[Jelena]

Originally Posted by rlpw

But back on the subject. I am still always in strong belief that if you ever give up your abiltiy to defend yourself to others then all you do is turn into sheep that are fat for the slaughter. I am not in the NRA or anything but this is my opinion. A public that has the ability to arm itself keeps things like totalitarian governments,(ie; Khmer Rouge, Military takeovers, direct military assault from other countries.) from ever having a chance to take control. This is thought by some to be an archaic stance but it is historically accurate. Just ask any country who tried to take over another when every farmer was shooting at you.

So you're afraid that the US will violently be taken over by another country? That's doesn't seem to be the most likely scenario. I understand people being afraid of terrorist attacs. I too, living in pretty much peaceful Sweden worry about it when planning vacations for instance. Some places are just ruled out for me since I fear that I would end up where a bomb might go off.

Isn't the fact that the reason why people get guns is to defend themselves to intruders, robbers, kidnappers etc. --> other people with guns?

[rlpw]

Originally Posted by Jelena

So you're afraid that the US will violently be taken over by another country? That's doesn't seem to be the most likely scenario. I understand people being afraid of terrorist attacs. I too, living in pretty much peaceful Sweden worry about it when planning vacations for instance. Some places are just ruled out for me since I fear that I would end up where a bomb might go off.

Isn't the fact that the reason why people get guns is to defend themselves to intruders, robbers, kidnappers etc. --> other people with guns?

I was refering to the historic reason in the US.
And as for the rest of what you said remember when you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have them.

[UPtimist]

Ehh, quiet you two!

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by rlpw

I for one quit hunting long ago due to the fact that I have family that enjoy it more than I do. This allows me to have venison whenever I want it and the thrill of the kill left me long ago. Though I still do think that a person should have to go out and kill his own food at least once in his life, this would give people even more appreciation of nature and your place in life.

I think a lot more people would become vegetarian if they came face to face with what is required for them to get meat on their tables. Too much of modern food is rendered unidentifiable as the animal it came from.

But back on the subject. I am still always in strong belief that if you ever give up your abiltiy to defend yourself to others then all you do is turn into sheep that are fat for the slaughter. I am not in the NRA or anything but this is my opinion. A public that has the ability to arm itself keeps things like totalitarian governments,(ie; Khmer Rouge, Military takeovers, direct military assault from other countries.) from ever having a chance to take control. This is thought by some to be an archaic stance but it is historically accurate. Just ask any country who tried to take over another when every farmer was shooting at you.

The Khmer Rouge and military takeovers were both internal actions. As Jelena pointed out (and you acknowledged) , America is unlikely to be subject ot on overt invasion by another country. What level of firepower do you think it's appropriate for the citizenry to have to defend themselves against their own military gone mad?

Wouldn't a public able to defend itself from totalitarian governments require equivalent arms to those available to the government? A farmer with a shotgun isn't going to be able to stand up to to an AK-47. Are you saying the public should be able to buy missile and anti-missile systems in case the government decides to use those to suppress the populace? What about LAW rockets? Depleted uranium ammuntion? Tactical nukes? I'll acknowledge I'm taking this to an extreme here but if your concern is a military takeover how far is too far?

Originally Posted by rlpw

I was refering to the historic reason in the US.
And as for the rest of what you said remember when you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have them.

Them and the police/military.

Scenario, you wake in the night and there is a shadowy finger at your bedroom door. You pull your gun out from under your pillow and shoot it. It was your wife coming back from the bathroom.

That would have been an act that was intended as self-defence from an attacker. Nevertheless, your wife is dead solely because you had such a deadly instrument ready to hand. Maybe if you'd been required to undertake training similar to police firearms officers you would have been able to check the target more carefully? Maybe if you'd had an alternative form of defence (say a baseball bat) you'd have discovered the error before you caused fatal injury? The fact is, merely having a device that can cause death so quickly to hand makes it more likely a moiments mistake will lead to a fatality.

The shootings last week show that these weapons you are so keen to keep for defence are being used to kill innocents. Surely the question eveybody should be asking is how can we keep guns out of the hands of people who will do that. Is your ability to defend yourself against a potential attack in the future worth the lives of those people now?

There will always be outlaws who will use things for evil purposes (be they guns, hammers, crowbars or whatever) I have no objection to people being able to defend themselves but widespread availability of guns makes deadly accidents more likely and grants too free access to the criminal and insane.

EDIT : Well this thread has come over heavy all of a sudden.

[Jelena]

Originally Posted by rlpw

I was refering to the historic reason in the US.
And as for the rest of what you said remember when you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have them.

I still don't think th US of today is in the dangerzone of getting taken over like that.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying outlaw guns. Would that mean that guns are illegal for everyone except the military and the police? (Sorry about my language shortage)
The big problem today (with guns in the US) as I see it is that guns get in the hands of too many without any good reason. (I don't know what requires for a person to be allowed to own a gun in the US so I might be on thin ice here.) And I guess that the availability of guns lead to an increased usage of them.
In Sweden you need to apply for a license. In the application you need to explain why you have a good reason for owning this firearm: for instance you're a hunter (requires a hunters diploma) or you practise shooting (sports) (requires a registred membership of such a club)

Too many americans own guns to be able to protect themselves from other people with guns. I understand the feeling of wanting to protect, but with less guns in a society there wouldn't have to the same need to protect. Obviously. And too many use their guns without being threatend as the three school incidents I mentioned in a previous post show. Revenge taken out on innocent people seem to be the case here. A revenge that wouldn't have been so devastating if guns weren't at handy.

Sorry if my rambling is incoherent. I felt I wanted to say something about this topic even though it's like pushing on an already opened door. I've got the worst headache and a grumpy son who needs the computer standing behind me. Grrrr

[Giligan]

A group of persons could go on forever, arguing if guns should be outlawed. Even as we post here, guns control and gun rights groups are fighting back and forth.

But it all boils down to this:

How many people get killed or wounded every year, from using guns irresponsibly? A lot.

How many responsible, law-abiding gun owners get killed or wounded every year?

I'd be willing to bet that you could count them on your fingers of one hand.


Let's face it, people. Banning firearms will not end the world's problem. Crimes would still be commited. People would still get murdered. You'd still get the common cold now and then. Banning guns will not end problems.

Enforcing the idea of organizations like the NRA will go farther in doing that than banning guns.

Most criminals choose the gun as a weapon because it's easy. If they didn't have access to guns, they'd find another weapon to use.

A firearm is an inanimate object. A piece of metal. A chunk of machinery.
It's how you use it that counts.



Now, according to logic of some people who post here, things that cause crime and death should be banned, right?

How many people get killed every year as a result of drinking alchohol?
Heck, how many people die as a result of using cell phones? Should we ban those things too?

I would bet that the number of people who die from using alchohol, cellphones, farm machinery, or even vehicles boats and aircraft would outweigh the number of firearm-related deaths by thousands. Maybe millions.

[rlpw]

I think We as a whole are going to have to agree to disagree. I will let it be said that I will never trust a government to defend me and will always support the right to defend myself from a government. They can all turn bad at the drop of a hat (Ask the Spanish and Italians). But I will always lift my weapon in defence of anyones right to say what they believe and do respect others opinion on the subject. My inability to budge on my beliefs are probobly ingrained and subject to my strong Texan Independant streak. We are the only state that was an independant country and also still have the right to cecede from the union in our constitution (most southern states were forced to remove this). Not to mention that 20% of Texans have conceiled weapons permits. But I'm rambling.

And now for something completely different.

You Cannot Destroy The Threadspace™, It mustLIVE!!!!!
and Hook em' Horns!!!

[Jelena]

Originally Posted by Giligan

But it all boils down to this:

How many people get killed or wounded every year, from using guns irresponsibly? A lot.

How many responsible, law-abiding gun owners get killed or wounded every year?
I'd be willing to bet that you could count them on your fingers of one hand.

The question is: How many innocent people are killed every year from people using guns. That sad week at the end of September at least 13 were killed only in schools in the US. 12 students and one adult. (I'm not sure about the number of survivors among the Amish girls)

Let's face it, people. Banning firearms will not end the world's problem. Crimes would still be commited. People would still get murdered. You'd still get the common cold now and then. Banning guns will not end problems.

I'm sure more strict regulations on who's allowed to own a firearm would make a difference.

Now, according to logic of some people who post here, things that cause crime and death should be banned, right?

Neither I nor Stepurhan mentioned banning. You're the one bringing that up.

How many people get killed every year as a result of drinking alchohol?
Heck, how many people die as a result of using cell phones? Should we ban those things too? .

There are many bad things around that kills us. Each and every one should be discussed in each and every country. The fact that there are other lethal habits or items shouldn't stop us to discuss the usage of firearms.

I'm following rlwp's example now. I agree to disagree.

[Trumgottist]

I'll also leave the gun topic. I know I don't have the rethoric skills or relevant statistics available to convince anyone, so I'll also agree to disagree. Instead I'll jump onto another topic:

Originally Posted by stepurhan

I think a lot more people would become vegetarian if they came face to face with what is required for them to get meat on their tables. Too much of modern food is rendered unidentifiable as the animal it came from.

Maybe, and maybe not. There are many more vegetarians now than 100 years ago, when people were much more directly involved. As a son of a (now retired) farmer, I've seen the care a good farmer have over his animals and what's required to get meat on my table. I have no wish to become a vegetarian.

I do usually buy Swedish meat, though, so that I know that the animals weren't mistreated. Without being silly (of which there are many examples, both from activists and government) one should think about how the animals are cared for, so I agree it would be a good thing if people knew more about how things work. (Then we'd also see much less of the silly/sad variety of animal rights activists.)

[Panthera]

Originally Posted by Jazhara7

What about bows? Aren't they made for shooting things too? Yet there are fewer reports of people being shot by bows, despite the fact that you probably don't even need a licencse to carry a bow, even in the US (at least you don't need one in Germany). There's people hunting with bows, and the modern ones can deliver a strong killing blow.

However, most people just shoot at straw targets.

There's something about guns that's different, it seems.

-

In Norway you're allowed to buy things like bows and knifes, but you're not allowed to bring them when you go out. If a person brings a knife to a night club or something like that he's arrested..

Originally Posted by Jat316sob

Speaking of hunting, didn't someone post a picture of a white moose somewhere? That head would look great mounted on a wall.

Bad boy!

Let's see how great your head'll look mounted on a wall, shant we..

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Giligan

But it all boils down to this:

How many people get killed or wounded every year, from using guns irresponsibly? A lot.

How many responsible, law-abiding gun owners get killed or wounded every year?

I'd be willing to bet that you could count them on your fingers of one hand.

Two things here

1. Do current gun controls stop irresponsible people getting hold of guns? If they don't (and just the last weeks news indicates they don't) then you have to acknowledge current law is bad (since you accept irresponsible people are injured and killed)
2. Your estimate of responsible law-abiding gun owners accidents is pure surmise. You've just assumed those getting killed and injured must be irresponsible. If you've got a gun for self-defence its no good if its not loaded. If a gun is loaded there is a chance of it going off by accident. If your "responsible" owner takes the responsible action and unloads their gun when not using it its self-defence value is lost.

Let's face it, people. Banning firearms will not end the world's problem. Crimes would still be commited. People would still get murdered. You'd still get the common cold now and then. Banning guns will not end problems.

I find the coomon cold comment crass in the context. Equating murder to catching a cold is appalling.

Enforcing the idea of organizations like the NRA will go farther in doing that than banning guns.

Not sure what you mean by "enforcing the ideas of the NRA" Presumably you're saying they advocate responsible gun ownership. I don't think I've ever seen an NRA person say that certain people should not have guns (in fact they seem more in favour of universal ownership) If they can't face up to the fact that some people are incapable of owning a gun responsibly then enforcing their ideas is never going to work.

Most criminals choose the gun as a weapon because it's easy. If they didn't have access to guns, they'd find another weapon to use.

Great. I'd rather a criminal came at me with a knife. At least I'd stand some chance of fighting them off. They pull a gun then I don't stand a chance. Even if I'm carrying a gun myself it won't help me if they pull and shoot before I have a chance to get it out.

A firearm is an inanimate object. A piece of metal. A chunk of machinery.
It's how you use it that counts.

But you still haven't come up with a peaceful use for it and I don't think you ever will.

Now, according to logic of some people who post here, things that cause crime and death should be banned, right?

Wrong. I never called for an outright ban of guns. I've also been at pains to point out that a guns sole purpose is to cause death. To say I've called for an outright ban of items used for crime or murder is mis-stating my position entirely.

How many people get killed every year as a result of drinking alchohol?
Heck, how many people die as a result of using cell phones? Should we ban those things too?

I would bet that the number of people who die from using alchohol, cellphones, farm machinery, or even vehicles boats and aircraft would outweigh the number of firearm-related deaths by thousands. Maybe millions.

Again with the betting. Do you actually have any hard statistics to back that assertion up? Without them you're just inventing stuff to support your prejudice.

But regardless, all the items you've listed have beneficial uses used properly, a qiality you have yet to adequately assert for guns. The only thing in your list which is arguably harmful regardless of use is alcohol. But moderate use of alcohol can have a relaxing effect without creating lasting harm (especially if the person drinking doesn't undertake any activities afterwards likely to cause harm, such as driving). Moderately shoot someone and tell me they're unharmed afterwards.

Originally Posted by rlpw

I think We as a whole are going to have to agree to disagree. I will let it be said that I will never trust a government to defend me and will always support the right to defend myself from a government. They can all turn bad at the drop of a hat (Ask the Spanish and Italians). But I will always lift my weapon in defence of anyones right to say what they believe and do respect others opinion on the subject. My inability to budge on my beliefs are probobly ingrained and subject to my strong Texan Independant streak. We are the only state that was an independant country and also still have the right to cecede from the union in our constitution (most southern states were forced to remove this). Not to mention that 20% of Texans have conceiled weapons permits. But I'm rambling.

I find I can at least respect your stance rlpw (though that 20% statistic is slightly worrying) You want to defend your rights and the rights of others and you see gun ownership as part of that. While I still can't agree with the method I can at least appreciate the reasoning. I would point out that the weapon of legislation can be just as deadly as a rifle but is far more insidious. If it's the government you're worried about I'd keep an eye on what they're doing day to day (yours and ours) rather than waiting for the military to come.

And now for something completely different.

You Cannot Destroy The Threadspaceâ„¢, It mustLIVE!!!!!
and Hook em' Horns!!!

This is sounding more like a hooror movie the more I hear about it. In fact Threadspace sounds a little too much like the film Thirdspace - WARNING : CONTAINS COMPLETE PLOT SYNOPSIS OF FILM

[rlpw]

Panthera posted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jat316sob
Speaking of hunting, didn't someone post a picture of a white moose somewhere? That head would look great mounted on a wall.


Bad boy!

Let's see how great your head'll look mounted on a wall, shant we..
__________________

The object of hunting for trophy heads is what sort of ruined hunting for me.
If you shoot it then respect the animal and leave what you do not use to nature. And do not kill what you do not intend to eat but be sure to kill what tries to eat you.

[RLacey]

This Thread™ should be hunted down and killed.

Guns are bad, though.

[Nenad]

Many countries have (or develop) a nuclear weapons. Why are we delaying? Shoot 'em all and let everything start from the beginning. Maybe there will be no humans again, and we'll leave the universe as a peaceful place to exist.

[RLacey]

When you attend a funeral
It is sad to think that sooner or
Later those you love will do the same for you
And you may have thought it tragic
Not to mention other adjec-
Tives, to think of all the weeping they will do
(But don't you worry.)

No more ashes, no more sackcloth
And an arm band made of black cloth
Will some day nevermore adorn a sleeve
For if the bomb that drops on you
Gets your friends and neighbors too
There'll be nobody left behind to grieve

And we will all go together when we go
What a comforting fact that is to know
Universal bereavement
An inspiring achievement

[Giligan]

Okaaayyyyy...allow me to make a ridiculously long post, which will not go any further to changing your mind.

Two things here

1. Do current gun controls stop irresponsible people getting hold of guns? If they don't (and just the last weeks news indicates they don't) then you have to acknowledge current law is bad (since you accept irresponsible people are injured and killed)

1. So... We should punish the law-abiding guns owners with more laws which they will abide by, but criminal gun users will not abide by?
   
   
   
   

I find the coomon cold comment crass in the context. Equating murder to catching a cold is appalling.

My statement said that outlawing guns would not stop the world's problems, as some gun-control activists would like to believe.

Not sure what you mean by "enforcing the ideas of the NRA" But you still haven't come up with a peaceful use for it and I don't think you ever will.

Many, if not most, gun owners own a gun to simply target-shoot, from which they derive a good deal of fun. Where I live, farmers have a good deal of trouble with wild animals, which often pose a threat to farmer's livestock. So there you go.

Again with the betting. Do you actually have any hard statistics to back that assertion up? Without them you're just inventing stuff to support your prejudice.

So you want me to show statistics, eh? Alright, we can do that. In just one instance, in relation to my comment about cell phones causing deaths, 2,600 people die a year, and 330,000 are injured a year from cell-phone related car accidents. Probably less than die from law-abiding gun owners having accidents with their firearms, hmm?

And let's hope that the subject will be dropped after this.....

[rlpw]

Gil said
And let's hope that the subject will be dropped after this.....

We already did weiner

Paul Gil

[Giligan]

Don't blame me. Stepurhan's the one who started beating the dead horse....

[RLacey]

Like I'm beating the dead Thread™, you mean?

I WIN!

[rlpw]

Have you ever won anything Robsie?