|
Stories
| Home | About | Topics | Rejects | Abortions |
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained.
You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email
will not be read. Please read this
page if you have questions.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained.
You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email
will not be read. Please read this
page if you have questions. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
 |
Guns are inanimate objects. (3.66 / 3) (#2) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 04:41:33 AM PST |
|
|
|
They do not possess a functioning mind, nor a Christian soul, they cannot have morals. Therefore guns are neither good nor bad.
Being shot in the head by a drugged-up burglar with a gun is bad. Shooting a blustering homeowner who thinks his rifle makes him 'safe' in the head is good. Guns themselves are amoral. adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
True, perhaps "gun ownership" would be a (5.00 / 1) (#3) |
|
by Adam Rightmann on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 05:35:54 AM PST |
|
|
|
poll option. A. Rightmann |
|
Wha?!?! (none / 0) (#10) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 16th, 2002 at 09:12:11 PM PST |
|
|
|
Shooting a blustering homeowner who thinks his rifle makes him 'safe' in the head is good.
So you think it is good to shoot someone in the head because they believe guns give him safety?!?!! umm...guns do provide safety. If a robber breaks into my house, I shoot him. If I didn't have a gun, I get shot, my wife gets raped then shot, and my stuff gets stolen. Yes, for that at many other reasons, I LOVE GUNS! |
|
In answer to your question: (4.00 / 1) (#14) |
|
by because it isnt on Sat Aug 17th, 2002 at 04:34:38 PM PST |
|
|
|
So you think it is good to shoot someone in the head because they believe guns give him safety?!?!!
Yes. There's one less idiot in the world, and there's another gun in the hands of its rightful owners, i.e. criminals. adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
to you gun owners = criminals? (none / 0) (#18) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 10:26:04 AM PST |
|
|
|
"There's one less idiot in the world, and there's another gun in the hands of its rightful owners, i.e. criminals."
that is the most biased statemetn ive ever seen. every year several million people are saved by guns. about 2.5 million to be precise. every year thousand opon thousands of hunters flock to the nearby forests geared up in camo to hunt dear, elk, turkey, pheasant, bear, and many other animals. are these people criminals too for wanting to put dinner on the table? if so, then by the same reasoning fisherman are criminals too, because they take and kill fish.... and every year hundred osf thousands of people go to shooting ranges, and shoot round opon round at little black circles 50, 100, 150, and 300 yards away. are these people also criminals? i didnt know it was illegal to shoot paper... |
|
Save your rhetoric. (5.00 / 2) (#22) |
|
by because it isnt on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 04:00:20 PM PST |
|
|
|
to you gun owners = criminals? What an outrageous slander! I most certainly did not say that. These self-styled 'gun owners' are an insult to the common criminal, the class of person to whom guns REALLY belong. When you were playing "cops and robbers" as a child, you may remember that the criminal had a black mask, a stripy or pigeonfeet jumper, and a bag marked SWAG. Does the average homeowner need any of these items? No, he doesn't, and so it is with guns. about 2.5 million to be precise 'About'. 'Precise'. Your own words mock your argument. Guns do not protect you from the number one cause of death in America, cars. If I were to pick a number-one life-saver, it would be "public transport", not guns. thousands of hunters You can't call yourself a 'hunter' if you use a gun as a weapon. You are simply a 'killer', because you took no effort to actually hunt your animal. You pointed. You shot. Why not just use hand grenades? Or rocket launchers? Or scud missiles? No, the true hunter uses a bow or a spear. The wily hunter will set a trap and wait. Do you know the nasty shit they put in shotgun cartridges? If I killed an animal with a shotgun, I would only serve the meat to my enemies. Busy farmers use their shotguns to quickly and accurately kill vermin, much as they use combine harvesters instead of harvesting by hand. The shotgun is a miracle of the modern age, but it is not a sporting accessory. i didnt know it was illegal to shoot paper The 'sport' of shooting is not illegal. Neither is dwarf tossing, or wrestling, or bungee jumping. The legality does not come into question, it is the legitimacy of the sport you should be concerned with. adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
How much education do you have? (none / 0) (#39) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 06:34:04 PM PST |
|
|
|
Let me just point out the numerous flaws in the post to which I am replying. First, you might want to look up the word rhetoric before posting, fool.
Next, lol, I love this quote: ...the common criminal, the class of person to whom guns REALLY belong. So you believe criminals should have guns but law abiding citizens should not??? wow eithier you, yourself are a criminal or you are really dumb. Guns do not protect you from the number one cause of death in America, cars. If I were to pick a number-one life-saver, it would be "public transport", not guns. We are not talking about the number one cause of death. We are talking about one cause of death. Cars have nothing to do with this thread. You can't call yourself a 'hunter' if you use a gun as a weapon. You are simply a 'killer', because you took no effort to actually hunt your animal. You pointed. You shot. Have you ever gone hunting before? If you have you must have had amazing luck by finding the dumbest animal ever. Hunting is a challenge. Yes, archery is more difficult but shooting a gun has challenges too. Have you ever even fired a weapon?? Do you know the nasty shit they put in shotgun cartridges? I do not hunt with a shotgun. I believe it is illegal to do so. Shooting varmin is an exception. We are talking about rifles here, not shotguns. The legality does not come into question, it is the legitimacy of the sport you should be concerned with. OK, maybe I'm just stupid or something. Perhaps you could enlighted us all by explaining what the hell you mean by this. Why would shooting a gun not be legitimate? |
|
Hunting the Hunters (5.00 / 2) (#100) |
|
by Naive Fool on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 10:46:07 PM PST |
|
|
|
>So you believe criminals should have guns but >law abiding citizens should not??? wow eithier >you, yourself are a criminal or you are really >dumb.
Look, just because someone is capable of irony doesn't make them wrong. You are, what is that number again, seven times more likely to hurt a member of your own family than a criminal? And I love all this "have you ever gone hunting before?" nonsense. That's really not the issue. If you need to prove to yourself that you are smarter than a moose, you've got a huge self-esteem problem. Similarly, if you are actually hunting for food as the most practical method to put food on the table, you need an economics lesson. One of the things that it seemed "because it isn't" was trying to point out, although I don't want to put words in his mouth, is that people hunt because they want to feel superior to stupid animals, not because they need food or an excuse to walk in the park. Jeez, get a dog! As to the legitimacy of shooting a gun, that wasn't the question, and would almost certainly be a circumstantial issue. The question is: What makes it a sport? A skill, a hobby, a sadistic fantasy aid, an extraordinarily innefective method of self defence, a necessary prop in a snuf film. All of these things guns may be, but that does not make shooting them a sport any more than it does pool, darts, shuffle-board, eating lunch or stepping on an ant. If you were wrestling alligators, or bears, or boxing kangeroos, or even just stalking animals, tagging them with paint-balls and running away like an NRA member, that would be one thing, but the death of the animal involved, if any of the descriptions of hunting-as-sport I've ever heard are to be believed, is completely unnecessary. Why not hunt each other, there would be an activity that could claim all aspects you have ascribed to hunting, plus it would be fair, and you would have competition. The Lord of the Flies II and III, teen and middle age, here we come. Yahoo. |
|
Great name... (none / 0) (#106) |
|
by Hyped on Sun Aug 25th, 2002 at 01:49:15 PM PST |
|
|
|
...because it describes very well what you are.
"You are, what is that number again, seven times more likely to hurt a member of your own family than a criminal?" You are refering to a variation of the Kellerman '43 times more likely' statistic, a study that was published back in 1986. However, you obviously haven't kept with the times, because this study was LONG ago refuted, and even gun control advocates have stopped using it in their arguments. Might I remind you that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times a year (90% of the time without firing a shot) in America. In a majority of those cases (about 80%), the criminal had used violent force beforehand. So here, we see that a gun is more likely to SAVE a family than be used to kill somebody, family member or criminal. Oh, and about your bullshit hunting views: Nobody needs to 'prove' anything by hunting. It's called putting food on the table. And I don't care what you want to say about how it is done. Tools change over time. Once there were bows, now there are guns. The technology has improved. In the history of man, new tools have facilitated evolution. And I don't give a shit if you don't like it. |
|
Might I remind you... (none / 0) (#128) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Tue Aug 27th, 2002 at 01:38:25 AM PST |
|
|
|
that the number that you quote is a biased claim made by the NRA and other gun advocacy groups to promote their agenda, while other biased groups (the Brady Campaign, the HCO, and UC Berkeley) refute the claims and the numbers? As of yet, there has been no third-party group (such as a non-partisan government agency or moderate university) that has staked such a claim. As such, your numbers can be seen to be as unreliable as the "Kellerman" statistic.
Also, nobody needs to hunt to put food on the table. Tools change over time. Once there were bows, then guns, and then meat processing facilities. The technology has improved. In the history of man, new tools have facilitated its continued survival, considering that man lies in the face of an evolutionary brick wall. It's quite unfortunate, actually, for if Darwinian theory (a theory which actually stands on somewhat shaky ground right now) was still active in today's society, we probably wouldn't have to deal with you. Love, IB ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
Let Me Clear This up for You (none / 0) (#108) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 05:55:06 AM PST |
|
|
|
Similarly, if you are actually hunting for food as the most practical method to put food on the table, you need an economics lesson.
Are you saying it is cheaper to just buy meat than it is to hunt it yourself? Hunting actually saves hundreds of dollars. Lets see here, 200 pounds of venison for the cost of one bullet compared with 200 pounds of beef. I wonder which is cheaper? Also, many people don't hunt simply for sport or because it is cheaper. Venison is, in my opinion, the best tasting meat. Not to mention the fact that it is much more healthy than beef or chicken. One more thing. You may think we big bad hunters are wrong for killing innocent animals. But look at the way cows are processed. One clean shot through the heart is a much less painful way to die. |
|
You actually do need an economics lesson. (5.00 / 1) (#129) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Tue Aug 27th, 2002 at 02:04:53 AM PST |
|
|
|
Economy is not merely about price, son. It also deals with practicality. It is quite economically unfeasible, in today's modern society, to think that hunting would actually save you hundreds of dollars.
Meat is actually quite cheap. First, consider the time that today's modern working man (or woman - we promote equality here in Adequacy!) earning the median income in the United States must find to actually hunt and kill an animal for sustenance. During that time, the same man could work how ever many hours earning money to buy him a large quantity of meat, along with a nice bottle of red wine and a pint or two of vanilla ice cream. Also, hunting is never a sure thing. You don't know if you will go home empty-handed after however many hours one decides to spend in the field. One can always be sure to find meat at their respective supermarket, however, and it usually does not require leaving their respective urban/suburban communities (where the vast majority of the United States population now lives). For one must always consider that hunting, even with a fire arm, takes a small modicum of skill to do correctly, if not efficiently. This is a skill that many of today's modern society do not have, or even want to bother to learn. Plus, if you take into consideration the cost of the rifle, ammo, licenses, gas to get from point A to point B, proper training, beer, etc. then it becomes apparent that for the vast majority of the United States hunting is actually quite economically unfeasible. One must also consider that most people do not have the space nor the knowhow to store and preserve 200 lbs. of meat. That is why hunting is no longer an essential tool for survival in today's modern society. Instead, it is looked upon as a pastime, a ritual, or a bonding experience to be shared with other (usually) men. Notable exceptions, however, include Ted Nugent, who, in my humble opinion, IS INSANE. Venison, however, is quite tasty, and my local butcher usually keeps some in stock. I personally like to grill it over a nice open charcoal flame, plain, accompanied with a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon red. And yes, the way that cows are processed is quite brutal, if efficient. I hear that the floor workers wear knee-high boots to wade through the blood. Not that I'd ever visit one myself, though - I'm a bit squeamish when it comes to mass slaughter. ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
Hunting not an Alternative to Stores (none / 0) (#145) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 04:52:13 PM PST |
|
|
|
I didn't mean that hunting was just a way to save money. I enjoy hunting. So, why not profit from my hobby by eating what I hunt? I save some extra cash and get get some high quality meat. The cost of the gun, license, beer (lol), etc is not factored in because I would have spent that money for my hobby, anyway. I agree, it is not feasable for most people, but in my situation it is.
I agree, I always love a nice venison steak grilled with baked potatoes and corn on the cob. The best meal I've ever had! :) |
|
Trapping (none / 0) (#40) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 06:41:47 PM PST |
|
|
|
The wily hunter will set a trap and wait.
And what do you expect the hunter to do when he traps the animal? It is very dangerous to be armed with only a bow when you trap an animal. Why? Because they will be really fucking pissed off!! And when it sees you coming its anger will only increase. Maybe your presense will make it angry enough to give it the strength to unexpectedly break out of the trap. How much time will it take you to knock an arrow, pull back the bow, aim, and fire? |
|
Well then, (none / 0) (#78) |
|
by jvance on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 07:45:10 AM PST |
|
|
|
you'd be in for a fair fight, wouldn't you? I thought hunting was supposed to be a manly sport. -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR |
|
The hunter and his wily ways. (none / 0) (#103) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 25th, 2002 at 08:38:16 AM PST |
|
|
|
And what do you expect the hunter to do when he traps the animal?
Kill it, obviously, using a nice clean knife. Knives aren't full of nasty chemicals, and they don't need expensive disposable ammunition in order to work. Survival skill courses include how to kill trapped animals with your bare hands, should you be unlucky enough to lose your knife. (Sing along, everybody: This is my knife. There are many like it, but this one is mine.) You're not trapping to show what a "man" you are (that's utterly barbaric), you're trapping because you need the meat more than the animal does. Animals are, obviously, angry to be caught, but a good trap leaves them severely weakened. Most trapped animals can be left to die if you're really afraid of them, provided there's no competition for the carrion. If they do escape, it'll be with less limbs than when they got caught. Are you basically saying that you are so incompetent at shooting, that you require to trap an animal before you can shoot it? adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
knives guns animals meat (none / 0) (#136) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 28th, 2002 at 08:51:58 PM PST |
|
|
|
If God didn't want us to eat animals then why did he make them out of meat? |
|
"I've got a gun" (none / 0) (#23) |
|
by walwyn on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 04:14:05 PM PST |
|
|
|
every year several million people are saved by guns. about 2.5 million to be precise.
To be precise this includes those people who say I thought I heard a noise and shouted 'I've got a gun' then nothing happened.and many other animals. are these people criminals too for wanting to put dinner on the table? Mmmm! Yummy. |
|
Am I a crimminal? (none / 0) (#99) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 10:38:49 PM PST |
|
|
|
I like to target shoot, go out to the range, go out in the backyard and plink at cans.
But does it make me a crimminal if I would be willing to shoot a man? I hope not. Now I'm only 16 so many will think im immature but I dont think I am. By the liberal mans standards I must be a crimmanal because I will shoot someone... if I have to. And whats this "if I have to"? I am a soldier. Not a regular soldier, but militia. No I'm not PART of a militia but the simple fact that I'm American makes me milita. If I had to I would lay my life down for this country. It wouldnt matter if I was aganst the entire army of China I would go down guns blazing, my guns, guns that I purchased. That is why I plan to own guns. There is the fun recreational part but I would use them to fight off tyrany and opression to the last breath. "It is better to die on my feet than to continue living on my knees. " - Emiliano Zapata Proud member of the vast, right-wing conspiracy |
|
Guns Are Bad (none / 0) (#75) |
|
by Mad Monk on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 06:27:10 PM PST |
|
|
|
[umm...guns do provide safety. If a robber breaks into my house, I shoot him. If I didn't have a gun, I get shot, my wife gets raped then shot, and my stuff gets stolen. Yes, for that at many other reasons, I LOVE GUNS!]
So the burglar shoots you with his knife? |
|
does it matter? (none / 0) (#137) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 09:01:13 PM PST |
|
|
|
A knife is a weapon....so yes, I'd shoot him.
What did the hijackers use for 9/11?? |
|
Well sir... (none / 0) (#148) |
|
by faustus on Thu Sep 5th, 2002 at 10:54:13 PM PST |
|
|
|
...they used Boeing 767's. Obviously America needs to clamp down on their lax plane control laws, or face severe consequences in the future. --You seem to be suffering from a liberal-arts education. |
|
SING IT BROTHER!!! (none / 0) (#98) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 10:24:01 PM PST |
|
|
|
I agree that a gun makes me safe. Sure some one could use it for evil but if I have a gun I can perhaps stop them from doing any more harm. So a gun doesnt just keep me or my family safe it also keeps my freinds and neighbors safe, and who are my neighbors? It could be you and if something were to happen at your house, it dosnt matter if I dont like you, someone breaks in to your place with the intent of harming you ill shoot him in the face for you, you can bet you ass I will.
"It is better to die on my feet than to continue living on my knees. " - Emiliano Zapata Proud member of the vast, right-wing conspiracy |
|
Oh, right... (none / 0) (#24) |
|
by Hyped on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 05:15:53 PM PST |
|
|
|
Previous two posters: Your stereotyping of gun owners as criminals is ridiculous and reflects a complete lack of intelligence on your part. Go ahead and call me a criminal. I've never used a gun with malicious intentions. I am a law-abiding citizen. Yet ignorant people like you have chosen to antagonize me because I am exercising a right to which I am granted by the Constitution.
"You can't call yourself a 'hunter' if you use a gun as a weapon. You are simply a 'killer', because you took no effort to actually hunt your animal. You pointed. You shot. Why not just use hand grenades? Or rocket launchers? Or scud missiles? No, the true hunter uses a bow or a spear. The wily hunter will set a trap and wait." Don't you think it takes patience to aim carefully and wait for your target? Don't you think hunters also set up traps, even though they have guns as well? You have to point and aim a gun as well, and you have to do it carefully, because if you miss the first time, the animal runs away, and you don't get a second chance. Comparing use of guns for hunting to use of bows is ridiculous - both are weapons that launch projectiles. A gun fires a bullet. A bow fires an arrow. Technology has changed. What is the big deal about that? And why would I use a rocket launcher to hunt? It's not even legal to own that kind of weaponry. Do you even know anything about gun laws in this country? "To be precise this includes those people who say I thought I heard a noise and shouted 'I've got a gun' then nothing happened." Actually, no it does not. In the state of Illinois last year, there were over 50,000 reported attempted home invasions reported to the police. There were over 14,000 incidents in which home owners used guns either to threaten or shoot criminals in self-defense. This number (in only one state) is about equal to the average number of gun homicides in the entire United States. You can imagine what it must be in OTHER states such as New York or California, where crime is considerably higher, and in the entire country. |
|
Actually (none / 0) (#25) |
|
by walwyn on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 05:59:00 PM PST |
|
|
|
You are almost likely to be killed by a gun in an arguement than by a felon. And just how many of those reported attempted home invasions were actual atttempted home invasions? |
|
Wait a minute... (none / 0) (#26) |
|
by Hyped on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 06:13:09 PM PST |
|
|
|
<i>You are almost likely to be killed by a gun in an arguement than by a felon.</i>
First, you assume that all felons have guns. This is not true. The felon may attack the person with a knife or some other weapon. This would justify a case of self-defense. However, your own statistics show that since 1995, there have been more felonies involving firearms than arguments turning deadly. Also, even arguments can be between people who are criminals (they would not classified under gang-related). Two drug dealers arguing over business and then one shooting the other, for example. As I have said, the majority of gun homicides involve criminals shooting criminals. <i>And just how many of those reported attempted home invasions were actual atttempted home invasions?</i> All, I would imagine. If you are implying that these incidents involve a person mistaking a door-to-door salesman for an armed robber and then shooting him, that is not included. Those would be classified as 'accidental' shootings, a completely different category. |
|
Wait an eon... (none / 0) (#28) |
|
by walwyn on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 01:25:44 AM PST |
|
|
|
...which is probably the time it will take you to understand two simple graphics. Looks like even the US government underestimates their citizens numeracy. |
|
Huh? (none / 0) (#30) |
|
by Hyped on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 01:11:40 PM PST |
|
|
|
I wasn't saying your assesment was wrong; just that it might be open to question.
Both you and 'Because It Isn't' need to stop acting like such a**holes, by the way. If you aren't capable of carrying out an intelligent, civil conversation, then maybe you both shouldn't be here. |
|
Suck on this. (none / 0) (#32) |
|
by walwyn on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 03:01:34 PM PST |
|
|
|
If you look further on your government's website you'll find that only 14% of all murders are stranger on stranger, in 52% of cases there is a relationship between the murderer and victim, and in 19% of cases the relationship is intimate. Of those spousal murders, two thirds are killed by guns. And women are most likely to be killed by someone they know with a gun. Boyfriends, however, are mostly killed by knives. The upshot is that Mr Isnt is correct, if you remove the guns from the 'law abiding', and you are not an associate of felons, you are less likely to be killed by a gun. |
|
*Suck on this* (none / 0) (#33) |
|
by Hyped on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 03:37:40 PM PST |
|
|
|
Even your latest findings are questionable as well.
"If you look further on your government's website you'll find that only 14% of all murders are stranger on stranger, in 52% of cases there is a relationship between the murderer and victim, and in 19% of cases the relationship is intimate." Again, this can still be criminals killing criminals. It can be something such as a gang member killing someone who he knows to be a member of a rival gang. The relationship may be based on a gang rivalry, in that sense. Over 75% of people who use a gun in a homicide have an adult criminal record. Even the remaining 25% cannot be legitimately assumed to be non-criminals. The reason that the last 25% of gun murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles. Thus, by definition, they cannot have an adult criminal record. "Of those spousal murders, two thirds are killed by guns. And women are most likely to be killed by someone they know with a gun. Boyfriends, however, are mostly killed by knives." And how many such instances are we dealing with, exactly? This would be more significant if we could know some exact numbers. "The upshot is that Mr Isnt is correct, if you remove the guns from the 'law abiding', and you are not an associate of felons, you are less likely to be killed by a gun." As we have seen, the majority of people who misuse guns are not law-abiding. I can hardly see removing guns from the scene as being a solution to gun deaths, or even reducing them. Gun control has not put an end to gun crime (or crime in general) in Britain, or in Brazil (where the gun murder rate is the highest in the world in spite of strict gun control laws). |
|
Denial... (none / 0) (#34) |
|
by walwyn on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 03:57:18 PM PST |
|
|
|
...is not a river in Egypt. These aren't my figures they are from your Department of Justice. Now I suppose you're going to tell us that the 'gubmint jus made it up'! |
|
*Hmmm* (none / 0) (#35) |
|
by Hyped on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 04:10:58 PM PST |
|
|
|
Okay, you're starting to piss me off now. If you aren't willing to treat me with the same respect that I have treated you, then I'm not willing to have this discussion.
I never said you made them up. I know where they come from. Where did I ever accuse you of making them up? Huh? All that I have said is that there are many ways to interpret the statistics that you have posted. I never said you were totally wrong. I am simply trying to say that we must look deeper into the reasons for these crimes before passing judgement. Furthermore, what country are you in now? |
|
Don't tell him, Walwyn! (5.00 / 1) (#36) |
|
by because it isnt on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 04:43:05 PM PST |
|
|
|
He's pissed off and he's got a gun! We are in mortal peril! adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
Why would... (none / 0) (#37) |
|
by walwyn on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 04:56:52 PM PST |
|
|
|
...the posting of a few percentages cause you to get 'pissed off'? There really ought to be a psychological test before some people get access to guns! Confronted with the figures that wives/girlfriends are more likely to get murdered by someone they know; that the weapon of choice is usually a gun and you want to go discuss reasons/motivations for the murders, as if the victim is somehow to blame for being killed with a gun. It seems at least if you are female and your partner owns a gun, you ought to get out quick. Lets just hope your partner never argues with you. |
|
Why doesn't... (none / 0) (#38) |
|
by Hyped on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 05:45:23 PM PST |
|
|
|
...Mr. Isn't realize how stupid he's making himself look?
Questions, questions... Get real, pal. If you're trying to solicit comments from me that can be used to prove your inane theory that all gun owners are criminals, then you can get lost. You aren't making anybody look bad except yourself. Walwyn: I'm pissed off because you (and the guy who ISN'T even that smart) keep treating me as though I'm some trigger-happy Yank. You've got no right to stereotype people like me the way you're doing. I am just annoyed that you aren't capable of carrying out a civil conversation. It has nothing to do with the statistics. Again, however, reverting back to an INTELLIGENT conversation, I will just say that the statistics you have shown are still debatable. I never said that "victim is somehow to blame for being killed with a gun" (in your words). I simply said that the victims themselves are questionable. Are they criminals? Are the people who shoot them criminals? Other statistics have shown that many people who die in gun violence are, indeed, criminals. All I said is that there is contrasting evidence that MAY or MAY NOT prove this wrong. What is your problem with that? |
|
Well Played (none / 0) (#41) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 07:11:10 PM PST |
|
|
|
I'm glad to see someone here can maintain an intelligent debate. Despite the personal attacks made against you (e.g. "He's pissed off and he's got a gun! We are in mortal peril!
" and "the posting of a few percentages cause you to get 'pissed off'? There really ought to be a psychological test before some people get access to guns!").
These two know they lost the debate and must now resort to personal attacks and twisting your words around. I also would like to say that I agree with you 100%. Guns save lives. When was the last time anyone heard a story about John Q. Public, the accountant with 2.5 kids suddenly going on a murderous rampage? No, every news story involving guns is about some lowlife, alcoholic, drug addict, gang member, killing his wife because he was fucked up on crack or was drunk off his ass. These people are not law abiding citizens. These are the people who should not have guns. Those of us who obey the law and contribute to society deserve the right to protect ourselves. The police cannot protect me, so I have to take it upon myself. Yes, I know the police are not totally worthless, they go on patrol and stuff like that. But how long would it take from the time you became aware of the criminal in your house to: 1. Get to the phone without the criminal knowing. 2. Call 911 and report the crime. 3. Make your way to a safe hiding place. 4. Wait until the cops arive. Maybe you are lucky. Maybe you live on the first floor and you sleep next to an open window. Fine, jump out the window and run to the neighbors. But what about your kids? Most kids have their bedrooms upstairs, they have no escape. The main use of the police is to catch the criminal after the fact. If they can get there before the criminal can do anything, great. How many gun related crimes occur compared to the number the police can stop before they happen? You might say something like "why not arm yourself with another weapon?" or "get a security system." Fine, that will help. But what if you have a knife and the criminal has a gun. Who do you think is gonna die? A security system is just fine to scare off robbers, but what if someone seriously wants to kill you. They know they have plenty of time to run in, do the job and run out before the cops arrive. It doesn't matter if he's caught or not because you are dead. What if he's some pissed off guy, fucked up on crack? I don't think the flashy lights and loud noises of a security system are going to affect him. |
|
The well-to-do murderer. (5.00 / 1) (#44) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 02:05:41 AM PST |
|
|
|
My precious 28 inch widescreen TV and Sony hi-fi come before your right to life, my friend.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
As a responsible gun owner... (none / 0) (#46) |
|
by walwyn on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 04:50:04 AM PST |
|
|
|
...I take it that you keep your under lock and key. And that the ammunition is stored seperately from the weapon? Yes. |
|
No (none / 0) (#52) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 01:39:24 PM PST |
|
|
|
OK what is the point of gun locks and keeping the ammo separate?? No, it is not to protect your children. I was raised around guns and from the time I was old enough to crawl, my parents were drilling it into my head to stay away from them (when I was a young child, that is). When I was old enough where my parents believed I could handle a weapon in a responsible manner, they let me shoot guns. And even when I could shoot guns my dad would constantly drill gun safety into my head.
Before that, I knew what guns were and I knew to stay away from them. If I put a trigger lock on my gun and have the ammo in another room, then whats the point? A criminal breaks into my house, what am I going to do? Oh, Mr. Badguy, could you be so kind as to wait here while I get my keys, unlock my gun, go to the other room and get my ammo, load my gun, then shoot you? hell no. Gun locks and all that other nonsense are no substitue for good parenting and discipline. |
|
So unlike 70%... (none / 0) (#58) |
|
by walwyn on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 04:30:28 AM PST |
|
|
|
...of gun owners, not very responsible at all. Because you want to be "armed and ready" for the unlikely event of a criminal breaking into your house, you'll run the risk, 365 days a year, that your kids, relation's kids, or kids friends, could wonder around your house day or night, and find a loaded weapon to play with. |
|
Please Read before Posting (none / 0) (#59) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 09:55:55 AM PST |
|
|
|
Did you not read my post? Well fine, since you are clearly too lazy to do so I will reiterate:
Gun locks and all that other nonsense are no substitue for good parenting and discipline. My parents taught me how to act around guns. Therefore, I was less likely to have an accident. Since I knew how to handle the weapon, period. You (if you use locks as a substitute for parenting) are the one running the risk. What if one day you forget to put the lock on your gun. Or, what if you don't quite turn the key all the way? Or, what if your kid, like me, knew how to pick certain simple locks? What happens if your uneducated child gains access to the trigger then? My guns will be kept in my bedroom. When I was a kid, I wasn't allowed in my parents room. When my friends came over they were told this as well. Now, keep in mind that this is one pistol, used for protection purposes only. My other guns are in a gun safe. Its not like I have loaded shotguns sitting around the house. |
|
Oh another Washington! (none / 0) (#61) |
|
by walwyn on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 12:36:32 PM PST |
|
|
|
Despite the fact that the story of Washington and the Cherry Tree is a myth, it does illustrate the general principle that even the most dull child is occasionally rebelious. You might dress kids up in their sunday best every day, and instruct them not to get dirty, but kids occasionally act like kids and mess up. Yer can't put an old head on young shoulders. Miniture grandpas and grandmas they ain't. |
|
Boy are you smug... (none / 0) (#76) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 07:41:44 PM PST |
|
|
|
Walwyn - I am pro gun, even though I have no desire to own a gun. I've read your posts, and you are the most cocky and smug person I've ever seen. Learn to not use personal attacks in debate and listen to what the other person says other than 'La la la la I'm not listening!' |
|
Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#96) |
|
by walwyn on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 05:08:01 PM PST |
|
|
|
I suspect that I've spent more time reading your comments than you have yourself. I suggest you dispassionately re-read what you have written, then go hang your head in shame.
|
|
When... (none / 0) (#45) |
|
by walwyn on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 04:37:02 AM PST |
|
|
|
...did Mr Isnt ever say that "all gun owners are criminals"? That is something you've read into a comment by Mr Isnt. The point was, I believe, that possession of firearms by the law abiding do not make the law abiding safer. Similarly you were pointed to some data which shows that one more likely to be killed by someone one knows than by some stranger commiting a crime. And that the most likely weapon used will be a gun. Your take on that was that was "the majority of those instances could still be criminals". In other words, "I don't like the numbers the government produces, so I'd rather guess some numbers to confort myself". Posting the data, and not accepting your spin, got you annoyed "pissed" and you then characterized yourself as "some trigger-happy Yank". So now you're whining "People are being rude to me, and attacking Americans." Well poor little ol' you. |
|
End... (none / 0) (#47) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 05:18:24 AM PST |
|
|
|
"...did Mr Isnt ever say that "all gun owners are criminals"? That is something you've read into a comment by Mr Isnt. The point was, I believe, that possession of firearms by the law abiding do not make the law abiding safer."
Oh, really? Let's look at his quote again: "There's one less idiot in the world, and there's another gun in the hands of its rightful owners, i.e. criminals." Essentially, he's saying that guns are only to be used by criminals, and that gun owners should be shot. "Your take on that was that was "the majority of those instances could still be criminals". In other words, "I don't like the numbers the government produces, so I'd rather guess some numbers to confort myself"." Actually, maybe it's just you saying "I don't like the fact that I may be misinterpreting my own data, so I'll launch a personal attack on him to comfort myself and maintain my arrogance; after all, I'm so damn smart." You have been told that the majority of people who use guns in crime are criminals with adult criminal records, not necesarily happy, law-abiding spouses who had never committed a crime until they picked up a gun and shot someone with it. What more is there to ask? "So now you're whining "People are being rude to me, and attacking Americans." Well poor little ol' you." How about...you just admit that you are a cocky little punk who has some serious social problems relating to people and must attack them personally to get them to admit he is right? Sounds more like it to me. That said, I am done with this conversation. You have shown no sense of respect at all, personal attacks and dubious statistics aside. Therefore, I will not respond to you or your little kiddy friend (Mr. Isn't) anymore. BTW, I don't even own a gun. When did I ever say that I did? |
|
Reading comp. not up to scratch. (none / 0) (#48) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 06:42:53 AM PST |
|
|
|
Essentially, he's saying that guns are only to be used by criminals, and that gun owners should be shot.
Hardly. I was opining that guns rightfully belong to criminals, and that middle-class homeowners who think guns make them safe are idiots. At no point did I say that gun owners should be shot, although it would be deliciously ironic. BTW, I don't even own a gun. I don't own any chemical weapons, but I fully support Saddam Hussain's pledge to use his on the Americans. Chemical weapons want to be free. adequacy.org -- because it isnt |
|
Pure Ignorance (none / 0) (#51) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 01:25:29 PM PST |
|
|
|
...and that middle-class homeowners who think guns make them safe are idiots.
Well you know what they say: "Ignorance is bliss." |
|
You are correct. (none / 0) (#54) |
|
by because it isnt on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 04:52:18 PM PST |
|
|
|
Well you know what they say: "Ignorance is bliss." That's right. The average homeowner is blissfully ignorant of statistics which show 15 million incidents of theft compared to just 690,000 incidents of robbery, or 3.5 million incidents of household burglary, but only 1 million incidents of forced entry. A householder is far more likely to have his possessions stolen quietly and incident-free. A wise householder would spend on defense against theft, rather than robbery. The important point here is that a gun is not a deterrent to a thief. He will simply bring his own gun and shoot the stroppy owner if detected. A thief is far more concerned about not getting caught. This means houses without noisy burglar alarms, houses where a door or window has been left open (opportunity makes a thief), houses where the owners are away. Guns will not protect you, no matter how much you fantasise about gung-ho vigilantism. As they say, ignorance is bliss. adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
You Must be Full of Bliss (none / 0) (#55) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 05:30:22 PM PST |
|
|
|
You only talk about theft and robbery, what about murder without a motive, rape, kidnapping, etc.
...a gun is not a deterrent to a thief. You seem to be forgetting about this possible scenario: Two couples walk through a park one evening. There is a robber, "scoping things out." He is looking for an easy target. Now, he sees one couple and the man is clearly armed (he can see part of the holster from under his shirt). Another couple walks by and the man does not appear to be armed. The robber can pick either couple to rob, which one do you think he will pick? As for your statistics, I thought another person here proved why you are interpreting them incorrectly. |
|
You're full of shit. (none / 0) (#57) |
|
by because it isnt on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 01:31:56 AM PST |
|
|
|
You only talk about theft and robbery, what about murder without a motive, rape, kidnapping, etc. Yes. Guns make these crimes much easier to commit too. Thanks for bringing them up. The robber can pick either couple to rob, which one do you think he will pick? He'll pick neither, unless one's a very frail looking couple. He's not so stupid as to start a 2 against 1 fight. The robber has the element of surprise. As for your macho-man with the gun, he'll be dead from the robber's own gun if he tries to defend himself with his penis-substitute. You neglect the obvious solution to the reduction of crime, which is police patrols that prevent the robber hanging about in the park in the first place. Or is that too Socialist a solution? As for your statistics, I thought another person here proved why you are interpreting them incorrectly. No, they showed that you interpreted them incorrectly. This is an entirely different set of statistics. Are you afraid of numbers? adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
Explain your Logic (none / 0) (#60) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 11:24:41 AM PST |
|
|
|
This is the last post I will make on this thread because you people obviously lost the argument. You feel you must continue to defend your point by making such childish remarks as he'll be dead from the robber's own gun if he tries to defend himself with his penis-substitute.
What about his gun? What makes you so sure he won't shoot the robber first? As for how you interpreted the rape scenario, if my wife walks around with a gun and someone tries to rape her, she will shoot him. As for the scenario about the two couples: another common name for a gun is "the equalizer." Get it? Numbers don't mean a thing in this situation. You neglect the obvious solution to the reduction of crime, which is police patrols that prevent the robber hanging about in the park in the first place. I'm sorry if this is rude, but I just have to laugh at this naive comment *rofl*. Sorry, you are just too funny. News flash! The police are not everywhere. And, no, more police does not solve it. How many cops do you think we would need to have them monitoring every square inch of American soil? |
|
A penis substitute... (none / 0) (#62) |
|
by Hyped on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 02:54:16 PM PST |
|
|
|
...sure as hell isn't what I think of guns. Maybe what you think, but that's just you, and frankly, I don't care what you think.
"As for your macho-man with the gun, he'll be dead from the robber's own gun if he tries to defend himself with his penis-substitute." I just love that line. Penis substitute? You think I want to own a gun as a penis substitute? What the hell...who are you to make that kind of judgement? Do you even know me? Who are you to pass that kind of judgement about me? Once again, you prove yourself to be little more than some 13-year-old-know-it-all who thinks he's entitled to preach his opinion of everybody as though it's gospel truth. I want to own a gun because I enjoy target-shooting at local ranges. I've been shooting since I was 10. It's very fun...ever tried it before? Firing a gun is just like going sky-diving or surfing. It's an enjoyable activity. I am legally entitled to own a gun. Whether or not you like it (or want to judge it as some male ego-building activity) is irrelevent. People have a right to own firearms in this country. Deal with it. "You neglect the obvious solution to the reduction of crime, which is police patrols that prevent the robber hanging about in the park in the first place. Or is that too Socialist a solution?" Oh, really? Might I remind you that there is one police officer for every 3,500 people in the United States. Furthermore, hate to break it to you, but despite what you seem to think, the police are NOT responsible for your protection. Who says? The Supreme Court, pal. The Supreme Court held in an 1856 case that local law enforcement officers had a general duty to enforce laws, not to protect a particular person. In 1982, a federal court of appeals said: ". . . [T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators, but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteen Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone, it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." And as I have already said, studies have shown that citizens with guns are three times as likely to defend themselves from criminals than a police officer, and this is regardless of the criminal's own weaponry (gun, knife, etc.) |
|
So the United States is just like the movies. (5.00 / 1) (#104) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 25th, 2002 at 08:44:13 AM PST |
|
|
|
A lawless frontier, with hoodlums and criminals at every turn. The yellow sheriff won't do nothing, scared of his own shadow. Justice is dispensed from the barrel of a gun. Only one man can clean up this here town. That man is me.
Still not embracing socialism, then? adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
Well well. (none / 0) (#147) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 5th, 2002 at 08:22:46 PM PST |
|
|
|
Protect yourself with your obviously gargantuan penis and we'll just stop and agree with you. |
|
Yes, ignorance is bliss... (none / 0) (#56) |
|
by Hyped on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 05:42:41 PM PST |
|
|
|
First, I never said that the presence of guns will mean no more crime. Just as taking away guns also doesn't mean no more crime.
Here is a question: In how many of those 3.5 million incidents of household burglary were the owners around? Those are not 'hot' burglaries. The owner can't stop a criminal when he/she isn't around. Also, for 'hot' burglaries, in how many incidents were the victims armed (with guns or some other form of resistance)? In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." A study comparing the U.S. to Britain and the Netherlands (countries with low gun ownership rates) once showed that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% vs. just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.) Other studies have found that citizens armed with guns are 3 times more likely to defend themselves with a gun than police officers. Another by the Department of Justice found that gun owners are over 40% more likely to deter home invasions than someone armed with another type of weapon (mase, stun gun, etc.) |
|
reply to an obvious idiot (none / 0) (#140) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 30th, 2002 at 04:45:09 PM PST |
|
|
|
Are you an idiot? How can you say shooting a LAW ABIDING citizen in the head is good. I bet you call yourself a christian too.
I am a cop in Los Angeles and I can tell you that unlike what a lot of politicians say , cops would love to see lawfully armed citizens on the streets. It is a fact whether you like it or not threat crime in Florida and Texas has dropped while crime in the oh so lovely streets of LA has skyrocketed. You people want everything to be safe but you just dont want to see it being made safe. A legally armed population would do that. |
|
Point by point rebuttal time. (5.00 / 1) (#142) |
|
by because it isnt on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 04:51:56 AM PST |
|
|
|
Are you an idiot?
No. It seems that you intended this as a rhetorical question, given the title of your post is "reply to an obvious idiot". Unless that was an instruction. How can you say shooting a LAW ABIDING citizen in the head is good. Sentences which are questions end with a question mark. In reply to your question, it's because he'll be dead, and you can then steal all his stuff unimpeded. So much, that you could probably ask the local fence to bring round his van. The money you'd get would keep you in drugs for a week. I don't know how you missed it, but I also said that being shot by a drugged-up burglar is bad. Perhaps you chose not to correlate these two sentences to prevent brain implosion, but they are meant to be read together. I bet you call yourself a christian too. If you knew the slightest thing about me, you would know I was an Atheist. It is quite clear that you are not a Christian yourself, from your emphasis of "LAW ABIDING" in your question to me. Let me give you a Christian perspective: it does not matter whether a person is a burglar, or a rapist, or black, or a Moslem, you do not have a moral right to kill them. What would Jesus do? Would he cap dat homey in da head / for stealin' dat loaf o' bread? I am a cop in Los Angeles If you are, then why don't you shift your oversized butt out of the donut shop and into the line of fire to do your duty, to protect and serve this citizens of LA? Crime is a fact of life. Not everyone in society has the physical and mental reserves to tackle criminals directly. That is why we employ police forces. Even the people in the Old West recognised this - they had their Sheriff and his Deputy, who would pursue Outlaws while the good townsfolk went about their jobs. A baker does not need a gun to do his job, he needs an oven. A butcher does not need a gun to do his job, he needs knives. And it's pretty unlikely that you'll use a gun in candlestick manufacture. I'm sure every infantryman has thought at one time 'why me? why not someone else?' in the face of danger. But the fact is: they are fit, they are young, they volunteered, they passed the training and the tests. They are qualified to defend the country, others are not. They are the Big Men. Society owes them a debt. Society's trump card is that of collectivism. People are willing to help each other for the benefit of everybody. This is why society triumphs over individualist thinking (such as every person in the world carrying a gun at all times, in case one person considers acting criminally). Gun-fetishists always trot out the same two criminal incidents - highway robbery and home burglary. Both are very infrequent compared to the far more likely theft, criminal damage, etc. Both are picked because they directly appeal to personal fear. "Wouldn't you like a nice shiny gun?" they say. "It's a magic bullet that saves you from all personal attacks, every time" they lie. A Mexican standoff is not my idea of "safety", especially when confronted with someone who has probably had a lot more training and experience with his offensive weapon than I have. These gun fetishists have clearly never heard of escalation. Carrying a gun does not remove crime, it displaces it. Criminals have not been caught. The urge for crime has not abated. They have simply moved to somewhere they are less likely to be shot. When there is nowhere left that they can go without risking getting shot, they will simply take up snipering their gun-toting victims before approaching them. Then the gun-fetishists will recommend bullet-proof armour, and the cycle will begin again. This has already happened with CCTV and shop-burglary -- originally criminals were displaced to towns without CCTV, but now they all have it, criminals learn all the CCTV blind-spots, and wear masks when burglarising shops. The gun-fetishists never think about improving law enforcement (such as getting yellow-bellied cops out of their squad cars and onto the streets), safer streets (with improved lighting, safewalk schemes, safe taxi schemes), reduced inner-city poverty and deprivation, wrestling drug supply away from crimelords, etc., etc. No, they'd rather have every member of the middle classes buy a gun. They want this because they don't want to be shown up as gun-fetishists. They love their guns, and they want everyone else to love guns as much as they obviously do. adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
I am Very Surprised (none / 0) (#146) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 04:59:17 PM PST |
|
|
|
I'm glad to see there are still good cops around. Here in Ohio, cops give you such crap over something as simple as a knife! At least you understand the purpose of such weapons: to protect oneself. |
|
Rather than go to the trouble (none / 0) (#4) |
|
by Amitabh Bachan on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 08:49:22 AM PST |
|
|
|
of forming my own opinion I will slavishly follow that of the masses: guns are bad : 1660 guns are good : 1050 So, there we have it guns are officially bad. (Assuming that matches such as 'guns are good for nothing' and 'guns are bad ass and cool' more or less cancel each other out.) |
|
Are you THE Amitahb Bachan ? (none / 0) (#5) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 09:52:38 AM PST |
|
|
|
Star of cinema ? Or are you an Imposter ? I find it hard to believe that the real Amitahb would have time or the inclination to post at a controversial weblog such as adequacy. |
|
Why wouldn't he be (none / 0) (#6) |
|
by Narcissus on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 12:51:00 PM PST |
|
|
|
Why couldn't he be the real thing. Adequacy has many bona fide powerful people. For instance, we have a real finance mogel. Also, we have a true communist relic. I don't see why it is hard to beleive that we are in the presence of other greatness. -------------------------------- Ok, who picked the flower??? |
|
Why so doubtful? (none / 0) (#7) |
|
by Amitabh Bachan on Sat Aug 10th, 2002 at 02:51:38 AM PST |
|
|
|
Adequacy features other Indian screen stars (Although Hrithik must have had one too many lassis as he missed an 'h' out of his name when creating his account). Indeed there is nothing better after a hard days filming than reading the news and controversial viewpoints expressed on adequacy and then discussing them with Hrithik, Shah Rukh, Madhuri and Karisma. |
|
Guns must be good here! (none / 0) (#8) |
|
by CyrcMage on Fri Aug 16th, 2002 at 11:51:34 AM PST |
|
|
|
Well they must, for someone believes and wrote that Hackers are violent, anti-social sociopaths . So I guess to keep that image of violence true, i like guns. You want guns? I got guns! |
|
Got guns? (none / 0) (#9) |
|
by because it isnt on Fri Aug 16th, 2002 at 02:03:29 PM PST |
|
|
|
Got guns! adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
Guns, in the right hands, are good. (none / 0) (#11) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 16th, 2002 at 10:26:36 PM PST |
|
|
|
Banning guns will NOT reduce crime. According to the Department of Justice, only 5% of guns used in crimes were bought legally anyway, so bans would likely affect even less than that. Look at Switzerland, the government actually issues SIG 550-variant assault rifles to it's citizens (who carry them almost everywhere, restraunts even have gun racks like we have coat racks) and they have practically no crime. Englad, who has socialist-style gun laws, has skyrocketing crime rates ever since the bans began. (there is already a movement to repeal the them.) Same with Brazil. Same with a lot of countries. We should NOT solve the problem by restricting rights of the people, but by trying to stop the flow of illegal firearms into our country. If gun control works, then it would have by now. |
|
true... but (none / 0) (#12) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 17th, 2002 at 05:55:31 AM PST |
|
|
|
True, so we'll hire you to make sure that guns don't get into the wrong hands...
I'm sure you'll accept the job, since guns are good, so they can't kill you, right? |
|
Now wait: (none / 0) (#13) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 17th, 2002 at 07:21:14 AM PST |
|
|
|
To the person who posted the response to the Pro Gun view posted on the 16th.
Now theres no need to get cockey, and the author of the pro-gun message is just makeing the facts more exposed to others. I myself am a firearms owner, but not becuase Im a hillbilly who just loves having a shotgun, not because Im a drug runner who shoots up cops, not because Im a disturbed child who has a passion for violence and would like to shot up my classmates because the inner deamons told me to. No. I have several guns for 2 main reasons: 1) Shooting is an very fun sport when exercised safely, and the lesser important 2) self-defense purpose. My father has used a pistol to ward of a large man who was ready to beat the hell out of my father for a slight mishap on the freeway. See, guns can be harmful in very, very, VERY few situations, like when they get in the wrong hands. ANd they have monitered who gets them and who dosent, its just that they need to moniter the ones who get around the edges. But the benifits of having firearms definitly out weights not having them. -a 14 year old. |
|
Yes. Englad is a very violent country. (5.00 / 1) (#27) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 07:29:01 PM PST |
|
|
|
I hear Frane is also quite the troublesome little spot.
When I was in Switzerlad a couple of months back, I distinctly do not remember the citizenry carrying assault rifles. And as I understood it, Englad's crime rate actually dropped rather dramatically after they passed their gun laws. However, I am quite certain that the crime rate did not "skyrocket." Nonetheless, not having been in England recently, I can't be certain of the "situation on the streets," so to speak. Any of the Brits out there have something to say? Back up your argument, junior, and don't be such a twit. Show me some objective evidence and we'll talk. |
|
Re: Yes. English is a very violent country. (none / 0) (#31) |
|
by Hyped on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 01:28:08 PM PST |
|
|
|
Here is something:
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20020801-58411660.htm |
|
Twit. (none / 0) (#79) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 09:55:59 AM PST |
|
|
|
Keyword here is "objective." A commentary piece from a primarily right-winged conservative newspaper does not fall under the criteria of being objective. Try again.
----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
The twit... (none / 0) (#81) |
|
by Hyped on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 10:20:41 AM PST |
|
|
|
...is actually you.
You say that the Washington Times is a "primarily right-winged conservative newspaper"? It is not right-wing at all; the WT has often posted articles supporting gun control. Yes, it is a commentary piece, but the web site itself is not entirely conservative. Take a look at this if you wish: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,363761,00.html From the UK itself. |
|
Can you learn... (none / 0) (#82) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 12:33:52 PM PST |
|
|
|
how to use HTML? I'm getting real sick of this cutting and pasting shit.
All newspapers will always have pro-con commentary pieces. That does not change the fact that the editors of the Washington Times are fairly conservative and right-winged in nature, especially in comparison to their more left-leaning/moderate counterparts at the Washington Post. Wait- you don't even read the Times, do you? If you did, you would know just what the hell I was talking about. And hey! You figured out what "objective" meant! Good for you! Now, can you roll over and play dead? But I digress. There has been a rise in gun-related crimes in England (note that I don't say the UK - very important). The Guardian article you pointed to has said as much. However, the article also speculates that the new "gun-culture" of "gangster-chic" made hip by recent films and trends is to blame. While I don't completely buy this, it holds more water than blaming the gun-ban, especially when one studies the statistics concerning the situation. Basically, it goes like this: There has been a drop in overall crime rates now in comparison to overall crime rates recorded before the ban was put in place. It has been increasing steadily over the past few years, with some folks, like the Guardian brings up, blaming the new "gangster chic" in popular British culture. However, the majority of crimes has been isolated to urban areas located in England proper. Crime rates in other parts of England (and the UK proper) have either remained stable, or increased/decreased so slightly as to not make much of a difference anyway. Specifically, violent crimes have been rising on a steady basis. Gun-related crimes have also increased (many of these, however, being citizens charged with owning a hand gun - I mean, really, when the ban was enacted, how many people turned in their weaponry?). However, other crime rates (vehicular, property, so on) have remained steady, with slight fluctuations here and there. On a professional level, I couldn't say for certain what exact effects that the hand gun band did for the UK. Crunching these numbers and taking into account all the variables that could affect them (a stagnant economy, the "war" on "terror", popular youth culture, current levels of population density in London, general apprehension in Western Europe, the migration of western swallows, so on and so forth) would take way too much work and effort (which is why so many think tanks and other groups have made, at best, a cursory examination of the situation) than I would be willing to exert. And I personally have no opinion on the gun control situation. I couldn't care less. However, you're still a twit. There are those that look at situations objectively, taking into consideration all possible variables and influences as well as the numbers before forming their opinions. And then there are others who jump on every single article and statistic, claiming it as the truth, as long as it furthers whatever cause they believe in. Guess which group you fall under? Oh, and here are the crime stats as recorded by the British Crime Survey. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb2298.pdf http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb2198.pdf ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
Being objective... (none / 0) (#86) |
|
by Hyped on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 01:54:56 PM PST |
|
|
|
...is not something that you can say you've done, either. As was seen in your post about guns on airplanes below, you base your beliefs about gun control on emotion. 'Oh, no, what if..." situations are just what you consider.
"While I don't completely buy this, it holds more water than blaming the gun-ban, especially when one studies the statistics concerning the situation." Since when did I ever draw a direct link between the handgun ban and a rise in gun crime? I did not intend to say that the 1997 Firearms Act caused criminals to just decide, 'Oh, well, no more guns, so now we can have fun because they can't shoot back anymore.' I am aware that there were very few handguns in England in the first place, so obviously those weren't deterring criminals even before the ban. All that I intended to show is that the handgun ban failed to accomplish its intention - to lower gun crime in England, including use of handguns. It hasn't happened. Guns are used in more crimes than ever before. Obviously, the ban hasn't stopped criminals. Saying it made them more willing to commit their crimes than ever before would be wrong, but saying it has lowered gun crime would also be wrong. Yes, gun crime is confined to urban areas where there is already a lot of crime (drug-related, mostly). But it is still rising. That cannot be denied. Your links do not seem to work (I have no idea why; please re-post them if you respond to this). However, might I remind you that the Home Office grossly underestimates crime statistics. In the United States, if a murder kills three people, it counts as three seperate murders. If he were to kill three people in England, it would all count under one charge. For this reason, it is very likely that crime of all types may be HIGHER in England than the government reports. That is all. You don't need to be such an asshole around me. I am simply expressing my opinion. You can express yours. |
|
You're no fun. (none / 0) (#89) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 02:30:16 PM PST |
|
|
|
Intelligent debate and expressing one's opinion is only half of Adequacy. The other half is making fun of the poster and adding insulting comments. Of course you can express your opinion. It's a (somewhat) free forum. You don't have to be polite and civil all the time, you know?
Secondly, a "what if" situation is the only way to objectively view things. Cold logic dictates that one always prepare for the worst. To do otherwise compromises said logic. Anyway, here are the links again (guess you didn't get the joke): British Crime Survey Recorded Crime Statistics, England and Wales. They're PDF files, so you'll need Adobe Reader for them. Man, I'm not trying to shut you up. Just, you know, have a bit of a sense of humor about these types of ad-hominem remarks, huh? You're not going to have much fun here without it. ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
This topic... (none / 0) (#91) |
|
by Hyped on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 02:48:30 PM PST |
|
|
|
...is the only reason that I am here. I came here simply because I read an article about guns on this site that I thought was poorly written and wanted to submit my 2 cents. But...I've ended up staying.
I had no idea that's how things were supposed to be at Adequecy. However, I'd prefer not to stick around for other debates here, then. I can see the fun in being smart and witty, but when it comes to launching personal attacks on people, that's just not my cup of tea. |
|
Oi... (none / 0) (#93) |
|
by walwyn on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 03:53:03 PM PST |
|
|
|
...Grasshopper, what you fail to note is the the 2000 figures are the highest since 1993. Which implies that 5 years before the recent firearms act gun crime was higher. What your cites don't tell you is that the 1998 Act has not intended to combat general gun crime, but was aimed at one particular type of event - that of the home gun owner suddenly going on the rampage. Now that may well have been an over-reaction, but the nonesense that the NRA and guncite publish about the UK experience of gun crime is solely for the dumb fuck American audience. |
|
Remembering Dunblane. (none / 0) (#105) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 25th, 2002 at 11:52:45 AM PST |
|
|
|
Might I remind you that Thomas Hamilton's guns were perfectly legal before the knee-jerk handgun ban, even though Thomas Hamilton was an incredibly shady character. Generally by himself, he ran 16 "boys clubs" for boys between 7 and 11 years old. Thomas applied for his gun permits and got them. Central Scotland police were very lax in their policing of gun licenses and Thomas -- an obvious gun fetishist -- was allowed to operate without supervision for many years. Had the police been more strict, they could have stopped the Dunblane massacre before it occured.
There are only two real scenarios for societies I would accept. Either there is absolutely no control of weaponary, in which case every person would be aware that a freak with an AK-47 could run down the high street spraying people with bullets at any time, or that there is strict control of weaponary, where the police act responsibly to curb the antics of criminals and the gun fetishists. Neither Britain nor America are in the latter position, both wrongly believing their police forces to be competent in restricting unstable peoples' access to dangerous weapons. An outright ban on weaponary for all but the police and military would go a long way to simplifying the control process. adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
Dunblane... (none / 0) (#107) |
|
by Hyped on Sun Aug 25th, 2002 at 02:01:49 PM PST |
|
|
|
...is not to be blamed on the guns. Blame it on the man who killed those children.
"Central Scotland police were very lax in their policing of gun licenses" You've just invalidated your own argument. Indeed, the police were lax. So, personally, I'd blame it on them. Prior to the shooting, several people who knew Hamilton went to the police and told them that he had become somewhat unstable in recent years, and that his firearms license ought to be revoked. The police didn't listen. So blame can be placed on them for ignoring the warning signs. "An outright ban on weaponary for all but the police and military would go a long way to simplifying the control process." Let me ask you something: Do you really think that even if Thomas Hamilton didn't have a gun, that he wouldn't have killed those kids? He killed 16 with his legally owned Smith & Wesson revolver. Say that weapon hadn't been there. What do you think he would have done? My guess is that he would have taken his car and driven it into a schoolbus along a highway (loaded with flamable chemicals, perhaps), which would have killed just as many, if not more, of those children. Besides, banning guns works no better. It might stop a few people, but it gives criminals an advantage against an unarmed population, meaning that crime rises. Tell your statement to the police in Jamaica (guns almost totally outlawed), where the black market for guns is high and so is their murder rate. And they don't really care if the police tell them they can't own AK47s' or M16s' - they often shoot at police. Police officers' vehicles have, on occasion, been destroyed by Yardie gangs toting rocket launchers and other stolen military weaponry. Britain's handgun ban (passed as a knee-jerk response to Dunblane) has not stopped handgun shootings (and shootings in general) from rising over 40% in the past 5 years. Banning guns in no way ensures anything. Oh, and might I remind you that taking away guns is often a good way to give the government a monopoly on power? Several of the worst dictators in history (including Hitler) disarmed their subjects before misusing their authority. Yes, it's bad that a lot of people are killed by guns, but the world would not be better off without them, either. Don't forget about the 2.5 million Americans who will use a gun to defend themselves every year... |
|
Dunblane came about (none / 0) (#109) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 07:06:37 AM PST |
|
|
|
solely because of Thomas Hamilton's sickening gun fetish. He was not looking for a novel way to
commit suicide. He was not looking to cause maximum political or humanitarian damage. He was not
a terrorist. He was not angry with society. He was a sick, twisted individual whose perverted
fantasies revolved around guns and little boys. It was his acting out of these fantasies that
became known as the Dunblane primary school massacre.
I have already made clear that my argument is for stricter gun control. Why is revealing Central Scotland police's failure to enforce the existing gun laws detrimental to my argument? I want them to enforce the gun laws strictly. String 'em up, it's the only language these gun fetishists understand. You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that guns are some form of defense. They are not. They are offensive weapons. They are as much a defense as the cold war was "defense". The world would have been better off if guns, like nuclear weapons, had not be invented, but sadly they were and we now have to stop warmongers from using these weapons of destruction. Excuse me if I don't hang around countries where people regularly bring lethal weapons to work, church, etc. and wave them around as a penis substitute whenever they get angry. I'd rather have the criminals than a society of gun-toting freaks. adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
The "freak"... (none / 0) (#110) |
|
by Hyped on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 01:34:50 PM PST |
|
|
|
...is not me. You're the dumb little kid who thinks he can bring peace to the world. Guess what, lad? Humans are by nature vicious animals, including you Brits who think your society is so peaceable.
"Why is revealing Central Scotland police's failure to enforce the existing gun laws detrimental to my argument?" Because it is the fault of law enforcement that gun laws are not enforced...and the fault of them that many people get wrist-slappings for gun crimes. If they had heeded the warning signs, they might have stopped Hamilton. "String 'em up, it's the only language these gun fetishists understand." Really? Well, I don't understand it. And stop calling people 'gun fetishists'. It's rude and it makes you look more and more like what you really are - a naive fool. "The world would have been better off if guns, like nuclear weapons, had not be invented, but sadly they were and we now have to stop warmongers from using these weapons of destruction." How ironic..."Imagine the world without guns" was a bumper sticker that began making the rounds after the murder of John Lennon in 1980. You want to know what the world would be like without guns, kid? It's not a pretty picture... Let's say the gun and gunpowder were never invented. We'll go back to the middle ages when they were non-existent... "To say that life in the pre-gunpowder world was violent would be an understatement. Land travel, especially over long distances, was fraught with danger from murderers, robbers, and other criminals. Most women couldn't protect themselves from rape, except by granting unlimited sexual access to one male in exchange for protection from other males. Back then, weapons depended on muscle power. Advances in weaponry primarily magnified the effect of muscle power. The stronger one is, the better one's prospects for fighting up close with an edged weapon like a sword or a knife, or at a distance with a bow or a javelin (both of which require strong arms). The superb ability of such "old-fashioned" edged weapons to inflict carnage on innocents was graphically demonstrated by the stabbing deaths of eight second graders on June 8, 2001, by former school clerk Mamoru Takuma in gun-free Osaka, Japan. When it comes to muscle power, young men usually win over women, children, and the elderly. It was warriors who dominated society in gun-free feudal Europe, and a weak man usually had to resign himself to settle on a life of toil and obedience in exchange for a place within the castle walls when evil was afoot. And what of the women? According to the custom of jus primae noctis, a lord had the right to sleep with the bride of a newly married serf on the first night -- a necessary price for the serf to pay -- in exchange for the promise of safety and security (does that ring a bell?). Not uncommonly, this arrangement didn't end with the wedding night, since one's lord had the practical power to take any woman, any time. Regardless of whether jus primae noctis was formally observed in a region, rich, strong men had little besides their conscience to stop them from having their way with women who weren't protected by another wealthy strongman." -Dave Kopel, 'A World Without Guns' http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml That's what the world was like without guns. And as you can see, it wasn't pretty. You may hate guns because a few people have misused them, but the fact remains that the world was NOT a better place without them, despite what you seem to think. You are obviously very ill-informed as to the past, lad. "You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that guns are some form of defense. They are not. They are offensive weapons." That's just your opinion. And as we have seen, your opinion is based on total bullshit. A gun is a great equalizer...ANYBODY can use one for defense. A man in a wheelchair who can't run, an elderly lady with a cane, a smaller, physically weaker person. Yes, guns also make killing easier for this reason, but they also make defense easier as well. You don't have to risk a physical fight with your attacker. You point the gun at them, threaten to shoot, and they run off. Nobody gets hurt in that situation. More guns are used in defense than in homicides or suicides. Get used to it. Nobody is going to give up their guns just because you're such a coward that the sight of a weapon makes you wet your pants. They have a right to defend themselves, and they don't have to listen to your paranoid dillusional beliefs that guns are not defensive weapons. "Excuse me if I don't hang around countries where people regularly bring lethal weapons to work, church, etc. and wave them around as a penis substitute whenever they get angry. I'd rather have the criminals than a society of gun-toting freaks." I just love Brits who think they know what they're talking about. Right...I bring lethal weapons to work. And I'm a gun-toting freak...well, if I'm a gun-toting freak, you're just a poor manifestation of humanity's insecure and extremely uneducated side. How am I a 'freak' if I shoot guns? Being that the Brits live in a country where one-fourth of them will be a victim of a violent crime in their lifetimes (about 1 out of every 20 British women will be raped, or something like that), I think I'd rather have 30,000 gun deaths than 250,000 stabbings with switchblades. Oh, and you think a gun is a 'penis-substitute'? How so? I fail to see your logic that a person would want to be labeled as a 'freak' by using a gun as a 'penis substitute.' Maybe you ought to just admit that you're a bit too paranoid of guns because you watch too much of the BBC where reporters just say 'we must take away guns for the children.' You have no argument whatsoever except that you're afraid of guns, and think that your fear gives you a right to take them away from people. Sorry, little boy, but the world doesn't revolve around your fears. |
|
Questions (none / 0) (#112) |
|
by walwyn on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 03:18:48 PM PST |
|
|
|
Isn't Kopel mainly associated with those Branch Davidian nuts? You say that 25% of Brits will be victims of violent crime, define violent crime? You say that your happy with 30,000 of your fellow citizens being killed each year - is this the opinion of a normal American? Which BBC reporters? You seem to live your life in constant fear that the bad man is gonna jump out at you - why is that? |
|
You are the gun fetishist. (none / 0) (#114) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 03:42:06 PM PST |
|
|
|
Humans are by nature vicious animals, including you Brits who think your society is so peaceable. Surprisingly enough, society is a pact between its members to act civilly. Without the agreement of civilised living, there would be no governments, no courts and no police. The fact you can actually go out to the shops and buy a loaf of bread without being robbed or killed is a testament to the good will of the majority of the people. The fact the majority supports rule of law and oppression of crime is the backbone of our society. This peaceable life is a far greater creation than any weapon. I suppose I should be grateful that you're willing to admit that the Dunblane massacre was actually a tragedy, and that the police are charged with the task of keeping us safe. You're not one of these loonies who thinks that the Dunblane massacre could have been averted if all the little kids had been equipped with loaded weapons during their gym class, ever vigilant to the possibility of a gun-fetishist running at them, always ready to dispense 9mm shells of Justice. Please do not perform such terrorist actions as posting entire fucking articles while the War on Copyright is in progress, much as I'm sure gun-nut sympathiser Kopel would love to know his lies are spreading. Gunpowder dragged us out of the feudal ages? What utter rot. Societal change was not brought about by guns, it was brought about by advances in communication, exploration of the world, the arts, the sciences. The printing press. These items brought about our cultural revolution. The pen is mightier than the sword. Guns served only to fortify the strength of the feuding warlords. To suggest that both men and women can fire guns misses the point entirely -- women weren't given any guns, just like they weren't given votes or equal rights! The suffrage movement did not use shooting pistols to convince the government to grant them voting rights -- that would have been terrorism. You don't have to risk a physical fight with your attacker. You point the gun at them, threaten to shoot, and they run off. Nobody gets hurt in that situation. What a lovely dream. But we can all dream: Criminal: Hand over all your money! Me: No chance, villian-face! I have a duck! I reach into my coat and pull out a duck. Duck: Quack! Criminal: Oh no! Ducks! I'm terrified of them! Lummee! Criminal runs off. At least my scenario is more likely than your delerious fantasy (which is that a young, fit, but oddly unarmed criminal approaches a wheelchair-bound grandmother who has recently been counselled in remorseless killing under pressure, identifies himself as a criminal, then gives her plenty of time to retrieve, load, cock and aim a gun at him, doesn't move out of the way and generally makes no attempt to take her gun or surprise her.) You covet the gun. You worship its barrel. Yet you know it is wrong. You know what society thinks of your bloodlust. You must satisfy yourself with aiming your penis-substitute at a piece of paper. You close your eyes and pretend it is Bob from accounting. He's made you really angry today. You squeeze the trigger. The shot rings out. Centre of target. Yes! You're a big man! Bob's face is splattered all over the walls. You imagine licking his warm blood off your face. I do not fear the gun. It is you I fear. You are the gun fetishist. You are mentally unstable. Your brother has a collection of samurai swords and slices old furniture with them. I'm terrified of him too. I want you both locked away before you become bold enough to enact your twisted fantasies. You can think all the dirty thoughts you want while you're under the watchful eye of the guards. I don't begrudge the guards their guns. They have been psychologically profiled, trained, tested. They are on my side. They protect me from the likes of you, the vigilante, the "have a go" hero, the ruthless killer. adequacy.org -- because it isn't |
|
Evidently... (none / 0) (#115) |
|
by Hyped on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 04:15:21 PM PST |
|
|
|
...this naive fool believes he knows who I am. And so does Walwyn. The more you talk, the less credibility you lend to your own arguments. You have made yourself look so stupid that I still haven't finished recovering from the laughter of reading your post.
"You seem to live your life in constant fear that the bad man is gonna jump out at you - why is that?" I don't. When did I ever? The only person who said that was YOU. I want to own a gun for sport. I go to ranges to target-shoot. When it comes to defense, owning a gun is like owning a fire extinguisher: You hope you'll never have to use it. "You say that your happy with 30,000 of your fellow citizens being killed each year - is this the opinion of a normal American?" Of course not. Most Americans don't like this...myself included. I never said I was 'happy' with it. Just that it would not be better if guns were out of civilian hands. "Societal change was not brought about by guns, it was brought about by advances in communication, exploration of the world, the arts, the sciences. The printing press. These items brought about our cultural revolution." Of course. Guns were not ENTIRELY responsible. But to deny the part they played in society's change is also wrong. War changed because of them. Not for the better, but there was a change. It is evolution. "women weren't given any guns, just like they weren't given votes or equal rights!" That's bullshit...women could own guns. Not by law, but they could have weapons for defense. And why would they use guns to gain their rights? When protesting for a cause, killing the same people you want to give you your rights isn't going to bring them about. Peaceful protest is the way to go because you can make a martyr of yourself. "At least my scenario is more likely than your delerious fantasy." Delirious fantasy? Might I remind you that my 'delirious fantasy' is something faced by 2.5 million Americans each year. No, my friend, the person who is fantasizing now is YOU. You want to view the world as a place where guns are only used by the bad guys to do bad. You'd rather ignore the fact that many people owe their lives to their guns...and NOT the police (remember that an American with a gun is 3 times more likely to protect themselves than a police officer). "then gives her plenty of time to retrieve, load, cock and aim a gun at him" You seem to think the process takes a long time. It doesn't. The gun is kept loaded. When drawing, you crank back the hammer (the hammer is not cocked because THAT can cause accidental discharge, so you play it safe). It's an exercise that takes a fraction of a second to finish. And for a criminal who is not even aware or expecting the person to have a gun, a fraction of a second is too little time to react. "You covet the gun. You worship its barrel. Yet you know it is wrong. You know what society thinks of your bloodlust. You must satisfy yourself with aiming your penis-substitute at a piece of paper. You close your eyes and pretend it is Bob from accounting. He's made you really angry today. You squeeze the trigger. The shot rings out. Centre of target. Yes! You're a big man! Bob's face is splattered all over the walls. You imagine licking his warm blood off your face." Oh, wow, now this dumbass thinks he can be a psychologist. And who, I ask, are you to judge me? Or to make those kinds of statements? I don't think you are in any position to comment upon my personality. You don't know my name, or how old I am, or what I do for a living, or where I live, or anything else. When I shoot targets, I focus on improving my aim. By steadying my shot, I learn to concentrate fully on a target ahead of me, maintaining my patience. So shooting a gun is a good way to tame your powers of focusing. It's just enjoyable. I don't imagine the target is anybody I know. To be honest, I can't name anybody I want to shoot, nor can I imagine 'satisfaction' from killing a person. If I had to kill a person in self-defense who broke into my house, I would feel very bad afterwards. I hope I never have to use a gun to kill anybody. The chances of being meeting a hoodlum are one to a zillion odds. But if I have to, then I will. I have a right to self-defense. And I also have a right not to be judged by people like you. "You are mentally unstable. Your brother has a collection of samurai swords and slices old furniture with them. I'm terrified of him too." I don't have a brother. And I've never had to see a psychiatrist for any reason, either. "I don't begrudge the guards their guns. They have been psychologically profiled, trained, tested." Which is way police officers kill FAR more people when they go trigger-happy. Private citizens haven't killed nearly as many people accidentally as police. Last year, police officers accidentally shot 330 people in the U.S. Private citizens with guns accidentally shot 40. "They are on my side. They protect me from the likes of you, the vigilante, the "have a go" hero, the ruthless killer." I am not a killer at all...except in your mind. I have never hurt anybody in my life. I hope I never have to. I see no glory in killing anybody. And if you would leave me alone and allow me to shoot my guns in peace, I wouldn't have a problem with you. As it stands, you have tried to stereotype all gun owners as 'fetishists' who like to kill things. Sadly, your view is a million times more twisted than my own. You ought to go see a doctor if you're going to go pointing at people you don't know and calling them killers. It shows some serious issues are in your mind. And might I remind you that the Supreme Court has ruled several times that police officers have no obligation to protect anybody. There is 1 cop for every 3,500 people in the U.S. If they fail to respond to a 911 call, they are not held responsible. That said, go get your diaper changed, little foolish boy. |
|
Do't you read what you write? (none / 0) (#116) |
|
by walwyn on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 06:17:42 PM PST |
|
|
|
"You seem to live your life in constant fear that the bad man is gonna jump out at you - why is that?"
I don't. When did I ever? The only person who said that was YOU. Your posts are full speculative figures concerning people using guns against criminals. You even allude to such in your last post. In any case 2.5 million defensive uses of guns is grossly inflated, but not being satisfied with that gun numeracy has upped it to be as much as 3.6 million. However, Florida newspaper set some investigative journalists on this story, and discovered that the original figure was unreliable. The research consisted of a telephone poll which revealed that 1% of those surveyed reported a defensive gun use in the last 12 months. The same survey also reported a robbery rate 5 times greater than the National Crime Victimization Survey. All Klerk's survey reveals is that 1% of those surveyed reported that they drew a gun on a fellow citizen in the prior 12 months, there is no confirmation that those that drew a gun were justified in doing so. Responsible gun advocates will tell you to ignore all such reports. Most Americans don't like this...myself included. I never said I was 'happy' with it. Just that it would not be better if guns were out of civilian hands. Well who was it that said: I think I'd rather have 30,000 gun deaths than 250,000 stabbings with switchblades. then? I'd expect that the police would kill more people accidentally than the average citizen. Hopefully the police not only get into more fire fights than the citizen, but the citizen does not also have to contend with "death by cop" suicides. |
|
Ah... (none / 0) (#119) |
|
by Hyped on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 06:49:23 PM PST |
|
|
|
...so you're saying I make shit up now? And you twist around my words to suit your own little agenda? Hmmm...
"Your posts are full speculative figures concerning people using guns against criminals. You even allude to such in your last post." So? That doesn't talk about me. All I meant to say with those posts was that more people are saved by guns than are killed by them in homicides/suicides. What have you proven? "In any case 2.5 million defensive uses of guns is grossly inflated, but not being satisfied with that gun numeracy has upped it to be as much as 3.6 million." Oh, right, now you've got to make random accusations without proof. "Well who was it that said: I think I'd rather have 30,000 gun deaths than 250,000 stabbings with switchblades. then?" Again, what the hell have you proved? I don't LIKE the fact that 30,000 people die, but I remind myself that thousands more are saved by guns. If I could prevent those 30,000 people from dying, I would. But chances are, they would die anyway (because the person who killed them would use a different weapon other than a gun if they couldn't get one). It's just how things are, and taking away guns from law-abiding people who use them to defend themselves won't make it any better. "The research consisted of a telephone poll which revealed that 1% of those surveyed reported a defensive gun use in the last 12 months. The same survey also reported a robbery rate 5 times greater than the National Crime Victimization Survey." Hmmm...there are 80 legal million gun owners in this country. If guns are used 2.5 million times a year, then 1/32nd of gun owners will have to use a gun to defend themselves...but then take into account that some people may have to use a gun multiple times in defense (a family in the ghetto that faces constant harassment by local hoodlums and drug dealers, for example). So, yes, it's easy to believe that only 1% of gun owners use guns defensively. I don't dispute this. But guess what? The number of gun owners (legal or illegal) that use a gun to hurt or kill somebody is even LESS. Far less than 1%. Almost microscopic in comparison to the full range of gun owners in the U.S. "there is no confirmation that those that drew a gun were justified in doing so." Well, then, let's hear if they were. Until somebody tells us whether they were or were not, then we can't draw any conclusions, can we? "I'd expect that the police would kill more people accidentally than the average citizen. Hopefully the police not only get into more fire fights than the citizen, but the citizen does not also have to contend with "death by cop" suicides." How many 'death by cop' suicides are there? The article you provided did not give a number. Furthermore, I recently found that, on average, 40-50% of accidental police shootings are committed in situations in which no hostile resistance is ever met. That's at least 130, still more than private citizens. |
|
No one wants to take your guns away. (none / 0) (#120) |
|
by walwyn on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 07:31:38 PM PST |
|
|
|
We Europeans have no desire to stop Americans from owning guns. For heavens sake, something that kills 30,000 Americans each year can't be all bad. What we despair of is the poor debating skills of US gun advocates particularly following the clamp down on soft money donations. It would be an evil day should ever the reformers get their way in the US. |
|
Yeah, you're so... (none / 0) (#122) |
|
by Hyped on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 07:44:27 PM PST |
|
|
|
...funny, aren't you? The amazing thing is that in spite of how much you've used personal attacks against me, you have not proven anything.
"For heavens sake, something that kills 30,000 Americans each year can't be all bad." Gee, so something SAVES 2.5 million Americans is bad as well, then? "What we despair of is the poor debating skills of US gun advocates particularly following the clamp down on soft money donations." Oh, so now a Brit has started coming across with accusations that the NRA uses soft money to get its way all the time. Yes, when all else fails, let's just accuse the other side of being evil, right? Might I remind you that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was ruled unconstitutional in 1996. The only reason it didn't get repealed was because President Clinton vetoed it. Looks like somebody pulled strings on the gun control front for that one. "It would be an evil day should ever the reformers get their way in the US." They have gotten their way. What are you talking about? First it was machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and silencers. Then it was assault rifles and Saturday Night Specials. Pretty soon, it's probably going to be all semi-automatic weapons as well. Pretty soon, they will have their way. And then the world will be safer for all you arrogant Euros who think that no more guns = no more crime. Except for the part about black market guns...(criminals: "Stolen military and police weapons? Here we come!") |
|
(*Shaking head sadly*) (5.00 / 1) (#127) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Tue Aug 27th, 2002 at 01:12:54 AM PST |
|
|
|
First, I've noticed you like tossing that "2.5 million lives" number around. You are aware that is a biased claim made by the NRA and other gun-advocacy groups to promote their agenda. Please come up with an objective, third-party source that states such a number, that has no ties to any interest group or political faction (such as a university study) that states as such. Until then, I'm just going to claim that steak knives, Bruce Lee movies, and agressively wielded pieces of fruit also save 2.5 million lives each year.
Secondly, that assault rifle ban was part of President Clinton's crime bill, which was passed in 1994. The main reasons that he vetoed the amendment was probably because: A: It was his idea to ban them in the first place. He probably didn't like the idea of one of his plans being overturned. B: Being a Democrat, it would fall well within his party lines to support such a move in the first place. Now, if a Republican acted in a similar fashion, your "gun control front" argument would hold water. As it stands, it's weak. Finally, please justify how machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, Saturday Night Specials (junk guns), assault rifles, and most semi-automatic weaponry fall within the realm of either "sport" or "hunting." Unless, of course, you are talking about hunting for wabbit. They can be quite wascally, I hear. You poor, poor child. You probably don't even know the Supreme Court's stance on private ownership of fire arms, do you? ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
'junior the twit' has something to say. (none / 0) (#43) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 09:56:41 PM PST |
|
|
|
I wasn't implying that every man woman and child carries a rifle with him/her everywhere he goes, but it does happen. In America, if someone were to do that, he wouldn't last too long. But it Switzerland, it is at least semi-common. It also depends on what part of Switzerland you traveled to. And as for England, thier crime rates are climibing. I admit, though, that it was either violent crime or everything else (robbery, etc.) was climbing and the other was not, but I can't remeber which was which. |
|
A while ago... (none / 0) (#80) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 10:18:05 AM PST |
|
|
|
there was a study that proved that smoking cigarettes lead to unprotected sex, because statistics, apparently, don't lie. Cigarettes were also the cause of violent behavior, lying, pissing on crucifixes, and various other acts of debauchery.
You do see what's wrong here, right? Statistics, in fact, don't lie. However, they can be interpreted in many different ways. You are correct, there has been a rise in certain areas of crime in England, and it's quite easy for the firearms activists to point a finger at the gun ban. But you could also blame an increasing unemployment rate, a growing dissent among the populace with the Labour Party, Blair being a rectum-sucking puppet to the Dubya, etc.. Using statistics, anything can be justified as the truth. Lesson learned? -IB ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
Swiss... (none / 0) (#63) |
|
by walwyn on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 03:37:44 PM PST |
|
|
|
...gun (or should I say ammunition) control, is a revelation to behold.
|
|
Swiss ammo control... (none / 0) (#64) |
|
by Hyped on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 03:55:26 PM PST |
|
|
|
...is not what you think it is.
Registered Swiss militiamen are given a sealed tin with 70 rounds (or something like that). They are told not to break the seal on the tin, and if they do, it is a jailable offense. However, they are also free to take their automatic rifles to gun clubs, where they can purchase ammunition to fire on the range. They can purchase as much as they want, and fire it all. Swiss law does state that they must fire each round on the range before they leave, but actually, this law is not enforced at all, and somebody can gather up as much ammunition as they wish. And this is done, very often. Yet in spite of this, no Swiss militiaman has ever taken his SIG or M16 assault rifle and gone on a 'massacre'. |
|
Where do you get your data? (none / 0) (#65) |
|
by walwyn on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 05:24:56 PM PST |
|
|
|
Try the Swiss Embassy for a general overview. Seems that if you go wander around the street with a weapon, without a permit to do so, you're likely to get into serious trouble You'll have noted that there were 505 gun related crimes in Switzerland in 1998. For a country of 7 million, which does not have the social problems associated with gun crime like drugs or urban deprivation, this is remarkably high. |
|
Once again... (none / 0) (#66) |
|
by Hyped on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 05:45:47 PM PST |
|
|
|
...we must go through this.
"Seems that if you go wander around the street with a weapon, without a permit to do so, you're likely to get into serious trouble." Of course. The same thing will happen in the U.S. You can carry guns here, but only if you have a permit; if you don't, you get in big trouble. When did I ever say it wasn't like this? "You'll have noted that there were 505 gun related crimes in Switzerland in 1998. For a country of 7 million, which does not have the social problems associated with gun crime like drugs or urban deprivation, this is remarkably high." Compared to a country like Great Britain (in which guns are much more heavily restricted and less widely distributed), where handguns were used in over 15,000 offenses during the year of 2001? I would hardly say that it is significantly high at all. Besides, Switzerland has some big cities. Any big city has some drug- and gang-related crime, no matter what country. However, overall, Swiss gun crime is still very low, no matter what country you want to compare it to. Read this for more info about the Swiss system: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/wallstreet.html |
|
Apples and pears (none / 0) (#67) |
|
by walwyn on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 01:05:44 AM PST |
|
|
|
There where 6800 reported firearm offences in the UK in 2001, not 15,000. You obviously didn't notice that the 605 offences related to murder, and robbery. That works out at a 73% rate of offences in Switzerland per 100,000 of population compared to the UK. Yet Switzerland does not have the social problems of drugs and innercity poverty, so what gives. |
|
Mmmm...apples... (none / 0) (#69) |
|
by Hyped on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 01:21:57 PM PST |
|
|
|
...taste good. So this can't be apples.
"That works out at a 73% rate of offences in Switzerland per 100,000 of population compared to the UK." Across a population in which over 30% of households have guns in them? Compared to the UK in which guns are around in only 5% of households? That's hardly significant at all. If the U.S. had that rate, nobody would say a thing. Furthermore, it says guns were used in 66 homicides, 64 incidents in which a person was wounded, and 475 armed robberies. While I admit I was wrong about the number of firearms offenses in the U.K. (I just checked and found that my data is from 2000, not 2001, so it's my bad), you have just told me there were 6,800 firearms offenses reported in the U.K., which is what I need to know. That is significantly more than in Switzerland, in spite of the fact that the U.K. also has a much smaller supply of guns in civilian hands. Furthermore, in how many U.K. firearms offenses were guns used in homicides? I have no data available for 2001, I do recall seeing a number for 1999 putting it at about 50-60. That is nearly the same as in Switzerland; and again, this is in spite of the smaller gun supply in the U.K. "Yet Switzerland does not have the social problems of drugs and innercity poverty, so what gives." Again, you're going to have to show me some information about this. I don't know much more about it than you seem to, but ANY country with large cities is going to have some crime and drugs to deal with. It may not be a dominant problem in society, but it does exist, and with it exists violence, and with violence exists some gun crime. |
|
Of course... (none / 0) (#70) |
|
by walwyn on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 03:36:01 PM PST |
|
|
|
...just as no assault rifles have been used to massacre people in Switzerland, and the 1996 toughening of Swiss law on guns had nothing to do with mass gun related murders, so now according to you, there was also a 60% decrease from 2000 to 2001 in gun related crime in the UK. Looks like the handgun ban really has worked eh! |
|
No, that's not what I said... (none / 0) (#71) |
|
by Hyped on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 04:40:43 PM PST |
|
|
|
...it's actually what YOU said.
Unfortunately, I have no way of verifying your claim that 6,800 gun offenses were committed last year. I merely stated it as a point of reference. However, I have yet to find any way of verifying this number you claim. In fact, I've seen in some cases that crime statistics for guns in the year 2001 haven't even been released yet, so I'd like to see where you get them. The handgun ban did NOT do its job...in the years following Dunblane, gun crime in Britain rose tremendously, especially the use of handguns (over 54%). Police are now arming up more than before; in fact, I read once that every police officer in the U.K. (not just armed response teams) will be carrying a gun in the next ten years. Also, keep in mind that the British government grossly underestimates crime. In the U.S., if a guy kills 3 people, it counts as 3 crimes. In the U.K., it would all count as one crime. For this reason, crime of all types (guns included) may be significantly higher than they report. |
|
Oh, one thing... (none / 0) (#72) |
|
by Hyped on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 04:47:21 PM PST |
|
|
|
You've heard about Australia's gun ban, right? Here are some interesting articles circulating about it:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 |
|
Apples and Pears (none / 0) (#73) |
|
by walwyn on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 05:11:06 PM PST |
|
|
|
Try the Home Office. Your 15,000+ incidents is only acheiveable if you add in the 10,000+ crime reports of incidents involving airguns. 75% of which were reports of criminal damage. |
|
OK, then... (none / 0) (#74) |
|
by Hyped on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 05:56:23 PM PST |
|
|
|
...fine. The article I read gave no specifics. I'll assume you're right, for now, anyway.
I'd say, more information pending on the U.K. stats. Neither of us can say much else. However, from a study of recent incidents, it doesn't look like the 1997 Firearms Act has prevented any criminals from acquiring guns. Criminals in the U.K. still have access to large-caliber handguns as well as automatic and semi-automatic weapons such as AK47 assault rifles and Uzi submachine guns. Police are evidently very worried about this gun threat, otherwise I'm sure they wouldn't be insisting on arming up. |
|
Guns = Good (overall) (none / 0) (#15) |
|
by Hyped on Sun Aug 18th, 2002 at 07:58:08 AM PST |
|
|
|
Hi, everybody.
I would just like to remind all of you that guns are used defensively by Americans over 2.5 million times a year (compared to 30,000 lives taken). Yes, I know that it is still horrible to watch people getting killed by them, but the fact remains that they are saving FAR more lives than they take. We have to be objective and remind ourselves of how much more good they do, instead of harping on the bad. Also, keep in mind that gun killings are 2/3rds criminals killing other criminals, and even in over 95% of gun homicides, the person who pulls the trigger is a 'career' criminal - a drug dealer, gang-banger, or mugger. Incidents in which spouses kill spouses, motorists kill motorists, or high school kids kill high school kids, or seemingly normal people kill other seemingly normal people, are extremely rare and account for a nearly invisible fraction of gun crime. However, the news media does not portray it in this way. They try to make it look as though ALL gun deaths are caused by high school kids who go berserk against their classmates. Also, somebody else mentioned that fewer than 5% of guns used in crime are purchased legally. This is true - most are black market purchases or stolen. And for those of you who might think, 'Well, if we banned guns, then wouldn't they have no more of them to steal?', keep in mind that not all of these guns were once civilian-owned. A large number of weapons are also stolen from law enforcement and even military resources. There are inner-city gun runners who sell fully automatic military weapons such as AK47s' and M16s' (not legal to own in the U.S. without BATF registration) to kids as young as 14 from the trunks of cars. Guns in the wrong hands are obviously a bad thing, but there are far more guns in the right hands than in the wrong hands. As long as it stays this way, I think guns in our society are a good thing. |
|
Let me guess... (none / 0) (#131) |
|
by derek3000 on Tue Aug 27th, 2002 at 02:01:24 PM PST |
|
|
|
Also, keep in mind that gun killings are 2/3rds criminals killing other criminals, and even in over 95% of gun homicides, the person who pulls the trigger is a 'career' criminal - a drug dealer, gang-banger, or mugger. It's just Social Darwinism in action, right d00d? I'll sleep well tonight knowing that most of the 30,000 were worthless anyway. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie |
|
Guns (none / 0) (#16) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 05:42:09 AM PST |
|
|
|
I cant believe how stupid some people can be. One of the reasons why guns haven't been fully outlawed yet in the USA is because of WAR. Yes, thats right. Take all the guns out of this country and we will be doomed. With the amounts of other countries that hate us at least SOME of our people must know how to use a gun in case there was ever a draft. If there were no guns out to the civilian world, and we got into a big war don't you think it would make our side of the war easier if even 1/4 of the people getting drafted already knew gun basics? You 'soccer moms' can take away the guns but if we ever got into a major war, and I mean serious WW3 or something you will be crying like babies to get the guns back into the country because our drafted troops will not know what the hell they are doing. Our country has been strong for all these years with guns. Why risk taking them away. Criminals are ALWAYS going to find ways to get guns don't worry about that. There is no way to stop gun related crime. What is the point with taking them away from sportsman and target shooters? Look at 2 of the countries that put the big ban on guns. Great Britain and Australia. Funny how they are both surrounded by water right? Ever think that maybe thats how they can keep guns from getting in? With Canada and Mexico within arms reach, and our government not PEOPLE from getting in how do you think they will stop guns? |
|
Yuo = teh m0r0n (none / 0) (#19) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 12:33:47 PM PST |
|
|
|
You think operating a gun is difficult ? It is the ultimate point and click interface. I guarantee you that you give me any firearm, and within 1/2 hour I will know how to load it, fire it, clean it and possibly strip it.<p>
Guns designed for the military (M16, SA80 etc) are designed to be used by people with a reading age of 8. <p> It is not rocket science. Stick bullets in cart, load cart, release safety, point gun, pull trigger. <p> And to any ESR-style gun-fetishists out there, please don't reply to this with a 15-page rebuttal of how complicated and difficult guns are to use. They just ARENT THAT DIFFICULT. |
|
re: Yuo = teh m0r0n (none / 0) (#29) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 07:49:39 AM PST |
|
|
|
Do you know anything about guns? It's not THAT easy to fire a weapon even remotely accurately unless you know what you are doing. If I were to drop a .50 Desert Eagle in your hand and let you try to squeeze off 3 rounds, you'd have to shattered wrists. Nevermind the fact that you wouldn't have hit anything in the first place.
Yes, guns are simple machines. Yes, they are easy to assemble and disassemble. But, easy to use? Not even close. Tool. |
|
re: Yuo = teh m0r0n (none / 0) (#50) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 10:04:04 AM PST |
|
|
|
haha yeah ok think up the most dificult weapon to use to make your point sure....
Fact is the first time i fired a firearm with 2 minutes of training i hit my target. Now maybe if the army was stockpiling desert eagles to hand out to drafted troops we might have a problem. Besides its not like the army is going to stop training people when war starts. When the draft has been used in the past people still went through basic. Even in case of extreme emergency (ie enemy in ohio) you would probably get an hour or two of weapon training. Btw: im all for having guns around. you just have the dumbest argument for having them i think ive ever heard. |
|
re: Yuo = teh m0r0n (none / 0) (#53) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 01:48:55 PM PST |
|
|
|
How close was the target and what kind of gun was it? An 8 year old (I know I did it at that age) can easily fire a .22 rifle at a close target with good accuracy. However, when you give someone a more powerful weapon and challenge him to hit an enemy with a perfect kill shot at over one mile away, then it starts to get difficult. You must compensate for wind, rain, brush, movement of the target, kickback from the gun, adjusting the scope properly, etc.
Guns can be easy to use but that can also be hard under many situations. |
|
Who in their right mind (none / 0) (#68) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 09:11:43 AM PST |
|
|
|
Would want a Desert Eagle anyway ? The kind of moron that watches 'Arnie' movies. I repeat my original point. It is NOT rocket science. |
|
It is good though (none / 0) (#118) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 06:37:01 PM PST |
|
|
|
It is good some kids for ex Klebold and Harris took it upon themselves to learn gun basics, unfortunately they could not be salvaged and used as part of some suicide attack platoon we could drop in unfriendly territory. If only more kids would take this tack we could leverage a unique opportunity to move into suicide attack space and achieve synergies with more convention nerve gas and nuclear weaponry that are already part of the US arsenal. |
|
Shattered Wrists (none / 0) (#117) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 06:33:35 PM PST |
|
|
|
Just because your wrists were shattered, don't think it will happen to everyone, sissy boy.
|
|
I can't believe how stupid you can be (none / 0) (#149) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 7th, 2002 at 08:39:45 PM PST |
|
|
|
"Our country has been strong for all these years with guns."
Maybe, if you would get rid of your guns and your plans for WW3, you wouldn't have so many countries hating your oppressive guts - and people would see you less as nationalistic bullies. Couldn't your country be strong for other reasons? You're not very flattering, I wonder if you really are an American. :P |
|
guns (none / 0) (#17) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 06:49:35 AM PST |
|
|
|
great britain cannot stop illegal firearms from coming in to our country, even the draconian firearms laws cannot stop the fact that despite there being a pistol ban the crime rate involving them has actually gone up. even the firearms that are used in england legally are rareley used in crime. i think that there should be some form of gun control to stop them from falling in to the wrong hands (children) but the restrictions in england need to be eased considerably, i personally have recentley shot a pistol in the british army and loved it and would like to do it in civvy street however i can not do this due to the politically motivated pistol ban. and in reply to the above post which said if no one owned guns then they would take longer to train if there ever was a draft, i had never fired a gun until i joined the army and it only took me about five hours to come to grips with the SA80 and was counted safe enough to take the weapon out on the range, and let me remind you that the british army is counted among the best in the world. |
|
Best in the world ? I doubt it. (none / 0) (#20) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 12:36:25 PM PST |
|
|
|
the british army is counted among the best in the world. Oh really ? Why do they use the SA80 then which has been dogged by problems for 10 years ? Even a Chinese AK47 replica is better than that "piece" of shit :-) I bet they would just love to get their hands on M16s |
|
With or without the ban... (none / 0) (#21) |
|
by walwyn on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 03:43:45 PM PST |
|
|
|
...firing guns in civvy street was as illegal as firing them on the high street.
|
|
Tch.... (none / 0) (#42) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 08:15:22 PM PST |
|
|
|
This topic has been discussed to hell with no apparent results. For all those who think "guns are bad":
Can you not understand that guns are not something special, some cursed item that will bring doom to the earth? They are inanimate objects designed and engineered to launch a lead projectile at speed. They are not 'bad', they are not 'good'! You know why? THEY AREN'T PEOPLE. THEY DONT HAVE A FRIGGIN MIND. THEY CANT ACT ON THEIR OWN. Its the people who are bad. The criminals. If we ban all guns cuz they're "bad", the criminals will simply use knifes, we ban knifes, they'll use bats, and we ban bats, they go on and use everything there in this universe that can possible be used to harm others, which, im afraid, IS EVERYTHING! Guns aren't good or bad, they're there for us humans to use. You dont want to use them, fine. You want to use them, also fine. A gun can't control what its user does with it, whether that action is 'good', or 'bad'. So what you relly want to say is "murders are bad", "bank robbers are bad", "terrorists are bad", which is, of course, given. So this discussion is pointless. Just my 2 cents. |
|
amazing... (none / 0) (#49) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 07:16:28 AM PST |
|
|
|
how guns are so feared and hated in this country, yet the worst act of terrorism that we have faced yet was carried out by box cutters!!!!
JEEZIZ, people, get a friggin' clue. |
|
Yes, amazing... (none / 0) (#77) |
|
by Hyped on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 06:59:36 AM PST |
|
|
|
...that guns could have easily stopped them as well. If some of those people were allowed to carry handguns on the plane, they could have stopped the whole thing before it started. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have people carrying handguns on the plane; if you decide to pull a box cutter and end up with 100 guns in your face, you'd rethink the situation very quickly. |
|
LARRY: Hey, Bob... (5.00 / 2) (#83) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 01:22:16 PM PST |
|
|
|
Look! We can bring guns on to this plane! Now we don't need to carry box cutters! It will be so easy to carry out the orders of our Ananuki Lizard overlords!
BOB: Yay! Remember to bring JHP ammo so we don't compromise the air pressure and general integrity of the plane! Bob and Larry board their plane, loaded to bear. Midflight, they quickly draw their weapons. BOB: We take this plane in the name of great Allah! Death to the West! LARRY: AIYAIYAIYAIYAIYAIYAIYAIYAIYAI! Immediately, a hundred guns are pointed at them. Bob and Larry look undeterred. BOB and LARRY, together: JIHAAAAAAAAAD! A fire fight ensues. Most of the civilians, untrained in the proper use of firearms, injure themselves and others. Even though Bob and Larry are quickly dispatched, no one stops firing in the ensuing chaos, unsure of who's who or what's what in the swirling mass of noise and confusion. There are a lot of dead, a lot more injured, and several portions of the plane are under questionable states of structural integrity. The pilot, hit by a dozen stray bullets that have penetrated through the flimsy, cost efficient doors and barriers blocking the way into the cabin, lies slumped over the console. With the few people with real air experience lying dead on the floor, the plane screams toward the ground. Little Sally, only six years old on her way to see granpa, would be crying, except her brains are now lying scattered across her mom's favorite yellow dress. THE END Next week, we'll bring you "Larry and Bob's Adventures with High Explosives at 10,000 Feet", "Larry and Bob Take Several Hostages to Ensure the Cooperation of the Heavily Armed Yanks", and Arthur Miller's "Death of a Salesman." Also, our sister playgroup will be performing productions of "Crazed Lunatic Aboard A Plane With A Gun", "Romantic Misadventures in the Air", and "1,001 Mid-Flight Accidents." ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
Wow, great story... (none / 0) (#84) |
|
by Hyped on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 01:41:10 PM PST |
|
|
|
...it shows a lot of imagination for a worst-case scenario that is highly unlikely.
For one thing, there was once a time when it WAS legal to carry guns on planes. There were never any mass-panic incidents in which everybody started shooting things randomly and caused the plane to go down. And I was just exaggerating slightly when I said 100 people would have guns. If you had 1 or 2 people, it would have been enough to stop some guys with box cutters. Besides, since when is everybody so trigger-happy? You seem to assume that when people draw guns, they have an immediate impluse to shoot something ("Heavily Armed Yanks" my ass). Evidently, you're unaware that in less than 10% of defensive gun uses by Americas is the trigger ever pulled. Most simply involve pointing a gun at a criminal. Americans aren't as trigger-happy as you think. Also, the terrorists in September 11th couldn't have brought guns on board the plane (even if it was legal for other Americans), so they would STILL have to use box cutters. |
|
Yay! A point-by-point rebuttal! (5.00 / 1) (#87) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 02:13:10 PM PST |
|
|
|
Well, kinda, anyway. First off, the difference between 100 and 2 people is not a "slight exaggeration." An armed security guard is actually a good idea. I believe the Israelis practice a similar policy on their commerical flights. However, that does not mean that every citizen should be allowed to carry a gun onto the plane. I don't think that most citizens should be allowed to carry a gun period, without some form of extensive psychological testing and series of basic safety, maintenance, and marksmanship courses.
Secondly, there were no mass hysteria break outs when it was legal to carry guns onto planes simply because hi-jacking these damn things weren't really that common a practice back then. The world was simpler, you know, and people didn't lock their doors either. Times change. Third, I can assure you that everybody is indeed that trigger happy. What you gun advocates don't seem to understand is that the vast majority of people who purchase hand guns legally don't know how to shoot them, take care of them (for, as you should know, proper maintenance of a firearm is crucial to continued use and safety) or take even basic safety courses (there's a post I did as an AR somewhere in this poll that says as much). I believe you when you quote (quite out of your ass) that the trigger has only been pulled in less than 10 % of defensive gun uses in the US. Makes sense. Most people don't really want to hurt people, you know? But what if they fire first? Without proper training, I can assure you that everybody would indeed get that trigger happy (even the military has a history of such incidents breaking out with trained soldiers). And those terrorists would have fired first, or there would be situations where somebody would have fired a shot and freaked out, whatever. Do you want to take that chance? Finally, if it was legal for Americans to bring guns onboard planes, the terrorists would have been able to as well. They would have found a way. I mean, to use a pro-gun argument, if guns were banned and criminals could get their hands on them, couldn't that same logic apply in this situation as well? Doesn't seem like a worst case scenario now, does it? Actually seems pretty damn likely, if your little backwater proposal actually took place. Moron. Your logic is severely flawed, little boy, and you are diluting the gene pool. Go home and chop your genitalia off, post-haste! ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
Nope... (2.00 / 1) (#90) |
|
by Hyped on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 02:42:10 PM PST |
|
|
|
...your idea of trigger-happy people is still based on severely flawed logic.
"I believe you when you quote (quite out of your ass) that the trigger has only been pulled in less than 10 % of defensive gun uses in the US. Makes sense. Most people don't really want to hurt people, you know? But what if they fire first?" No, I'm afraid you're the one who talks out of your ass... In 80% of defensive gun situations, the attacker had come at the person first, and in over three-fourths of those instances, they were brandishing a weapon offensively. Yet simply drawing the gun was enough to scare them off. So it doesn't appear as though people are really so trigger-happy after all. "Finally, if it was legal for Americans to bring guns onboard planes, the terrorists would have been able to as well." Not without a carry permit; this would not be easy for the terrorists to acquire. It would involve many of the same checks you support, and they would most likely exclude these men for any criminal activities or mental illness records. "I don't think that most citizens should be allowed to carry a gun period, without some form of extensive psychological testing and series of basic safety, maintenance, and marksmanship courses." It is a constitutional RIGHT of the people to bear arms, whether you like it or not. Yes, this has more than often led to problems in our society, but as I have shown, guns still save many lives, more than they take. Making it harder for the people to own guns simply means that you are limiting their ability to defend themselves. Background checks are not a bad idea, and neither are a few quick courses on the range, but saying that people are THAT stupid that they can't use guns is still extreme. "Your logic is severely flawed, little boy, and you are diluting the gene pool. Go home and chop your genitalia off, post-haste!" Seriously, do you have some sort of problem relating to people that you have to be an asshole to everyone you meet? |
|
Yes. Yes I do. (5.00 / 1) (#92) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 03:27:47 PM PST |
|
|
|
My parents didn't love me enough when I was little. They wouldn't let me have that pony. So I shot them.
Look, are you not comprehending this? We are talking about being confronted aggressively with a firearm, which I thought I made pretty clear. "They were brandishing a weapon offensively." What type of weapon? A knife? A bat? A very large stick of some sort? Yes, if I had a gun, and a man was threatening to poke me with a large pointy stick, the other party would probably be very much intimidated and run off the moment I pulled the gun out of its holster. However, if he took a pot shot at me with a firearm, and I drew a gun, he would probably continue to shoot, which at that point I would shoot back. People are that trigger happy, you idiot. If someone fires at you, you fire back. And then the other party fires back. This continues until one either runs out of ammo, or is shot dead. Also the numbers supporting your claim were personal, one on one situations. Get a group of people into a stressful situation and panic will erupt. Triggers will be pulled. In my theoretical situation, the terrorists, who didn't really care about living anyway, would have fired first. Someone else would have fired. There would have been an exchange. A particularly gruesome exchange as well, considering how many parties would be involved. And your so-called "carry permits" would be extraordinairily easy to acquire. Just like it's easy to acquire illicit drugs, illegal arms, fake driver's licenses, fake passports, fake citizenship papers, etc.. Anybody who has the right connections (and these "terrorists" - god, I'm tired of talking about them - would have them; hell, most of the students here at U of C have them) can easily obtain any number of otherwise illegal or hard-to-obtain documentation/contraband. By the way, you do know that the right ot bear arms is extremely outdated, don't you? For a while, I could own people and beat the crap out of them back in the day and it would be perfectly legal, since they were treated as property. My constitutional rights ensured that my property was mine and mine alone, with which I could do anything I wanted to. Also, if you remember, women couldn't vote and alcohol was illegal for a while. On the flipside, my consitutional rights ensure me that I can smoke marijuana if I wanted to, and yet I can't (in Chicago, anyway). Do you get the point, here? The constitution (the amendments, bill of rights, whatever) is a work in progress. Things get changed. Laws get outdated. King George is no longer breathing down your necks, you know. Hey, you're one of those types that beat women and stick burning crosses on the lawns of poor, innocent black folk, aren't you? Nazi. Whatever. This isn't an argument about the legalities of the constitution. It's not even about taking weaponry on board planes. Hell, it's not even about guns anymore. It's about your sheer lack of intelligence. Look, whether you like it or not, people in general are dumb, untrained, prone to panic, and they shouldn't have weaponry. There are exceptions, but this is the general rule of thumb. Hell, there's an entire science dedicated to this. It's called sociology. I am pursuing my masters in it. If you're willing to put down a couple of bucks I can refer you to a series of online sociology (and psychology) journals that state as much. They just require a yearly membership fee. Or you can do the goddamn research yourself on the web. While sociologists in general have varying opinions on gun control, they all pretty much unanimously agree that most people are moronic by nature. I could explain it in full detail, but I'm afraid that your uneducated mind and third-grade RCL wouldn't understand it anyway. Just go ahead and spit out your statistics, junior. It doesn't matter; statistically, when taking your intelligence level and love of firearms into account, your meaningless, meandering existence should be over soon anyway. ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
Yes, it's true... (2.00 / 1) (#94) |
|
by Hyped on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 04:42:06 PM PST |
|
|
|
...I'm a Nazi and I burn crosses on the lawns of black people...never mind that I'm also originally from South Africa and that the Nazis supported gun control.
"By the way, you do know that the right ot bear arms is extremely outdated, don't you?" Good, then I guess we don't need free speech anymore, either. Or maybe we ought to let police drop by whenever they feel like it and search our homes for narcotics. Hell, why do we even need need trials or jurys...if we *think* somebody is guilty of something, then we execute them. The United States was not perfect when it got started. Yes, there were some bad aspects to our society (and there still are), but that isn't an argument for putting a big 'X' on the 2nd Amendment. Especially for your reasons: "King George is no longer breathing down your necks, you know." Ah, I see...for someone who thinks he's so hype that he can call people 'junior', you fail to have grasped the 2nd Amendment's deeper meaning. It wasn't meant for defense against the British, at least not first and foremost. I don't suppose its use as a check against government oppression ever came to mind? Or maybe you ought to hear from the founding fathers themselves (since you consider me to be a 'junior'): "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764 "We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;" ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors. "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46. "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788) Watch who you call an idiot. You ought to at least read about this shit before you act like you know everything. Hate to break it to you, pal, but guess what? You don't know everything. Especially not the fact that you're an arrogant jackass who thinks he's so great because he's majoring in sociology. "Look, whether you like it or not, people in general are dumb, untrained, prone to panic, and they shouldn't have weaponry." Then let's take away guns from the military and police. You've said they have lots of accidents with them, so I guess they don't need them either? Oh, but wait, I forgot...you also said that criminals are like Jedi when it comes to firearms. Only criminals can use guns...but nobody else can. Let's play the banning game, then, based on people's stupidity. Let's take away cars. Most people are dumb and might get into a fatal accident on a highway, and we can't trust them to be behind such a dangerous machine. So bye-bye cars. And don't give the shit about how 'guns are designed to kill. They're an exception.' The fact that a gun can kill is irrelevent. It's what it kills that matters. A gun can be used in self-defense to protect a person's life, or it can be used in a homicide by somebody with malicious intent to take a person's life. It can be used for good or bad. That is all that matters. Killing itself is not an inherently immoral action; the circumstances are what matter. Oh, and you say people can't be trusted with weaponry? Then come get this sharp, pointy stick that I broke off a tree, or I might stab somebody with it! "It doesn't matter; statistically, when taking your intelligence level and love of firearms into account, your meaningless, meandering existence should be over soon anyway." The ironic thing is that here, we have a guy who's so low that he has to attack people to make himself feel better. He's so special because he's studying a special field, so he can do anything he wants. Obviously, you've got so few friends that you've got to shoot off your collage-smart mouth at people to feel a sense of respect for yourself. Your words tell far more about you than they tell about me. |
|
hee hee (none / 0) (#95) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 04:54:36 PM PST |
|
|
|
dude, he's trolling you, and you fell hard for it. you're new to adequacy, aren't you? |
|
Oooh! Oooh! Come quick! Jeffersonian quotes. (5.00 / 2) (#97) |
|
by walwyn on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 05:12:59 PM PST |
|
|
|
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution) |
|
Wow... (2.00 / 1) (#101) |
|
by Hyped on Sun Aug 25th, 2002 at 06:32:06 AM PST |
|
|
|
...what the hell does that prove?
Guns are still useful today. They are used to protect people's lives (more than they are used to take them). They are used for hunting. Yes, we have to advance and not necesarily do things the same way as they were done 200 years ago, but guess what? That is why we have added new amendments to the Constitution. And so far, nobody has added one that prohibits firearms. Why? Because people still believe that firearms have use. You don't have a right to tell people that they can't have something just because it makes YOU afraid. The world doesn't revolve around you, pal. Some people need guns for self-defense. If you don't, then don't buy one. But don't take away their rights to defend themselves. |
|
You sure is dumb (5.00 / 2) (#102) |
|
by walwyn on Sun Aug 25th, 2002 at 07:32:07 AM PST |
|
|
|
The irony you fail to see is that Mr Jefferson is telling you that relying on the opinions of the past is stupidity itself. Nothing posted here has said you shouldn't have guns. What has happened is that your facts have been questioned; you have simply been asked to look at the raw data and draw some conclusions on it. However, you are unwilling to do so. You want the death certificates recounted, the murders by family members and acquantances reclassified, in short you want data that bolsters your own preconcieved opinion. You have got annoyed by the fact that others here don't share your warped ways with numbers, and after a week of discussion you seem to think this is all some ghastly plot to deprive you of your gun. |
|
This is so beating a dead horse... (none / 0) (#111) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 03:15:19 PM PST |
|
|
|
So for the rest of this post, I'm going to exclusively speak in the third person. At least it'll be more interesting that way.
Illiterate Bum thinks you're a fool. Yes, yes, Hitler banned gun control and ate nothing but vegetables. He was a liberalist, yadda yadda yadda, etc. etc. etc.. Still doesn't change the fact that you're a people-hating Nazi. Fact that you're from South Africa (*ahem APARTHEID cough*) doesn't score you any points, either. And when did IB ever say that he thought principles like free speech were an outdated notion? IB doesn't see that in any of his posts. The only thing that he said is that the constitution is a work in progress. IB sees a fool that can only see and read things that he wants to see. FOOL! IB pities the fool! (Now, for a challenge, IB is going to speak like a third person pirate.) Argh, ye scallywag, me thinks that your notion of guns and defending oneself from a sudden government oppression be outdated and for the lily-livered curs that be hidin' out in some landlubber's shack deep in Montana, argh! There be too many scurvy-ridden fools in the government for that to happen. The beautifully obese bureacracy maintained in that there government keeps that from happening, yargh. Them salty fellows that be the founders made sure that the US government would be balanced by the natural greed inherent in man, yargh, matey. (And now, we will be speaking like a third-person backwoods hick.) IB also never said that them there po-lice and meelitary are prone to accidents. He said that that there be a history of panic in stressful seetuations, to support his claim that them people, any people, are prone to panic under stress. And believe it or not, most of them criminals are better-trained with firearms than other folks, because most of them actually bother to get training with them firearms. However, IB completely agrees when you say that them automobeels should be banned. Them people shure are dumb. And even though IB don't want no ethics argument from a in-te-lectul infeerior like you, killing be a inherently immoral action. The justeefications be different, and some them be more moral than others, but the act of killing itself be a bad, bad thing. IB hopes that you fall on your sharp, pointy stick. Do rest of humanity there a favor, fella. Even though IB never said he could do any that damn thing he wants because he studies sociology, IB feels bad that you hit him right so dang close. IB is very insecure about himself, so he doggone there attacks others, who are so apparently insecure about themselves that it actually offended them. IB is not at all snickering like he done got his hands caught in the cookie jar when he meets people like you. Nope, not at all. He be feelin' real bad 'bout this one. Shyep. (And now back to the pirate!) Now, matey, get your weak-kneed scurvy rear walkin' on the plank. We's don't need another cowardly fool stinking up my ship. Get, you scurvy dog, get! ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
I can... (none / 0) (#113) |
|
by Hyped on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 03:38:33 PM PST |
|
|
|
...speak in third person as well, if you wish. Evidently, your first-person self is too insecure to address me directly and must bring in a speaker.
"Illiterate Bum thinks you're a fool." Great. Hyped believes that the feeling is mutual. "Fact that you're from South Africa (*ahem APARTHEID cough*) doesn't score you any points, either." No, IB has missed the point. Hyped is black. His parents moved to the United States because of apartheid in South Africa. "And when did IB ever say that he thought principles like free speech were an outdated notion?" And when did IB become the judge of what is outdated and what is not? Free speech is protected beyond question by IB, but he doesn't treat guns the same way, just because he's paranoid of them. "There be too many scurvy-ridden fools in the government for that to happen." OK, IB seems to believe that the government and Constitution have internal safeguards, but he thinks that we should ban and seize all guns (which violates the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution which the government must protect). Hyped is not afraid of government corruption. It justifies owning a gun, but it is not why he wants one. He wants to buy a gun because he ENJOYS shooting. Hyped takes it that IB has never been to a range before and does not understand why shooting is so enjoyable. "And believe it or not, most of them criminals are better-trained with firearms than other folks, because most of them actually bother to get training with them firearms." Hyped thinks that IB is now talking out of his ass. Criminals rarely ever use guns. Most simply buy a gun for self-defense (not to perpetrate crimes, despite common misconception). Furthermore, their status as criminals prevents them from going to most ranges. In Hyped's own county, the gun club does background checks on its members before giving them their membership cards. A criminal can't learn to use a gun very effectively without training on a range. "However, IB completely agrees when you say that them automobeels should be banned. Them people shure are dumb." Hyped asks IB to come try and take his car. Doing so would give Hyped a reason to beat IB's ass down and turn him into the police for attempted GTA. "And even though IB don't want no ethics argument from a in-te-lectul infeerior like you, killing be a inherently immoral action." Hyped wonders how IB can call him an intellectual inferior when he obviously doesn't know anything about Hyped's performance in school. Hyped feels no need to brag like a little show-off the way that IB has (about getting his master's), but it seems foolish that IB would be talking in such a way about a person that he obviously doesn't know. "The justeefications be different, and some them be more moral than others, but the act of killing itself be a bad, bad thing." Hyped agrees that it's bad when you have to kill somebody, which is why a gun is treated like a fire extinguisher: You hope you never have to use it. But Hyped thinks that if a killing is justifed, then it's not morally wrong for a person to defend themselves. "IB hopes that you fall on your sharp, pointy stick. Do rest of humanity there a favor, fella." Hyped thinks that he would be doing the rest of humanity a favor if he took the pointy stick and shoved it up IB's ass. |
|
And for an encore... (5.00 / 1) (#121) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 07:40:05 PM PST |
|
|
|
A poem for Adequacy.
Ahem. And the rain fell softly on the plain that day Because Hyped didn't realize that guns aren't the way. While free speech remained crucial to a free democracy It was plainly evident that guns needn't be. And while we all feel bad that you hate your very being That you must turn on your people and join the Nazi regime It's still no excuse to wave around guns And to excuse it all by calling it "fun." It's odd how the argument has meandered to where it has Because when you look at where it's been in the past It all too obvious that you have indeed lost But you drag it on, like the first winter's frost. You can't seem to grasp that you are merely trash A mark on the country like a very bad rash. I've justified all the points that I've made So you go to the tangent, find points that have yet to fade. It funny how you take this so seriously When it is almost so very obvious to see That I just enjoy arguing with twits And that I quite frankly don't give a shit. So twist my words, see if I care For all the adequate, kind and fair Can see that I'm just fucking with you And you're just fodder to amuse a few. So goodbye, sweet thing, goodbye and good night Let's end this thing here, seal it up tight Because if you keep responding like the idiot you are I'm just going to mock you, near and afar! Hugs and kisses, IB ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
Bravo... (none / 0) (#123) |
|
by Hyped on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 07:59:08 PM PST |
|
|
|
...for the Illiterate Bum.
Let's see if I can make yours relate to you: And the rain fell softly on the plain that day Because IB thought that guns aren't the way. While the right to bear arms remains crucial to a free democracy It was plainly evident that he thought it needn't be. And because he hated Hyped's very being He accused him of joining the Nazi regime It's odd how the argument has meandered to where it has Because when you look at where it's been in the past It all too obvious that IB has not won So he resorts to personal attacks against the gun. He can't seem to grasp that he is not so smart He thinks he knows it all by heart. Hyped has justified all the points of his But IB claims that he hasn't been. It funny how IB likes to be A total ass on Adequecy That he thinks he's such hot shit When in truth he's really the twit. So he tries to make Hyped think he's lost When in truth, it's just a toss Hyped knows that he being fucked with But he just likes to attack for kicks. So goodbye, sweet thing, goodbye and good night Let's end this thing here, seal it up tight Because if you come back to be a jerk I'll gladly put your ass in the dirt! Hugs and kisses, Hyped REMBMER CHILDREN: Personal attacks on people who you don't know are NOT arguments, no matter what an Illterate Bum (TM) tells you. They only show that you have no points to show for yourself, and establish you as being extremely dumb. |
|
One other thing... (none / 0) (#124) |
|
by Hyped on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 08:04:58 PM PST |
|
|
|
ANOTHER LESSON, KIDS: Remember, when you lose an argument, don't lie and say, 'Oh, I was just fucking around with you the whole time.' As Illiterate Bum has shown, he really had no argument, but he doesn't want to admit it, so now he claims that he was just doing it for fun. Be a gracious loser; accept when you are wrong. |
|
(*Grins*) (5.00 / 1) (#125) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 11:05:07 PM PST |
|
|
|
You know, I really didn't want to do this. Someone once said that winning an argument on the internet is like the retarded kid winning an argument over the other retarded kid, or something along those lines. I completely agree, which is why I would normally never ever bring this up. Oi. The things that other retarded kids make me do.
1. The opening point (i.e. the original argument) about it being a bad idea allowing average citizens to bring guns aboard planes? You lost that one, junior. 2. The point about it being very easy for terrorists to get the proper papers to bring guns onboard airplanes anyway? You lost that one too. 3. The part about people panicking when put under stressful situations? I think you lost that one as well. For your sake we'll toss in that bit about people brandishing weapons offensively", too, and include it as part of point three. Won't make you look as bad. In fact, we'll make it a package deal, and not bring up the fact that you conceded the point that most people who purchase firearms are not ably trained to use them too. 4. The part about the second amendment being outdated? I think I nailed that one. I could justify why it's outdated, using your reasoning for why it was instituted in the first place. You didn't even bother to try to tell me why it isn't on your follow-up response. Your secondary reason was because "you enjoyed shooting." Well, sure. Shooting is a lot of fun. I dropped many a quarter in Virtua Cop when I was a wee lad and had a fucking blast. But that logic is inconsistent, and I'm sure that you're at least intelligent enough to see why. Plus, Walwyn did a pretty bang-up job of pointing out why quoting from men of the past, no matter how wise, is a fallible argument. 5. The criminal thing (see any number of posts)? I lost that. I was trying to piss you off. 6. The thing about cars being banned? Well, we both agreed on that one, as long as it wasn't your automobile, apparently. THat's fine. You never said otherwise as to why cars shouldn't be banned. The repo men will be over shortly to confiscate your car. Even though I personally won't be there, feel free to put their respective asses in the dirt. 7. Killing being inherently immoral? Hell, you ended up agreeing with me on that one, right after you said that killing was not an immoral act! Think I got that one too, kiddo. 8. You being a nazi? Well, considering how defensive you are about that one, I'm pretty sure we can guess which side of the fascist fence you lean on, huh? 9. And your overall support for free access to weaponry? Well, considering that each one of your main points was shot down, one by one, I'm pretty sure you lost that one too. And then there's other things like military and police use of weaponry, the fact that you obviously cannot comprehend the written word, so on and so forth. But those are such small points that we'll just leave 'em out of here and not give you another chance to embarrass yourself. You might be wondering how I thought I won those? Well, I didn't really think about this argument as winning or losing, really. All I was really thinking of was how best to amuse myself. As I've stated before, I really don't give two shits about gun control personally, as I don't think I have enough objective data on the thing as to make an educated, informed opinion yet. But I digress. The points above were the ones that you stopped touching upon on later posts, instead spending much of your time vigorously defending yourself from my personal attacks. Makes me think that once your skewed statistics were taken down, you didn't have much of an argument left, did you? That's how I reasoned that I, for lack of a better word, won. Oh, and did you notice that I tried to avoid using statistics (and too many quotes) in my arguments? As I'm sure you're aware of, for every statistic that you brought up, I could have brought up another statistic saying the exact opposite. There are thousands of websites out there that I could have drawn from, but didn't. Just check google, for chrissakes. You do know that trying to win an argument with statistics and quotes is like trying to pee to put out a forest fire? Without putting your reasoning, an intelligent rationale behind all those numbers and quotes, it's ineffectual and the fire doesn't care. The real funny thing is that you didn't realize that I was still arguing in my little poem. Yargh. The failings of the American public school system. And goddamn it, could you do a couple of things for me? First off, stop using a point-by-point rebuttal system. It just shows that you know nothing about debate and that you can't even carry a clear, centralized idea to argue upon. You draw your arguments from the parent poster's previous points and go from there. It really just shows an intellectual flaw. Secondly, could you come up with your own amusing ways to argue instead of copying mine? Is your creativity just so non-existent that you must lift the work of others? It's kind of like when your sibling would play "shadow" and you wanted to give 'em a good, swift kick in the ass. Turn off the TV, twit (by the way, when you refer to yourself as "it," what exactly do you mean? There are many government and scientific laboratories that are just dying to get their hands on you). Christ, you do know why I started doing this, right? Because I'm bored with you. I wanted to amuse myself and others for the while. Beforehand, it was a bit like trying to reason with a small child as to why he couldn't have his cookie - repetitive and annoying. Look. I'll give you a choice here. No ad hominem attacks, no personal insults. You can either try to argue those nine points mentioned above intelligently without blindly relying on numbers, bow out gracefully right now and not respond, or we can continue this pattern of name-calling and insults (which, judging by your lack of creativity, you would lose). Whaddaya say, champ? ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
Copyright... (3.00 / 1) (#132) |
|
by Hyped on Tue Aug 27th, 2002 at 02:46:18 PM PST |
|
|
|
...is not what I am concerned about. You accuse me of stealing your arguing methods and not being creative. Since when did a debate because a test of one's creativity? Certainly, the point is to put up a good argument for your cause, but I really don't care how I do it.
In this debate, you have primarily tried to attack me personally. You claim you do it just for kicks. And why is that? I wonder. You accuse me of being a Nazi (even though I have said that I am black) and 'hating myself', and you enjoy treating me as though I am a child. This was not a 'retard' fight until YOU made it into one. However, none of what you have said about me holds any basis whatsoever. Again, do you know who I am? How old I am? Do you think my entire life even revolves around guns? I don't suppose you ever considered the fact that I am a hard-working person who enjoys basketball and hanging out with friends. You have treated me as though I am some low-class loser who is inferior to you the whole time. In truth, you have not proven to be a better man yourself. Ever heard, 'Don't argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their own level and then beat you with experience?' Strangely enough, if I am the idiot as you want to believe, you have just put yourself on equal ground with me. Your personal attacks on me and your promotions of your own minor achievements only show that you are out to be the big dick in this debate. You have bragged about getting your master's as if to prove that your statements automatically have validity. I had absolutely nothing against you when this got started. But because you seem to enjoy promoting yourself and appearing to be the 'grown-up' (even though acting as you have is even more childish than anything I have done), you have made this into an all-out bitching fest. You want to play that way? That is fine. I can do the same. You tell me that I shouldn't debate with statistics. If that's true, then YOU should not debate by attacking people personally. It is not called arguing; it's just showing that you really don't have any good argument. You have asked me to make a strong, centralized argument: First, for the reasons why I believe gun ownership is still just fine, and Second, why I believe that this debate really wasn't as much about you winning as you believed. I will try to avoid statistics as much as possible, but first, I must address one nagging concern: You continue to claim that my 2.5-million-lives-saved-annually statistic holds no water, and that is must be judged along the same lines as the Kellerman '43 times more likely' statistic. The difference is the Kellerman statistic has been confirmed (and acknowledged by the gun controllers themselves) to be false. The 2.5 million statistic has not. Until somebody proves otherwise, it can be taken for what it is. Nobody has done so yet. But the fact remains that guns are necesary, and perfectly acceptable forms of self-defense. Unlike martial arts, any person, even one with physical disabilities, can use one. I have an 80-year old grandfather who has a bad back. How do you expect him to defend himself? Do you want him to pull a Jet Li stunt on a burglar? This isn't the movies. In real life, situations can become very hairy unless you have the means to escape them. If you use martial arts, mace, or a stun gun, you have to get close to your attacker. Why risk getting into a dangerous close-quarters fight? With a gun, you point it, the robber gets scared, and he runs away. You don't have to shoot, and as you seem to agree yourself, most people are afraid to shoot somebody else with a gun. Having to kill somebody is something you hope you never have to do. But if it has to be done, then it will. I don't think that it is morally wrong to kill somebody if you have no other choice. Again, a gun is like a fire extinguisher: You hope you never have to do it. Besides, without guns, who do you expect to protect you from potential threats? The police? You don't need statistics to know that there are FAR fewer police officers in the U.S. than there are potential victims for criminals. If there are no guns around, and a criminal knows this, what is to deter him from attacking the victim? Obviously, certain crime (such as break-ins) rise, as it has in several countries that have banned gun ownership. Criminals have no fear of being shot by a homeowner. The alternative to allowing citizens to own guns is to come up with Draconian laws that allow extremely severe punishments for criminals (as in, cut off a guy's hand for stealing), so that criminals are much too afraid to get caught for commiting a crime. However, I am not sure I want that to happen, and frankly, I highly doubt that it would ever happen in the U.S. You believe that people shouldn't be allowed to have them because they are dangerous tools, and people are too foolish to own them. There are many dangerous tools in the world, many of which can cause just as much death and destruction if put in the wrong hands. From automobiles to lawn mowers to matches to electrical sockets to jumping off a cliff, there is always going to be an abundance of things that are ready to fuck a person over if they are incompetent enough to misuse them. If you want to ban guns solely on this basis, you've got a lot of other things to ban as well. And frankly, considering that some of them are essential to our everyday lives, this is not possible. Saying that something should be banned just because one or two people were stupid enough to have not learned how to use it is ridiculous. You have been misusing the internet to flame people. Does that mean we ban the internet now? Do you realize how few people have misused guns in this country? Does it justify taking them away from everybody, including the 99.999999999% that have not, and never will, misuse them? It's a logical fallacy to associate all gun owners automatically with violence and killing. Just as it would be a logical fallacy to associate all motorists with drunk-driving and head-on collisions. Most gun owners are peaceable people who have never hurt anyone. So what reason exists for taking away their weapons? And as for shooting as a hobby, your comparison of it to Virtua Cop is ridiculous. That's a video game that de-sensitizes people to the real thing; these are real firearms. If you would compare real guns to a video game, it shows that you have no grasp on reality. When you shoot a real firearm, you learn to respect it as what it is: A machine that gives great power. But with great power comes great responsibility, as we all know. When I shoot a gun, I learn to focus on a target. Does that situation not apply to real life as well? For me, basketball and firearms go hand-in-hand. That is just me, but many shooters will tell you the same. Furthermore, might I remind you that guns are essential to preservation of democracy. There have been too many countries in which leaders disarmed their populations before treating them like slaves. Many people have been killed at the hands of leaders without guns. If only the government has access to firearms, what stands in the way of preventing them from misusing them? Does this mean they would, necesarily? Of course not. But it can happen, and it has happened historically. In the United States, there is a system of checks and balances between branches of the government to make sure that each side does not misuse its power. The government is supposed to serve the people. Does that not give the people a right to have a check against the government? If the government tries to gain too much power, the citizens rise up in defense. That is the concept of a citizen milita; one that is ready to fight all threats to freedom. If a tyrannical government rose to power, it would be overthrown by armed rebellion. Will this happen? I doubt it; our society has changed quite a bit. But is it worth the risk not to have it? No. Now, you might ask, 'How do citizens with hunting rifles and .22s' beat an army that has tanks, fighter aircraft, and cruise missiles?' Well, that's where you've got to remember the Vietnam War. Or the Afghan War, or Checnya. In all of those wars, a small guerilla force (outnumbered and outgunned) managed to defeat a massive army that employed the most advanced weapons available in their fight against them. Guerilla wars cannot be won with advanced weapons; the conventional army loses if it does not win, while the guerilla army wins if it does not lose. By using sabotage tactics against the larger army, the guerilla forces win. The bigger high-tech army can't win that kind of war. Furthermore, Americans wouldn't be outnumbered in such a fight. There are 80 million American gun owners, and 1 million soldiers in the U.S. Army for the rising dictator to use. Even if only a fraction of these gun owners decided to fight, the dictator's forces would be outnumbered, and add this to the fact that they would be using standard weapons instead of guerilla tactics (see my argument above), and they are pretty much screwed for any chance at winning. The reasons for potential military action on the part of the civilians are why I think machine guns should be legal. Machine guns are the weapons that a militia would use (not sporting weapons), and the 2nd Amendment refers to a militia, does it not? Yes, I know that the thought of people having machine guns is a scary one, but nobody has ever used a legally-purchased machine gun to commit a crime in the U.S., so there is no reason to take them away from civilians who are licensed to own one. Relating to having guns on a plane, I still don't see a reason why it shouldn't happen. If a few people had guns (again, they don't need to be private citizens), it could stop the terrorists. I still doubt that the terrorists could get guns on board the plane if there were enough checks. Better yet, though, it would be a good idea to make sure that the people carrying the guns on the plane are closely associated with the airline. Also, Walwyn's quote is still of no relevence. Yes, it's true that you don't necesarily need to take everything somebody else said for granted, but it's also true that they could still be right. Investigate, and determine if they are, instead of rushing to say they were wrong. And that is all. Should you choose to respond to this argument with more of your personal attacks and insulting (as in, calling me a 'kid' or 'Nazi'), it will just prove once and for all who is really the asshole in this debate. And don't say that for you, this debate has been entirely for kicks. If you look at any of your original posts, you obviously were interested in taking a serious stand on the issue. Only when I started responding did you begin to act like an arrogant jackass. |
|
Furthermore... (none / 0) (#133) |
|
by Hyped on Tue Aug 27th, 2002 at 03:00:10 PM PST |
|
|
|
...you have told me that the 2.5 million defensive gun uses survey results that are biased and were conducted by the NRA. You asked me to find an impartial source. Well, in 1994, the Department of Justice (read: impartial), conducted a study called 'Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms.' This survey estimated at least 1.5 to 2 million defensive gun uses annually. Smaller than Kleck's estimate, but still vastly outnumbering the number of crimes committed with guns in the U.S. |
|
Folks, this post is long. I advise skipping it. (none / 0) (#134) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Wed Aug 28th, 2002 at 02:56:03 AM PST |
|
|
|
Great! Stupendous! Spectacular! Un-fuckin'-believable! You finally stopped defending yourself from insults to put together something coherent and not full of holes! (*clapping wildly*)
I never said that I wasn't the jackass. You called me one, I kept on insulting you. I never said otherwise. Surprised that you took so long to figure that one out. Didn't I warn you as such earlier? I will not stop debating by insulting people. This isn't a formal debate forum. As long as the arguments are solid, insults are a fun and entertaining way to keep the peanut gallery amused in otherwise bland and uninteresting topics. Plus, it's even funnier when one party starts taking 'em personally. Secondly, you took the sociology thing way too seriously. I used it once, a pretty good ways down the line, to sort of validify (however, being on the internet, I could have also told you that I currently hold a PhD in neuro-science and molecular biology) my position on the fact that people in general are indeed stupid and prone to panic. I can still point you to those pay links if you'd like. Third, the only way to bait folks like you is to take a serious stance. You're the one that bit. My very first post on this subject explicitly stated that I couldn't give too shits about gun control. Or I might have started off pointing out the inconsistencies of your logic. Whatever. Fourth, argue with statistics! Knock yourself out! My original point is that using statistics, without questioning their sources and formulating your own rationale behind the numbers is idiotic. Randomly throwing numbers out in the hope to stun someone by its magnitude is futile at best, and only works with the Joe Blow that gets all his news from his local 11:00 cast. Fifth, I don't care how you argue, as long as you don't steal my intellectual property. If you had written a different poem, without so bastardizing my work of utter, sheer genius, I wouldn't have really noticed. I even might have laughed and clapped my hands like a giddy little school girl. However, as it stands, your blatant theft of my IP just makes you look like a bitter, ignorant child that can't realize when he's been outwitted. No stronger sign of ignorance than twisting the words of another for lack of a better argument. Plus, your version of my poem sucked, so much more than my original. Sixth, I had great arguments. They were just peppered with insults directed towards you. And finally, all arguments on the internet are "retard fights". I thought that was just a given. And that's it. No more arguments about the etiquette of the 'net. Being free and informal, there isn't one. You either like it, take it, or leave. The end. Keep on bringing it up and I'll just call you a dress-wearing school girl that can't understand the simple politics behind a free forum. Okay. Let's start this off with a simple statement - "Guns are bad and are not needed for today's modern western society." Or specifically, "Guns are bad and are not needed for today's modern US society." We'll start with an excerpt from the Second Amendment, which is what all gun rights hinge upon anyway. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment to the Constitution. This is clearly an outdated sentiment that no longer rings true in today's modern world. And it was about King George (or James, or Henry, or what-fucking-ever), to a certain extent. These amendments were set after the tumultous events of the War for Independence, when the newly formed US was still feeling the boot of an overseas monarchy. The founders, eager to relieve the fears of a centralized government held by many of the citizenry at the time (your Jefferson and Madison quotes even state as such, to a certain extent), placed the Second Amendment to ensure that the federal government would never have a strangle hold on military power over the states. I'm sure how we can see that this does not hold anymore relevance in today's United States. Considering how much power that the states wield over the federal government (take a gander at California, for instance) and the inherent checks to keep the federal government contained, it's easy to see how antiquated and anachronistic the Second Amendment (which, for purposes of my tiring fingers, will be abbreviated to Bob) is. The founders were wise men; cynical and pessimisstic about human nature, relying on the inherent greed of man to keep power in balance. Worked quite well, didn't it? While some advocates might jump on the second part of the above statement, one must take a look at the ruling that the Supreme Court had made about Bob in the 1939 case of US vs. Miller. This ruling has not been contested by any judiciary body as of yet, and has been held by every single Justice to this day. To those who are too lazy to read the whole thing and draw their own conclusions, it states, in a nutshell, that Bob must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. It in no way guarantees private ownership of a fire arm, nor in no way prohibits reasonable regulation of gun ownership (can you believe that some people believe that firearms shouldn't be licensed and registered, too? Makes me wanna go back to Hong Kong, cesspool that it is). Plus, guerilla tactics or not, you are aware that in each of those conflicts that you named, the respective forces had money, equipment, and even troops pumped in from much larger, much more advanced countries and militaries? The Russians supported the Vietnamese. The US supported the Afghans. The Chechnyans had support from every single major Arabic nation in that region. Not to mention the special circumstances that the opposing side suffered in each conflict (the Russians, for example, were dumb. Ass-dumb. Poor supply lines, poor communication, bad intelligence, shuffling back home, etc. But any military buff can tell you that. The US was fighting another sort of war at home and weren't prepared for the absolutely inhuman tactics used by the Vietnamese. With the Chechnyans, the Russians were still ass-dumb). Guerilla tactics, my friend, are quite dead. Need I remind you of how the US steamrolled over Afghanistan in the "war (snicker) on terror"? No, my friend, for Bob to still be valid in the highly unlikely event of a hostile federal government takeover, the definition of "arms" must be extended to its current day use: SAM missiles, artillery, tactical nukes, guided thermal bombs, etc.. Small arms just wouldn't cut it, unless we were to issue the H&K/Alliant Techsystems OICW SABR (which, at a going rate of $12,000 per unit, is a STEAL!) to local citizen militias. Secondly, numbers don't matter. In history, nearly every battle was won with smart strategy and better technology. Just look at how the British fended off the Luftwaffe in WW II. They were always out numbered in every conflict, and yet the German air plan for England failed miserably. 80 mil. US citizens or not, "standard weapons" (and you do know how far military technology has come within the past three years alone) or not, guerrilla tactics or not, it won't matter one bit. Unless, of course, the citizens decide to start strapping bombs onto kids. I don't think there's really any defense for that. But I digress. Bob is senile in his old age and is no longer applicable in the gun control debate. The private citizen, that is not in service to a state-maintained militia, has no need nor right to purchase a fire arm as stated under Bob. Considering the types of arms required for modern warfare, and that most gun-advocates will agree that letting people purchase rocket launchers, Stingers, and F15 Air Superiority fighters is a bad, bad idea, we can only conclude that Bob has shit his Depends and no longer holds any relevance in a modern, civilized society. Now, the right to preserve guns as a "sport," or "pastime." This is an inherently flawed logic, and my Virtua Cop (which is a fuckin' blast, by the way - don't tell me you don't enjoy the game) is actually more relevant than you thought. Shooting is a sport in the same way that bowling or golf or shooting pool is a sport, i.e. it isn't. Shooting isn't even a skill. Long-distance marksmanship is a skill, and a pretty damn impressive one at that. Shooting in itself, like at a local range, is anything but. To use an advocate's argument in regards to self-defense, "anyone can do it. It's the great equalizer." And some people can do it well and some can't. But it does not legitimize it as a sport. There is no strategy, no conflict, no competition, no physical activity, no science to the damn thing. And don't bring up either: A. The Olympics. They tried to legitimize jumping on fuckin' trampolines, for chrissakes! Fuck the Olympics. Like skeet shooting. It's about as much of a sport as a marathon round in Duck Hunt. Besides, everybody knows that the Olympics is not a collection of sports more than it is a collection of asinine skills that would almost never prove practical in real life. B. Any cockamamie concoction invented by gun-nuts to try and make shooting more challenging. I don't know of any, but I'm guessing there's some type of crap floating out there that some deranged gun-waver invented to try and make himself out to be a "sportsman". Team Paintball, however, is a sport. We shouldn't ban paintball guns. Also, the logic that lies behind the notion that "guns shouldn't be illegal because we enjoy shooting" is also inherently flawed. As much as many advocates would like to dance around it, guns are a tool specifically made to kill. There's no other way around it. They serve no other legitimate purpose other than to kill, hurt, and maim. Guns were not invented and not designed for "self-defense" or even hunting, even though they can be used as such. They were designed to effectively kill things (specifically, when they were first invented, those things were exclusively humans) from a distance. They were not designed with a benevolent social cause in mind, like cars and lawn mowers and electrical sockets and high cliff sides. Guns, however, cannot claim to have been invented with even the slightest hint of social benevolence in mind. (A digression: Actually, for a bit of history, guns were designed for use by unskilled soldiers as an effective method for delivering a lethal projectile. Training bowmen - especially that most grand of all bows, the English yew Long - was costly, difficult, and required someone to have the natural gift for it. One could train an entire battalion of troops to use guns with a fraction of the time and money expended. Its inaccuracies and reload time were compensated for by the staggered firing strategies used. And yes, I'm quite aware that artillery came first.) To use similar analogies, lets say that I was a sick individual that enjoyed raping women, molesting small children, and driving drunk, "pastimes" that millions of Americans enjoy each year. These are activities that I enjoy and serve no discernible purpose other than to harm others. Even though I plainly enjoy these activities, it doesn't legitimize their "rights" to legality. Let's push it a bit further. I am a bitter old man living in a shack in Wyoming, the home of nothing. I make home-made explosives. They serve no purpose other than to kill things and blow up real good. I like detonating them in cleared forest fields, with no human life around. I am harming no one. However, it does not legitimize its claim to legality in the least. One last analogy. I am a morphine (gun) addict. I have the money to pay for the habit, and a doctor (gun shop) friend who can supply me. The only person I can possibly hurt is myself, unless I decided to start spontaneously injecting (shooting) people. There are no others who can be harmed by my activity, and I enjoy morphine (shooting) tremendously. Does it make it legal? No. Does the fact that it used to be legal make it legal? No. Are recreational drugs (private guns) necessary for the further advancement and protection of today's modern society? No. As such, does the government have a right to restrict, and possibly prevent through strict laws, my morphine (gun) usage? Yes. Does Bob have any affect on my gun (morphine) usage? No, since we debunked that anachronistic throwback above. Does the DOI and Constitution protect my right to morphine (guns)? Well, yes, but it's highly debatable. It all depends on how you define the statement, "Pursuit of happiness," and how you view recreational drug use and explosives making/detonation. Logically, you can't support gun usage without supporting recreational drug use and recreational explosives detonation. (Another Digression: One more time: Virtua Cop is a fucking blast. You read that statement incorrectly. I was likening enjoying Virtua Cop to enjoying shooting on the range. It's essentially the same thing: target practice. Of course I respect fire arms. It's why I think their availability should be highly limited. However, I can't kill someone with a Virtua Cop machine, unless I dropped it on top of their heads using a forklift, and why would I do that when I can just purchase a gun, a tool designed for killing? Virtua Cop was not designed to kill from its first inception. And don't give me that wah-wah bullshit of how video games are killer trainers. It's been debunked so many times that I'm sure you know that you can't use that in any intelligent debate.) In the end, we can only logically conclude that to excuse guns in the name of "enjoyment" and "sport" is logically fallible. Now, gun advocacy in the name of tools: I agree. A gun is a tool. A tool designed to kill, and rather effectively, at that. The first that one usually hears (and this falls into the points mentioned above) is that a gun is a tool for hunting. However, there is no longer any need to hunt. It serves no practical purpose in today's modern society other than as a barbaric bonding ritual (not a sport, mind you, but a ritual - maybe a pastime) shared by men (and some women). And any bonding ritual that requires the life of another living thing extinguished is, by its definition, barbaric, cruel, and completely unnecessary. The only reasonable excuse to hunt is if you need that meat more than the animal does, but once again, that situation rarely crops up in the civilized world. The second point about the "guns as tools" argument that gun advocates usually bring up is the self-defense notion. This is where it gets prickly. In this type of situation, the only thing that can be tossed around are numbers. For example, your statistic from the Justice Department (do you have links?) state that 1.5 mil. to 2 mil. uses of guns as a self-defense tool were recorded. However, just like you question the numbers of gun-control advocates, you must question your own. How many of those were in life-threatening situations? How inflated are the numbers due to people's natural tendency to be idiotic (I thought I heard a burglar, I screamed "I have a gun!" and when I went downstairs I found nothing!)? How many of those incidents recorded were actually offensive cases registered as defensive cases (people always think that they are in the right and defending themselves)? This is why a statistic, any statistic is unreliable and must be open to question. For example, I could point out that 30,000 people or so each year are killed with hand guns, and that a further 60,000 people are injured with hand guns. I could point out that for every legally justifiable (self-defense) shooting there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide shootings as well. I could point out that the presence of a gun in a home triples the chance for homicide, and increases the chance for suicide fivefold. I could point out that all direct and indirect costs of gun violence costs the nation 100 bil. dollars per year, with 80% of that coming of the taxpayer's pocket. I could point out that in 1996 guns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 9,390 in the US (mind you, taking total population, population density and available amount of land into account, Japan and GB should in actuality have a much higher rate than the US). I could point out that in 1999 there were only 154 justifiable homicides in the US. I could also point out that UC Berkeley has conducted studies refuting the 2.5 mil and even the more conservative Just. Dept. stat as being over-inflated and highly unreliable. And if I wanted to, I could say that statistically, guns are the only thing keeping aliens from invading the earth. Blah blah fuckin' blah. Get my point? I'm not saying those statistics invalidate the self-defense claim. Far from it. I am saying that these numbers (including yours) are, and always will be, unreliable. Unfortunately, a war of statistics is the only way the self-defense argument could be fought, and because of that, we can consider it futile. We'll say that at present time, it can't be decided either way. On a side note, self-defense is not necessary when one takes the proper care for prevention first. Good security systems for those oh-so-rare "hot burglaries". Staying out of seedy parts of town. Being in well-lit areas. Cutting military spending and reallocating it to states for use in their police budgets. Proper education. Cutting crime at the source by upping taxes in the upper-class bracket, reallocating that money to crime-prone inner city areas, and allowing those people (by the way, a little sociology fact for you - social mobility, while possible, almost never happens, except in the middle class, where it's actually quite high in both directions. Poor people stay poor. Rich people stay rich. It's a vicious cycle with some surprisingly easy answers. For the sake of space I will not clarify further here) some fucking hope for social mobility and education. I could go on and on. You do not treat a sickness by removing its symptons. You go for the source. Another side not: Oh, and by the way, I agree that most people will not attack somebody with a gun. However, if a gun is used in a crime, more often than not the perp's gun will be drawn before the victim can draw his. Also, what's going to deter the criminal from attacking the victim? Getting an assault charge and alerting someone who might actually call the authorities. As Mr. Isn't has pointed out, criminals for the most part try their damndest not to get caught, unless they're sick homicidal fiends. And, unlike what most gun advocates want to believe, most criminals are not sick homicidal fiends. And guns falling into the hands of criminals? Considering that many guns are resold in the secondary market after being legally purchased (check any ATF site for those stats), we can conclude that gun use in crime would actually go down after a ban. The British statistics are skewed; most people over there really didn't purchase many guns in the first place. Those are the same black market numbers that they've always had, and to be quite frank, aren't actually that high in comparison. We cannot say the same for the US, considering how it is done. Gunrunners and black marketeers, while numerous, fly too low on the radar to have any sort of real significance on the numbers. And military and police grade hardware do not get stolen nearly as often as gun advocates would have you believe. If anything, black market guns are things like cheap Chinese AK47 knock offs, etc. etc. You want the stats for that too? Next time. I'm tired. But they'll be skewed, same as any of the numbers that you'll come up with. It's hard to find objective info. How about we call that point a draw too, due to the numbers game that a point like that will inevitably draw us into? In conclusion, we have decided that with the exception of the thorny, statistics laden issue of self-defense, that most other reasons to own a gun are no longer applicable to today's US society. Should we not allow people to have guns? Probably not. Just like Mr. Richard D. James can drive around in an unarmed and decommissioned tank, people can also have guns. However, there should be strict regulations, extensive testing and profiling, and a series of safety and marksmanship courses required. Also, the gun should be registered with the FBI, local police agencies, and other appropriate authorities. Furthermore, applicants should be required for further testing ever 5 years or so - just like driver's licenses. If people really were that passionate about their fire arms, they wouldn't mind going through what is only a bit more a hassle than the local DMV to keep 'em. If they're not going to do anything wrong with the weaponry, they shouldn't mind. Lessee, anything I've missed...? The plane thing! I still won. Those types of close quarters, in an environment where control is important, with untrained civvies? Doesn't work. At most, two armed guards that have been hired for the post after extensive background checks, preferably ex-military, kinda like the Israelis do. No more than that. Allowing anybody to take a gun onboard a plane with the proper papers is hazardous, no matter how many checks. Until you prove to me that it is difficult to get my hands on fake driver's licenses, passports, birth and death certificates, illegal substances, and human hearts, anything that will let a non-US government sanctioned employee carry a gun onboard a plane is just a stupid idea. Yes, for the most part, this debate has been entirely for kicks. That's why I wrote poems and plays and spoke in the third person. That's why I spoke like a pirate, yargh matey! That's why I kept on calling you a nazi. I baited. You bit. Whatever. This has been the most boring response I have ever written. I'm tired. My apologies. A proper debate response would have had that a bit more coherent, and all my side notes and digressions relegated to foot notes. I don't care. I didn't want to take the time. Gawd, I feel like such a geek. I swear I could've been doing something more productive with the hour I spent writing this on something else. I did this for you, sweet cakes, completely for your benefit and need for an "intelligent" debate. It's because I care and I crave your hot, black ass. Besides that, I'm done. Completely done. From now on, any other posts I make on this subject are going to be done in biting haikus, or perhaps in song form, done in catchy Beatlesque pop style. Blargh - IB ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
This is even LONGER and MORE boring (none / 0) (#139) |
|
by Hyped on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 09:46:19 PM PST |
|
|
|
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud, A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis Sorry, I couldn't resist posting that. It really isn't directed at you, Illiterate Bum, as much as some of the other people on this board who have said more extreme things than what you've said, but I thought it would be up your alley if I posted it. I did it out of love and consideration for a special person ;-). Now, that said, sorry I am late in responding, but I've been out of town these past few days. It's 11:15 right now and I'm a little exhausted, but I'm gonna throw together a quick response to your post. Remember how you told me that explaining your position to me was like like trying to reason with a small child as to why he couldn't have his cookie? Well, I think that explaing my position to you is like trying to tell that same small child why brocolli and spinach are good for him, even though he hates how they taste. That's just my opinion, of course. First, we'll talk about the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment to the Constitution." OK, you STILL don't seem to understand the language of 'Bob' (as you call it for short). You claim that it is totally on a state basis. So let me get something straight: These phrases,"right of the people peaceably to assemble", "right of the people to be secure in their homes", "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people", and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," are all supposed to refer to individuals, do they not? The Supreme Court has upheld all of those to mean individual rights, I believe. But now you claim that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state? Does that make sense at all? Every other amendment to the Bill of Rights is supposed to guarantee individual freedoms...all except Bob, the 2nd? Huh? Am I missing something? I think not. Every amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, not state rights. Notice: "The whole of that Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." ---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Again, the only way to know what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment is to ask THEM what THEY meant. I already posted quotes explaining what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Here they are AGAIN: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46. "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788) "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764 Now, you might ask, what is the well-regulated militia to which the 2nd Amendment is referring? Well, here are some quotes on that, too: "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss." --- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 29. Hopefully, you noticed that Alexander Hamilton said that people having arms gives them THE CHARACTER OF A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. In no place does he say that they have to actually BE in a well-regulated militia (i.e. a standing Army) for them to bear arms. Another Colonial-era definition of the militia: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. As you can see, he has just said that the right to bear arms (do not take swords literally) is a BIRTHRIGHT of Americans, and does not belong in the hands of the government. Being in the U.S. Army means that you are using guns (M16 rifles and M4 carbines) that are owned by the federal government, so those are obviously NOT the weapons that this quote speaks of. Also, you mentioned the Miller Case of 1939. I'm afraid that you have REALLY misinterpreted what it decided. You say that it decided that Bob guarantees no individual right to own weapons? No, you've got it twisted. Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The defendent, Frank Miller, had a sawed-off shotgun (illegal in the U.S.), which was deemed as being unsuitable for use in a militia. But the Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia to own the weapon. In other words, the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia-type weapons (which includes the assault rifles that the gun control front has labored for so long to have banned). Here are the terms (exact words) of the Miller decision: 1) The National Firearms Act was not an unconstitutional usurpation of police power reserved to the states. 2) "In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision." 3) "It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." 4) "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia." Note that in the entire text of Miller, neither the words "STATE militia" nor "National Guard" are to be found. So essentially, you've got no reason to suspect they ruled that you have to be in a militia to own a firearm. All they've said is that the firearm itself has to be one of military value. A sawed-off shotgun is not considered a good weapon for the military (which is true; you can't hit shit except at close range). Now, moving on... Say there was a guerilla war involving U.S. citizens against the government. What makes you think we wouldn't receive funding or aid from other countries, as the Viet Cong did during the Vietnam War? Think of how many countries would be interested in toppling the current government so that they could eventually get in a slice of the economic pie in the U.S. (largest, wealthiest nation in the world)? I can see Latin American guerilla forces and drug lords supplying money and weapons for a U.S. rebellion. Hell, I can even see many soldiers in the U.S. military deserting and going on to fight against the government. I think you've greatly underestimated what could happen. The government soldiers would be unable to win because they couldn't tell the difference. In Vietnam, U.S. soldiers couldn't tell the difference between the Viet Cong and the local peasants, and thus never knew who to shoot at. It would be the same way in a rebellion against the U.S. government. That homeless man pushing his shopping cart in the park might have a folding-stock AK tucked under his cloak, or the members of the local youth baseball team might have rifles hidden in their gym bags. The government wouldn't be able to tell the difference between normal civilians and those who were armed. They would live in houses and go about their daily lives until threatened and called into action, and suddenly, they'd have guns. This is unlike the recent Afghan conflict, where the Taliban and Al Queda troops were always stationed in large bases and known areas for hideouts. With a U.S. govt.-against-civilian war, they'd have to bomb whole cities (their own territory) to get anybody at all. Also, your excuse about the Russians losing to the Afghans and Checyans made no sense. Saying the Russians lost because they are dumbasses is not a good argument. The Russians used all the best they had - T-80 tanks, Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter, Su-27 fighter jets, and various types of cruise missiles and other ordinance. They still suffered massive casualties. This was at a time when the Russian Army was still extremely strong and well-funded, and its soldiers well-trained (Spetsnaz made up the bulk of ground operations, and they're some of the best special forces in the world). This disproves your belief that technology determines the outcourse of a war. And the government would never use nukes - why the hell would they destroy the same cities, towns, and other territory that they were fighting for? No point in nuking the same country you're fighting to take back, right? You nuke a country when it's a thousand miles away and you want it to stop fighting you. You don't shoot yourself in the foot by nuking yourself. Oh, and the OICW is a piece of shit. It weighs about 20 pounds loaded, it's hard to aim, and with all those computer chips, it's bound to have something fail in combat on the soldier carrying it. The simpler, the better...that's why conventional automatic rifles are still used today, and why the OICW is facing Congressional opposition. Either this year or next, you're probably going to hear about it getting canceled. Even if you still think civilians can't win a war against the government, why aren't they entitled to try? Remember that your government serves you, not the other way around. Why don't people have a way to check their government to make sure it does not corrupt? I don't see why you would want to be a sheep to tyranny and not even try to fight for your rights if a dictatorship came to power. People should have a right to fight against oppressive powers. Will they win? Well, you don't think so. But then again, "It is better to die on your feet than to continue living on your knees", as Emiliano Zapata once said. Disarming them takes away that right. But having guns only in the hands of government gives them absolute power. And as we all know, Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now, shooting isn't a skill? I'm afraid you've really never learned to appreciate what firing a real gun is like. Holding the gun steady and focusing is very difficult. It's not a conventional sport, but it is still one that involves skill. And no, it's not a matter of, 'Some people can do it, some can't.' It involves a lot of practice, familiarizing yourself with the gun that you are using, and learning to steady yourself. It really tests your focus. Your use of the gun control argument that "guns are a great equilizer; anyone can use them" has no relevence. Anyone can shoot a gun at close range at a person coming at them, or they can simply brandish the weapon and scare the criminal off. That's not the same as taking the time to aim at a target that is fifty meters off and putting your shot in the center. Oh, and Virtua Cop wasn't that good, even in its day. I like Half-Life and Unreal Tournament on my PC (and no, I don't agree with those Senators who claim that video games teach children to become killers; firing a gun in a video game is not the same as in real life, which is why I disagree with your ideas as well). Also, you say, "To use similar analogies, lets say that I was a sick individual that enjoyed raping women, molesting small children, and driving drunk, "pastimes" that millions of Americans enjoy each year. These are activities that I enjoy and serve no discernible purpose other than to harm others. Even though I plainly enjoy these activities, it doesn't legitimize their "rights" to legality." What the fuck...how does that relate to gun use? You still have not explained why guns are bad. Raping a woman is not the same thing is firing a gun, supervised, on a target range, and not hurting anyone. In those situations, you've got somebody who is actively trying to hurt people, whereas on a target range, you've just got people plinking away at paper. You have established no relation whatsoever. Also, I told you before, and I'll tell you again: Killing by itself is not bad. There is either offensive or defensive killing. If you charge at me trying to kill me with a knife and I stab you with my own knife, then does that mean that I have done an evil deed? Of course not, because if I hadn't killed you, you would have killed me for certain. I did what I have to. Guns were a tool that changed war. Once there were bows, then there were guns. Things changed. I don't care what you think of the motive, but the fact remains that technological advances occur all the time. Do you really want to have people shooting bows and arrows at each other now? And I still partially disagree with you on hunting. Let me say it this way: What you have said is true, but only to a certain extent. There are still some very poor people in this country who live out in the woods, far from any town or other civilization, and for whom it's more efficient to hunt. Of course, it won't be that way forever; there are more people buying food now than hunting for it. But it's not going to change anytime soon, so best deal with it. About the defensive uses... I can't find a link for the Department of Justice survey now. I'll try to find one in the near future and post a follow-up for you. However, you have just stated the same fallacy as Walwyn did in an earlier post. He once asked, 'Don't those 2.5 million defensive gun uses include times when people think they hear something, go out brandishing their gun, and find nothing'? Afraid not. The incidents in both Kleck and the Department of Justice's studies were all incidents in which there was a malevolent criminal (in many cases armed, in some cases not), an innocent potential victim, and no cops in between. In 80% of these incidents, the attacker had used violent force against the person before they drew their gun to defend themselves. In 90%, the person didn't have to squeeze the trigger (they just pointed the gun and scared the attacker off). This explains the large difference in homicides versus justifable homicides that you mentioned. Citizens rarely have to shoot criminals; with a gun, you point it, and they run off. Burglar alarms would be better if they were more affordable. But in an inner-city ghetto where drug gangs are rampant, police officers are few, and people are poor, do you think the average family in the projects can afford that kind of system? It costs thousands of dollars to install a good burglar alarm system - and about $50 to pick up a cheap plastic handgun. I think many would choose the latter option. You say go for the cure? Yeah, cleaning up the ghettos of crime is the crucial part, but I think that until that happens (and it won't happen very soon, that's for sure), then leave these people with their tools for defense. Oh, and in Great Britain, there are more illegal guns than before. The government confiscated 160,000 handguns after the 1997 ban. Now, there are over 3 million handguns and automatic weapons floating around on the criminal underworld, according to police estimates. The criminals wanted guns. The black market jumped up to supply. And as we all know, the illegal demand is always far greater than the legal demand. That's what happens; just like drugs. Oh, and speaking of the black market, you've really made a scary point that is very true, and I don't think you're aware of it: "And military and police grade hardware do not get stolen nearly as often as gun advocates would have you believe. If anything, black market guns are things like cheap Chinese AK47 knock offs, etc. etc." Do you realize what you've said? First, mind I remind you that assault rifles such as the AK47 are very rarely used in crime. Assault weapons are used in one-fifth of a percent (.2%) of all gun crimes. Whenever somebody does use an assault rifle in a crime, it's big news. Are you familiar with the North Hollywood bank robbery of 1997? In that incident, a group of bank robbers outgunned police with AK47s' for over an hour. The incident made national headlines and scared the shit out of everybody. That's how significant it is whenever an AK47 gets used in a crime. Fortunately, the good news, as I said before, is that assault rifles rarely get used in crimes. The vast majority of guns used by criminals are handguns and sawed-off shotguns. Despite how Hollywood portrays the drug trade, assault weapons are not criminals' weapons-of-choice. But let's say we decided to ban all guns, as you have said. No more handguns, no more rifles, no more shotguns. Criminals can't get them anymore because they make up the bulk of guns on the black market. So drug dealers have to turn to the international arms market for their guns. And as you've said, AK47s' make up the majority of guns on the international black market. During the Cold War, the Soviets and Chinese turned out over 80 million of them, and in the post-Cold War days, they're available all over the world, in some cases for as cheap as $200 (in the U.S., you have to pay $10,000 for an AK47, and that's after you've got a Class III license, which involves extensive background checks). Because criminals in other countries can't get standard civilian weapons, they use AK47s'. You aren't aware of how much worse it would be if all the drug dealers in the U.S. were buying black market AK47s' from overseas and smuggling them in. When guns get banned, then obviously the drug cartels in South America will be able to do big business by tossing a couple AKs' into a shipment of cocaine. But AK47s' are automatic machine guns, and even police in the U.S. don't use them. If every criminal in the U.S. had an AK47, we would be going to chaos, because police couldn't stop them. It would be just like Somalia or Ethiopia. So trust me, you do NOT want criminals to have to buy AK47s' from overseas. It's one thing for police to deal with criminals carrying civilian weapons. It's a whole other thing for criminals to have military weaponry. AK47s' aren't the only guns available on the interntional arms market, either - criminals would also be able to choose from M16s', FN FALs', Israeli Uzis, RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, .50 caliber machine guns, and hand grenades among other stuff. Lack of guns in other countries = stolen military weaponry for criminals. And don't say it's hard to buy; U.S. soldiers and police would gladly sell their guns to criminals if all guns were outlawed. Law enforcement and military are paid poorly in this country. Don't you think some private in the U.S. Army would jump at the chance to sell his M16 on the black market for $5,000 to a drug dealer? There are already soldiers who do that now (albeit very few). If guns were outlawed, there would be demand, and soldiers and cops would give supply. Fortunately, there isn't any demand, because guns are still legal. And that is all. As I think I have proved, people in the U.S. really DO have a right to own guns, whether you like it or not. And banning guns would NOT be a better for our society. But I'm really tired (it's 12:45, now that I'm done writing this), and I'm too exhausted to be creative or give you any catchy punch line. Maybe I'll do a follow-up post tomorrow with more to discuss. Until then, love and kisses. -Hyped. |
|
If you feel hard done by... (none / 0) (#130) |
|
by walwyn on Tue Aug 27th, 2002 at 12:26:40 PM PST |
|
|
|
...you could of course invoke the nathan precedent and ask the general adequate readership to decide the issue. |
|
Attn: RobotSlave (4.00 / 1) (#126) |
|
by Illiterate Bum on Tue Aug 27th, 2002 at 12:18:24 AM PST |
|
|
|
The Copyright War is still being waged, right? Can I get the portions that user "Hyped" blatantly copied from my own post in the above comment edited to a more acceptable level of originality? I see no case of Fair Use in here.
Thanks - IB ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev |
|
I agree with everyone else... (none / 0) (#85) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 01:50:29 PM PST |
|
|
|
when they say that guns are essentially amoral, being inanimate objects. Although the UC Berkeley wheat-grass drinking part of me says that I should support a hand gun ban, the part of me that loves John Woo, war movies, and military hardware says that I would be a hypocrite if I did.
However, I think guns should be banned, for one sole reason: people, in general, are stupid. This comment simultaneously scared me and made me laugh uncontrollably. Christ on a shiny pole. You see, people often forget that the criminals that purchase fire arms, both legal and illegal, at the very least know how to use them. The same cannot be said about most people who purchase fire arms legally. A lot of folks don't even get formal training or basic courses in gun safety. Do you know how frightening that is? They're a lot more likely to hurt themselves or some innocent bystander than their actual target. What most gun-advocates don't realize is that a lot of people who like guns or even own guns don't know how to operate them, or care to learn to do so. They treat guns like the ultimate personal security system, or as an arbiter of sorts, when in fact it is nothing more than a tool. And this makes them dangerous. Must I even go on with the number of emotionally volatile, potentially psychotic, or just genuinely disturbed people that shouldn't have such easy access to these things? A lot of these folks would normally be law-abiding citizens that wouldn't go to the trouble of procuring illegal fire arms. But hey, look - I can hop by the local Wal-mart and pick myself up a shotgun and some shells and my girlfriend just dumped me. That guy just cut me off on the freeway. I was shorted five bucks. Whatever. Time to party. The statistics speak for themselves. Criminals will get guns no matter what. There are a far greater number of people out there who know jack shit about fire arms than there are knowledgable people who know such basics as marksmanship, safety, and maintenance (really important to ensure that a gun continues to function properly). And with mental disorders, cheating spouses, messy divorces, and high school related anxiety reaching an all-time high, we owe it to society and good, God-fearing people everywhere that we limit these damn things as much as possible. Statistically, it's just better for all of us. I would advocate allowing only licensed citizens be allowed access to guns, but anybody who has ever driven in major US urban areas knows that licensing is not really an answer either. At the very least, if we must hold on to our firearms, we should issue grenade launchers or some other portable weapon of relatively mass destruction, so that all citizens would be living in the shadow of a M.A.D. situation. |
|
Thank you... (1.00 / 1) (#88) |
|
by Hyped on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 02:26:15 PM PST |
|
|
|
...for singling me out in particular as one of the 'stupid people'. I appreciate it.
Truth to be told, I have no idea what everybody's problem is with having guns on airplanes. If the pilots, or maybe one or two people had them, it wouldn't be a bad idea. Maybe the people would be armed security guards or something (private security hired by the airline); not necesarily private citizens. But it wouldn't be a bad idea. And just so you know; handgun rounds cannot penetrate the fuselage of a commercial jetliner and cause it to depressurize. "You see, people often forget that the criminals that purchase fire arms, both legal and illegal, at the very least know how to use them. The same cannot be said about most people who purchase fire arms legally." Oh, really? So criminals have some sort of Jedi-like mastery over guns that private citizens don't? I find it odd that you claim firearms are so complex to use that an adult shouldn't be allowed to have one...yet you also claim that they're so easy to use that they make murder easy. Stark contrast, huh? "Must I even go on with the number of emotionally volatile, potentially psychotic, or just genuinely disturbed people that shouldn't have such easy access to these things?" Must I remind you of background checks? They are a measure of security to which I wouldn't be opposed, so long as they are done quickly. "Do you know how frightening that is? They're a lot more likely to hurt themselves or some innocent bystander than their actual target...Statistically, it's just better for all of us." Statistically, you have no clue what you are talking about. Americans use guns defensively over 2.5 million times a year against attackers who threaten them first. In over 90% of these cases, they merely have to point the gun to deter the criminal (they don't go wild shooting randomly, which discredits your theory that people are so trigger-happy that they just go shooting things randomly). Americans last year killed 3,000 criminals who attacked with force first. In comparison, there were only 600 accidental firearms deaths. Yes, that is bad, but it is still proof that gun accidents are not as common as you seem to believe. "There are a far greater number of people out there who know jack shit about fire arms than there are knowledgable people who know such basics as marksmanship, safety, and maintenance (really important to ensure that a gun continues to function properly)." Seriously, do you have any statistics to prove this? Numbers indicating number of dumbasses vs. number of knowledgeable people? I think not...I think you just made it up. "Criminals will get guns no matter what." Why do you keep killing your own points? What is this, anyway? Do you really believe that the more helpless you are, the safer you'll be from criminals? "I can hop by the local Wal-mart and pick myself up a shotgun and some shells and my girlfriend just dumped me. That guy just cut me off on the freeway. I was shorted five bucks. Whatever. Time to party." Yes, let's just emphasize those stories now...and forget that gun homicides are largely gang-related and involve drug dealers and gang-bangers killing each other in inner-city areas. Incidents with spouces killing spouces or motorists killing motorists are very rare. Yes, they happen, but they are not the reason why gun crime is high. Seriously, your post shows a complete lack of knowledge about guns in our society, and I am very pissed that you're labeling me as the stupid person when you don't even have the slightest clue what you're talking about. |
|
Guns don't kill people, I do. (none / 0) (#135) |
|
by cac0f0ny on Wed Aug 28th, 2002 at 01:45:01 PM PST |
|
|
|
Guns are taking the unfair blame in our socity. Guns aren't bad or good. It's the people. Like me, I'm bad. Patrick McFadden antispin.net |
|
HEY YOU ANTI GUN FUCK FOR BRAIN NOBODIES!!! (none / 0) (#138) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 09:22:47 PM PST |
|
|
|
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud, A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! I CAN CALL ALL YOU PUNK ASS BITCHES RETARDS NOW AND IT'LL BE TRUE!!! WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT YOU FUCKING RETARDS!!! FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU!!! "It is better to die on my feet than to continue living on my knees. " - Emiliano Zapata Proud member of the vast, right-wing conspiracy |
|
Sir! (5.00 / 3) (#141) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 01:52:08 AM PST |
|
|
|
Nothing could ever make me feel safer than the knowledge that a person like you can own a gun. |
|
Well... (none / 0) (#143) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 01:04:54 AM PST |
|
|
|
I agree with your point. But you proved your age by your words. In a sense, you made a point for the other team.
|
|
Meet the resident... (none / 0) (#144) |
|
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 09:46:07 AM PST |
|
|
|
...retard of another forum that I visit.
I know this guy from another message board. Just so you all know, he's 14 and whenever the topic of guns comes up, he starts going crazy about it. As you can tell, he is NOT very bright. Hopefully, he'll mature before he's legally old enough to buy a gun, because at the rate he's going, I wouldn't want him to have a gun any more than the rest of you (I'm pro-gun, of course, but this guy is a dumbass). |
 |
678 votes - 61 %
