The ownership of these weapons aren't going to increase the crime rate
The ownership of these weapons aren't going to increase the crime rate
I beg to differ. Compare the number of people killed every year in gun-related violence in the US, where gun laws are very liberal, to similar statistics in Sweden, where the gun laws are strict. 41 people died in gun-related violence in the year 2000 in Sweden. Compare this to the number of casualties in gun-related violence in the US per year--about 11,000.
Taking into account the difference in population between the two countries, the fact remains that the occurence of gun-related violence in Sweden is one tenth of that in the US.
I rest my case.
The ownership of these weapons aren't going to increase the crime rate
I beg to differ. Compare the number of people killed every year in gun-related violence in the US, where gun laws are very liberal, to similar statistics in Sweden, where the gun laws are strict. 41 people died in gun-related violence in the year 2000 in Sweden. Compare this to the number of casualties in gun-related violence in the US per year--about 11,000.
Taking into account the difference in population between the two countries, the fact remains that the occurence of gun-related violence in Sweden is one tenth of that in the US.
I rest my case.
Firearms ownership along with the size of the middle class, is a measue of how strong a democracy is.
Hey Litigious, How likely do you think it is to get gun parts or barrels through the mail into Sweeden?? ;) ;) ;)
I agree with odeon. One of the things I hate about my country is all the morons with guns. Restricting guns is a good idea because it prevents deaths. Yes, that takes away one's "right to bear arms", but since it saves lives, it is worth it. Most successful suicides are from guns. If these people didn't have access to guns, maybe they would get the chance to get help rather than putting their loved ones through that.
And suicide is a human right, since it's a human right to decide over your own life and body. It's your right to protect your life with all means necessary and it is also your right to end your life if you find it unbearable.:agreed:
Corey,
You have the right to your opinion. The statistics are pretty clear, however, and arguing that the easy access of handguns wouldn't cause an increase in gun-related violence simply doesn't hold water.
I, for one, am happy to live in a country where getting a handgun is difficult.
I doubt that the gun shot victim cares about the exact semantics behind "negligent discharge" vs. "accidental discharge of a firearm".
This wouldn't worry me, if everyone was competent enough to deal with the possession of a gun.
For that reason alone I think it's unbelievable that people other than police officers or other legal human protectors are still allowed to bear arms.
A tool is neutral. The person wielding it is the evil behind an attack. I can stab someone in the chest with a screwdriver and hit their heart, killing them. I can beat someone to death with a tire iron. I can run someone over with my car. Does that mean all of the above need to be banned? No. We need to be educated as a society, and if anything we must make people more accountable for their actions, instead of blaming the methods they used.
That's just my opinion. I've owned guns for two years, and I haven't shot a single person. Will I carry one of my pistols for protection? Yes, and legally at that. And if the day ever arrives where I have to use it, when someone endangers my life, I will take responsibility for my actions.
-Corey
I, for one, am happy to live in a country where getting a handgun is difficult.
QuoteThis wouldn't worry me, if everyone was competent enough to deal with the possession of a gun.
And that is the problem, right there. We must educate people.
I think that we can all agree when I say that, save for the possibility that your an expert in gunshooting, shouldn't be the case. The training they receive should definitely be improved then.QuoteFor that reason alone I think it's unbelievable that people other than police officers or other legal human protectors.
The training police and military receive is far less than you'd think. My friend is a Marine, and I'm a much better shot that him with a pistol.
-Corey
I agree with odeon. One of the things I hate about my country is all the morons with guns. Restricting guns is a good idea because it prevents deaths. Yes, that takes away one's "right to bear arms", but since it saves lives, it is worth it. Most successful suicides are from guns. If these people didn't have access to guns, maybe they would get the chance to get help rather than putting their loved ones through that.
You live in a country where you have the great gift of easily arming yourself for self-protection and you would like that freedom taken away from you? I wish you could read that ridiculous Swedish law text that I linked to.
And suicide is a human right, since it's a human right to decide over your own life and body. It's your right to protect your life with all means necessary and it is also your right to end your life if you find it unbearable.
There are better ways of protecting oneself than with guns.
Guns too often get in the wrong hands (i.e. the hands of children),
not to mention all the accidents that can happen with them,
and the fact that they can backfire on you.
It's not about freedom; it's about safety.
(unless, of course, you think you're impervious to them because you've been watching too much of DragonBall Z :p)
We all must remember this it is not the gun that kills it is the person behind and pulling that trigger that kills.
But my main worry is that I don't particularly want to make it easier for the violent idiots to own such a deadly weapon.
And in countries where it is legal to own guns now much training do they legally have to have?
But my main worry is that I don't particularly want to make it easier for the violent idiots to own such a deadly weapon.
Well, this is true, but keep this in mind:
Joe Blow goes to buy a gun legally. He fills out paperwork, he has to bring proof of residency, and have a background check run. Also (in my state), unless you have a concealed handgun permit you can only buy one handgun every 30 days. Some states, you even have to get your gun registered, where it can be readily identified if it's used in a crime. Some states you have a waiting period, even if you haven't purchased a handgun in the past month.
On the other hand, go to a crooked dealer, slip them an extra $100, and bypass all of the above. If you ban firearms, the former is eliminated, but the latter keeps thriving. That's my whole problem. Banning firearms only takes them out of the hands of legal purchasers. Think the crackhead in Washington D.C. cares about firearms being illegal?
However, with a strict gun policy you do diminish the chances for most people to get a gun and thus you diminish the amount of possible killers.
However, with a strict gun policy you do diminish the chances for most people to get a gun and thus you diminish the amount of possible killers.
And the amount of people able to defend themselves against the criminals and corrupt politicians...
Quote from: odeonI, for one, am happy to live in a country where getting a handgun is difficult.
There is a pretty well known immigrated couple, who owned a restaurant in Gothenburg who are victims of blackmailing from a motorcycle gang. Do you think it's fair to them that the police can't protect them and that they can't protect themselves either due to our cowardly gun law? Would you like to be in their situation?
We all must remember this it is not the gun that kills it is the person behind and pulling that trigger that kills.
Exactly. That's about the core of my arguement. Anything within reason can be used to kill (household chemicals, common tools, over the counter drugs, etc.), it's the intent of the user that counts.
-Corey
What, exactly, do you believe would be different if that restaurant owner had a gun? That the gang would stay away? Please. If you believe that, you're more naive than I thought.
What, exactly, do you believe would be different if that restaurant owner had a gun? That the gang would stay away? Please. If you believe that, you're more naive than I thought.
A single person can't do much (or anything) against a gang like that, but if all decent people were armed and determined to pay back on those bastards, then there might be a difference. Enough vigilantes can pay back on those scum, if they are united and determined.
What, exactly, do you believe would be different if that restaurant owner had a gun? That the gang would stay away? Please. If you believe that, you're more naive than I thought.
A single person can't do much (or anything) against a gang like that, but if all decent people were armed and determined to pay back on those bastards, then there might be a difference. Enough vigilantes can pay back on those scum, if they are united and determined.
What, exactly, do you believe would be different if that restaurant owner had a gun? That the gang would stay away? Please. If you believe that, you're more naive than I thought.
A single person can't do much (or anything) against a gang like that, but if all decent people were armed and determined to pay back on those bastards, then there might be a difference. Enough vigilantes can pay back on those scum, if they are united and determined.
That sort of thinking hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried. The US, Sicily, Iraq... It just leads to more violence, more people dead, and lots of innocent people caught in the middle.
However, with a strict gun policy you do diminish the chances for most people to get a gun and thus you diminish the amount of possible killers.
I meant if you try to protect yourself with a gun, the person trying to attack you might be able to take your gun from you and use it against you. Also, there are still a lot of idiots out there who don't make their guns unaccessible to their children. Even if that's illegal, it doesn't mean that won't happen. The police usually won't find out until it's too late and someone's gotten hurt. What we need in the US is more gun control at the very least.
Try to look at it with a bigger picture. People are more likely to become murderers if they have the facilities to do it.
A gun makes it easy. Too easy. The act of killing another human--or yourself--becomes a spur of the moment thing in the wrong hands. Household chemicals, over the counter drugs, et cetera, change the act to premeditated but also take time and effort, and the moment passes more often than not.
A single person can't do much (or anything) against a gang like that, but if all decent people were armed and determined to pay back on those bastards, then there might be a difference. Enough vigilantes can pay back on those scum, if they are united and determined.
I propose it be legal to buy weapons, and own weapons, but not to have them on your person or in public(except firing ranges and designated hunting areas). Now you may ask yourself, how can you purchase weapons if you can't carry weapons, well you could have it sent to your home.
So during peacetime, people that shouldnt be using guns in public will get in trouble. And gun nuts will still get to enjoy owning guns.
Mind you that having a strict gun policy isn't a perfect solution, but it does decrease the amount of gun-owners and thus the amount of possible killers (for whatever reason they might kill somebody). Every murder is one too many, but if we are speaking in numbers I'd rather choose the lowest amount of gun victims.
The ownership of these weapons aren't going to increase the crime rate
I beg to differ. Compare the number of people killed every year in gun-related violence in the US, where gun laws are very liberal, to similar statistics in Sweden, where the gun laws are strict. 41 people died in gun-related violence in the year 2000 in Sweden. Compare this to the number of casualties in gun-related violence in the US per year--about 11,000.
Taking into account the difference in population between the two countries, the fact remains that the occurence of gun-related violence in Sweden is one tenth of that in the US.
I rest my case.
The ownership of these weapons aren't going to increase the crime rate
I beg to differ. Compare the number of people killed every year in gun-related violence in the US, where gun laws are very liberal, to similar statistics in Sweden, where the gun laws are strict. 41 people died in gun-related violence in the year 2000 in Sweden. Compare this to the number of casualties in gun-related violence in the US per year--about 11,000.
Taking into account the difference in population between the two countries, the fact remains that the occurence of gun-related violence in Sweden is one tenth of that in the US.
I rest my case.
I agree with odeon. One of the things I hate about my country is all the morons with guns. Restricting guns is a good idea because it prevents deaths. Yes, that takes away one's "right to bear arms", but since it saves lives, it is worth it. Most successful suicides are from guns. If these people didn't have access to guns, maybe they would get the chance to get help rather than putting their loved ones through that.
Every suicide is a failure for the society. Not only do suicides cost the state money, but the majority of these people could have been treated.
I believe that killing someone (even if it is yourself) should be the zenith of ultimate resorts when trying to solve a problem. Most people will agree with that statement,
This wouldn't worry me, if everyone was competent enough to deal with the possession of a gun. But it's pretty obvious that it's mostly the opposite.Can you prove this??
For that reason alone I think it's unbelievable that people other than police officers or other legal human protectors are still allowed to bear arms.
There are better ways of protecting oneself than with guns. Guns too often get in the wrong hands (i.e. the hands of children), not to mention all the accidents that can happen with them, and the fact that they can backfire on you. It's not about freedom; it's about safety.
Try telling that to a parent who had a gun in their house that comes home to find their child committed suicide with it. Suicide may be a human right, but as a survivor of multiple suicide attempts, I'm happy I never had access to a gun. I thought my life was unbearable in the past, but I survived it and am doing much better now. The same thing could have happened for other people who chose to take their life, but sadly it's too late for them now.
No, such criminals will continue to exist. They will go beyond the law to get what they want(that's why their criminals) and those people will always be here, liberal or non-liberal gun policy. However, with a strict gun policy you do diminish the chances for most people to get a gun and thus you diminish the amount of possible killers.
People are more likely to become murderers if they have the facilities to do it. .
I think that privately owning weapons will only cause harm. However people who wanna commit crimes will get weapons through the black market. This might seem like a point supporting legal carrying of weapons. However I propose something else. I propose it be legal to buy weapons, and own weapons, but not to have them on your person or in public(except firing ranges and designated hunting areas). Now you may ask yourself, how can you purchase weapons if you can't carry weapons, well you could have it sent to your home.
Now what this would mean is that incase we need to rebel against the government, we'll probably at the time be having little regard for the law enforcement considering they are part of the government, so incase we really decide to rebel, we can choose to disregard that law, but at every other time, having guns in public usually results in them being misused. So during peacetime, people that shouldnt be using guns in public will get in trouble. And gun nuts will still get to enjoy owning guns.
That's apple to oranges and you should know better!!
Sweeden is lucky enough not to have the societal problems that have been imported into American culture.
When you analyzie crime statistics in America, a dirty little secret about criminal activity appears. Most criminologists know this and the stats have been published in different sources.
Crime in America follows racial lines. The crime rates for whites in america reflect those of Europe. the crime rates of Asians reflect those in Asia. The crime rates of Mexicans reflect crime rates in Mexico. The crime rates of Blacks reflect those of Africa.......... I don't see how anyone is suprised by this. The fruit after all, never falls far from the tree.........
Every suicide is a failure for the society. Not only do suicides cost the state money, but the majority of these people could have been treated.
Are you trying to make the case that the individual is the property of "society" and the state???
People are more likely to become murderers if they have the facilities to do it. .
The majority of criminologists would disagree with you in this point!!
The ownership of these weapons aren't going to increase the crime rate
I beg to differ. Compare the number of people killed every year in gun-related violence in the US, where gun laws are very liberal, to similar statistics in Sweden, where the gun laws are strict. 41 people died in gun-related violence in the year 2000 in Sweden. Compare this to the number of casualties in gun-related violence in the US per year--about 11,000.
Taking into account the difference in population between the two countries, the fact remains that the occurence of gun-related violence in Sweden is one tenth of that in the US.
I rest my case.
That's apple to oranges and you should know better!!
Sweeden is lucky enough not to have the societal problems that have been imported into American culture.
When you analyzie crime statistics in America, a dirty little secret about criminal activity appears. Most criminologists know this and the stats have been published in different sources.
Crime in America follows racial lines. The crime rates for whites in america reflect those of Europe. the crime rates of Asians reflect those in Asia. The crime rates of Mexicans reflect crime rates in Mexico. The crime rates of Blacks reflect those of Africa.......... I don't see how anyone is suprised by this. The fruit after all, never falls far from the tree.........
That's apple to oranges and you should know better!!
Sweeden is lucky enough not to have the societal problems that have been imported into American culture.
When you analyzie crime statistics in America, a dirty little secret about criminal activity appears. Most criminologists know this and the stats have been published in different sources.
Crime in America follows racial lines. The crime rates for whites in america reflect those of Europe. the crime rates of Asians reflect those in Asia. The crime rates of Mexicans reflect crime rates in Mexico. The crime rates of Blacks reflect those of Africa.......... I don't see how anyone is suprised by this. The fruit after all, never falls far from the tree.........
I thought about writing exactly that, but my fellow countryman might have called me a racist then. It was good that an American brought it up. Of course it's a matter of culture.
I'd also recommend the gun nuts to watch the end of that movie, where Charlton Heston, the chairman of the NRA, attempts to explain the statistics in his own way. Hilarious, but also quite sad.
Have you seen "Bowling for Columbine"? It opens with Michael Moore opening an account at a bank in order to get a free gun, promised to everyone opening new accounts... I think this little scene explains a lot more about the gun mentality in the US than all that racist bs quoted above.
I'd also recommend the gun nuts to watch the end of that movie, where Charlton Heston, the chairman of the NRA, attempts to explain the statistics in his own way. Hilarious, but also quite sad.
Humans are racist. If you deny it, you are bullshitting yourself. America is the most culturally bigotted and, at the same time, culturally diverse country on the miserable little speck we all share. It has little to do with this argument, but it needs to be pointed out.
When you analyzie crime statistics in America, a dirty little secret about criminal activity appears. Most criminologists know this and the stats have been published in different sources.
Crime in America follows racial lines. The crime rates for whites in america reflect those of Europe. the crime rates of Asians reflect those in Asia. The crime rates of Mexicans reflect crime rates in Mexico. The crime rates of Blacks reflect those of Africa.......... I don't see how anyone is suprised by this. The fruit after all, never falls far from the tree.........
If you trust anything that Michael Moore attaches his name to, then you're not worthy of debating. Yes, factually, Michael Moore began a transaction days before that scene to allow the waiting period to pass and received a Weatherby rifle.
And yes, Michael Moore approached Charlton Heston in 1999 when the man wasn't in the best state of mind, as he was beginning to show symptoms of Alzheimer's disease (something he announced to the public in 2002).
-Corey
I'd also recommend the gun nuts to watch the end of that movie, where Charlton Heston, the chairman of the NRA, attempts to explain the statistics in his own way. Hilarious, but also quite sad.
You mean this Charlton Heston?
(http://www.filibe.com/movies/Charlton%20Heston.jpg)
Monkey see, monkey do.
LOL.
That's all you're going to say? That if I refer to something Michael Moore said or did, I'm not worthy of debating? Wouldn't you want to prove some of the things he said wrong? If this is your debating style (conjecture, mainly), I'm wasting my time.
You'd have more success holding your breath until you get your way. ::)
I'd also recommend the gun nuts to watch the end of that movie, where Charlton Heston, the chairman of the NRA, attempts to explain the statistics in his own way. Hilarious, but also quite sad.
You mean this Charlton Heston?
(http://www.filibe.com/movies/Charlton%20Heston.jpg)
Monkey see, monkey do.
LOL.
Is this after the onset of Alzheimer's?
Corey, see that other thread (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=1778.0), started by notdrew. If you don't agree, I'll reply to your post re Moore and his film, OK.Well, technically that other thread was really just a joke. I mean, I suppose I could have gone the other way on the bear issue about how bears are easily victimized without guns but that didn't really amuse me quite as much.
Corey, see that other thread (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=1778.0), started by notdrew. If you don't agree, I'll reply to your post re Moore and his film, OK.
What do y'all think of the Japanese system: It is legal to own as many guns as you want :tooledup:
but it is illegal to own any bullets :bssign:
OK. Fuck it. Forget that I wanted to stop this bickering.
I'm not avoiding anything, Corey. I'm very much against guns while you, obviously, are not. I very much doubt that even if I shoved every relevant piece of statistics down your throat, I could make you change your mind. But since this is what you want, I feel obliged to do it.
Regarding your last link, about how Michael Moore went about filming that interview. There's no definitive evidence to either version on that page. There probably was more than one camera, though, because that's actually pretty much standard operating procedure when you're shooting a documentary. I don't know if you have experience shooting documentaries, but I do, and I can tell you here and now, that whenever I had the money, I always used two or more cameras, simply because often, there are no second chances, be it interviews, bird photography, or live concerts.
Standard operating procedure when you're shooting a documentary is also to hide the other cameras whenever you can, simply because they remove focus from where you, as a director, want it to be.
That Moore has more than one version of how that shoot was done is not relevant, however.
We are talking about gun control and Heston's inability to produce a credible reply. What you are trying to do here is to discredit Moore so you don't have to face that bigger issue, the one this thread is about.
Every documentary is an opinion piece, never an objective report on factual events. Of course Moore had a reason to include Heston and his failed excuses. It wasn't as much to bring the gun freaks down--he pwned them with that film, though--as it was to win over the folks who weren't sure. I repeat: it's an opinion piece. A strong one, based on facts, but still opinion.
By the way, I find it worrying that a person with Alzheimer's can legally own a firearm, and even more worrying that the person was the chair of the NRA at the time of the interview, when his Alzheimer was already in evidence (according to you).
Very well, here (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html) is a site analyzing the 'documentary' and showing proof of its false claims. Read it please, then reply. If you have evidence you wish to present as a counterargument, I'm fully willing to read it.
-Corey
I think that this rather proves my point. Fewer guns => fewer murders.
I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. Thatquite's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them.
Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.
Do you have another? If you do, and if there was more said, something that gave another version of the interview or something that actually gave a credible, but different, explanation of that 11,000 death toll, I'm all ears.
Do you have another? If you do, and if there was more said, something that gave another version of the interview or something that actually gave a credible, but different, explanation of that 11,000 death toll, I'm all ears.
Every death through crimes with guns is a tragedy, but the US is a country with almost 300 million people. 11000 out of 300 millions is about 1/37000. That is like one person/year in a Swedish town of average size would be killed. Do you really think that that is so extremely much that guns should be banned or so extremely restricted that they are here in Sweden and most of Europe?
Yes.
I think that this rather proves my point. Fewer guns => fewer murders.
You misinterpreted the figures, as already stated, but here's my counter. Read the attachment. It's quite facinating, really.
-Corey
* there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings(from Wikipedia)
* there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
* there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings.
* both cities had similar rates of burglary and robbery
* in Seattle, the total rate of assaults with any weapon was modestly higher than that in Vancouver
* rates of homicide by means other than guns were not substantially different in the two study communities
* the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver
* the rate of being murdered by a handgun was 4.8 times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver.
The study concluded that restricting access to handguns may reduce the rate of homicide in a community by reducing the lethality of assaults.
I have already read that report long ago. The conclusion from it is simple: In those states were the gun laws were loosened up in later years, the number of gun crimes decreased, right the opposite to what the anti-gunners state.
The reason might probably be that criminals are mostly cowards and become less trigger happy if "ordinary folks" aren't helpless slaughter sheeps but potential death machines themselves (in self-defense).
Quote from: Kiss_my_AS on October 31, 2006, 03:37:21 PM
However, with a strict gun policy you do diminish the chances for most people to get a gun and thus you diminish the amount of possible killers.
I could point to the War on Drugs and the increase in availability and potency of illicit narcotics such as heroin in the past 30 years to effectively counter your argument. Besides, since a great deal of guns are imported (Beretta is Italian, IMI is Israeli, and Springfield Armory uses parts from Brazil), the reality is that guns could still be smuggled into the U.S. or any other country. Besides, guns can be custom made by those with the right equipment. They're not the most complicated devices in the world.
Quote
Try to look at it with a bigger picture. People are more likely to become murderers if they have the facilities to do it.
That's an ignorant statement, in my honest opinion. Having the facilities to perform an action doesn't necessarily mean one would do it. I own 5 guns, as previously mentioned, and have never shot any living thing. I don't plan on it, and never want to. Just as I won't rape my girlfriend when she's unconscious, or step on my cat's head to kill him in his sleep. Having the means to do something is only one part, the other being the motive. Motive, in all honesty, is the greater of the two. I could beat someone to death with my bare hands if so driven to that point, as could anyone else.
This statement ingnores much of what was already said about gun violence. Redicnig the number of guns in LEGAL circulation has'nt had an effect on crime anywhere that I've seen. Nor does it make sense that it would. Gunsa can always come from different sources especially here in America where we have a border with Mexico that you could pass an entire Army through without getting caught.
Care to guess how many illegal guns will be smuggled in from Mexico if guns got outlawed in the US???
Quote from: Kiss_my_AS on October 31, 2006, 12:56:47 PM
I believe that killing someone (even if it is yourself) should be the zenith of ultimate resorts when trying to solve a problem. Most people will agree with that statement,
I for one, can't agree with this. You statement assumes that life is the very most precious thing there is. This is a flawed philosophy for the following reason. If you feel life is most important to you, this opens you up to bullying and other intimidation tactics. If you feel thatfreedom is more important than life, you are harder to bully because you would rather die than to submit to intimidation. Bullies respect this. TRUST me I learned this the hard way!!!
Quote
This wouldn't worry me, if everyone was competent enough to deal with the possession of a gun. But it's pretty obvious that it's mostly the opposite.
Can you prove this??
Quote
For that reason alone I think it's unbelievable that people other than police officers or other legal human protectors are still allowed to bear arms.
What sort of slave mentality is this?? "legal human protectors"?? EVERY HUMAN HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES DUMBASS!!!
But in countries where firearms are less available, knives and blunt objects are used instead, when it comes to assault. It's only makes the victims more defenseless.
And comparing self-defense with homicide just gives the ratio homicide:selfdefense, not how often an incident with a gun ever occurred at all, or if homicides in countries with hard gun laws instead are committed with knives or blunt objects.
The victims actually have a better chance to survive. Or are you saying that knives and blunt objects are as lethal as firearms?
If what you are saying was true, we'd have a lot more knife/blunt object violence than we do here in Sweden. The fact of the matter is that the non-gun homicide rate, to take one example, is lower in Sweden than in the US. (source: GunCite)
With 'legal human protectors' I meant the army and bodyguards, etc. English is not my first language and I will not always be able to find the right words to express myself, hence the misunderstanding. Btw, I don't how insults and typing in caps are of contribution to this discussion, not to mention that it shows that you've apparently misunderstood my post, as I do not assume that to be a strict given. Just that I think it's a more effective way to avoid unnecessary deaths in the situation, though not the best, and I'm always open to suggestions that do bring us closer to the ideal situation.
But how much greater is the rate of homicides committed with knives/blunt objects in Sweden compared to the gun violence in Sweden? Probably much greater. Criminals will use what means they can get.
And of course the violence of any kind is higher in percentage in the US. It's a much more heterogenous country, which Scrapheap and I already have stated. A heterogenous country always has more violence than a homogenous one. It's just cheap political correctnness or naïveté to state something else.
If your theory held water, the non-gun homicide rate would be comparatively higher per 100,000 (or whatever comparison you choose) in Sweden than in the US since, in your words, "criminals will use what means they can get".
It isn't. It's LOWER.
Of course? Please show me the relevant statistics. Your argument is a bigot's standard retort.
And stop calling me a bigot. I for sure now what bigotism is. All I'm saying is that the crime rate among immigrants is higher, not that a majority or more than a small minority of immigrants are criminals, just like among ethnical Swedes.
Political correctness is only inverted bigotism.
Never mind. We won't get any further. Arm the bears, for fuck's sake! :wanker:
I believe strongly that people should have the right to own what ever kind arms they want, as long as they aren't ex-cons and other undesirables, Why shouldn't people be not allowed to own automatic guns, catapults, battle axes, maces (not the spray kind), swords, rocket launchers, tanks, gunship helicopters, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, so long as they do not use them to volatile the law.
The ownership of these weapons aren't going to increase the crime rate, look at Switzerland, every gun is required by law to keep military weapons and is not a lawless society by any means. It would be the ultimate expression of a free, democratic and well ordered society, that we can afford to let the citizenry any kind of arms they see fit. 8)
As I said before, I value human life, so if I have to choose between having the freedom to bear arms and saving lives, I choose saving lives.
-1 for your comment.
I only think freedom should be sacrificed when it involves harming others.Who am I harming by owning guns?? Other than those who would deprive me of my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Everyone deserves to be safe, and when someone is murdered by a gun, their right to live is being taken away.Guns are also used millions of times per year, in the hands of private citizens,to thwart crime and save lives.
It pisses me off that children die because their idiot parents are allowed to have guns.
-1 for your comment.If I gave a damn about karma points, I would consider that quite petty. I thought only christians and muslims try to penalize those with whom they disagree.
QuoteI only think freedom should be sacrificed when it involves harming others.Who am I harming by owning guns?? Other than those who would deprive me of my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
QuoteEveryone deserves to be safe, and when someone is murdered by a gun, their right to live is being taken away.Guns are also used millions of times per year, in the hands of private citizens,to thwart crime and save lives.
Can't you give credit where credit is due??
More children are killed by thier parents swimming pools than by thier parents guns. It's a fact!!
-1 for your comment.
I only think freedom should be sacrificed when it involves harming others. Everyone deserves to be safe, and when someone is murdered by a gun, their right to live is being taken away. It pisses me off that children die because their idiot parents are allowed to have guns.
More children are killed by thier parents swimming pools than by thier parents guns. It's a fact!!
What gives you the right to label people cowards simply for disagreeing with you?
The reason I don't think that guns should be more easily available is because I see the damage that the brain dead do to each other and innocent people with knives, their fists, broken bottles, etc and I don't particulalrly want to make it easier for them to get hold of weapons that mean they wouldn't even have to get close enough for those they are attacking to defend themselves in order to attack them. What good is your gun safely locked away in a gun cupboard going to be to you when you're walking down the street and some pissed up wanker decides to shoot at you for kicks?
And Carla can know why the founding fathers granted americans the right to bear arms without agreeing with it.
-1 for your comment.
I only think freedom should be sacrificed when it involves harming others. Everyone deserves to be safe, and when someone is murdered by a gun, their right to live is being taken away. It pisses me off that children die because their idiot parents are allowed to have guns.
You're going to be a teacher and you don't even know why your Founding Fathers granted every American to keep and bear arms? Do you think that a government is something sent from heaven, that will never hurt you and your loved ones for no reason whatsoever? Does it look like that, if you look around the world?
How exactly would you fight a dictator unarmed? Look at the Iraquis. They have had the right to keep and bear arms and they can fight the Americans pretty good, though your army is much stronger. I'm not on their side, but you get my point? Armed citizens can always stand up against the military, because they are so many and the military can't know who is armed and who is not. Unarmed citizens are cattle that can be slaughtered by the tyrants. Would you like that to happen to your children?
The right to keep and bear arms is one of the things that many Europeans admire America for, that is, the ones of us who aren't cowards. Ever since I was a child, I have cursed my cowardly countrymen, who have accepted an unjust gun law to be put up upon them. I regret deeply that I didn't try to migrate to the US when I was younger. I could do that only to get that precious right, to be armed like a man, that is, my right being it, not some fucking privilege that some jerk would give me like I were a pet or a child, who had no rights of my own.
Do you know who are armed in public in Europe except for the police? THE CRIMINALS! They have machine guns and hand grenades, even here in Sweden. And the law abiding citizen has no right to bear arms in public to defend himself against them, if he would happen to get in their way. He's a slaughter sheep. Is that what you call safety?
You're almost 300 millions Americans. About 11000 are getting killed every year in gun related crimes. That is 11 out of 300000. That's not much, considering that they're offered upon the altar of freedom. If I were an American and my child were killed by a school shooting, it would break my heart and I'd feel sorrow for it the rest of my life, just like everyone else, but I would know that it wasn't totally meaningless and I would accept the sacrifice, even if my heart would be aching for the rest of my life. Isn't there an American expression "You always have to pay for everything"? That goes for freedom too. Particularly for freedom.
What gives you the right to label people cowards simply for disagreeing with you? The reason I don't think that guns should be more easily available is because I see the damage that the brain dead do to each other and innocent people with knives, their fists, broken bottles, etc and I don't particulalrly want to make it easier for them to get hold of weapons that mean they wouldn't even have to get close enough for those they are attacking to defend themselves in order to attack them. What good is your gun safely locked away in a gun cupboard going to be to you when you're walking down the street and some pissed up wanker decides to shoot at you for kicks?
And Carla can know why the founding fathers granted americans the right to bear arms without agreeing with it.
Quote from: purposefulinsanityAnd Carla can know why the founding fathers granted americans the right to bear arms without agreeing with it.
Sure. She just totally missed their point.
In my opinion, if you use a weapon to fight your battles, you're a coward.
I've spoken to many Europeans who dislike the USA's policy on guns and agree that it's one of the negative things about my country.
It all depends. Your chances of getting attacked also depend on where you live.
I've spoken to many Europeans who dislike the USA's policy on guns and agree that it's one of the negative things about my country.
Yes, because most Europeans are cowards. That's how most dictators here came to power in the first place. That's why the Europeans needed American help to stop the war in Yugoslavia and then, as usual, blamed the US instead of thanking them.
It all depends. Your chances of getting attacked also depend on where you live.
They shouldn't. No law abiding citizen should have to fear any part of their own country any time of the day.
In a country ruled by a tyrant every square inch is insecure.
Quote from: purposefulinsanity
And Carla can know why the founding fathers granted americans the right to bear arms without agreeing with it.
Sure. She just totally missed their point.
Quote from: purposefulinsanity
And Carla can know why the founding fathers granted americans the right to bear arms without agreeing with it.
Sure. She just totally missed their point.
Or simply disagreed with it. Just as she probably disagrees with their views on slavery.
yopu also forgot to mention how they omitted women from the rights to hold public office, or vote.
Back to school, Litigious. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. most dictators come to power in ways a lot more sneaky than that. Consider Hitler as an example. It had nothing to do with cowardice. Misinformation, absolutely. Cowardice, no.
Cheap propaganda, and not necessarily true. Consider Iraq before the US decided to "liberate" it. How many died there before the war, and how many after?
And I'm not even counting the victims of the daily allied bombs, btw.
not so.yopu also forgot to mention how they omitted women from the rights to hold public office, or vote.
And a number other details. My point stands.
now, i will admit that the founding fathers never envisioned anything more dangerous than a slow and cumbersome musket. i am not sure if they thought that the average citizen should own an uzi, or a rocket launcher.
a pistol or a hunting rifle, even a shotgun, yes.
and we should protect that right or die trying.
Back to school, Litigious. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. most dictators come to power in ways a lot more sneaky than that. Consider Hitler as an example. It had nothing to do with cowardice. Misinformation, absolutely. Cowardice, no.
I can inform you that I had a 5 in history all the way up in high school and that WWII and Hitler are one of my special interests. It's the
citizens' obligation to keep themselves informed in a democracy. But they chose not to be informed. It's always easier to be passive and let others think for you.
Quote from: odeon
Cheap propaganda, and not necessarily true. Consider Iraq before the US decided to "liberate" it. How many died there before the war, and how many after?
And I'm not even counting the victims of the daily allied bombs, btw.
Sorry. A true dictatorship is Paradise on earth. Gives an extra spice to life never knowing when you will be arrested, raped, tortured or killed.
not so.yopu also forgot to mention how they omitted women from the rights to hold public office, or vote.
And a number other details. My point stands.
on your point about slavery, the civil war happend in large part due to people having the right to bear arms.
and we should protect that right or die trying.
So, with all those good grades, why not use the knowledge you have, instead of bullshitting the readers? Your grades do not make your statement true.
I knew you'd say that. Read the above again. I'm not defending dictatures, I'm noting that fewer people died when Iraq was stable, which is true. Defend your position instead of trying to score quickies using cliches.
But surely you are not saying that the gun laws in the US are in place to enable another civil war if things get sufficiently out of hand?
I've spoken to many Europeans who dislike the USA's policy on guns and agree that it's one of the negative things about my country.
Yes, because most Europeans are cowards. That's how most dictators here came to power in the first place. That's why the Europeans needed American help to stop the war in Yugoslavia and then, as usual, blamed the US instead of thanking them.
It all depends. Your chances of getting attacked also depend on where you live.
They shouldn't. No law abiding citizen should have to fear any part of their own country any time of the day.
In a country ruled by a tyrant every square inch is insecure.
But surely you are not saying that the gun laws in the US are in place to enable another civil war if things get sufficiently out of hand?
From what I've heard it's not considered legal to interpret the 2th Amendment that way anymore, but what would they do if GWB or some new president got totally out of his minds? Just surrender? If they can't win or at least get even on a president becoming a tyrant it's because they have more restrictions considering guns than the 2th Amendment, not less.
But liberal gun laws or not, a few armed citizens couldn't. You're naive if you think otherwise.
There are at least 100 millions armed citizens in the US, probably much more. If every one of them had at least a machine gun and a grenade launcher, plus a lot of extra guns and some proper basical military training...
Uh, it's just a karma system on a website...it can't really be compared to suicide bombings and/or whatever else you're referring to. Also, that's quite a generalization. Finally, I thought what you said was rude since you were basically saying I don't deserve security or freedom. When people are rude to me, I minus them. It's what the karma system is for.
I respect that you're not harming anybody, but I'm not speaking about you per se. I'm speaking generally. If there were stricter gun control laws, thousands of deaths could be prevented. Because so many people are allowed to purchase guns, they often fall into the wrong hands.
Guns are also used millions of times per year, in the hands of private citizens,to thwart crime and save lives.
Can't you give credit where credit is due??
As I said before, there are other ways people can defend themselves...and the less people who have guns, the less people who *need* them.
More children are killed by thier parents swimming pools than by thier parents guns. It's a fact!!
We're not talking about swimming pools. Those parents are idiots too.
Anyway, should children still have to die in school shootings and by their own friends'/relatives' guns just because it is less likely than drowning in a swimming pool? ::)
No guns = no gun-related deaths or injuries.
What is it about this concept that makes it so hard? ???
No guns = no gun-related deaths or injuries.
What is it about this concept that makes it so hard? ???
That is a common bumper sticker argument around here for people who want to outlaw guns, Odeon. The rebuttal, seen on many bumper stickers, is:
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
I'm going to try to make this short, because I have a lot of schoolwork I need to get done.The right to bear arms is a very controversial issue, just like abortion, the death penalty, etc. I would appreciate if people who support the ownership of firearms not to call me dumb or imply that I'm dumb (or a "coward") simply because I disagree. As odeon said, it's best to simply agree to disagree, since no one is going to change anyone's minds. It just bothered me that litigous kept bringing it up, and McJagger mentioned it too, so that is why I decided to resurrect it and say my bit.
As I said before, I respect the opinions of those who are pro-guns; all I ask is that my OPINION be respected as well. This is a matter of opinions, not right or wrong...I don't think there is a right or wrong with controversial issues such as this one. Personally, I'm biased since as a future teacher, I care strongly about the safety of children. Did you know that in the state of New Jersey it is difficult to get a gun legally? You usually have to be a police officer orsomeone who is or used to be in the military to own a pistol. I know some people who go hunting and own shot guns, but it's pretty rare in this state, unlike the majority of the country. Also I have some online friends in New Zealand, where firearms are very illegal, and they don't see a need for them. I used to be pretty conflicted on the gun issue, and recently decided that I'm more against them.
But anyway, I've admitted I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm merely defending my position, and I respect your positions as well. Just please do not insult me just because I disagree.
Oh, I forgot, the worst muslim nut cases of course have arms, too.
No guns = no gun-related deaths or injuries.
What is it about this concept that makes it so hard? ???
That is a common bumper sticker argument around here for people who want to outlaw guns, Odeon. The rebuttal, seen on many bumper stickers, is:
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
I didn't call her specifically a coward, either, but I called pacifists in general "cowards". I didn't mean to be rude to her personally, though.time of month.
Odeon should be very aware of this, since we both live near the second largets city in Sweden and he lives even closer to it than I do. It's smaller than Washington, D.C., but there is about one car bomb a week and constantly criminals threatening and blackmailing restaurant owners etc. and using hand grenades and machine guns if they don't get their money...
The police and the army have guns now, but does that stop the mafia and motorcycle gangs?
Carla, i do not recall calling you names for having a different point of view. i remember +1 you for having an opinion.
You're passing the task of armed protection onto mercenaries (Police). If you're dumb enough to do that, you deserve to be bullied by those whom you have empowered.
Uh, it's just a karma system on a website...it can't really be compared to suicide bombings and/or whatever else you're referring to. Also, that's quite a generalization. Finally, I thought what you said was rude since you were basically saying I don't deserve security or freedom. When people are rude to me, I minus them. It's what the karma system is for.
I'm going to try to make this short, because I have a lot of schoolwork I need to get done.The right to bear arms is a very controversial issue, just like abortion, the death penalty, etc. I would appreciate if people who support the ownership of firearms not to call me dumb or imply that I'm dumb (or a "coward") simply because I disagree. As odeon said, it's best to simply agree to disagree, since no one is going to change anyone's minds. It just bothered me that litigous kept bringing it up, and McJagger mentioned it too, so that is why I decided to resurrect it and say my bit.
As I said before, I respect the opinions of those who are pro-guns; all I ask is that my OPINION be respected as well. This is a matter of opinions, not right or wrong...I don't think there is a right or wrong with controversial issues such as this one. Personally, I'm biased since as a future teacher, I care strongly about the safety of children. Did you know that in the state of New Jersey it is difficult to get a gun legally? You usually have to be a police officer orsomeone who is or used to be in the military to own a pistol. I know some people who go hunting and own shot guns, but it's pretty rare in this state, unlike the majority of the country. Also I have some online friends in New Zealand, where firearms are very illegal, and they don't see a need for them. I used to be pretty conflicted on the gun issue, and recently decided that I'm more against them.
But anyway, I've admitted I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm merely defending my position, and I respect your positions as well. Just please do not insult me just because I disagree.
Those are all very good points, QuirkyCarla. Nobody should insult anyone for having a different opinion about any issue.
Some issues I think are very emotional ones for some people, so maybe they go overboard defending their opinions about these issues.
I know I am emotional about some issues, like rape for example, and I could easily go overboard defending my opinion if someone said that they thought rape was a good idea and we should have more of it.
No guns = no gun-related deaths or injuries.
What is it about this concept that makes it so hard? ???
That is a common bumper sticker argument around here for people who want to outlaw guns, Odeon. The rebuttal, seen on many bumper stickers, is:
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
And the police. And the army.
Government in most cases is little more than a criminal orginisation that declares itself legal and legitimate.
Think about it. How many things do the police/military/government do that is illegal for anyone else to do??
It's a simple case of "Do as I say, not as I do" and "I'm allowed to do to you, that which you are'nt allowed to do to me".
If not for rank hypocricy, most governmets could'nt operate.
Government in most cases is little more than a criminal orginisation that declares itself legal and legitimate.
Think about it. How many things do the police/military/government do that is illegal for anyone else to do??
It's a simple case of "Do as I say, not as I do" and "I'm allowed to do to you, that which you are'nt allowed to do to me".
If not for rank hypocricy, most governmets could'nt operate.
Amen. But most of my naïve countrymen and some of yours simply won't get that.
Government in most cases is little more than a criminal orginisation that declares itself legal and legitimate.
Think about it. How many things do the police/military/government do that is illegal for anyone else to do??
It's a simple case of "Do as I say, not as I do" and "I'm allowed to do to you, that which you are'nt allowed to do to me".
If not for rank hypocricy, most governmets could'nt operate.
Amen. But most of my naïve countrymen and some of yours simply won't get that.
It's called "democracy". I'm sure you've heard of it. The system isn't perfect but it beats the hell out of anarchism. Which is what you two seem to be leaning towards.
Naivety comes in many flavours, eh?
i didn't realize that we were talking about anarchism.
now i am completely on board.
[
I wasn't referring to you in my post. I was referring mainly to this post:You're passing the task of armed protection onto mercenaries (Police). If you're dumb enough to do that, you deserve to be bullied by those whom you have empowered.
It pisses me off that we can have guns, but absinthe is illegal and the drinking age is 21. The US really isn't that free. Most countries allow their citizens to drink at 18. At least I turn 21 in a little less than 2 months and can get some absinthe when I go to Australia, though. ;D
[
I wasn't referring to you in my post. I was referring mainly to this post:You're passing the task of armed protection onto mercenaries (Police). If you're dumb enough to do that, you deserve to be bullied by those whom you have empowered.
To clarify my post, I wasn't calling YOU dumb I was calling your ACTIONS dumb. There's a difference.
I simply think that when people do dumb things, the need to suffer the consequences. Pain is a great teacher.
To illistrate my point, think of every type of prohibition that has been tried.
Prohibition of Alcohol = made orginised crime entrenched and wealthy.
Prohibition of Pot= made whoever could grow and sell it wealthy
Prohibition of Cocaine= made Columbian street thugs wealthier than kings
Prohibition of Abortion (Romania) = created massive population of orphans who when they became teenagers, created massive crime wave that toppled government.
Prohibition (extreme taxation) of Tobacco= Making Canadian smugglers rich by selling cheap (tax free) ciggarets in US.
Is anyone else seeing a pattern here????? ANYONE?? Bueller??? Bueller???
It pisses me off that we can have guns, but absinthe is illegal and the drinking age is 21. The US really isn't that free. Most countries allow their citizens to drink at 18. At least I turn 21 in a little less than 2 months and can get some absinthe when I go to Australia, though. ;D
I can agree with you on that one!!
How are my ACTIONS dumb if I'm just stating my OPINION?
i didn't realize that we were talking about anarchism.
now i am completely on board.
We didn't exactly talk about anarchism, but on the other hand, yes, I think modern "democracy" actually is a fraud. It's not the will of the people that is brought out, it's the will of politicians and buinessmen.
It pisses me off that we can have guns, but absinthe is illegal and the drinking age is 21. The US really isn't that free. Most countries allow their citizens to drink at 18. At least I turn 21 in a little less than 2 months and can get some absinthe when I go to Australia, though. ;D
We are mostly in agreement on this. Problem is, we don't have a viable alternative. It's easier to sell the concept of democracy to the masses, however, since it gives them the illusion of freedom.
We are mostly in agreement on this. Problem is, we don't have a viable alternative. It's easier to sell the concept of democracy to the masses, however, since it gives them the illusion of freedom.
Aspie dictatorship. :evillaugh:
The state has a liquor store monopoly here, despite the fact that the EU has stated it illegal to have state monopolys on alcohol.
How about this, then: there's something wrong when a 92-yo is allowed to purchase a firearm.
How about this, then: there's something wrong when a 92-yo is allowed to purchase a firearm.
How about this, then: there's something wrong when a 92-yo is allowed to purchase a firearm.
No. 92 year olds are allowed to drive a car in Sweden. And I believe they have the right to keep their licensed gun as well, if they're not getting senile. But most gun owners here are men.
omg, i see old people driving around in a coma. cars are deadly weapons.How about this, then: there's something wrong when a 92-yo is allowed to purchase a firearm.
No. 92 year olds are allowed to drive a car in Sweden. And I believe they have the right to keep their licensed gun as well, if they're not getting senile. But most gun owners here are men.
You're telling me that a 92-yo that shoots first and asks questions later is of sound mind and body? ???
I didn't say I thought they should be allowed to drive.
You're telling me that a 92-yo that shoots first and asks questions later is of sound mind and body? ???
i bet she would have been even more afraid if she didn't have her gun as piece of mind.
You're telling me that a 92-yo that shoots first and asks questions later is of sound mind and body? ???
She was afraid. She didn't have to be senile. But I agree there's something wrong when a 92 year old has to be that scared in her own home.
i bet she would have been even more afraid if she didn't have her gun as piece of mind.
just to make this point clear:
i have the right to, but i do not own a firearm.
however, i would certainly like to continue the right to purchase one. as it stands today, i have young children in my home and think it is wiser not to have one on the premisis.
i bet she would have been even more afraid if she didn't have her gun as piece of mind.
You're telling me that a 92-yo that shoots first and asks questions later is of sound mind and body? ???
She was afraid. She didn't have to be senile. But I agree there's something wrong when a 92 year old has to be that scared in her own home.
i bet she would have been even more afraid if she didn't have her gun as piece of mind.
You're telling me that a 92-yo that shoots first and asks questions later is of sound mind and body? ???
She was afraid. She didn't have to be senile. But I agree there's something wrong when a 92 year old has to be that scared in her own home.
She'd still be alive though.
i bet she would have been even more afraid if she didn't have her gun as piece of mind.
You're telling me that a 92-yo that shoots first and asks questions later is of sound mind and body? ???
She was afraid. She didn't have to be senile. But I agree there's something wrong when a 92 year old has to be that scared in her own home.
She'd still be alive though.
is a person really alive when they do not have peace of mind? when they lose their freedoms?
is a person really alive when they do not have peace of mind? when they lose their freedoms?
is a person really alive when they do not have peace of mind? when they lose their freedoms?
I dont think so. We are doomed and dead in this cowardly Europe, and, unfortunately, people are in some US states too. I hope that at least the whole US won't lose the battle.
is a person really alive when they do not have peace of mind? when they lose their freedoms?
life is cyclical litigious.
as far as freedoms go on the pendulum of life we are not seeing them very clearly lately, and i suspect that we will lose many more, before people have the balls enough to say wtf. and a revolution happens and anarchy prevails.
i am not a fan of order, if you haven't been able to guess. but only order, when it is a written law that tells me to act with common sense.
You're right. Better to be shot on the spot. ::)
You're right. Better to be shot on the spot. ::)
Better to die like a man than a slaughter sheep, if possible.
But she wouldn't have died if she hadn't have had a gun to start shooting at the cops with.
You're right. Better to be shot on the spot. ::)
Better to die like a man than a slaughter sheep, if possible.
But she wouldn't have died if she hadn't have had a gun to start shooting at the cops with. Just pointing out the irony is all.
Most 92-year olds are not reliable enough, in my humble opinion. I have yet to meet even one that is.
No. But it would break my heart to see my grandmother being a victim because she couldn't defend herself. Am I allowed to revenge on the criminals or even on the legislators for causing that to her? No, of course not! :grrr:
No. But it would break my heart to see my grandmother being a victim because she couldn't defend herself. Am I allowed to revenge on the criminals or even on the legislators for causing that to her? No, of course not! :grrr:
The risk of your grandmother getting hurt because she doesn't own a gun is pretty small. If you're worried about her, make her move to the countryside, never go out on trafficked roads, and eat right.
We should have the right to bear arms.and we should have the right to UN-arm dick cheney.
The right to beer: :beer: :glug: :beergrin:
Here's a good reason to impose gun restrictions........ON COPS!!
http://www.slate.com/id/2154631/?GT1=8805 (http://www.slate.com/id/2154631/?GT1=8805)
Yeah He most likely should be un-armed for what He did in the end.We should have the right to bear arms.and we should have the right to UN-arm dick cheney.
Here's a good reason to impose gun restrictions........ON COPS!!
http://www.slate.com/id/2154631/?GT1=8805 (http://www.slate.com/id/2154631/?GT1=8805)
We should have the right to beer.
The right to beer: :beer: :glug: :beergrin:
We should have the right to beer.The right to beer: :beer: :glug: :beergrin:
Wooyay... something you guys agree on. Civil war in Sweden postponed for beer! :beergrin:
yeah, civilized cowards.
yeah, civilized cowards.
WTF? ???
yeah, civilized cowards.
McJagger's been pwn3d again.
i ahve already stated that i do not own a firearm.
durr hurr!
If it's more brave to allow thousands of your citizens (including children) to die every year just so grown men like yourselves can go around acting like cowboys then i'm proud to be a coward. Obviously your police are going to be gun happy when they run the risk of being shot every day at any time because of -yes all the brainiacs have guessed it- liberal gun laws.
Swedish polices are gun happy, despite the fact that just a few criminals are publically armed in Sweden.
Swedish polices are gun happy, despite the fact that just a few criminals are publically armed in Sweden.
Throughout the world the more guns there are the more gun deaths there are, including police ones. So simple even McJagger should be able to get it.
here is simple for the hearing impaired; eamonster.
i believe in freedom. since guns exist, i believe in the right of a person to arm themselves.
take away guns completely, then you may change my mind.
here is simple for the hearing impaired; eamonster.
i believe in freedom. since guns exist, i believe in the right of a person to arm themselves.
take away guns completely, then you may change my mind.
Theres an audiophile to go with this? Let me spell it out again for the brain impaired. You think that you should also have access to nuclear weapons as well because they exist?
McJagger's been pwn3d again.
you wish!
he said, like yourself. i ahve already stated that i do not own a firearm.
durr hurr!
Why shouldn't ordinary people have nuclear arms if they could afford them?
eamonn, it was nice doing business with you. i have to go back to work shortly, i hope to hear from you again, SOON.
McJagger's been pwn3d again.
you wish!
he said, like yourself. i ahve already stated that i do not own a firearm.
durr hurr!
but you've stated you'd like to get one ;)
I recall a post where you said you would get a gun if you didn't have children or something like that.
I recall a post where you said you would get a gun if you didn't have children or something like that.
did i ever tell you about my honeymoon?
where i was nose to nose with a 500 lb bear. i wish i had a gun then.
I recall a post where you said you would get a gun if you didn't have children or something like that.
did i ever tell you about my honeymoon?
where i was nose to nose with a 500 lb bear. i wish i had a gun then.
did i ever tell you about my honeymoon?What kind of bear? You'rew supposed to fight black bears but play dead in front of grizzlies for the best chance of survival. Rubbing noses isnt reccomended in the survival handbook.
where i was nose to nose with a 500 lb bear. i wish i had a gun then.
Why would you need a gun for a bear?
Were you threatening it?
Did it have cubs?
Was it eating or wanting your food?
Would you be, maybe, a little too fast to shoot a wild animal if you had the extra power, ready in your hand?
Would you kill it?
Where would you shoot this five hundred pound bear, if it threatened you?
Can you think of any alternatives to safely escape, without destroying something we're almost out of?
I recall a post where you said you would get a gun if you didn't have children or something like that.
did i ever tell you about my honeymoon?
where i was nose to nose with a 500 lb bear. i wish i had a gun then.
Coward. Real men fight to the death with their bear hands (or human hands hyuk hyuk) to the death. You yankees are afraid of a little fisticuffs huh? Maybe because you know my hands are officially the worlds most dangerous weapons and that i spent 15 years in china learning the way of the monkey dragon from a very old and wise master before learning to be a killing machine in the soviet secret service , then joining delta squad in top secret missions too dangerous to even mention before being shot down by aliens in the battle of the universe and being turned into an android teminator etc. In short, im not to be fucked with, punk! :swords:
I recall a post where you said you would get a gun if you didn't have children or something like that.
did i ever tell you about my honeymoon?
where i was nose to nose with a 500 lb bear. i wish i had a gun then.
What kind of bear? You'rew supposed to fight black bears but play dead in front of grizzlies for the best chance of survival. Rubbing noses isnt reccomended in the survival handbook.
Eamonn!!!! Why did you have to tell him that, your no fun! ;)
looked brown. maybe a california brown bear.
looked brown. maybe a california brown bear.
Then any unarmed combat would have resulted in your certain death. You'd have more chance of pwning me (and that's also very unlikely)
I recall a post where you said you would get a gun if you didn't have children or something like that.
did i ever tell you about my honeymoon?
where i was nose to nose with a 500 lb bear. i wish i had a gun then.
I recall a post where you said you would get a gun if you didn't have children or something like that.
did i ever tell you about my honeymoon?
where i was nose to nose with a 500 lb bear. i wish i had a gun then.
How did you escape the bear? And I agree with Eamonn a real man doesn't use a gun. That must be why they're Sean's obsession. :laugh:
looked brown. maybe a california brown bear.
Then any unarmed combat would have resulted in your certain death.
You'd have more chance of pwning me (and that's also very unlikely)
Just for the record, I want to point out that this statement is absolute bullshit and it serves only to taunt McJagger and as a lead-in to the boast below.
Just for the record, I want to point out that this statement is absolute bullshit and it serves only to taunt McJagger and as a lead-in to the boast below.
STFU, noob. I never reccomended him to engage the bear, did i? How many grizzly bears have you fought with, recently? If you did it'd lead to a grizzly end for you, for sure. Now go and hibernate in your cave, you unsophisticated barbarian.
You obviously don't know the first thing about me.
Why don't you stop posting bullshit.
Oh and EAT FUCK!
You obviously don't know the first thing about me.
Why don't you stop posting bullshit.
Oh and EAT FUCK!
Hey you impertinent young pup, why dont you lose that hangdog look, stop licking up my sick and your sweaty bollocks, lighten up and clean up your act. Like the dirty dog in this picture.
(http://www.dirtydogsdogwash.com/db3/00271/dirtydogsdogwash.com/_uimages/dirtydog3_sm.gif)
I have shown you no disrespect, that you did not initiate on your own, up to this point.
Simply admit that, even YOU, a non-country bumpkin, would, most likely, be able to survive an encounter with a wild bear without killing it, just as McJagger did and in almost every other case, and the discussion is over. I will be done and you can procede to pwn me in any fashion you care to.
so i lost track.
was i majorly pwned here?
so i lost track.
was i majorly pwned here?
Absolutely not! You're still here aren't you?
Killing innocent animals for no reason, was pwned.
so i lost track.
was i majorly pwned here?
Absolutely not! You're still here aren't you?
Killing innocent animals for no reason, was pwned.
where my panties pictures an act of self pwnage?
so i lost track.
was i majorly pwned here?
so i lost track.
was i majorly pwned here?
DirtyDawg claims to be an experienced animal hunter yet professes to care for the animals and be an opponent of anyone who unnecesarily attacks/kills them. Self-pwnage imo.
What's wrong? Don't you explore both extremes of any important issue, before finding your own place somewhere in the middle of the argument?
Dirt(always self pwned)Dawg ... A Badge of Honor
If only more people thought like you, we would'nt even be having this discussion.
You're right. It should be everyones personal choice, except in cases where people have proven themselves to be violent and/or untrustworthy.
If only more people thought like you, we would'nt even be having this discussion.
You're right. It should be everyones personal choice, except in cases where people have proven themselves to be violent and/or untrustworthy.
Let me see if I get your point right... Is it that because tobacco, traffic accidents and such cost so much more lives, we shouldn't even be looking into the lesser numbers? Is it that until proven unsuitable, everyone should have the right to a firearm? How is this done, exactly? Empirical tests?
I'm sure you'll get the numbers down on the 2 million annual deaths among the 55+ crowd if you ease up on those awful firearm restrictions.
Oh, and please; don't brag.
Do I have to have owned a gun to know that they are deadly? How many innocent lives would you say that your right to own and carry a firearm is worth? One? Ten? Thirty-two? A Columbine incident once a decade?give me liberty or give me death.
And please, don't feel forced to fog the issue. Take the soda can discussion in another thread.
Do I have to have owned a gun to know that they are deadly? How many innocent lives would you say that your right to own and carry a firearm is worth? One? Ten? Thirty-two? A Columbine incident once a decade?give me liberty or give me death.
And please, don't feel forced to fog the issue. Take the soda can discussion in another thread.
Do I have to have owned a gun to know that they are deadly? How many innocent lives would you say that your right to own and carry a firearm is worth? One? Ten? Thirty-two? A Columbine incident once a decade?give me liberty or give me death.
And please, don't feel forced to fog the issue. Take the soda can discussion in another thread.
Which one do you prefer? ;)
Do I have to have owned a gun to know that they are deadly? How many innocent lives would you say that your right to own and carry a firearm is worth? One? Ten? Thirty-two? A Columbine incident once a decade?
And please, don't feel forced to fog the issue. Take the soda can discussion in another thread.
Do I have to have owned a gun to know that they are deadly? How many innocent lives would you say that your right to own and carry a firearm is worth? One? Ten? Thirty-two? A Columbine incident once a decade?give me liberty or give me death.
And please, don't feel forced to fog the issue. Take the soda can discussion in another thread.
Which one do you prefer? ;)
I am not making this up folks. I couldn't if I tried.... Quoted from MyDeathSpace.com...
Nice way to wrap up a thread though, should settle things.....
Christopher R. Schmidt, who served more than two years in federal prison for possessing stolen guns, used barstools to beat his friend to death .
The firarm issue is and always will be one of political power within a society.
power abusin governments. that is my main issue.
when, for example the government decides to scrap social security (the great promise and something that i have paid in taxes, 6.2 percent, for life), i would hope that several americans would march to capitol hill and re-sieze control of the government.
there will come a time when the citizenry will HAVE TO stop bending over, and demand their rights.
The use of firarms to prevent crime outnumbers the crimes commited with guns by 50% in the U.S. It kind of makes the "crime issue" moot. The firarm issue is and always will be one of political power within a society.
I am not making this up folks. I couldn't if I tried.... Quoted from MyDeathSpace.com...
Nice way to wrap up a thread though, should settle things.....
Christopher R. Schmidt, who served more than two years in federal prison for possessing stolen guns, used barstools to beat his friend to death .
Oh, my goodness! Why aren't bar stools licensed or banned? They're deadly weapons! (Yes, it's irony, I paraphrase the anti-gunners, the "reasoning" is in its logical form exactly the same).
The use of firarms to prevent crime outnumbers the crimes commited with guns by 50% in the U.S. It kind of makes the "crime issue" moot. The firarm issue is and always will be one of political power within a society.
Why does it make the "crime issue" moot? I honestly don't understand. ???
In Europe most people have accepted the absurd legislation concerning firearms.
Need I point out that barstools have other uses as well, but most firearms don't?
The use of firarms to prevent crime outnumbers the crimes commited with guns by 50% in the U.S. It kind of makes the "crime issue" moot. The firarm issue is and always will be one of political power within a society.
Why does it make the "crime issue" moot? I honestly don't understand. ???
If guns prevent more crimes than they create, then the whole questioning and restriction of guns is totally absurd.
Need I point out that barstools have other uses as well, but most firearms don't?
Guns have two uses:
1. Criminals and oppressors can wound and kill innocent, law-abiding people unprovoked with them.
2. Innocent, law-abaiding people can kill criminals and oppressor in self-defense.
2) is legitimate as far as I'm concerned.
barely any protests against it.
now that is cowardly.
Since most people accept the legislation, my guess is that they don't find it absurd at all. They don't share your fear of becoming victims of ruthless criminals and power-hungry governments. In fact, since we've lived with such restrictions for quite a while now, without either the power-hungry governments OR the ruthless criminals taking over, I'd say that you're needlessly worried.
yes, if you were to turn a barstool upside down then you can fit 4 gay men into a crowded bar.I am not making this up folks. I couldn't if I tried.... Quoted from MyDeathSpace.com...
Nice way to wrap up a thread though, should settle things.....
Christopher R. Schmidt, who served more than two years in federal prison for possessing stolen guns, used barstools to beat his friend to death .
Oh, my goodness! Why aren't bar stools licensed or banned? They're deadly weapons! (Yes, it's irony, I paraphrase the anti-gunners, the "reasoning" is in its logical form exactly the same).
Need I point out that barstools have other uses as well, but most firearms don't?
It's not as bad as it seems--we finally voted out the government responsible for these changes.
Since most people accept the legislation, my guess is that they don't find it absurd at all. They don't share your fear of becoming victims of ruthless criminals and power-hungry governments. In fact, since we've lived with such restrictions for quite a while now, without either the power-hungry governments OR the ruthless criminals taking over, I'd say that you're needlessly worried.
I don't care what "people" think. People are absurdly naïve. The criminals are advancing more and more. And I find the government and authorities rather oppressive already. You can never feel safe that something will continue being rather good just because it has been so so far.
It's not as bad as it seems--we finally voted out the government responsible for these changes.
What makes you think that the new government will be better? That the old government were fake socialist doesn't make this government friends of the less wealthy...
I know you don't care what people think. What I don't understand is why you keep bringing this up--you don't care, after all.
Fair enough. Do you think the current state of affairs in Europe (with gun restrictions, speed limits and such) will result in revolutions across the continent? Do you hope for this to happen? What motivates you here?
You say you want a revolution
Well you know
we all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out, in
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
You say you got a real solution
Well you know
we'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're all doing what we can
If you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
we'd all love to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT
yes, if you were to turn a barstool upside down then you can fit 4 gay men into a crowded bar.I am not making this up folks. I couldn't if I tried.... Quoted from MyDeathSpace.com...
Nice way to wrap up a thread though, should settle things.....
Christopher R. Schmidt, who served more than two years in federal prison for possessing stolen guns, used barstools to beat his friend to death .
Oh, my goodness! Why aren't bar stools licensed or banned? They're deadly weapons! (Yes, it's irony, I paraphrase the anti-gunners, the "reasoning" is in its logical form exactly the same).
Need I point out that barstools have other uses as well, but most firearms don't?
If they do, it shows that we don't want to ease up on the restrictions, because it would become easier for criminals to get hold of firearms.
If they do, it shows that we don't want to ease up on the restrictions, because it would become easier for criminals to get hold of firearms.
Restrictions don't make it harder for criminals to get guns, it just creates a black market. Here in the U.S., we can't keep 11 million Mexicans out of our country. How could we stop 11 million guns from coming across the border??
I think I can safely say that "fewer restrictions" means "easier access" in this context. Even a black market does make it harder. The question is how much harder.
I was born in Finland, so I know best even better than you guys. :eyebrows:
I think Finland's gun laws are pretty much the same but I really don't know.this story is actually quite telling about your views on gun laws.
I remember that when I was a kid, my father kept his army pistol at home. Illegally, I suspect (it's too late to ask him now; he passed away a few years ago). And my older brother very nearly managed to shoot and kill my younger sister. The bullet went right past her and, as far as I know, is still in that wall somewhere. I don't know how my brother got hold of the weapon; I know it was locked away, and I didn't know exactly where, either.
I was thinking the same. Of course I'm glad that odeon's sister didn't get killed, but it kind of explains his attitude. My grandmother hates firecrackers, but that would possibly be since she burnt her fingers severely on them when she was young.my mom hates liars, probably because she is the queen of lying.
I suppose that IF we are to accept that guns are a part of society, and IF others than the police, army, etc, can carry (and use) one, 18 is as good an age as any. You'd have to be legally adult, though, and youept those IFs'd have to be allowed to vote, drive, drink, etc.
But I don't accept those IFs. :P
Gun powder is totally free for everyone from 18 and over and so are lead shots. Maybe we could defend ourselves by blowing gun powder in the criminals' faces or fill a sock with lead shots and hit them in the head. ;D
The thing is not only the gun law, but that the right to self-defense is much too weak here. I can even get jail for beating a burglar up with my bare fists... ::)
I have honestly thought about that. It wouldn't be too hard to bury a dead body, since I live out on the countryside and know every square inch of my neighbourhood.
you want to be prepared to defend yopurself with a handgun.
prepare yourself by pre-digging that grave. cover it with a piece of plywood and dirt.
seems like you are paranoid (strong term, sorry) about burglars, so this might be a workable solution.
not a murder that you know about.you want to be prepared to defend yopurself with a handgun.
prepare yourself by pre-digging that grave. cover it with a piece of plywood and dirt.
seems like you are paranoid (strong term, sorry) about burglars, so this might be a workable solution.
Another method would be to dump the body into the sea, since I live near the coast.
It's not really that I'm paranoid, it's just that I hate the feeling of being helpless, if anything would ever happen. But honestly speaking, this is a calm neighbourhood. It hasn't been commmited a murder in this parish for 250 years(!)
Changed my mind. I think i should be able to legally get a gun if i want one. Sure some people might be murdered with a gun but if people really wanted to put an end to all accidents/murders then like the blizzard said then cars etc cause more deaths but no-ones interested in loosing that comfort. In this country i cant even carry a knife for self-protection, making life very easy for muggers. Even some breeds of dog are banned here. I bet that being a youth will be banned altogether in this nanny state. Governments are trying to turn their populations into sheep with id tags. Wanting to chip the homeless. Needing licenses for everything, banning smoking in public places. CCTV everywhere. Intervening in allegations into corruption. It's a very murky world out there and im all for more freedoms for the individual and less government controlling. What right has the government to decide what i cant or cant do? I also think shootouts at high noon should be made legal again. Boy, would that make for good tv.
I suppose that IF we are to accept that guns are a part of society, and IF others than the police, army, etc, can carry (and use) one, 18 is as good an age as any. You'd have to be legally adult, though, and youept those IFs'd have to be allowed to vote, drive, drink, etc.
But I don't accept those IFs. :P
I suppose that IF we are to accept that guns are a part of society, and IF others than the police, army, etc, can carry (and use) one, 18 is as good an age as any. You'd have to be legally adult, though, and youept those IFs'd have to be allowed to vote, drive, drink, etc.
But I don't accept those IFs. :P
I've changed my mind now. I don't think anyone (except the police or military of a lawful gov't) should be able to own a firearm of any kind. NO exceptions. All weapons should be illegal in all countries. Everyone should be made aware that I nor anyone else has them. My house is devoid of any defensive measures as I can just pick up the phone and call the local authorities if there is any disturbance going on. And I agree with Odeon that if you are caught with a firearm of ANY sort, you should have your arms removed at the shoulders, because we all know, at that point, only a violent criminal would have a gun.
I suppose that IF we are to accept that guns are a part of society, and IF others than the police, army, etc, can carry (and use) one, 18 is as good an age as any. You'd have to be legally adult, though, and youept those IFs'd have to be allowed to vote, drive, drink, etc.
But I don't accept those IFs. :P
I've changed my mind now. I don't think anyone (except the police or military of a lawful gov't) should be able to own a firearm of any kind. NO exceptions. All weapons should be illegal in all countries. Everyone should be made aware that I nor anyone else has them. My house is devoid of any defensive measures as I can just pick up the phone and call the local authorities if there is any disturbance going on. And I agree with Odeon that if you are caught with a firearm of ANY sort, you should have your arms removed at the shoulders, because we all know, at that point, only a violent criminal would have a gun.
How can you agree with me on this when I never said it? ???
I'm glad you finally see the light, tho. Now, if only Litigious would follow suit...
I suppose that IF we are to accept that guns are a part of society, and IF others than the police, army, etc, can carry (and use) one, 18 is as good an age as any. You'd have to be legally adult, though, and youept those IFs'd have to be allowed to vote, drive, drink, etc.
But I don't accept those IFs. :P
I've changed my mind now. I don't think anyone (except the police or military of a lawful gov't) should be able to own a firearm of any kind. NO exceptions. All weapons should be illegal in all countries. Everyone should be made aware that I nor anyone else has them. My house is devoid of any defensive measures as I can just pick up the phone and call the local authorities if there is any disturbance going on. And I agree with Odeon that if you are caught with a firearm of ANY sort, you should have your arms removed at the shoulders, because we all know, at that point, only a violent criminal would have a gun.
How can you agree with me on this when I never said it? ???
I'm glad you finally see the light, tho. Now, if only Litigious would follow suit...
Of course by now, you realize that the Whole of the Statement was sarcasm.. But honestly, I don't understand why you don't appriciate that someone else would have a different point of view, and be ok with that. I have endured a lifetime being different from everyone (mostly brothers and sister), and have been beaten (physically) to be made to think the same. And, until I found out about A-S, always thought that they were right to beat me. Now I know that its ok to be me, to have a differing opinion and be comfortable with that. But in my own defense, you say you never said that cutting off arms would be ok for gun offenders. But what then, would you do if someone was caught with an illegal gun? To say they must be banned, but have no punishment for violating it would be irresponsible. I was simply extrapolating my punsihment to your ban. So in effect, you did imply there would be a punishment for violating a ban. Did you not?... And I refuse to be abused by anyone, anymore... The burning was not the worst part. When they distroyed my homework, that was the worst part. The pain lasted much longer....
:deadhorse: :GA:
I'm not against guns, just for common sense in the approach to guns. Something that is sadly lacking in the US.
Heh. Capital punishment's always fun to debate... no, wait, didn't we cover it somewhere...? :P
Well, there's gotta be SOMETHING!
Odeon, you have to take a trip on the new E6 between Falkenberg and the Halland/Skåne border. You are allowed to drive 120 kmph there, legally. 8)
Heh. Capital punishment's always fun to debate... no, wait, didn't we cover it somewhere...? :P
Well, there's gotta be SOMETHING!
Or not.
Let's face it; we're out of controversial subjects, at the moment.
We could always drag each other through this shit, again.Or not.
Let's face it; we're out of controversial subjects, at the moment.
I am soooooooo disappointed!! :P
Can't we all just get along....?
We could always drag each other through this shit, again.Or not.
Let's face it; we're out of controversial subjects, at the moment.
I am soooooooo disappointed!! :P
Chavez promises a socialist Venezuela as he starts new 6-year term (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-10-chavez-venezuela_x.htm?csp=24)
We could always drag each other through this shit, again.Or not.
Let's face it; we're out of controversial subjects, at the moment.
I am soooooooo disappointed!! :P
Chavez promises a socialist Venezuela as he starts new 6-year term (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-10-chavez-venezuela_x.htm?csp=24)
What I like about Chavez is that he annoys Bush. Other than that, I have no idea. ;D
Maybe we could invent a socialist government that includes individual freedoms and love for everyone. :o
We could always drag each other through this shit, again.Or not.
Let's face it; we're out of controversial subjects, at the moment.
I am soooooooo disappointed!! :P
Chavez promises a socialist Venezuela as he starts new 6-year term (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-10-chavez-venezuela_x.htm?csp=24)
What I like about Chavez is that he annoys Bush. Other than that, I have no idea. ;D
Tempted to move there, eh? :laugh:
We could always drag each other through this shit, again.Or not.
Let's face it; we're out of controversial subjects, at the moment.
I am soooooooo disappointed!! :P
Chavez promises a socialist Venezuela as he starts new 6-year term (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-10-chavez-venezuela_x.htm?csp=24)
What I like about Chavez is that he annoys Bush. Other than that, I have no idea. ;D
I've been to Venezuela. The gasoline costs about 0.3 SEK/litre there or 17 cents/gallon! Also, I think that they have the right to bear arms, at least I saw some private citizens bearing guns openly. So their gasoline is cheap, they're not cowards...and their women are beautiful too. :P
We could always drag each other through this shit, again.Or not.
Let's face it; we're out of controversial subjects, at the moment.
I am soooooooo disappointed!! :P
Chavez promises a socialist Venezuela as he starts new 6-year term (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-10-chavez-venezuela_x.htm?csp=24)
What I like about Chavez is that he annoys Bush. Other than that, I have no idea. ;D
I've been to Venezuela. The gasoline costs about 0.3 SEK/litre there or 17 cents/gallon! Also, I think that they have the right to bear arms, at least I saw some private citizens bearing guns openly. So their gasoline is cheap, they're not cowards...and their women are beautiful too. :P
i hear tell that they have trees that grow cocaine.
The whole thing is weird. I know it's not against the law to be nuts, but it should be a little harder to get a gun, impossible for some people, and that view goes against one of our treasured freedoms. I can't ignore this one goofy crime, though, for some reason.
The whole thing is weird. I know it's not against the law to be nuts, but it should be a little harder to get a gun, impossible for some people, and that view goes against one of our treasured freedoms. I can't ignore this one goofy crime, though, for some reason.
i still think its a small price to pay.
i wonder if i will change my thinking if something aweful happens to someone close to me and involving a firearm.
your argument is acceptable to me. and i think you are probably correct.
The whole thing is weird. I know it's not against the law to be nuts, but it should be a little harder to get a gun, impossible for some people, and that view goes against one of our treasured freedoms. I can't ignore this one goofy crime, though, for some reason.
i still think its a small price to pay.
i wonder if i will change my thinking if something aweful happens to someone close to me and involving a firearm.
It doesn't make sense. What if someone near you is killed or mutilated by a car? Will you forbid or restrict car ownership then? Why don't the authorities make more to stop the killings in the traffic? Because cars don't threaten their power! That's what all this cynical charade about restricting or banning guns is about...
i wonder if i will change my thinking if something aweful happens to someone close to me and involving a firearm.
The whole thing is weird. I know it's not against the law to be nuts, but it should be a little harder to get a gun, impossible for some people, and that view goes against one of our treasured freedoms. I can't ignore this one goofy crime, though, for some reason.
i still think its a small price to pay.
i wonder if i will change my thinking if something aweful happens to someone close to me and involving a firearm.
It doesn't make sense. What if someone near you is killed or mutilated by a car? Will you forbid or restrict car ownership then? Why don't the authorities make more to stop the killings in the traffic? Because cars don't threaten their power! That's what all this cynical charade about restricting or banning guns is about...
I'm not switching sides, Tig. I'm just going through another questioning period involving my value system on many levels. This issue is causing me some doubtful stress. Please, continue to tell me how full of shit I sound, when ever applicable.
That's awful, DD.
My first thought when reading about registering nutcases was an image of some bureaucrat defining what, exactly, a nutcase is. "Hmmm... maybe everyone with a psychiatric diagnosis..."
That's awful, DD.
My first thought when reading about registering nutcases was an image of some bureaucrat defining what, exactly, a nutcase is. "Hmmm... maybe everyone with a psychiatric diagnosis..."
Regarding cars vs weapons: the argument doesn't hold water, Lit. Cars aren't designed for killing anyone or anything. They can kill, but so can just about anything. Cars are transportation devices.
Guns are designed to kill someone or something. They have no other uses.
That's awful, DD.
My first thought when reading about registering nutcases was an image of some bureaucrat defining what, exactly, a nutcase is. "Hmmm... maybe everyone with a psychiatric diagnosis..."
Obviously, I'm not serious about that remark, I made. I'm just emo, right now. This one particular nut did himself no favors, with his freedoms, and none of our freedoms are as safe because of this incident and many more just like it.
I see. Since we already have unnecessarily many accidents with cars, that excuses the deaths caused by guns? Sorry, that's some twisted logic, right there. I don't buy it.
You're still using the same argument, though. :laugh:
You do realize that you're the obsessed one regarding this, not me, don't you? :P
You're still using the same argument, though. :laugh:
You do realize that you're the obsessed one regarding this, not me, don't you? :P
Thanks. ;)
One of the most stupid things after 9/11 is that it is forbidden for US companies to sell most chemicals to private citizens outside the US!!! That stupidness could actually compete with European gun laws. How would they stop terrorists attacks within the US by banning export of chemicals? ???
You're still using the same argument, though. :laugh:
You do realize that you're the obsessed one regarding this, not me, don't you? :P
Well, I actually just feel that I have to post an answer, every time this topic comes up again. It needn't to be you that posts in it; this time it was DD and McJ bringing it up again.
You're still using the same argument, though. :laugh:
You do realize that you're the obsessed one regarding this, not me, don't you? :P
Well, I actually just feel that I have to post an answer, every time this topic comes up again. It needn't to be you that posts in it; this time it was DD and McJ bringing it up again.
:laugh:
You have a point. So you are not obsessed? :P
The part I remember most vividly is that we didn't know how it would turn out. You went to bed knowing that at that very moment, they were still hurdling through space toward the moon, and since T.V. went off the air at 11 pm, we had to wait until morning to find out if anything happened to them during the night, this went on for days until the final splash down and they were back on board the carrier. I think I was for once too excited to be nervous about the uncertainty. :beergrin: Remember, I knew nothing of AS until 2 years ago.You're still using the same argument, though. :laugh:
You do realize that you're the obsessed one regarding this, not me, don't you? :P
Well, I actually just feel that I have to post an answer, every time this topic comes up again. It needn't to be you that posts in it; this time it was DD and McJ bringing it up again.
:laugh:
You have a point. So you are not obsessed? :P
driftingblizzard, I remember the moon launches, too, in black & white and all. I remember watching a moon walk--could have been Aldrin--on our 14" portable TV when I was four. I wanted to be a rocket scientist, and my hero was Werner von Braun.
Well, I remember when they were made of stone, before that new fangled copper and bronze came up to screw up the order of things!
We should all have the right to bear Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarms!!! :arrr: :arrr: :arrr:Aaaaaaaaaaaarms For All of Us!!! :arrr: :ninja: :arrr: :jedi: :flamer: :arrr: :tooledup: :arrr:
We should all have the right to bear Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarms!!! :arrr: :arrr: :arrr:
You need to check the LD50 on sodium chloride... it's WAY more than a tablespoon.
Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 3000 mg/kg
It would take three quarters of a pound of salt to kill me.
I'm going to go ahead and assume the rest of the stuff you posted is bullshit you've heard third-hand as well.
Let the bears, bear arms. I will in the end.As I said I will win in the end.
i want a whole bear.
teddy.
I think Tesla meant Theok's post.I was. Should have quoted.
I think Tesla meant Theok's post.I was. Should have quoted.
You need to check the LD50 on sodium chloride... it's WAY more than a tablespoon.
Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 3000 mg/kg
It would take three quarters of a pound of salt to kill me.
I'm going to go ahead and assume the rest of the stuff you posted is bullshit you've heard third-hand as well.
You need to check the LD50 on sodium chloride... it's WAY more than a tablespoon.
Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 3000 mg/kg
It would take three quarters of a pound of salt to kill me.
I'm going to go ahead and assume the rest of the stuff you posted is bullshit you've heard third-hand as well.
BTW, the LD50 for marijuana is 1500 lbs. To be consumed w/in 15 mins. I'm game. :P
"Marijuana is very toxic."--some stupid lady "doctor" on Phil Donahue, 1992.
I don't want bear arms.
I want bingo wings.
No victim -- no crime.
Road signs are dead metal plates, and I got a ticket for a crime without a victim, driving too fast on a motorway. And I pay my fucking car tax and insurance and the absurd petrol tax, so I have at least deserved to use my car to the maximum of its capacity. Just because the legislators can't drive (or anything else except interfering in peoples' lives) doesn't mean that I can't
I don't drive faster than the speed limit, if there is a house very close to the road. On the other hand it's not unusual that people drive 100 kmph where I live, on a 70 kmph road, which definitely should be a 70 kmph even in my opinioin and not because I live here but because the road is narrow and full of bends. On the contrary: they place them on the broader roads that used to be 90 kmph roads as late as until a few years ago. This road has been a 70 kmph road ever since the speed limits were first introduced. That's because they can ticket much more people there, since much more people are going to and from their works on those roads and often hurry in the mornings if they're late.
Why don't you explain what's wrong with Theodore Kaczynski's analysis of the leftist psyche?
I keep reading Kaczynski as Kandinsky. :laugh: They make about the same amount of sense.
Why don't you explain what's wrong with Theodore Kaczynski's analysis of the leftist psyche?
because it would involve an in-depth reading of the silly fucktard's drivel, and i'd rather stick pins in my eyes. :laugh:
I keep reading Kaczynski as Kandinsky. :laugh: They make about the same amount of sense.
Why don't you explain what's wrong with Theodore Kaczynski's analysis of the leftist psyche?
because it would involve an in-depth reading of the silly fucktard's drivel, and i'd rather stick pins in my eyes. :laugh:
That "fucktard" was one of the 10-12 best matematicians in the whole USA according to one of his elder colleagues. ::)
One should not argue with the obviously bald.
The 10th-12th best maths professor in the USA is mad, yes, right. ::)
The 10th-12th best maths professor in the USA is mad, yes, right. ::)
yes, but is he bald?
The 10th-12th best maths professor in the USA is mad, yes, right. ::)
yes, but is he bald?
He's pretty hairy, or used to be as a free man, before his piece-of-shit brother betrayed him to the System.
Now tell me exactly what's wrong with his arguments.
The 10th-12th best maths professor in the USA is mad, yes, right. ::)
The 10th-12th best maths professor in the USA is mad, yes, right. ::)
I was referring to you. But since you mention it, Kaczynski was quite mad, considering what he did later in life.
The 10th-12th best maths professor in the USA is mad, yes, right. ::)
I was referring to you. But since you mention it, Kaczynski was quite mad, considering what he did later in life.
You mean actually trying to achieve something important for all of mankind instead of playing King of I2 for instance?
The 10th-12th best maths professor in the USA is mad, yes, right. ::)
I was referring to you. But since you mention it, Kaczynski was quite mad, considering what he did later in life.
You mean actually trying to achieve something important for all of mankind instead of playing King of I2 for instance?
The 10th-12th best maths professor in the USA is mad, yes, right. ::)
yes, but is he bald?
He's pretty hairy, or used to be as a free man, before his piece-of-shit brother betrayed him to the System.
Now tell me exactly what's wrong with his arguments.
I keep reading Kaczynski as Kandinsky. :laugh: They make about the same amount of sense.
i really like kandinsky. i have a couple of his prints on my walls.
I keep reading Kaczynski as Kandinsky. :laugh: They make about the same amount of sense.
Oh, yes, because Kandinsky knew soo much about maths and political theories... ::)
A nutcase who tried to blow up a plane tried to "achieve something important for all of mankind"?
He is where he belongs, and if you give it some time, you will, too.
you neither believe in anything great nor have you the courage to do such a thing.
you neither believe in anything great nor have you the courage to do such a thing.
Got evidence?
Otherwise that's utter tripe.
I keep reading Kaczynski as Kandinsky. :laugh: They make about the same amount of sense.
i really like kandinsky. i have a couple of his prints on my walls.
You've got more tolerance for unanchored dreams than I do, then. :P
People wouldn't listen to Theodore, because they were to busy watching soap operas and meaningless talk shows, so he had to take drastical steps to get attention.
By the way: it's once more illogical that the adjective is "drastic" and the adverb is drastically. Where does "al" come from?
Your pacifism won't help you. The question is only if Big Brother or the niggers, Arabs etc. will come to you first. Because they will come to you one day. Probably (and hopefully) when you're old and really powerless even physically.Did you read the report the US government did. About democracy and co not certainly lasting beyond 2025.
I know. If we don't fight soon, we can never fight. The people in the USA can fight but don't understand that their own government is the enemy. :(You do realise that our best chance as Aspies is an intellectual meritocracy. How we achieve it I really don't give a shit though - even if it is by subtraction ;)
No. The only freedom is freedom from any government. Theodore Kaczynski is right. And the worst thing is that people could have overthrown the governments maybe as late as 100 years ago. 200 years ago it would certainly have been possible in the USA. But they didn't, because the USA was the most free country on Earth then. What an irony. :(You assume freedom equates to happiness - poor assumption. I do really not care about being totally free, I care about being as happy as possible. Lets face it if we gave NT's total freedom, we may as well handcuff ourselves to a ceiling somewhere. The interesting thing about freedom is to give one freedom is ultimately going to deny another, unless you very naively expect people to be good human beings interested in increasing one anothers well being. Our greatest chance at relative liberty also happens to be the intellectial meritocracy I advocate.
Please take your meds. Both of you.Feel free to actually argue with me when you are up to it. Might want to do a good amount of reading on the topic first mind.
I know. If we don't fight soon, we can never fight. The people in the USA can fight but don't understand that their own government is the enemy. :(
Please take your meds. Both of you.
Please take your meds. Both of you.Feel free to actually argue with me when you are up to it. Might want to do a good amount of reading on the topic first mind.
I know. If we don't fight soon, we can never fight. The people in the USA can fight but don't understand that their own government is the enemy. :(
:asthing:
How can you believe such bullshit!
Yes, there are many areas that need some spring cleaning (I might say that we should just perforate the bill of rights like toilet paper and tear it off just past the first Ten Amendments), but you forget, we have a working Constitution, already. It works,well. In fact, many parts of it have been imitated around the globe. No suck-ass secondary country, yet, has the entire text of our statutes to live by, though.
We have drifted from the Founding Fathers intentions a great deal, but just watch. You will still be jealous of my Great country when you are struggling to find one more breath.
All of your ilk will be.
Please take your meds. Both of you.Feel free to actually argue with me when you are up to it. Might want to do a good amount of reading on the topic first mind.
Read your rants? Or those by the jailed kook Lit is idolising? Sorry, I'm busy. There's some paint drying I want to watch. :yawn:
Please take your meds. Both of you.
:lol:
Nah, it's more telling this way.
... and then some teenpunk socialist from a foreign land, who knows basically, fuck all, thinks that I, (.)I(.) should learn more about the country I live in.
Fucking brilliant!
Like posting mocking comments here while awaiting the VeriChip implant?
Like posting mocking comments here while awaiting the VeriChip implant?
no, like helping to develop the screening test for HIV antibodies for the blood transfusion service. next question?
Like posting mocking comments here while awaiting the VeriChip implant?
no, like helping to develop the screening test for HIV antibodies for the blood transfusion service. next question?
I'm not impressed.
Please take your meds. Both of you.Feel free to actually argue with me when you are up to it. Might want to do a good amount of reading on the topic first mind.
Read your rants? Or those by the jailed kook Lit is idolising? Sorry, I'm busy. There's some paint drying I want to watch. :yawn:
Socialism is a good idea though I don't believe in it, since it doesn't make the individual free, even if the state is torn down.
I just posted a few paragraphs of Kaczynski's manifesto, still I haven't heard any objective criticism of it.
Though it's not the reason. I actually believe in Kaczynski.
Though it's not the reason. I actually believe in Kaczynski.
The question is, does he believe in you?
Another lame "point" from the draft dodger. :yawn:
That is a good area of research. Could end up saving lives. :clap:Like posting mocking comments here while awaiting the VeriChip implant?
no, like helping to develop the screening test for HIV antibodies for the blood transfusion service. next question?
I'm pro death penalty TheoK, but not for people who have the misfortune of needing a medical procedure and getting tainted blood in the process.
I hate humanity. I'd luuurve a nuclear war or a comet hitting Earth. 8)
That is a good area of research. Could end up saving lives. :clap:Like posting mocking comments here while awaiting the VeriChip implant?
no, like helping to develop the screening test for HIV antibodies for the blood transfusion service. next question?
I hate humanity. I'd luuurve a nuclear war or a comet hitting Earth. 8)
Same.
How prepared are you for defending, as needed, or sharing, as you chose, your food, shelter, fuel and water stores?
Do I need to worry about you?
Okay, I thought you were referring to tweaking the existing tests to make possible even earlier detection. That's cool that you were in on the very early research in that area.
it was nearly 25 years ago, p7psp, and yes, it's saved a lot of lives.
I hate humanity. I'd luuurve a nuclear war or a comet hitting Earth. 8)
Same.
How prepared are you for defending, as needed, or sharing, as you chose, your food, shelter, fuel and water stores?
Do I need to worry about you?
What I don't have I'll steal. 8)
Another lame "point" from the draft dodger. :yawn:
I hate humanity. I'd luuurve a nuclear war or a comet hitting Earth. 8)
Same.
How prepared are you for defending, as needed, or sharing, as you chose, your food, shelter, fuel and water stores?
Do I need to worry about you?
What I don't have I'll steal. 8)
But, you have no personal weapons.
How will you assert your dominance over those who have more than you? Stealing requires courage, determination, planning, luck, force and disregard for another person's wish for peace.
How will you deal with approaching a well established compound with nothing but your superior knowledge, which no one with a gun to defend their wish for peace will care about?
Okay, I thought you were referring to tweaking the existing tests to make possible even earlier detection. That's cool that you were in on the very early research in that area.
it was nearly 25 years ago, p7psp, and yes, it's saved a lot of lives.
Thanks Lucifer, I got a little long winded there. Discussion of your research just got me thinking about blood borne pathogens in general and how they have affected people I know and care about. I am thankful that my own drug use didn't result in Hep C, HIV or liver damage.
MIRAMAR, Fla. – Police say a pizza delivery man fought back with the one weapon he had handy when a gun was pulled on him in a stickup: A large, hot pepperoni pizza.
Delivery man Eric Lopez Devictoria, 40, flung the steaming pie at the gunman, buying time as he ran for safety, police said.
At least one shot was fired as Devictoria fled, but the deliveryman wasn't hurt and was able to quickly call police, according to authorities.
Three teenage suspects were nabbed soon after Wednesday's run-in with the cheesy weapon, police said, adding they were charged with armed robbery.
I will make it very simple. Come and try to take away my firearms. I will kill you. Understand me?
I will make it very simple. Come and try to take away my firearms. I will kill you. Understand me?
I will make it very simple. Come and try to take away my firearms. I will kill you. Understand me?
And end up in jail?
I will make it very simple. Come and try to take away my firearms. I will kill you. Understand me?
And end up in jail?
If everyone had guns, there would be no cowardly henchmen that could drag people to jail. The people would kill them.
I will make it very simple. Come and try to take away my firearms. I will kill you. Understand me?
And end up in jail?
I will make it very simple. Come and try to take away my firearms. I will kill you. Understand me?
And end up in jail?
To be honest man, i'd rather die fighting for my right to bear arms then live in a society which has been stripped of it's ability to defend it's freedom.
I will make it very simple. Come and try to take away my firearms. I will kill you. Understand me?
And end up in jail?
To be honest man, i'd rather die fighting for my right to bear arms then live in a society which has been stripped of it's ability to defend it's freedom.
I very much doubt you could do much if the state decided to change the rules,
I will make it very simple. Come and try to take away my firearms. I will kill you. Understand me?
And end up in jail?
To be honest man, i'd rather die fighting for my right to bear arms then live in a society which has been stripped of it's ability to defend it's freedom.
The guns in your society--the firearms owned by private citizens, legally or illegally--aren't used to defend your country's freedom, though, are they?
Against whom would you defend yourself? I very much doubt you could do much if the state decided to change the rules, and if the attack came from outside your country the army would handle it.
I will make it very simple. Come and try to take away my firearms. I will kill you. Understand me?
And end up in jail?
To be honest man, i'd rather die fighting for my right to bear arms then live in a society which has been stripped of it's ability to defend it's freedom.
The guns in your society--the firearms owned by private citizens, legally or illegally--aren't used to defend your country's freedom, though, are they?
Against whom would you defend yourself? I very much doubt you could do much if the state decided to change the rules, and if the attack came from outside your country the army would handle it.
Valid points o-man. But what about the right to form militia if our freedom is threatened by our own government? It is possible that may happen in the future, and i'd feel a lot better with a way to protect myself.
Plus i'm a hunter. I have lots of guns and I use them all periodically on hunting trips. :)
I very much doubt you could do much if the state decided to change the rules,
That thinking is a sure recipe for failure. If the state changes the rules without asking the people, it's the people's goddamn right to attack the state.
Yes, I can see why you'd think so, but my point is that the firearms owned by private citizens won't make much of a difference.
I very much doubt you could do much if the state decided to change the rules,
That thinking is a sure recipe for failure. If the state changes the rules without asking the people, it's the people's goddamn right to attack the state.
Always the fanatic, you, which is why most people dismiss your opinions directly. If you'd been prepared to consider other viewpoints than your own we might have had the discussion Rage sees.
Learn from Rage. He is, as you say, brave.
In Europe it's extremely different to make people understand that they might have to fight their governments, at least in countries that were never occupied by the commies.
They have no right to decide whatsoever from the very beginning. The people has never given a state any rights to begin with, like I said in the other thread. They invented "democracy" when they couldn't fool people with religion anymore. But they still got their power in a criminal way to start with, by taking it by force from the people.
Yes, I can see why you'd think so, but my point is that the firearms owned by private citizens won't make much of a difference.
What kind of a scenario are you envisioning? What resources do you think would be more effective?
I very much doubt you could do much if the state decided to change the rules,
That thinking is a sure recipe for failure. If the state changes the rules without asking the people, it's the people's goddamn right to attack the state.
Always the fanatic, you, which is why most people dismiss your opinions directly. If you'd been prepared to consider other viewpoints than your own we might have had the discussion Rage sees.
Learn from Rage. He is, as you say, brave.
Well. I just consider that other people just might know something I don't, but I voice my opinion. My opinion was formed from a difficult string of past events, but I keep an open mind and consider the fact that billions upon billions of people also have alternate experiences.
I do think you underestimate america's potential for militias though odeon. There are private organizations which hold very large weapons caches, and you have prior sevice men like myself which have been trained to fight previously. Militia might not win against the government, but I think they probably want to avoid such a difficult and bloody conflict. It would not be pleasant. :o
They have no right to decide whatsoever from the very beginning. The people has never given a state any rights to begin with, like I said in the other thread. They invented "democracy" when they couldn't fool people with religion anymore. But they still got their power in a criminal way to start with, by taking it by force from the people.
Yes dear.
Yes, I can see why you'd think so, but my point is that the firearms owned by private citizens won't make much of a difference.
What kind of a scenario are you envisioning? What resources do you think would be more effective?
Bigger guns, basically.
Yes, I can see why you'd think so, but my point is that the firearms owned by private citizens won't make much of a difference.
What kind of a scenario are you envisioning? What resources do you think would be more effective?
Bigger guns, basically.
That's why all guns should be available to anyone. Machine guns and bazookas are legal in many states in the US but tanks and missilles should of course also be available.
In Europe it's extremely different to make people understand that they might have to fight their governments, at least in countries that were never occupied by the commies.
... or subjects of a deified royal, crowned tyrant of some sort. Remember that the people who live there in this day and age are mostly descended from loyal subjects who chose to stay while all those hopeful ships were sailing to populate the free lands of the New World.
(... or missed the boat.)
:violin:
Yes, I can see why you'd think so, but my point is that the firearms owned by private citizens won't make much of a difference.
What kind of a scenario are you envisioning? What resources do you think would be more effective?
Bigger guns, basically.
That's why all guns should be available to anyone. Machine guns and bazookas are legal in many states in the US but tanks and missilles should of course also be available.
Er, no. With lunatics like you running around, no way.
I very much doubt you could do much if the state decided to change the rules,
That thinking is a sure recipe for failure. If the state changes the rules without asking the people, it's the people's goddamn right to attack the state.
Always the fanatic, you, which is why most people dismiss your opinions directly. If you'd been prepared to consider other viewpoints than your own we might have had the discussion Rage sees.
Learn from Rage. He is, as you say, brave.
Well. I just consider that other people just might know something I don't, but I voice my opinion. My opinion was formed from a difficult string of past events, but I keep an open mind and consider the fact that billions upon billions of people also have alternate experiences.
I do think you underestimate america's potential for militias though odeon. There are private organizations which hold very large weapons caches, and you have prior sevice men like myself which have been trained to fight previously. Militia might not win against the government, but I think they probably want to avoid such a difficult and bloody conflict. It would not be pleasant. :o
True, it wouldn't. But what makes you think they wouldn't do it?
True, it wouldn't. But what makes you think they wouldn't do it?
To be frank, expenses. They would lose worker-drones, on top of also having to pay for lots of other things. Nobody wants that.
It's worrying. Some day China will want their money back.
It's worrying. Some day China will want their money back.
I worry about that too. One of the reasons they shouldn't ban guns here
It's worrying. Some day China will want their money back.
I worry about that too. One of the reasons they shouldn't ban guns here
How would that make a difference?
::)
They could defend themselves both against civilian unrest and power-abusing authorities being even more paranoid when America becomes a Chinese puppet state.
::)
They could defend themselves both against civilian unrest and power-abusing authorities being even more paranoid when America becomes a Chinese puppet state.
I ask again: how would those guns make a difference?
I'd say bombs would be more effective. The smartest move is to blow up things that would financially sting the rich shitfaces. That would bring them back down to earth and stop the brief powertripping.
::)
They could defend themselves both against civilian unrest and power-abusing authorities being even more paranoid when America becomes a Chinese puppet state.
I ask again: how would those guns make a difference?
With machine guns and bazookas in every home, they could fight an invasion force or a police state. They might lose, but they won't die like cowards, like most of the Europeans would, since "we" accepted the guns laws without doing anything about it.
I'd say bombs would be more effective. The smartest move is to blow up things that would financially sting the rich shitfaces. That would bring them back down to earth and stop the brief powertripping.
They'd certainly be more effective, but they remain illegal for private citizens. Which was kind of my point because having a few small firearms wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run. Realistically a state will never make legal anything that would threaten their power.
::)
They could defend themselves both against civilian unrest and power-abusing authorities being even more paranoid when America becomes a Chinese puppet state.
I ask again: how would those guns make a difference?
With machine guns and bazookas in every home, they could fight an invasion force or a police state. They might lose, but they won't die like cowards, like most of the Europeans would, since "we" accepted the guns laws without doing anything about it.
I'm very glad to have those gun laws in place for as long as nutjobs like you can get hold of a gun. Any gun.
I'd say bombs would be more effective. The smartest move is to blow up things that would financially sting the rich shitfaces. That would bring them back down to earth and stop the brief powertripping.
They'd certainly be more effective, but they remain illegal for private citizens. Which was kind of my point because having a few small firearms wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run. Realistically a state will never make legal anything that would threaten their power.
I'd say bombs would be more effective. The smartest move is to blow up things that would financially sting the rich shitfaces. That would bring them back down to earth and stop the brief powertripping.
They'd certainly be more effective, but they remain illegal for private citizens. Which was kind of my point because having a few small firearms wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run. Realistically a state will never make legal anything that would threaten their power.
You can make bombs from stuff that's still legal even in Sweden, just for your information. Anyone able to bake a cake can make a bomb.
I'd say bombs would be more effective. The smartest move is to blow up things that would financially sting the rich shitfaces. That would bring them back down to earth and stop the brief powertripping.
They'd certainly be more effective, but they remain illegal for private citizens. Which was kind of my point because having a few small firearms wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run. Realistically a state will never make legal anything that would threaten their power.
You can make bombs from stuff that's still legal even in Sweden, just for your information. Anyone able to bake a cake can make a bomb.
For your information, I know how to make a bomb.
I'd say bombs would be more effective. The smartest move is to blow up things that would financially sting the rich shitfaces. That would bring them back down to earth and stop the brief powertripping.
They'd certainly be more effective, but they remain illegal for private citizens. Which was kind of my point because having a few small firearms wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run. Realistically a state will never make legal anything that would threaten their power.
O-man. With all due respect. If I was pissed off enough to go on a suicidal government-bombing spree of terror, I wouldn't be worried about whether it was legal or not man. :lol:
Not saying I would go and do that either. Things would have to get pretty bad to piss me off that much.
I'd say bombs would be more effective. The smartest move is to blow up things that would financially sting the rich shitfaces. That would bring them back down to earth and stop the brief powertripping.
They'd certainly be more effective, but they remain illegal for private citizens. Which was kind of my point because having a few small firearms wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run. Realistically a state will never make legal anything that would threaten their power.
You can make bombs from stuff that's still legal even in Sweden, just for your information. Anyone able to bake a cake can make a bomb.
For your information, I know how to make a bomb.
:zoinks:
I know you wouldn't bother about the legal matters, rage, and that wasn't my point. The point is that making such weapons legal would create a very dangerous situation, one that the state couldn't control. As things stand now, if a nutjob like Lit gets hold of a gun, he's most likely not clever enough to hide it in the long run IF he attempts to use it, and the state will be able to act.
Obviously, anyone could go on a one-man bombing-spree but the likelihood is that they will get caught.
I'd say bombs would be more effective. The smartest move is to blow up things that would financially sting the rich shitfaces. That would bring them back down to earth and stop the brief powertripping.
They'd certainly be more effective, but they remain illegal for private citizens. Which was kind of my point because having a few small firearms wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run. Realistically a state will never make legal anything that would threaten their power.
O-man. With all due respect. If I was pissed off enough to go on a suicidal government-bombing spree of terror, I wouldn't be worried about whether it was legal or not man. :lol:
Not saying I would go and do that either. Things would have to get pretty bad to piss me off that much.
I know you wouldn't bother about the legal matters, rage, and that wasn't my point. The point is that making such weapons legal would create a very dangerous situation, one that the state couldn't control. As things stand now, if a nutjob like Lit gets hold of a gun, he's most likely not clever enough to hide it in the long run IF he attempts to use it, and the state will be able to act.
Obviously, anyone could go on a one-man bombing-spree but the likelihood is that they will get caught.
I'd say bombs would be more effective. The smartest move is to blow up things that would financially sting the rich shitfaces. That would bring them back down to earth and stop the brief powertripping.
They'd certainly be more effective, but they remain illegal for private citizens. Which was kind of my point because having a few small firearms wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run. Realistically a state will never make legal anything that would threaten their power.
I'd say bombs would be more effective. The smartest move is to blow up things that would financially sting the rich shitfaces. That would bring them back down to earth and stop the brief powertripping.
They'd certainly be more effective, but they remain illegal for private citizens. Which was kind of my point because having a few small firearms wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run. Realistically a state will never make legal anything that would threaten their power.
You haven't seen the arsenals people have here. My brothers for example have Gun vaults the size of closets
I'd say bombs would be more effective. The smartest move is to blow up things that would financially sting the rich shitfaces. That would bring them back down to earth and stop the brief powertripping.
They'd certainly be more effective, but they remain illegal for private citizens. Which was kind of my point because having a few small firearms wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run. Realistically a state will never make legal anything that would threaten their power.
You haven't seen the arsenals people have here. My brothers for example have Gun vaults the size of closets
Remote bombs are far more effective, especially if you want to avoid getting caught.I'd say bombs would be more effective. The smartest move is to blow up things that would financially sting the rich shitfaces. That would bring them back down to earth and stop the brief powertripping.
They'd certainly be more effective, but they remain illegal for private citizens. Which was kind of my point because having a few small firearms wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run. Realistically a state will never make legal anything that would threaten their power.
O-man. With all due respect. If I was pissed off enough to go on a suicidal government-bombing spree of terror, I wouldn't be worried about whether it was legal or not man. :lol:
Not saying I would go and do that either. Things would have to get pretty bad to piss me off that much.
I know you wouldn't bother about the legal matters, rage, and that wasn't my point. The point is that making such weapons legal would create a very dangerous situation, one that the state couldn't control. As things stand now, if a nutjob like Lit gets hold of a gun, he's most likely not clever enough to hide it in the long run IF he attempts to use it, and the state will be able to act.
Obviously, anyone could go on a one-man bombing-spree but the likelihood is that they will get caught.
I just read that bullet proof vests need a license too here(!!!) I hate this country to my bones.Just wear two "stab-proof" vests instead, they would have the similar amount of Kevlar in.
I just read that bullet proof vests need a license too here(!!!) I hate this country to my bones.Just wear two "stab-proof" vests instead, they would have the similar amount of Kevlar in.
I'd say bombs would be more effective. The smartest move is to blow up things that would financially sting the rich shitfaces. That would bring them back down to earth and stop the brief powertripping.
They'd certainly be more effective, but they remain illegal for private citizens. Which was kind of my point because having a few small firearms wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run. Realistically a state will never make legal anything that would threaten their power.
You haven't seen the arsenals people have here. My brothers for example have Gun vaults the size of closets
I just read that bullet proof vests need a license too here(!!!) I hate this country to my bones.Just wear two "stab-proof" vests instead, they would have the similar amount of Kevlar in.
By the way, I'm not 100% sure of the legal status of the vests, but it says a lot that pepper spray(!) is licensed in this cowardly piece-of-shit country. In Germany you can buy tazers legally or could until a few years ago.
I don't know about any piggies, but wearing a modern set of personal SWAT gear, seven bullets all hitting the vest, would be devastating to a persons ability to fight back for an hour or so, but not deadly.
Of course, it has been proven that a vest's effectiveness depends mostly upon the energy of the bullet that is fired into it.
Seven - nine millimeter rounds hitting you in the chest at close range would kick your ass, no matter if they penetrated or not, but a vest would most likely keep you alive.
My first .300 Magnum round (the only hunting rifle I own that has not yet taken game) would knock you completely out and still not penetrate the vest with my typical Nosler hunting round. Imagine a small sledge hammer hitting your vest at over two hundred miles per hour (similar energy involved). You could not even keep your consciousness, much less your balance or the ability to hold a sight picture.
Because then every criminal would be using armour piercing rounds, which happen to be more lethal. Its not a trend that should be encouraged really.By the way, I'm not 100% sure of the legal status of the vests, but it says a lot that pepper spray(!) is licensed in this cowardly piece-of-shit country. In Germany you can buy tazers legally or could until a few years ago.
In all seriousness, I can not imagine why bullet proof vests would be illegal. They are totally passive and defensive of only one person at a time. It makes sense that grenades are illegal, but not personal protective gear.
Because then every criminal would be using armour piercing rounds, which happen to be more lethal. Its not a trend that should be encouraged really.By the way, I'm not 100% sure of the legal status of the vests, but it says a lot that pepper spray(!) is licensed in this cowardly piece-of-shit country. In Germany you can buy tazers legally or could until a few years ago.
In all seriousness, I can not imagine why bullet proof vests would be illegal. They are totally passive and defensive of only one person at a time. It makes sense that grenades are illegal, but not personal protective gear.
People here are crazy. Look how much control Pakistan has over the Tribal regions the certainly have more fire power but they can't control them. I think vast parts of the US would go that way if anybody ever came here with force.I'd say bombs would be more effective. The smartest move is to blow up things that would financially sting the rich shitfaces. That would bring them back down to earth and stop the brief powertripping.
They'd certainly be more effective, but they remain illegal for private citizens. Which was kind of my point because having a few small firearms wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run. Realistically a state will never make legal anything that would threaten their power.
You haven't seen the arsenals people have here. My brothers for example have Gun vaults the size of closets
I suspect it wouldn't defeat my point. The state's arsenal is a bit larger. :P
I just read that bullet proof vests need a license too here(!!!) I hate this country to my bones.Just wear two "stab-proof" vests instead, they would have the similar amount of Kevlar in.
Don't think it'd help. And even odeon will agree that there is absolutely no reason for licensing bullet proof vests. Though it didn't help the little piggie that got 7 bullets from Lars Widerström's gun in him. :eyebrows:
I don't know about any piggies, but wearing a modern set of personal SWAT gear, seven bullets all hitting the vest, would be devastating to a persons ability to fight back for an hour or so, but not deadly.
Of course, it has been proven that a vest's effectiveness depends mostly upon the energy of the bullet that is fired into it.
Seven - nine millimeter rounds hitting you in the chest at close range would kick your ass, no matter if they penetrated or not, but a vest would most likely keep you alive.
My first .300 Magnum round (the only hunting rifle I own that has not yet taken game) would knock you completely out and still not penetrate the vest with my typical Nosler hunting round. Imagine a small sledge hammer hitting your vest at over two hundred miles per hour (similar energy involved). You could not even keep your consciousness, much less your balance or the ability to hold a sight picture.
Lars Widerström is the latest person killing a cop in Sweden. They were coming home to him to force him to a psychiatric clinic. He shot one of the cops with seven rounds and wounded one of the others.
During the trial, though, he was declared mentally sane and got lifetime in prison! Catch-22!
I don't know about any piggies, but wearing a modern set of personal SWAT gear, seven bullets all hitting the vest, would be devastating to a persons ability to fight back for an hour or so, but not deadly.
Of course, it has been proven that a vest's effectiveness depends mostly upon the energy of the bullet that is fired into it.
Seven - nine millimeter rounds hitting you in the chest at close range would kick your ass, no matter if they penetrated or not, but a vest would most likely keep you alive.
My first .300 Magnum round (the only hunting rifle I own that has not yet taken game) would knock you completely out and still not penetrate the vest with my typical Nosler hunting round. Imagine a small sledge hammer hitting your vest at over two hundred miles per hour (similar energy involved). You could not even keep your consciousness, much less your balance or the ability to hold a sight picture.
Lars Widerström is the latest person killing a cop in Sweden. They were coming home to him to force him to a psychiatric clinic. He shot one of the cops with seven rounds and wounded one of the others.
During the trial, though, he was declared mentally sane and got lifetime in prison! Catch-22!
He should have a lifetime i prison.
Dx's change. That does NOT mean it's OK to kill a person. He got what he deserves. Fucking maniac.
Dx's change. That does NOT mean it's OK to kill a person. He got what he deserves. Fucking maniac.
Catch-22. And what does it say that the same person that was responsible for a great deal of his hatred against society was the one who ordered him taken care of?
It still doesn't give the lunatic the right to kill anyone. It's not a catch-22.
And it doesn't actually say anything except that he could very well be mentally unstable. Apparently not in the legal sense, but still insane.
I hope you'll say the same when the pigs or other "authorities" commit crimes against you, aside from the crimes they commit constantly by their criminal, unilateral "legislation".
Wow, I didn't know that.
:o
All the guys on zer0's board, including himself, agree that Europe has cowardly gun laws.
Well you know Europeans has a lot of people against genetic engineering so you only get gene spliced with a bear in the US
I only have one thing to say about this. Try to take my freedom to keep my own firearms/weapons. I'll kill you.
If people here just had done that when the shitty gun laws came here. :grrr:
I only have one thing to say about this. Try to take my freedom to keep my own firearms/weapons. I'll kill you.
Depending on what you'd do to defend that freedom, that just might be the case.
I only have one thing to say about this. Try to take my freedom to keep my own firearms/weapons. I'll kill you.
Depending on what you'd do to defend that freedom, that just might be the case.
Death or molestation is the payment that every oppressor deserves. The one who wants to make the people defenseless has chosen to be an oppressor or the tool of one.
Your whole question is wrong. No wonder if the answer is, too.
That is your paranoia talking.
I only have one thing to say about this. Try to take my freedom to keep my own firearms/weapons. I'll kill you.
Depending on what you'd do to defend that freedom, that just might be the case.
I only have one thing to say about this. Try to take my freedom to keep my own firearms/weapons. I'll kill you.
Depending on what you'd do to defend that freedom, that just might be the case.
... a simple reality of life.
Interestingly, such a mentality had existed in this land for over a thousand (guessing, since the history has been partially destroyed) years before the Europeans ever came to these shores. Colonists who came here first in ancient times take the credit for establishing "something new" which was already here, in reality. I'll go farther! Government "of the people, by the people, for the people" also existed here before the Euro-trash tried to totally destroy the good honest, not-tainted-by-Christian-ideals-yet-following-the-Golden-Rules "primitive Stone-Age native" people and failed. The Euros (my own ancestry has a few who were also somewhat criminal as well - I have blood on my hands.) took the ways of the natives to heart, but brought paper and quill to make themselves look stupid in the eyes of those they emulated, then created laws written down on paper (instead of kept in the hearts) which contradict themselves.
I have never in all my study found an Indian Chief, who was in a position of power because of taking goods, riches or livelihood away from his people in the form of taxes or ravaging as the many kings in history have done - quite the opposite, actually. Those Chiefs were OF their own people, lived their lives FOR their own people and defended their own people and were put into positions of decision making BY their own people.
Sound familiar? I hope that some day, the history writers of this country will admit to the truth.
A man should always have the freedom to carry his own weapon. The day I no longer own a pair of testicles is the day that I will hand over my weapons. :eyelash:
Some lose their testicles mentally before they risk lose them physically.
I still believe in the right to bear arms, but--given the powerful entheogens available--I would prefer to change people's minds.
I mean I know its totally irrational and peace and love is the right way. But I really don't give a shit. When someone finally drops the niceties and tries to show everyone how he thinks he's actually better than them by trying to use money to take away their freedom, he'll fucking regret it. I'll find out who he is and shoot him, and i'll make sure he dies too because I know for absolutely sure in my heart that someone like that doesn't deserve to live. I am 100% sure of this way of thinking, and I will never change my mind.
Oh, I found this, this is so rich:
"All European cows are registered Europe-wide, so why not guns, if it can save lives? Civil liberties can be sacrificed if we can prevent people from being killed."
European legislators back tough gun control rules
(http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/29/europe/29union.php)
The question is: is that cow registered Europe-wide, because such a freedom-hateing, dangerous animal should be.
Yeah, right, sacrificing of civil liberties is very well known to save lives. Brainless bitch.
Unregistered? :o
Unregistered? :o
For now but you know with the rise in chimp related crime who knows for how long. Thinking of getting one myself before they ban them :laugh:
:GA:
Have they released any names yet?? I doubt Lit was involved but you never know.
There's a few Swedes who post over at the Slymepit and one mentioned that it happened in his town. Can't find the post right now though.
How did a triple firearm homicide happen in a country with such strict gun laws?? :apondering:
I find all the "the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun" and the whole propaganda exercise that living in a society awash with guns makes you safe.... more than a little stupid.
I find all the "the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun" and the whole propaganda exercise that living in a society awash with guns makes you safe.... more than a little stupid.
And yet there's thousands of cases just like that. Most of them don't make the news because the good guy pulls his gun and the bad guy slinks away.
This is one of my favorites:
I find all the "the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun" and the whole propaganda exercise that living in a society awash with guns makes you safe.... more than a little stupid.
I find all the "the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun" and the whole propaganda exercise that living in a society awash with guns makes you safe.... more than a little stupid.
Here's something for you and odeot to stick in your pipe and smoke. :hahaha:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/florida-armed-bystander-stops-gunman-at-crowded-back-to-school-event-at-park-police-say/ar-BBLyY8a?ocid=spartandhp
Just dropping this here.
Just dropping this here.
His words don't bother addressing the points. Bill sums up his failure with, "I don't want to make you mad,"
and pretty much shows that he's a complete wuss in this encounter.
Just dropping this here.
His words don't bother addressing the points. Bill sums up his failure with, "I don't want to make you mad,"
and pretty much shows that he's a complete wuss in this encounter.
Just dropping this here.
His words don't bother addressing the points. Bill sums up his failure with, "I don't want to make you mad,"
and pretty much shows that he's a complete wuss in this encounter.
is there a transcript?
I'd rather read and listen to music.
Did you think he presented any convincing arguments? What were they?
Just dropping this here.
His words don't bother addressing the points. Bill sums up his failure with, "I don't want to make you mad,"
and pretty much shows that he's a complete wuss in this encounter.
is there a transcript?
I don't think so. Can't you watch videos from your 'puter??
Watch da vid.