Gun History

[Warbaby1943]

Note: Don't know if this is accurate but thought it was interesting and I think it will probably have some interesting comments. The remainder are not my words they were sent to me in an email. WB

I Thought you might appreciate this . . .

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past
12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'.

Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade Ame rica because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

[Rhabbi]

I agree with you about the thought provoking aspects of this, just wish I knew how accurate it is.

[Warbaby1943]

I agree with you about the thought provoking aspects of this, just wish I knew how accurate it is.
If I'm not mistaken I think awhile back someone from Australia said that these were accurate statistics for there. But don't quote me on that.

[crazy_grrluk]

I heard on our news yesterday that 1 in 5 adult males know of where to get a gun...that is just here in the UK. it was quite shocking really.

no wonder our gun crime has soared out of control...and we dont even have a gun law....because it is illegal to own one...unless it is registered and locked away...and even then its only farmers and land owners that are allowed the permits to own a gun. but they have to be fully policed checked 1st and renew their licence every year

[bthest]

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade Ame rica because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

This is probably false. Yamamoto's "rifle behind every blade of Grass" quote is probably a myth. Likely the Japanese simply never had the capability to invade the US to begin with.

A funny story from the WWII: During the 'blitz' Britain enlisted the help of the NRA to get American gun owners to send them weapons and ammunition. Britain had enacted strict gun laws in the 1930s and as a result the home guard didn't have enough guns to go around, much less resist a German invasion.

[Guest 91108]

bthest. the japanese quote is true. taught in military science i had in college.

[Logic1]

WB. every single one of those countries that you mentioned had "one party systems" and were ruled by dictator or the likes so comparing that to US today or any other western country isnt a valid comparison in my book.

With statistics you can prove pretty much everything you wish to prove. It is just a matter of asking the right questions or using the numbers you get in a way you wish to prove whatever you wish.

Personally I am a citizen WITH or without a gun.
Do you feel scared of your own government, then it is time to get a new one!
I live in Sweden and we DO have guncontrol and still we are I think nr8 in the list of number of guns /100k citizens a country.
I am definitely pro guncontrol though ;)

the question is here. Is this a general talk thread or is it a politics thread :p

[bthest]

bthest. the japanese quote is true. taught in military science i had in college.

The quote has never been verified by any source or document and it first appeared in the 1960s. Some versions of the quote were even attributed to an anonymous Soviet General or KGB agent.

I personally think it was made up.

[Warbaby1943]

This is probably false. Yamamoto's "rifle behind every blade of Grass" quote is probably a myth. Likely the Japanese simply never had the capability to invade the US to begin with.

A funny story from the WWII: During the 'blitz' Britain enlisted the help of the NRA to get American gun owners to send them weapons and ammunition. Britain had enacted strict gun laws in the 1930s and as a result the home guard didn't have enough guns to go around, much less resist a German invasion.Not arguing because I don't know but "probably" doesn't say anything definite either.

[Warbaby1943]

WB. every single one of those countries that you mentioned had "one party systems" and were ruled by dictator or the likes so comparing that to US today or any other western country isnt a valid comparison in my book.OK I'll play the devil's advocate even though I have already stated that those words are not mine, I just passed them along. In any case, does it matter what kind of ruling system you have once your citizens are disarmed and the only legal guns are in the hands of your military?



the question is here. Is this a general talk thread or is it a politics thread What's your point or better yet does it really matter which it is? I think we are developing General Talk here.

[bthest]

Not arguing because I don't know but "probably" doesn't say anything definite either.

From what I've read I personally don't think Yamamoto said that. I'm not speaking as if its 100% beyond a doubt false.

[Logic1]

OK I'll play the devil's advocate even though I have already stated that those words are not mine, I just passed them along. In any case, does it matter what kind of ruling system you have once your citizens are disarmed and the only legal guns are in the hands of your military?


What's your point or better yet does it really matter which it is? I think we are developing General Talk here.


the difference is if you think you need to fear your government or not imho.
One party states tends to be more dangerous for the citizens than a democracy like those both you and me live in.

dont know but it could turn political but I am game for discussions here in any case.
:wave:

[Guest 91108]

hrm, firearms aren't about the government as much as it's about educating the population (yes, that of the entire world) and not letting media bias turn them. therefor it should be/become general talk.

[margaret]

WB, all those statistics do is show a correlation. Correlation != causation. Actually, they don't even show that much of a correlation as there are a number of nations (for example, the UK, Australia, Canada, and Japan, according to wikipedia) that prohibit or strictly limit gun ownership that haven't had large-scale massacres. This e-mail sounds like propaganda and scare tactics to me.

[Ozme52]

and we dont even have a gun law....

Yes you do.


because it is illegal to own one

That's a gun law.

[rach]

We got a stricter gun law after a massacre and I don't really think it's fair to compare totalitarian regimes with modern day democracies. HOwever flawed the democracies may be!

[Ozme52]

WB. every single one of those countries that you mentioned had "one party systems" and were ruled by dictator or the likes so comparing that to US today or any other western country isnt a valid comparison in my book.

The USA just barely qualifies... and maybe not at all. There are a lot of people here who believe we just have two flavors of the same party, with the same agendas, just different approaches on how to get there.



With statistics you can prove pretty much everything you wish to prove. It is just a matter of asking the right questions or using the numbers you get in a way you wish to prove whatever you wish.

Actually 50% of all statistics are 100% correct half the time....


Personally I am a citizen WITH or without a gun.
Do you feel scared of your own government, then it is time to get a new one!

Sometimes I have to wonder. Right now I'm none too comfortable. I compare the freedoms and choices I had as a young adult to now and I do have to wonder. The rights my father had that I don't? Yeah, they're being eroded away.

[John56{vg}]

I agree with the wise Yoda/margeret and rach. I do own guns, but belive in some form of gun control. And margaret's logic is right. There are pleny of places where gun laws HAVE succeeded and are working.

[Ozme52]

One party states tends to be more dangerous for the citizens than a democracy like those both you and me live in.


Tell that to the Weimar Replublic...

Hitler was elected/chosen in a multi-party system. Then he declared a national emergency.

The President of the USA has the ability to declare a national emergency... which would, among other things, suspend national elections.

[Ozme52]

WB, all those statistics do is show a correlation. Correlation != causation. Actually, they don't even show that much of a correlation as there are a number of nations (for example, the UK, Australia, Canada, and Japan, according to wikipedia) that prohibit or strictly limit gun ownership that haven't had large-scale massacres. This e-mail sounds like propaganda and scare tactics to me.

Agreed. These instances are chosen to show the correlation the author wants to emphasize. And it's always more "horrific" to choose the genocidal examples.

I'm more interested in the statistics regarding crime. The Australian crime stats are significant in my mind. Other places show similar trends.

Florida, on the other hand, enacted "Castle" laws... meaning "a man's home is his castle and he has the right to defend it..." (including homes and cars and places of business as defendable) and there, violent crimes involving guns appeared to be on the decline... at least initially. I won't quote statistics... there are stats to prove and disprove both sides of the arguement.

[Sir_G]

WB. every single one of those countries that you mentioned had "one party systems" and were ruled by dictator or the likes so comparing that to US today or any other western country isnt a valid comparison in my book.

With statistics you can prove pretty much everything you wish to prove. It is just a matter of asking the right questions or using the numbers you get in a way you wish to prove whatever you wish.



The stats that have been quoted in the initial post are pretty spot on. I'm Australian and would go so far as to say things have actually gotten worse than when they were collated.

I'm suprised at the naivety of some of the posts in this thread. One Party systems commit the atrocities cited much more efficiently than "democracies" but don't kid yourself that democracies don't do it. They tend to do it overseas in other countries rather than at home where the populace are armed. The U.S. is a case in point as is Australia for that matter. Our Prime Minister has even gone as far as to say he has a "mandate" from the people to enact whatever laws he wants, when he wants and has done so. So logic I think the comparison is more than valid.

How many deaths are George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard and the rest of the coalition of the willing personally responsible for. They wave a flag called democracy and their cause is to stamp out all the evil terrorists. Yet with all those recourses Bin Laden still produces and releases his videos and terrorists proliferate world wide. Is it just a side show to distract the worlds population from a bigger hidden agenda like eroding our freedoms ie the Patriot Act in the U.S. and all the other legislation that has been brought in world wide to "protect us" from that evil. Here in Australia they promote and advertise that we should dob in our neighbors if we see or hear anything suspicious. The catch cry is Be Alert Not Alarmed. They encourage suspicion, mistrust and betrayal of friends and family if necessary.

Politicians have manipulated statistics for as long as they have been around. As have lobby groups, corporations, clubs etc etc. They will continue to do so. Criminals have armed themselves since Adam was a boy and will continue to do so. Why people are so bent out of shape about law abiding citizens owning guns for recreational sports, self defence, sorting out corrupt governments and invaders is beyond me.

In my humble opinion a well armed law abiding populace keeps the government somewhat in check and honest...scratch honest leave in check. Have checks in place such as criminal background, citizenship and mental health checks to weed out the villains. (yes I know villains will find ways to circumvent them) But I am talking about law abiding people here.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need any of this including guns. But it isn't and I see issues such as protecting our freedoms, right to walk down the street unmolested, the right to open and honest government as a personal responsibility. The moment we hand it to others to take care of is when we lose it. Be active, speak up and vote in elections before you lose that right too.

*Looks around, my goodness there was still soap in that box. Look at all the suds, blub.*

[hikochan]

This is probably false. Yamamoto's "rifle behind every blade of Grass" quote is probably a myth. Likely the Japanese simply never had the capability to invade the US to begin with.

The Japanese DID invade America - or at least they tried. That's what Pearl Harbor was all about. Their government had them so lashed into a frenzy that they didn't think they could possibly lose. It came as a real shock when we hit back so hard.

[TomOfSweden]

Well, that was certainly biased statistics and facts.

edit: Me personally. I don't want to carry around a gun all the time and shooting guns don't really get me a hard on. And if I'm not planning to carry a gun around I'd rather nobody did. My theory is that people with guns for "defending their freedoms" and "ready to fight crime" are really looking for a reason to shoot anybody. For the rush. IMHO

[TomOfSweden]

The Japanese DID invade America - or at least they tried. That's what Pearl Harbor was all about. Their government had them so lashed into a frenzy that they didn't think they could possibly lose. It came as a real shock when we hit back so hard.

I thought Perl Harbour was pre-emptive? They knew USA was going to join the war sooner or later and they wanted to get a head start. I don't think they had any plans to invade USA. They had hardly troops to control what they already had conquered by 1942.

[John56{vg}]

Tom,

I don't think so. The war Cabinet of Japan ordered Yamamoto to attack Pearl Harbor. But he knew that it would be "akin to waking a sleeping giant." It sped our entry into World War II.

[ElectricBadger]

Oooo goody, a nice thread!

First, Pearl Harbor: There are multiple views on this. The US embargo on oil had created a situation where Japan had to either surrender nearly all of their empire as untenable or invade sources of oil in the south pacific, which would provoke war with Australia & the US. Invading the US was never a viable option (no Japanese invasion was ever assembled, or ever close to being assembled), they simply wanted to destroy the US naval domination of the region. So...our armament situation had as much to do with it as our bubblegum production. On the other hand, they DID invade parts of Alaska...where the oil is...but Midway made that untenable, as their supplies would be vulnerable.

Second: Democracies dont' have a great track record for defending civil liberties. The Athenian democracy had more slaves than citizens. Robespierre's cry of "Let Terror be the order of the day!" was spoken and heartily endorsed in the midst of a fully elected ruling body. Hitler was elected democratically, and the Nazi party had the largest vote in public elections. British democracy has been...rather brutal: the only period when Parlaiment ruled without a monarch was among it's bloodiest. See Irish history to find how well their rights were protected democratically. And calling American democracy a defender of rights is hard to stomach: slavery was a VERY democratic institution (as in, the majority of Americans supported it, even at the start of the Civil War). So were the Jim Crow laws, Red Scares/McCarthyism, Veitnam drafts, Japanese internment camps, and the Patriot Act. So no, we don't have to fear a mass extermination, but claiming democracy keeps us safe is hard to swallow: democracy is by definition the will of the majority over that of the minority. And finally...keep in mind that America gained its independence by force of arms and very horrible bloodshed (only the Civil War saw a greater percentage of Americans killed) against what was then the most democratic country in the world.

As for fearing our governments, part of the reason we don't is that we don't HAVE to. We don't just have ideals, we have ways to enforce those ideals. The automatic response to such a thought as mass extermination in the US is "That would never happen; they wouldn't get away with it, people wouldn't stand for it." Well...who would make sure they wouldn't? Who would stand? Yes, there would be repurcussions, and knowing that eliminates the need for any repurcussions.

[Ozme52]

Well, that was certainly biased statistics and facts.

edit: Me personally. I don't want to carry around a gun all the time and shooting guns don't really get me a hard on. And if I'm not planning to carry a gun around I'd rather nobody did. My theory is that people with guns for "defending their freedoms" and "ready to fight crime" are really looking for a reason to shoot anybody. For the rush. IMHO


I feel the opposite. That they really want to protect themselves. The folk looking for a rush will have semi-automatics in the trunk of their cars. Those packing a pistol won't draw unless they have to. (Also a big IMO)

[Ozme52]

I thought Perl Harbour was pre-emptive? They knew USA was going to join the war sooner or later and they wanted to get a head start. I don't think they had any plans to invade USA. They had hardly troops to control what they already had conquered by 1942.

True. And Pearl Harbor was a US base on a US territory, but not a US state. No more than Guam or Puerto Rico is today. So technically, not the USA.

And whether or not one agrees with that definition of the USA... it's still not an invasion. There were no troops sent. It was strictly an attack on the US fleet. They didn't even destroy the repair facilities. (Intended for the 2nd or 3rd wave.)

[TomOfSweden]

EB. There's a confusion of terminology here. There's a huge difference between plain old "democracy" and "liberal democracy". China today is democratic, it's just not the type of democracy we've become accustomed to after the enlightenment. When people today say "democracy" I'd say that they by default mean "liberal democracy" and the interpretation of the opposite is mostly down to a know-it-all trying to shine a bit ;) isn't it?

A very important thing to bear in mind is that there to date have still not been any armed conflicts between two functioning liberal democracies.

USA wasn't a fully functioning liberal democracy until 1920 with every state allowing women to vote. No matter how often George Washington use the word "freedom" in 1776.

I am impressed by your Pearl Harbour knowledge.

[Guest 91108]

...
edit: Me personally. I don't want to carry around a gun all the time and shooting guns don't really get me a hard on. And if I'm not planning to carry a gun around I'd rather nobody did. My theory is that people with guns for "defending their freedoms" and "ready to fight crime" are really looking for a reason to shoot anybody. For the rush. IMHO


False. Those who carry are not doing so "for the rush" or the desire "to shoot anybody" . I can't speak for residents in other states but in the 12 years I've carried and kept up with the laws and such concerning it in this state.... only One Permit holder has ever been charged with a gun related crime and it was the firing or shooting someone.. It was actually for brandishing.. which in this state means to show publically. what happened according to reports is he showed a friend at restaurant his new firearm thinking noone saw, but the waitress called the cops, hence brandishing.

I CCW, as does the wife and most of my rl friends. And I will ensure my son is able to carry when he is of age. Far as I know, I'm the only one to have pulled mine legally. I've pulled it three times in the 12 years I've carried. And I've not had to fire the first shot yet. Merely pulling it on the three who were criminally minded was enough to stop the situation. and of the three.. two were gangbanger members... I did use it once before i had my CCW to stop a rape/assault in the state of Florida while down there on vacation. Nothing happened as a result of my use; but there is one less criminal in the world today. And I would do it again for the same reason..

[TomOfSweden]

False. Those who carry are not doing so "for the rush" or the desire "to shoot anybody" . I can't speak for residents in other states but in the 12 years I've carried and kept up with the laws and such concerning it in this state.... only One Permit holder has ever been charged with a gun related crime and it was the firing or shooting someone.. It was actually for brandishing.. which in this state means to show publically. what happened according to reports is he showed a friend at restaurant his new firearm thinking noone saw, but the waitress called the cops, hence brandishing.

I CCW, as does the wife and most of my rl friends. And I will ensure my son is able to carry when he is of age. Far as I know, I'm the only one to have pulled mine legally. I've pulled it three times in the 12 years I've carried. And I've not had to fire the first shot yet. Merely pulling it on the three who were criminally minded was enough to stop the situation. and of the three.. two were gangbanger members... I did use it once before i had my CCW to stop a rape/assault in the state of Florida while down there on vacation. Nothing happened as a result of my use; but there is one less criminal in the world today. And I would do it again for the same reason..

That's just it isn't it. Who has the right to make the judgement call to shoot? I don't want to go to jail for shooting someone when it was judged that I shot someone without a reason. Why not leave it to the cops. When everybody is armed you minimize the reaction time. Even if we live in a world where only criminals are armed, isn't that too a better scenario? Then they aren't in fear of being shot so they have less of an incentive to kill anyone? How is carrying guns not only a stupid ass macho thing that doesn't solve anything? Unless you're in a war off-course

[Guest 91108]

Perhaps if human kind had evolved to a level where the criminal mind wasn't so rampant i'd agree with you ToS.
As it is.. they are cockroaches on society. period.
If they seek to harm me or mine , take what I have sweat and bleed for, then I see they can bleed or worse of it. period. Not a lot to discuss there IMO.
Your morals would stop you.. Mine make me act.
Criminals kill so that there are no witnesses to point fingers.. surely you are not so naive as to not understand that. Some do it for that thrill as it's part of their psyche.
whatever the reason.. to allow yourself to be victimized .. well, you become victimized over and over until you decide you've had enough. I refuse to be the first time, and many others do. And that is a Right of being human. Nothing to do with manmade laws.
and I've judged it proper to shoot once as i've said and all three times I posted I had it aimed dead center between both their eyes. I do not intend to let them to live or to die, but to stop.
Dying is a result of their actions.. a chance they take when they assume doing criminal intentions.
Much like a druggie takes when he injects, snorts or whatever that drug. their choice .
Mine is merely to act accordingly to the situation. If they stop ... they have no problems with/from me. Other wise I would end their problems. And I'm fine with that.

Disagree all you want, won't help anything.

[annie]

Oooo goody, a nice thread!

I agree it is a nice thread!


First, Pearl Harbor: There are multiple views on this. The US embargo on oil had created a situation where Japan had to either surrender nearly all of their empire as untenable or invade sources of oil in the south pacific, which would provoke war with Australia & the US. Invading the US was never a viable option (no Japanese invasion was ever assembled, or ever close to being assembled), they simply wanted to destroy the US naval domination of the region. So...our armament situation had as much to do with it as our bubblegum production. On the other hand, they DID invade parts of Alaska...where the oil is...but Midway made that untenable, as their supplies would be vulnerable.

Ohhhhhhhhh I even got my history lesson for the day! Thanks EB! Always nice to learn something new!


As for fearing our governments, part of the reason we don't is that we don't HAVE to. We don't just have ideals, we have ways to enforce those ideals. The automatic response to such a thought as mass extermination in the US is "That would never happen; they wouldn't get away with it, people wouldn't stand for it." Well...who would make sure they wouldn't? Who would stand? Yes, there would be repurcussions, and knowing that eliminates the need for any repurcussions.

OK..I'm not normally one for debate but this is drawing me to say something... lol.

I agree and disagree on this point. I think it all depends on social status of those involved... and I think in some ways it does happen in the U.S. Although I will admit I would be hard pressed to give you "specifics" but there are ways of "exterminating" people without making it appear as a "Hitler/Nazi" act. Social/Economic Status is a way of doing that. Although I will also add, I don't always believe the government is fully to blame for that either.

And hell yes there would be repercussions... Look at the PA flight on 9/11 as a prime example. People, in crises, banded together and took what they felt was the necessary action. My only hope is that if I were ever in the same situation I would be one to speak and act and not sit, wait, and hide!

As to firearms. I know how to handle a weapon. I am certified. I am actually a fairly decent shot. I do NOT currently own a weapon though. Personal choice but one I made based on having young children in the house. Based on where I live I view the greater danger as a risk to one of my children obtaining access to a gun over my need to carry one for personal safety. My not carrying a gun by no way means that I am defenseless though. "Defenseless" is a state of mind imho... I can and will defend myself and my family, to the best of my ability, with or without a gun or against a person wielding a gun, if the need ever arises.

[Guest 91108]

Smiles to annie. and kudos.

[TomOfSweden]

Perhaps if human kind had evolved to a level where the criminal mind wasn't so rampant i'd agree with you ToS.
As it is.. they are cockroaches on society. period.
If they seek to harm me or mine , take what I have sweat and bleed for, then I see they can bleed or worse of it. period. Not a lot to discuss there IMO.
Your morals would stop you.. Mine make me act.
Criminals kill so that there are no witnesses to point fingers.. surely you are not so naive as to not understand that. Some do it for that thrill as it's part of their psyche.
whatever the reason.. to allow yourself to be victimized .. well, you become victimized over and over until you decide you've had enough. I refuse to be the first time, and many others do. And that is a Right of being human. Nothing to do with manmade laws.
and I've judged it proper to shoot once as i've said and all three times I posted I had it aimed dead center between both their eyes. I do not intend to let them to live or to die, but to stop.
Dying is a result of their actions.. a chance they take when they assume doing criminal intentions.
Much like a druggie takes when he injects, snorts or whatever that drug. their choice .
Mine is merely to act accordingly to the situation. If they stop ... they have no problems with/from me. Other wise I would end their problems. And I'm fine with that.

Disagree all you want, won't help anything.

"Criminal mind"? You do realise that you are making an ass load of assumptions creating quite mythical monster of crime. I don't buy it in the least. There's a number of various law books that can be offended. Moral law is one, the legal is another. Culture creates crime. I don't believe in evil.

And besides, people can steal your shit without 1) resorting to violence and 2) break any civil laws. I got stolen today. I got a hefty extra fee slapped onto my plane ticket today for a service I hadn't asked for. That's stealing and taking away what I've sweat and bled for and no gun in the world could have helped me.

...and besides. Your scenario about criminals shooting innocent witnesses....I mean Jesus. Watch TV too much by any chance?

[bthest]

That's just it isn't it. Who has the right to make the judgement call to shoot? I don't want to go to jail for shooting someone when it was judged that I shot someone without a reason.

Well if its my life being threatened then I should make the call on what is a reasonable force. Thats the very basis of self-defense.


How is carrying guns not only a stupid ass macho thing that doesn't solve anything? Unless you're in a war off-course

Because it can save someone's life.

[Guest 91108]

not experienced real crime ToS?

I don't see any assumptions in my post at all.
and I think there was crime way before civilization much less the breaks into various cultures.
the assumptions are yours as usual.. with your way of discussing.

[TomOfSweden]

not experienced real crime ToS?

I don't see any assumptions in my post at all.
and I think there was crime way before civilization much less the breaks into various cultures.
the assumptions are yours as usual.. with your way of discussing.

he he. I used to be a criminal. Not my proudest hour. But I ran away from home when I was 16 and had to solve shit. Crime paid well.

To make a long story short. I was denied welfare because I was underage, but I didn't see living at home as a viable option. I was 16 and those where the options I could see. Steal stuff. I was in a gang where we stole stuff as a life style.

[Warbaby1943]

"Criminal mind"? You do realise that you are making an ass load of assumptions creating quite mythical monster of crime. I don't buy it in the least. There's a number of various law books that can be offended. Moral law is one, the legal is another. Culture creates crime. I don't believe in evil.

And besides, people can steal your shit without 1) resorting to violence and 2) break any civil laws. I got stolen today. I got a hefty extra fee slapped onto my plane ticket today for a service I hadn't asked for. That's stealing and taking away what I've sweat and bled for and no gun in the world could have helped me.

...and besides. Your scenario about criminals shooting innocent witnesses....I mean Jesus. Watch TV too much by any chance?Well it is obvious you don't know the criminal mind and the example you used for getting robbed makes no sense when discussing gun laws.

Over here a lot of times gangs make new members go out, rob, and then kill someone just as an initiation. There is no way in hell you will convince me that more people carrying would not discourage a lot of that. If these fucking punks even think there is a chance they may get shot and killed it may easily deter them from killing someone just for the pleasure of killing or as an initiation.

Those of us who have the CWP don't go around looking for people to shoot just so you are clear on that.

[Guest 91108]

ToS, glad you stole over there and not in my yard.
edited to add that if that was the only option you saw .. you are basically telling us that you understand the criminal mind and you think it's ok.
That won't fly here very weel.


Thanks WB for that post.

[bthest]

Also, who wants to stake their life on the kindness of criminals and trust them not to kill?

[annie]

*clears my throat a bit in preparation*

Gentleman....

WONDERFUL discussion going on here! BUT... getting a bit close to flaming on some of those comments.... *looks around at the potential suspects*

Everyone take a step back and this thread won't get hurt...

*giggles*

Serious Guys... please keep it civil. My edit button and I are on the outs at the moment!

[Guest 91108]

yes Mod Annie. hugs ya.

[TomOfSweden]

ToS, glad you stole over there and not in my yard.
edited to add that if that was the only option you saw .. you are basically telling us that you understand the criminal mind and you think it's ok.
That won't fly here very weel.


Thanks WB for that post.

I don't think it's ok. I think stealing is wrong. You and WB are creating a mythical monster that doesn't exist. I stole because 1) I needed money and 2) I felt somehow justified. I also felt extremely sorry for myself and used that emotion to cover up any other emotion I might have felt about doing damage to others. I don't defend what I did or think it was justified. It was down to simple survival. When one is out of options morals erode.

I'm sure that it's the same kind of dynamics among every criminal group in the entire world. The important thing to remember is that guns would not have stopped me or my friends. We would still have stolen stuff, only adapted it to incorporate guns. Never forget that just because you can see options they can take in their life, doesn't mean they see it.

The people in my gang either grew out of it, (like me) or they moved onto hard drugs and died. I can't think of a single person of them who's still into crime....or scratch that. I don't know a single person from my old gang who's into crime where there's victims.

To quote an old friend of mine, "I think everybody should go to jail for a while so they stop being so fucking scared of it". I don't agree with him at all but can you imagine the mentality of the man saying it? Can you imagine the shift in morals required to reach that mental space? That guy is a lunatic though. Crazy mofo.

edit: my point is that guns are irrelevant. If you want to stop criminals stealing you have to remove the underlying reasons. Which usually are extreme poverty.

edit: I was also incredibly lucky in that I was never caught. There's a huge difference in the options available to the people who get caught for their youthful transgressions. Anybody who's done jail time is effectively shut out from getting any legit job. No matter why they ended up commiting crime to begin with. One of my closest friend back then is a high boss at IBM rational. He was 1) heavily into heroin and any drugs he could find. 2) a career criminal doing everything he could. But he grew out of it. He never got caught so he had options in life. And now he's clean and responsible. Another friend but who got caught, and now he's got some loser job within the porn industry. Another friend who went to jail had to start an IT company of his own because there was no way he could get hired. He's raking in the big bucks now. But it was all but obvious he would make it for years.

I'm ranting now. But don't judge peoples character too harshly because they find themselves on the other side of the fence. Extreme situations will create extreme measures no matter who you are.

[bthest]

As someone who owns guns for both self defense and pleasure (and as someone open carries a gun from time to time), I can say that I don't wish to shoot or kill anyone and the thought of taking anyone's life gives me sickening feeling and certainly does not give me a "rush." But I would rather shoot someone than let myself or loved ones be murdered. I also don't consider my self a macho man who wants to feel big about himself. In fact I hate confrontation and will gladdy capitulate if it means avoiding a fight.

And I find such statements about law abiding gun owners such as myself to be personally insulting.

I also see how "disarmed = subject" can be insulting as well and I generally steer away from using the "copy and paste" info in the OP when discussing gun control.

[Guest 91108]

...

I also see how "disarmed = subject" can be insulting as well and I generally steer away from using the "copy and paste" info in the OP when discussing gun control.

Yes, I can agree on that as well.

[Warbaby1943]

If we forget the stealing aspect of this so that we don't feel sorry for the criminal element and focus on all the lives that have been taken by low life vermin just so they can get their kicks maybe it would be a little easier to understand why some people feel safer in protecting themselves rather than letting it up to the police to do that for them.

I am about to take a refresher course to renew my CWP license which means my first one is about to expire and they last for 4 years. In that almost 4 years I have never once carried my weapon with me because I really don't want to ever be faced with the decision of having to pull it and actually fire it at another "human being." I am renewing my permit because I feel it is my right, as a law abiding citizen, to be able to carry if I so choose. No more, no less. I also feel it is necessary that we who believe as I do continue to fight so that others may keep the right to bear arms.

I see what our law makers and our laws do to our citizens now and don't like all the rights and privileges I have lost in the last 60 years. I shudder to think how much worse it would be without the ordinary citizen having the right to own weapons.

I have seen and been in discussions like this before and I have never seen anyone change their mind in their beliefs. However, I do think discussions like this are healthy.

[Guest 91108]

Good Post WB, and you are right.. opposing sides rarely change sides.
is why these discussions get so intense. They bring in past emotions with some. I've had some very heated ones in the past.

[Warbaby1943]

Good Post WB, and you are right.. opposing sides rarely change sides.
is why these discussions get so intense. They bring in past emotions with some. I've had some very heated ones in the past.I understand and I get upset once we get something going and the threat of flaming appears. Sometimes it is no more than emotions speaking and after all we are all adults or at least we say we are when we sign up here.

I'm not advocating calling anyone a dumb mother fucker. I'm only saying that we should be treated as adults. If one of us is on the verge of flaming then we should be warned and not left guessing who the comment is directed at. If I said anything that was close to flaming I want to know about it otherwise it may happen again and again without me knowing it was even close to being considered a flame.

It does at times make it very difficult to say what you want but I have not seen one instance here where I personally would have even considered anything a flame.

Now back to gun control. I'm against it as you may guess. However I am not against training to make it safe to own and carry a weapon. Enough said.

[nk_lion]

I really like this thread. I'm still undecided towards guns, sometimes I think the world would be better without them, and sometimes guns are just as dangerous as a regular knife found in a kitchen.

This thread is giving me a lot to think about, thank you people, from both sides of this arguement.

[Logic1]

aaaah I wondered where this thread went.

I think that the main reason why we get such a heated discussion here is because Tom and I live in Sweden where we havent had a war for the past 200+ years and you in the US have had lots of fighting in the past few hundred years.
Our societys look different and we dont have the same amount of violent crimes nor the same amount of people carrying guns. There might not be a link between the two or there might.
Swedes cant get a permit to carry a concealed weapon at all and we dont feel as "scared" of what our government does as it seems like you do from your posts. We never had the need for every person to carry a gun to defend themselves even.

Simply put our past and present look very different and that is why our opinions differ.
It is most definitely an interresting discussion though.

my 5 eurodollars ;)

[bthest]

I think that the main reason why we get such a heated discussion here is because Tom and I live in Sweden where we havent had a war for the past 200+ years and you in the US have had lots of fighting in the past few hundred years.

Well, the last war here was 150 years ago so we aren't that far off from you guys.:blurp_ani

I think it has to do with Europe's long history gun control which dates back to the middle ages. People just accept it as normal.

Where as in America, guns were necessary for survival among regular folks and therefor we have developed a society that favors unrestricted gun ownership.

[Guest 91108]

I agree difference in war here and wars abroad is very different ...
People have forgotten that it can and will come home again one day.

WWI and WWII was not internal.

political conflicts using military , police actions, etc should not be called wars.
Examples Korean War wasn't ours truly. Vietnam Wasn't a war although it felt like it to those who went. Grenada wasn't a war. Gulf War I & II are hardly war, though the government is waging a form of it. I do not think it's the same or we would have the draft back. ( which may yet come, if they don't bring the troops home. see sustainability in searches. )

Way I look at it .. We've only had two wars here.
And I won't go into the second one ATM.

[TomOfSweden]

aaaah I wondered where this thread went.

I think that the main reason why we get such a heated discussion here is because Tom and I live in Sweden where we havent had a war for the past 200+ years and you in the US have had lots of fighting in the past few hundred years.
Our societys look different and we dont have the same amount of violent crimes nor the same amount of people carrying guns. There might not be a link between the two or there might.
Swedes cant get a permit to carry a concealed weapon at all and we dont feel as "scared" of what our government does as it seems like you do from your posts. We never had the need for every person to carry a gun to defend themselves even.

Simply put our past and present look very different and that is why our opinions differ.
It is most definitely an interresting discussion though.

my 5 eurodollars ;)

I don't think that's the reason at all. First off I think it's the fact that USA has a lot more poverty than western Europe that's the big difference. Western Europe has a lot more welfare and state aid to people in shity situations. This means that we don't get as many desperate down and outs over here. I think that the root of virtually all crime is poverty and/or lack of hope in life. Increased crime rates is just a natural development of USA's economic policies. I don't think there's an obvious right or wrong here. We make choices and pay the price. USA is as a whole a lot richer than Europe, so I'm sure it's policies benefit USA in the long run financially. But it creates a lot harsher life for them now. No matter if you're rich or poor.

The gun issue is completely separate. I think that the combination of poverty induced elevated crime rates makes it so very dangerous to legalize guns in the USA. Finland and Austria being prime examples of how legalising guns is in itself not a bad thing. Just looking at the guns themselves I don't think is helpful to understanding gun crime, no matter your stance.

A couple of years ago I was in a business meeting with an older Hells Angels guy. Hell's Angels is Sweden's most infamous Mafia organisation. This meeting was nothing to do with crime at all. They've got plenty of legit business ventures and this might have been one of them.

Anyhoo... To cut a long story short. We had a long discussion and ended up having a heart to heart. When I told him that I didn't understand the appeal of joining an organisation like the Hells Angels he said something along the lines of, the Mafia is for people without strong father figures. It's for people with no structure or purpose in their life who need a firm hand and a clear social function in life.

I thought it was pretty profound. Beside never ever have expected to hear such a candid or well formulated answer from that low-browed massive mound of meat. Never forget that the people who join this shit are all very young. My interpretation was that, they might tell other or even themselves that they're in it for the bitches, money and drugs...but as always it's never that simple. And as we all know. Once they're in they can't leave so they off-course adjust their morals to fit.

For me personally. The state finally took custody over me and gave me money and a place to stay so I didn't need to steal stuff any longer. I was still up to no good and got into a lot of trouble. But the increased security in my life meant that I went on to other types of crime. A little bit more safer and friendly things. I ran a string of illegal all-nighter clubs. Selling alcohol without a permit is very illegal in Sweden. And then as I said, I went legit all together. I have a feeling that my early life story is pretty common for any criminal. But I never got convicted of anything. Which I think was the key to how I could get out of it.

There's no special criminal mind and I doubt there's any evil gene. I'm sure there's a violent gene. But that doesn't in anyway have to lead to crime, or even violence. It wasn't until I was 23 that I realised that I'd been in a constant state of semi-panic attack all my life. The first time I ever felt calm and safe was when I was then, at 23. It's hard to explain. But if you've never experienced an emotion. It's very hard to long for it or to figure out what you might need in life to feel it. It's very hard to think straight when your mind is in a state of panic. I was never all that into drugs, but if I'd been...wow....that would have been fucked. awww... it's hard to explain. But this issue is so far beyond good and evil or right and wrong. It's about survival. Both mentally and literally.

My old gang friend at Rational got a girl friend who helped him get off heroin and straighten up his life. I don't actually know his back story but he was very young when he got into crime life to. According to him, he stopped doing crime the second he could see another viable option for him in his life. Nobody knows his background where he works now. Nobody would believe him if he told them.

It's not only my experience but it's also science. When you punish criminals harshly and put them away, all you're doing is breeding criminals. The worst thing that can happen is that they identify with it. Which tends to happen in jail. Seeing it as a way of life rather than a tool to survive. All the old friends I have which went to jail are all such fuck ups. They all have at best dead end jobs, still do drugs and fuck teenage chicks even though they're waaaay too old for it. And the ones with kids are even worse. They're hardly working hard to make the world a better place. All thanks to the forces of justice. It's not that they're all that bad people. But who the fuck hires an ex-convict for anything interesting?

As I said. The only way to combat crime is to take away the underlying reason. There's no obvious simple solution. Especially not carrying guns like some vigilante macho nerd protecting the good from the evil. It might feel like you're doing something good but until the criminals needs can be met some other way he'll just keep going. As a crime victim your only two options that make any difference is 1) shoot to kill. Problem solved for ever. 2) just forget about it and call your insurance company. Or your goal is simple revenge. Can't really argue that one. But it will only make matters worse. The state pays for jail time which comes from your pocket. Unless you're a criminal in case it won't. It's a lose - lose.

Guns as a deterrent against crime doesn't work. There's plenty of research to back that one up. I doubt if it's a deterrent against ones government turning into a dictatorship either. There's a massive difference between a soldier and a private citizen other than just guns.

I'm very ranty now. And I apologise for that. But this is something I both feel strongly about and know a lot about. Since this was a very long time ago I've gotten a lot of perspective.

[Rhabbi]

I have not looked at this thread for a while, so am weighing in late. I am going to come down on the side of people owning weapons though. What I see happening in the US can only be stopped if enough people have the power to speak up. The erosion of our freedoms since 9/11 is inexcusable, and I know that Bin Laden is laughing his fool head off at the Patriot Act.

The ACLU is able to speak up and fight in court because there are a bunch of people who own guns who will fight the government if it tried anything against them. And anyone who thinks democracies are safe need not even look to history for examples of democracies gone bad. Look at what is happening in Nicaragua. Chavez was elected there, bit there will never be another election as long as he is alive. This is not speculation, it is what is happening now.

Gun control does not work. I know that proponents can point to Switzerland and a few other countries as proof that it does, but are they really examples of gun control working, or of national pride? Switzerland has a long history of being independant, and there army is respected on reputation more than ability. If any country were to seriously decide to attack Switzerland they would fall rather quickly, despite the advantages that they have defensively from the Alps, and the fact that every able bodied person is technically in the Swiss Armed Forces, which is almost a militia in structure.

Since the original framers of the US Constition envisioned a militia more than an army, perhaps the reason that Switzerland actually has effective gun control is that they have a well armed militia. I wonder what will happen to the citezens of Switzerland if the movement to disband the army ever actually succeeds.

[TomOfSweden]

Sorry about stealing the thread away. I can get a bit emotional about this. So that's why it's so incoherent.

According to Pinker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinker) we all like to think of ourselves as if we understand the world a little bit better than everybody else. We like to think that we are a little bit more moral than everybody else. The problem is off-course that it's never or very seldom the case. No matter how much it looks like it to us. That's a quote BTW.

I understand that we need to create these mythical evil and vicious people who are purely destructive people to maintain the image of our own moral greatness.

Just like those gang bangers WB was describing. It's obviously bollocks. What possible gain could they or the gang get from killing a random person? They'll get the cops on their case for one! I don't believe that has ever happened no matter what the paper says. Beside the fact that the murder of a random person is immoral to everybody, no matter your stance. Nobody thinks murder is "nothing" or "cool". Whenever people get killed because of street crime I think is mostly down to freaky random shit that nobody had planned. I think it's at best sensationalist press talking.

[bthest]

But this is something I both feel strongly about and know a lot about.

I beg to differ. You don't seem have much knowledge on US self-defense laws, gun laws and the gun owning culture (which represents over 80,000,000 people in the US). Such as resorting to stereotypes such as "macho men" and "vigilante" which couldn't be further from the truth.

Just my observations.

[TomOfSweden]

I beg to differ. You don't seem have much knowledge on US self-defense laws, gun laws and the gun owning culture (which represents over 80,000,000 people in the US). Such as resorting to stereotypes such as "macho men" and "vigilante" which couldn't be further from the truth.

Just my observations.

Sorry. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the motives to commit crime. And you are quite correct in that I don't understand why US citizens feel the need to carry weapons. If that's down to lack of knowledge I'll leave open. All the motives I've heard so far have all been pretty superficial though. But hey, who am I to judge? I don't live there. But if you look at statistics of murder rates in USA and compare them to most other countries we all see that something is amiss in USA. Whether it's down to the gun laws, gun culture or something else is an other debate all together.

[Guest 91108]

I could argue much is amiss in other countries.
Much is amiss when .gov decides it can defend citizens better than they can themselves.. while elderly are beaten regularly for the measing things that are taken. where is the government then?
What is amiss when the goverment decides to gas defenseless people as it did in Iraq?
What is amiss when people can't walk this planet without worrying of manmade borders and walls that prevent us from enjoying all that is natural nad beautiful.
What is amiss when culture overrides the knowing and understanding your fellow man regardless of language?

Yes ToS much is amiss but it does not all reside in the US.
Open your eyes and stop reading so much and look around and experience the world as it is.

[nia25]

It seems to me that the debate here is not about guns, but about crime. THere is so much more to guns than defending yourself if your house is robbed. As a teenager I learned how to handle guns at around 14 years old. For my family and I it is a sport. Why should something I enjoy doing be illegal just because some idiot gets a hold of a gun and decides to shoot people? Now given the chance if need be I am sure that I would use it in defense; but owning a gun would not make me feel safer or make me feel macho. The only reason I do not own a gun right now is because my hobbies cost more than what is in the bank. Given the chance I will buy a gun; and no I will not use it to shoot someone. The real question here is why does the government feel the need for gun control? They have made illegal guns that are semi automatic because they are dangerous. Sorry but I think a bullet from a .22 can kill someone just as much as anything coming out of a semi automatic. I feel that if people were more educated on the use of guns that maybe it wouldn't be such a problem. There will always be some idiot out there that will get a hold of a gun and shoot someone or a bunch of people. More than likely that idiot who does so will get that gun illegally. Obviously it is the law abiding citizens who are being punished for other's stupidity. But, that's how the world is.

[Ozme52]

I really like this thread. I'm still undecided towards guns, sometimes I think the world would be better without them, and sometimes guns are just as dangerous as a regular knife found in a kitchen.


Yep... and I actually agree with this statement.
1) Bows and crossbows are hard to conceal.
2) I'm rather skilled with edged weapons. They're so much more up close and personal.

But it was also much easier to kill someone who gave offense and get away with it... so... maybe the world wouldn't be a better place... where the strongest man gets to bully you.

"God made man. Colt made men equal."

[Ozme52]

aaaah I wondered where this thread went.

I think that the main reason why we get such a heated discussion here is because Tom and I live in Sweden where we havent had a war for the past 200+ years and you in the US have had lots of fighting in the past few hundred years.
Our societys look different and we dont have the same amount of violent crimes nor the same amount of people carrying guns. There might not be a link between the two or there might.
Swedes cant get a permit to carry a concealed weapon at all and we dont feel as "scared" of what our government does as it seems like you do from your posts. We never had the need for every person to carry a gun to defend themselves even.

Simply put our past and present look very different and that is why our opinions differ.
It is most definitely an interresting discussion though.

my 5 eurodollars ;)

Careful there me bucko. Some might say Sweden remains neutral so they can sell weapons to both sides.

On the other hand, you took in a lot of refugees.

But don't knock us for coming to the rescue when our friends were in need. (I know, that's a simple statement in a complex world... then and now.)

[Ozme52]

I agree difference in war here and wars abroad is very different ...
People have forgotten that it can and will come home again one day.

WWI and WWII was not internal.

political conflicts using military , police actions, etc should not be called wars.
Examples Korean War wasn't ours truly. Vietnam Wasn't a war although it felt like it to those who went. Grenada wasn't a war. Gulf War I & II are hardly war, though the government is waging a form of it. I do not think it's the same or we would have the draft back. ( which may yet come, if they don't bring the troops home. see sustainability in searches. )

Way I look at it .. We've only had two wars here.
And I won't go into the second one ATM.

IMO, That's splitting hairs.

The last war Sweden "waged" was during the Napoleonic era and their policy of neutrality comes around 1812... because they lost A LOT of territory back then. Finnland, for example...

We also had a war in 1812. Call it what you want, we fought... Mexico, American Indians, ourselves, more indians, Spain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Germany again, Italy, Japan, North Korea, China, North Vietnam, Cuba, Greneda, Panama, Iraq twice.

[Ozme52]

Just like those gang bangers WB was describing. It's obviously bollocks. What possible gain could they or the gang get from killing a random person? They'll get the cops on their case for one! I don't believe that has ever happened no matter what the paper says. Beside the fact that the murder of a random person is immoral to everybody, no matter your stance. Nobody thinks murder is "nothing" or "cool". Whenever people get killed because of street crime I think is mostly down to freaky random shit that nobody had planned. I think it's at best sensationalist press talking.

Well, I think WB got the motivation wrong... but they do in fact initiate members by random violent crime... and the worst of the gangs do so by murder. Kind of hard to turn on your fellow members if you yourself are a murderer. Even harder for law enforcement to infiltrate a gang if he has to kill someone to do so. THAT, in part, is why they initiate the way they do.

[Ozme52]

It seems to me that the debate here is not about guns, but about crime. THere is so much more to guns than defending yourself if your house is robbed. As a teenager I learned how to handle guns at around 14 years old. For my family and I it is a sport. Why should something I enjoy doing be illegal just because some idiot gets a hold of a gun and decides to shoot people? Now given the chance if need be I am sure that I would use it in defense; but owning a gun would not make me feel safer or make me feel macho. The only reason I do not own a gun right now is because my hobbies cost more than what is in the bank. Given the chance I will buy a gun; and no I will not use it to shoot someone. The real question here is why does the government feel the need for gun control? They have made illegal guns that are semi automatic because they are dangerous. Sorry but I think a bullet from a .22 can kill someone just as much as anything coming out of a semi automatic. I feel that if people were more educated on the use of guns that maybe it wouldn't be such a problem. There will always be some idiot out there that will get a hold of a gun and shoot someone or a bunch of people. More than likely that idiot who does so will get that gun illegally. Obviously it is the law abiding citizens who are being punished for other's stupidity. But, that's how the world is.



This is also a very good point... Why automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Because I can spray bullets? I can do that with a shotgun too. And most of the countries with gun laws omit shotguns... the ultimate sporting weapon... but also a military weapon back when automatics weren't available.

In humor, I suggested that cars with automatic transmissions should be outlawed because when using a car as a weapon, more people use cars with automatic transmissions than with standard transmissions. And it's easier to jump a curb or change directions with an automatic.

To me... it's the same kind of logic. :rolleyes:

[Stone]

Ok I did not want to post anymore but I have to put my 2 cents in on this.

First of all blaming someone’s criminal behavior on poverty is absurd. How about getting a fucking job instead of stealing and robbing from others who work hard for what they have weather it be a little or a lot.
Second there are criminals that do kill people because they are witnesses the mafia is notorious for it along with child molesters rapist and here in America the 3 time losers (people who will do life in prison for committing a third felony)
Third We have the right to bare arms in America not just so we can defend our self’s from other countries invading but also so we can over throw our own if we feel the need that it has become unjust,
Fourth do we need to fear our government? Yes we do, do I need to remind every one about what happened in Waco Texas. Sure David Koresh was a total nut job, but did our government need to do what they did causing the deaths of 74 men women and children all because some minor gun charges he was facing keep in mind at the time no one knew about the child molestation that was going on.
Second example Ruby Ridge Idaho another example of our government gone wrong Randy Weaver was facing again minor guns charges. The FBI/ATF decided to storm his house and as a result His 14 year old son was killed and later on a sniper shot his wife while she was standing on the front porch holding a baby.
Fifth we have serial killers, rapists, child molesters, and just plain old murders here in America these criminals have no conscience they do not care about what they do to get what they want if you are they you are just in the way.
So do not think that the government does not do wrong it happens.
So in closing I own guns and I love to hunt. Would I use a gun to protect myself or my family or a complete stranger? Hell yes I would. Like I stated before if we made it illegal to have guns here and by some miracle every single last gun was turned it or people killed to get them because some of us won’t just hand over our guns. Would crime stop? Would murders stop? Hell NO! They would use knives, so what now? Outlaw those too? Then well they would use chainsaws…..not what outlaw those too? A criminal will use whatever it takes to get what they want period

[Guest 91108]

Masterstone that is what Australia is doing. gone from firearms to long blades .. last i heard they were considering baseball bats. small chuckles

[nia25]

This is also a very good point... Why automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Because I can spray bullets? I can do that with a shotgun too. And most of the countries with gun laws omit shotguns... the ultimate sporting weapon... but also a military weapon back when automatics weren't available.

In humor, I suggested that cars with automatic transmissions should be outlawed because when using a car as a weapon, more people use cars with automatic transmissions than with standard transmissions. And it's easier to jump a curb or change directions with an automatic.

To me... it's the same kind of logic. :rolleyes:

TOTALLY agree with that one... LOL It's almost as though they feel they can control everything... wait they almost can!

[nia25]

Ok I did not want to post anymore but I have to put my 2 cents in on this.

First of all blaming someone’s criminal behavior on poverty is absurd. How about getting a fucking job instead of stealing and robbing from others who work hard for what they have weather it be a little or a lot.
Second there are criminals that do kill people because they are witnesses the mafia is notorious for it along with child molesters rapist and here in America the 3 time losers (people who will do life in prison for committing a third felony)
Third We have the right to bare arms in America not just so we can defend our self’s from other countries invading but also so we can over throw our own if we feel the need that it has become unjust,
Fourth do we need to fear our government? Yes we do, do I need to remind every one about what happened in Waco Texas. Sure David Koresh was a total nut job, but did our government need to do what they did causing the deaths of 74 men women and children all because some minor gun charges he was facing keep in mind at the time no one knew about the child molestation that was going on.
Second example Ruby Ridge Idaho another example of our government gone wrong Randy Weaver was facing again minor guns charges. The FBI/ATF decided to storm his house and as a result His 14 year old son was killed and later on a sniper shot his wife while she was standing on the front porch holding a baby.
Fifth we have serial killers, rapists, child molesters, and just plain old murders here in America these criminals have no conscience they do not care about what they do to get what they want if you are they you are just in the way.
So do not think that the government does not do wrong it happens.
So in closing I own guns and I love to hunt. Would I use a gun to protect myself or my family or a complete stranger? Hell yes I would. Like I stated before if we made it illegal to have guns here and by some miracle every single last gun was turned it or people killed to get them because some of us won’t just hand over our guns. Would crime stop? Would murders stop? Hell NO! They would use knives, so what now? Outlaw those too? Then well they would use chainsaws…..not what outlaw those too? A criminal will use whatever it takes to get what they want period


Well said... and there are always ways to get guns illegally!

[ElectricBadger]

When people today say "democracy" I'd say that they by default mean "liberal democracy" and the interpretation of the opposite is mostly down to a know-it-all trying to shine a bit isn't it?

Hmm...exactly what, then, do you mean by "liberal democracy"? Personally, I interpret democracy fairly generously, but also, I think, fairly conventionally as a governmental system in which a free vote of a sizable portion of the population leads to laws and leadership. TRUE democracy, to my understanding, is a decision by simple majority upon all governmental decisions by all members of the population...which has never existed in national government (and, imo, never will or should).


USA wasn't a fully functioning liberal democracy until 1920 with every state allowing women to vote. No matter how often George Washington use the word "freedom" in 1776.

Again, I'm curious as to your definition of liberal democracy. There is only one(!) decision made by vote by all Americans able to vote, once every four years -- the President, someone to make decisions for us. Even this is not by simple majority (meaning a majority vote does not always win; a minority vote can -- and has -- elected presidents). Even in this vote, there are many people excluded: non-citizen residents, minors, and felons. I never voted on marraige laws, health care, or going to war.

And for the record, the writers of the Constitution abhorred the excesses of democracy and the carnage and repression of the French Revolution, and took exceptional steps to ensure the US was NOT democratic, but instead Republican. It was only in later reinterpretations (particularly beginning with Andrew Jackson) that we imagined "of the people" equated "democratic."


A very important thing to bear in mind is that there to date have still not been any armed conflicts between two functioning liberal democracies.

Hrm...I guess one could claim that Hitler's Germany, and FDR's US, weren't functioning liberal democracies, as both were under martial law and suspension of civil rights at the time...but those suspensions were per democratic (my interpretation) constitutions and followed elections, so that seems a bit of a stretch to me.

And..."know-it-all trying to shine a bit"...refuting knowledge with rude comments is beneath you, Tom. I invite disagreement, I welcome it -- I learn nothing from nodding heads -- but please be polite. End of rant :)

[TomOfSweden]

I could argue much is amiss in other countries.
Much is amiss when .gov decides it can defend citizens better than they can themselves.. while elderly are beaten regularly for the measing things that are taken. where is the government then?


Ok, that's fine, but this attitude is actually at odds with the idea of liberal democracy. The government should defend the citizens better than they can defend themselves to make sure everybody is equal under the law. The border between defending and being proactive isn't exactly clear, is it? When does the proactive measure become a one sided aggressive act? How is the law supposed to address that?

I don't have any problems with people defending themselves when they're attacked. It's the part of doing it better than the cops or army that I've problems with. The state should be better than it's citizens to ensure that the laws of the country are upheld, and not the strong citizens own vigilante book of law. The law of the strong is what we're trying to avoid by liberal democracy, isn't it?



What is amiss when the goverment decides to gas defenseless people as it did in Iraq?


If Bush would seize power with the army in USA, you'd be fucked. No matter how much guns you have. USA has the most powerful and experienced army in the world. Backed up by extremely powerful CIA and FBI you wouldn't have a chance in hell to stop him. But this is all assuming the army would back a dictatorship up in USA, which would be a first. There is no examples in history of a stable democracy with a generation having grown up with democratic traditions reverting to a military dictatorship, (or a shit loads of generations since 1776).

I hear that as an argument against gun control all the time, and even if it sounds good, it has no relevance to USA.



What is amiss when people can't walk this planet without worrying of manmade borders and walls that prevent us from enjoying all that is natural nad beautiful.
What is amiss when culture overrides the knowing and understanding your fellow man regardless of language?

How are these arguments for guns?

Yes ToS much is amiss but it does not all reside in the US.
Open your eyes and stop reading so much and look around and experience the world as it is.


But I'm not for gun control as such. I'm just for anything that can make the world safer. If guns lead to a safer USA I'd like to see something to back it up. I know off-course that statistics can be read very liberally depending on what you're trying to prove. :) But do somebody really deny the vast number of murders committed in USA? If it's not guns that's the problem, then what is it?

[TomOfSweden]

Ok I did not want to post anymore but I have to put my 2 cents in on this.

First of all blaming someone’s criminal behavior on poverty is absurd. How about getting a fucking job instead of stealing and robbing from others who work hard for what they have weather it be a little or a lot.


I'm talking about the criminal lifestyle. Not white collar crime. Off-course there's plenty ways to commit crime which I'm not addressing at all. I'm talking about people breaking into your home and stealing your VCR or your car. If it's not poverty motivating them, then what is it? Fun?



Second there are criminals that do kill people because they are witnesses the mafia is notorious for it along with child molesters rapist and here in America the 3 time losers (people who will do life in prison for committing a third felony)


ok. Nobody has anything to either back it up or refute so let's just leave this.



Third We have the right to bare arms in America not just so we can defend our self’s from other countries invading but also so we can over throw our own if we feel the need that it has become unjust,
Fourth do we need to fear our government? Yes we do, do I need to remind every one about what happened in Waco Texas. Sure David Koresh was a total nut job, but did our government need to do what they did causing the deaths of 74 men women and children all because some minor gun charges he was facing keep in mind at the time no one knew about the child molestation that was going on.
Second example Ruby Ridge Idaho another example of our government gone wrong Randy Weaver was facing again minor guns charges. The FBI/ATF decided to storm his house and as a result His 14 year old son was killed and later on a sniper shot his wife while she was standing on the front porch holding a baby.


Seriously. What if some nutty right wing or communist government would come to power in USA. They'd been elected!!! Would you really take arms against it even though it had been democratically elected? Isn't the whole point with democracy that we hand over power to the government and put up with shit we might not agree with just to keep the peace.

Your examples are a bit silly. The cops have the mandate they've received from the people. If you don't like the cops enforcing laws you've voted for, then vote for something else. Considering the number of grass roots lobby organisations and how fast USA adapts new science into policy, (compared to Europe). I'd say USA has the worlds most well functioning democracy. We might not like what's been voted for. Like creationism in Kansas. But the fact that it almost became law in USA means that the people feel empowered. Democracy is more an attitude and tradition rather than the set of rules in the constitution.

So, government and cops fuck up. That's not the issue here. The issue here is whether private citizen protecting themselves with guns, will fuck it up more than the law enforcers....with guns?




Fifth we have serial killers, rapists, child molesters, and just plain old murders here in America these criminals have no conscience they do not care about what they do to get what they want if you are they you are just in the way.
So do not think that the government does not do wrong it happens.
So in closing I own guns and I love to hunt. Would I use a gun to protect myself or my family or a complete stranger? Hell yes I would. Like I stated before if we made it illegal to have guns here and by some miracle every single last gun was turned it or people killed to get them because some of us won’t just hand over our guns. Would crime stop? Would murders stop? Hell NO! They would use knives, so what now? Outlaw those too? Then well they would use chainsaws…..not what outlaw those too? A criminal will use whatever it takes to get what they want period

Here we go again with the mythical cold hearted evil criminal mind. Yes, a criminal will use what ever it takes to get what they want. But how that is an argument against gun control is beyond me. They will get what they want. If not from you then somebody else.

I suggest looking at interviews with criminals on youtube. It's fun. Beside from the loony ones, because there's a fair share of those. But the sane ones. They all talk about eating vast quantities of ****** and various tranqilizers before comiting their crimes. Does that seem like people with no conscience? Cold blooded killers? Does that sound like people who don't know they're doing wrong?

Very few criminals make enough money from their life style to make it worth it more than having any old shity down and out job. Career criminals go in and out of jail all the time. What kind of person would rather do that than get a job do you think? Is it laziness? Idiocy? The search for status among teenagers?

People here seem quite comfortable hypothesizing about the criminal mind without seeming to feel the need to explain it. It's treated as if it's the truth. Even though the people described are the most inhuman of monsters. I need more than that. I don't believe in monsters under the bed either.

Again. I'm not for gun control as such. The issue is a lot more complicated than being about just the guns alone.

[TomOfSweden]

Hmm...exactly what, then, do you mean by "liberal democracy"? Personally, I interpret democracy fairly generously, but also, I think, fairly conventionally as a governmental system in which a free vote of a sizable portion of the population leads to laws and leadership. TRUE democracy, to my understanding, is a decision by simple majority upon all governmental decisions by all members of the population...which has never existed in national government (and, imo, never will or should).



Again, I'm curious as to your definition of liberal democracy. There is only one(!) decision made by vote by all Americans able to vote, once every four years -- the President, someone to make decisions for us. Even this is not by simple majority (meaning a majority vote does not always win; a minority vote can -- and has -- elected presidents). Even in this vote, there are many people excluded: non-citizen residents, minors, and felons. I never voted on marraige laws, health care, or going to war.

And for the record, the writers of the Constitution abhorred the excesses of democracy and the carnage and repression of the French Revolution, and took exceptional steps to ensure the US was NOT democratic, but instead Republican. It was only in later reinterpretations (particularly beginning with Andrew Jackson) that we imagined "of the people" equated "democratic."



Hrm...I guess one could claim that Hitler's Germany, and FDR's US, weren't functioning liberal democracies, as both were under martial law and suspension of civil rights at the time...but those suspensions were per democratic (my interpretation) constitutions and followed elections, so that seems a bit of a stretch to me.

And..."know-it-all trying to shine a bit"...refuting knowledge with rude comments is beneath you, Tom. I invite disagreement, I welcome it -- I learn nothing from nodding heads -- but please be polite. End of rant :)

Sorry, I didn't think you'd take it as an insult. I think I may have needed a smiley there.

"Liberal democracy" is pretty well defined. You can look it up anywhere. It's not really open to interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

Yeah, I think I would argue that Hitler's Germany was not a fully functioning democracy. Considering the fact that he was elected on a vocal anti-democratic platform. Since the people obviously didn't believe in the merits of democracy it's an indication the democracy isn't working.

[hikochan]

Just like those gang bangers WB was describing. It's obviously bollocks. What possible gain could they or the gang get from killing a random person? They'll get the cops on their case for one! I don't believe that has ever happened no matter what the paper says. Beside the fact that the murder of a random person is immoral to everybody, no matter your stance. Nobody thinks murder is "nothing" or "cool". Whenever people get killed because of street crime I think is mostly down to freaky random shit that nobody had planned. I think it's at best sensationalist press talking.

Yeah, try living in Chicago. People can and do kill people for no reason at all every single day. When I lived on the West side, gun fire was merely background noise. I got used to it! Now that's scary!

There is quite a difference in how people in the USA view guns, depending on the area in which they live. Here in the city people are horrified to hear that my dad taught me how to use a gun when I was eight; To know that my mom and her husband carry concealed weapons; That my youngest sister got her first shotgun when she was 13. In the city people tend to view guns as these horrible things that only gang bangers and cops have and don't see any reason for an upright citizen to have one. Out in the country it seems that everyone has a least one just to go hunting at the very least, but they will also tell you it's for their own protection. They will also tell you that if you are taught responsibility along with that gun then there is really very little danger of it being used for ill purposes.

I don't have time to make this as clear as I would like, but I will come back it as soon as I can.

[Guest 91108]

ToS discussing something with you involved in the thread is frustrating at times.

[Ozme52]

ToS discussing something with you involved in the thread is frustrating at times.

I'd suggest you haven't made a convincing arguement. Of all the people here (at the library,) Tom has been one of the most willing to modify or moderate his position when the arguement has convinced him.

I think you're upset because his counterpoints have merit.

[Guest 91108]

Oz, not to me, but then .... what does that matter, eh?

[annie]

*Sighs and attempts this again...*

Ok everyone...

Still a great discussion... but my edit button is back to working and if things continue as they are there will be items considered as flaming.

You may disagree and argue and state your point as many times as you wish. BUT... do not make personal comments or statements about others.

This is the 2nd... and the last warning on this. Next time not only will posts be edited but warnings will be given and further action taken if need be...

*gives my bestest sternest MODly look... *

[Guest 91108]

No problems annie..
I saw the situation already. But not editing my posts anymore

[rach]

I think the issue here is a difference in mentality about guns and the causes of crime.

However well a argument is presented, with whatever evidence, the discusees ( is that a word?) will always come back to their own opinions, and probably be able to support them with statistics too, so the argument will always be circular.

rach

[Guest 91108]

Thank you rach that is correct.

[TomOfSweden]

I think the issue here is a difference in mentality about guns and the causes of crime.

However well a argument is presented, with whatever evidence, the discusees ( is that a word?) will always come back to their own opinions, and probably be able to support them with statistics too, so the argument will always be circular.

rach

No, that is the definition of bad communication. I hope it isn't what we're having here. There's a big difference between a political campaign and a friendly discussion. I'm preparing a little longer reply on my opinion/theory of the origins of crime. At least what it means to me.

Thank you Ozme for those very kind words. Wolf, I'm really trying not to be an annoying know-it-all which I know I have a tendency to be. My goal is never to win. Only to test my opinions and if possible learn something.

[hikochan]

Thank you Ozme for those very kind words. Wolf, I'm really trying not to be an annoying know-it-all which I know I have a tendency to be. My goal is never to win. Only to test my opinions and if possible learn something.
Well I feel like I'm learning something at any rate. This has a been a really interesting thread!

[rach]

No, that is the definition of bad communication.

I disagree with you on that. I think sometimes it might be bad communication but not always.

I've had friendly discussions with people, and have known by the end of a frank and complete discussion, that we will not agree on that particular topic. It might be due to personal experiences or political leanings, but whatever the reason we simply have a different mindset, and therefore opposing views on the subject in hand. So the discussion is ultimately circular not due to poor communication, but due to strong yet differing opinions.

I'm not saying the discussion isn't an interesting one, and it certainly opens people's eyes to new opinions, and information, but if the same people are in the discussion, it will end up back where it started.

[annie]

I've had friendly discussions with people, and have known by the end of a frank and complete discussion, that we will not agree on that particular topic. It might be due to personal experiences or political leanings, but whatever the reason we simply have a different mindset, and therefore opposing views on the subject in hand. So the discussion is ultimately circular not due to poor communication, but due to strong yet differing opinions.

Exactly... as the marriage counselor my husband and I have used before once said...

"Sometimes you have to agree to disagree because of your own personal experiences and beliefs."

[nia25]

No, that is the definition of bad communication. I hope it isn't what we're having here. There's a big difference between a political campaign and a friendly discussion. I'm preparing a little longer reply on my opinion/theory of the origins of crime. At least what it means to me.

Thank you Ozme for those very kind words. Wolf, I'm really trying not to be an annoying know-it-all which I know I have a tendency to be. My goal is never to win. Only to test my opinions and if possible learn something.

People feel the way they feel, and I highly doubt that this discussion would change your opinion on guns anymore than it will change mine. But it is interesting to see how other people feel about these things.

[Guest 91108]

Thanks rach for your post.

I agree to disagree with many when they are not likely to move or I am not.
sometimes you have to know or be hinted at.. or told bluntly the topic is at an end.

[annie]

I certainly don't want to end a good conversation... but if it is causing frustration may be a good idea to step back for a bit! Otherwise... debate away!

[TomOfSweden]

I disagree with you on that. I think sometimes it might be bad communication but not always.

I've had friendly discussions with people, and have known by the end of a frank and complete discussion, that we will not agree on that particular topic. It might be due to personal experiences or political leanings, but whatever the reason we simply have a different mindset, and therefore opposing views on the subject in hand. So the discussion is ultimately circular not due to poor communication, but due to strong yet differing opinions.

I'm not saying the discussion isn't an interesting one, and it certainly opens people's eyes to new opinions, and information, but if the same people are in the discussion, it will end up back where it started.

Unsurprisingly, I don't agree.

Constructive discussions always work backwards toward the premises and argue their relevance and value and then argue about what can be deduced from the mutually agreed upon premises. Or it should be.

People who use ideological or faith based leanings as an excuse not to try their premises or assumptions are just plain lazy and shouldn't get into discussions at all. But I don't think that's the case here at all. All it needs is two parties with differing opinions to keep a discussion going in a constructive manner. No matter of how many other people might be participating.

Circular reasoning is always down to laziness. Distilled circular reasoning can be summed up as, "it is because it is". That is what happens when people haven't attacked their own arguments enough before reaching a conclusion, and therefore do not know why they believe the way they do. And on top of that aren't willing to do it once it's been revealed.

All arguments are by its nature a cooperative venture. No matter how heated the discussion might get. Everybody taking part, do so because they value the opinions of the "opponent". I think it is a beautiful act. Often frustrating and annoying. But that's the price to pay for knowledge. Even if you keep your own opinion it can still be valuable since your opinion now has been tested, and your faith in it is strengthened. Distilling which specific premises we might disagree on is also valuable information.

[Warbaby1943]

Looks like another great discussion was killed and done without a gun. No matter, I'm still going to a class to renew my CWP this weekend. Any criminals out there I need to be on the lookout for?

[nk_lion]

Perhaps someone let me know, to own a gun in US, do you need to attend any type of classes or get some license to own one?

[Guest 91108]

Not in this State of SC, NK.
for handguns ... You must be 21 years old, a non-felon, you must have a background check ( ie. 5 day wait) unless you possess a CCW/CWP.
For rifles and shotguns the age is 19 I think, and fill out proper paperwork, been so long since i bought a rifle I don't know if they do a background check for a rifle or not. They used to not.
The only thing class wise mandatory at this point is any hunter born after 1986 must attend Hunter's Ed a class mostly on state laws and hunting morals to obtain hunting permit.

[nk_lion]

What does a background check include and what's a CCW and CWP?

Reasoning for thsis question is because my old boss told me something a while back that struck a cord with me.
He, btw was a big supporter of gun ownership, and the right to bear arms. And was talking specifically about Canada.

He mentioned that to get a full driver's license in Ontario, you have to first study and do a written test, get a learners permit to which you are allowed to drive with a lot of restrictions. After 8 months, and recommended 5 day in-class lessons and driving practise, you get your second license, and finally at any point after then you have to go for another test to finally get your permanent license. All for driving a car.

Gun laws require a simple registery and no classes of any kind. Now those who obey the laws won't go on a gun rampage. But to me it makes more sense having some type of mandatory gun ownership classes, maybe a pych evaluation as well. Perhaps some lessons that will also include protecting your gun so that there are less illegal ones on the street.

I personally support the ability to own guns on the basis that it can be used for sport, and not for self defence. After all isn't that the beauty of democracy, if you feel the government is doing something wrong, you can take a stand using words not violence.

[Guest 91108]

A Background check is a SLED ( State Law Enforcement Division) check to see if your name/id/Info is in the nicks system. if so you are denied.
CCW/CWP is a license to carry a concealed handgun upon your person.

I disagree with your reasons to/for ownership; but that is enough to say at this place.

[cadence]

What does a background check include and what's a CCW and CWP?

Reasoning for thsis question is because my old boss told me something a while back that struck a cord with me.
He, btw was a big supporter of gun ownership, and the right to bear arms. And was talking specifically about Canada.

He mentioned that to get a full driver's license in Ontario, you have to first study and do a written test, get a learners permit to which you are allowed to drive with a lot of restrictions. After 8 months, and recommended 5 day in-class lessons and driving practise, you get your second license, and finally at any point after then you have to go for another test to finally get your permanent license. All for driving a car.

Gun laws require a simple registery and no classes of any kind. Now those who obey the laws won't go on a gun rampage. But to me it makes more sense having some type of mandatory gun ownership classes, maybe a pych evaluation as well. Perhaps some lessons that will also include protecting your gun so that there are less illegal ones on the street.

I personally support the ability to own guns on the basis that it can be used for sport, and not for self defence. After all isn't that the beauty of democracy, if you feel the government is doing something wrong, you can take a stand using words not violence.





Actually NK, I understand the comparison with driving tests, but there is a bit more to it than registering your gun.


While there are no official classes to obtain a gun in Canada, you are required to write an FAC, in order to purchase one. There are two tests, one with fifty or so multiple questions, and then on to a demo, where you prove you can handle a firearm. I am unsure though if the testing is still the same now.

There are background checks as well.
And if you do not lock up your guns and ammunition properly, you can be charged, even if they are stolen.

If you want to take possesion of, or own a gun, you need to have a PAL (Possession and Licence) another test, but I am uncertain as to what the test involves.

You need an FAC to buy a gun, and a PAL in order to keep them, due to the new gun registry.
If the person who now owns and buys a gun, wants to go hunting with it, they must take a week long course on gun saftey, and hunting regulations.

[Platonicus]

At any rate, God created men and Mr. Colt made them equal :)

[bthest]

Not in this State of SC, NK.
for handguns ... You must be 21 years old, a non-felon, you must have a background check ( ie. 5 day wait) unless you possess a CCW/CWP.
For rifles and shotguns the age is 19 I think, and fill out proper paperwork, been so long since i bought a rifle I don't know if they do a background check for a rifle or not. They used to not.

There are national instant background checks for both rifles and handguns through out the US (federal law). You also have to fill out 4473 form (also federal law). Felons don't get any firearm, period.

All of it is useless of course and does not stop or even slow down criminals in the slightest which makes me wonder why we don't just go back to following the US constitution?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And do away with all of these federal laws.

[Warbaby1943]

And do away with all of these federal laws.
Agreed but then what would we as citizens and tax payers spend all our money on if we didn't have the government to waste it all?

[Guest 91108]

bthest.. in SC if you have a CWP, you are exempt from background check.
Fill out 4473 form yes. call it in .. nope. smiles.

[nk_lion]

I disagree with your reasons to/for ownership; but that is enough to say at this place.

I respect that, I haven't lived long enough to really worry about the existance of guns yet, but I have heard of stories where gun ownership with the purpose of self defence has saved lives.

[nia25]

Agreed but then what would we as citizens and tax payers spend all our money on if we didn't have the government to waste it all?

People on Welfare (who abuse it)... but that's another thread! lol

[Ozme52]

Actually, it's been positted that if we didn't administer the welfare programs... just gave it to anyone who said they needed it... we'd save enough money to pay for the extra claims, and have enough left over to repair most of the national infrastructure.

Governnemt = waste.

[cariad]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Looking in from the other side of the pond...

Did that not mean that people were given a right to bear arms to protect The state, not that they have a right to bear arms to protect their own their own private and personal state?

cariad

[Guest 91108]

Nope, courts have ruled that it means protection at all three levels.
If they are not safe in their homes.. they can't protect local, state or federal.

[Euryleia]

Perhaps someone let me know, to own a gun in US, do you need to attend any type of classes or get some license to own one?

I only know about the states where I've had residency. I'm a gun owner and the only state I ever had to get a license to own was California. I also had to pass a basic firearm safety class. In Alabama, you do have to pass a class to get a hunting license (that includes firearm safety) but don't have to do anything to own a firearm. There wasn't even a wait period for my most recent purchase in Louisiana--the gun store had a shooting club attached and so it was considered a 'private sale.'

[Euryleia]

At any rate, God created men and Mr. Colt made them equal :)

The way I heard it was:
God created men and women equal and Swith and Wesson makes damn sure it stays that way.

[Platonicus]

The way I heard it was:
God created men and women equal and Smith and Wesson makes damn sure it stays that way.

Well, admittedly I haven't heard it that way, but as the sentiments your alternative expresses do have the cetain ring of truth to them, I won't discount it. And candidly, I wouldn't wish to disagree with one whom I find to be so affable. :)

[Euryleia]

Well, admittedly I haven't heard it that way, but as the sentiments your alternative expresses do have the cetain ring of truth to them, I won't discount it. And candidly, I wouldn't wish to disagree with one whom I find to be so affable. :)

Aw, shucks. :wave:

[Warbaby1943]

Heard a great quote in my CWP renewal calss today. It went something like this. "Don't let carrying a weapon give you a false sense of security."

I think that says a lot.