will even shoot a co-operating victim with any Gun they find.

And, yes, in that Country carrying a gun was a s common as muck.
Peace.

[wushu chik]

Hey guys...i think this is another time to agree to disagree.

[red_fists]

Wen.

Nobody is fighting, just diferent experience levels.

:D :D

[The Willow Sword]

talk about carbon copy responses,,,dont you think that i ahvent heard your rap many times before?
and one other thing,,WHO says that I AM a Christian? YOU. you dont have to be a christian to be a spiritual person with morals and values.
athiests believe in nothing but themselves and nothing outside of themselves,,,,that is why i think that it is not a good thing for people with no spiritual morals or values to have a gun.
grey mystic: agnostic huh? well i have no problems with folks who still question thier spiritual path as does the agnostic mindset,,but who am i to say whats right spiritually and whats not. what i DO know is that individuals that cannot go beyond themselves to see the bigger picture in this mystery we call life ,I THINK ,have a hard time dealing with life than someone who ,say ,is a full blown jesus freak.(which i am not) my spirituality is non of anyones buisiness,,,,but you Black jack brought it up to me cause i made a reference to god given right to own guns. which brings me back to my original statement in this whole thing let ME PUT IT IN CAPS FOR YOU.

I AM A GUN ADVOCATE,,I ADVOCATE THE LEGAL CARRYING AND STORAGE IN THE HOME OF A FIREARM FOR PERSONAL AND HOME SELF DEFENSE.
I JUST DO NOT LIKE THAT IT HAS COME TO THIS,,,AND I DO NOT LIKE THE MENTALITY IN THIS COUNTRY THAT IT IS COOL TO HAVE A GUN OR TO COMPLAIN AND MOAN ABOUT "GUN OWNERS RIGHTS" .
I DO SUPPORT REGULATION OF WHO IS TO OWN A GUN,,AND IF YOU CAN PASS THE TEST AND CRIMINAL BACKGROUND AND I HOPE THAT THEY INCLUDE A PSYCH TEST WITH THAT,,THEN YOU HAVE EARNED THE RIGHT. NOT BECAUSE SOME OLD LAW WROTE UP 250 YEARS AGO SAID THAT YOU COULD BECAUsE THEY WERE BESEIGED BY A FOREIGN POWER.
its like saying that you have a RIGHT to smoke and kill yourself and subject everyone else around you to that smoke when YOU KNOW THAT IT HARMS YOU AND OTHERS. the laws in this country were NOT made up so that an individual can be above another or below. or that you can blindly go and do whatever it is that you want at the expense of the people the environment and the creatures that exist with us.

Many Respects,,,The Willow Sword

[AdrianUK]

Hi All

Kinda a straw poll here

How many people know or have been broken into while resident ?

Personally, never, though my neighbours got done in the middle of the afternoon. On a personal note I would much rather face a instruder arming myself with a good old blunt instrument than a firearm, a good shot from a hickory ecrima stick would do the job for me, but shooting someone,hmm I think I might well pause before pulling the trigger, how would I know until it happened ?But I would strike with the stick without a second thought. As for the street crime, I think it would have gone up anyway, most of the phone crimes seem to be when the victim is not aware of anything until they are stabbed/hit/shot etc. I lived in a rough area of south london for many years and saw 2 people die in different fights in pubs (one stabbed through the neck, one battered to death with his own baseball bat), the thing that got me out without a scratch was awareness, I kept an eye on the room, left if it looked like trouble and generally did not act like a tough nut (but not a wimp/victim either). So for me, if they relaxed the law on guns here, I doubt I would bother for me, maybe for the wife though.

Peace

[straight blast]

People have died for the very freedoms you are bashing now

And those same freedoms are still killing them now.


Look at Canada, New Zealand, the tough and rumble Aussies, they to have fallen to that mindset.

That's right. I realise that not owning a gun doesn't make me as tough as someone who does, but I can live with it.

I live in a country where I wouldn't have the faintest idea where to buy a concealable weapon. I have fired guns on a farm, I have fired guns on a range. I like the fact that my drunk redneck neighbour has no opportunity to get hold of a firearm. I don't know anyone who has been injured by a gun, nor does anyone I know. If someone is killed with a gun pretty much anywhere in Australia, it's prime time news. I feel safer at night knowing that the people around me don't have guns.

On the other hand however if everyone else had them I suppose I'd want one too. It's funny how when you don't have access to them they're suddenly not a problem. And funnily enough,

We haven't had a single schoolyard massacre . We've only had one imbecile go nuts with a gun over here.


because I know there is no god or higher power or santa claus or easter bunny or father time, just because you are a fool that believes in the occult, fairy tales, and the hilarous idea of god and christian dogma does not make you any more moral than me, in fact IMHO it makes you a fool, but that is despite the point.

You know that huh? Props to you. It's people like you that possess no knowledge (Christian and occult in the same sentence..sheesh :rolleyes: ) that should never be allowed near a weapon. I've enjoyed your other posts but this one?

Grow up little fella.

Or buy a gun :) That should make up for your lack of pee pee.

The above does not apply to sensible gun owners, only the borderline pyschos like BJ. Thank God you can't shoot people over the Internet.

[Radhnoti]

The problem with any gun regulations (as I see it) is who decides what gets regulated and how far they go. I oppose any sort of gun regulations, simply because so many people who want a total gun ban have said from the beginning that they'll have to take it in small steps. Requiring registration of fully automatic weapons doesn't seem like a big deal to most (myself included), enforcing a waiting period doesn't seem to be a big deal either...it's just the fact that there's this slow but steady progression. And each small step seems to make the next more reasonable in the public's perception. And the ADMITTED goal (of a very vocal minority anyway) is a total ban. I suppose I would support not allowing those convicted of violent crimes being allowed gun ownership, maybe even a repeal of the worst offender's citizenship...but, to me, U.S. citizens should have the right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't step on someone else's rights. The right was earned for us long ago and through the years generations of brave men have been willing to die to protect our way of life...which includes gun ownership. It's funny to me that people say, "How brilliant that our founders insured that we're allowed to say whatever we want! How brilliant that the press can't be controlled in our country!" Etc. Etc. But when the issue of gun ownership comes up suddenly the Constitution is some old, out of date document guaranteeing a freedom no one deserves and the phrase can suddenly turn to "What were those old fools thinking?". It seems to me that if our founders were SO brilliant when writing every OTHER sentence in our Constitution, it's selling them short to assume they were taking a short sighted view of gun ownership.
Freedom isn't bad, it's what makes our country great. Freedoms don't kill others, (!warning! cliche ahead) PEOPLE hurt others. Punish those who hurt, don't take everyone else's freedom away on the off-chance that it will stop the "bad guys". Because, frankly, it won't.

[JWTAYLOR]

Morals are passed down from one's family and one's enviroment

Now, I hate to get involved in this one, but, Black Jack, I've got to step in here and ask you if you're sure about that. Or at least to clarify that statement.

JWT

[Lice]

Radhnoti,

I can't think of *any* reason a law abiding citizen would need a fully automatic weapon. And I can't think of any reason we should be allowed to own one.

Maybe I'm missing something though.

[Black Jack]

We are starting to get areal moron stew going over here.

Lets look at some points:

Willow Sword- It matters not to me if you are christian, jewish, or with any other spiritual path, but for some reason you have a problem with free thinkers, or in this specific case atheists, you seem to have a problem getting your head around the fact that people don't need the ten commandments or a wacky belief in religous based/higher powers to have morals and solid values.

In that respect you have a LOT to learn.

The world does not start and end inside the boundaries of what you perceive as spiritual and to be honest your slanted viewpoint on how someones religous/spiritual viewpoint should directly relate to if they own a gun or not is pretty funny. :rolleyes:

Straight Blast- First lets get this out in the open my nutless mate from down under, christianity is an occult practice, sorry to bust your bubble but it fits the descrition, christianity is a cult movement and there followers use occult practices and rituals.

Just because it is a major religion does not grant it any special favors from any other wacko spiritual movement.:p

Now for the important stuff, that little thing called the loss of your freedom, you remeber that don't ya, when the government decided that you were to stupid to make your own decisions.

It was only 12 days after the senseless tragedy in Tasmania that your Prime Minister brought about total gun refrom that took away the rights of law abiding citizens to carry legal, licensed firearms that statistically were rarely, if ever, used in the commission of a crime in Austrialia.

Crime statistics involving firearms have not changed since the introduction of the gun ban laws, nor has the murder rate, because traditionally Australia has never had a high rate of crime involving firearms. Because of your elitist Parliament and the lack of a organization like the NRA you guys bent over backwards and allowed these laws to be passed, without a gun lobby there was no outcry by the ordinary people, you just sat back and got ripped off by a Hitler esque gun buy back scheme that cost the Australian taxpayer, close to a billion dollars.

Ordinary Australian people who like the large majority of firearm owners worldwide, were and are responsible citizens, who store, handle and own their chosen weapons in a responsible manner, befitting an adult. They register their guns, they are licensed to shoot, and they comply with all legislative requirments pertaining to the ownership of a gun.

If you believe the media and you think your police departments, politicians and selected government can really help you in the event of a violent crime than I feel very, very sorry for you.

You have given up your liberty for the illusion of freedom. Be carefull it does not bite you on the ass.

For the sake of information lets take a look at that Port Arthur shooting anway. Martin Bryant opened fire on tourists at the Broad Arrow Cafe and kiled 20 people and left 13 others injured, 19 of those killed were the result of a gunshot wound to the head.

Twelve days after Bryant's shooting spree, massive new restrictions were imposed on the civilian possession and use of personal firearms-restrictions specifically designed to reduce the number of lawfully owned guns in the hands of Australians.

What is more frightening than that is the fact that there have been numerous rumors to cover-ups about Port Arthur that surfaced years later, supposed major descrepancies in the offical accounts, evidence to suggest co-conspirators besides Bryant, maybe a conspiracy designed to force the Australians into surrendering their guns, I don't know, the damage is already done now anyway, but again I'm just a borderline psycho anyway:rolleyes:

One thing is know for a fact, the Australian media condemned Bryant as gulity without any evidence, a man by the way who only had a IQ of around 80, even though he pleaded not gulity to each of the 70 plus charges against him, that is untell his new attorney got him to turn his plea.

Here are some irregularities of the case-

1. Eyewitnesses were not interviewed when it became known their stories would clash with the government account.
2. A credible time-line connecting Bryant to a number of the killings and his travels was never made clear.
3. No forensic evidence of Bryant's physical presence at the Broad Arrow Cafe was EVER established. It did not help that the media had already posted his face up everywhere, contaminating all eyewitness identification.
4. Prime Minister John Howard, in a direct violation of your constitution, suggested that a coronial inquest was not required and called for immediate demolition of the Braod Arrow Cafe, even though the survivors wanted more information.
5. Bryant's large financial resources would have allowed his lawyers to hire as many psychiatrists and private investigators as needed to defend him, yet none were.

Those are some good questions that needed answers.

[Lice]

Black Jack,

You shouldn't expect to get respect for your athiest views if you can't be respectful about their religious views.




The Agnostic Lice

[Black Jack]

JWT,

First I wanted to take the time to make sure, even though the damage is already done, that I don't think christian people are stupid or ignorant on the whole, genralizations made by me are as bad as those made by those who were posting above, it just irks me when others put spiritual viewpoints up as something of fact and not personal viewpoints.

Now to your question and I should seriously make myself more clear on that.

As I think the parent part is a off track for a lot of good people.

I believe that one develops their sense of right and wrong, not so much by their parents, as their are a LOT of MESSED up parents out their, but by a combination of factors encountered in ones enviroment.

The factors I believe that CAN be involved are biology, one's parents, one's family, one's mentors, one's enviroment, one's experiances, the strength of one's inner character to overcome, the mettle they are tested against in the struggle of growing up and becoming an adult, and those who take ideals from the church.

My main point is that one DOES NOT have to be religous or believe in anything of a higher power to have good and solid moral fiber, I have friends who had horrible experiances growing up, abusive parents, drugs, family members in jail, but they still forged ahead, that stuff did not stop them from having good morals and values, in fact IMHO it made them stronger people, I also know people who had picture perfect lifes and turned out to be subruban crack addicts, go figure.

I don't have a straight viewpoint on why but I believe it is found in science.

I myself, have never harmed another human being, shot, killed, stabbed, anyone in a unjustifable situation and yet I believe in nothing greater than my own humanity.

[Black Jack]

Lice,

The funny part about that is that my views as noted above are always the first ones to be under attack, go back and read the posts, I never start with anyone in a religous context unless they break the rules of engagment first.

Even then I try and avoid it as it goes no where, but when people state that others should not own handguns because they are atheists are freaking absurd, and then I get involved.

[Lice]

Black Jack,

True, you didn't fire first and Willow Sword's comments affect me also since I also don't follow any religious dogma and live by my own set of morals. In fact, I'm sure we share a lot of the same feelings on religions. But my previous advice (and that's all it really is) still stands, because like you said.. it goes no where.

At least no where good. :)

Respectfully,
Lice

[Black Jack]

Lice,

So very true. What sucks about our position, and their are a LOT of us out there, is that we somewho feel that we have to contain our comments due to the the current masses, yet they feel they have the right to "snip" away with with insulting little goodies of their own.

I bet we do hold a number of those same views.

Cheers:D

[JWTAYLOR]

thanks,

BTW, here's a photo of where I grew up

http://www.shutterfly.com/osi.jsp?i=67b0de21b3022a7d6512

Notice what you dont'see. Power lines (we just had a generator back then), roads, other houses. Closest next house was 5 miles away. It was a 19th century lifestyle.

Today, after a long time trying, I find out if I can buy it back. It's the only place I've ever called home.

JWT

[Black Jack]

Wow, that must of been something, It looks very peacefull, thoughI bet you get to see a lot of UFO's out there:D

I would guess that you picked up a lot of field craft skills growing up, hunting, skinning game, tracking, fishing, again it must of been a experiance.

One's childhood home is always a thing of memories, I get to see mine everyonce inawhile, makes one take stock.

Cheers,

[Radhnoti]

Lice,

I, personally, would see no use for fully automatic weaponry either (as I mentioned). The reason I oppose any further gun restrictions (again as I mentioned) is because gun control groups admit that their game plan is to take the right to own a firearm in small steps. And each step makes the one following seem more reasonable. No one thinks for a SECOND that any sort of gun legislation could have passed in our grandparents time do you? Of course not! Society's VIEW of firearms have changed, and in large part that change has been brought about by an orchestrated campaign by anti-gun lobbies. Some idiot leaves a gun out for a child to shoot another and it's front page news, "GUN KILLS CHILD!" But, the larger number of times just SHOWING a gun stops an assailant cold goes unreported. In this way guns, which are just TOOLS, have been demonized...and our society of blameless individuals gets another excuse for avoiding blame.
Another problem, in my view, lies within your sentence.
Lice- "And I can't think of any reason we should be allowed to own one."
Our government was never meant to exist as some "supreme authority" dishing out edicts it's citizens are forced to obey. Our government was founded by a group of men FED UP with governmental interference, the leviathan we call a government was almost certainly never their intent. To my mind, the less governmental interference we have to put up with the better. More government almost always makes things worse.
'Course that's just the Libertarian in me talkin'. ;)

[Black Jack]

Good post Rad,:)

[straight blast]

I'm sorry sir, it appears I owe you an apology. I do sincerely apologise for the majority of my comments above. Your writing shows a decent understanding of the Port Arthur massacre and my comments regarding your intellect were a little hasty and obviously unfounded.

As one of the other forum members wrote once:
"Here is a stick. Beat me for my ignorance" :D

Sorry dude.

However no matter how many statistics or conspiracy theories you throw at me, if he didn't have a gun I doubt that it would have been a massacre. If he had had a baseball bat it would have been the "Port Arthur assault" perhaps. And that's the bottom line. But, each to their own I suppose.


Straight Blast- First lets get this out in the open my nutless mate from down under, christianity is an occult practice, sorry to bust your bubble but it fits the descrition, christianity is a cult movement and there followers use occult practices and rituals.

Erm...I suggest you look up the meaning of "occult" in a reputable dictionary. Particularly in relation to Christianity. Your info on Port Arthur is good. Your info on Christianity is not so good. As I said, each to their own. I guess the difference between you and me is I have been an atheist (15 years), and I am now a Christian. So I can speak with a little authority on both counts. By all means, slag off at the church. I myself have been a victim of church politics and the bullsh!t that one often finds in the institution. In fact I'd be inclined to agree that the church is too ritualistic.

But Christianity is not. Slag it when you know something about it. I would rather make peace between us (note I have not slagged atheists or other beliefs) but please don't expect me to respect the irreligious views of a man who looks in the mirror and sees God each morning? Even though he doesn't believe in God?

I don't want a religious debate. Apology offered in all sincerity.

Peace be with you

[joedoe]

Just to clarify a few things: Port Arthur is not the only massacre to have ever happened in Australia (though it is by far the worst). Remember Hoddle St?

Anyway, the difference is that gun ownership is not a constutional right afforded to Australians as it is to US citizens. Whether you view this as a restriction of freedom is really a matter of opinion. Me personally, I don't see it as a infringement on my freedom at all.

Gun owners are represented in Australia by the Sporting Shooters Association. It does not have the same political clout as the NRA has in the US, but there is representation.

Australian citizens are allowed to own guns if they pass the tests and qualify for a licence of ownership. I think this is pretty similar to what you have in the US as well. We are not allowed to own automatics or semi-automatics (I think there are some exemptions for farmers etc). I do not see that as unreasonable either.

Handgun ownership is allowed as well, but most people are required to store their handguns either at the pistol range or in a secured place like a safe. I have also been told that the police regularly inspect handgun owner's storage facilities to ensure that they are adequate.

I do not believe that any of the gun laws in Australia are unreasonable. They are stricter than those in the US in many ways, but then our constitutions are different too.

On the whole, I believe the majority of Australians agree with the gun ownership laws here. That is the fundamental difference - most Australians do not see the restriction of guns as equating to a restriction of our freedoms. The main difference is in the attitudes. We do not equate guns to our masculinity ;)

[Black Jack]

Straight Blast, I apologize in retrospect for a few things as well, one I should not of called you nutless in defense of your anger towards me, anybody who can eat veggie mite has some big stones:D

Two, even though I am an aethist, I should not of insulted your faith with that degree of venom, it was not called for at that point yet, just old habits I guess.

Lets leave the christian thing alone, it will not get either of use anywhere, all that will happen is that you will feel rightly insulted, but the god in the mirror thing was more of joke/not joke, that in the respect of myself I am the higher power that makes decisions in my life, not a picture of the Christian diety, but whatever.

On the issue of Port Arthur, I would also like to point out that if any of the populace there at that time, had a firearm the tragedy might not of gone to the lengths it did and a citizen would of been able to stop the assualt instead of waiting for the police to clean up the aftermath.

What turned out to be 35 dead could of been far, far fewer.

And as always, criminals don't care about firearm laws, the only ones who really suffer in the long run are those who are law abiding.

Peace bro.

JoeDoe,

Just pointing out that there is no use in having a firearm for self preservation if one is forced to keep it at the range or in a locked safe at home.

I just hope that the grass roots gun freedom movements in Austrialia gets more ground in getting back what they had before the knee jerk reaction to the incidents listed.

[joedoe]

That is just it though - most Australians do not feel they need a gun for self preservation. I simply put it down to a difference in mindset due to the fact that most of us have lived without guns for so long.

And there is no guarantee that if Tasmanians had owned more guns that Martin Bryant might have been stopped. It is pure speculation.

I think we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that :)

[red_fists]

Joedoe & Black Jack.

I think your cultures are way too different to come an agrement that suits both sides.

Having lived in the 3 Countries I mentioned in a previus Post, I must that the mentality towards violence was very different and I doubt that either tightening or easing of gun regulation would have any major impact.

peace.

[Black Jack]

JoeDoe, I agree it is not doing any good, at least with the respect that one party does not feel inclined to debate, I will say though that speculation yes, but if some of the citizens had concealed firearms on them that day, I would place my bets, that is if we were betting on percentages, that a lot less people would of perished.

Red Fist, what the heck, if you keep making sense to me I am going to have to start thinking I am in some bizzaro verison of KFO:D

[red_fists]

Hehe.

Welcome, to my world.

Playing of "Hotel California" in the background.

:D :D

[straight blast]

Truth be told, I can't stand Vegemite either...

Concentrated yeast extract-and people eat it. :eek:

[scotty1]

Marmite on the other hand kicks arse.

I'm impressed with the way you've managed to pull this one back from the brink, nice one lads.

I think it would be fair to say, although I don't know (and please correct me if I am way off) that guns are a part of American criminal culture, thus the American public feel that they need an equal weapon ie. another gun to defend themselves.

Australian criminal culture on the other hand does not have guns playing such a large part in it, so Australians do not feel the need to arm themselves.

However, the problem to my mind occurs in a society like England, where traditionally we have had the Australian viewpoint, where unless you're involved in some kind of serious crime where obviously guns will be used, the weapon you are likely to come up against in a mugging/ street crime / robbery is a knife. Hence, no need for a gun. Overkill, you might say.

But now we have a situation where you are seeing more and more crime involving guns affecting everyday people, so what do you do? Arm the populace? Overturn the legislation and bans put in place after Dunblane (Scottish school massacre) so that the public can defend themselves on an equal footing, American style?

Of course, the situation is nowhere near as bad as that in England YET, but I can see it happening in my lifetime. Most of the gun crime that occurs in England at the moment occurs either in nightclubs, which are places that presumably you're not allowed to take a gun into in the US anyway, and between rival drug gangs and gang members. In either case, the general public being armed with guns would not make a bit of difference to their personal safety. Once the muggers/rapists/robbers start arming themselves with shooters, I think it will be a different story.

[red_fists]

Marmite & Vegimite are evil and rank right up there with "Nattou".

:D

[grogan]

I had a license in QLD for rifles when I turned 17 the test then was they give you a question book with the most simplest of questions I have ever seen you get to take it home and post your answers to the police whenever you wanted to and then 2 months later you could buy anything you wanted from a pellet gun to a USAS shotgun to a semi-automatic steyr, SLR, any assault rifle you wanted as long as it wasn't automatic. The rifles were not registered in your name and you could buy them off anyone go and pop someone and leave the rifle at the scene and they could never track you from it. Laws needed changing and due to the unfortunate Port Arthur massacre they certainly did the tests are still easy but the checks take longer you need a reason for the license (self defence not being one) you either have to be in a club or a farmer. The license is broken up into categories rimfire only bolt/lever action with up to 10 round capacity, centrefire these only bolt/lever action with 5 round capacity, shotguns side by side or u/o no pumpies allowed anymore, for the general public anything higher than this forget about it. I personally think that the regulations that are brought in are great and you don't need anything more. THe regulations on handguns need to be tightened up though, they are probably strict against the rest of the world but what use would you have for one of them? Hunting Caribou? I think not.

[Dark Knight]

"The main difference is in the attitudes. We do not equate guns to our masculinity "


I noticed a lot of other countries feel this way. Here in the USA we dont see it as that, it is as we have always pointed out. Many men have died for our freedoms and we dont want to give them up.

The martial arts can be seen as a way to show your masculinity, a couple guys beating each other, whats the point?

It seems to me that here in the USA we are protecting our freedom, but others are posting comments protecting their masculinity.

Maby you should look inside yourself and wonder what you have allowed your country to do to you.


"Those that would sacrifice their freedom for safety will find they inherit neither."
-Ben Franklin, right wing extremist

[Radhnoti]

scotty1,
I think you covered a part of why I as a U.S. citizen believe it's a good idea for our populace to be armed. But, there are several other reasons...here's a part of an article with one of those reasons:

"When you discuss the militia today on the planet earth, some of the strongest caselaw is embodied by the experience of Switzerland. The Swiss have been at peace longer than any other people on Earth, primarily because virtually every adult male (and any adult female who wants to join the effort) is a member of the militia and issued a real assault rifle.

The rifle the Swiss government issues to its citizens is a true machine gun. Picture a match-accurate M-16 rifle with a target grade trigger and a selector switch that goes from safe to semiautomatic to three-shot burst to full automatic, and you have the Sturmgewehr-90, which may be the most advanced assault rifle on earth. There’s one in almost every Swiss home, yet mass murders in public are unknown in that country. The murder rate in Switzerland is a fraction of that in the lowest-crime states in the US, despite the ubiquitous presence of machine guns and ammunition.

When their time comes to leave the militia, aging members have the option of keeping their rifles. A great many do. The Swiss army, with only a few thousand full time career members, see the retired militia people who are still armed as one more resource that keeps their country safe from war.

Barely more than half a century ago, the Nazi war machine considered invading Switzerland. It was the sort of nightmare that would make a field marshal of an army of conquest wake up screaming in the middle of the night. Every home a sniper’s nest? Mountain roads and bridges all mined, ready to be blown up and made impassable within 24 hours of an invasion? A populace unworried about embargo because every home had a year’s supply of food, not to mention a significant supply of ammunition? And why had the German spies reported that every Swiss village had a 300-meter rifle range, busily used by the citizenry every weekend?

It was Invader Motel. “They check in, but they don’t check out.” Why did field marshals who could not dissuade Adolf Hitler from invading Russia in winter manage to convince him that there was no future in attacking tiny Switzerland? Because some things are so obvious that even raving madmen can understand them.

At the time, the Japanese Empire certainly understood it as it drafted plans to invade the mainland United States. In 1960, Robert Menard was a Commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces. Fifteen years had passed since VJ day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in one another.

Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland US forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.

Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander’s face as he frankly answered the question. You are right, he told the Americans. We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand. "

-By Massad Ayoob

Yes, I know that currently the U.S. probably has no reason to fear any sort of invasion. But, a gun ban would eliminate the final layer of defense we as a nation have available to us. And who knows what the future may bring?

Again, this is one of many reasons...but I'll not bore you with more. :)

[Dark Knight]

"Personal courage is directly proportional to the restrictions we allow to be placed on our personal freedoms and privacy. We don't need more brave soldiers; we need more courageous citizens."

-Bill Kesl

I found this qoute on an article about restrictions dealing with the terrorist attacks.

A big question here is wether restrcitons and law enforcement is allowed due to our constitution. Because of this we may be opening ourselves to another attck without spotting it sooner.

But is your personal safty worth privacy and freedom?

The culture in the USA is different from the rest of the world. We recognize that we have fought and dies for our freedoms over the last two hundred plus years.

In other countries you have been brought up with the mindset that what the government decides is best for the country.

What is considerd acceptable in other countries is not here in the USA. And we will continue to fight to keep these values alive.

[Lice]

Radhnoti,

What can I say, my inner green party disagrees with your inner libertarian. :D

Let me state, that I think libertarian is the ideal choice, but I don't think our society is responsible enough for that amount of freedom. Mankind has not evolved enough socially.. maybe in a couple hundred years. Personally, I think we'll kill ourselves off before we get a worldwide enlightment though.

I'm not a cynic, just realistic. ;)

Respectfully.

[guohuen]

Thanks Rad! I love this story! A Swiss Colonel was talking to a German Field Marshall at a border crossing during WWII. The Field Marshall said. " Mein Colonel, you only have 400,000 men in your entire army. I could have 800,000 men on your border in two days. What would you do?" The Colonel replied. "Herr Field Marshall, I would simply order my men to shoot twice!":D

[Dark Knight]

"but I don't think our society is responsible enough for that amount of freedom. "

But you want a government to take away the freedom of its people to make that choice.

[Lice]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
"But you want a government to take away the freedom of its people to make that choice.

Depending on the government, I trust the government about as much as I trust society. I'll let you guess how much that is. ;)

But, I'm really getting off topic. My apologies for that.

Respectfully.

[umgong]

Willow sword,
Please do not make assumptions of people's educational background.
I assure you that I live in a neighborhood of professional people (read doctors, engineers, businessmen, etc.) with the low end homes in the low $400,000. So, please don't assume that because I choose to stay and fight to maintain or bring up the standards of safety and security in our neighborhoods that we are uneducated. In argument there is no need to character attack or stereo type...you only show your level of understanding of the problem.
I believe that the difference that we are talking about here is whether or not we stay or cut and run when faced with encroaching blight. The nice thing is in America we have the freedom to choose.
I was brought up to stay and fight...Part of the old school. This applied to CMA too. I was very idealistic and fought against the Chinese gangs using the CMA that I learned to help protect the Chinese businessmen in the 60's-70's.
Guess what? I was asked not to stand up for their rights...by the businessmen. They gave up the fight. They chose to submit to the demands (extortion)of the Chinese gangs.
I saw that in neighborhoods that I lived in. Is that not terrorism? In some areas, I saw pockets of resistance and the desire to better their lives. In those neighborhoods, we became community activists, formed up neighborhood watches, etc....My belief is that it is easier to stop the blight before it becomes established rather than trying to clean it up after it's already ingrained.
I'm 53 now. I'm kind of giving up. The gangs are a lot more mobile...they have cars now. Most people either leave the neighborhoods or they can't hang in for the long haul. I'm just too old for this sh#t. Most of the people that I worked with are gone. Most of the young people I see have the same attitude that you do.
It's a sad time for the United States. Too many victims with a victim attitude in America....but you know? I've travelled a lot and this country is still a lot better than the countries I've visited. So, I guess I'll hang in there and resist in my small way. This country is worth fighting for.
I just refuse to go quietly into the night.
Call it what you will, but that's my take on it and I'm sticking to it.
So you see, guys, it's just a difference in philosophies....and we can agree to disagree.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
"The main difference is in the attitudes. We do not equate guns to our masculinity "


I noticed a lot of other countries feel this way. Here in the USA we dont see it as that, it is as we have always pointed out. Many men have died for our freedoms and we dont want to give them up.

The martial arts can be seen as a way to show your masculinity, a couple guys beating each other, whats the point?

It seems to me that here in the USA we are protecting our freedom, but others are posting comments protecting their masculinity.

Maby you should look inside yourself and wonder what you have allowed your country to do to you.


"Those that would sacrifice their freedom for safety will find they inherit neither."
-Ben Franklin, right wing extremist

Sorry if I did not make it clear enough, but my reference was a bit of a joke. Black Jack suggested that we were nutless or neutered by not being allowed to own guns. My statement was a bit of a joke based on that statement. It was not meant as a serious comment (though I am sure there are some people who do equate their guns with their masculinity :)).

Like I said previously, most Australians do not view tight gun controls as a lack of freedom. If you want to own guns and shoot as a hobby, you are allowed to. If you are a farmer and you need a gun for pest control, you are allowed to. If you are an average joe who has no real reason to own a gun, then you are restricted.

Again, I think there is a fundamental difference in mindset between US citizens and Australian and British citizens. You see guns as a fundamental right, and representative of your freedom. We do not. I do not feel that the gun laws in place here are anything but sensible, and I think most of the Australian population agree with me.

[Radhnoti]

You poor misguided.... FOOLS!!!! ;)
Even the language you use (Ex. "If you want to own guns and shoot as a hobby, you are allowed to.") would anger me if it were applied to me. ALLOWED TO!?! ALLOWED TO!?! How dare my government presume to ALLOW me to do anything, I say! I'm a citizen of the U.S. and THAT translates to owner/co-ruler...especially if I have some money and/or people skills to talk other voters into joining me. :D It's kind of weird seeing everyone else's opinion of their government. You all seem to feel your governing bodies are benevolent, wise and intelligent with your best interests at heart. I think my governing body is near-sighted, easily influenced by personal monetary concerns and more likely to mess things up than help things get better!
I agree with the apparent concensus, our countries are different...but we're sure you guys will see the light eventually. :p
Note: This was my attempt at light-hearted banter this year, I'm not very good at it. But, please don't mess it up by seeing anything I said in a negative light....everyone has been extremely well-spoken in this thread and I have nothing but respect for what everyone has had to say. :)

[scotty1]

"How dare my government presume to ALLOW me to do anything, I say! "

Getting a bit off topic here and really just arguing for the sake of it, but following your line of thinking should not heroin addicts and pot smokers be allowed freedom of choice in what they wish to do?

Your government 'allows' you to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, does it not get your back up that it does not 'allow' you to smoke pot, shoot up heroin or watch certain types of pornographic movie for example? Whether you want to or not is not the issue, the fact is you could not even if you did want to...

Does it not anger you that you are not allowed to do these things, just by the language used?;)

My point being that sometimes the government does have our best interests at heart....

If I trust the British government's stance on drugs and censorship, why then should I not trust its stance on guns?

[scotty1]

Found this on another forum, thought you guys might find it interesting.

www.xpres.net/~gmattson/ubbs/Forum2/HTML/001652.html
:)

My personal view on all this is that if you did take American public's guns away, they'd be pretty much screwed.

However, the European and Australian situation with crime is not even comparable, as far as crime committed with guns goes.

[Radhnoti]

Great thread scotty1, I really enjoyed it and agree with most of what was said. But, I thought it was kind of strange that you feel the gun situation in England isn't comparable or at least becoming similar with all the facts that've been brought forth in this thread.
Getting back to our off-topic discussion...I believe that an adult should be free to do whatever they want unless/until it infringes upon someone else's freedoms.
SO, to answer each of your examples individually:
Yes, adult pot smokers should be "allowed" to smoke.
Yes, adult heroin addicts should be "allowed" to shoot up. (Though one would hope that family members or local non-government civic organizations would help or have programs in place to help or educate).
Yes, all porn involving consenting adults should be "allowed". When I say "allowed" what I really mean is the government should have never become involved. The fact that my government feels it has the right to disallow such things DOES anger me. Pretty much everything the government becomes involved with, they mess up...it seems to be the nature of the ever-growing government beast. Individuals working for our government become more and more involved in the every day lives of U.S. citizens to increase their power base or to hand out jobs to friends or political allies. And so, the hydra grows two more heads where once there was one...and two more....and two more...and...you get the idea. It's a self-perpetuating beast that must be stopped! :eek:
;)


For more off-topic info on how I see things politically go to:
http://www.libertarian.org/

:)

[The Willow Sword]

We seem to all be taking advantage of the "freedoms" we are given. i see it in every post i have read,,from black jacks militia crap to radhnotis freedom all for one one for all. and UmGong: wow what a story! sold the movie rights to that one yet?

THE LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY WERE MADE TO GOVERN THE MASSES,,,GIVEN THAT THER ARE A LOT OF SHEPARDS HERE BANGING THIER STAFFS TOGETHER. THE MAJORITY OF THIS COUNTRY CONSISTS OF A SHEEP LIKE MENTALITY. SIMPLE FOLKS WHO WANT TO LIVE A SIMPLE LIFE AND NOT BE BOTHERED BY ANYBODY. well all you isolationists out there,,,if you had won the battle back during the civil war maybe it would be to your liking now,,,but you didnt,,you lost. now we are a UNION. and with that union comes the responsabilities we have to each other. this INDIVIDUALITY crap goes too far when we discuss guns and protection rights. like i have stated before.THE FREEDOMS IN THIS COUNTRY THAT WE HAVE WERE NOT DESIGNED FOR THOSE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OR MAKE SUFFER OTHERS OR THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE CREATURES THAT EXIST WITHIN.
the NRA takes advantage of those freedoms with thier gun toten egos. the people who smoke in this country take advantage of it with thier denial and selfishness,,,and especially the persons here who are paranoid and think that we are at war with every single thing in this country.
this is a new world of pioneers who will precede this old and outdated mindset that we have the right fight fight fight,,and shoot shoot shoot and kill kill kill.
yes again i will state that i carry a gun legally and i advocate it in these times,,but i dont attract the BS to me by going out and looking for the trouble,,,,and if you live in a 400,000 dollar a home neighboorhood you got cops on your payroll and security systems out the wazoo. also OUr governament which i respect and agree with on some aspects needs to do a better job of MAKING it safe for us in this country. because i dont want to have to deal with anyone carrying a gun on them like its the wild wild west and have this Wyatt Erp mentality. you say the government decides for us? well what have WE THE PEOPLE DONE TO SHOW THEM THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO? RIOT? PROTEST? START A MILITIA?
FIGHT THE VERY SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE? HEY KIDS THESE ARE THE POWERS THAT BE. LEARN TO LIKE IT AND ADAPT AND BE DUALISTIC OR LEAVE AND GO TO ANOTHER COUNTRY.
OH,,and i will point out that these freedoms that were drawn up for us way back then,,,why didnt those freedoms extend to the native peoples already living here? what audacity and nerve any of you have to spout off freedoms when those very precepts were used to almost wipe out entire nations of native peoples here in this country. its another example of those who take advantage of the freedoms givine them to make others suffer.
put THAT in youalls pipe and smoke it for a while.
im out.

Many Respects ,,The Willow Sword

[Black Jack]

That has to be one of the most irresponsible pieces of drivel I have heard on KFO in a long time.

Which begs the question dear sir.....are you really as much of a ******head as your rhetoric would suggest?

Lets get this straight, being Anti-constitution is being Un-American, period. I have a suggestion, if you like the idea of living in a place where law abiding citizens have no effective way of defending their homes, family, strangers, or self then you can always pack up your sh!t and take off to the UK or any number of other countries who do not allow the possession of firearms.

Why do you think our fore fathers included in the second amendment the words....."shall not be infringed"? Do you suppose they knew something about human nature that you gun banning elitists do not?

We have a responsible gun law here already, its called the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. It's part of the Bill of Rights, the same Bill of Rights that gives you your freedom to run your mouth off, the one that gives you freedom of speech and freedom of press.

Keep putting labels on people or better yet use caps to show what kind of a badass you are, you are a hypocrite who believes that only people of what you deem of importance shoud be allowed to carry a firearm, pathetic....pathetic....pathetic, I am glad that their are a lot more of us, than their are of you.

Here is a quote for you, its simple so you shall not get lost.

"If we lower our standards, we lower the flag"- President Ronald Regan

[Lice]

Having a fundamental disagreement with one aspect of the Constitution does not make one anti-Constitutional and certainly does not make one anti-US. The US Constitution is not some sort of infallible holy scripture. That's why we have amendments, as times change so do the needs of the people and the laws that govern them.

Telling someone to leave the country because of a disagreement of our land's laws goes against the grain of the idea of America. This is a government of the people, not just the people that agree with the laws in place. Someone who believes in gun control is no less entitled to be an American citizen than someone that believes in the right to arms. As a civilized people, we've already decided that some freedoms are not to be allowed for safety or other reasons. Some people believe guns belong in that category. THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM UNAMERICAN.

I personally believe our drug policy is bs. Does this make me un-American? Should I move to Amsterdam?

*rant off*

Respectfully.

[The Willow Sword]

:rolleyes: :p

[dnc101]

First off, the main reason the Second Ammendment was in the Constitution was (and is) for self protection- from both crime AND government. Our founding fathers did not trust government, even the one they established, to remain a benevolent servant of the people. And, guess what- remember Ruby Ridge and Waco- they were right!

Second, for those of you who don't like the Second Ammendment, that is your right. It is not your right to circumvent it or intentionally misread it in order to mislead others into passing laws which are in direct violation of it. That is not just criminal, not just un-American, it is treason. And you are traitors- lower than any terrorist.

Third, for those who want to make vast generalizations about gun owners being Rednecks, go ahead. I wear that title proudly! It came into vogue in the 60's when hair styles went bad, and the lazy, unwashed draft dodging socialists noticed that their necks were as pink as their politics while us working types tended to get our necks sunburned. So there!

(Actually, I just threw in number three to have a little fun. I have a lot of long hair friends. Heck, my wife even has long hair!)

[Radhnoti]

Willow, I hope everyone IS "taking advantage" of their freedoms. That's why we have them.
You say the laws were made to govern the masses. I think the founders put certain laws specifically in place to be certain we weren't seen as "masses" but citizens. You seem to be saying that pro-gun organizations and supporters are taking inappropriate liberties or that somehow someone owning a gun infringes on someone elses freedom. I fail to see how Black Jack owning a gun steps on someone elses safety or freedom.
You seem to feel that it's the government's responsibility to "take care" of us, and make this the kind of place where you don't feel the need to carry a pistol. I feel that YOU carrying a pistol, and perhaps others like you, ARE the solution. If someone snaps and starts shooting at kids at a bus stop, I would pray someone nearby would have a firearm on their person and could stop the psychopath. In a very real sense we ARE our government (which is the real shame of what our government has become) and responsible individuals stepping up and taking responsibility for their own and others safety should be applauded. You mentioned that you don't think we should "FIGHT THE VERY SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE? HEY KIDS THESE ARE THE POWERS THAT BE. LEARN TO LIKE IT AND ADAPT AND BE DUALISTIC OR LEAVE..." I don't understand what you're saying. We aren't fighting the system, we (meaning me and gun control organizations) are working within it. Fighting political battles with votes, letting our voices be heard...etc.
Finally, about your Native American tangent. Yes, Native American Indians were subjegated...as my Irish ancestors were by English....as the English were by Rome...as Romans were by the Vandals...as they were by whoever ran them to the South...and it stretches back forever. One society/way of life overcomes another as history flows ever-forward...the best you can hope for is that some portion of the society is adopted by the winner. I hope you don't think society is done evolving...we are FAR from the pinnacle. ;) ",,,why didnt those freedoms extend to the native peoples already living here?" They weren't citizens. That doesn't make everything that happened ok, but at the time they weren't under the PROTECTION GUARANTEED by the document you seem to feel is so outdated.

Lice, I think I disagree. If you have a disagreement with one part of the Constitution I think that DOES make you anti-Constitutional. Many specific rights guaranteed in the Constitution can support and ensure other rights. I DO agree that U.S. citizens can (sometimes should) disagree with laws already in place without their patriotism being questioned, and that everyone should be free to speak their mind. But, my mind tells me that the freedoms guaranteed us by the Constitution HAVE to be guarded with great zeal. ALL of them, because if you can tear one down...what's to stop any of the others from being ripped away?

[umgong]

As I said earlier, I believe we have a good discussion here. We all obviously have different opinons and we are all products of our experiences.
I believe that most of us are at an impasse.

Willow,
Your statements does not change my experiences in life and how I lead my life. I find that there are elitists at many different levels....and many have "extra protection" that others could not afford, but at the same time, my point was that some of the really big gangs like the Bloods and Crips are mobile and have been trying to open up shop.
This is not paranoia as you keep thinking, friend Willow, but it is common knowledge in many of the gang units in your local police department. More and more, the "affluent neighborhoods" have had more and more contact with tactics that gangs are using to insinuate its influence on your kids and any neighborhood that it can get a foothold into.
If you choose to not see that this is happening and want to believe that we are paranoid, it is your choice. It still does not change reality.
I was assigned to a city Task Force for some years, we met on a weekly basis and I went to drug/gang locations almost on a weekly basis in various neighborhoods throughout the city that I worked in. Effective officers in our unit have had their houses firebombed, they have had "bounties" put on their heads, they have been ambushed....these are the "folks" that are assigned to protect us, the public, on a daily basis.
Paranoia? No, this is just my reality. Selling the story? Nobody wants to pay to hear this kind of reality.
Stay safe in your house and sleep well and believe we're paranoid. I know I don't have the solution.

[The Willow Sword]

I am not blind to the gang problems in this country. i have always had sympathy for the city police who are outnumbered by the gangs and who are relatively untrained or at least constrained by politics and bleeding heart liberalism.
why not let these gangs deal with trained military troops?
im sure that our army and marines would love a chance to go after these gangs and make it safe for us citizens who want to lead a decent life without having to be terrorized by these "crips"and Bloods" you speak of.
the truth is that we are NOT at WAR in this country,,and to think that we are is an overstatement. because we are not in a civil war in this country the gang problems you speak of are isolated in certain areas of our cities,,and therefore shouldnt be a problem to truly contain. its obvious that the boys in blue cant deal with it. lets call our marines and army out and see how these gangs react when they have a black hawk helicopter droppin troops in tha hood. sure there will be gun fire,,and yes there will be casualties(there always is when there is a war going on) but i will agree and hopefully others would agree that the effect and outcome would be towards the greater good of the country and the decent citizens who are not armed.
BUT the truth here is that this will never happen,,,this country is TOO much of a bleeding heart liberal country and corrupt politics keep the military AND the police at bay. im not saying that we become a policed state,,,but maybe we need to actaully POLICE those areas which you talk about my friend. or maybe you just leave the gangs alone in thier neighborhoods to kill themselves off,,or better yet seal off these neiboorhoods and contain them from the rest of the world. again this will not happen.
sigh,,,i hate playing both sides on this one,,i am a advocate for owning a gun legally and responsably and yet i believe that it is a travisty that we are subjected to radical conservatism and anarchist Atheist militants who have no real respect for anyone but themselves and their guns.
If EVER we needed a reform in this country we need it now.
RADNHOTI: i will not allow you to BELITTLE the horrors that happend in this country by english dutch french and above all SPanish hands to the native peoples here by saying that "this is how its always been". it is a grave contradiction interms that noone seems to want to acknowledge or REALIZE that the freedoms that the founding fathers of the new european society in this country DID NOT extend these liberties and freedoms to the indians who inhabited this land and walked FREELY upon it. more so than the colonists. yes we can say that everyone has been opressed, but is that just a cop out and justification for the genocide that took place here not too long ago? I THINK IT IS RAD. the only reason why i RESPECT our government is that aspects of governing nations of people were partly taken from the Longhouse and the hodonoshonee nations that successfully goverened 5 indian nations before the europeans (us) came here,,it was one of the main influences that benjamin franklin had when he and others wrote up this constitution and the governings within. and i think it can be a GREAT government again if certain things are changed in a positive way,,,and NOT BY Creating militias or waving a rebel flag at it. OR taking advantage of an amendment designed to protect ourselves during times of siege by foreign power. WE are NOT besieged by a foreign power and even though we have the right to bear arms,,we do not have the right to go out like the old west and holster our pistols. you know as well as i that when you have a gun in your possession there is an opiate that takes place in our minds,,that we are powerful and there is always that desire to take that gun out and bang bang,,,we did it when we were kids and we still do it now. the gun is a powerful tool not meant for the hands of just ANYBODY. we know this from the past wars we have fought against dictators and genocidal mainiacs such as hitler and mussolini. our gun toting blasee' attitude and arrogance is the reason why most of the world HATES us. im proud to be an american but i am not very proud at the way we conduct ourselves as all high and mighty because WE HAVE this AND WE HAVE that. This society we live in is about a mile wide and an inch deep. and glamorizing violence and the carrying of guns does not help us one bit other than to convey that we are nothing but scared children with weapons and will not hesitate to use them. as far as the rest of the world,,let them deal with thier own BS. we need not get involved in it,,we USED to be a neutral country. not anymore. we need to correct our own problems here,,and one of those problems is the weapons we so freely carry and use and abuse.
Many Respects,,,The Willow SWord
Many Respects,,,The willow Sword

[wushu chik]

This is getting dumber and dumber by the day! Why is it every time we have a conversation like THIS, people have to bring up religion? That's just dumb.

Anyways...agree to disagree and MOVE ON. This has come full circle into a debate about religion and all. It's quite dumb! And, when it comes to governments...what they say, goes. But, what they don't know, won't hurt YOU.

~Wen~

[DelicateSound]

Jesus Christ!

I just read the whole thread, and a HELL of a lot of people are getting touchy. Maybe it's just you patriotic Yanks.

Anyhow - I [a Brit] Will argue for the hell of it:




Black Jack Whilst I see your point on home defense:


living in a place where law abiding citizens have no effective way of defending their homes


I do think that a lot of people are irresponsible. I believe that you are of sound mind :D and from what I know of you on this board are a decent guy who is upholding his rights. OK - fair deal.

But not everyone is such a citizen. Say some punk pulls a gun at you whilst you're at the traffic lights, pulls you out of your car, shoots your wife and drives off. You see my point? Some people aren't responsible enough to be allowed simple things like a car, without endangering someone with it. No? I just feel that guns make it easier for d!ckheads to cause mayhem.


Radhnoti


If someone snaps and starts shooting at kids at a bus stop, I would pray someone nearby would have a firearm on their person and could stop the psychopath

I'd rather the psychopath didn't have the gun in the first place.



Willow Sword


why didnt those freedoms extend to the native peoples already living here? what audacity and nerve any of you have to spout off freedoms when those very precepts were used to almost wipe out entire nations of native peoples here in this country. its another example of those who take advantage of the freedoms givine them to make others suffer.


WHAT THE F*CK IS THAT!!!! No offense - but we're talking about the differential gun laws in developed nations, not "forefathers" and "indians", OK!!! :)


Umgong

The sad reality is that if more people were like you and fought for there rights - that the problem would be eradicated. As it is, few people do it, and so they're lives are often messed up, so few want to follow their lead. Catch 22 like. I've had social-worker friends that have been attacked on routine calls - what's the point? Even firefighters get attacked these days. F*cking firefighters!!!

[wushu chik]

DS...you rock!

~Wen~

[red_fists]

Hi All.

Personally, I think gun owner should should be based on a licencing system similar to a Divers licence.

Get trained, get certified and be allowed to bear arms.

Make the Licence expire after a few years, when it needs to be renewed and the Gun Owner needs to be recertified & retested.

For me the problem is not that people carry a Gun, but if those people are trained and capable of using a Gun correctly.

Look at the Bus example earlier.
1.) Agree make sure that Criminals don't get hold of Guns, tough but can be achieved to a large degree.2.) Yes, it would help if Gun carrying Citizens were there to take the Assailant down, provided they are trained enough not to endanger anybody else.
Not saying you have to react like the "Scorpions" though when the Airport bombings happended in Vienna & Rome.
Just my 2 Yen.

[joedoe]

This debate is actually one of the best on this topic that I have seen on this forum. Good stuff guys :) Just wanted to make a few points.

1. Like it or not, the government does allow you to do things. Freedom only goes so far, and it is society (or dare I say it, the masses) that dictates the bounds of that freedom. The masses feel that things like heroin, pot, and murder are unacceptable freedoms, hence you are not allowed to partake of those by law. If the popular opinion becomes that widespread gun owndership is unacceptable, then you may end up with an amendment to the constitution :). If you want absolute freedom, then the result would most likely be chaos.

2. If you disagree with part of the constitution, it does not mean you disagree with the whole. I do not see how this makes you anti-constitutional.

3. From the point of view of US citizens, I can kind of understand the position you are in. Guns are already prolific in your country. To try and restrict that would be a) an impossible task and b) possibly endangering to innocent lives. Most of the rest of the world does not have this problem though.

[Radhnoti]

Joedoe, the articles previously referenced in this thread indicate that gun crime is on the rise in England, and this is following their new gun restrictions. Absolute individual freedom is not a goal that would lead to anarchy, in my opinion. Your example of murder doesn't fit as it GREATLY encroaches upon the freedom of the one being murdered...and thus should be illegal. :)
Your number 3, I agree with mostly.
DS, psychopaths and criminals are not going to feel restrained by the law. And regarding your hypothetical to BlackJack...suppose the wife pulls a concealed firearm out and saves her husband? The "young punk" wouldn't care if the gun he used were illegal for him to carry, but the law abiding couple in the car MIGHT. Gun restrictions would limit THEIR ability to defend themselves not the assailant.
Red Fists, the problem with your licensing and certification program would come to light when the NEXT administration that wants a gun ban starts making the program more and more difficult to pass...or more expensive...or too complex with loads of paperwork. The ways someone in power could work to make such a program into a complete BAN are...well...limited only by the imagination of the anti-gun crowd.
TWS, I stand by my statement. Native Americans are another conquered society that goes in the history books to me. I fail to see why you think I bear any more responsibility for their "defeat" than I would for my English ancestor's conquering Scotland. I wasn't around for either conflict. By the way, I'm 1/16th Cherokee by blood myself and my wife is 1/8th, but even the stories of "Lily of the Valley" Ellis (my wife's great-great...maybe another great? grandmother) indicate that she was a PROUD AMERICAN. And how the heck did we get off on this tangent? :D
Wushu_Chik, I think everyone debating here is pretty sure the other side won't "see the light"...I suspect we're all just contrary by nature. ;)

Here's a few examples of how concealed carry already HAS been working...:

http://580wdbo.com/news/020319blockbuster3.html

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/police/all-4rob-apr17.story

Those are real stories with real people, and stories like these don't even hint at how effective concealed carry has been as a deterrent.

Israel is another example of how, when things go bad, people will step up and take responsibility for their own safety by owning firearms. Gun permits are being applied for at an unprecedented rate, 75% more by some reports. And reports also indicate that gunshops can't even keep enough handguns in supply. There's a great story I read recently about how a legally armed Israeli citizen brought his firearm to bear on a terrorist gunman who opened fire in a crowd, bringing him down and saving who knows how many lives...I'll reference it later if I can dig it up.

Here's an interesting study I just ran across:
"Gun control, trigger locks, the elimination of guns... wouldn't you suppose that the majority of law enforcement officers support these efforts? But, they do not, as you shall see from the results of a study conducted by the San Diego Officers Association.

Of the officers who participated...

82.1% DO NOT favor a ban on assault rifles.

82.2% DO NOT support a limit on magazine capacity.

84.9% DO SUPPORT the right to carry a concealed weapon by law-abiding citizens.

87.8% BELIEVE that armed law-abiding citizens are not a threat to law enforcement.

92.1% DO SUPPORT instant background checks when citizens petition for gun ownership.

94.2% BELIEVE that gun control laws have not curbed violent crime.

87.1% BELIEVE that guns in the hands of private citizens increases public safety.

99.2% BELIEVE in streamlining the justice system.

99.2% BELIEVE in capital punishment.

98.5% DO NOT support gun buy-back programs.

95.6% BELIEVE that criminal use of guns should involve mandatory sentences with no plea bargaining.

In conclusion, I believe that through this sampling of police officers, it is quite clear that law enforcement supports the right of U.S. citizens to own weapons for their own personal protection."

What do you think these officers know that we don't? Perhaps that they can't be everywhere... and a trained 57 year old woman with a .357 will be just about as able to defend herself as a 22 year old strong man with a .357. The old saying, "God created man, Sam Colt made them equal." comes to mind.

[joedoe]

But do you agree that society/the masses dictate what the bounds of your freedom are? It may not be ideal, but it is the reality.

I believe that eventually absolute freedom would degenerate into chaos. Without an entity defining the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, society would decay into chaos. It is human nature.

[red_fists]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
and a trained 57 year old woman with a .357 will be just about as able to defend herself as a 22 year old strong man with a .357. The old saying, "God created man, Sam Colt made them equal." comes to mind.

Two things.
1.) You said trained 57 yr old Woman.
How many Gun owners are actually trained and keep their Skills up to date??

2.) Most People see a Gun as the final Argument in a confrontation.
Like:
I got a Gun and now I can defend myself against any attacker.
Or:
I pull my Gun and the Attacker will desist and run away scared.

This is the biggest Fallacy and LIE I see spread by the Gun advocates.

A Gun IS NO guarantee for a succesfull defense, protection or safety.
A Gun is a Weapon and like ALL Weapons it depends on the wielder and NOT the Weapon itself.

And lets face it most Criminals got way more experience using their Weapons than the average Joe or Jane in the road.

Rant over.

[dnc101]

For starters, it is a direct violation of the Constitution. And yes, the government acted illegally in several recent police actions when military units and hardware were used against American citizens. The police are trained to handle civil situations, including sorting the bad guys out and protecting the good guys. They are also trained to negotiate, use weapons which reduce the chances of collateral dammage, and to recognize a crime in the first place. The military is trained to kill people and break things. Police maintain order, military types create enough disorder to enable us to dominate an enemy. We need both, but each in their respective place. And neither relieve the citizen as the first and last line of defense against both crime and foreign invaders.

[dnc101]

Red Fist, you are way off base. I know many gun owners who keep their skills up to par. Most people who own guns, in my experience, like to shoot them. Many don't, I'll give you that. But if they want to risk getting shot with their own weapon, that is none of your business. And I don't know anyone who thinks a gun is the final solution as you define it. Having a gun does not automatically mean you win. It does mean you have a far greater chance of winning, especially against multiple attackers, armed assailants, or just someone bigger and badder than you. As for your big "LIE", I have had to use a firearm for self defense, and guess what- I have had multiple armed assailants turn tail when I pulled my firearm; I didn't even have to fire a round, just showed it. And I know others who've had similar experiences. It happens all the time, and I know this first hand. Also, before you say that if there were no guns the bad guys wouldn't have them either, let me tell you that most of these assaults were made by multiple attackers armed with clubs, chains, knives, and other weapons other than guns- but just as deadly. And finally, your statement that the criminals are more experienced with their firearms than the law abiding citizen is pure hogwash. Criminals, by their nature, are too lazy to do anything as usefull as quality practice with or maintenance on their firearm.

[Radhnoti]

JoeDoe, you've caught me in a web of tangled terminology. :p Yes, I suppose when it comes right down to it the masses DO impose limits. I can understand banning nuclear weaponry...or killer virus stockpiling...maybe even SAM antiaircraft type devices. Not something like owning firearms where the benefits (for honest citizens) are so obvious and the alternative is so incredibly impractical.
red_fists, so just on the off chance that someone might not be properly trained to use a firearm, you feel everyone should be forced to do without them? I agree, the gun isn't a guarantee...but it's a HECK of an advantage. Perhaps the biggest advantage an individual CAN have...big, well trained dogs being excluded. ;) A person with a gun will almost always "win" over a person without, they just have a "better punch". And, yes, I think that just HAVING a gun (no intense training necessary) can make an assailant decide to try to find an easier target. You say, "A Gun is a Weapon and like ALL Weapons it depends on the wielder and NOT the Weapon itself." So, why take them away? It's just a tool. Punish the individuals using the tool improperly, not everyone who happens to have one. Note, I'm not sure you actually support a total gun ban...so please don't assume I'm firing all that at you. Just making observations.

Getting back to the idea of a Constitutional Amendment banning firearms (I think JoeDoe brought that up too.) To my knowledge there's only been ONE Amendment restricting the freedom of U.S. citizens, someone correct me if I'm wrong. That was prohibition of alchohol, widely regarded as one of the most foolish legislative ideas ever. It was eventually repealed. Most Amendments deal with giving MORE freedoms...women voting...slavery abolished...no voting booth tax to vote, etc. We can only hope that our legislature and citizens see the obvious similarities such an Amendment would have with the one that led to Prohibition.

[red_fists]

DNC101.

1.) Read ALL of my Posts, I am not For banning Guns, but for controlling them and keeping the level of Gun Owners high as is done in the most Countries in the rest of the world.
And, lo and behold, we don't have the problems you Guys got.

2.) I am talking from experienes that go way beyond your Country.
Try the same stuff in other places and I will place a Flower on your dead Body.

Read the statistics and Reports from all over the World before you knock other People's experience.

3.) If Guns would only give a better chance than why does everyone INSIST on having one??
Why are your Gun licence applications shooting through the roof??

Because, People do believe that the Gun is the "Ultimate protector".

Peace.

[red_fists]

And finally.

An untrained Gun owner is everybodies business and not just his, as he might by accident kill an innocent bystander.

Maybe it doesn't happen in your World, but I have seen the 5yr old Girl of a Friend shot dead by a Guy trying to shoot a Robber.

Guns are dangerous just like Cars, and should be licenced the same way.

Funnily I have been hunting in many Countries and none otehr Country needs a "Blaze orange" Law, yeah, for your trained Hunters.

And that has NOTHING to do with your Constitution or rights to carry Arms.

Your Consitution does not give you a "FREE FOR ALL", but is there to ensure a quality of life for EVERY Citizen.

Peace.

[JusticeZero]

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
So YOU are an Atheist? so in effect you have no real spiritual morals or values ,,no belief in a higher power other than yourself?
to me THATS the WORST type of person to own a fire arm.
Pardon me? We're the group with by far the lowest rate of members incarcerated of all religiously sorted groups in the U.S. I can unload statistics at you gathered by reputable sources from entry data in prisons, where atheists account for less than 1% of the prison population at admission (before they can be converted) yet account for 10% of the population as a whole. This from research by a -Christian think tank-, Barna if I recall, precisely the people who would want to bias the results in any other fashion.

[JusticeZero]

Originally posted by Lice
You shouldn't expect to get respect for your athiest views if you can't be respectful about their religious views.
Anyone:
You shouldn't expect to get respect for your superstitions views if you can't be respectful of others' atheistic views.

[JusticeZero]

Y'know, I don't really know of any valid reasons to outlaw the owning of fully automatic weapons and other military hardware.. all the reasons i've heard come down to "So you can't resist if the government turns into some totalitarian mess someday, and because WE paperpushers 5,000 miles away can't think of why you would want one in the first place.."
...And I don't like people telling me how I should make my choices. :p No good ever comes of it, it seems.

[Radhnoti]

red_fists, I am only referring to things happening within the U.S. since I have no experiences within other countries. Gun permits are shooting "through the roof" as you say because a firearm gives someone a better chance in a bad situation. You answered the question within your own question. I see that you're trying to say people are too stupid to know that they could lose a fight WITH a gun, but...c'mon...I don't think it's a very strong argument and more than a bit elitist. It's no newsflash that some people aren't very bright, and it's inappropriate to take away (or curtail) someone else's rights just in case they're "one of the dumb ones".
If someone pulls out a gun, attempting to foil a robbery, and shoots an innocent bystander then punish them. Involuntary manslaughter I think is the appropriate charge in my country.
I think we've agreed that a firearm is just a tool, punish anyone who misuses it...not those who don't.
I have no idea where you were going with the orange suit thing...but I suspect it was an attempt to paint hunters as either stupid or incompetent. Or is this because you feel it's an unnecessary measure of safety? :)
You say, " An untrained Gun owner is everybodies business and not just his, as he might by accident kill an innocent bystander."
There's not much difference between that statement and, "A martial artist is everybodies business and not just his, as he might by accident kill someone he's sparring with." Or you could plug in a million other things that aren't regulated the way you want guns to be regulated. It makes no sense to me.

[red_fists]

Rad.

Like I said I am not against banning guns, but they should be licenced and controlled in a proper manner.

And again I say this has NOTHING to do with your constitution and "right to bear arms".
If your consitution would have been written at a different point in History it would read different, and this whole discussion would be null and void.

As for your point of punishing people that by accident shoot an innocent bystander.
Big talk and sounds nice now, till somebody close to you gets hit.
I used to carry a Gun, but stopped doing so when I realised how limiting it is.

As for Gun Control.
In my Home Country anybody can own a Gun, carrying a Gun in the street is another matter. Also a lot of guns and calibers are illegal.

My Country also FORBIDS carrying of all concealed/hidden Weapons, and this Law is what has kept Violence down for 300yrs since it was passed.
Not the actual Control on who can own which Weapon.
Police has the right to search any suspicious people for hidden Weapons and will arrest them on the spot if found carrying.
Makes it tougher for muggers, robbers to be armed.

So all Firearms have to be carried openly and Licence shown on demand.

But on the other Hand I can train with nearly any MA weapon openly in a Park without being hassled by the Police.

And since my Country has conscription every Male Citizen is TRAINED in handling Firearms and basic H2H.

So you Guys in the US have to decide which part of your freedom you wanna give up for a safe environment, because something has to give.

Personally, I rather have them strict on Guns, but I can use any MA Weapon I like whenever and howerver I want.

Peace.

[red_fists]

Forgot one thing.

Women are free to join the Military services back home on a voluntary basis.
And yes, we have Troops down in Kosovo & Afghanistan(ISAF).
As well as many of my fellow Citizen join the UN Forces.

My point being:
I would happily give any Citizen any of my Firearms knowing that they have been trained in handling Firearms by the Military.

I am also sure that if I see someone in the Street carrying a Gun he will have a legal licence and received proper training in handling that Firearm.
Again either by the Military and/or the Courses required to apply for a Carrying Licence of a Firearm.

Not sure about you Guys, but I enjoy it like that. And I think pretty good going for a neutral Country.

Nuff said.

[scotty1]

You from Sweden Redfists?

[Black Jack]

Anarchist Atheist Milita......oh you got me down to a "t" there with those labels Willow.....:o :o :o ......its what ass licking elitists like you do best.

I will say it again, we DO have gun control laws, criminals DON'T obey gun control laws, all a person is doing by banning the use of firearms for lawfull citizens is creating a safe gun free enviroment for the criminals and not the victims.

How many times were you dropped on your head as a baby to not get that??????????????????????????????????????????????

If a person cannot defend himself, who will? The cops? Nope. In court cases all over the US-http://copcrimes.com/courtcases.htm-it has been ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect the public, only to enforce the laws.

Your law seems to be that we should only let people of "importance" carry or even possess a firearm, you say this is not so but anyone here can see that is a bold face lie, its all over the garabge you spew.

33 States in the US have shall issue CCW license laws. NONE of these states have degraded into the Wild, Wild West.

In fact we are getting more and more of are firearm rights back, from those like you who would seek to limit them, as in the court ruling Michigan where now CCW permits are issued to the public, if anything needs to change its to get more of the sheeple to see that keeping ones right to bear arms is a no compromise issue.

[DelicateSound]

Er. Well, I tried to make points, but you Yanks seem to be in a world of your own.



I only posted yesterday and already this is 2 pages on.


All I have to say is - Wushu Chik, you rock too!






To the rest of you:

Please do not allow my slightly rational views or almost sane comments to cloud your excellent close-minded nature. Please continue to bicker amongst yourselves like children, and to quote meaningless statistics like freaks, as if nothing has happened.

Thank you for your time.

[The Willow Sword]

We have ALL been bickering over this issue and it seems that we all have different views on guns for protection.
MY views dont necessarily mirror that of yours black jack or radhnoti. but wasnt it a famous man who said " i dont agree with what you say ,but i will defend, to the death, your right to say it."
i wouldnt really consider myself an eliteist, im just another guy out there who does not glamorize violence and guns.
i have a strong spiritual foundation that is not RADICAL like some in the world and i am not devoid of any spirituality like the athiests, however i am no christian either.
when it comes down to it, this country will NEVER reform the gun laws. there will always be guns and always will there be fanatics who worship them and utilize them to make up for a lack of certain aspects of themselves, and take advantage of old laws past to propagate thier paranoias.

I say we move on to other subjects now guys. im through slingin my mud,,,lets sling it in other topics shall we?

MAny Respects, Thw willow Sword(American and proud of it).

[myosimka]

again I have tried to stay out of this but I have to point out one thing to you. You represent the Constitution as a unified whole and that to disagree with one part makes one anti-Constitution.

"Lice, I think I disagree. If you have a disagreement with one part of the Constitution I think that DOES make you anti-Constitutional. "

So my question is this: Are you in favor of the 18th or the 21st amendment? Not possible to support both. Or were all the people who worked to have the 21st passed anti-Constitutional because they didn't support the 18th? Did they magically become pro-Constitutional when the 21st passed? Hmmm. Quandries. The structure of the constitution is such that it's not only deliberately vague to allow judicial interpretation but it's also inconsistent.



And again please stop using the untrained gunowner vs. martial artist analogy. It's not accurate and a rather transparent attempt to appeal to the interests of a MA forum. Martial arts don't go off accidentally. The guy that died in eastern Europe a few years back in NHB died accidentally but he did agree to compete. Show me a case where a martial artist accidentally killed someone in another room when they intended no harm. And a punch is intending harm. Maybe not much but still harm. Or a 4 year old accidentally killing their best father with MA. It's not the same and as a result it's a weak analogy and as a result doesn't serve your case.

[joedoe]

This may be completely irrelevant to the topic, but I had heard a statistic somewhere saying something like 8 out of 9 shots fired in a confrontational situation miss their mark. Can someone verify or correct me on this?

[red_fists]

Originally posted by scotty1
You from Sweden Redfists?

Nope Austria.
Home of the STG77 and the Glock.

:D :D

[dnc101]

I understand that you only want to control, not ban guns. But to most of the left wing elitists control and registration are the first step to confiscation and banning- this according to the left wing elitists themselves, not me.

You implied that I'd be killed trying to use a gun in other countries. Maybe, maybe not. I train for firearm disarmament, and I study the psycology involved in a firearms encounter. I well understand the trap many fall in to thinking the gun will control the situation, and that it isn't who holds the gun but who controls it that wins. If I pull a firearm, I intend to use it. The trash that I used as my example lived because they did not make the wrong moves after I pulled down on them, and because I was aware enough to make them before they got within my comfort zone. And I've been to some of those places/ other countries, so I know they aren't inhabited by supermen.

As for your statistics, they can say anything you want them to. But I've experienced it, and lived, worked and trained with others who've experienced it. And we all will give you a collective "BULL" on your statements (I know, I'm taking liberties here speaking for them. But I feel safe in doing so).

You ask why if guns only give a better chance does every one insist on having one? Obviously, it is because guns give a better chance.

Then you say that untrained gunowners are everybodies business as they are dangerous. I'm going to surprise you and agree, to a point. Most gun owners and pro gun organizations support training in firearms safety. But the left wing wackos block and ban safety training at every oppertunity. Wayne LaPierre said it right- they don't want safety, they want a ban. And they are comfortable with a high level of firearms deaths to get what they want. As for your guns and automobiles analogy, it doesn't hold water either. Licensing drivers does not make them safe. One only has to look at the high numbers of accidents and deaths on the highways to see that.

Last, you state that our Constitution does not give us a free for all. That is true, and you have unknowingly touched on the heart of the issue. Ultimately there are only two philosophies regarding the role of government. The higher view is that men are basically good and are capable of governing themselves- this is the view of our founding fathers. The other view is that men are basically evil and incompetent and must therefore be controlled- this is the most common viewpoint. Our Constitution (but not our present government) puts the responsibility for your life and your actions on you, the individual. You are free to reap the bennefits of your choices- but the correlary is that you are responsible for the results. You are free to own and use a firearm for any purpose, but you are held accountable for misuse. If we'd stick to this principle- hang the criminal and lock up the incompetent (criminaly neglegent)- we'd be a lot better off. But punishing the law abiding and responsible gun owner because he might do somethin wrong is as foolish as it is evil and oppressive. Try that over here sir, and I'll be happy to put a flower on your chest.

[dnc101]

Joe, I can't confirm that statistic, but it sounds plausable. Besides those who aren't well trained and practiced, even professionals can have problems. It is one thing to shoot at targets, and another to shoot at a live human being- especially if he is moving, hiding, and/or returning fire. Add to that inclement weather, low light conditions, or better yet several squad cars with all their lights flashing, and you have a recipe for a few missed shots.

Another interesting stat- most cops and criminals who are shot in confrontations where both are armed and facing each other are shot in the arm holding their weapon. This is because their eyes tend to focus on the weapon, and their own weapon follows their eyes. So you have two guys, each focused on and pointing at each others weapon, their palms sweaty, hands shaking, their brain screaming GUN!!!!!, their bladders probably emptying... and one of them pulls the triger. Guess where the other guy just got shot?

Then there is the FBI- they are famous for getting shot in their back sides. You see, after each course of fire on the range they used to have to stop and pick up brass. As martial artists we all know that how you train is how you fight- well, in the heat of battle it seems that a few of them have been known to bend down and pick up their brass before reloading. Sort of like the Yankee muskets found on many Civil War battlefields which had been loaded numerous times, but (fortunately for young Billy) never fired. To be honest, I can't really confirm the shoot the moon story. But it too sounds plausable, and the FBI is the butt of many jokes and tales with local law enforcement agencies, as well as some of the less savory characters I know. Just thought you might get a kick out of it.

[red_fists]

You implied that I'd be killed trying to use a gun in other countries. Maybe, maybe not. I train for firearm disarmament, and I study the psycology involved in a firearms encounter.

Sorry, study does NOT equal skill or a attack by 3~4 armed people that care 0% for your life and are prepared for you carrying a Gun.
This are the situations I encountered and have seen.
The same way I have seen a Guy blow a 10yr old Boy away for stealing Bread 20c worth.

You study in the States this does not mean that your knowledge will transfer equally well to other places.
Especially places that don't allow Guns like Japan or where your gun might be illegal.


As for your statistics, they can say anything you want them to. But I've experienced it, and lived, worked and trained with others who've experienced it. And we all will give you a collective "BULL" on your statements (I know, I'm taking liberties here speaking for them. But I feel safe in doing so).

I have lived, experienced it as well, that particular place was considered the most dangerous place outside an actual War Zone.
But I guess your experiencs counts more than somebody elses.


You ask why if guns only give a better chance does every one insist on having one? Obviously, it is because guns give a better chance.

So does Awareness training, MA training and many other things.
Point being??


As for your guns and automobiles analogy, it doesn't hold water either. Licensing drivers does not make them safe. One only has to look at the high numbers of accidents and deaths on the highways to see that.

Why dosn't it hold Water.
I thought statistics mean nothing, so don't now go quoting them on me.

Any irresponsible Person in a Car,Plane Board or holding a Gun will get others Injured or killed.
THAT IS THE FACT.
If that is the case I would say put control in place on who gets to drive a Car.


Last, you state that our Constitution does not give us a free for all. That is true, and you have unknowingly touched on the heart of the issue. Ultimately there are only two philosophies regarding the role of government.

The role of the Goverment is to act on behalf of the Citizens, and to work in their interests.
If you don't like the Goverment get the current one out and vote a new one in.And you don't have to wait for the next election to do this.
There are many ways to counter laws being passed and similar things.

The Goverment has only the role that the citizens of the Country give it, pity is that you Guys forgot that.

The Constitution is NOT written in
stone and can be changed and amended and I think it has happened before.
I am Austrian, some Jerks voted Joerg Haider into office.
Guess what he wasn't there for very long. :P
That is the POWER of the Citizens even when living abroad, I and my fellow Citizen tell the Austrian Govement what to do not the other way round.
Why does Austria not use nucelar power, because we the Citizens say so.
If I wanna change somthing, al I need to do is get enough like minded people to force the Goverment to listen.

Will Austria join NATO and loose it's neutrality, depends on how we the Citizens feel about it and we will know once the referendum is taken.

The same way we let the Goverment do it's Job, but when we disagree or want something they better listen to us if they wanna keep their paychecks coming in.
What I think is wrong in the US is that the Citizens have become to complacent, soft and happily let others make decisions.

Whereas I also see a lot of "paranoia" coming from people like you, that appear to be running scared of the big bad Goverment.

Not sure where your current Goverment is heading, but a lot of my US friends ain't living there anymore since the new administration got in.

Peace.

BTW, interesting Poll on E-Budo:
http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10493&highlight=Wussies

[scotty1]

"I have lived, experienced it as well, that particular place was considered the most dangerous place outside an actual War Zone. "

Could you expand on this? Where was it? What were your experiences?

[red_fists]

Originally posted by scotty1
"I have lived, experienced it as well, that particular place was considered the most dangerous place outside an actual War Zone. "

Could you expand on this? Where was it? What were your experiences?

Easy, the Place was Johannesburg , South Africa between 1987~1997.

Experiences being mugged 3 times, House broken into twice, being shot at a few times.
Having to live with Home Security like a Prison and Alarm/Immobilizers on all my Bikes & Cars.

Not too mention a few limpet(sp.) mines placed by Supporters of a now Nobel Peace Price Holder close to where I worked.

Granted I enjoyed living there apart from the violence and insecurity.

Peace.

[scotty1]

Yeah man heard bad things about Jo'burg, not stopping at red lights etc.

[Radhnoti]

dnc101, this was beautifully phrased:

"Ultimately there are only two philosophies regarding the role of government. The higher view is that men are basically good and are capable of governing themselves- this is the view of our founding fathers. The other view is that men are basically evil and incompetent and must therefore be controlled- this is the most common viewpoint. Our Constitution (but not our present government) puts the responsibility for your life and your actions on you, the individual. "

In this you've said something I've always thought, but never been able to vocalize. Thank you.

Myosimka, the view of the Constitution I support is (in dnc's words) "the higher view". But, you already knew that, as I'd already pointed out the foolishness of the 18th (prohibition) right? The Constitution might be a bit vague, but there's a common thread running throughout (minus the part that was wisely corrected :p ) and that's the freedom of the individual U.S. citizens.

And I think my analogy is a perfectly acceptable one. Gun control groups want everyone to register their weapons, New York (last I heard) was wanting every martial arts instructor to have to become licensed. It's not just the FACTS that come under scrutiny in instances like this, it's the public perception and reactionary nature. Perception: Guns are dangerous. Answer: Ban them. Perception: Martial artists are dangerous. Answer: Ban them. But everyone knows you can't just up and BAN something in this country, you have to slowly build up to it. Demonize the opposition, chip away with laws of restriction so when you eventually DO get to a ban it's not seen as such a radical step.

Just curious red_fists, did you at any time in your travels carry a firearm? Thanks.

[illusionfist]

Quoting Beccaria is cool, but he's also the cat that thought biological and physical features could be SOLELY used to tell if somebody was, or could be, a criminal. He's definitely a criminology pioneer, but he is an indicator of how far we have come, haha. If we kept his view, 95 pecent of the populace would have been dubbed a criminal.

On the other hand, i totally agree with the quote from Jefferson. Although interpretation can be a tricky thing, and especially with the constitution. The right to bear arms can be interpreted in a lot of ways, which is why the Supreme Court has a helluva responsibility. One angle can be that the right to bear arms does not necessarily constitute firearms. Another angle could be the interpretation that the constitution is a living document thusly recognizing the need to adapt to the evolution of arms, therefore including firearms.

Here is a quote that one of my students is fond of, i thought i'd borrow it and just throw it out there for y'all-

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to
whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism
is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood,
just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have
reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the
mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing
the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused
with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of
their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know?
For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
-- Julius Caesar

[joedoe]

Originally posted by dnc101
Joe, I can't confirm that statistic, but it sounds plausable. Besides those who aren't well trained and practiced, even professionals can have problems. It is one thing to shoot at targets, and another to shoot at a live human being- especially if he is moving, hiding, and/or returning fire. Add to that inclement weather, low light conditions, or better yet several squad cars with all their lights flashing, and you have a recipe for a few missed shots.

Another interesting stat- most cops and criminals who are shot in confrontations where both are armed and facing each other are shot in the arm holding their weapon. This is because their eyes tend to focus on the weapon, and their own weapon follows their eyes. So you have two guys, each focused on and pointing at each others weapon, their palms sweaty, hands shaking, their brain screaming GUN!!!!!, their bladders probably emptying... and one of them pulls the triger. Guess where the other guy just got shot?

Then there is the FBI- they are famous for getting shot in their back sides. You see, after each course of fire on the range they used to have to stop and pick up brass. As martial artists we all know that how you train is how you fight- well, in the heat of battle it seems that a few of them have been known to bend down and pick up their brass before reloading. Sort of like the Yankee muskets found on many Civil War battlefields which had been loaded numerous times, but (fortunately for young Billy) never fired. To be honest, I can't really confirm the shoot the moon story. But it too sounds plausable, and the FBI is the butt of many jokes and tales with local law enforcement agencies, as well as some of the less savory characters I know. Just thought you might get a kick out of it.

Thanks for that dnc. :)

I guess in that case doesn't it make the argument of a gun for self defence kind of weak? I can understand that it can act as a deterrent, but it can also escalate a situation. Aside from all that, if two people draw a gun and start shooting, and a huge percentage of the shots are going to miss, it weakens the defence value of the gun doesn't it? If law enforcement officers who are well trained and spend a lot of time in practice (admittedly this is an assumption on my part) can have such problems, then how can the average person on the street hope to fare any better?

[red_fists]

Just curious red_fists, did you at any time in your travels carry a firearm? Thanks.
Yes, I owned multiple Firearms, aswell as going hunting with my Family(did Crossbow for Wild Boar as well).
So I am familiar with Guns and their usage.
For fun I still prefer "Quasar" & "Splat ball" though. :D

Guns can be very effective, I have seen People running away scared when Friends slapped Leather.

But in my and my friends Opinion they are overrated, glorified and in about 70% of all mugging, attacking situations useless, as you cannot draw and fire them quickly or effective enough.

Alos guns are distance weapon and loose their effectivenes quickly as the range gets closer.
Also how many people are good enough shots to really stop an attacker with 1 shot??

Seeya.

[dnc101]

You asked how, if given the high percentage of misses, can the average person fare better than the "professional"? The simple answer is to practice more. Remember too, this is not in every case- many firefights are settled with one or two rounds. Also, far more unpleasantries are settled without a shot being fired, though Red Fist is right in saying not to count on that being the case. In the cases where several shots are fired and several solid misses scored, one of the biggest reasons is that someone is panicked and in a hurry because he thinks he's about to get shot. If you don't have a gun, he might not think that. You, on the other hand, should try to place your shots well and save the sleezball the embarrasment of all those misses. You may even make him a celebrity as your friends all marvel at the little hole you placed right under his nose (not between the eyes, unless he was leaning forward). Better to have a gun and not need it than to find yourself facing someone with a gun (or other weapon) and not have it. And remember, we are all martial artists here, so to us the firearm is just another weapon in our "arsenal", not the only defense available to us.

[joedoe]

Fair enough. Thanks for your replies :)

[Radhnoti]

I'd like to thank EVERYONE for their replies. The signal to noise ratio on this thread has been pretty high. It's given me a bit to think about, helped me refine my views and get an idea about how others feel about this issue so close to my heart.
Thanks. :)

[scotty1]

Good discussion. It annoys me when people say there's no intelligent conversation on this board.

[Dark Knight]

"Alos guns are distance weapon and loose their effectivenes quickly as the range gets closer.
Also how many people are good enough shots to really stop an attacker with 1 shot?? "


The average shoot out last 2 rounds.

the distance is only a few feet.

[dnc101]

Let me set the tone for this reply; immagine that I just breathed a deep sigh of resignation. The problem is that I am a conservative, and therefore argue from a standpoint of logic and reason; you are a liberal, and argue from emotions and feelings, and try to call that logic. This is illustrated in your saying that my experiences (presumably in my mind) count for more than yours. I have no problem with your experiences, and you are welcome to your views. However, your interpretation of those experiences I find lacking in logic. It is sad the ten year old boy was shot for a loaf of bread. But in a society such as you describe, if guns weren't available he'd have been knifed, bludgeoned, or who knows... as you said, life means nothing to some people.

You upbraid me for quoting statistics after denouncing them. I did not quote any statistics, I'm merely saying to observe for yourself what is going on on the roadways right in front of you. You can see with your own eyes the kinds of idiots the government licenses to drive, and you can often witness the results. Government sanction is no guarantee of proficiency. This is why your analogy doesn't hold water.

You talk of my countrymen who left because the present administration got elected, and that is supposed to be evidence that conservatism is bad? I know these types- the same ones that ran peeing and squeeling when Reagan was elected. Overdramatic buffoons and cowards who worked themselves into a tizzy over an election. And you call me paranoid? That of course is the liberals favorite insult. My favorite reply is "Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!" As for my running scared, I stayed put through the last administration, which was liberalism in its finest flower. Now, by your logic, those who run are really heroes while those who stay are running (nowhere) scared. I'm perplexed... .

"Study does not equal skill" you say. True, study + practice = skill. I said I do both. You also say that because some people care 0% for my life, and because I study in the States, my skills will not transfer and I would get killed. It is hard to believe that you would base an argument on that premise on a martial arts forum, but there it is. So I'll answer it. I train here because I am here, and fighting and awareness skills do transfer- I pack them with my underware whenever I travel. I'm not saying I'm badder than those you speak of- I'm probably not. But, like having a gun, having a few other skills improves my chances dramatically.

You say that martial arts and awareness training give you a better chance also, and imply that guns are not necessary. I agree (even though you are contradicting yourself)- fighting and awareness skills are good. And there are times when firearms may be undesireable for a number of reasons. But this does not mean they are never desireable. Sometimes they are downright necessary, like when facing a bunch of your 0 percenters. By the way, I won't argue about whether or not J-berg is the worst, but we have our share of those lowlifes here. So do most places. That is a good reason to aquire all the skills and tools we've discussed here.

You finally get to the role of government, which you say is to act on behalf of its citizens and work in their interest. Then you describe that interest as licensing and controlling those citizens. You obviously subscribe to the philosophy that we are basically evil by nature, incompetent and in need of being controlled. I disagree, even though you seem to only think a government should impose a little control. Problem is that governments tend to aquire more power and exercise more control. True enough that it is up to the people to restrain their government. Unfortunately, history records that on many occasions the only option open to the people was armed rebellion.

Voting... you talk a lot about that. Let me leave you with a poem by Keats (if you dis me on this you'll hurt my feelings as, except for a couple of Limericks, this is the only poem I ever memorized).
A statesman is an easy man, he tells his lies by rote.
A journalist makes up his lies and grabs you by the throat.
So stay at home and drink your beer, and let the neighbors vote.

[red_fists]

Dnc101.

Lots of talk and not much said, consider becoming a Politician.
:D

Last Post on this Thread.

You might not like my views and my Country, but I can get a Gun at ANY time and keep it without any fear of the Goverment ever attempting to take it away from me.

You see controls if done properly work both ways, pity, that you Guys can't see that and keep pounding on your same old studid arguments.

I offered a different viewpoint as have others, but I get the feeling that you Guys know better and thus don't need to evaluate other situations to see if using different methods can actually improve matters.
Stay where you and I stay where I am, cause to be honest I wouldn't wanna live in the USA .
Yes, my Friends have left as they can find better work, higher pay & better living conditions outside of the USA.
Examples:
Automatic Medical Insurane and Pension.
A place where women an walk along at night and teens can take train/sub at 22:00 without anybody worrying about them.
I see cars in the Road with their engine running while somebody picks up some cigarettes in a store.

So I say, yeah, give me some controls and restrictions if those are the benefits.

Cheerio.

[dnc101]

Thanks for the compliment.

As you may have guessed, this is a topic which I think is extremely important. It is not just the Second Ammendment which is under attack, but our entire Constitution. And it is not being done by honest debate, but by deceipt and obfuscation, distortions..., outright lies. Our founding fathers were prolific writers who expostulated at length on their reasoning and intentions regarding the Constitution. Their letters have been published, so you can go to most any library and read them for yourself. You will find that there was some controversy then as well, but they had a clear understanding of the issues and terms they were debating. There is only one way the Second Ammendment can be honestly interpreted- it protects the private ownership of arms, especially firearms, by individuals. Any other interpretation either means the speaker is a liar or has been duped by the liars. Now, before someone says I'm attacking their freedom of speech, let me remind you that under the Constitution you can say what you want. You are however accountable for your statements, even if they expose you for a liar.

While we are on the subject, the First Ammendment has just been trashed. That the Campaign Finance Reform Bill could pass into law with a Republican House and President is beyond comprehension. This especially after President Bush said repeatedly it was a direct violation of our First Ammendment rights. That he signed it is an unconscionable act of betrayal and treason. By the way, the First Ammendment is about freedom of speech, particularly political speech, which this bill severely restricts.

Rad, you equated banning guns to banning martial arts, based on the perception that they are dangerous. You are right on the money! Most martial artists are not aware that there is a movement afoot to do just that. For now it is just restricting what you can learn and registering martial artists (sound familiar?). I used to have some info on this, but I don't know where I put it. Maybe someone here can point us in the right direction, list a website or give an address where we can learn more. How 'bout it, anyone?

Any way, I enjoy your posts Rad.

[JusticeZero]

>Automatic Medical Insurane and Pension.

..Like Canada, where the most grotesquely incompetent of doctors can nonetheless have a lifetime of work. I have heard one too many stories of people going to their subsidized socialized doctor with limbs bending in odd directions and swollen to the size of basketballs, colored unnaturally, only to be prescribed aspirin - in a capitalist system, that doctor should not expect to remain in his current line of work and yet expect to eat!

>A place where women an walk along at night and teens can take train/sub at 22:00 without anybody worrying about them.

Funny, i've seen plenty of well dressed young women and teens wandering the streets and mass transit at midnight here, and i'm in the U.S...

>I see cars in the Road with their engine running while somebody picks up some cigarettes in a store.

So do I. Your point is..?

[Dark Knight]

"Stay where you and I stay where I am, cause to be honest I wouldn't wanna live in the USA . "

Then dont try to force your values on us.

"Automatic Medical Insurane and Pension. "

I live in a country where we make our futures. We dont rely on a Government to take care of us, we have the oppertunity to become as great as we can, and the oppertunity to fail. Tke responsibiklity for your problems.

The medical field was also adressed above.

"A place where women an walk along at night and teens can take train/sub at 22:00 without anybody worrying about them. "

I live in a casino town, and we have teens out late. You have no idea what you are talking about

"I see cars in the Road with their engine running while somebody picks up some cigarettes in a store. "

Where I grew up I left the keys in the car overnight, if it was gone in the morning I new a relative needed to borrow it and will return it soon. Again you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to this country

We are not sheep in this country waiting for the government to tell us what is best for us. You have lived that life and accept it. Slavery was accepted because it worked, but free men must be free.

"Those that would sacrifice their freedom for safety will find they inherit neither."
-Ben Franklin, right wing extremist

[dnc101]

but I expected it. Usually when a liberal is faced with truth and honest reason he will make a few hasty accusations (I talk a lot and say nothing, our arguments are stupid, I don't like you or your country, etc.) and beat an even hastier retreat. He will, however, almost allways look back when he thinks no one is looking- so I am sure you will see this.

I don't dislike you, or your country- you only assume that because you are thinking purely from feelings and emotions, therefore you take everything too personally. I do find your arguments illogical, sorry if that offends you. But too long conservatives have taken a conciliatory tone to keep from offending liberals who drag their feelings arround on the floor, just waiting for someone to step on them. It is time we take a stand and confront the idiocy that is liberalism head on. Bushs' "New Tone" is just the same old cowardice and appeasement. If anyone thinks it works, consider that the liberal agenda has been further advanced in the first year of Bushs' presidency than in all eight years of the previous administration. That, sir, is why I stand firm in the face of your twisted logic and accusations.

[dnc101]

"Signal to noise ratio"- you have some backgroung in communications? Just curious.

If memory serves me, wasn't Kentucky one of the states that had legislative debates on regulating martial artists? I seem to remember reading a letter written by a particularly arrogant legislator from KY in which he stated that if we couldn't regulate ourselves, they'd do it for us. I can't remember his name, and it was a couple of years ago, so I'm not sure I have any of the details right. Have you heard anything about it?

I havn't heard anything recently. I'd like to think the issue is dead, but the control freaks never stay silent long- usually just long enough to let the dust settle and regroup.

Just having a paranoid moment- I'll be all right as soon as I've cuddled my gun.

[Liokault]

Dark Knight posted

"British law does not support the view that an Englishman's home is his castle. Norfolk farmer Tony Martin is serving five years in jail for shooting dead a teenage burglar in his home. "



He was convicted as the guys he shot were at the time he shot them running from his property and not presenting him with any threat at the time.

Its not unlike the soldier in N ireland who went down for murder for shooting a joy rider who tried to force his way though the soldiers road block.

The soldier shot into the car to stop the guy and to defend him self. He was convicted of murder after it was proved that the shot whice killed the joy rider (hate that term) had passed the soldier when the fatal shot was fired and so posed no threat.

[Gabriel]

Jesus hoppin froggin c h jebediah Christ
You guys are a bunch of nuts..:D

Seriously though. I hate guns. Does that make me unamerican by your standards? Should I pack my bags and head for Tibet? And no, just because one disagrees with some or even all of the constitution, that does not make them a traitor. Thats the beauty of this place. Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Thought. A guy can believe the sky is purple on sundays, or can be atheist, or can be christian, or can use a copy of the constitution as toilet paper as long as hes not harming anyone else. I find it ineresting that all of you point at the constitution and make it what you want it to mean, not unlike some TV evangelists with the bible. Just another viewpoint. Shoot me. :D

[Radhnoti]

Gabriel, I (personally) support you're right to do whatever you think...as long as you don't try to impose your point of view on anyone else. That's the problem I have with the anti-gun political movement.
Here's an true to life example of how a private citizen owning and using a gun can, literally, save lives.
"In a third attack in 28 hours, a Palestinian militant drove a bomb-laden car at high speed toward a Tel Aviv night club early Friday, but was shot and killed by a security guard. The assailant tried to blow up the Studio 49 club in Tel Aviv, where about 200 people were partying at about 1 a.m.

Security guard Eli Federman said he saw the car turn sharply and race toward the club. He pushed clubgoers inside and opened fire, hitting the attacker, who fell from the car, which burst into flames.

"Then I fired the rest of the bullets into his head," killing him, Federman said.

The car had been carrying pipe bombs.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, a militia linked to Arafat's Fatah movement, identified the driver as Amer Shkokani of the West Bank town of El Bireh."
-Source Fox News

[joedoe]

Sorry Rad, I don't see how that supports your POV. He was a security guard - they often carry firearms as providing protection is part of their job. If it had been one of the clubgoers who opened fire and killed the bomber then your POV would be supported, but it was a security guard.

[Radhnoti]

It does support my point of view, I think. A gun in the right place at the right time saved lives...maybe many.
Repeat after me...or don't, I'm in a silly mood.
Freedom to carry gun, good.
Government controlling me/you, bad.
Current optimum affordable machine of protection, good.
Being told you're/I'm too stupid and/or incompetant to own current optimum affodable machine of protection, bad.
Terrorist planning to blow up innocent civilians, bad.
Someone having firearm there and shooting him in the head, good.

I don't care if the guy was military, police, security, private investigator, taxi driver, indian chief or girl scout. He had a gun, he used it responsibly and well. It's wrong to deny others the same chance to save a life, their own...their family...or a strangers.
That's my (admittedly, in need of sleep) point of view.

[Shadow Dragon]

Government controlling me/you, bad.


Ahem, isn't the Goverment already controlling you now via laws, regulations, licences and so on?

There is NO truly free society anywhere in the World, we might like to think so but it ain't.

Yes, a lot of things are guaranteed in yours and many others nations Constitution(Free speech, etc), but those don't equal freedom.

Peace.

[Radhnoti]

You've not said anything I disagree with, Shadow Dragon. However, I do feel that the things guaranteed in our Constitution are COMPONENTS of freedom. I think all but the most basic "power" should be stripped from governments and given to citizens. Um...this is gettin' OT, for a close approximation of my views go to:
www.libertarian.org

;)

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
It does support my point of view, I think. A gun in the right place at the right time saved lives...maybe many.
Repeat after me...or don't, I'm in a silly mood.
Freedom to carry gun, good.
Government controlling me/you, bad.
Current optimum affordable machine of protection, good.
Being told you're/I'm too stupid and/or incompetant to own current optimum affodable machine of protection, bad.
Terrorist planning to blow up innocent civilians, bad.
Someone having firearm there and shooting him in the head, good.

I don't care if the guy was military, police, security, private investigator, taxi driver, indian chief or girl scout. He had a gun, he used it responsibly and well. It's wrong to deny others the same chance to save a life, their own...their family...or a strangers.
That's my (admittedly, in need of sleep) point of view.

But my point is that aside from a few cases (like Britain) the security forces (police, military, security guards) are allowed to carry firearms in the course of their job. The issue is the carrying of firearms by the general population.

So you see, your sleepy POV is not supported by that story as it was a member of a security outfit that was carrying the gun :).

[Radhnoti]

I can practically guarantee you that there are "civilians" in the U.S. with more or equal firearm training to what that guard had that saved the day. And you say "security outfit" like the guy is a part of some (para)military organization. He was a security guard at a dance club...which, I admit, may be different in Israel...but over here that's not something requiring intensive training so much as enough size to intimidate. Where I'm from only two words can raise to the elite rank of security guard and it just takes two to bring you crashing down. "You're hired." And, "You're fired." :) As I mentioned though, things may be WAY different in Israel.
My POV is that every responsible capable U.S. citizen should have their government acknowledge that they have a right to the ultimate in self protection. I think this guard was just a responsible (and prepared!) Israeli citizen...which would support my POV. :p :D
Why not add another layer of protection to our society by allowing responsible gun ownership?
Why not hold people accountable for the wrongs they do, instead of restricting them...just in case?
Why not treat responsible, capable adults as though they ARE responsible and capable...at least until they prove otherwise?
I've got more whys...but even I'm gettin' bored with 'em.
;)

[Royal Dragon]

"I can't think of *any* reason a law abiding citizen would need a fully automatic weapon. And I can't think of any reason we should be allowed to own one. "


Reply]
I can't think of any reason to NOT own one, or two or three or as many as I want.

Personally, If I can get my hands on a full auto M 16, I'm grabbing it. I was allway patrial to the mac 10's too.


"I'd rather the psychopath didn't have the gun in the first place."

Reply]
Makes sense to me, but how do you do THAT?? If you pass laws, then only the criminals will have the guns because they are not bound by laws.

Since we cannot take guns away from the bad guys, it only stands to reason that the good guys should be armed to the hilt. Now, where did I put that M-16 of mine???

"why not let these gangs deal with trained military troops?
im sure that our army and marines would love a chance to go after these gangs and make it safe for us citizens who want to lead a decent life without having to be terrorized by these "crips"and Bloods" you speak of"

Reply]
Oh yeah Riiiiight. Nice stance there Willow. Now, how is the Military going to know the Gang members responsible for killings and other violent and non violent crimes from the average Joe citizen?? or even the independant crook not connected to a gang?

Do you want the Marines storming YOUR hose, teariiing it up nad destroying all you worked for because they didn't know the differance between you and some thug from the other side of town? Gangs need to ba attacked one meber at atime based on thier individual crimes. They cannot be attacked a a group becuae it is too hard to prove with definity which individuals are even part of a specific group or not.

"DS, psychopaths and criminals are not going to feel restrained by the law. And regarding your hypothetical to BlackJack...suppose the wife pulls a concealed firearm out and saves her husband? The "young punk" wouldn't care if the gun he used were illegal for him to carry, but the law abiding couple in the car MIGHT. Gun restrictions would limit THEIR ability to defend themselves not the assailant."

Reply]
Well said. I think the ability for the average man to defend himself is paramount. As I mentioned before, since it is IMPOSSIBLE to disarm the criminals, then the good guys NEED to be armed to the hilt. I'm not going to kill innocent people with my M-16 (With full auto conversion ;) ), but the bad guy who already has one and will keep one illegally no matter what, already has killed innocent people with it.

It seems to me, that "I" should have what "I" want as "I'M" not hurting anyone with it, and the bad guy should NOT have the weapon. I also think they should not be working out, lifting wieghts and trainng to be super criminas in jail either. Vietnam POW camps is where they all belong, so when thier sentence is up they are so weak and sickly form malnutrition and dehydration they will not have the strenght to commit more crimes or hurt more people, but THAT'S another issue all together......................or is it?

[Dark Knight]

"I can practically guarantee you that there are "civilians" in the U.S. with more or equal firearm training to what that guard had that saved the day. "

I compete in the IDPA, my training is well above a typical security, guard, and there are thousands doing the same.


"Why not hold people accountable for the wrongs they do, "

In this country you are not held accountable for your actions.

"Why not treat responsible, capable adults as though they ARE responsible and capable...at least until they prove otherwise? "

The government knows whats best for you. All guns should be illegal except for Rosies child's bodyguard so he can go on school grounds with it, Millin mom march founders so they can shoot anyone they want and any others who feel the laws are for your protection, but not for them.