they'll eventually scrap the Constitution and write another.
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
No problem Trip, I guess I did word myself somewhat poorly on that one.Trip wrote:My sincerest apologies especially since I should have known your particular stances by now after so many responses back and forth over the years.
There’s no difference in intent (protecting oneself), I’ll grant you that qviri; but the outcome sure is, kind of contra productive using Anthrax and having a nuke silo in the yard at standby unless one would go kamikaze of course. A sidearm is a good enough balance me thinks.qviri wrote:There's no substantial difference between telling a government agency "if you come into my house, I will shoot you" and "if you come into my house, I will attack you with anthrax."
A little history lesson about how bad guns are. Between the world wars, England had implemented some significant gun controls. By that time, the vast majority of Brits did not own or have any access to firearms. When WW2 broke out, there was a real threat of German invasion and a very significant shortage of guns in England. They simply did not have enough to go around and did not have the manufacturing capacity to make enough fast enough. They turned to us for help. Savage Arms and others made Enfields for them. They begged American gun owners to donate a rifle for England' home guard. Many did send an extra rifle or two to the Brits. They armed home guard volunteers so the enfields could go to the front. That's right. Private American citizens sent private guns to England.
Rather than return the borrowed rifles, the ungreatful Brits melted them down when the war was over.
It's not so much shocking as it is scary. The Constitution is about the only thing keeping the fed at bay, and Americans have currently been brainwashed into believing that it doesn't matter who moves here, laws and rights will always remain the same - we're bound by ideological (as opposed to blood, soil, and tradition) nationalism which is supposed to hold things together. Though of course it won't hold, and such shouldn't be a surprise.qviri wrote:Wait, why is this shocking?Trip wrote:BF,
they'll eventually scrap the Constitution and write another.
This is so true. And the reason why I am arguing against handguns is, that I believe many impulse homicides can be prevented by turning up handguns. I guess it's hard for Americans to distinctively notice which or their numerous homicides were done by criminals and which were impulse homicides done by normal people. And when I say criminals here, I mean those with rap sheets and criminal lifestyle.andyb wrote:less guns = less gun murders, its just that simple.
I am sure you get the idea, things affect each other, if you have less/more of something, things will be different. I am sure that if you gun toting cowboys thought about this from a totally neutral viewpoint you would understand that it might not be easy, it sure wont be quick but you can reduce the number of guns in the USA to a minimal amount, and over time you will reap the rewards and enter modern civilisation, you never know your country might even reduce its murder rate to that of the UK in just 30 years time.
I know St Louis is statistically a dangerous city. Last year there were 138 homicides according to wikipedia. I just don't believe I fit the profile of homicide victim very well. I'm sure most of the victims are black. I also believe most victims knew the killer. Most victims probably had rap sheets. FBI might have good statistics, that would confirm, that there aren't that many victims fitting my profile.Bluefront wrote:Erssa....others. You seem to forget St Louis has been judged the most dangerous city in the US last year, second worst this year. This is no media hype....it's the truth.
So what exactly is your point? USA needs handguns, because you might get invaded? Even if Brits had had handguns, they would have still needed rifles. Because when it comes to war, handguns are useless. How is this any defense for handguns?djkest wrote:Sorry, I broke my own rule and I'm posting again in this thread, but it's just too good to pass up. Really.
A little history lesson about how bad guns are. Between the world wars, England had implemented some significant gun controls. By that time, the vast majority of Brits did not own or have any access to firearms. When WW2 broke out, there was a real threat of German invasion and a very significant shortage of guns in England. They simply did not have enough to go around and did not have the manufacturing capacity to make enough fast enough. They turned to us for help. Savage Arms and others made Enfields for them. They begged American gun owners to donate a rifle for England' home guard. Many did send an extra rifle or two to the Brits. They armed home guard volunteers so the enfields could go to the front. That's right. Private American citizens sent private guns to England.
Rather than return the borrowed rifles, the ungreatful Brits melted them down when the war was over.
You are the only one who keeps continuing with the handguns are bad due to your guesses about statistics. You're showing your ignorance once again. First it was "shotguns are the best thing for home defense". Now it's "handguns aren't useful in war". So you know this, because you've been in a war, right? Oh, you haven't? Look at soldiers in Iraq, afganistan. Many of them have a rifle AND a handgun. Many officers only carry a handgun. This statement is pure unadulterated ignorance. Many service handguns are perfectly effective out to 50 yards. Engagements can happen at very close ranges, or longer ranges, depending on the situation. You dont' clear houses with a 40" long rifle, that's for sure. Even an M-4 with a 14.5" barrel seems like a long weapon.Erssa wrote:So what exactly is your point? USA needs handguns, because you might get invaded? Even if Brits had had handguns, they would have still needed rifles. Because when it comes to war, handguns are useless. How is this any defense for handguns?
And this is making you upset because? Feel free to correct my guesses, if they have been blatantly wrong. When I am guessing, I'm not claiming to state any facts.djkest wrote:You are the only one who keeps continuing with the handguns are bad due to your guesses about statistics.Erssa wrote:So what exactly is your point? USA needs handguns, because you might get invaded? Even if Brits had had handguns, they would have still needed rifles. Because when it comes to war, handguns are useless. How is this any defense for handguns?
But I suppose copy-pasting "facts" and lies from propaganda site is better then guessing...nick705 wrote:A little more searching brought me to the *actual* House of Commons research paper (available here), and it appears that in England & Wales 1997 there were 14.1 homicides per million, not per 100,000 as per your lying "Gun Facts" graph.
A minor matter of overstating England & Wales homicides by a factor of 10, but who needs the truth when it gets in the way of your argument?
Why the need to twist my words? I said shotgun is more practical against a burglar than a handgun. Claiming something would be best would be a whole different matter, now would it? Especially since home defense is a much larger concept then just guns. It involves security locks, surveillance cameras, alarms, etc...You're showing your ignorance once again. First it was "shotguns are the best thing for home defense".
Superb argument and a brilliant guess. I served for a year in the army, but Finland hasn't been in a war in almost 65 years, so even finnish generals haven't been in a war. And I was mostly referring to WWII and to how you implied Brits would have been better off had they had handguns.Now it's "handguns aren't useful in war". So you know this, because you've been in a war, right? Oh, you haven't?
Crappy range, poor accuracy and low fire power. Hardly a replacement for a rifle. Our troops use RK 95 TP rifles. Those are 26,5" when stock is folded. Not even close to a 40", but neither is M-4. Hell, even some sniper rifles are shorter then 40". I'm sure handguns aren't the primary weapon of choice for US troops storming houses in Iraq. As for your officers carrying only handguns, they carry only these ornaments because they know, they won't end up in firefight.Look at soldiers in Iraq, afganistan. Many of them have a rifle AND a handgun. Many officers only carry a handgun. This statement is pure unadulterated ignorance. Many service handguns are perfectly effective out to 50 yards. Engagements can happen at very close ranges, or longer ranges, depending on the situation. You dont' clear houses with a 40" long rifle, that's for sure. Even an M-4 with a 14.5" barrel seems like a long weapon.
I can't speak for Andy, but as far as I can tell, no, not all of you fit into that category, but some of you do (much as anywhere else). They're exactly the people who should *not* be able to get their hands on firearms under any circumstances (well, maybe being a fat Big Mac-eating salad dodger who can't handle a stick shift wouldn't necessarily be a dealbreaker).djkest wrote: I get it. You think all Americans are stupid, ugly, fat, lazy, gun-crazy, simple minded, murderous, a bad driver, and a drain on the environment. You've made that abundantly clear time and time again, post after post. Nothing we can say or do will change your mind about that.
andyb wrote:Less bacon rind = fewer crabs caught at the dockside.
Of course crime is the root of the problem, who said otherwise? Guns are just a tool to commit a crime. Handguns in every home and on every citizen make it easier to commit deadly first crimes. These crimes you often can't see coming clearly and are thus quite dangerous.Bluefront wrote:Crime is the problem once again....not guns.
When's the last time you or Bluefront bailed anyones ass out of anything? We don't need unemployed mechanics with guns to bail asses out of places, we need trained soldiers with guns, which they will continue to have regardless of personal gun ownership.laserred wrote:Bluefront, I see no need to keep arguing with the Europeans. They've made it clear that as a whole, but not totally individually (we've seen the Netherlands, UK, Finland, and Sweden represented here) that shows us Americans exactly why we've had to go bail their asses out twice in the past 100 years from tyranny. Some of you have called Bluefront and I and other gun owners "delusional", but look at the big picture: sure, it's all fine and dandy to imagine and want a world without a need for guns and killing machines. But who's the delusional one to voluntarily remove a form of personal protection? You guys from across the pond conveniently ignore the arguments of being placed in one of the US's ghettos unarmed with your family. THAT'S delusional.
That's as much an oversimplification as Trip's racial profiling. The obvious answer is that it depends on the society. Take, for example, a military base. By most of the criteria set forth in thread it should be teeming with gun violence: 100% gun ownership, a "diverse" population consisting largely of single young males, high population density, and relative poverty. But violence is low compared to the general population. Now take virtually the same socioeconomic group of people and put them in prison, and even without the convenience of firearms they manage to kill each other at a much higher rate. Its the society that makes the difference, and what it holds as rules of acceptable behavior. Heck, even the "wild west" of American history, with its almost universal gun carrying, had an astonishly low crime rate.NeilBlanchard wrote:Question to the whole group: Does the presence of a large number of guns in society increase or decrease the rates of gun-related crimes?
Let me quote The West Wing:Bluefront wrote:So if I use the word "Liberal", it is a dirty word in my book.
I'm well aware you can debate whether some of those are good (and your opinion will depend on your own views), but there are several of those that only fringe extremists would be against today (civil rights, ending segregation, allowing almost everyone to vote).Season 7, episode 7: 'The Debate' wrote:Santos (D): It's true, Republicans have tried to turn 'liberal' into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country.
Vinick (R): A Republican president ended slavery.
Santos: Yes, a liberal Republican. What happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party, Senator? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created social security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed every one of those programs. Every one. So when you try to hurl the word 'liberal' at my feet, as if it were dirty, something to run away from, something that I should be ashamed of, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and wear it as a badge of honor.
Well, lets take suicides out of the picture, shall we? It is true that more gun-caused suicides happen in the US. But look, you dont' need a gun to kill yourself.
Avoiding risk is very important to staying safe. The most important factor, I'd say. I carry a handgun concealed on my person every day, but I don't go to bad parts of town, I don't walk down dark alleyways, etc. The handgun is just a tool along with the small flashlight I carry in my pocket or the medical pack I carry in the trunk of my car. I don't think I'm more likely to become enraged and kill someone because I carry a gun. In fact I am more polite and well behaved. I avoid confrontation as a hard and fast rule. Because I see self defense as a mindset, rather than just a handgun, I have never found myself in a situation where I even felt the slightest need to draw my weapon.klankymen wrote:Well, considering all crime in america is black on black, gang on gang, in ghetto areas (according to BF and the like), and other than that it's a safe country, why not just stop going into the ghettos and let them kill each other, while you stay safe without guns in your whitebread world. seems like the most risk-free option to me, for people who are concerned about their own safety.