And easier yet to do it wholesale with a car or truck. The argument is age-old because the animism that gives rise to demonizing weapons seems perpetual. That an argument is old doesn't speak to its validity; if you would surrender the irrational belief that guns cause violence it wouldn't be necessary to repeat it.

Sorry if you had a problem with my spelling; it looks correct to me. Please bear in mind that in the sentence you quoted, "intent" is not a noun.

Yepper, you were right, I was wrong on that! :redface:

Anyhoo, I do agree that people kill people. I don't anthropomorphize weaponry any more than I do cars or trucks, or this chair my big butt is currently plopped in.

I just think it's harder to kill people if you are armed only with sticks and rocks. I bet those Columbine boys would have had a much lower "success" rate without semi-autos.

Anyway, I can't say anything that you won't refute, or that hasn't been said over and over in this Cellar. So, I'm going to keep the big butt seated and the big mouth shut and go find a funny thread.

Cars and trucks are pretty expensive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Rock “Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystander .”

Hey, that might just work!

I love that Chris Rock bit:

''Man, l would blow your fucking head off,
if l could afford it. l'm gonna get me another job,
l'm gonna start saving some money...and you're a dead man. You better hope
l can't get no bullets on layaway."

It's harder to live if you have only sticks and rocks. That's why we've made better tools.

It's easier to die with better tools.

*yawns*


... still waiting for the 'armed society is a polite society' line......

There was an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the first 22 months of the war, and 2,112 deaths during that time. That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers. The firearm death rate in Washington, D.C., is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. You are about 25 percent more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. capital, which has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq. Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington immediately.

lmao

Very good work Ibram

LoL. excellent.

I heard a really scary statistic. For young black men living in the scarier area of L.A, life expectancy is shorter than if they were on deathrow.

Agreed, the "increase funding" line is complete bullshit, unless he is talking armed escort for every single person in the park at all times.
This guy has to be on crack.
My side-arm saved my life several times. You should speak of things you know about.

As far as the Chris Rock bit... I load my own rounds.

Bad math there. That gives a death rate of 720 per 100000 per year. Firearm death rate will be less, as a lot of it is done by bombs, but that wasn't provided in your numbers.

Do you wear a seatbelt in your car? Everytime, or nearly so? Do you have an accident every time you leave the driveway?

They could have used modern revolvers or black powder pistols with the same level of effect, possibly higher level. A "semi-auto" is not a machine gun.

Columbine would have been far worse if the improvised munitions had gone off as intended.

Sorry, but the right answers are always the same and thus boring. If you want a constantly changing array of excuses you'll have to listen to the prohibitionist arguments.

Now I'm confused.

I did speak of things things I know about ie. History. I did however ask some questions about things I don't know about. Have I, in this thread, condemned the use of firearms, or have I asked questions?

The arguments are always the same and thus boring. That doesn't make them right. Only right in your perception, and that of your cronies.

Did I misquote you?
Those were statements, equating the need for firearms with the middle ages... a very incorrect statement, illustrated by my facts.
People in rural areas, as well as non-military or police security personnel, use them as tools every day. I have been one of these people more than once in my life.

We cannot unmake guns... it is a naive argument and a waste of time.
Americans are not going to give their guns away, to ask is to remove the government that does so... that too is a naive argument and a waste of time.

Sorry, you've misunderstood, or I have put my point across badly. The middle-ages thing was in response to someone else basically saying that militia was not something that a Brit would have any understanding of. I was merely making the point that we (Brits) have a much longer history of having a militia than in not having armed citizenry.

The point is still incorrect.
Our founding fathers also believed that an armed militia was required in case the government got too big for their britches.
The people should never fear their government, the government should always fear the people was a basic principal of our founding fathers.

Loading my own rounds means I load my own brass... I do not need to buy commercial rounds for my weapons if I do not want to. I can reload them myself, and do for my rifles.

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." ~George Mason~

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." —Jeff Snyder

TJ on Disarming Public
"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."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria


“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
-- Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (February 6, 1788).


“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
-- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 45 (Virginia Convention, June 5, 1788).


“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.”
-- Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith on Nov. 13, 1787. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).


“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426, June 16, 1788

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified
in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would
be justified in silencing mankind.”- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard
even his enemy from opposition: for if he violates this duty he
establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ”- Thomas Paine,
Dissertation On First Principles Of Government

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

How is the point still incorrect?

I refer you to my earlier point:

I have already agreed that, in principle, the idea of an armed citizenry is a potentially good thing, because otherwise it is at risk from a powerful and armed government.....in what way have I disagreed with you?

The point I made was in response to someone, as I have already said, who suggested that somehow being British meant one didn't have a cultural understanding of militia.

I guess I misunderstood your point about the militia.

Okay :)

Hey, don't look at me, I just c/ped it...

Aliantha, right is no respecter of opinion.

And the dubiously opinionated are no respecters of right.

Bloodthirstiness becomes no one, but even minimal self-respect would allow self defense, and not prohibit this or that tool to get it, particularly with any reference to the level of violence exerted in aid of a wrongful aggression. That leads to nothing but oppression by the savage, who are exactly the sort you particularly don't want to be oppressed by.

The psychological problems of the "ragers against self defense" have been fairly thoroughly explored, and the picture that emerges isn't pretty, as you can read in other gun threads.

Right, so now you're saying anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view has psychological problems? lol

You're on a roll today UG. ;)

From Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and he was using old numbers and bad math, even though DC is bad. :cool:

I'm still trying to figure out how more funding will make me safer in a park...:thepain:


UG, or anyone else, how much kick do the Glock Slimline .45s have?
I want a .45 that will not break my wrist. I need the smaller handle, like on the Glock 6, because I want to get a good grip in it. I am only wanting a .45 and have to have a Glock. It is what I used on the ranch and just won't use anything else (wind, rain, sand, pond, pig-shit... still fires). Greatest handgun of all time. Always used the .45 for stopping power and the fact I could get rounds at Wal-Mart (hey, we worked all the time in the middle of nowhere). I have a revolver now, but want to go back to a pistol, which I turned back in when I left the ranch and the one I used when in security. I have never owned one of my own, just issued through work.

I'd bet it's a little bouncier on firing if your Slimline is a small-magazine type. Anything as big as the 17 or the 20-odds will have that much more bullet mass to soak up the acceleration, with the heavier weight of a magazine of .40 or .45 bullets being noticeable. You might notice the slide cycles faster -- I've noticed that about some 9mms versus my .45 1911 types. Everything would get done a hair quicker.

You can get pistol competition things like PAST gloves to help with recoil owie during practice sessions. While you wouldn't lumber yourself with these during carry-use, they'd make for comfort while you get your marksmanship refined to whatever degree you want to afford. Then a little practice barehanded, as you carry, to iron out any differences of pointing or feel, and you're all kinds of ready.

Glock 36 -- 6 rd magazine, 765 grams fully loaded, over a pound and a half. The lighter slide means less perceived recoil than the bigger 1911 type pistols, part of whose kick is really the feel of a fairly massive slide going back and forth.

Aliantha, I'll assume from your smiley that you're being completely facetious. However, seriously now, you've reversed cause and effect: when I hoist the banner of self defense, guess who or what crawls out of the woodwork? We have seen the hoplophobic neurosis on extensive display from Spexxvet. The people who are sane, and knowledgeable, on self defense do not fight me.

Well there was some truth to my comment UG. If you have a fault, it's being a bit obnoxious with some of your comments. ;)

As to why I don't think people need to carry guns, well, I've stated my opinion on the matter endlessly and so, at this point, since I live in a country where hand guns are illegal and the majority of the population feel this is a good thing, I'll just be thankful I live in a country where I don't have to fight this battle. :)

Thanks UG... though I will get some flack for having a "chick gun", it is popular with females in the military and cops, particularly the Coast Guard in positions where they don't have to carry the 9 (the Guard's standard issue is the Glock 9)... I think it will be best for me now.
(I have fractured my wrist again and torn a tendon now... it will not heal properly this time)

Just one thing I wanted to share with you.

It's nice living in a place where you don't feel afraid every time you walk out the door. A place where you can walk down the street and see someone walking towards you and not think they might be going to mug you. A place where the safety is all around you, not just on your gun.

Having or not having a gun has nothing to do with that. Your neighborhood and your perspective on chance and being in the moment does.
I think destiny is a farce and do not worry about things I cannot control. I do my best to mitigate possible outcomes, after that, I don't sweat it... so it does not matter for those like me.
For those that sweat it, no number of guns, street-corner cameras raping us, cops, lost rights, etc, etc, etc, will be enough.

I think our two countries are very different rkz. You should come visit some day and then you might understand where I get my 'crazy way of thinking' from. :)

I have traveled to other nations. I have traveled quite extensively.
When going out I don't think about if I will get mugged/harmed. I have taken care of that contingency, just like I have taken care of the contingency of getting a flat tire, so I don't have to think about it.

Have you ever been to Australia?

Nope. I have been places where it is harder to get guns than Australia.

It's not hard to get guns in Australia. Just because they're illegal doesn't mean they're hard to get.

You know what I meant, "legally" is implied.

[quote=rkzenrage]I'm still trying to figure out how more funding will make me safer in a park...:thepain:

More Rangers to watch over you and check on the bad guys?

I made a sarcastic statement about that earlier.

I take it you have not been in a state park or have a very clear idea of the scale of them in general?

Sure, we could always hire the Marines full time to escort each person and camping expedition full time... that would be what it would take.

There are pickpockets and purse snatchers in the city - better not wear anything with pockets or carry a pocketbook.

Oh, and better wear a facemask like Michael Jackson - there are people out there spreading germs.

Ack!

Okay, this is going to sound pretty weird, but learn to shoot with your other hand. This will at least stop further damage until your body can get on top of things again -- or your orthopedic surgeon does.

I can shoot very well with both... I just want to try some damage control from here on out.

And ours, Ali, is a country that expects its citizens to be the ones to keep it a capital-R Republic, regardless of anything.

Not for nothing did Thomas Jefferson, our third President, write "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Ipse dixit.
Exactly why prohibition doesn't work. Only the criminals are armed.

Yup, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them" ... the rest of us will be targets.

Just like in DC, Maryland, and NYC.

Precisely.

In Australia, most victims of violent crime know their attacker. This is definitely true in the case of murder over and above other crimes.

How is having a gun going to save you when your husband kills you in your sleep?

It won't. How is having a gun going to save you when you start choking on your food? It won't do that either. There are a lot of ways having a gun won't be able to help you. Then again, there are also a lot of ways having a gun would be able to help you.

You people just don't seem to get that you live in a society that is fearful. You're constantly trying to protect yourselves against something that might happen.

No wonder George thinks it's ok to make pre-emptive strikes on nations which pose no threat. It seems the whole mindset is to protect yourselves against something which might just happen.

You can't control everything, and considering the murder rate in your country, I don't think all the gun toting is doing much good.

If on the other hand your country had a low incidence of gun related crime I'd agree that everyone having guns is a good idea, but until that day comes, there's no way anyone will convince me it is.

Deaths
 

It would be a hard thing to quantify, but I have a feeling that more innocent people (unfortunately lots of children) are killed by loaded, accessible guns than are attacking criminals. This whole self-defense thing doesn't fly when you look at the numbers.

You do understand how stupid those two statements sound together, right? You know, since you just said that you yourself had not looked at the numbers, and in fact implied that you believe they don't even exist.

Incidentally, it's not a hard thing to quantify at all: Gun Facts

And you're unable to protect yourself from things that DO happen.

Again, for the folks who missed it the first half-dozen times ... the majority of defensive uses of firearms involve NO SHOTS FIRED.

Some Accidental Death Stats are available here. These are numbers for 2002.

Accidental Death by Firearm ... total 776. That number is not missing any zeros.

For the same period, aggregate firearms deaths (which includes suicide, homicide, gang violence, shot by police while committing a crime, etc.) 28K and change.

Your car is still more dangerous than my gun.

I think you may be over-generalizing a bit. Most places in the US are really very safe. Some folks on this board live or work where that isn't true or they have characteristics which make them targets, so they, sensibly, arm themselves.

Bush has done a great job of rallying fear though, I have to agree with that.

mmm..... apart from Griff, most pro-ponents of the gun- lobby seem to have resorted to individual insults...... whatever happened to the 'polite armed society'?

maybe cuz you aren't armed? ;)

Griff, I agree it was a generalisation, but you did seem to get the point I was making, so that's the main thing.

Wolf, like you say, we're all more likely to be killed by a car, but I think there's a big difference between using vehicular transport because it's a necessary evil, and carrying a leathal weapon just because I might need to use it.