well this is the way i feel about it all WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED I WILL BECOME AN OUTLAW!!!!!! YOU CAN HAVE MY GUNS WHEN YOU CAN PRY THEM FROM MY DEAD COLD FINGERS!!!!! AND SHURE YOU CAN HAVE MY GUNS.... BULLETS FIRST!!!!! and if you all dont beleve me ask rivical he will tell you how strong i feel and what kind of collection i have he has seen it!
Facts about Gun Control!!
- Thread starter V8Assassin
- Start date
well this is the way i feel about it all WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED I WILL BECOME AN OUTLAW!!!!!! YOU CAN HAVE MY GUNS WHEN YOU CAN PRY THEM FROM MY DEAD COLD FINGERS!!!!! AND SHURE YOU CAN HAVE MY GUNS.... BULLETS FIRST!!!!! and if you all dont beleve me ask rivical he will tell you how strong i feel and what kind of collection i have he has seen it!
What???? So, I'm guessing you're a 900 lb. gorilla with a black belt in every form of martial arts known to man and have no physical ailments or limitations whatsoever. Ok, assuming that's the case, then no firearms is fine for you but what about your 70-something year old grandmother who is able-bodied and able-minded enough to still live on her own but unable to defend herself and her property when some other 900 lb. SOB decideds he wants to steal grandma's jewelry and has no problem beating her to death in the process???? If she had a firearm of any kind, she would have *at least* had a chance.
I'm not saying firearm ownership guarantees the "good guys" will win, but without them, many innocent law abiding people wouldn't even have a chance in a situation like I described above or hundreds of other situations that unfold everyday.
What I described is based on what happend to my wife's grandmother who lived in the UK. Obviously, there were no 900 lb gorillas (or apes of any size for that matter). Her grandmother was a very bright and alert 72 year old woman who owned a dried flower shop with her daughter-in-law. One night some 27 year old turd broke in her house to steal whatever he could. She heard him rummaging through some other part of the house and called the police. Before the police could get there this worthless excuse for a human found my wife's grandmother in her bedroom and attacked her demanding to know where the good stuff was. That encounter ended up with him knocking her to the floor and kicking her in the ribs. She died later that night from her injuries. Although the worthless POS was apparently "unarmed", he still managed to take the life of an innocent victim. If she had access to a firearm of any kind, I'm confident she would have survived the encounter.
"God created all men. Samuel Colt made them equal."
EASY THERE HAMMIE!!! Tone down the caps and No more caffeine for You! Makes yer trigger finger jittery and aim lousy! And what's with that twitching eyelid?
I find it amusing to the point of being sick that the "have's" can so easily trick the libs into doing their dirty work and fulfilling the agenda. American's are in general nothing like the Brit's. Would never work here.
As shown by Assasin, Gun Control is the sort of thing brought to you from people who know their power isn't justifyable and time is limited. In America it'd be carried in for the most part on the backs of those who can't even manage a stick shift or parellel park, Let alone master something hand-held with the power to even their own odds. If they weren't queasy little victims of their own making. If you support it, fine. I respect your right to say so. But I'm as sure that my views are right as you are.
I find it amusing to the point of being sick that the "have's" can so easily trick the libs into doing their dirty work and fulfilling the agenda. American's are in general nothing like the Brit's. Would never work here.
As shown by Assasin, Gun Control is the sort of thing brought to you from people who know their power isn't justifyable and time is limited. In America it'd be carried in for the most part on the backs of those who can't even manage a stick shift or parellel park, Let alone master something hand-held with the power to even their own odds. If they weren't queasy little victims of their own making. If you support it, fine. I respect your right to say so. But I'm as sure that my views are right as you are.
Oh, but in fairness of recognition... Dude could probly plink quarters at 1,000 yds. w/o a scope. We all have our skills, I won't even go into his artistry with a 50cal!
Wadaya say bro? Give it a shot or ten next time yer over?! I'll spot. Since there's no other way I'd see it!
Wadaya say bro? Give it a shot or ten next time yer over?! I'll spot. Since there's no other way I'd see it!
It was meant as if "IF NO GUNS were ever created," man got along just fine for about 6000 years without one.
Don't get me wrong I love my guns as much as the next guy for several reasons.
Samuel Colt made men equal huh? I would rethink that statement a little
I sincerely hope you don't actually believe that.
Mankind have been killing each other by whatever means available since we've existed. Sticks, bones, rocks, whatever...Long before guns came along.I sincerely hope you don't actually believe that.
I guess I should have eloborated. You are exatcly right! So what did guns stop? Nothing, so who did it make equal? Thank you for correcting me:smile:
Since day 1 of their existence, firearms have helped even the odds for individuals and groups of people who would otherwise be at the mercy of those who would force their will upon them through brute strength. History illustrates this point over and over. That said, yes, "Samuel Colt made them equal".
What? Okay what did the inventors of the Atom bomb do then? You can have all the guns you want but you can't stop that bomb...
Even if you take away that, it still comes down to who has the biggest or most guns... Imagine you are on an island and you and 100 folks all half nice pistols... One man has a .50 Cal sniper rifle. He lives at the top in the center. You can shoot at him with pistols all day long and never hit him. He can drop you anywhere on that island he wants to with that one gun... So one big gun out does 100 little guns... Point is you are still right back were you started:smile: You might be equal with the 98 others but that one still controls you.
V8Assassin
100mi away ready 2 strike
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
Shane, your analogy of the island is on point. Let's take it a step further. What they are attempting to do with gun control is not make our country safer, it is simply to have the ability to put more control measures in place. So lets say the island is our country and we are the ones with the small guns, of course in this instance the small guns would be our voices, and the .50 cal would be the military/police. The gov't sits high upon their mountain top using their "big gun" to force the submission of any unwilling citizens, meanwhile all we have to throw back up the mountain is our voices which just don't seem to carry as far anymore. Now that our voices have no resolve or as our founders ensured, the voice of overthrow, we can simply be ignored or very easily put back into submission with the slightest effort from the "big gun".
Brett, we are not the UK. Our fathers left there because of religious and economic oppression, the kind that comes from not having the right to own firearms. Many have addressed our level of violence to the very nature of the attitude it took to break from the UK to begin with.
Gun Control's Twisted Outcome: Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S. - Reason Magazine
Gun Control Myths: The Case of England by Thomas Sowell -- Capitalism Magazine
England and Gun Control --- Moral Decline of an Empire
Brett, we are not the UK. Our fathers left there because of religious and economic oppression, the kind that comes from not having the right to own firearms. Many have addressed our level of violence to the very nature of the attitude it took to break from the UK to begin with.
Gun Control's Twisted Outcome: Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S. - Reason Magazine
Gun Control Myths: The Case of England by Thomas Sowell -- Capitalism Magazine
England and Gun Control --- Moral Decline of an Empire
It's pretty much a know fact when you break into a house in the country that there are guns inside. The only thing is, you don't know how many. I went to a farm house a few years ago, the house was a mile off the road and had all the exterior lights pointing away from the house. I walked in one of the back rooms and found eight large guns safes. The home owner said yes, there are all full.
This is kind of like would you leave your house if there weren't police out?
This is kind of like would you leave your house if there weren't police out?
dr_frankenstein
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
Revo lu tion.
Its time......
Who wants to lead?
A.j.
Its time......
Who wants to lead?
A.j.
sorry, have to poo-poo that analogy. getting into combat strategy and statistics here which was never my intent, but only to make a point....
if you have one person with a big gun and 100 people with little guns, yes, it's true the guy with the big gun is going to take down a number of the people with little guns. however, even just ONE person armed with a "little gun" is just as capable of taking him down as he is with his "big gun". Hence, the posession of the "little guns" significantly improves the odds for those 100 people on your island. the difference in the scenario you describe comes down to strategy and the group's willingness to stand up and fight. No matter how good he is and no matter what kind of terrain advantage he has, he simply cannot take everyone down at once. So just having their "little guns" at least gives the 100 people on your island a fighting chance to defend themselves and take down the bad guy on the hill. Without those "little guns" they don't even have a chance. This has been my point since my first post.
GNBRETT
Pelennor Fields
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
That may very well be true but in (13) years of Law Enforcement I have encountered one business owner that has shot and killed someone in self defense. And I work in a poor crime ridden sese pool that has areas that cops are afraid to drive through.
I have been to over 100 homicides and almost every sigle one of them was committed by an outlaw with a gun. I have also responded to probably 200-300 robberies. Almost all of them committed by outlaws with guns. Have been to probably 20-25 home invasions all committed by outlaws with guns. I have been to atleast 30-40 drive by shooting that included the deaths of innocent citizens including women and children bystanders all by outlaws with guns.
I dont by any means feel that guns should be outlawed. I firmly believe in the 2nd amendment even if when it was drafted by the founding fathers they had no idea what effect it would have on violence in modern day society.
Are there times when peoples lives have been saved because the 2nd amendment afforded them the opportunity to have the right to carry? Of course. Myself included.
But there is not doubt that there needs to be stricter controls on who has accesss to guns and more accounability to those who own them.
Gun related Homicides in the city I work for account for 97% of the deaths. Gun related robberies account for 93% of them. Changes need to be made at some point. Of course its a double edged sword and I realize that. But when was the last time you heard a Cop being murdered by a knife or bat? Or for that matter when was the last time you heard anyone being murdered by a knife or bat? Rarely.
Other then this election year which was of course about the failing economy it was always about gun violence. Scool shootings, domestic shootings, robberies with guns, home invasions, etc.... That's what people were mainly concerned about when polls were conducted throughout the last few decades when asked what concerned them the most.
Guns don't beed to be outlawed, the outlaws just need to have less access to them. Unfortunately a lot of them come from residential burgularies, staw sales and those who just report their guns stolen fraudulently for a price. Again, stricter controls are needed for those who have them legally so those who cannot possess them legally have less access to them.
I agree everyone should have the right to bare arms but there needs to be better control of the guns. I have read all the horror stories from the past. Someone mentioned England and also Canada has very strict gun laws. Canada has about .05 deaths per 100k population compared to US at about 4.8 deaths per 100k pop.
Canadians still own guns and complain about the hassle but the numbers look good?
Early in the discussion I saw all the fear regarding the trampling of the Constitution and I thought you were talking about GW and Cheney untill Obama was mentioned. Very few Presidents have walked all over the Constitution like those two have, but thats another discussion. I dont think in this day and age we would allow anyone to take away our guns. Regulate better, yes, take away, wont happen
Canadians still own guns and complain about the hassle but the numbers look good?
Early in the discussion I saw all the fear regarding the trampling of the Constitution and I thought you were talking about GW and Cheney untill Obama was mentioned. Very few Presidents have walked all over the Constitution like those two have, but thats another discussion. I dont think in this day and age we would allow anyone to take away our guns. Regulate better, yes, take away, wont happen
toofastforyou
2FAST4U
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
You can say whatever you want, but I'm IN FAVOR of gun control. I think that even though are not perfect, every effort to limit gun use should be made. I'm 57 y/o and never had to defend myself with a gun or anything else. I've always minded my own business and never got in trouble with anyone.
It's NOT everyone's task to take the law into their own hands. Some people are paid to enforce the law, so let them do their job, period.
Claude.
It's NOT everyone's task to take the law into their own hands. Some people are paid to enforce the law, so let them do their job, period.
Claude.
It's not a point of enforcing the law, it's a point of ensuring your other freedoms aren't encroached upon. Reread Assassin's last post. on the island.
The only form of control I'd support would be measures to make sure law enforcement had responsibility of checking registered guns are still present after a burglary or car theft, whatever. You own a gun, prove you have it. And if not, require issue of a civil citation for which there'd be a min. penalty of 2X $$$ of the most expensive firearm missing and max of 3X the insured value of all missing, in the case of gross negligence to secure. And 100hrs of community service for introducing them into the criminal enterprise system. Make the penalties worth buying a safe for even a single gun. Control that ownership is sensibly handled.
The only form of control I'd support would be measures to make sure law enforcement had responsibility of checking registered guns are still present after a burglary or car theft, whatever. You own a gun, prove you have it. And if not, require issue of a civil citation for which there'd be a min. penalty of 2X $$$ of the most expensive firearm missing and max of 3X the insured value of all missing, in the case of gross negligence to secure. And 100hrs of community service for introducing them into the criminal enterprise system. Make the penalties worth buying a safe for even a single gun. Control that ownership is sensibly handled.
TexasT
Texas, Where are you from
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2002
When seconds count, law enforcement is only minutes away. I'd rather be armed and take my chances.
V8Assassin
100mi away ready 2 strike
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
Tighter contols, more licensing, more in depth background checks, higher monatary penalties, bullet id, and other forms of "safer gun control laws" are great, if you are after already law abiding citizens. They work well if your intent is to keep guns out of the hands of people who already respect and obey the law. Wonderful plan if you want to increase the ratio of criminals with guns to non criminals with guns. Just terrific if you want gun violence to go up.
The real problem, however, is that all those that have been mentioned are nothing more than a slippery slope towards total abolishment.
BTW what would be your definition of a criminal. Someone who has been arrested before, but wait, arrested for what? Misdeameanor or Felony, should the person who made a bad choice in college and got a DUI leaving a bar or got caught with a dime bag of oregeno never be allowed to own a gun again, or should we reserve that for violent crimes only? Ok, well what constitutes a violent crime, lets suppose my wife has a drinking problem and she's a mean drunk. She comes in hits me in the head with a frying pan, I push her off of me, and in the process she bumps her head and calls the cops. Of course the police are going to lead the man away in cuffs, cause that's just what happens and now I am a violent criminal. According to current gun laws this would be considered a domestic violence charge and would prohibit me from owning a gun.
The point I am trying to make is this, Freedom and Liberty have a price. Churchhill said democracies are the worst form of gov't, except for all the other forms. Our experiement in democracy and individual freedom is tough, it was not supposed to be easy. Our freedoms aren't free! The individual right to bear arms is not an easy freedom to ensure, and the easiest thing to do would be just outlaw guns. With all the other reasons aside, like the fact that outlawing guns means only outlaws will have them, the easiest path is not what this country is about. Never was, and should never be. If you are not willing to pay the price so others can be ensured their individual freedom to bear arms, then move. Go to Australia or the UK, or some other country that does not allow guns, and has a somewhat different view on what individual freedoms are.
Franklin said, and I'm paraphrasing, Those that would give up their liberty for security deserve neither!!
The real problem, however, is that all those that have been mentioned are nothing more than a slippery slope towards total abolishment.
BTW what would be your definition of a criminal. Someone who has been arrested before, but wait, arrested for what? Misdeameanor or Felony, should the person who made a bad choice in college and got a DUI leaving a bar or got caught with a dime bag of oregeno never be allowed to own a gun again, or should we reserve that for violent crimes only? Ok, well what constitutes a violent crime, lets suppose my wife has a drinking problem and she's a mean drunk. She comes in hits me in the head with a frying pan, I push her off of me, and in the process she bumps her head and calls the cops. Of course the police are going to lead the man away in cuffs, cause that's just what happens and now I am a violent criminal. According to current gun laws this would be considered a domestic violence charge and would prohibit me from owning a gun.
The point I am trying to make is this, Freedom and Liberty have a price. Churchhill said democracies are the worst form of gov't, except for all the other forms. Our experiement in democracy and individual freedom is tough, it was not supposed to be easy. Our freedoms aren't free! The individual right to bear arms is not an easy freedom to ensure, and the easiest thing to do would be just outlaw guns. With all the other reasons aside, like the fact that outlawing guns means only outlaws will have them, the easiest path is not what this country is about. Never was, and should never be. If you are not willing to pay the price so others can be ensured their individual freedom to bear arms, then move. Go to Australia or the UK, or some other country that does not allow guns, and has a somewhat different view on what individual freedoms are.
Franklin said, and I'm paraphrasing, Those that would give up their liberty for security deserve neither!!
Similar threads
