Make up your mind, you GUN BAN HOPLOPHOBES!

[turtlespeed 226]

Here is a little insight.

One of the main checks and balances of the Constitution is to give the public the ability to defend it's self against something like Saddam had going for him.

See, if the people have weapons - and not JUST the military and police - we can fight back.

Why would you want to give that ability up?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Ron 10]

Quote

"Not in true standing with why the constitution exists - but that's pretty normal."
With all due respect to The Constitution, it doesn't mean a thing in Newbie's country.
So yeah, it is pretty normal.

Then maybe he should not comment about OUR Constitution, and how WE do things?

I mean since it does not affect him and all.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Then maybe he should not comment about OUR Constitution, and how WE do things?"

I see another deal coming here.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[soilman 0]

AndyMan writes

Quote

They stand alone in the US among very dangerous tools that are largely unregulated.

Err, I'm pretty sure sulfuric acid is largely unregulated, same with lye, and hydrochloric acid. Also, firearm cartridges appear to be largely unregulated. Want a bomb? Just empty out the nitrocellulose from a bunch of cartridges. Want a gun? Get a machinist to make you a piece of steel tubing that has the right inside (and outside) diameter for whatever cartridge you select.

Furthermore, nitrating cotton waste (read, used cotton underwear) -- how difficult can it be?

Gasoline -- you can do more damage to life and property with gasoline, and a match, than you can with explosives. Both gasoline and matches are not exactly highly regulated. Want to kill someone? Put some gasoline in your supersoaker, soak your target, make a trail of gasoline, light the trail. Put lye, hydrochloric acid, or sulfuric acid in their water glass, coffee cup, whatever. Hit them over the head with a baseball bat, knocking them unconscious long enough to cut their throat (carotid artery), with a small paring knife.

Get a bow and a bunch of arrows. Not regulated. All a firearm does is allow you to do the same kind of thing with a little less preliminary target practice.

____________________________________
Animal husbandry may not be necessary. We can maintain soil quality, for plant husbandry, with green manures and cover crops.

[AndyMan 7]

Quit being pendantic. It's annoying.


There is a clear difference between things you make yourself, and things you buy off the shelf. Anyone with a good understanding of chemistry (or a lot of luck) can make a bomb. Very few people can buy one.

Prisons usually ban knives, but inmates still make "shim's". Should prisons allow uncontrolled use of knives because a few inmate figure out how to make their own?

Very few people are capable of making guns. Even though the theoretical knowledge isn't terribly dificult to grasp, I'd wager most people are smart enough not to attempt it themselves, for the same reason most of us don't jump with homemade parachutes.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Quit being pendantic. It's annoying.

As is your side.

Quote

There is a clear difference between things you make yourself, and things you buy off the shelf. Anyone with a good understanding of chemistry (or a lot of luck) can make a bomb. Very few people can buy one.

Yes, but I can buy gas and a match in about 10 min.
I can buy a bow and arrow set in about 20 min...(I have to find a store near work)
I can buy a knife in about 15 min....Hell I have one right here.
Baseball bat...about 20 min.
Axe...20 min.
Tire iron...Got one in my car.

ALL of these can be bought and have been used to kill. Should they ALL be regulated?

Quote

Prisons usually ban knives, but inmates still make "shim's". Should prisons allow uncontrolled use of knives because a few inmate figure out how to make their own?

We are not all in prison...Are you saying law abiding citizens should have only the same rights as felons?

Your only beef is with GUNS...But there are plenty of other ways to kill people. More people are killed with other methods than guns.

It's just that you only want to target guns...

Guns are not the problem. If someone has the desire to kill someone else they will find a way.

People will always kill other people.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

ALL of these can be bought and have been used to kill. Should they ALL be regulated?

Of course not. First, I haven't been arguing for regulation.

I've only argued two simple points. a: guns are dangerous, and b: they are largely unregulated.

I had thought both points would be obvious, but you seem to think otherwise.

If a baseball bat is just as "dangerous" (or, effective, or lethal) as a gun, then we can easily take guns away from cops! All they need are clubs! Marvelous!

I certainly hope we can all agree, a gun is far more dangerous than a baseball bat!

My second point? That guns are relatively unregulated? Well, it seems that if we are talking about regulating them, then it must be the case that they are currently regulated less then they could be. Comparisons to other things (like TNT, radioactive ingredients, many dangerous chemcicals) show that indeed they are relatively unregulated. I'm not sure how, if, or why anyone would try to argue this point... But the gun nuts do seem to insist on it...

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Newbie 0]

Quote

So - then - you want ONLY the military and police (and the like ) to bne able to possess guns.

Nice -

Not in true standing with why the constitution exists - but that's pretty normal.

No, as I mentioned above, in an ideal world you should be able to protect yourself (within the limits of reason). I also understand why it is some advocates for gun control still want armed protection for themselves/their families.

However, owning a firearm for defence, hunting whatever, to me, should equate to the heightened sense of responsibility that goes along with that, as well as having some kind of compulsory safety/proper usage training. At times, this doesn't happen/isn't thought about, hence problems can arise.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

So - then - you want ONLY the military and police (and the like ) to bne able to possess guns.

Nice -

Not in true standing with why the constitution exists - but that's pretty normal.

No, as I mentioned above, in an ideal world you should be able to protect yourself (within the limits of reason). I also understand why it is some advocates for gun control still want armed protection for themselves/their families.

However, owning a firearm for defence, hunting whatever, to me, should equate to the heightened sense of responsibility that goes along with that, as well as having some kind of compulsory safety/proper usage training. At times, this doesn't happen/isn't thought about, hence problems can arise.

You are trying to dictate policy with no backing.

You say should and could - but offer no ways or means.

It is good the way it is - if it isn't broken - don't fix it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"But the gun nuts do seem to insist on it..."

Not 'gun nuts', Hoplophiles...

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[soilman 0]

AndyMan

Quote

I certainly hope we can all agree, a gun is far more dangerous then a baseball bat!

I don't agree. A gun without cartridges is less dangerous than a baseball bat. A gun plus suitably fitting cartridges is perhaps more dangerous than a baseball bat plus a small knife. But it not a more effective weapon at close range. And it is less dangerous than a bottle of sulfuric acid. Careless handling of either can have awful consequences. Anybody can go into a plumbing supply store and legally buy a bottle of sulfuric acid without any legal regulation to sort out the knowledgable and careful users from those that aren't. In my state, New York, in the Untied States, many plumbing supply stores have a policy of not selling sulfuric acid to just anyone, but this is their own policy, and not a legally required policy.

It is really easy to accidentally kill someone with sulfuric acid. Just be stupid enough to transfer it to an unmarked container, and leave it around and wait for someone to think the container is a food container. It is even easier for someone to splash it in their eyes and adversely affect their eyesight. jeez, if anything should be regulated, sulfuric acid should be regulated. it looks awfully innocuous in that bottle that looks just a a bottle of spring water.

I sure would not want to be around a mean-spirited or malicously crazy person who had a bottle of sulfuric acid. it would be easier to get a loaded firearm away from them, without getting shot, then to get a bottle of sulfuric acid out of their hands, without getting splashed.

____________________________________
Animal husbandry may not be necessary. We can maintain soil quality, for plant husbandry, with green manures and cover crops.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Here is a little insight.

One of the main checks and balances of the Constitution is to give the public the ability to defend it's self against something like Saddam had going for him.

See, if the people have weapons - and not JUST the military and police - we can fight back.

Why would you want to give that ability up?

That is such a bullshit argument. Iraq had a bigger gun culture than the US, even Saddam did not dare taking the guns away from Iraqis. Funny enough, it is the Americans who are taking their guns away, since it hinders the democratic process.

Go figure.....

[airdweller 0]

Wish I could get a gun but have been over ruled by my better half.

oh well at least I get to jump out of flying objects.

------------------------------------------------------
"From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant,
who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns

[soilman 0]

The reason people want to regulate guns, but don't want to regulate sulfuric acid the same way, is cultural.. Same with gasoline. Sulfuric acid and gasoline are just as handy to use as weapons as guns are, but guns are thought of as weapons, sulfuric acid and gasoline are thought of as cleaning agents and fuel, respectively. This is a illusion fostered by linguistic customs, and not a fact. The way people see things seems to be altered, colored, by the names they have in their mind for the things they see. The desire to regulate guns, or sulfuric acid, is borne out of fear out of what the regulator would do with the item.

____________________________________
Animal husbandry may not be necessary. We can maintain soil quality, for plant husbandry, with green manures and cover crops.

[AndyMan 7]

Great! Lets take all the cop guns off the street, replace them with baseball bats and sulfuric acid! The cops will love it, I'm sure!

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Great! Lets take all the cop guns off the street, replace them with baseball bats and sulfuric acid! The cops will love it, I'm sure!

_Am

Better that than trying to take mine.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[soilman 0]

By the way, the reason people want to regulate guns, but don't seem to want to regulate cartridges, is they think of the guns as a "killing tool" and don't think of the cartridge as a killing tool -- even tho you ain't gonna kill anyone to easily with just the gun. Ironically, just the cartridge is more useful as a killing took than just the gun. You can empty out the nitrocellulose from the cartridge and make a bomb. If you have cartridges, you can relatively easily find or make a pipe to make a killing device, that will direct the cartridges toward your victim. If you have a pipe -- it is much harder to make the cartridges you need to make the pipe into a killing device. Yet regulators ironiclly focus on regulating the easier to make yourself half of the 2-part took. This is more evidence that it is language and culture that influences their view, and not fact.

____________________________________
Animal husbandry may not be necessary. We can maintain soil quality, for plant husbandry, with green manures and cover crops.

[Ron 10]

Quote

I've only argued two simple points. a: guns are dangerous, and b: they are largely unregulated.

a. Guns are not dangerous. They are tools that CAN be dangerous.

More people die from swimming pools than guns. More people die from slip and fall injuries than guns. More people die from blunt force trama than guns.

Quote

I certainly hope we can all agree, a gun is far more dangerous then a baseball bat!

Sorry no. The PERSON who has the object is dangerous...The objects are just tools. I have yet to see either a gun, or a baseball bat jump up and kill someone.

b.

Quote

My second point? That guns are relatively unregulated? Well, it seems that if we are talking about regulating them, then it must be the case that they are currently regulated less then they could be. Comparisons to other things (like TNT, radioactive ingredients, many dangerous chemcicals) show that indeed they are relatively unregulated. I'm not sure how, if, or why anyone would try to argue this point... But the gun nuts do seem to insist on it...

And the Anti gun nuts seem to think that if we take away guns that people will quit killing people...Wishful thinking. All it really does is make it so they have to kill you some other way, and you have to work really hard to defend yourself.

Cain killed Able without a gun. OJ killed Nicole and Ron without a gun. The Menendez brothers killed their parents without a gun. Bundy killed without a gun. And so on.....

Killers will kill. Guns might make it easier for them, but it also makes it easier to defend yourself.

And the risk of getting shot does keep people from messing with people who are armed...Otherwise Kennisaw, GA. would not have a drop in crime since 97 and have the lowest crime rate around Atlanta.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

That is such a bullshit argument. Iraq had a bigger gun culture than the US, even Saddam did not dare taking the guns away from Iraqis. Funny enough, it is the Americans who are taking their guns away, since it hinders the democratic process.

The US is not taking guns from Iraqi's

They are allowed to have one AK per household.

Your argument is Bull Shit. Never forget that this nation was founded by kicking the limeys to the curb by force. Our Fore Fathers knew that a man with a gun would not let his government go ape shit. That is WHY the Second Amendment was written.

Freedom sometimes has to be paid with the blood of tyrants.

If you don't like our culture, if you don't like our Constitution...Feel free to never visit.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

I certainly hope we can all agree, a gun is far more dangerous then a baseball bat!

Sorry no. The PERSON who has the object is dangerous...The objects are just tools. I have yet to see either a gun, or a baseball bat jump up and kill someone.

But Ron! You can't have it both ways. If the gun isn't dangerous, then neither is the baseball bat. Nor are ICBM's. Nor are WMD's. I don't see you insisting WMD's aren't dangerous! In fact, I seem to recall you supporting a war based on their suposed existance.

To imply that WMD's aren't dangerous is ludicrous. They're designed for a sole purpose - to kill people. Many guns are designed for this very same purpose.

BTW - I've yet to advocate banning them. I just don't understand why American's (and largely, only Americans) are so friggin nuts about them. Your arguments aren't helping me here, either...

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The US is not taking guns from Iraqi's

They are allowed to have one AK per household

great, so if the US says only one gun per household in the US, they are not taking guns from you?

Quote

Your argument is Bull Shit. Never forget that this nation was founded by kicking the limeys to the curb by force. Our Fore Fathers knew that a man with a gun would not let his government go ape shit. That is WHY the Second Amendment was written.

Well, it would seem that argument doesn't work in many other places, it has never really been tested in the US. So far its "track record" is not supporting your position.

Ohh, don't forget your white house is white because we beat your ass and burnt it.

Quote

If you don't like our culture, if you don't like our Constitution...Feel free to never visit.

touchy, touchy

[Ron 10]

Quote

But Ron! You can't have it both ways. If the gun isn't dangerous, then neither is the baseball bat. Nor are ICBM's. Nor are WMD's. I don't see you insisting WMD's aren't dangerous! In fact, I seem to recall you supporting a war based on their suposed existance.

You see there is the error in your logic...

Quote

Sorry no. The PERSON who has the object is dangerous...The objects are just tools. I have yet to see either a gun, or a baseball bat jump up and kill someone.

I am not saying to regulate guns, or baseball bats, or ICBM's OR WMD's. I AM saying it's stupid to focus on guns when more people die from blunt force trama than gunshot.

It is the PERSON who kills, not the gun, baseball bat, ICBM, or WMD. Regulate the PERSON. Don't let felons have guns, don't let the mentally ill have guns.

I supported a war to get Saddam. To keep the PERSON from having WMD's. A person who has used them, and I think would use them or sell them to anyone who would use them.

A WMD is nothing if it sits in a cache. The US has TONS of WMD...But we don't use them, and we don't plan on using them, and we will not sell them to someone who plans on using them.

Just like a law abiding citizen should be allowed to have guns...And if he passed the screening and performance tests to carry it, then he should be allowed to carry one.

Quote

To imply that WMD's aren't dangerous is ludicrous. They're designed for a sole purpose - to kill people. Many guns are designed for this very same purpose.

WMD's are nothing more than tools...They are only as dangerous as who controls them...A Nuke, Gun or Baseball bat is only as dangerous as the guy who controls it.

Quote

BTW - I've yet to advocate banning them. I just don't understand why American's (and largely, only Americans) are so friggin nuts about them. Your arguments aren't helping me here, either...

Could it be becasue you don't listen? You don't ask questions, you have an idea already and will not move from it.

My point is simple:

1. People who want to kill someone are going to do it with, or without a gun. Most serial killers didn't use a gun.

2. A gun is a tool just like a hammer. The number one cause of violent death is blunt force trama, not gunshot...More people grab a heavy object and hit someone than shoot them.

3. Any tool is only as good as the person who controls it. A hammer can kill just as easily as a gun, and they are easier to get and use. It is the PERSON not the gun that should be regulated.

A person in FL. with a CCW has been screened and trained to some degree...Is it perfect? No. But outlawing guns will only make it harder for a law abiding citizen to defend himself while the criminal uses a gun.

Austrailia and England have shown that gun laws don't work. Kennisaw, GA. has shown that gun ownership does.

If you were a crook and you knew that my house was armed, and I was trained. Or my neighbors house was unarmed...Which would you rob?

If you knew that there was a good chance that I had a CCW and had a weapon. Would you rob me, or the guy that did not have a weapon?

Plus lets not forget that our country was founded by taking arms against a dictator that would not listen to us. Our Fore Fathers knew that the only way to ensure a democracy is to allow for the possibility for armed overthrow when all else failed.

They knew that an armed citizen can have freedom if he wants it. Without the possibility to rise up and defend their freedom...They will have none. Those guys amaze me at how much fore thought they had.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

I am not saying to regulate guns, or baseball bats, or ICBM's OR WMD's. I AM saying it's stupid to focus on guns when more people die from blunt force trama than gunshot.

It is the PERSON who kills, not the gun, baseball bat, ICBM, or WMD. Regulate the PERSON. Don't let felons have guns, don't let the mentally ill have guns.

I supported a war to get Saddam. To keep the PERSON from having WMD's. A person who has used them, and I think would use them or sell them to anyone who would use them.

A WMD is nothing if it sits in a cache. The US has TONS of WMD...But we don't use them, and we don't plan on using them, and we will not sell them to someone who plans on using them.

Just like a law abiding citizen should be allowed to have guns...And if he passed the screening and performance tests to carry it, then he should be allowed to carry one.

I see. So law abiding citizens SHOULD be allowed to collect large amounts of WMD's. Got it. Not sure I agree.

Quote

Austrailia and England have shown that gun laws don't work. Kennisaw, GA. has shown that gun ownership does.

Australia and England have far from done that. The rate of violence in both is nowhere near what it is in the US. I know nothing of podunk towns in GA.

Quote

Could it be becasue you don't listen?

This isn't helping, either.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The US is not taking guns from Iraqi's

They are allowed to have one AK per household

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


great, so if the US says only one gun per household in the US, they are not taking guns from you?

I assume you ment Iraq...
If we start having a large violent movement against order and democracy...I suspect the Government would try it. However, we have democracy and order.

Quote

Well, it would seem that argument doesn't work in many other places, it has never really been tested in the US. So far its "track record" is not supporting your position.

Well thats the difference between "other places" and the US huh? And it WAS tested in the US...You remember your Great-Great-Great Grandad was sent home to you in a box right?

Quote

Ohh, don't forget your white house is white because we beat your ass and burnt it.

Don't cry about it buddy.

Funny, last time I checked we won.

In fact our nation was formed by doing the opposite of your country...Seems like it worked since last I checked WE were a super power and had to bail you out in WW2.

Quote

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you don't like our culture, if you don't like our Constitution...Feel free to never visit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


touchy, touchy

I'm not getting upset...just stating fact..You don't like the US don't visit.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Austrailia and England have shown that gun laws don't work. Kennisaw, GA. has shown that gun ownership does.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Australia and England have far from done that. The rate of violence in both is nowhere near what it is in the US. I know nothing of podunk towns in GA.

Maybe you should learn some before you comment?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1178534#1178534

The articals show that Austrailia and England have faster RISING violent crimes, and more crime than the US per person.

Kennesaw, GA...You really should read about them...They mandated in 1997 that ALL head of household had to have a weapon and ammunition. Since then the crime rate has dropped every year inspite of the fact that the city has grown every year.

Pleas read the link I sent..Then comment again.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334