Royal Dragon Gun Bann question

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I was wondering, if banning guns, and various gun controll laws are being done to stop crime in our streets (and elsewhere), why not take the next step and just make Crime illegal? Wouldn't that be more helpful than banning guns alone?

[Lucas]

I was wondering, if banning guns, and various gun controll laws are being done to stop crime in our streets (and elsewhere), why not take the next step and just make Crime illegal? Wouldn't that be more helpful than banning guns alone?

lol


these are not the words you are looking for.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I was wondering, if banning guns, and various gun controll laws are being done to stop crime in our streets (and elsewhere), why not take the next step and just make Crime illegal? Wouldn't that be more helpful than banning guns alone?

There are far too many guns in America. They're literally all over the place, in the hands of anyone who wants them, illegal or not. They don't disappear or get recycled; they just get redistributed to those who "have need" of guns--i.e. those who intend to use them. Who supports gun rights? The Right. Who funds gun rights activists? The Right. Who gets monetary support from gun manufacturers? The Right. Who wants to stop crime? The Right.

They're clueless redneck *******s. Not that the left is much better these days. Politicians will take money from anyone, support from any lobbyist. Corporations run our country. We're pawns of an aristocracy, and some warped minds buy into these illusions and but into guns and churches, and we slaughter each other at alarming rates.

You can call illegal immigration illegal, but unless you're willing to implement policies that keep illegal immigrants out, or deport them when they're caught, it'll never reduce the influx of illegal immigrants.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

That is why I think instead of banning guns, we just make illegal activities illegal.

I say that baning guns is thinking too small to solve the problem. We need to Ban illegal activities!!

[Shaolin Wookie]

That is why I think instead of banning guns, we just make illegal activities illegal.

I say that baning guns is thinking too small to solve the problem. We need to Ban illegal activities!!

Hmmm...I thought that the illegal possession of guns was illegal, and constituted an illegal activity. You have to ban guns in order to enforce the law. Let's say three cops have a criminal penned up in a warehouse, and run in with standard issue pistols and the criminal has an assault rifle with grenade launcher attachment--Halo style. What do you think the odds are that all three cops are going to make it back out, alive, or fully intact?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Hmmm...I thought that the illegal possession of guns was illegal, and constituted an illegal activity. You have to ban guns in order to enforce the law. Let's say three cops have a criminal penned up in a warehouse, and run in with standard issue pistols and the criminal has an assault rifle with grenade launcher attachment--Halo style. What do you think the odds are that all three cops are going to make it back out, alive, or fully intact?

Reply]
If you ban criminals and illegal activities, you won't have this scenario in the first place! The cops would all be at Dunk'n Doughnuts relaxing!

You can ban guns all you want, but untill we ban the actual CRIMES that are being commited, we will never get rid of crime and our streets will never be safe!

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

You have to ban guns in order to enforce the law

Reply]
No you don't, guns are just a tool of crime, not crime itself. If you banned all the guns, criminals would still commit crimes with other tools. You have to ban crime itself, completely all together. Only then there won't be anymore crime.

[Scott R. Brown]

In short,

gun crimes are higher in Washington D.C. where guns are banned, while gun crimes are lower in Texas which has more constitutional own and carry laws!

[Shaolin Wookie]

Hmmm...I thought that the illegal possession of guns was illegal, and constituted an illegal activity. You have to ban guns in order to enforce the law. Let's say three cops have a criminal penned up in a warehouse, and run in with standard issue pistols and the criminal has an assault rifle with grenade launcher attachment--Halo style. What do you think the odds are that all three cops are going to make it back out, alive, or fully intact?

Reply]
If you ban criminals and illegal activities, you won't have this scenario in the first place! The cops would all be at Dunk'n Doughnuts relaxing!

You can ban guns all you want, but untill we ban the actual CRIMES that are being commited, we will never get rid of crime and our streets will never be safe!

You're a real rube.

[Shaolin Wookie]

You have to ban guns in order to enforce the law

Reply]
No you don't, guns are just a tool of crime, not crime itself. If you banned all the guns, criminals would still commit crimes with other tools. You have to ban crime itself, completely all together. Only then there won't be anymore crime.

Actually, studies have shown that if we put a ban on procreation, we could see the end of crime altogether in something like 90-100 years' time...tops.

[Shaolin Wookie]

In short,

gun crimes are higher in Washington D.C. where guns are banned, while gun crimes are lower in Texas which has more constitutional own and carry laws!

Consider the socioeconomic environment, local history, population density.....nope, let's just count the guns and make a blanket statement.

"Men are smarter than women. That's not just me speaking. It's science."

[Scott R. Brown]

I have provided statistical evidence on the other thread and you decline to consider it as well. You hold your opinion based upon your emotions and not based upon any empirical evidence.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I have provided statistical evidence on the other thread and you decline to consider it as well. You hold your opinion based upon your emotions and not based upon any empirical evidence.

You have provided statistical evidence on the other thread, and I consider it BS as it's a fact and figure thrown out by the NRA. It seems rational to you to consider these figures as "facts". Reason tells me that in a politicized issue like this, with such an interested party like the NRA, their facts and figures will match to whichever opnion they choose.

Reason tells me that in the many statistics I've seen here at my job, your facts and figures are worth about, I don't know.....1, maybe 2 ****s?

[golden arhat]

In short,

gun crimes are higher in Washington D.C. where guns are banned, while gun crimes are lower in Texas which has more constitutional own and carry laws!

and crime is far lower in the uk where guns are banned than in all of your country
where they arent


so ?

[Scott R. Brown]

and crime is far lower in the uk where guns are banned than in all of your country
where they arent


so ?

So This!

The following is an analysis of this paper:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

"We were able to put together figures for nine European nations that had more than 15,000 firearms owned per 100,000 households, and we also had nine European nations that had less than 5,000 firearms owned per 100,000 households," Kates said.

"What we found was that the first group, with triple the rate of gun ownership, had one-third the homicide rate of the second group."

On the other hand, in Russia--where firearms had been under police-state control for decades--Kates and Mauser found an exceedingly violent society.

Although the Soviet communist regime tried to hide the problem from the rest of the world, the collapse of the Soviet Union exposed the truth: Despite those iron-fisted government controls on firearm ownership--almost no Russian civilians owned firearms--Russia had, and continues to have, by far the highest murder rate in the developed world.

Kates and Mauser write: "In the 1960s and early ’70s, the gunless Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun-ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Between 1998-2004 … Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates."

We see much the same thing in Luxembourg, where handguns are completely banned and firearm ownership of any kind is rare. Even though its (lawful) citizens are effectively disarmed, in 2002 Luxembourg had a murder rate nine times higher than in neighboring Germany--where firearms are legal and widely owned.

"Individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use."

Kates and Mauser point to comparison after comparison that shows no link between gun availability and suicide rates. For example, Spain has 12 times the gun-ownership rate of Poland, yet Poland’s suicide rate is more than double that of Spain. Greece has triple the gun-ownership rate of the Czech Republic--and admittedly more gun-related suicide--yet the overall Czech suicide rate is nearly triple that of Greece. Similarly, Finland has over 14 times the gun-ownership rate of its southern neighbor Estonia, yet Estonia nonetheless has a much higher suicide rate than Finland.

In the absence of firearms, suicidal people simply substitute other means. As evidence, Kates and Mauser point to two powerful examples.

In the 1980s, suicide among teenagers and young adults spiked in the U.S., and many blamed firearm availability for the increase. What they failed to mention was that suicide among young adults was rising throughout the developed world--regardless of gun availability--and in many places was rising far faster than in the U.S.

Among English youth, for example, suicide increased 10 times as fast as among American youth, yet the preferred method of suicide there was car exhaust asphyxiation.

Another tragic illustration involves suicide among young Indian women living on the island of Fiji. When these women marry, often to non-Indian men, they commonly go to live with their husbands’ extended families in less-than-friendly, if not openly antagonistic, circumstances. Perhaps as a result, they have a suicide rate many times higher than that of non-Indian Fijian women.

Guns are unavailable to these women, Kates and Mauser report, but that evidently makes no difference: Many still commit suicide--about 75 percent of them through hanging, and nearly all the rest by poisoning themselves with the herbicide Paraquat.

Giving Guns Magical Powers and Malevolence Toward Man

Another favorite fantasy of the gun haters is that firearms have some mystical power to transform otherwise lawful, peaceable people into murderers and maniacs.

To hear the gun-ban lobby tell the tale, it’s as if firearms were some sort of evil magic charm just waiting for humans to let down their guard so that they, the firearms, could turn the tables on us once and for all.

Firearms, they tell us, will turn family disagreements into shooting wars.
A gun kept in a closet as a defense against intruders, they say, will instead be used against a spouse in a moment of rage.

According to the Violence Policy Center, "the majority of homicide[s] [occur] ... not as a result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other."

But as Kates and Mauser point out in their study, "These comments … contradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become ‘criminological axioms.’ … [N]either a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murderers are ordinary ‘law-abiding citizens.’ Rather, almost all murderers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse and other dangerous behaviors."

What’s more, as Kates and Mauser note, a major national, yearlong study on gun murders in U.S. homes between acquaintances found that the most common situation was one in which the victim and the perpetrator "knew one another because of prior illegal transactions."

Read between the lines and you’ll realize what that refers to: Drug pushers murdered by rivals or robbers. Gang members murdered by fellow gang members. Women murdered by stalkers or domestic abusers.

In any of these cases, as Kates and Mauser explain, the perpetrators are "all individuals for whom federal and state laws already prohibit gun possession."

Do Guns Reduce Crime? Or Does Crime Reduce Guns?

Although their data would support such a claim, Kates and Mauser don’t argue in their paper that firearm ownership is the cause of low crime rates in many European nations.

As they write in their paper, "It would be simplistic to assume that at all times and in all places widespread gun ownership depresses violence by deterring many criminals into nonconfrontation crime, [although] there is evidence that it does so in the United States …"

Instead, they maintain, with refreshing candor, that some European countries simply have low crime rates, and because of that, those countries never imposed anti-gun laws. So gun ownership is high, and crime is low--it’s just not necessarily low as a result.

As an illustration, Kates cites Norway: "The reason Norwegians have guns is for hunting. They don’t keep them for self-defense and they don’t need them--they have a low-crime country."

On the other hand, some European nations experiencing high levels of crime subsequently passed anti-gun laws--but those laws failed to have any effect on crime.

"The people you need to control are not going to obey the gun control laws," Kates explained. "And the people you don’t need to control, those are the ones who obey. So what you get is, you get either nothing, or you get worse results, with gun control."

In the final analysis, this paper places the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the proponents of anti-gun laws.

For, although higher rates of gun ownership may not necessarily reduce crime in all societies, in no case can it be demonstrated that higher gun ownership rates cause higher crime.

The relationship between firearms and crime may be one of correlation more than causation, but the correlation is a good one: More guns may not always dictate less crime. . . but more guns definitely go hand-in-hand with less crime.
And the advocates of gun bans bear the burden of proving otherwise before imposing more onerous laws.

As Kates and Mauser conclude in their study:

"Whether gun availability is viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns equal less murder and other violent crime.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

There you go, Ban CRIME, not guns!!


In fact it seems guns HELP in the banning of crime, so they should be encouraged!!

[xcakid]

There are far too many guns in America. They're literally all over the place, in the hands of anyone who wants them, illegal or not. They don't disappear or get recycled; they just get redistributed to those who "have need" of guns--i.e. those who intend to use them. Who supports gun rights? The Right. Who funds gun rights activists? The Right. Who gets monetary support from gun manufacturers? The Right. Who wants to stop crime? The Right.

They're clueless redneck *******s. Not that the left is much better these days. Politicians will take money from anyone, support from any lobbyist. Corporations run our country. We're pawns of an aristocracy, and some warped minds buy into these illusions and but into guns and churches, and we slaughter each other at alarming rates.

You can call illegal immigration illegal, but unless you're willing to implement policies that keep illegal immigrants out, or deport them when they're caught, it'll never reduce the influx of illegal immigrants.

:D Yes they are all over the place in the US. Why I just picked up an UZI lying on the street this morning. Unfired and still New In Box. Oh what a country!!!


"Clueless Redneck" I see you buy into the media's propaganda. :D


Let me clue you in on something. Up until 3yrs ago I competed in various shooting competitions in CA, TX and AZ. I would say a good 30-40% of the competitors are minorities including myself (Filipino). A good number of them are professional earning I would assume $50K and above. I have met Doctors, Dentist, Lawyers, etc. Shooting is a very expensive hobby. In one competition, you could fire off 500+rds. Totaling about $$200. That not including the gun used and various upgrades made to it to make more accurate. A lot of long range competition shooter uses rifles that are in the $1500 range.

So here's my profile: Filipino raised in the US. Consider myself a Moderate Republican. Grew with firearms in the house. Father was an avid hunter. So is my brother. I am a gun collector therefore I own "a few" firearms. The first, I bought at age 18 and still have it to this day. Prior military, now working in the financial service industry. Income would be considered upper middle class. Concealed Handgun Licensee. NRA Life member and GOA member. Never once have I used my firearm to harm another human being. Never once Have I drawn my firearm and pointed it at someone in anger, that's my last resort. Martial Arts is my first. I am your typical gun owner based on my experience. Yet the media will profile me as a toothless redneck from the backwood of Kentucky. I also have friends that are avid gun collectors. One is black, 2 Mexicans, and one Vietnamese.

Violence can be attributed to the mindset of the person. Not tools. If that's the case, then fat people can blame their spoons and forks for being overweight. Violent crimes can also be commited other ways. Most serial killer kill by other means other than a firearm. Child molesters do far more irrepairable harm throughout time than firearms would. Without firearms violence will still occur, deaths will still happen.

It is humans nature that makes us prone to violence some personalities more so than others.

We have far too many gun laws in the books already. The problem is they are not being enforced. Politicians just keeps putting more on the books as a feel good measure and to get votes. The media helps them by distorting the facts and sensasionalizing tragedies. They never report the good things that come of it. Here in TX there have been reports of CHL holders saving lives. Yet they are not reported nationally, only in local papers. However, you have one school or mall shooting by a deranged individual and its on CNN before the cops even get there.

[Chosen-frozen]

Consider the socioeconomic environment, local history, population density.....nope, let's just count the guns and make a blanket statement.

"Men are smarter than women. That's not just me speaking. It's science."

Okay, instead of comparing 2 different places with different circumstances, let`s look at a case where the environment remained the same and the only change was the gun laws. Years ago the city of Kenesaw Georgia passed a law stating that all homeowners in the city limits had to have a firearm. The rate of all violent crimes fell to almost zero. Crimminals are like any other preditor....they look for the easiest available prey. Like people in a so-called gun free zone.

When Florida enacted concealed carry laws violent crime dropped, except for attacks on the one group the crimminal knew would not be armed; foreign tourists. When the media interviewed juvenal gangs in lock up to see why they were attacking all of these European tourists they assumed there was some prejudice involved. It turns out it was nothing but practicality. The gang members said that the tourists were carrying cash and cameras and had just come through security so they were unarmed. Most of the gang members had gone so far as to memorized flight schedules from Europe so they knew they would be carjacking unarmed tourists and not Florida residents who might be armed.

That`s why so many of the big shooting rampages that make the news are in schools and Universities. When th Columbine shooting occured the first thing one of my friends in Isreal said was "Where were the (Armed) guards?" because every school there has them. On field trips most of the teachers are also armed.

And just for your information, according to the FBI the largest single group of gun owners in the US isn`t rednecks, it`s senior citizens, especially women. Imagine that, people who realize that they aren`t a physical match for a younger aggresive attacker are actually arming themselves rather than saying "Oh well...". What`s the world coming to?

[Drake]

I think xcakid nailed this one. Guns do not commit crimes. Guns do not murder people. People with criminal and murderous intent do this.

Crime was terrible before guns were even invented.

Finally... robbing a population of its ability to defend itself is the first step towards tyranny. That is a fundamental tenet of the United States of America.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Crime was terrible before guns were even invented.

Reply]
Exactly!! That is why crime should be banned and made illegal!!

[Shaolin Wookie]

"Clueless Redneck" I see you buy into the media's propaganda. :D

Hmm....let's see:

The Right:

GW (Texas oil-tycoon, enterpreneur and failure, Worst President in History, Evangelical)
Huckabee (Evangelical self-proclaimed redneck who wants to redraft the Constitution to bring it into accord with the Bible)
Romney (Moron, Mormon [not that those two are in any way different])

With clueless hicks like these, I don't need any help from the media's propaganda.

As for the rest: no problem here with hunting, military, etc. But why does a civilian need an Uzi? You might be a responsible gun owner and operator. Unfortunately, many people are not responsible citizens, do not take care of their guns, see no reason why they shouldn't use them for illegal purposes, and then use them for illegal purposes.

I'm not an exception is the rule kind of guy, except where they touch on matters of life and death. Sorry, the exception has to become the rule.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Crime was terrible before guns were even invented.

Reply]
Exactly!! That is why crime should be banned and made illegal!!

Before guns were invented, there wasn't a central government with a system of checks and balances, nor public law enforcement (law enforcement was akin to the mafia, which served the guy with the most money). I don't think people went around hacking one another up with swords in record numbers. If they wanted to do that, all they had to do was petition the local ecclesastical magistrate, accuse some Jews or "witchy" women, and join a Crusade. Can't judge 20th/21st Century society and fifteenth century societies where duels to the death were legal.

Crime was terrible, but only for the fact it wasn't illegal.

Oh my God.....RD IS RIGHT!!!!!

[golden arhat]

do you know what i think would be good,

i think it would be a good idea if for all civillian firearms not intended for sport use
and personal defence use to send off a signal when ever they are discharged to the local police acting as a homing beacon ,that way under certain circumstances upstanding civillians could practise shooting at ranges etc
and all other shootings would be followed up by the police immediatley weither in self defence or for other use

that way using guns as a means to commit crime would simply become far too dangerous for criminals to do, and civilians who fire at say the guy thats breaking into their home will retain the advantage in home defence
efectivley taking guns out of the wrong hands

thoughts ?

[Shaolin Wookie]

Or, we outlaw all conventional ordinance and small firearms, and legalize shoulder-mounted bazookas. Do you know how hard it would be to hold someone up with a bazooka? You couldn't. If you fire, it'll blow you up, too. Plus, even if you took precautions and kept a perimeter, and then shouted your demands through a bullhorn to your victim, who's standing 50-100 yards away, someone would hear and call the police. Besides, how are you going to carry around your bazooka, undercover, without alerting anyone on the street?

It would negate drive-by shootings. The backblast would kill your homies in the backseat, or cost you such a ****load in car windows and upholstery that you'd abandon your criminal endeavors post-haste.

It's the best of both worlds. And come one, you pro-gunners here....you know this is what you wanted all along. You just wanted to see what would happen if you hit a doe-eyed deer with an explosive round.:D

[Shaolin Wookie]

Years ago the city of Kenesaw Georgia passed a law stating that all homeowners in the city limits had to have a firearm. The rate of all violent crimes fell to almost zero. Crimminals are like any other preditor....they look for the easiest available prey. Like people in a so-called gun free zone.

I lived in Kennesaw for 10 years, and almost nobody in my neighborhood owned a gun. It's not a law, even though some people claim it is. Nobody enforces it. Nobody controls it. Nobody monitors it. There is no "Gun Law". It was just an ordinance that probably got through some committee in reaction to neighboring county gun control measures and was enacted in a reactionary manner, in typical redneck fashion, and won on the basis of one vote (the only voter): a certain WildMan. If you've been to Kennesaw, you know the guy. Yeah, he's the one who had a banner this morning over his store window which read: "Happy James Earl Ray Day!":( (****ing rednecks....) [Also**: take note....based on statistics sheets, this miraculous "Gun Law", which isn't a Law, will always take credit for the drop in crime, even though Nobody takes it seriously, and most people have never even heard of it****]
And it wasn't the infamous "Gun Law" that dropped the crime.

We also outlawed inbreeding.

[Shaolin Wookie]

That, and there's a Shaolin-Do school right on the border of Kennesaw/Marietta. Master Reid opened it up about 10 years ago. That's when the crime started dropping, right?

Coincidence?

I think not.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

do you know what i think would be good,

i think it would be a good idea if for all civillian firearms not intended for sport use
and personal defence use to send off a signal when ever they are discharged to the local police acting as a homing beacon ,that way under certain circumstances upstanding civillians could practise shooting at ranges etc
and all other shootings would be followed up by the police immediatley weither in self defence or for other use

that way using guns as a means to commit crime would simply become far too dangerous for criminals to do, and civilians who fire at say the guy thats breaking into their home will retain the advantage in home defence
efectivley taking guns out of the wrong hands

thoughts ?

Reply]
Way too complicated. It would never work. You be better off outlawing the criminals.

If you insist on going high tech like that, then micor chip the criminals themselves, and then when they commit crimes the cops would get an alert to go arrest them.

This of course would only work if Crime was illegal, so we are still back to forgetting about guns, and getting to the heart of the matter by making Crime itself illegal.

[Shaolin Wookie]

What if we scrapped Geneva conventions and Human rights and starting cloning hypertrichosis-humans, or genetically altering US Americans (LOL) to give them hypertrichosis, and then teach them kung fu.

Can you imagine a society filled with karate-chopping wookies? Crime would stop immediately. You don't need to outlaw crime when you've got a civilian wookie militia.

Plus, they'd know a crime was going to happen before it unfolded, and they'd throw their wookie-knives into the hearts of all would-be criminals.

Or, we start blending human DNA with that of a chimpanzee. We'd get dumber and hairer, I know. But we'd also get the ability to rip the limbs off of any regular criminal's body.

"Give me your money, punk! What? What's this? It's an ape with an ATM card?"

"Ooga booga. Chit! Chit!"

"Oh my god! The blood! Give me back my arm!"

"Waka! Waka! Wazaaa!"

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Well, that is an interesting take on things.

[xcakid]

I guess the disconect here is that people do not understand that when you ban guns, you give criminal the upper hand cause they are the only ones that would have them.

You are not minimizing crime or deaths by banning guns. You are only transferring them to other means.

Look, you don't ban cars cause of all the drunk driving fatalities do you? You ban the person not the tool he used(car). Automobiles cause more deaths in the US than firearms. They are also the main cause of our troubles such as, pollution and dependance on oil. Where is the movement to ban cars, ShaolinWookie? I believe they are far worse than firearms. And you if you tell me they are necessity, then I tell you guns are a necessity. Do you know how long it take for a squad car to respond and arrive at a crime? Anywhere from 3-5mins. That's if you can call them as you are being murdered, beaten or raped. Law enforcement is just that, enforcement. Not prevention of crime. Deterrent maybe, but once the deterrent is not in the area crime happens. LE is not your bodyguard. Some guy making $32K a year may or may not have your best interest in mind. Only ones person will have their best interest in mind and should be responsible for protecting ones self, family and property.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I guess the disconect here is that people do not understand that when you ban guns, you give criminal the upper hand cause they are the only ones that would have them.

You are not minimizing crime or deaths by banning guns. You are only transferring them to other means.

Look, you don't ban cars cause of all the drunk driving fatalities do you? You ban the person not the tool he used(car). Automobiles cause more deaths in the US than firearms. They are also the main cause of our troubles such as, pollution and dependance on oil. Where is the movement to ban cars, ShaolinWookie? I believe they are far worse than firearms. And you if you tell me they are necessity, then I tell you guns are a necessity. Do you know how long it take for a squad car to respond and arrive at a crime? Anywhere from 3-5mins. That's if you can call them as you are being murdered, beaten or raped.

Okay...then I propose a negotiation. We don't ban guns. We just ban bullets. As a substitute, we'll engineer a paintball round for each and every make and model. It'll sting like hell if you get hit in the neck, but we're all safer, and you get to keep your guns.

BTW...why the **** would you ban the car, when you could just ban alcohol? You only ban the car because of global warming. You're getting our liberal agendas mixed up.

I'm all for the banning of automobiles. It would force the restructuring of American cities, allow us to be employed near to home, force corporations to hire locally, and would keep valualbe jobs out of the hands of illegals. Plus, we'd all be able to see more than a mile in the clear afternoon.

Besides. That statistic is misleading. More people die in automobile crashes than from firearms, except that the people who die in automobile crashes are all carrying a gun in the glove compartment. It's the guns, man. It's the guns.

[xcakid]

BTW...why the **** would you ban the car, when you could just ban alcohol? You only ban the car because of global warming. You're getting our liberal agendas mixed up.

Yeah we all know, that worked out great the last time.

Would be the same with guns. It would become a large criminal enterprise.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Yeah we all know, that worked out great the last time.

Would be the same with guns. It would become a large criminal enterprise.

Then let's ban porn, alcohol, and guns. All other concerns would fall by the wayside if we banned porn. What, you're going to complain about your gun rights when the government is keeping you from your porn stash? Yeah, right!

And when you get depressed because of the porn shortage, you'll go looking for a stiff drink, only you can't get one. You'll get so depressed, you'll go looking for your gun and can't find one. Then you'll be so depressed, you'll buy into Big Brother's machine and forget about crime. You'll just dream of porn, and that'll be it until you die.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Would be the same with guns. It would become a large criminal enterprise.

Reply]
This is why CRIME should be illegal. It's the simplest and most practical way to solve the problem.

[Shaolin Wookie]

What if we banned the criminals? Then there wouldn't be any crime.

I think that cuts it better than your solution.

[xcakid]

Then let's ban porn, alcohol, and guns. All other concerns would fall by the wayside if we banned porn. What, you're going to complain about your gun rights when the government is keeping you from your porn stash? Yeah, right!

And when you get depressed because of the porn shortage, you'll go looking for a stiff drink, only you can't get one. You'll get so depressed, you'll go looking for your gun and can't find one. Then you'll be so depressed, you'll buy into Big Brother's machine and forget about crime. You'll just dream of porn, and that'll be it until you die.

I can make my own porn. :D Ain't no thang.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I can make my own porn. :D Ain't no thang.

Not if we ban it. I'm revoking your women priveleges.

[Drake]

Before guns were invented, there wasn't a central government with a system of checks and balances, nor public law enforcement (law enforcement was akin to the mafia, which served the guy with the most money).


Is that what they're teaching in school these days? I'm actually flabbergasted by the stupidity and horrendously blatant ignorance of this. You are now on ignore. You are the first. Ever.

To hell with banning guns... they need to fix the education system!!

[Shaolin Wookie]

Is that what they're teaching in school these days? I'm actually flabbergasted by the stupidity and horrendously blatant ignorance of this. You are now on ignore. You are the first. Ever.

To hell with banning guns... they need to fix the education system!!

Describe for me one government before the advent of guns that you would say had a sound police force (besides the Inquisition:p), rule of law, and a system of checks and balances that kept a king, emperor, or parliament from enforcing the will of " the Leviathan" rather than the laws of "State".

All law enforcement was tied to the ruler, but there wasn't an agency to place a check on the law enforcers. It was rule by violence and authority, and not rule of law.

You lose. Guns were "invented" somewhere around the 1500's, with various primitive incarnations dating from the 1300's on (Roger Bacon, if I recall correctly).

Yes, countries were very organized in the 1400's, with strong central governments.:rolleyes: Don't be such an ignorant twat.;) Read your history, chump.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Would be the same with guns. It would become a large criminal enterprise.

Reply]
This is why CRIME should be illegal. It's the simplest and most practical way to solve the problem.

Which crimes are legal ?

[xcakid]

Which crimes are legal ?

The ones OJ Simpson committed or William Shatner or that guy that starred in Baretta.
Drunk Driving if done by a politician or celebrity.
Violating the Constitution if done by a politician.
Hindering prosecution if done by a CEO of large company.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The ones OJ Simpson committed or William Shatner or that guy that starred in Baretta.
Drunk Driving if done by a politician or celebrity.
Violating the Constitution if done by a politician.
Hindering prosecution if done by a CEO of large company.

LOL !
Ok then.
I never realized that the term "illegal" was open to interpretation.
We learning something new everyday.

What did good ol Capt Kirk do ?

[Shaolin Wookie]

Went where no man has gone before, and got hit with a trespassing charge.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Went where no man has gone before, and got hit with a trespassing charge.

LOL !!
That's sounds so full of innuendos !

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Which crimes are legal ?

Reply]
Apparently all of them...why else would we be trying to make guns illegal?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Which crimes are legal ?

Reply]
Apparently all of them...why else would we be trying to make guns illegal?

Some things should be banned, as they tempt mortal man into sinful thoughts !!
:D

[Shaolin Wookie]

I just gave that a one gun salute.

[xcakid]

Ban guns and the killings of inocent continues.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article670772.ece

Just proves my point. It only transfer the means of killing to another tool. Now I belive Britain is looking to ban knives and swords. Something like this will happen.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080111/NEWS/80111019

Then they will ban sharp objects. Then fist fighting. Funny thing is there are no guns in prison yet people still die needlessly. Why?? Cause its the person that is the cause not the tool itself.

Pretty soon we will lose our ranking in the food chain. Cause after PETA, tree huggers and all other pacifist groups win their ways, we will all just be wussified scaredy cats.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Ban guns and the killings of inocent continues.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article670772.ece

Just proves my point. It only transfer the means of killing to another tool. Now I belive Britain is looking to ban knives and swords. Something like this will happen.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080111/NEWS/80111019

Then they will ban sharp objects. Then fist fighting. Funny thing is there are no guns in prison yet people still die needlessly. Why?? Cause its the person that is the cause not the tool itself.

Pretty soon we will lose our ranking in the food chain. Cause after PETA, tree huggers and all other pacifist groups win their ways, we will all just be wussified scaredy cats.

Just remember. They banned nunchaku first. Nothing compares to a deadly pair of chucks in the right hands.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Just remember. They banned nunchaku first. Nothing compares to a deadly pair of chucks in the right hands.

You have obviously never been attacked by gerbils.

Just ask Richard Gere and a few others.:D