my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Real Military Discussions   » Air Defense, Weapons, Platforms   » right to bear arms (Page 3)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2  3  4  5 
 
Author Topic: right to bear arms
Raver
Member
Member # 2100

posted 05-11-2000 06:13 PM     Profile for Raver   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Mbaxter

I have no problem with you wanting to have guns in your country, I have no problems when you activly support pro-gun organisations and try to enlist support for your cause.....but I DO have problms when you DISTORT the truth to do so.
I am talking about your last post to this thread.

The Farmer was not convicted because he had a shotgun, he was convicted because he lay-in-wait. Even in your country such actions are illegel. Also he was convicted by a jury of his peers and found guilty. The reason why this has not raised such an out-cry in Britain is because most people there are aware of the facts.

Please feel free to drum-up support for your cause, but do not use half-truths to help support your stand.


The Raver has spoken!


Posts: 276 | From: Melb/Aust | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Tailspin
Member
Member # 86

posted 05-11-2000 07:09 PM     Profile for Tailspin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Some of you guys just don't get it. Americans don't need guns to feel safe. We need guns to BE Americans. The fact that the issue of gun ownership is second in the Bill of Rights(second only to the right to freedom of religion and free speech/press)is no accident.
One question for all you gun grabbers: Your local neighborhood thug doesn't buy his gun at the sporting-goods store. What significant impact could tougher gun laws have on real criminals and street crime?

------------------
Joke 'em if they can't take a....


Posts: 1895 | From: Metropolis USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
[email protected]
unregistered

posted 05-11-2000 09:49 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Bogey:
So, if someone told you to pay tax and you didn't want to, you'd shoot hi,? Is that the theory, or what?
It's probably the most stupid suggestion I've ever heard.
There should be NO guns whatsoever allowed.
Only the police and territorial defence units should be allowed to have any kind of weapons. you will get your wish the government will tske away guns in the name of peace then turn on the American prople
Americans claim that they wouldn't be safe unless they have a gun to fend of criminals.
what they don't realize is that all those guns in the society is what is making it unsafe.
In Sweden, "civilians" are only allowed to have hunting rifles and competition guns.
They are not allowed to be carried in public places and are to be locked in certain rifle safes when not used.
In the last decade there have been (as far as I know) three or four incidents with random killings (the kind we hear happening in the US hundreds of times every year).
Of course bank robbers and such use guns, but they're mostly stolen military weapons.

Anyway, there is NO need for any american citizens to carry guns, if you ban and collect them at once.
You're f***ing brainwashed.




IP: Logged
Tailspin
Member
Member # 86

posted 05-11-2000 09:59 PM     Profile for Tailspin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Who is brainwashed!?!? That is probably the most uninformed statement I've seen in a long time. Did Bogey recite that from an American news broadcast? Or a Handgun Control Inc. pamphlet?

------------------
Joke 'em if they can't take a....


Posts: 1895 | From: Metropolis USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
icebrain
Member
Member # 1981

posted 05-11-2000 10:09 PM     Profile for icebrain   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"Anyway, there is NO need for any american citizens to carry guns, if you ban and collect them at once."

but the criminals (the ones who should NOT have guns) would still have them. do you really think a gangbanger will gleefully turn in his gun? YOU are brainwashed.

instead of more "safety" and purchasing laws, how about we make posessing a gun while committing a crime (other than traffic violations) a felony. there would be a MINIMUM 15-20 years (non-negotiable) added on to whatever sentance you recieve for committing the original crime (with no possibility of parole). i think it would solve a lot of problems. also, making the sentance for some crimes longer (like minimum 25-30 years for rape) would get some of the violent ones off the street in the first place.

guns are not the problem or the cause of violence, just like cars are not the cause of drunk-driving deaths. it is the USER that is the problem.

and if guns were banned, i'd get one anyways.


Posts: 589 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
[email protected]
unregistered

posted 05-11-2000 10:21 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Spectre:
Right to bear arms... how about...the right to arm bears

I believe that more than anything the gun control advocates lean strongly towards the left of the political spectrum.

They want everybody to abide the thousands of rules and not be able to defend themselves when the friggin goose stepping gestapo/secret police come knocking at your door.

I'm sorry but when you start screwing around with the Constitution...I'm reaching for my rifle. Those sacred words that were put on paper by our fore fathers were NEVER meant to be toyed with...nough said!


they havn't changed it yet, but nobody's stopping them from interpretting it any way want


IP: Logged
1
unregistered

posted 05-12-2000 09:16 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"I'm sorry but when you start screwing around with the Constitution...I'm reaching for my rifle. Those sacred words that were put on paper by our fore fathers were NEVER meant to be toyed with...nough said!"

Then why did our Fore Fathers put in a amendment process in the Constitution?


IP: Logged
Skoonj
Member
Member # 80

posted 05-12-2000 09:25 AM     Profile for Skoonj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Anyone here from Switzerland? Males there are virtually all in the reserve forces. They are issued fully automatic rifles, given ammunition, and keep them at home. At least that's how it was last I heard.

How's the gun crime in Switzerland? Pretty low? Guess it isn't the gun, but the criminal.

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd



Posts: 541 | From: Naples, Florida, United States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 05-12-2000 11:59 AM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Indeed. Switzerland is not the only country where the general populace is awash with assault rifles, and all these places are safer than Britain, Australia, and other disarmed countries. Also there are some states in the US where gun ownership is almost as high - and these are the safest states in which to live.

Raver - the fact is this man would not have been convicted in America for the same offense. At worst he'd have gotten manslaughter but more likely aquitted. But in Britain Mr. Martin was a criminal before he ever killed anyone, because of the shotgun he owned. That twisted mentality is what causes people in Britain to question the whole principle of self defense, and outrages like the verdict against Martin occur as a result.


Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Raver
Member
Member # 2100

posted 05-13-2000 05:18 PM     Profile for Raver   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
mbaxter,

Sorry but you have the the story arse-about-face.
"But in Britain Mr. Martin was a criminal before he ever killed anyone, because of the shotgun he owned." Yes that is right, he was a criminal because he did not have the LAWFUL RIGHT to have a weapon! He had his certificate revoked some years prior to this latest incident....and why was it revoked you ask? Because he was shooting at people!

The fact is that he was only sentenced to one years' imprisonment for unlawful ownership of the shotgun. Just to refresh everyone's memory, I will re-post the original artical:-

Farmer Tony Martin was jailed for life today for the shotgun murder of teenage gipsy burglar Fred Barras at his remote Norfolk home.

Yet the jury appeared reluctant to convict, first clearing Martin on two lesser charges, then asking the judge whether they could bring in a manslaughter decision. The surprise murder verdict came nearly three hours after the judge had said no.

The courtroom erupted in cheering from 16-year-old Barras's family as the 10-2 majority verdict was returned by the jury at Norwich Crown Court after an eight-day trial and nearly 10 hours' deliberations over two days.

Martin, 55, had been cleared earlier of the attempted murder of Barras's accomplice Brendan Fearon, but was convicted by the same majority of wounding with intent.
Mr Justice Owen jailed Martin for life but emphasised that the case served as a warning to burglars. He said: "As far as the law is concerned there is only one sentence for murder and that's life imprisonment. The outcome of any trial depends on the evidence before the court and in my opinion rarely are generalisations justified.

"But it seems to me that this case serves to send a dire warning to all burglars who break into the houses of other people. The law is that every citizen is entitled to use reasonable force to prevent crime.

"Burglary is a crime and a householder in his own home may think he is being reasonable but he may not have been, and that may have tragic consequences."

Martin was jailed for 10 years on the charge of wounding Fearon with intent and one year for possessing the shotgun without a firearms certificate. Both sentences were concurrent.

In a day of extraordinary tension and drama, the jury's unanimous verdict of not guilty to attempted murder had been greeted with howls of outrage and cries of "They cannot do that," by the gipsy families in a court packed with police armed with CS spray and batons, stationed between the victims' families and supporters and the dock.

It was to be another three hours before the final verdicts were returned and Martin sentenced.

Martin shot Barras and Fearon after they broke into his farmhouse at Emneth Hungate, searching for antiques in August last year.

They were carrying a holdall containing a chisel, torch, baseball cap and gloves and had been driven 70 miles from Newark for the raid by Darren Bark.

Martin fired three shots from a 12-bore pump-action Winchester shotgun. He had been burgled before and had threatened to "blow their heads off" if they had returned and talked of machine-gunning gipsies, the court heard.

He denied he was "hell-bent on revenge". He sobbed as he told the court how he felt "ter-rified and vulnerable".

He said he had been woken in bed by the noise of intruders, picked up his shotgun in the dark and fired without warning when a light was suddenly shone into his face. "I did not intend to hit them. I was not protecting my property but myself," he said.

However, ballistics experts told the jury that the shots had not been fired from the staircase as Martin had claimed and the Crown accused him of lying in wait downstairs for the intruders to arrive.

Barras was hit in the back from a range of 15 feet, but dragged himself out of the house and died in the grounds of the farm, where his body was discovered 15 hours later.

Fearon suffered shotgun wounds to both legs. Fearon was jailed earlier this year for three years for his part in the break-in and Bark, 33, the getaway driver, was sentenced to three and a half years.

(by Paul Cheston)

Also I will ask you to re-read the post that Dan made inregards to this subject, here it is in full:-

Ahhh, hmmm, okay, speaking as an occasional Tactical Handgun Instructor:
The article mentioned this:

"He had been burgled before and had threatened to "blow their heads off" if they had returned..."

This, unfortunately, goes towards premeditation. He should have kept his mouth shut.

The article also says:

"ballistics experts told the jury that the shots had not been fired from the staircase as Martin had claimed and the Crown accused him of lying in wait downstairs for the intruders to arrive."

Lying in wait is a BIG no-no. Now, lets say he really was NOT lying in wait, he did lie about from where he made the shot. After that, he loses credibility and makes the prosecution's case easier. Remember: when shooting in self defense, get a lawyer and tell the truth. Always. And: never try to fool modern forensics.

The article goes on:

"Barras (the bad guy) was hit in the back from a range of 15 feet..."

Uh oh. Not a good indicator that the shot was made in self-defense. Say it was really intended as self-defense, then the shooter obviously could not see, did not care about, or was not aware of the target, all bad when defending one's life using lethal force.

I do not know what the laws say in England about use of force, use of lethal force. I disagree with all of Englands gun laws. But, it is very important, if you choose to use a gun for self-defense, to learn and understand the laws regarding use of lethal force. This poor farmer, while certainly not deserving of a life sentance, made some very serious mistakes, and none of us were at his trial.

I firmly believe in the use of firearms for self-defense, and the statistics in the United States seem to back me up. However, I cannot stress enough to my students that you must understand the laws regarding use of firearms for self-defense.

One of my instructors said, "Shooting is as easy as pulling the trigger; it's easy to shoot someone. The hard part is to learn when NOT to shoot."

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Dan (posted 04-19-2000)


Can you see the point yet? The farmer was in the wrong on all accounts! Yet you choose to ommit some of the key points in your letter to the local newspaper, and in so doing you have twisted the facts to support your arguement. Classic NRA tactics!
I have come to expect, from you previous posts on other subjects, a higher standard than you are currently displaying. Indeed, prehaps you have been following "slick willy"?

The Raver has spoken!



Posts: 276 | From: Melb/Aust | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 05-15-2000 12:32 AM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Oh please. As if twisting facts and lying were unique to the NRA. Everybody does it and we all know it. The biggest offenders of all are the media giants most of trust like CNN and BBC.

In any case, saying the hapless farmer Martin was "wrong on all counts" is rediculous. This could have happened to anyone in his position. The ones who were wrong on all counts were the scumbag gypsies who kept robbing him. And they most definitely deserved to get die for what they did, no question about it. Here again you follow the standard leftist pattern of seeking to blame the victim instead of the criminals.

Raver you aren't a lawyer by any chance are you? If not, you missed your calling. You'd make a good defense lawyer for rapists. The same logic you tout is what defense lawyers use to make rape victims look like "sluts" who "had it coming" so as to get their client off.


Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Raver
Member
Member # 2100

posted 05-15-2000 02:29 AM     Profile for Raver   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
mbaxter
you wrote:
"Oh please. As if twisting facts and lying were unique to the NRA. Everybody does it and we all know it. The biggest offenders of all are the media giants most of trust like CNN and BBC."

So I take it that you agree that this is an acceptable practice? I guess that you must , because you have done it in your article, I must say that I am disappointed.

At no point have I ever said that the gypsies are free of blame, in fact I think that they are even more guilty than Mr Martin. But the focal point of the discussion has been on him not on the perps, and thus I can see how you have assumed where my leaning were, but you assumed wrong.
And as for labeling me as a "leftist" well my wife thanks you, she has not laughed so hard in ages.......once again you made the mistake of "assuming".

I say again, Mr Martin BROKE THE LAW and there for is in the wrong....if he did the same in the US he would still be just as guilty even under US law.....and before you go racing off to refute that....just have a quick check with Dan on the matter. If you applied the same circumstances of the case the farmer would be in the wrong.

I believe that the law should be upheld....if you do something wrong then you go to court and face the music....I do not think...that those who break the law should have an easy time of it or should be looked upon as victims themselfs.(If I did then I would be more sympathetic to Mr Martin eh?).

In fact I am a very strident supporter of stronger sentencing laws.....I feel that the law should be applied equally to EVERYONE....even those whom break the law in defense of their own property.


The Raver has spoken!


Posts: 276 | From: Melb/Aust | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jussi Saari
unregistered

posted 05-15-2000 06:50 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
A couple of things I've noticed following this discussion:

First of all, for some reason Americans seem to regard their constitution as a god-given holy piece of laws than are absolutely correct and always will be, and that mere mortals should not change them. Many seem to regard it with almoust religious intensity... "the moment they tamper with the constitution, that's when I grab my rifle" said someone..

This seems strange because the consitution is after all only made by ordinary people, who made it from their subjective points of view to serve it's purpose in the 18th century. World has changed since, and people have changed. The constitution is supposed to serve a purpose, not be a holy religious piece that people worship without criticism. If it appears that the majority of the nation considers the constitution outdated and not anymore suitable for the modern world in some ways, it should be possible to change it. The fact is that in many ways it already isn't followed in practise: Americans correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the constitution for example give the right to declare war to congress? Yet from Korean war onwards American involvment has been started by the president, without a declaration of war.

Second, on us left-wing European gungrabbers living in our unsafe societies that have robbed us from our right own firearms for self-defece... I'm willing to admit that the crime problem in parts of America may be such that it really requires ordinary people to own firearms for their own safety's sake, but don't start telling us Europeans that there's something wrong with our unarmed societies.
Fact is we're perfectly happy with things being as they are, and in countries where guns are fairly common (by European standards), like Finland, it's quite clear that guns cause orders of magnitudes more deaths than they prevent. We've got about 1 gun per 2-3 people here in Finland (far less than in USA but more than in most EU countries I believe), mostly hunting weapons owned by people in the countryside.

When they're involved in someone's death, it's usually either an accident or a case were people who know each other drink heavily, get into a fight, and one solves the argument with a shotgun or a hunting rifle. Guns are very rarely used for self-defence, and criminals knowing that they're not likely to be resisted with firearms don't arm themselves either. (Doing the same crime with or without a firearm is likely to make a major difference on both the sentence if one is caught, and in the effort the police, with it's limited resources to spare, is likely to make on catching the criminal. Apparently this isn't the case in the US though?)

And finally, on Switzerland. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the military rifles supposed to be stored locked up and with ammo in a separate place, so that they're really not of any use as far self-defence and effects on crime statistics are concerned?

Jussi


IP: Logged
Billzilla
Member
Member # 34

posted 05-15-2000 09:18 AM     Profile for Billzilla   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
In 1988, handguns killed -
7 people in Great Britain
8 people in Canada
13 people in Australia
19 people in Sweden
25 people in Israel
8,915 in the USA

Fiddle the numbers any way you like, but the US is a damn dangerous place to be ...
(Sorry I don't have any more current figures)


Posts: 244 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Envelope
Member
Member # 275

posted 05-15-2000 05:21 PM     Profile for Envelope   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Billzilla, those figures really should be corrected to per capita.

Jussi, I don't know where you are from, but I've heard all kinds of praise for the constitution from all points of the political world and not once, anywhere in this country have I heard that the constitution is an unchangeable document of religious proportions. Anyone who knows the constitution enough to get excited about injuries to it know that the constitution itself provides the means to alter it. I'm no expert myself, but I do recall there are amendments (we are talking about the second amendment.) and a thing called the "constitutional convention". Anyone who wants to change the constitution to remove the 2nd amendment has the constitutional means to do so. But that would be obvious wouldn't it?


Posts: 2057 | From: Davis, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Mispunt
Member
Member # 3500

posted 05-15-2000 06:44 PM     Profile for Mispunt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Just a thought.
I wonder how high the membership percentage of coloured people is in the NRA.....
I seem to sense a bit of a redneck mentality here and there.


Posts: 182 | From: Rotterdam, The Netherlands | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 05-15-2000 09:00 PM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I for one don't know any redneck NRA members. The few rednecks I know are too ignorant to even trouble themselves to join any organization.

If anything I have found proponents of gun control to be the most ignorant people I've known in all respects. What more can you expect of people who get all their opinions straight from the media? You won't see too many free-thinkers touting gun bans and other forms of authoritarian control over socieity.

In any case, this argument has about run its course. I believe that gun ownership and the right to self defense are precious and should be protected at all costs. I also believe criminal punishment is much too lax in this country and should be corrected. I will always do everything in my limited power to these ends. It may be a lost cause but nonetheless one worth fighting. And I would encourage all others who value freedom and hate crime to do their part as well.


Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Billzilla
Member
Member # 34

posted 05-16-2000 03:36 AM     Profile for Billzilla   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"I believe that gun ownership and the right to self defense are precious and should be protected at all costs."

Utter ********.
The only problem is that the US lacks the backbone to make the real changes needed to fix the problem.
YOU DO NOT NEED GUNS TO LIVE SAFELY!


"I also believe criminal punishment is much too lax in this country and should be corrected."

I quite agree there. Certainly the two are well connected, though to fix the problem you must dig deeper.

"And I would encourage all others who value freedom and hate crime to do their part as well."

Quite right again, but perhaps you're living the wrong country if you value freedom and hate crime?


Posts: 244 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Skoonj
Member
Member # 80

posted 05-16-2000 06:06 AM     Profile for Skoonj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"Utter ********.
The only problem is that the US lacks the backbone to make the real changes needed to fix the problem.
YOU DO NOT NEED GUNS TO LIVE SAFELY!"

Try living in the US and say that. It's easy for you to make such claims from thousands of miles away.

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd



Posts: 541 | From: Naples, Florida, United States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Billzilla
Member
Member # 34

posted 05-16-2000 07:22 AM     Profile for Billzilla   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
(One of) My point(s) exactly.
Thank you for an excellent demonstration.

Posts: 244 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Enzyme
Member
Member # 3496

posted 05-17-2000 10:29 PM     Profile for Enzyme   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote

This is very interesting but all too familiar. People trying to defend ownership of gun with logic and statistics and people trying to attack it with same. If it were simply a point in logic or a constitutional question, we will if we try hard enough, arrive at a sound conclusion which can go either way. The point is that the issue of gun control is more about culture than about preventing crime. Using crime statistics pro or against is mainly rhetoric. This issue for the most part is not about protecting us from the government or foreign invasion or from criminals. That is not the issue.

I think it is obvious to most that the ownership of firearms is part of the american culture. People, not all, always owned firearms. Its akin to owning another piece of property. With changing times the role of firearms in crimes may have changed but it is difficult for most people to accept that it has anything to do with "their" ownership of firearms. Its two different issues. It is mostly an emotional issue. It is easy to see why people can get angry when something they own and cherish for years is labelled illegal by another set of people coming from a different perspective. If you never owned a firearm, or don't have a long history of owning one, then you are in a better position to see the logic behind those who want the ban. If you have an emotional tie to firearms, all the logic and statitistics in the world don't make any difference. [Just as an aside here, the fundamental logic behind the banning of firearms is a simple hypothetical syllogism= A>B>C, therefore (~C>~B)*(~B>~A). It is simple but not the best logical formulation and subject to real flaws, but that is not my point here.]


Do you think it is more of an emotional issue?


Also it is the good old individual VS group question. And that is why it is emotional and difficult. We are always trying to balance the individual vs the group and it is sometimes difficult. Let's consider the following (only for those like me who are car nuts): Assume you are exactly the way you are now. This will work for people who like to drive (or just collect cars). But it is in the future and we have super public transportation with better efficiency than cars. The few cars on the road do still involve themselves in accidents, sometimes deadly accidents (say a somewhat crazed driver hitting pedestrians). Some people in this future now advocate a ban to all automobiles--afterall no one really *needs* them. You can see that they have a point. If I were living in that scenario, I would see the point too, but I'll be damned if I simply aquiesced to their demand, me being the most responsible driver and all. That is the way to see the issue here.

I accept some people are gonna die because of my disagreement with this law (the one I described above), but the important question is can you come up with a valid way to make their death/life *my responsibility*. Ofcourse you can. But you know if you do, we are all right about now condemned because of the ramifications of the argument you made. If we are all condemned now, what difference then does any single action make in that regards--especially one with the lowest redeeming value. The point is, from whatever angle you choose, from whatever side you percieve, it ain't simply about who's right or wrong. Its about differences. People are different. Some have guns as part of their culture, some do not. They are not going to agree by merely stating statistics because infact, they both have valid points.

Sorry for the ramble. Just one small request, stop posting and quoting statistics when you are making your case. Make your case independent of statistics, and if the statistics support your case, put it on as icing on the cake.


Posts: 123 | From: | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
Raver
Member
Member # 2100

posted 05-18-2000 05:33 PM     Profile for Raver   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Damn good post Enzyme! Damn good!

I can understand why gun owners want to keep their guns, and I can also understand why non-gun owners want them banned....I guess it all comes down to an acceptable point of balance....which is something that I am not seeing in the US from either side. So with that in mind just bear with me as I put forward the following:-

In EVERY culture there is a saturation point that will be reached by the majority as to what is acceptable and what is not. Take the following as examples from Australia. Deaths due to road accidents were hitting 5000 per year, a figure which in the end proved to be to much for the general public to stand, and so the government of the day was empowered to bring in, what some countries would call, draconian laws to crub the death toll. And it worked, deaths on the roads are down by half the number of 15 years or so ago. Australia has the toughest road rules in the world yet people are willing to accept them.
The same goes with what happened here in regards to the gun laws....there a number of shootings that lead to the general population reaching that saturation point when enough was enough, and so once again the governmant of the day found itself empowered to bring in laws that would curb the TYPE of guns and increase the licence requirments of those who did/wanted to own a gun. The people had had enough and things were changed. I dare say that many other examples of cultures reaching "saturation point" could be raised....which just goes to show that people only have a limit on what they will tolorate.

Now, coming into the current discussion on this thread, I have an idea of what could be done in the US the that might lead to a balance. Why don't the Pro-gun owners be pro-active and start putting forward ideas that will HELP reduce the death toll caused by firearms, instead of just being re-active with all the old "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" retohric(S)? It is far better to be seen as a willing partner in trying to help solve a problem rather than being a stick-in-the-mud. Also you will notice, by doing that you will be able help bring in measures that will not impact upon your enjoyment of your sport. I do not have any answers as to how or what proposals should be put forward (that is for greater minds than mine!), but at least you would have some CONTROL in what was being introduced, rather than having it IMPOSED upon you. Once everyone starts thinking along the lines of how can we fix this problem rather than the "ban all guns/the hell you will" arguement, then you can move towards a balance that is acceptable to all parties.

If you don't try the above( or something simular then I can forsee and few more Coloumbines (S?) happening which will lead the MAJORITY of the people reaching that saturation point and demanding that the government do something to fix it.

And just for those of you who have never met me a quick history on the Raver. I am Ex-Army, but do not own any guns, I regularly go to the pistol range with my father(who owns 6 pistols) to keep my "eye in".I believe that Military style rifles and semi-auto rifles should not be in the hands of anyone except the military. I am against guns in the house with children present, and believe that gun ownership is a privilage that has to be earned, not a right.

The Raver has spoken!


Posts: 276 | From: Melb/Aust | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 05-18-2000 06:29 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I think it was the NRA who first proposed things like the extremely successful "Three Strikes Law" and other aspects dealing with tougher sentencing. I think effective action {long awaited and obvious solutions} against crime and violence will be quietly enacted after, not before, another heavy gun ban is pushed through as to make the ban look effective in the media.

The real problem is with the antigunners, they'll simply find a new target after they've slain the gun "dragon", in fact, the rash of current lawsuits against the gun industry is very much a result of the tobbacco "cow" being milked dry and the legal sharks needing fresh blood.

The "violence soaked" electronic gaming industry will make an excellent target, being cash rich and little understood/poorly represented politically, compared to other forms of media. How do you defend a pasttime like say, combatsimming? Why do mostly white males feel the need to "prepare for war" on realistic killing simulators that are used by the military? Anybody ever thought about their simulated body count lately?

My point is that these politically correct elitist types will attack anything and everything they don't understand and don't agree with. You simply exsist in their world and your opinion matters little.

------------------
"And if you don't like it, eat a gun"

[This message has been edited by Rosco (edited 05-18-2000).]


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Enzyme
Member
Member # 3496

posted 05-18-2000 06:50 PM     Profile for Enzyme   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I agree with you Raver. It seems as though we in the U.S. have really not reached saturation level yet. If we have, I'm positive we'll go the route of Australia. That we may not have reached saturation level here is certainly a demonstration of differences in our cultures and how much each culture values different things--points on a preference scale so to speak.


Posts: 123 | From: | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
Mispunt
Member
Member # 3500

posted 05-18-2000 07:04 PM     Profile for Mispunt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
He Rosco, you are seeing things extremely black and white here, something not quite unlike of what you are accusing us "antigunners" of.
You can consider me an "antigunner" but I enjoy games and fired guns myself (colt45 quite nice)
In other words your last post is rather stupid.
Of course I do not represent the entire "antigunners" society so my arguments are not very important I guess, but here goes....

My standpoint against the US gun policy is mostly based on the fact that in the US accidental deaths of kids by firearms and for instance highschool killings by frustrated pubes happen a bit too often to my liking. Because your society is so saturated with guns, kids (who cannot handle that responsibility) can get their hands on guns (be it accidentaly or not) far too easily. Of course I don't live in the states (been to New York though) but I get the impression that "pro-gunners" think that kids killing themselves or eachother is a small price to pay for one's personal sense of freedom and safety.


Posts: 182 | From: Rotterdam, The Netherlands | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
Skoonj
Member
Member # 80

posted 05-18-2000 07:25 PM     Profile for Skoonj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Mispunt:
He Rosco, you are seeing things extremely black and white here, something not quite unlike of what you are accusing us "antigunners" of.

The difference is that Rosco is right.


My standpoint against the US gun policy is mostly based on the fact that in the US accidental deaths of kids by firearms and for instance highschool killings by frustrated pubes happen a bit too often to my liking.

Accidental gun deaths in the US are rare. That's right, rare. The rest of the gun deaths of juveniles in the US are nearly all gang related.

Of course I don't live in the states

That is obvious.

I get the impression that "pro-gunners" think that kids killing themselves or eachother is a small price to pay for one's personal sense of freedom and safety.


Not true at all. The ones who enjoy gun deaths are left wingers like Clinton. They are like buzzards, circling over the corpses of the freshly dead, trying to pick political sustenance from their bones.

There were never shootings in schools before the Clinton administration. He must enjoy the deaths, since it gives him the opportunity to beat the drums for new anti-gun laws. On top of the laws passed over the years that have not done a thing to save any lives. And they cannot show where any law they propose now would save so much as a single life.

If you don't like our gun laws, fine. Don't come here. But the next time Germany comes in and forcibly disarms the Netherlands, I for one will not favor sending our armed troops to bail you out again. Anyone who wishes to limit my freedoms should not expect me to save his.

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd



Posts: 541 | From: Naples, Florida, United States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Billzilla
Member
Member # 34

posted 05-18-2000 09:10 PM     Profile for Billzilla   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Skoonj, etc - I'm certainly not trying to enforce my opinion onto you - You've clearly demonstrated that it isn't possible.
Nor do I care what you do with your country, it could fold up into a steaming pit and dissapear for all I care.
All I'm trying to say is that the people the US are looking rather hypocritcal & one-eyed in the defense of the 'right to carry a gun'. The vast majority of the world appears to be well and truly over that anacronistic trait, and have gotten on with their lives. Hopefully, one day the US will wake up and realise how backwards it is in many ways.

Posts: 244 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Skoonj
Member
Member # 80

posted 05-18-2000 09:51 PM     Profile for Skoonj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yes, anachronistic. That's me all right. I'm so anachronistic I still believe the Constitution means what it says. That's not the modern way of looking at things, but it's my way.

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd



Posts: 541 | From: Naples, Florida, United States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Mispunt
Member
Member # 3500

posted 05-19-2000 03:33 AM     Profile for Mispunt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Skoonj:

If you don't like our gun laws, fine. Don't come here. But the next time Germany comes in and forcibly disarms the Netherlands, I for one will not favor sending our armed troops to bail you out again. Anyone who wishes to limit my freedoms should not expect me to save his.

Skoonj



Ok no prob, next time I'll ask the Canadians, Polish, and Brits to help us out again.

But a word of advice, next time when someone is voicing an opinion which does not conform to yours please think for a moment and choose the cavity from which you spawn your reply with more care....


Posts: 182 | From: Rotterdam, The Netherlands | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
Skoonj
Member
Member # 80

posted 05-19-2000 05:57 AM     Profile for Skoonj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
That's good advice. Next time take it.

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd



Posts: 541 | From: Naples, Florida, United States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Dan.
unregistered

posted 05-19-2000 12:12 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Mispunt,

A couple statements you made trouble me.

First, when you said "My standpoint against the US gun policy is mostly based on the fact that in the US accidental deaths of kids by firearms...happen a bit too often to my liking."

While I will agree that just once is technically too often, just how many times do you think that happens? For instance, in 1998, there were about 230 accidental deaths of children (0-17 years old) involving firearms. Is that high? No, not when compared to the few thousand accidental drownings of children. And, all gun deaths are going down. So, for you to say that it "happens a bit too often" for your liking, while a valid opinion, is not really relevent unless you are absolutely, positively OUTRAGED at the number of drownings, or deaths involving cars, etc. And I doubt such outrage, since you failed to include it.

Then you said "...I get the impression that "pro-gunners" think that kids killing themselves or eachother is a small price to pay for one's personal sense of freedom and safety."

What if I said that was completely untrue, that your impression is incorrect? Would you believe me?

As a tactical firearms instructor who teaches BOTH law enforcement AND civilians, I can say that the average, pro-gun individual in the United States is a rational, law abiding citizen who does not necessarily fear our governemnt but also realizes that our government cannot provide protection to us all the time, in all places. And the street cops (ie: NOT politician-cops) agree; they'd rather have the civilian armed too. That way they investigate the shooting of a bad guy, not the murder of an innocent good guy.

Not one of us is happy, or accepting of the gun violence that is happening in our schools. However, what you fail to realize, is that while we DO NOT tolerate such violence, we also DO NOT blame inanimate objects for it's occurance.

That is a simple, yet oft missed difference between those who want to ban guns, and those who don't.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Dan


IP: Logged
Kilo
unregistered

posted 05-19-2000 01:09 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Bail out Holland again?! Skoonj, the US had no direct involvement in the liberation of Holland. It was almost entirely liberated by Canadians. And the Dutch people love us because unlike many other Allied troops (no names) we werent assholes towards the public.
IP: Logged
JOE
unregistered

posted 05-19-2000 01:18 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Envelope, although the figures would be more helpful if they were per capita, Canada has 1/10 the population of the US, so by all means, it should have around 891.5 deaths from guns(statistically speaking). To sum it up, the US has ten times as many people than there are in Canada, but has more than 1000 times more deaths from handguns. Something isnt right here...
IP: Logged
Envelope
Member
Member # 275

posted 05-19-2000 04:59 PM     Profile for Envelope   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thanks, JOE. I agree, but the relationship is not necessarily direct and linear. All of these deaths have a setting besides the presence of a handgun. The deaths of children in handgun deaths is an example. No one is talking about the parental supervision side of these deaths. It is the parents who are responsible for keeping kids away from handguns and if they can't, they shouldn't own them. Another example is the restrictions that Canada has for owning a handgun. With the restrictions, why are there any deaths at all? Given the different kind of countries that the US and Canada are, is it necessarily so that similar restrictions would reduce handgun deaths in the US enough to warrant the affront to the constitution? Numbers alone, out of context, don't always tell the whole truth, which may be worst or better in context.
Posts: 2057 | From: Davis, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
Member
Member # 1256

posted 05-21-2000 12:21 PM     Profile for Major Tom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The sad thing about the great majority of these gun deaths is that most of the ones that can be classified as murders are of Black and Hispanics living in the inner city. Where it is near impossible for an honest black man to get a weapon to defend himeself or a permit to carry it.

There are many good articals on the racist roots of gun control.

Take this for instance, up intill the 60's and 70's California was an open carry state, meaning that if you wanted to carry a pistol it had to be visible in a holster. The black panthers caught on to this and all of a sudden, when ever a black man was pulled over in his neighborhood, a half dozen black panthers would rush to the sceen. All of them just staring at the cops, with pistols holstered and visible.

Of course everyone in the DPRK (Democratik Peoples Republik of Kalifornia) knows the drill now-a-days. In the trunk, in a loaded box seperated from the Ammo.

What was that popular phrase used in the south "keep them (blanks) down!"

Arming ones self is a choice each of us have to make individualy. I dont like people making choices for me. I believe I should choose if I want to carry open, concealed or not at all. I quite frankly wouldn't think it odd if a person wanted to carry a long gun on his or her shoulder.

When my father was growing up in rural Missouri back before our time he and his junior highschool classmates used to walk down main street with their rifles after hunting and even stored them in school lockers from time to time.

It seems to me that when there are no burdens on the ownership of firearms, the black market can't thrive. It would be like legalizing drugs. If everyone can all of a suddenly smoke dope all day, cheaply, then what's the point of doing it?

32,000 deaths still has a better ring to it than 6 million.


Posts: 1352 | From: Prescott, AZ | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
TTTTTTT
unregistered

posted 05-21-2000 05:08 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
according to Stats Canada, 25% of Canadians own firearms, and 10% of Canadians own Restricted firearms in mid-90's (restricted meaning assault rifles and pistols/handguns, full auto military weapons and other types)

My own conclusion is that it's the behaviour of our criminals that lead to a much lower body count than the number of legal registered gun owners would sugest based on experiences in other countries. This attitude among canadian criminals is changing, though, becoming more violent, and shooting guns far more now, despite 10 years of new anti-gun laws changing legal ownership forever. I have seen the more the laws squeeze, the more the criminals get higher firepower from outside normal legal chanels.

Another question: why is everyone concerned about gun murders and ignoring car accident deaths? during Vietnam, far more people were dying on interstates than in SEA, according to a report I heard. Maybe while their at it they could seize all bad drivers and destroy them with all the so called 'evil guns' . Also, what about the armed services and police abuses? I have heard of many abuses by Canadian police (even RCMP) regarding guns, perhaps you should consider banning them from use? In BC, the RCMP Reserve forces had their right to carry firearms WHILE ON DUTY taken away by the court, because there were too many abuses (I don't agree with the descision, but there you have it).

Another thing: Why is it that the US courts have not released the IR video of the Waco FBI shooting test? Sounds to me like a big coverup that the gov. WAS shooting into the compound. Just what was so important for the US gov. to shoot them up in the first and last place? Particularly considering many women and children were involved, and US hostage rescue capabilities are quite good, why did so many die instead of giving up and walking out of the fire?

Also heard two rumors about US military: that Delta was at the Waco compound during the final assault, and that US Specops had a questionnaire given to them in early 90's asking them if they would shoot americans in order to disarm them of guns.


IP: Logged
Skoonj
Member
Member # 80

posted 05-22-2000 06:17 AM     Profile for Skoonj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Tom: That's a good point. In fact, New York's infamous Sullivan Law, the first unconstitutional (yet court-upheld) gun control law in the country, was a product of Tamany Hall (Democratic Party) politicians disarming their opponents: blacks and Republicans. At the time, blacks were overwhelmingly Republican. Of course Democrats were routinely given permits for guns.

In a modern re-run, California's San Francisco is a really tough place to get a permit to carry a gun. But not for Sen. Diane Feinstein, a Democrat, and a leader of the gun control movement. Damned Democrats are still at it.

Skoonj


Posts: 541 | From: Naples, Florida, United States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Dan.
unregistered

posted 05-23-2000 12:42 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
This is from L.A. Richard, contributing writer to my newsletter "Silhouette":

The Question: If there were some sort of magic wand, would you wish away all the guns in the world? (And I mean ALL.... every last one of them so that there would be zero guns in the world?) If not, why not? If so, why so?

Well, if I were selfish, I'd jump on that in a heartbeat. I'm 6'3 and weigh 285 pounds. I have trained in three styles of martial arts, and am a former amateur power lifter. I bottom out single-handed grip strength meters at 180 pounds, and have broken two of them. I can swing a sword, use a knife, and quite a few other unorthodox weapons, as well as handle my fists and feet competently. So, in a world completely without guns I would more than
likely be okay.

My concern is that those without my ability to defend themselves from people not restrained by law, or the difference between right and wrong. With them in mind, I would have to say I would not wave it and do away with guns. To be honest, I firmly and strongly do not believe we have a gun problem. The only gun problem I have ever had was not enough money to buy more.

If we have a gun problem, why did it take 200-odd years for it to show up?

I answered that question. Now I pose one for the group. Given that the vast majority of gun crimes in this country involve urban area youths, and people of the lower socioeconomic strata, given that firearms are already, for the most part, illegal for these people to own:

If you had your wand, and waved it. And there were suddenly no more guns. What difference would it make?

Would little Johnny suddenly live in a nice neighborhood?

Would little Johnny suddenly not live with a crack dealing, gun stealing uncle because his crack-head mother couldn't take care of him?

Would little Johnny's mother suddenly be appropriately educated and working in a decent job?

Would little Johnny suddenly go to a school with qualified and dedicated teachers?

Would little Johnny's classmates suddenly come from decent homes, with a mother and father cares about them? Or at least a single parent who has a decent job and education, and gives two shakes about teaching their kids the difference between right and wrong?

I won't keep you in suspense. It would make no difference in the quality of life of the people most affected by violence, of any kind (including firearms). Not one marker for their quality of life would change. The only difference would be this. When the scumbag without a conscience comes pounding at the door, they'd have to give him whatever he demanded, including their wives and daughters. And believe me, when they no longer
have to wonder about the good people in the world standing up to them, they'll be knocking.

That is, I think, the single most infuriating thing I can think of about the issue of gun-control. Aside from the fact that it flies in the face of freedom and individual rights, gun-control is a smoke-screen. It's a distraction. It is a non-issue to keep us busy fighting amongst ourselves, while the politicians keep making themselves rich in Washington. As long as we're fighting each other, we can't be watching them.

I don't buy the argument that guns are in any way causally related to violence. Guns do not make people violent. I don't buy the argument that guns were made to kill people either. I own a few of them. I have friends who own many. I personally have fired more than ten thousand rounds of ammunition through various firearms since beginning to shoot almost 18 years ago. I have friends who shoot more often than I do, and have been
shooting 3 times as long. Collectively, among the four of us who come to mind, we have shot no more than three people. Those three were in the line of duty as police officers and were ruled justifiable homicides by the state AG's office. I have never shot anybody personally.

So, figuring conservatively, we have fired at least 150,000 rounds of ammunition. And three bodies to show for it. Now, we're either not doing something right; we're not using the firearms for what they were intended for; or firearms were indeed not made to kill people.

Furthermore... I can't think of anything more deadly than a baseball bat to the side of the head. Kills ‘em every time. But, the argument cannot be made that baseball bats were made to kill people, or can it?

Maybe that is what our future holds for us. First it's the ugly guns, then the small guns, then the big guns, then the medium sized guns, then the gun that hold too may bullets, then the guns that don't hold enough. Then, when it's all said and done, when guns are gone for the most part, and a non-issue, then we can begin dealing with the long list of other things that will, by necessity and human ingenuity, take their place.

L. A. Richard


The important thing to remember is that Officer Richard is a cop; one who deals with crime, criminals, and has probably seen the results of more acts of violence than any of us. If less guns really meant less crime, wouldn't he, and many other police officers like him agree to banning them? Pay attention to his words, open your mind to his perspective, one you will probably never share unless you've walked in a Police Officer's shoes.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Dan


IP: Logged
Tonx
Member
Member # 456

posted 05-23-2000 09:19 AM     Profile for Tonx   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Just have to congratulate Enzyme and Raver for their excellent posts.
Posts: 18 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Raver
Member
Member # 2100

posted 05-23-2000 05:26 PM     Profile for Raver   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Dan,

Thanks for your last post, it was interesting to read what someone whom works the streets has to say on the matter.
But the post raises a few questions that I hope you might be able to answer. What is Mr Richards view on armour-piecing rounds?
What is his feelings on the availablity of semi-auto military style weapons that the gangs (and law abiding people) in the states are armed with? Surely as a cop on the beat these would be a concern?

Infact, the above brings to mind a few more questions that no one has yet asked.....it would be unfair to you Dan to be the sole respondant, so I hope a few of the others will also respond.

Question: Is there any TYPE of handgun/firearm that you are NOT comfortable with being in general circulation at the moment? The reason that I ask this is to define a point, and that is, I personally have NO problem with gun ownership....one of my main points of contention (amongst others) is the TYPES of firearms that are available.

Question:I am having a bit of trouble trying to sort the wheat from the chaff, just what is the REAL issue here, is it that you don't want your FREEDOMS tampered with, or is it that you don't want your guns removed? It seems to me that there are TWO separate issues here that are being mixed up together....si anyone able to clarify for me?


The Raver has spoken!


Posts: 276 | From: Melb/Aust | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2  3  4  5 
 

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

© COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
© 2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved