Firearms yes or no

[waste gate]

As a means of defense, are the use of firearms any less worthy than martial arts?
I attempted to post some parts of the martial arts thread, but, I was unsuccessful.

My opinion is that firearms are no less legitimate as a means of self defense than any other. Am I wrong?

[ASWnut101]

I agree. You can't punch or kick someone across a room...

[ASWnut101]

BUT, in a situation where the fight becomes "CQ" (Close Quarters), firearms loose quite a bit of advantage. In all, it depends on the situation you're in.

[1mPHUNit0]

I agree. You can't punch or kick someone across a room... Yes but you have to put your opponent in a room
And that's it's not so simple if your opponent it's more dinamic
In all, it depends on the situation you're in.
and depends on knowledge of the situation

[Penelope_Grey]

I don't think guns are really as good as Martial Arts when it comes to defending ones self. As to my mind, a gun is an offensive weapon which epitomises the saying, "the best defence is a good offence" guns can kill, Martial Arts can kill, but a skilled Martial Artist cannot accidentally kill someone, they have to do it deliberately, which if they do makes them a murderer. But you can unintentionally kill someone with a gun, there is a good chance of that.

However, both a gun, and Martial Arts knowledge in the wrong hands can be lethal.

[ASWnut101]

I agree. You can't punch or kick someone across a room...
Yes but you have to put your opponent in a room
And that's it's not so simple if your opponent it's more dinamic

And if the opponent puts himself in your bedroom..., it's .357 bullet through his noggin.



but a skilled Martial Artist cannot accidentally kill someone

That kind of thinking is bad. Anyone, MA master or the most accurate shooter in the world, can kill someone unintentionally.

[1mPHUNit0]

That kind of thinking is bad. Anyone, MA master or the most accurate shooter in the world, can kill someone unintentionally.
Hahahahahaha
You are so funny

[ASWnut101]

Ah, so in your mind a MA master is infallable? That's how accidents happen.:yep:

[Penelope_Grey]

That kind of thinking is bad. Anyone, MA master or the most accurate shooter in the world, can kill someone unintentionally.

Oh really? And this kind of thinking is good then;

And if the opponent puts himself in your bedroom..., it's .357 bullet through his noggin.

[ASWnut101]

When it comes to defence of your property and family, yes.

[1mPHUNit0]

Ah, so in your mind a MA master is infallable? That's how accidents happen
You don't know what you are sayng dear.
If you put a gun in front and ...bang.....the error it's not
the bang...but to put the gun in front

[Penelope_Grey]

Well I'll have to remember that in case I murder someone, I can say I was defending myself so it was ok.

[waste gate]

Stability
Dynamics
Calm
knowledge
And so on....they are
Guns alone are nothing

I took the above quote from the 'Martial Arts' thread I believe it comes from 1mPHUNit0 (that's a mouthful).

As I said B4 all these attributes come into play with defence using a firearm, perhaps even more so.

[ASWnut101]

You don't know what you are sayng dear.
If you put a gun in front and ...bang.....the error it's not
the bang...but to put the gun in front


Yes, I do know what I'm saying. Thanks for trying to clarify, though.

Otherwise, you're saying I should just let the intruder have a field day in my home? Not everyone is a MA master, you know. (I know P-G is going to say "And not everyone is a good shot, either:know:)

[ASWnut101]

Well I'll have to remember that in case I murder someone, I can say I was defending myself so it was ok.


Yes.

[Hitman]

My opinion is that firearms are no less legitimate as a means of self defense than any other. Am I wrong?

I can give you a very clear answer from the legal point of view -as far as spanish laws concern, of course, as those are the ones I know- and that is: If you are on a one vs. one situation, as a general rule if you use a gun where the other has no weapons you are screwed legally. The exemption of criminal responsability would never be appreciated as complete, and as such you would more than probably jailed, even if acting in self defence.

a skilled Martial Artist cannot accidentally kill someone

I agree with all you said except with the above quote. My experience tells me that as long as any risky action is involved, a probaility -even if minor- of hurting or even killing someone, exists. I can well remember when sparring at the boxing club how some guys got "accidentally" K.O. even using helmet and big gloves. It sure was their fault by doing an incorrect movement the adversary could not expect -a novice move many times- but the result didn't change that ;)

Accidents happen, and martial arts are an activity prone to them, trust me.

[1mPHUNit0]

No dear
A gun in hand change the situation.
Change:
Stability
Dynamics
Calm
knowledge

[ASWnut101]

Yes, it changes it from someone robbing your house to that someone leaving the house, either to the hospital or in a body bag.

[waste gate]

Well I'll have to remember that in case I murder someone, I can say I was defending myself so it was ok.

What is your definition of murder Penelope? I was talking about self defense.

[1mPHUNit0]

Accidents happen, and martial arts are an activity prone to them, trust me. No, its not so
There are position of blocking
and others positions that kill noting even if you want

[1mPHUNit0]

What is your definition of murder Penelope? I was talking about self defense.
Bullets of Columbine say noting to you?

[TteFAboB]

a skilled Martial Artist cannot accidentally kill someone

Ask Skybird.

Waste-gate what do you mean by worthy? "Legitimate"? In a position of self-defense, I don't recognize the authority of anybody but me to judge the legitimacy of my actions.

Considering the other forms to be worthy, then it's worthy aswell. A dedicated gunslinger can defeat a pack of dedicated swordsmen or dedicated hand-to-hand fighters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol0mfCin8rU

Learn to shoot from the hip and you can engage in CQB. The cowboy wins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY7tsBvkHt8. And the fat cowboy is slowly getting there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8NIsy4fqng

[ASWnut101]

Bullets of Columbine say noting to you?

This <LINK (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00A12F93F5B0C758EDDA80894D94044 82&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fW% 2fWrestling)> says nothing to you?

[Penelope_Grey]

The legal definition is my definition of murder Waste Gate, that is my definition of murder, the unlawful killing of one human by another, and my reply was to ASWnut101.

He was saying in self defence he has the right to kill someone, to actually point a gun at them and kill them deliberately, which is outrageous. Nobody has the right to kill someone, you may have a right to carry a gun but not to kill.

[waste gate]

Bullets of Columbine say noting to you?

Pal, I live within two miles of Columbine HS and go by it at least three times per week. The people involved in the killings were criminals and if there is a better case for allowing responsible people to have and use firearms I cannot think of one.

The deputy placed in the school before hand was the first to run away.

[1mPHUNit0]

This <LINK (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00A12F93F5B0C758EDDA80894D94044 82&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fW% 2fWrestling)> says nothing to you?
I ignore you ...if you understand what it means

[ASWnut101]

So you understand what I'm saying?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I agree. You can't punch or kick someone across a room...

You can if you're Chuck Norris :p


Anyway, this is a debate which has been raging for years. Its my opinion that a firearm is a legitamate defense, yet one which should be used as a real last resort. Why make that burglar's death quick? :arrgh!:

But seriously, in response to Penelope's post, firearms shouldnt be used for outright homicide. At most, a limb shot would be enough, I'd imagine.

[ASWnut101]

What's easier to hit? A arm/leg or the torso?

[waste gate]

The legal definition is my definition of murder Waste Gate, that is my definition of murder, the unlawful killing of one human by another, and my reply was to ASWnut101.

He was saying in self defence he has the right to kill someone, to actually point a gun at them and kill them deliberately, which is outrageous. Nobody has the right to kill someone, you may have a right to carry a gun but not to kill.

Ok. What is the unlawfull taking of life? Is self defense unlawfull? Is taking of another life unlawfull when it is self defense?

[waste gate]

What's easier to hit? A arm/leg or the torso?

Center of mass.

Death is not assured. Stopping the situation is.

[Penelope_Grey]

Ok. What is the unlawfull taking of life? Is self defense unlawfull? Is taking of another life unlawfull when it is self defense?

Self defence is not unlawful, but there is something called reasonable force. And yes killing someone in self-defence is unlawful and the killer deserves to be punished.

Taking another life in the sense we are discussing in this thread is never justified. Not only that how would you sleep at night knowing what you done? I couldn't, if I knew I'd killed someone it would drive me crazy.

[1mPHUNit0]

Self defence.....
The most importanti it's the prevention of the crime.
And sometimes you have to resolve the problem that
generates the crimes
Somethimes you have to use repression
Somethimes you have to educate peoples
Somethimes you have to create social partecipation
And so on.
This is defence

Otherwise is far west
Palestinian far west
Lubnan civil war
Iraq far west
Thake a gun in your hand...then you know what i mean

[waste gate]

Ok. What is the unlawfull taking of life? Is self defense unlawfull? Is taking of another life unlawfull when it is self defense?

Self defence is not unlawful, but there is something called reasonable force. And yes killing someone in self-defence is unlawful and the killer deserves to be punished.

Taking another life in the sense we are discussing in this thread is never justified. Not only that how would you sleep at night knowing what you done? I couldn't, if I knew I'd killed someone it would drive me crazy.

How I or anyone else comes to peace with taking someones life is not really the issue. Reasonable force is only an issue for law enforcement., those folks have been trained in such issues. I'm talking about it's my life or yours, self defense. When I am dead the comfort that my killer will be brought to justice isn't much of a cosnolation.

[DaMaGe007]

I was under the impression that in America you have the right to shoot someone who enters your property ilegaly, in UK and Australia you dont.
Is the part about america correct ?, If it is the law generates a different thinking about these things.

Recently in Australia a guy stabbed a burgler, and he got into trouble for doing it.

[ASWnut101]

I was under the impression that in America you have the right to shoot someone who enters your property ilegaly, in UK and Australia you dont.
Is the part about america correct ?, If it is the law generates a different thinking about these things.

Yes, that's the law.

Recently in Australia a guy stabbed a burgler, and he got into trouble for doing it.

That's pretty sick, I think.

[waste gate]

I was under the impression that in America you have the right to shoot someone who enters your property ilegaly, in UK and Australia you dont.
Is the part about america correct ?, If it is the law generates a different thinking about these things.

Recently in Australia a guy stabbed a burgler, and he got into trouble for doing it.


Not all states have the same laws regarding illeagal entry into ones home. Although in many states the owner of the home has every right to defend his/her life and property his/her use of a firearm it is not an affirmative defense in some states, because the state has left him/her defenseless by not allowing him him/her to own a firearm. The criminal entering the home of course is in a far better position because he/she doesn't obey the law to begin with.

It is unfortunate that people become the criminal by protecting their lives and home in some states.

[1mPHUNit0]

Correct....
But if you live in Palestine the situation
it's not common...very rare or none.
Social structure it's too strong

[Yahoshua]

Ignoring the legal dillemma of firearms vs martial arts and bringing the topic back onto track:

Firearms and martial arts are both viable means of self-defense.

I consider martial arts to be less lethal in principle, as most forms of martial arts are meant to defend oneself against unarmed, armed, and multiple attackers. However, not everyone has the strength, the motivation, or the discipline to maintain proficiency in martial arts. As a quick example: How many of you do rigorous exercises everyday? By rigorous I mean a full plate of exercises like pushups, situps, lifing weights, running etc?

Firearms even the playing field since not everybody is built like Rambo. Firearms are essentially a tool to be used, the true purpose of said tool depends entirely on the user. A 60 year old man has a better chance of fending off multiple agressors with a firearm than he does of using his mad judo skills. And a small statured woman has a better chance of defending her life against a stronger opponent intent on robbing/mugging/raping/ unknown intentions etc. against her than by using brute force against brute force against ehr opponent.

Whether the intruder is the common village thief whom you had the unpleasant surprise of running into, or the neighborhood parolee on an alcohol-driven violent crime spree; both methods are viable means of self-defense. So long as the criminal obeys orders, they'll get out of the situation alive.

If I were to say that martial arts were for everyone*1, it'd be equivalent to me saying that everyone is capable of handling a .600 Nitro Express*2. Which is absolutely untrue, some people have weak wrists that can't handle the recoil, or they're afraid of the unfamiliarity surrounding firearms or martial arts.

So, to each his own so long as they're responsible enough to handle what skills or objects they possess and more importantly: That whatever methods they choose will WORK for them and keep themselves alive.

*1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xVH-dIP4yg

*2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lzri8dn7p0

[August]

In other words: "God made man but Sam Colt made men equal"

[Ishmael]

BUT, in a situation where the fight becomes "CQ" (Close Quarters), firearms loose quite a bit of advantage. In all, it depends on the situation you're in.

Not if you use my wife's weapon of choice, a 12-guage pump shotgun. It's the perfect sweeper for close quarters in an enclosed space. Here in the Wild West of New Mexico, the phrase you have to learn that was repeated to us by our local sherriff's deputy was,

"I was in fear for my life."

If an intruder enters your home, you are within your rights to blow his head off. Just make sure he stays within the dwelling.

[Yahoshua]

12 ga. is a good choice, but I'm restricted by the fact that I live in an apt. So a .45 1911 is my choice of defense.:cool:

[Takeda Shingen]

A firearm is a legitimate outlet for self defense, as are all of the martial arts, swords, knives, spoons and running away. The only requirement for such defense is that it protects you from harm.

At the same time, firearms stand unique among weapons due to their greater destructive power. They can kill from range, and do so more effectively than other weapons. However, any weapon is only as effective as the training and experience of the one who carries it. As such, a firearm in the hands of a novice, like myself, would not be nearly as effective as one in the hands of an experienced individual, like waste gate. It always comes down to the user.

[U-533]

Anyway, this is a debate which has been raging for years. Its my opinion that a firearm is a legitamate defense, yet one which should be used as a real last resort. Why make that burglar's death quick? :arrgh!:

But seriously, in response to Penelope's post, firearms shouldnt be used for outright homicide. At most, a limb shot would be enough, I'd imagine.

To answer your question: The burglar's death should be as quick as possible.

Reason 1: You never know what kind of firepower it's packing.
Reason 2: You never know what it's intentions really are.
Reason 3: You may have to target a second burglar...or third...or fourth...etc
Reason 4: You don't know what kind of pain killing drugs it's on.
Reason 5: You may suffer a lawsuit and have to support it the rest of your life, and it's family.

Shooting it's limb and wounding it will only cause you tremendous headaches... Kill it and tell the law "I was in fear of my life and my family's I SHOT TO STOP IT "... anything less and your asking for trouble from bleeding heart liberal thinking folk who wish to spend your hard earned money on a rehabilitation programs that never works.

Let me repeat myself here.

Let it live or wound it and you will pay for it to sit in prison for a vacation and when it gets out it may seek revenge.
Kill it and tax dollars may pay for it's funeral and sleep at ease knowing that it will not be coming back.

If it weren't for all that ... I say peel the burglar and dip it in vinegar and hang it outside as a trophy and warning.

[Penelope_Grey]

How I or anyone else comes to peace with taking someones life is not really the issue. Reasonable force is only an issue for law enforcement., those folks have been trained in such issues. I'm talking about it's my life or yours, self defense. When I am dead the comfort that my killer will be brought to justice isn't much of a cosnolation.

In a case like your life or his, then I can see that perhaps you have to be brutal, but killing is never right or justified. In the case you describe then I think you would have to be certain that your life was at risk of being lost before you could say, "it was him or me"

A burgler prowling about in your house does not automatically mean you will be killed. In which case you don't have any reason to shoot that person.

[Sailor Steve]

How I or anyone else comes to peace with taking someones life is not really the issue. Reasonable force is only an issue for law enforcement., those folks have been trained in such issues. I'm talking about it's my life or yours, self defense. When I am dead the comfort that my killer will be brought to justice isn't much of a cosnolation.

In a case like your life or his, then I can see that perhaps you have to be brutal, but killing is never right or justified. In the case you describe then I think you would have to be certain that your life was at risk of being lost before you could say, "it was him or me"

A burgler prowling about in your house does not automatically mean you will be killed. In which case you don't have any reason to shoot that person.
How good a martial-artist are you? I'm nearing 60 years of age, and I'm sick a lot of the time. A burglar comes in my house and I should challenge him to an honorable battle? I don't think so.

Or, as a strong trained martial-artist friend of mine said a long time ago, "I have a wife and three small children. My job isn't to win a fight, it's to keep them safe. If someone comes into my home without my permission, I don't care if it's just to ask for directions; if I die there's nobody left for them. Where my family's life is at stake, my job is to protect them any way I can. Period."

You're right; a burglar in my house doesn't automatically mean my life is in danger. How am I to know that until it's too late?

[waste gate]

Here is a local story out of Denver. The suspect lives, and more importantly, so does the victim.

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=67276

[Fish]

You don't know what you are sayng dear.
If you put a gun in front and ...bang.....the error it's not
the bang...but to put the gun in front


Yes, I do know what I'm saying. Thanks for trying to clarify, though.

Otherwise, you're saying I should just let the intruder have a field day in my home? Not everyone is a MA master, you know. (I know P-G is going to say "And not everyone is a good shot, either:know:)

How big a change do you have (statistically) to find a intruder in your home?
0.00....?
Do we all need to have a gun to defend us for such a minor change?

[Yahoshua]

Look at it from this perspective Penelope:

A burglar who absolutely doesn't want to confront the occupants of a residency would rob the home during daylight correct?

The burglar would have to be an absolute idiot to assume that nobody is in the home if he invades it at night unless he has accurately determined that the occupants will NOT be at home.

Me, if I wake up hearing a strange noise inside my home, and since I live alone I know that it isn't me making that noise. I'm not going to try and interrogate the burglar before pulling a gun on him upon discovering that he's here to kill me. I'm going to pull the gun on him first, and if he obeys my directions he'll be fine. If I believe myself to be in danger of life or limb he's 86'd.

I'm not going to make any assumption other than that the burglar knows I'm in the home and that he intends to kill me. The facts will come out AFTER the confrontation, provided the burglar is still alive.

And contrary to your beliefs, killing in defense of ones' life IS justifiable. Would you stand idly by and do nothing if you were watching a mugger stab a woman to death knowing that you have the capability of killing the mugger to save the womans' life?

[Penelope_Grey]

I am not a martial artist. I have never bothered learning a fighting art, because I have never wanted to, as I don't feel I have any need to use it, nor do I wish to fight. I know you are going to say, what would I do, an intruder in my home, etc etc... I would get out any which way I could or if I was cornered, I would co-operate with the burgler any way he wanted, he is a lot more dangerous if you try to stop him, if you don't, then he is less dangerous. A burgler is there to steal things, therefore, if you allow him to steal, statistically speaking the risk is vastly reduced.

I have tried to answer your questions, but all you do is ask me more again, its like my answers are not registering. You do not have the right to kill people. If you do kill someone then you deserve to be punished for it, self-defence or not. As for the mugger thing, I certainly would not kill the mugger, if I had the ability to kill him (through any means) then chances are I would also have the capability to render him incapacitated till the authorities arrive.

Some of you here frighten me, I will be honest you genuinely scare me with your attitudes, you come over as being so trigger happy and like a bunch of wild west throwbacks. Its almost like you are looking for excuses to kill someone.

[Yahoshua]

I tend to answer questions with questions. It's how I go about making my point by trying to get you to see it from my perspective.

Just giving up and rolling over doesn't guarantee the criminal will let you get out of the situation alive.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5527139?source=rss

I keep Murphys' Law at the forefront in most if not all situations I end up in. And I don't go hunting for problems, but I'm constantly prepared to confront them.

I also take it from your posts that you've never actually been in a life-threatening confrontation. While you have noble ideals of preserving justice without the taking of life, that line of thought just doesn't work in the real world.

And the differences between us are that of only two aspects: The flight or fight instinct (you choose to run, and I choose to resist), and experience. When you're faced with a life-threatening situation, you don't have time to think, but just enough time to act.

Most people who want to run from confrontation are prevented from doing so by the criminal, and aren't willing to resist for fear of making the situation worse. In the end, the criminals will do as they please and ultimately get away with the crime. You however, will have to live with whatever situation that came about as a result of your actions, that is if you're still alive.

I however, will not belly-up and give in. I will resist to the point of using deadly force if I need to. Anyone who has killed a man does suffer the trauma of trying to figure out how they could've gotten out of the situation without killing the opponent, but in the end the simple fact of it is that I consider my life more important than that of the criminal.

[Rykaird]

Gun Pros: Highly effective. Instantaneous elimination of threat. Easy to learn. Works at range. Works well against multiple and/or physically superior attackers.

Gun Cons: In most states, it won't be with you when you need it, since carrying a concealed weapon is illegal - it does you no good in a parking lot at night if the gun is in your nightstand at home. Bullets penetrate walls easily, making killing a neighbor or other family member a possibility as you spray lead at your attacker. Guns are very intriguing to children and cause many accidental deaths - and safety precautions like trigger locks and leaving the gun unloaded reduce its effectiveness in an emergency when you really need it.

Martial Arts Pros: Always with you, in every situation. Great exercise. You'll live longer not because you can defend yourself, but because you'll be in better shape.

Martial Arts Cons: Questionable effectiveness against multiple and/or physically superior attackers. For example, I seriously question that a small woman can take out a large, enraged, drunken and/or drugged male with a few Hollywood judo moves. May give you false confidence when a hasty retreat would have been a better option. Many assailants are armed - that's why they have the confidence to attack in the first place.


Threat defense for the home should be considered as having multiple layers. The lock on your door is a layer. An alarm system is a layer. So is your phone and 911. The gun occupies the final layer - it is the last line of defense in the home. If you don't like guns - or worry about your kids fooling with it - but feel somewhat less protected than you like, beef up the outer layers - better locks, superior alarm system, buy a dog.

There's no one answer here. Statistically, I would imagine the safest people in the world are the ones that live in the best neighborhoods. I grew up in a town where for the 20 years I lived there the number of murders was exactly zero. Probably better to spend four years getting a law degree or an MBA instead of studying martial arts or gun handling and get a better job and live somewhere safer.

[Yahoshua]

Gun Cons: In most states, it won't be with you when you need it, since carrying a concealed weapon is illegal

Little more information on this point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#State_laws

Bullets penetrate walls easily, making killing a neighbor or other family member a possibility as you spraylead at your attacker.

This depends on a number of factors, more information can be found here:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

Guns are very intriguing to children and cause many accidental deaths -

Education and parental supervision is the best prevention. Any firearm that you don't use for concealed carry (which the kids must NEVER know about) should be locked up in a safe like this one:

http://www.ftknox.com/safes/index.htm

http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/safes/category.asp?value=F

http://www.libertysafe.com/safegallery.lasso

DO NOT go out to Wallyworld and buy one of their "safes." The best safe weighs about 800 lbs; can withstand at least 1,000 F* of heat, is NOT electronically coded, and is bolted to a concrete floor and to the wall. Even better would be to have the safe in a basement, or sompleace that would make it physically difficult to get out of the home.

and safety precautions like trigger locks and leaving the gun unloaded reduce its effectiveness in an emergency when you really need it.

Trigger locks are worthless, they can still be broken with the right tools.

[Sailor Steve]

I know you are going to say, what would I do, an intruder in my home, etc etc... I would get out any which way I could or if I was cornered, I would co-operate with the burgler any way he wanted, he is a lot more dangerous if you try to stop him, if you don't, then he is less dangerous. A burgler is there to steal things, therefore, if you allow him to steal, statistically speaking the risk is vastly reduced.
You are assuming that an intruder (I use this word instead of burglar) is there merely to steal. What if he doesn't want you to cooperate, what if his intentions are more personal? I know this seems extreme, but there are people in this world who enjoy inflicting pain and worse on others.

I have tried to answer your questions, but all you do is ask me more again, its like my answers are not registering. You do not have the right to kill people.
If someone attacks you he gives up his rights.
If you do kill someone then you deserve to be punished for it, self-defence or not.
Not so. Courts (at least where I live) consistently uphold the right to self-defence, even to the point of killing.
As for the mugger thing, I certainly would not kill the mugger, if I had the ability to kill him (through any means) then chances are I would also have the capability to render him incapacitated till the authorities arrive.
Again, not true. Even police officers are trained to aim at the biggest target, which is the torso. First, you can't be guaranteed to hit anything smaller. Second, There is a good chance that your assailant will be under the influence of some drug which renders injured (or even broken) limbs a non-problem.
Some of you here frighten me, I will be honest you genuinely scare me with your attitudes, you come over as being so trigger happy and like a bunch of wild west throwbacks. Its almost like you are looking for excuses to kill someone.
I'm not trigger-happy at all. In fact, I've never shot - or even shot at - anyone. My friend I talk about who has had three home invasions that I know of has had the same experience every time: most burglars really aren't looking for a fight, and the sound of the slide on a .45 racking into position is enough to set them running as fast as they can. If that doesn't work, the sight of the gun pointing at you will.

[GakunGak]

I see many here are playin' Hitman...:rotfl:
The good knowledge of martial arts, even Tai Chi Chuan, are crucial of you want to render your attacker incapable of hurting you, and martial arts are for DEFENSE PURPOSES ONLY!!!
It is all right to inflict pain on your attacker, but in a manner to stop him from attacking you...
Sometimes it is quite enough to hit nerve points and to end a fight before it even started.
Another scenario: If your life is threatened with a much larger/heavier/stronger person, use of a firearm I would permit is:
1. Pointing at him and warning him that he's about to get shot
2. Scaring him by shooting a single bullet in the air
3. Targeting legs/arms or/any other non-fatal area
For those who want do-it-yourself, train nunjuitsu...:|\\
I trained KyokushiKai for 7 years....
Now, I train at my home several martial arts combinning and developing them into one multi purpose defense ability...
But to kill someone with/without a firearm: NO WAY!!!:smug:

[Yahoshua]

Another scenario: If your life is threatened with a much larger/heavier/stronger person, use of a firearm I would permit is:
1. Pointing at him and warning him that he's about to get shot
2. Scaring him by shooting a single bullet in the air
3. Targeting legs/arms or/any other non-fatal area.......

....But to kill someone with/without a firearm: NO WAY!!!:smug:

1. I agree with.
2. No warning shots, only lethal ones. If you fire a warning shot and then need to neutralize the intruder, the jury is NOT going to be very forgiving.
3. NEVER shoot to wound, shoot to kill the intruder. The prosecutor will twist the situation in every direction he can to get another conviction under his belt.

As for the refusal to kill in defense of your life, have fun trying to keep it up.

[waste gate]

I
Another scenario: If your life is threatened with a much larger/heavier/stronger person, use of a firearm I would permit is:
1. Pointing at him and warning him that he's about to get shot
2. Scaring him by shooting a single bullet in the air
3. Targeting legs/arms or/any other non-fatal area


In the real world all these ideas are bad.
1. If you draw the weapon do not hesitate to use it. If, as a reasonable person, the situation is grave to the point of drawing the weapon, the use of the weapon, once drawn should be used immediately. Delay is to put yourself in greater danger.

2. See the above, and shooting in the air can and will put others at risk. In your home you may injure one of the people you wish to protect, or if in an apartment your upstairs nieghbor. If in the open, all things that go up are subject to earth's gravity and will come down. Unfortunately where the bullet comes down is not predictable and so will put other people at risk for serious injury or death.

3. See number one. In real life, not the films, your use of a firearm in this manner may lead to an assault or criminal negligence charge by the legal authorities. Beyond that in a real world circumstance, as stated in other posts on this thread, an individuals aim will not always be accurate towards the center of mass (torso), much less an extremety.

The upshot is: If anyone is thinking about the use of firearms as a means of self defense, all scenerios must be thought out and rehersed before hand because in the heat of the situation most people cannot and will not think.

[Yahoshua]

Even if you can think you'll be shaking in your slippers too much to be accurate enough to take kneecap shots.

[Penelope_Grey]

I tend to answer questions with questions. It's how I go about making my point by trying to get you to see it from my perspective.

Just giving up and rolling over doesn't guarantee the criminal will let you get out of the situation alive.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5527139?source=rss

I keep Murphys' Law at the forefront in most if not all situations I end up in. And I don't go hunting for problems, but I'm constantly prepared to confront them.

I also take it from your posts that you've never actually been in a life-threatening confrontation. While you have noble ideals of preserving justice without the taking of life, that line of thought just doesn't work in the real world.

And the differences between us are that of only two aspects: The flight or fight instinct (you choose to run, and I choose to resist), and experience. When you're faced with a life-threatening situation, you don't have time to think, but just enough time to act.

Most people who want to run from confrontation are prevented from doing so by the criminal, and aren't willing to resist for fear of making the situation worse. In the end, the criminals will do as they please and ultimately get away with the crime. You however, will have to live with whatever situation that came about as a result of your actions, that is if you're still alive.

I however, will not belly-up and give in. I will resist to the point of using deadly force if I need to. Anyone who has killed a man does suffer the trauma of trying to figure out how they could've gotten out of the situation without killing the opponent, but in the end the simple fact of it is that I consider my life more important than that of the criminal.

No I have never been in a life-threatening confrontation. I was however present at Liverpool St Station when the July bombing happened, me and my brother and some friends had gone to london for a break. That is about as life threatening as it gets.

No I disagree, we are a lot different than you say, you are prepared to stoop to killing, I am not, and I am proud of that. You and others may be prepared to kill and become killers but I would rather die myself, than stoop so low, I kill someone, I am no better than the criminal I shot, my being better than scumbags like that is what makes me who I am. Thefore for me, its a no no. Always has been always will be. Would I sit back and allow myself to be killed? no way. But I would never intentionally kill somebody, not like what you and the other gunslingers in this thread are saying they are prepared to do.

You are assuming that an intruder (I use this word instead of burglar) is there merely to steal. What if he doesn't want you to cooperate, what if his intentions are more personal? I know this seems extreme, but there are people in this world who enjoy inflicting pain and worse on others.

Well if that is the case, fighting would be futile probably as the intruder would doubtless be prepared for your attempted resistance or fleeing.

If someone attacks you he gives up his rights.

Maybe, but that does not automatically give me the right to blwo his brains out with a gun.

Not so. Courts (at least where I live) consistently uphold the right to self-defence, even to the point of killing.

Glad I don't live there then, because some of the people in this thread have pretty much said they would shoot first and forgo even bothering to ask questions and claim they were in fear for their life, sounds to me like that kind of system lets the killers walk free. Here in the UK we have reasonable force I will find out about what it says when your life is threatened and there is evidence to suggest that how far you can go.

Again, not true. Even police officers are trained to aim at the biggest target, which is the torso. First, you can't be guaranteed to hit anything smaller. Second, There is a good chance that your assailant will be under the influence of some drug which renders injured (or even broken) limbs a non-problem.

A thigh and upper leg area is an easy enough area of the body to hit, drugs or not, you put a bullet or two in someones thigh and they WILL fall down. They may not feel it, but you can't stand without your thighs, its a given fact.

I'm not trigger-happy at all. In fact, I've never shot - or even shot at - anyone. My friend I talk about who has had three home invasions that I know of has had the same experience every time: most burglars really aren't looking for a fight, and the sound of the slide on a .45 racking into position is enough to set them running as fast as they can. If that doesn't work, the sight of the gun pointing at you will.

But not everybody here in this thread would be so lenient as to allow the intruder chance to leave. They would simply shoot him there and then... or so they say... therefore, I am left to assume from what I see here, the majority of pro-gun people are perfectly happy to kill, even whether they realise it or not, are looking for every possible instance where they can be excused for doing so.

[tycho102]

But not everybody here in this thread would be so lenient as to allow the intruder chance to leave.
Next time he breaks in, he might not be so "defenseless". And he might bring 4 of his friends, too. Or it'll be someone down the street that you know, and it'll be their house that gets robbed. Or worse.

He made his call before he came in.



Anything you do can get you shot, including doing nothing. (http://tron-chaser.net/text/laws_of_combat.txt)

[ASWnut101]

Well if that is the case, fighting would be futile probably as the intruder would doubtless be prepared for your attempted resistance or fleeing.

I highly doubt that a person would intentionally intrude into someone's home when they know the person is armed.

Maybe, but that does not automatically give me the right to blwo his brains out with a gun.

So if he had, say a knife, you would allow him to keep at you? Even if he wanted to kill you?

Glad I don't live there then, because some of the people in this thread have pretty much said they would shoot first and forgo even bothering to ask questions and claim they were in fear for their life, sounds to me like that kind of system lets the killers walk free. Here in the UK we have reasonable force I will find out about what it says when your life is threatened and there is evidence to suggest that how far you can go.

Well, I'm glad I don't live in a country that dosen't allow me to defend myself to the fullest extent.

A thigh and upper leg area is an easy enough area of the body to hit, drugs or not, you put a bullet or two in someones thigh and they WILL fall down. They may not feel it, but you can't stand without your thighs, its a given fact.

Having shot at full body targets, I can say this: Hitting a thigh is quite difficult. Now, add the fact that you are scared (from the knowledge that someone is somewhere doing something in your house), tired, and it's dark. Possibility of hitting a thigh on purpose is very hard.

But not everybody here in this thread would be so lenient as to allow the intruder chance to leave.

Actually, almost everyone here would agree to give the person a chance to leave. Or at least they would call "STOP!" (or something along those lines) before firing. Your gun is a last resort. The only thing is, the "resorts" go along very fast.


They would simply shoot him there and then... or so they say... therefore, I am left to assume from what I see here, the majority of pro-gun people are perfectly happy to kill, even whether they realise it or not, are looking for every possible instance where they can be excused for doing so.

After giving the intruder a chance, of course.

[Yahoshua]

In Rivers of Africa (1893), Winston Churchill observed:

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you with only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is not hope of victory at all, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

[Psycluded]

But not everybody here in this thread would be so lenient as to allow the intruder chance to leave. They would simply shoot him there and then... or so they say... therefore, I am left to assume from what I see here, the majority of pro-gun people are perfectly happy to kill, even whether they realise it or not, are looking for every possible instance where they can be excused for doing so.

Anyone who boasts that they would kill another human being when there's another option has obviously never done so, and if they have, are beyond the pale and have left the human race behind.

I know police officers who have needed years of counseling for a single shooting due to the incredible amount of guilt and second-guessing that follows. If I had done this, if he hadn't done that, if, if, if. It can kill you.

Guns are something that have been a part of my life since I was in preschool, toting a little .22 rifle with my daddy squirrel hunting. I've been taught since I was that age that guns are weapons for the specific purpose of taking life, and that all other uses are training. Saying otherwise is wishful playtalk. I was also taught that if you draw a gun, your very next two actions should be to gain sight picture and fire. No exceptions.

I guess the difference is that if it ever comes to that for me, it'll be a case where I don't see an alternative. I don't like to think about having to kill another human being. Hell, I was in the military for 6 years, and I still don't like the idea. Will I if I must? Yes. My life is precious to me, as are the lives of my family. If someone forces me to make the choice between my life, or the lives of my family, and that of an aggressor, I will pull the trigger..

.. and probably immediately throw up.

[SUBMAN1]

I don't think guns are really as good as Martial Arts when it comes to defending ones self. As to my mind, a gun is an offensive weapon which epitomises the saying, "the best defence is a good offence" guns can kill, Martial Arts can kill, but a skilled Martial Artist cannot accidentally kill someone, they have to do it deliberately, which if they do makes them a murderer. But you can unintentionally kill someone with a gun, there is a good chance of that.

However, both a gun, and Martial Arts knowledge in the wrong hands can be lethal.

I understand you have little knowledge of firearms in your country, but you are wrong on the defense portion of things. I understand Hollywood makes a pistol out to be a super weapon (They never miss in movies it seems), but in reality, its good for about 20 feet reliably, though it is very manuverable in close quarters and is a decent close quarters weapon. It is purely a defense weapon and anyone that thinks it can be used offensively in more than a crutch manner have never used one. That is why your boys in Iraq don't even bother to carry a pistol.

Only a rifle could be coined an offensive weapon.

-S

PS. If it is serious enough to put someone down, they probably deserve to die by the way.

PPS. You don't have to shoot to kill either by the way - just like a martial arts person - that is another Hollywood myth that anyone that gets shot in the torso dies. SHoot a leg if you have to. Problem is in this day in age, whether you use martial arts or guns and do not kill your attacker, you may get sued for the rest of your life over it.

[Tchocky]

I understand you have little knowledge of firearms in your country, but you are wrong on the defense portion of things. I understand Hollywood makes a pistol out to be a super weapon (They never miss in movies it seems), but in reality, its good for about 20 feet reliably, though it is very manuverable in close quarters and is a decent close quarters weapon. It is purely a defense weapon and anyone that thinks it can be used offensively in more than a crutch manner have never used one. That is why your boys in Iraq don't even bother to carry a pistol.

Only a rifle could be coined an offensive weapon. If you're mugged by someone with a pistol, then it's an offensive weapon. Any weapon can be used offensively.


PPS. You don't have to shoot to kill either by the way - just like a martial arts person - that is another Hollywood myth that anyone that gets shot in the torso dies. SHoot a leg if you have to. Problem is in this day in age, whether you use martial arts or guns and do not kill your attacker, you may get sued for the rest of your life over it. Ok, through my limited experience of gun use, it's hard enough to hit someone without worrying about tricky bits of anatomy. Especially in a tense situation. There are posters online with much more experience, so have at it :)

[Yahoshua]

For those of us who own a firearm and think they can hit a kneecap of a mugger or robber at close range, please commit to the following exercise:

Will need:

-1 clay pigeon.
-Sidearm of your choice with preferred method of concealment and ONE round for said sidearm.
-trusting friend

Phase 1.

Step one: Go to firing range and have a friend hold onto the clay pigeon for you while you do the following.

Step two: Park vehicle one mile from firing range (preferably with a hill somewhere in between)

Step three: Arrange sidearm as you would while carrying concealed.

Step four: RUN all the way to the range, immediatly upon arrival do 20 rapid pushups. During step four, your friend will place the clay pigeon on the range and exit the line of fire

Step five: Immediatly upon completion of step four you will jump to your feet, quickdraw your sidearm, and use the ONE round you have in your sidearm to hit that clay pigeon. If it's a fluke, do it again.

Phase 2.

Repeat phase 1 except using a mannequin for a target. More likely than not, you'll aim for center mass every time rather than try for a kneecap.

[August]

The thing you have to remember about robbers is that they are opportunists and will naturally gravitate toward the easier pickings. IE: An unoccupied home is easier to rob than an occupied one and, in unexpected encounters, an unarmed victim is easier to deal with (dispose of) than an armed one. In those situations the mere presence of a gun in a homeowners hands or that unmistakeable sound of a .12 gage pump being operated and the gruff "who's there?" sounding from somewhere upstairs, can be enough to defuse the situation before it comes to violence. The robber just beats a hasty exit for easier pickings.

The Criminal that enters a home he knows to be occupied is a different story. He has a plan to deal with (or dispose of) those he expects to find there. While having a gun in that situation is certainly no guarentee of safety it can give the victim a chance at survival. On the other side of the coin however the unarmed victim has absolutely no chance of preventing the criminal from doing whatever he wants to do so it's a case of betting your life and your families lives that he won't slit everyones throats to eliminate witnesses.

[Wim Libaers]

You are assuming that an intruder (I use this word instead of burglar) is there merely to steal. What if he doesn't want you to cooperate, what if his intentions are more personal? I know this seems extreme, but there are people in this world who enjoy inflicting pain and worse on others.

Ah yes, for example, there has been such a case nearby where two guys broke into a house, tied up the two elderly people living there, stole a couple of things, and then tortured those two people for a few hours before leaving. If I remember correctly, they did survive, but with serious injuries.

[Penelope_Grey]

After giving the intruder a chance, of course.

That isn't what you said on the previous page, you said you would just shoot him in the noggin. Now you say you would give him a chance? Which is it?

[Penelope_Grey]

PPS. You don't have to shoot to kill either by the way - just like a martial arts person - that is another Hollywood myth that anyone that gets shot in the torso dies. SHoot a leg if you have to. Problem is in this day in age, whether you use martial arts or guns and do not kill your attacker, you may get sued for the rest of your life over it.

I would rather have that, than someone's death on my conscience. Even if they were the dregs of society.

[ASWnut101]

After giving the intruder a chance, of course.

That isn't what you said on the previous page, you said you would just shoot him in the noggin. Now you say you would give him a chance? Which is it?

Yes, shoot him after you give him a chance. That (Shoot him) was the final step.

[yankee-V]

Firearms: Yes or No.

So have we reached a concensus?

[GakunGak]

Firearms: Yes or No.

So have we reached a concensus?
Nope, as I will not support it...:|\\

[Penelope_Grey]

I am not against owning a gun, what I am against is using it to kill someone.

Like I said above, I don't think anybody not in the military or police should have anybody's death on their conscience.

[GakunGak]

I am not against owning a gun, what I am against is using it to kill someone.

Like I said above, I don't think anybody not in the military or police should have anybody's death on their conscience.
Agree 100%
Taking someone's life is a same thing as acting as a God, and for a commandment: YOU SHALL NOT KILL!!!
For a self-defence, just hurt him so he may live...:hmm:

[ASWnut101]

and for a commandment: YOU SHALL NOT KILL!!!

Nice. First, it's Thou shall not kill.


Let's try these:

#8) "Thou shalt not steal."
#10) "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,.....nor anything that is thy neighbor's



Lets keep religion OUT of this. Please.

[Sailor Steve]

I will only address this one point, since others have answered the rest.
A thigh and upper leg area is an easy enough area of the body to hit, drugs or not, you put a bullet or two in someones thigh and they WILL fall down. They may not feel it, but you can't stand without your thighs, its a given fact.
Actually, it's not a given fact. People (?) on PCP (AKA Angel Dust) have been know to be shot multiple times in the legs, arms AND torso and still lived long enough to do serious damage to police officers and their vehicles. If you manage to seriously break both legs it might help, but its still not a certainty.
I would rather have that, than someone's death on my conscience. Even if they were the dregs of society.
As some with once said "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six". Truth is, if it's just me I wouldn't say for sure, but if someone is endangering my kids I wouldn't even think twice.

[August]

I would rather have that, than someone's death on my conscience. Even if they were the dregs of society.

Whose death would you rather have on your concience? A dreg of society or your families because you stood by and did nothing?

[Penelope_Grey]

Lower legs, yes they might just still be able to stand, but they lose their thigh muscles they will do down, immaterial of drugs because the thigh is what keeps you standing up, and moving, without that, you are immoble, lose both and you are history.

Its noble you do whatever it takes to protect your children but, I would rather sacrifice myself than see my father become a killer even in self defence.

Whose death would you rather have on your concience? A dreg of society or your families because you stood by and did nothing?

Nobodies preferabbly. But I am no hero, if anybody in my family was going to die at the hand of a dreg of society, then it would probably be me, least likely to die would be my brother becuase he has a vicious streak a mile wide and the strength and power to back up any threat he would make.

[GakunGak]

and for a commandment: YOU SHALL NOT KILL!!!

Nice. First, it's Thou shall not kill.


Let's try these:

#8) "Thou shalt not steal."
#10) "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,.....nor anything that is thy neighbor's



Lets keep religion OUT of this. Please.
Thnx for the correction, I knew it's thou, just didn't remeber when I wrote that...

Now, just someone is stealing from you does not give you a right to KILL someone.
You are allowed to hurt him, but not to execute him...
Given the case of stealing, use stealth, under cover of darkness and knock him out and call 911 or whatev, but first things first, bound hiim so he couldn't move...
There you go, he lives, but paid the price...
IF the suspect is packing heat, then, well... Deadly force is authorized if a life is threatened by a thief...
The best solution is if the incident could be avoided and no kills...

[Yahoshua]

Further correction, the 6th command is no phrased "Thou shalt not kill." (as the nation of Israel was commanded on various occasions to purge idolators and extremely evil people from their midst).

But is properly phrased "Thou shalt not murder."

And that carries a whole different connotation to it.

[ReallyDedPoet]

It's not the gun, but the person holding the gun that determines this question and where it goes.

Nothing new, just my thoughts, and can be said about just about everything:yep:

[August]

Given the case of stealing, use stealth, under cover of darkness and knock him out and call 911 or whatev, but first things first, bound hiim so he couldn't move...

You've been watching too many hollywood movies dude. You can't seriously think that would work.

[Sailor Steve]

Further correction, the 6th command is no phrased "Thou shalt not kill." (as the nation of Israel was commanded on various occasions to purge idolators and extremely evil people from their midst).

But is properly phrased "Thou shalt not murder."

And that carries a whole different connotation to it.
My turn to nitpick: "Thou Shalt..." is fine for the King James version; that was the way everybody spoke in 1611. There are newer translations.

[kiwi_2005]

As a means of defense, are the use of firearms any less worthy than martial arts?
I attempted to post some parts of the martial arts thread, but, I was unsuccessful.

My opinion is that firearms are no less legitimate as a means of self defense than any other. Am I wrong?

Well i dont think anyone in their right mind would take on someone that has a load double barrel shotgun pointed at their face, maybe if your as quick as Bruce Lee u would beable to disarm him :rotfl:
Mr Kung fu lee, Mr Street fighter or the pit fighter aint got a chance against a arrogant basta*d with a loaded shotty.

[waste gate]

As a means of defense, are the use of firearms any less worthy than martial arts?
I attempted to post some parts of the martial arts thread, but, I was unsuccessful.

My opinion is that firearms are no less legitimate as a means of self defense than any other. Am I wrong?

Well i dont think anyone in their right mind would take on someone that has a load double barrel shotgun pointed at their face, maybe if your as quick as Bruce Lee u would beable to disarm him :rotfl:
Mr Kung fu lee, Mr Street fighter or the pit fighter aint got a chance against a arrogant basta*d with a loaded shotty.

Now why would you imply that only an arrogant individual would have a laoded scattergun?

[kiwi_2005]

As a means of defense, are the use of firearms any less worthy than martial arts?
I attempted to post some parts of the martial arts thread, but, I was unsuccessful.

My opinion is that firearms are no less legitimate as a means of self defense than any other. Am I wrong?

Well i dont think anyone in their right mind would take on someone that has a load double barrel shotgun pointed at their face, maybe if your as quick as Bruce Lee u would beable to disarm him :rotfl:
Mr Kung fu lee, Mr Street fighter or the pit fighter aint got a chance against a arrogant basta*d with a loaded shotty.

Now why would you imply that only an arrogant individual would have a laoded scattergun?


i meant if the thug has the shotty if the homeowner has the shotty & comes face to face with a knife weilding pyscho hes not being an arrogant basta*d but a sensible basta*d. :yep: Would i shoot someone who confronts me for my money holding a meat cleaver, easy for me to say yes but put in that situation i dont know, maybe i would shoot him in the knee caps then ring the cops:hmm: I would have to weigh up the good and bad, the good is i would stop him in his tracks the bad is i would be charged for injurying another human being even though it was self defence, the law in NZ is your more than likely be charge for protecting yourself.:nope:

Are americans allowed to carry guns on them, we all know the US is the gun tottering nation, if you have a gun licence does this allow americans to be able to carry a magnum 45 etc around with them?

[waste gate]

As a means of defense, are the use of firearms any less worthy than martial arts?
I attempted to post some parts of the martial arts thread, but, I was unsuccessful.

My opinion is that firearms are no less legitimate as a means of self defense than any other. Am I wrong?

Well i dont think anyone in their right mind would take on someone that has a load double barrel shotgun pointed at their face, maybe if your as quick as Bruce Lee u would beable to disarm him :rotfl:
Mr Kung fu lee, Mr Street fighter or the pit fighter aint got a chance against a arrogant basta*d with a loaded shotty.

Now why would you imply that only an arrogant individual would have a laoded scattergun?


i meant if the thug has the shotty if the homeowner has the shotty & comes face to face with a knife weilding pyscho hes not being an arrogant basta*d but a sensible basta*d. :yep: Would i shoot someone who confronts me for my money holding a meat cleaver, easy for me to say yes but put in that situation i dont know, maybe i would shoot him in the knee caps then ring the cops:hmm: I would have to weigh up the good and bad, the good is i would stop him in his tracks the bad is i would be charged for injurying another human being even though it was self defence, the law in NZ is your more than likely be charge for protecting yourself.:nope:

Are americans allowed to carry guns on them, we all know the US is the gun tottering nation, if you have a gun licence does this allow americans to be able to carry a magnum 45 etc around with them?

Perhaps you have seen too many Hollywood films which glorify firearms for the wrong reasons and villify them for the wrong reasons. Here is a link to the firearms laws by state: http://www.packing.org/state/ . You can investigate the laws at your leasure.

[SUBMAN1]

Are americans allowed to carry guns on them, we all know the US is the gun tottering nation, if you have a gun licence does this allow americans to be able to carry a magnum 45 etc around with them?

Yes. Would you bother? Probably not. You can count on one hand the # of times I've bothered to carry - usually only to protect the rifles I was transporting to and from the shooting range. Out in the National forests, I just usually open carry. I always keep one loaded firearm around when shooting my rifles incase someone would like to relieve me of my possesions forcebly.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

...It is purely a defense weapon and anyone that thinks it can be used offensively in more than a crutch manner have never used one..... If you're mugged by someone with a pistol, then it's an offensive weapon. Any weapon can be used offensively.
That is why I say it is only a crutch. Due to Hollywood, a pistol also seems to carry a phycological super weapon mentallity along with it - something it is not.


Ok, through my limited experience of gun use, it's hard enough to hit someone without worrying about tricky bits of anatomy. Especially in a tense situation. There are posters online with much more experience, so have at it :)
Myth #1 is - you fall down and die when shot. Hardly. The people who fall down only do so phychologically since this is what they have seen in the movies and think that they are instantly going to die. THen you get to real life where Philly cops shot a suspect 32 times over about 20 minutes and he still was returning fire like nothing was wrong! The point is - if you don't hit anything vital, it is nothing more than a deep flesh wound.

Another example of Hollywood garbage - the Red Baron had his heart completely removed from his body by the shot that killed him, yet he still managed to land his plane and talk to the British troops before dying. Yet Hollywood wants you all to think that when shot, you drop to the floor instantly dead. Not the case.

No wonder people have a hate for firearms - Hollywood created them to be super weapons!

[ASWnut101]

...THen you get to real life where Philly cops shot a suspect 32 times over about 20 minutes and he still was returning fire like nothing was wrong!

That was New Jersey. Each cop fired two full magazines into a guy sitting in a car. I think he lived, too.

[waste gate]

Infection/blood loss. Even the wild west super dooper gunfighter died from the infection or blood loss which ensued not from the wound inflicted by the bullet. These people did not die instantly.

An example is the US Civil War photos from Matthew Brady. Discheveled clothing wasn't because these folks were sloppy. They lived beyond the bullet entry and knew that if they were able to extract the bullet their chance of survival increased substantialy.

[SUBMAN1]

...THen you get to real life where Philly cops shot a suspect 32 times over about 20 minutes and he still was returning fire like nothing was wrong!
That was New Jersey. Each cop fired two full magazines into a guy sitting in a car. I think he lived, too.

I heard he died - The 33rd shot got him in the juggler and he was finished after that.

[Sailor Steve]

Since we're telling stories...

1) Off-duty cop, carries good old M1911 .45 in an ankle-holster. Guy robs liquor store, runs straight toward cop. Cop pulls gun and yells "Halt"! Perp keeps coming. Cop shoots perp right between the eyes. Perp sits down, blinks a couple of times, then jumps up and runs the other way. Cop is so stunned he doesn't shoot again. Best anybody can figure out is the bullet hit the guy's forhead at just the right angle to snap his head back and glance off the skull.

2) Guy robs convenience store with .22 pistol, then flees. Cops find him dead in an alley a few blocks away. It seems he stuck the pistol in his pants and as he was running it went off, discharging into his thigh and penetrating the artery. Three blocks was how far he got before he bled out.

Both stories are true, both told years ago by the late Colonel Jeff Cooper in the pages of Guns & Ammo magazine.

[SUBMAN1]

Since we're telling stories...

1) Off-duty cop, carries good old M1911 .45 in an ankle-holster. Guy robs liquor store, runs straight toward cop. Cop pulls gun and yells "Halt"! Perp keeps coming. Cop shoots perp right between the eyes. Perp sits down, blinks a couple of times, then jumps up and runs the other way. Cop is so stunned he doesn't shoot again. Best anybody can figure out is the bullet hit the guy's forhead at just the right angle to snap his head back and glance off the skull.


Both stories are true, both told years ago by the late Colonel Jeff Cooper in the pages of Guns & Ammo magazine.

With the kenetic energy of a .45, it is hard to imagine. Cops aim must have been way off to the point where the shot barely grazed him I am guessing.

-S

PS. I love Jeff Cooper. He has got to be the most level headed guy on the face of the planet. Seen almost all of it, and he is intelligent to the point where he is able to make sense out of the unsensable. They still write the same commentaries by the way, minus Jeff Cooper of course - http://dvc.org.uk/jeff/

[Bertgang]

For the very little dangers I had until now, martial arts were really fine.

Two critical situations were solved just by a well aimed, classical, fist; two more by basic judo; never used the kicks learned by taekwondo practice.

Once I had fear of a sort of vengeance, and maybe I could have aimed the approaching man with a revolver, if never I had it with me; not having a weapon, I spared me an idiot action, as my opponent just wanted to speak.

[U-533]

I say "Sidearms for all".

and

One bullet, or as many as it takes, to stop an attacker or intruder is cheaper than feeding it the rest of it's life.

I prefer two shots to the chest area. A tried and true method of bringing down an intruder or attacker or what ever else. This is how most officers of the law are trained.

I have witnessed taking 5 shots to bring down a rather large coked up male.

Well ...what ever your preferences be in protecting you and your loved ones, I hope and pray you never are put in a situation to make such a choice.

[Platapus]

[quote=waste gate]A
Mr Kung fu lee, Mr Street fighter or the pit fighter aint got a chance against a arrogant basta*d with a loaded shotty.

As my martial arts instructor told us "the fastest hands can not stop the slowest bullet"

[JetSnake]

I am not a martial artist. I have never bothered learning a fighting art, because I have never wanted to, as I don't feel I have any need to use it, nor do I wish to fight. I know you are going to say, what would I do, an intruder in my home, etc etc... I would get out any which way I could or if I was cornered, I would co-operate with the burgler any way he wanted, he is a lot more dangerous if you try to stop him, if you don't, then he is less dangerous. A burgler is there to steal things, therefore, if you allow him to steal, statistically speaking the risk is vastly reduced.

I have tried to answer your questions, but all you do is ask me more again, its like my answers are not registering. You do not have the right to kill people. If you do kill someone then you deserve to be punished for it, self-defence or not. As for the mugger thing, I certainly would not kill the mugger, if I had the ability to kill him (through any means) then chances are I would also have the capability to render him incapacitated till the authorities arrive.

Some of you here frighten me, I will be honest you genuinely scare me with your attitudes, you come over as being so trigger happy and like a bunch of wild west throwbacks. Its almost like you are looking for excuses to kill someone.

Really, how old are you?

[GakunGak]

I am not a martial artist. I have never bothered learning a fighting art, because I have never wanted to, as I don't feel I have any need to use it, nor do I wish to fight. I know you are going to say, what would I do, an intruder in my home, etc etc... I would get out any which way I could or if I was cornered, I would co-operate with the burgler any way he wanted, he is a lot more dangerous if you try to stop him, if you don't, then he is less dangerous. A burgler is there to steal things, therefore, if you allow him to steal, statistically speaking the risk is vastly reduced.

I have tried to answer your questions, but all you do is ask me more again, its like my answers are not registering. You do not have the right to kill people. If you do kill someone then you deserve to be punished for it, self-defence or not. As for the mugger thing, I certainly would not kill the mugger, if I had the ability to kill him (through any means) then chances are I would also have the capability to render him incapacitated till the authorities arrive.

Some of you here frighten me, I will be honest you genuinely scare me with your attitudes, you come over as being so trigger happy and like a bunch of wild west throwbacks. Its almost like you are looking for excuses to kill someone.

Really, how old are you?
Ol' enough to be your grandma...:rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Ol' enough to be your grandma...:rotfl:

I don't think so - I sense intelligence, but a slight lack of wisdom suggesting a younger age.

[GakunGak]

Ol' enough to be your grandma...:rotfl:

I don't think so - I sense intelligence, but a slight lack of wisdom suggesting a younger age.
Just so she does not want to kill anybody [M2] does not mena that she has not no wisdom... That's crap, sorry, but my opinion, I'm being honest...
What, IS BUSH WISE? Hitler? Stalin? Tito? All those political f*cks are retarded ******* ****** *********!!!!
So, my conclusion, Penelope_Grey has inteligence AND wisdom to a level I admire her! And old enough to be a woman herself... You go, Grey!:rock:

[SUBMAN1]

ust so she does not want to kill anybody [M2] does not mena that she has not no wisdom... That's crap, sorry, but my opinion, I'm being honest...
What, IS BUSH WISE? Hitler? Stalin? Tito? All those political f*cks are retarded ******* ****** *********!!!!
So, my conclusion, Penelope_Grey has inteligence AND wisdom to a level I admire her! And old enough to be a woman herself... You go, Grey!:rock:

Huh? You don't make any sense.

[ASWnut101]

ust so she does not want to kill anybody [M2] does not mena that she has not no wisdom... That's crap, sorry, but my opinion, I'm being honest...
What, IS BUSH WISE? Hitler? Stalin? Tito? All those political f*cks are retarded ******* ****** *********!!!!
So, my conclusion, Penelope_Grey has inteligence AND wisdom to a level I admire her! And old enough to be a woman herself... You go, Grey!:rock:

Huh? You don't make any sense.

Agreed.

[GakunGak]

ust so she does not want to kill anybody [M2] does not mena that she has not no wisdom... That's crap, sorry, but my opinion, I'm being honest...
What, IS BUSH WISE? Hitler? Stalin? Tito? All those political f*cks are retarded ******* ****** *********!!!!
So, my conclusion, Penelope_Grey has inteligence AND wisdom to a level I admire her! And old enough to be a woman herself... You go, Grey!:rock:

Huh? You don't make any sense.

Agreed.
Let me rephrase that: One is not wize if he kills a man. A wise man would always find a way to avoid conflict...

P.S. Sorry for writing errors, my keyboard's busted....:doh:

[SUBMAN1]

Let me rephrase that: One is not wize if he kills a man. A wise man would always find a way to avoid conflict...

P.S. Sorry for writing errors, my keyboard's busted....:doh:
Hmm - I still don't get it in relation to the topic. A man is trying to harm you, your family, or even a complete stanger, and you should let it happen?

Don't get me wrong or anything - I hope to live my entire life never having to pull a trigger against a man, but you must also understand that you must be prepared to do it mentally as well. That may be a foreign idea to you, but I think you can describe it best as a neccesary evil that probably will never be fully realized.

That is the difference between you and me, I have the option where you probably do not, even if it is an option I hope to never exercise. You however, will have your status changed to victim and statistic - and these are two status's that I have prepared for to never have attached to my name.

I never fully understood the need for a victim to remain a victim too. They would rather be raped or murdered again rather than give up their victim status. I understand it is a phycological problem, but even so, I think it is a rather pathetic phych problem. Just my 2 cents.

-S

[GakunGak]

Let me rephrase that: One is not wize if he kills a man. A wise man would always find a way to avoid conflict...

P.S. Sorry for writing errors, my keyboard's busted....:doh:
Hmm - I still don't get it in relation to the topic. A man is trying to harm you, your family, or even a complete stanger, and you should let it happen?

Don't get me wrong or anything - I hope to live my entire life never having to pull a trigger against a man, but you must also understand that you must be prepared to do it mentally as well. That may be a foreign idea to you, but I think you can describe it best as a neccesary evil that probably will never be fully realized.

That is the difference between you and me, I have the option where you probably do not, even if it is an option I hope to never exercise. You however, will have your status changed to victim and statistic - and these are two status's that I have prepared for to never have attached to my name.

I never fully understood the need for a victim to remain a victim too. They would rather be raped or murdered again rather than give up their victim status. I understand it is a phycological problem, but even so, I think it is a rather pathetic phych problem. Just my 2 cents.

-S
What I was trying to say from the beginning is:
IF POSSIBLE, incapacitate the guy until you put him into submission or tie him!!!
Shoot him in the legs or arms or theraten him, BUT IF possible, do not kill the man...
I understand you may think I'm nuts, I'm just being Christian Orthodox, and by that I mean I will try all or any available options at a given time to avoid any conflict....:smug:

[SUBMAN1]

What I was trying to say from the beginning is:
IF POSSIBLE, incapacitate the guy until you put him into submission or tie him!!!
Shoot him in the legs or arms or theraten him, BUT IF possible, do not kill the man...
I understand you may think I'm nuts, I'm just being Christian Orthodox, and by that I mean I will try all or any available options at a given time to avoid any conflict....:smug:
Two problems with that - Being CHristian Orthodox, the bible tells you to defend yourself and allows you to kill in defense of you and your loved ones, or even a complete stranger, but not to 'murder'. The only time you should ever lay down your arms in defense is only when your challenger is challenging you over your faith, in which case you must be willing to lay down your life for it.

Second problem - dead means he is never ever going to hurt you again. Period. Or anyone else for that matter. Over here, there are countless stories of murders getting out and murdering again! What was the point of a jail sentence? If they do it for sexual pleasure, phycologists will even tell you that they can never be cured, so what are we doing with these people anyway?

I could open a whole can of worms with this thread, but if your assailent is dead, you may have even saved the life of many other people.

-S

PS. Do you know that a wounded attacker over here can sue you too? Crazy! Not sure what half brained attorney came up with the idea of sueing victims for defending themselves, but I guess you have many half crazed attorneys that don't care where their money comes from.

PPS. Dead - and you even save the state millions of $$$ for there is no longer a need for a trial nor is there no longer a need to keep this person locked up like an animal for their entire prison sentence.

PPPS. I have no sympathy for ones that would harm others for pleasure or personal gain - the thought is just plain sick.

[GakunGak]

Sorry, cannot agree...
In the old testament, you are [kind of] allowed to kill a man in self defense, but not in the new testament... Many shouls have a chance to redeem theirselves, and, who are we people to decide of life and death... It's easter soon, that should tell you much... Jesus Christ could have a whole legion of angels to guard him, but he gave himself for us TO LIVE, otherwize, God could just send a whole squad to finish the job killing everybody... That tells us something: forgiveness...
And before I go to sleep, final note: I would support a kill in self defense ONLY IF THERE IS NO OTHER WAY!
I hope I'm being a man enough...

[Yahoshua]

Should we let AL handle this aspect of it or do you want me to jump in on this?

[SUBMAN1]

And before I go to sleep, final note: I would support a kill in self defense ONLY IF THERE IS NO OTHER WAY!
I hope I'm being a man enough...
Exactly my point. We finially see eye to eye. If you think for a second I would shoot someone for stepping on my toe, you are wrong. No other way means imminent danger. Period. I thought you were in disagreement on this which is why I write above what I do.

-S

PS. Also non of the above suggests that I would not forgive someone for hurting someone else, but you can bet I would step in to stop it if I could. And there is a big difference between forgiveness and toleration. I won't tolerate it.

[Rockstar]

In the realm of self defense you never ever shoot to kill. You are shooting to prevent the comission of a crime. If by shooting him and he dies well, I reckon he should've stayed home. If the hit is non-lethal but it stopped him from harming you and yours then you may find yourself having to restrain him (cuffs) and render first aid. If you can't restrain him then get away and call the police. Because if while you are puting a bandaid on him he may just latch on to you and strangle the livin' crap outta ya.


Oh, never tell a cop you shot someone to kill him. You shot him to keep him from doing harm to you or your family.

If I remember correctly if the crimminal has a weapon, the ability and intent then shoot'em

Example: a person comes in your home with a tire iron (weapon), looks like he can swing it and hit you (ability), and says he going to bash you head in (intent) though breaking into your home could be considered intent as well. Or even after you told him to get out and he doesn't is intent too. Then pick-up those smoke wagons and get to shoot'in boy.

Never talk to a cop right afterwards either to much is going on with you physically, mentally and emotionally for you to get your statement straight. give it atleast 24 hours to collect your thoughts to recall the event correctly.

[GakunGak]

And before I go to sleep, final note: I would support a kill in self defense ONLY IF THERE IS NO OTHER WAY!
I hope I'm being a man enough...
Exactly my point. We finially see eye to eye. If you think for a second I would shoot someone for stepping on my toe, you are wrong. No other way means imminent danger. Period. I thought you were in disagreement on this which is why I write above what I do.

-S

PS. Also non of the above suggests that I would not forgive someone for hurting someone else, but you can bet I would step in to stop it if I could. And there is a big difference between forgiveness and toleration. I won't tolerate it.
Agree 100%.:smug:
@Rockstar: Agree 100%:smug:

[Platapus]

Anyone who owns a firearm for personal protection should own and read

"In the Gravest Extreme Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection" by Massad F. Ayoob

You can get it from any large book seller. In this book Mr. Ayoob addresses the legal and moral issues that we have been discussing here.

Mr. Ayoob has frequently been called as an "expert witness" in personal self defense shooting cases.

Be warned thought, he tells it like it is and the moral and legal aftermath of a justified self defense shooting is not a good thing to go through.

I highly recommend this book.

[Penelope_Grey]

I'm 19.

[GakunGak]

I'm 19.
:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o
Hell, I'll be 20 on the August 13th...
Jeez, I never thought you could be younger than, say, 25?:hmm:
A clear thinker... I like that...:rock:

[U-533]

... some of you bleeding hearts would change your mind when faced with a life or death situation

... some of you bleeding hearts sit back and think that an attacker will stop to listen to reason "Oh .. If only we could give them a chance to be heard on whats troubling them"

... some of you bleeding hearts believe that mankind is "Good"

... some of you bleeding hearts would continue giving money to a lost cause just to help your own conscience

... some of you bleeding hearts would kill a righteous man to keep your rosy outlook on life

... some of you bleeding hearts think I'm the bad guy cause I'm not gonna give in to your way of bleeding hearts and you will persecute me for it

... some of you bleeding hearts would stop me from protecting me and my family to help a murderer or a thief or rapist or child molester

... some of you bleeding hearts will take money from me against my will to help a criminal and hide behind a legal action to justify yourselves

... some of you bleeding hearts will not read all this and sit back and think "He wasn't speaking of me" or "How dare he talk to me like this I'm going to do what I can to stop him"

... some of you bleeding hearts may thank me one day for saving your life...but I doubt it ... cause it's already happened to me

... some of you bleeding hearts are as bad as the ones you pretend to protect

Fire arms for all !!...Lets Party!!!

:sunny:
Happy Easter:nope:

[SkvyWvr]

I am not a martial artist. I have never bothered learning a fighting art, because I have never wanted to, as I don't feel I have any need to use it, nor do I wish to fight. I know you are going to say, what would I do, an intruder in my home, etc etc... I would get out any which way I could or if I was cornered, I would co-operate with the burgler any way he wanted, he is a lot more dangerous if you try to stop him, if you don't, then he is less dangerous. A burgler is there to steal things, therefore, if you allow him to steal, statistically speaking the risk is vastly reduced.

I have tried to answer your questions, but all you do is ask me more again, its like my answers are not registering. You do not have the right to kill people. If you do kill someone then you deserve to be punished for it, self-defence or not. As for the mugger thing, I certainly would not kill the mugger, if I had the ability to kill him (through any means) then chances are I would also have the capability to render him incapacitated till the authorities arrive.

Some of you here frighten me, I will be honest you genuinely scare me with your attitudes, you come over as being so trigger happy and like a bunch of wild west throwbacks. Its almost like you are looking for excuses to kill someone.

Old American expression "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6"

[HarbourOpie]

movies from hollywood are different as reality:damn:

[Takeda Shingen]

This one is really dragging on, isn't it?

[SkvyWvr]

But I would never intentionally kill somebody, not like what you and the other gunslingers in this thread are saying they are prepared to do.

Why does a different point of view make one a "gunslinger"? :damn: I will protect me and mine. That's my right. You can rollover and play dead, that's your right. In the end I will stand a better chance of having coffee in the morning than you will having your tea.

[SUBMAN1]

But I would never intentionally kill somebody, not like what you and the other gunslingers in this thread are saying they are prepared to do.
Why does a different point of view make one a "gunslinger"? :damn: I will protect me and mine. That's my right. You can rollover and play dead, that's your right. In the end I will stand a better chance of having coffee in the morning than you will having your tea.

Seems someone likes their victim status and would be willing to die over it. There is a term for this - some sort of phycological abnormality - I will find it.

-S

[Onkel Neal]

Thing is, most of the talk about shooting home intruders is pretty theoretical. Although it certainly gets a lot of news coverage, crime like that is pretty rare. The last thing anyone wants to do is kill someone, but if there is an intruder who is crazy enough to break into someone's house, and try to steal the property you worked for, that guy is dangerous. I would be worried for my family's safety.

[micky1up]

i dont think gangs are it the american way of life thats the biggest threat to america get rid of the weapons that are used in this

[micky1up]

sad that the US goverment will do nothing about the easy access to firearms in the US its time for change ban the guns i know the arguements for and against but for those who are for guns they generally are untill thier brother sister or son or daughter is killed by the 300million plus hand guns and god knows how many rifles and assault weapons ban them all get rid of this culture people think terroism is the biggest threat to the US but in fact its your way of life that is the threat

[fatty]

sad that the US goverment will do nothing about the easy access to firearms in the US its time for change ban the guns i know the arguements for and against but for those who are for guns they generally are untill thier brother sister or son or daughter is killed by the 300million plus hand guns and god knows how many rifles and assault weapons ban them all get rid of this culture people think terroism is the biggest threat to the US but in fact its your way of life that is the threat

I am predicting that the counter-argument to this will be "but, we need more armed students to deter things like this from happening again!" Me, I've come to accept guns in America as a chicken/egg dilemma. Do you have lots of crime because of the guns? Or do you have lots of guns because of the crime?

But I am sorry to hear about the events today. My step-mom is a VT grad, and although cases like this leave a lasting imprint, if I have learned anything from her it's the strength of the Hokie spirit.

[SUBMAN1]

Sad.

If more people were armed though, this guy would have been dropped before he could do this kind of damage.

[JetSnake]

sad that the US goverment will do nothing about the easy access to firearms in the US its time for change ban the guns i know the arguements for and against but for those who are for guns they generally are untill thier brother sister or son or daughter is killed by the 300million plus hand guns and god knows how many rifles and assault weapons ban them all get rid of this culture people think terroism is the biggest threat to the US but in fact its your way of life that is the threat

Must be slipping it only took 7 posts to begin the anti-gun/ ban them all/ diatribe. Perhaps alcohol needs to be banned. Drunk drivers kill more per year than hand guns and "assault rifles".

[micky1up]

Sad.

If more people were armed though, this guy would have been dropped before he could do this kind of damage.



america couldnt get more armed if it tried or were you being sarcastic

[micky1up]

sad that the US goverment will do nothing about the easy access to firearms in the US its time for change ban the guns i know the arguements for and against but for those who are for guns they generally are untill thier brother sister or son or daughter is killed by the 300million plus hand guns and god knows how many rifles and assault weapons ban them all get rid of this culture people think terroism is the biggest threat to the US but in fact its your way of life that is the threat

Must be slipping it only took 7 posts to begin the anti-gun/ ban them all/ diatribe. Perhaps alcohol needs to be banned. Drunk drivers kill more per year than hand guns and "assault rifles".

and one wrong makes the other wrong more right? listen to yourself the gun companies can make firearms safer the technology is thier to do it untill this ugly preventable thing happens to you and your close family you will content yourself to be an ostritch and bury your head in the sand

[micky1up]

i would wager that this guy had never committed a crime in his life up to this point then when he snapped he had access to the weapons to kill 21 people anyone want to bet


do you see my point the criminals have always had access to them its when some person goes haywire(mental) which is totally unpredictable the ease at which powerfull weapons can be obtained

[SUBMAN1]

Sad.

If more people were armed though, this guy would have been dropped before he could do this kind of damage.


america couldnt get more armed if it tried or were you being sarcastic
Not many are armed in that side of the country. Anyway, the problem is, you cannot carry a concealed pistol onto a school campus, so that is where these crazies go - a place where they will not be fired back upon. Ever notice that? Sounds premeditated to me just with the location selection.

-S

PS. Yes you can be more armed - try Canada. More private guns in Canada than the US last I heard.

PPS. With so many dead, I am guessing he used a shotgun loaded with buckshot.

[micky1up]

Sad.

If more people were armed though, this guy would have been dropped before he could do this kind of damage.


america couldnt get more armed if it tried or were you being sarcastic
Not many are armed in that side of the country. Anyway, the problem is, you cannot carry a concealed pistol onto a school campus, so that is where these crazies go - a place where they will not be fired back upon. Ever notice that? Sounds premeditated to me just with the location selection.

-S

PS. Yes you can be more armed - try Canada. More private guns in Canada than the US last I heard.

PPS. With so many dead, I am guessing he used a shotgun with buckshot.



ref canada whats thier gun crime like nowhere near USA gun crime levels is their own way of life thats a threat

[SUBMAN1]

ref canada whats thier gun crime like nowhere near USA gun crime levels is their own way of life thats a threat
Dunno - that is if I understand your statement. I think much much less.

[micky1up]

sorry my meaning is that you gun culture is the biggest threat to you own nation in fact it the biggest threat you have ever faced and its your own culture thats nurturing it

[JetSnake]

sad that the US goverment will do nothing about the easy access to firearms in the US its time for change ban the guns i know the arguements for and against but for those who are for guns they generally are untill thier brother sister or son or daughter is killed by the 300million plus hand guns and god knows how many rifles and assault weapons ban them all get rid of this culture people think terroism is the biggest threat to the US but in fact its your way of life that is the threat

Must be slipping it only took 7 posts to begin the anti-gun/ ban them all/ diatribe. Perhaps alcohol needs to be banned. Drunk drivers kill more per year than hand guns and "assault rifles".

and one wrong makes the other wrong more right? listen to yourself the gun companies can make firearms safer the technology is thier to do it untill this ugly preventable thing happens to you and your close family you will content yourself to be an ostritch and bury your head in the sand


My family and I will defend ourselves with our own firearms if something like this ever occured. Sorry, but I will take it upon myself instead of waiting two hours for the police to save me. What is this technology you speak of that makes firearms more safer? :88)
There are thousands of gun laws in the US now that obviously won't stop criminals from doing what they want to do . How will adding a few more do any good?

Anti-gun laws are the reasons this turned out to be such a tragedy with massive loss of life. If there were a few people with concealed carry weapons, this shooter could have been stopped. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[The Avon Lady]

sorry my meaning is that you gun culture is the biggest threat to you own nation in fact it the biggest threat you have ever faced and its your own culture thats nurturing it
I don't think it's the gun culture, per se. I do, however, think it's the violence culture. That's far from limited to guns. Cause: massive breakdown in the moral fabric of society.

BTW, irony (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818224/posts). I personally am neither for or against gun control, since I have yet to hear a totally convincing argument in either direction.

[micky1up]

sad that the US goverment will do nothing about the easy access to firearms in the US its time for change ban the guns i know the arguements for and against but for those who are for guns they generally are untill thier brother sister or son or daughter is killed by the 300million plus hand guns and god knows how many rifles and assault weapons ban them all get rid of this culture people think terroism is the biggest threat to the US but in fact its your way of life that is the threat

Must be slipping it only took 7 posts to begin the anti-gun/ ban them all/ diatribe. Perhaps alcohol needs to be banned. Drunk drivers kill more per year than hand guns and "assault rifles".

and one wrong makes the other wrong more right? listen to yourself the gun companies can make firearms safer the technology is thier to do it untill this ugly preventable thing happens to you and your close family you will content yourself to be an ostritch and bury your head in the sand


My family and I will defend ourselves with our own firearms if something like this ever occured. Sorry, but I will take it upon myself instead of waiting two hours for the police to save me. What is this technology you speak of that makes firearms more safer? :88)
There are thousands of gun laws in the US now that obviously won't stop criminals from doing what they want to do . How will adding a few more do any good?

Anti-gun laws are the reasons this turned out to be such a tragedy with massive loss of life. If there were a few people with concealed carry weapons, this shooter could have been stopped. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.



and where were the guns in defence today like i said even in this country the uK criminals have always had access to guns , i would bet the person that did this up untill this event never committed a criminal act in his life but when he went beserk he had clear unobstructed access to the tools of what is now the death of 32 people what evr you say you cannot defend the gun companys they can make fire arms safein families for children with the gip activated pitol kids arent strong enough to activate em then thirs electronic fingerprint activation so only the owner of said weapon can fire it these can be used to reduce joe publics accidental deaths but hardend criminals are not the ones going into schools and blowing away people by the dozens are thy

[SUBMAN1]

sorry my meaning is that you gun culture is the biggest threat to you own nation in fact it the biggest threat you have ever faced and its your own culture thats nurturing it

Actually, I don't think so. If you look at the numbers, the places where guns are not permitted are the very same places where crime is off the charts. That is why I am a strong advocate of guns. THey seem to keep the crime down to near minimal levels, especially violent crime. If you compare violent crime to the UK crime numbers, the places with gun control in place have crime numbers that are equal or higher than the UK, vs places where guns are permitted where the crime numbers are only a fraction of the UK.

The US Supreme Courts website has the numbers for comparing across the board between the US and UK if you're interested. I have to go find a report to find the state by state numbers for comparrison though. If you google it, you should be able to find it though.

-S

[waste gate]

Bump

[August]

i dont think gangs are it the american way of life thats the biggest threat to america get rid of the weapons that are used in this

And just how do you propose to achieve that? A door to door search?

[SUBMAN1]

Bump

Just great - bringing this thread back. It is so long, I doubt I would ever bother to catch up reading on it.

[waste gate]

Bump

Just great - bringing this thread back. It is so long, I doubt I would ever bother to catch up reading on it.

Sounded like the debate has come up anew. Rather than start it over again I believe many folks are on record here.

[micky1up]

i think after today the arguement that having more guns controls the guncrimes is now pardon the pun shot a resounding no

[August]

i think after today the arguement that having more guns controls the guncrimes is now pardon the pun shot a resounding no

You don't know what you're talking about.

[waste gate]

i think after today the arguement that having more guns controls the guncrimes is now pardon the pun shot a resounding no

You don't know what you're talking about.

micky1up knows what he is talking about from his perspective. Unfortunately it is based on emotion, which clouds his judgement. It is too early to tell what the gunman was all about but my understanding is that on Friday 13 APR, a bomb threat was phoned into VT. From my perspective, if Gov't entities were able to protect me, a much higher state of alert would have been broadcast and this would never have happened because every student would have been on alert and a large police presence would have been afforded.

Unfortunately Gov't cannot and will not protect individuals, not even 35 individuals. You are on your own. In the face of certain death another option (other than Gov't intervention) is always a benefit.

[August]

It's a short article Gizzmoe and very much on topic.

This was in Virginia.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

Gun bill gets shot down by panel
HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.

By Greg Esposito
381-1675

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

...

[SUBMAN1]

i think after today the arguement that having more guns controls the guncrimes is now pardon the pun shot a resounding no

I'd have to say a resounding yes. Obviously the gov can't protect me in time to stop me, or 30 other of my fellow man from being done in by some crazy, so your answer must be based on emotion, not logic.

-S

[Fish]

[ Cause: massive breakdown in the moral fabric of society.

.

Most americans tell moral in europe (Amsterdam) is much lower, then why don't we have such shootings overhere?

[Puster Bill]

[ Cause: massive breakdown in the moral fabric of society.

.
Most americans tell moral in europe (Amsterdam) is much lower, then why don't we have such shootings overhere?

Nations that have a low homicide rate tend to have a high suicide rate, and vice-versa. When you add the two together, calling it, say, 'intentional death', it tends to even out.

There are some exceptions, obviously, and it isn't a perfect correlation, but interesting nonetheless.

[Fish]

[ Cause: massive breakdown in the moral fabric of society.

.
Most americans tell moral in europe (Amsterdam) is much lower, then why don't we have such shootings overhere?

Nations that have a low homicide rate tend to have a high suicide rate, and vice-versa. When you add the two together, calling it, say, 'intentional death', it tends to even out.

There are some exceptions, obviously, and it isn't a perfect correlation, but interesting nonetheless.

NETHERLANDS male 13.0, female 6.3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA male 17.6, female 4.1 figures from '99


more recent:
US. 2002 male 17.6 female 4.1
The Netherlands.2003 male 12.7 female 5.9
So, no.



http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

[Heibges]

Yes, it changes it from someone robbing your house to that someone leaving the house, either to the hospital or in a body bag.

It depends if it's a B&E, or a B&E After Dark.

[waste gate]

.....................

[Heibges]

Sad.

If more people were armed though, this guy would have been dropped before he could do this kind of damage.


america couldnt get more armed if it tried or were you being sarcastic
Not many are armed in that side of the country. Anyway, the problem is, you cannot carry a concealed pistol onto a school campus, so that is where these crazies go - a place where they will not be fired back upon. Ever notice that? Sounds premeditated to me just with the location selection.

-S

PS. Yes you can be more armed - try Canada. More private guns in Canada than the US last I heard.

PPS. With so many dead, I am guessing he used a shotgun loaded with buckshot.

Candada is more armed, and has higher unemployment yet fewer gun crimes.

He used a 9mm Pistol and a .22 Caliber Pistol.

[SUBMAN1]

Candada is more armed, and has higher unemployment yet fewer fun crimes...
Probably since it has 10% the population of the US. I think from a genetic perspective, there is a certain # of genetically whacked people out of a million that would be predisposed for such a crime. Having 10% the population means I expect a 90% less whacko's doing some odd crime like this in Canada. Add in probably less stress in Canada (I think the US has got to be the most stressed out country to live in), and that further reduces trigger mechanisms for whacked people to do this kind of thing. Just some of my theories is all, or should I call them hypothesis?

-S

[Heibges]

Regular Breaking & Entering is only a misdemeanor.

But Breaking & Entering After Dark is a felony.

[U-533]

Well... I still have not heard a convincing enough opinion from anyone to make me think about giving up my weapons...

All I keep hearing is "If there were no guns no one would get shot..."

This is so true...

But then I would use a Spear or Sword or Knife, Rocks, Paper, Scissors...My hands... something ....

So... I guess if there were none of the above I could use my teeth...:hmm:

Hey! You ... umm ... Individuals... that wanna ban guns... answer this, IF YOU CAN,

Where does the banning of weapons stop?

Come on ... If your so smart ... Cause everything can be used as a weapon ...

And don't cop out with the ''We just want guns banned" ... That jive went out the window with the baby and the bath water y'all want to throw away ...

SO???

I shall take your non-response to this as you have seen my light and will purchase a weapon for self defense... and you will argue against Gun Control and the ban of guns of any kind on these forums ...

Remember Santa is watching and making a list...:o

[micky1up]

i think after today the arguement that having more guns controls the guncrimes is now pardon the pun shot a resounding no

I'd have to say a resounding yes. Obviously the gov can't protect me in time to stop me, or 30 other of my fellow man from being done in by some crazy, so your answer must be based on emotion, not logic.

-S


yes i see your point do you see mine the campus had a police force the town had a police force all the civilains around had guns and yet this man went on a 2 hr rampage all those guns and still 35 dead guns cant control gun crime if it could how come this happens with alarming regularity in your country schools workplaces nowhere is safe no matter how many guns

[micky1up]

Well... I still have not heard a convincing enough opinion from anyone to make me think about giving up my weapons...

All I keep hearing is "If there were no guns no one would get shot..."

This is so true...

But then I would use a Spear or Sword or Knife, Rocks, Paper, Scissors...My hands... something ....

So... I guess if there were none of the above I could use my teeth...:hmm:

Hey! You ... umm ... Individuals... that wanna ban guns... answer this, IF YOU CAN,

Where does the banning of weapons stop?

Come on ... If your so smart ... Cause everything can be used as a weapon ...

And don't cop out with the ''We just want guns banned" ... That jive went out the window with the baby and the bath water y'all want to throw away ...

SO???

I shall take your non-response to this as you have seen my light and will purchase a weapon for self defense... and you will argue against Gun Control and the ban of guns of any kind on these forums ...

Remember Santa is watching and making a list...:o
yes but its hard for a nut to kill 35 peope with a knife where as its easy for a nut to load up as much ammo he can and kill 35 people

[micky1up]

Candada is more armed, and has higher unemployment yet fewer fun crimes...
Probably since it has 10% the population of the US. I think from a genetic perspective, there is a certain # of genetically whacked people out of a million that would be predisposed for such a crime. Having 10% the population means I expect a 90% less whacko's doing some odd crime like this in Canada. Add in probably less stress in Canada (I think the US has got to be the most stressed out country to live in), and that further reduces trigger mechanisms for whacked people to do this kind of thing. Just some of my theories is all, or should I call them hypothesis?

-S

crap we are talking percentages here dusent matter how many people you have ythat point has been proven the have a lesser percentage mind you there culture isnt as violent as the US so theres another factor

[Skybird]

With waterpistols this wouldn't have happened.

[U-533]

yes but its hard for a nut to kill 35 peope with a knife where as its easy for a nut to load up as much ammo he can and kill 35 people

Its easy to kill 35 people with a knife ...

As far as loading up ammo and to kill 35 people ...It depends what your 'ammo' is ...

There once was a Giant that was killed with one stone... The cat that did the killing had 4 more stones in his pocket for the 4 brothers of the Giant...


Again don't evade the question...

[SUBMAN1]

yes i see your point do you see mine the campus had a police force the town had a police force all the civilains around had guns and yet this man went on a 2 hr rampage all those guns and still 35 dead guns cant control gun crime if it could how come this happens with alarming regularity in your country schools workplaces nowhere is safe no matter how many guns

I think you are still way too emotional. It has been stated at least 2 times (probably more) that guns are not allowed on campus. Period. So there were no guns to take this guy down. Period.

Another thing - Most employers do not allow guns either.

Other schools do not allow guns either - no guns are allowed on public school property.

Begining to see the big picture yet? Everywhere these big rampages happen are places that the rampager has thought out before hand that he won't have any return fire. The few places I can think that would have allowed guns, and the victims were indivduals that think like you - easy targets.

-S

PS. You can put a cop on every corner (not gonna happen), and they still could not control something like this.

[SUBMAN1]

yes but its hard for a nut to kill 35 peope with a knife where as its easy for a nut to load up as much ammo he can and kill 35 people

Not at all hard with a knife. That is why they tried to ban selling even steak knifes in the UK.

-S

[waste gate]

With waterpistols this wouldn't have happened.

That was helpful. Thank You.

[U-533]

With waterpistols this wouldn't have happened.

But what if the water pistols were filled with poision or some Biowarfare stuff ...UMMMmmm?

[SUBMAN1]

Candada is more armed, and has higher unemployment yet fewer fun crimes...
Probably since it has 10% the population of the US. I think from a genetic perspective, there is a certain # of genetically whacked people out of a million that would be predisposed for such a crime. Having 10% the population means I expect a 90% less whacko's doing some odd crime like this in Canada. Add in probably less stress in Canada (I think the US has got to be the most stressed out country to live in), and that further reduces trigger mechanisms for whacked people to do this kind of thing. Just some of my theories is all, or should I call them hypothesis?

-S
crap we are talking percentages here dusent matter how many people you have ythat point has been proven the have a lesser percentage mind you there culture isnt as violent as the US so theres another factor

Its a numbers game. Canada will see less than 10% that the US will. No other way to look at it. Stress of the society also plays a role I'm sure - hence the need to protect ones self in a high stress / threat society.

[Skybird]

With waterpistols this wouldn't have happened.

But what if the water pistols were filled with poision or some Biowarfare stuff ...UMMMmmm?
You better built more purification plants then, or replace those old water pipes in your house.

[Sailor Steve]

On October 16, 1991 a man drove a truck through the front window of Luby's Restaurant in Killeen, Texas, then opened fire on the patrons, killing 23 and wounding another 20. He then shot himself.

Two interesting results came about:

1) The Texas legislature passed a law allowing Texans to get a concealed-carry permit. This bill was created by Suzanna Gratia Hupp, whose parents were both killed at Luby's.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2006/09/lubys-restaurant-shootings-impact-15.html

2) America's Most Wanted, hosted by John Walsh, had an episode recreating the incident and interviewing many of the survivors of the shooting. When Walsh asked them what they thought could have changed the outcome, every one of them said "I wish I'd been armed at the time. That would have stopped him." I have no link for that, but I did see the episode myself.

Now I have to get personal. Mickey, saying what you think should be done is nice, but if you really think we should give up our simplest freedom on your say-so, all I can say is, you're welcome to come try.

[JetSnake]

+ eleventy-billion Sailor Steve.

I watched the senate panel interviewing the gal whose parents were killed in that Luby's restaraunt. Ironically she was a CCW holder, but do to the restaraunts asinine policies of not allowing firearms, she left her piece in the car. Meanwhile, the criminal who does not obey any laws is free to walk in and once again, a gun -free zone is a killing field.

[SUBMAN1]

Amazing how the places these whackos wig out are the same places people put firearm restrictions on. Isn't this the very place you would probably need your firearm in the first place to protect yourself? A bit of a catch 22 again.

Maybe the solution - ignore the no carry rules in places you consider dangerous?

-S

[Heibges]

In Vermont you don't need any kind of permit to carry concealed weapons.

But a bunch of untrained folks handling weapons may not be the answer either. There are folks I refuse to go hunting with because I don't feel safe with them holding firearms. I have friends I feel nervous around even going shooting with because they are so unsafe.

There are hundreds of accidental shootings each year anyway. I know that even some of my friends are real idiots when it comes to handling guns.

Maybe, only veterans should have the right to carry weapons.

Or the government needs to be much more supportive of Hunter's Safety classes. The NRA gives many of these for free.

[Yahoshua]

sorry my meaning is that you gun culture is the biggest threat to you own nation in fact it the biggest threat you have ever faced and its your own culture thats nurturing it
I don't think it's the gun culture, per se. I do, however, think it's the violence culture. That's far from limited to guns. Cause: massive breakdown in the moral fabric of society.

BTW, irony (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818224/posts). I personally am neither for or against gun control, since I have yet to hear a totally convincing argument in either direction.


You know why the terrorists started using Homicide Bombings instead of drive-by-shootings? It's because every time they tried to do a drive-by shooting every Israeli that was carrying concealed reacted to the threat and stopped the terrorists. That seems quite convincing to me.

A couple of books to read up on the issue are:

-The Bias against guns by John R. Lott
-More Guns: Less Crime by John R. Lott

He details his studies very well in regards to the statistics of gun control and guns (as far as I understand he doesn't own any firearms himself at the time of printing).

However, he also points out that the laws passed further allowing firearms to be owned and sold don't actually deter crime, neither did laws that banned firearms encourage crime. Yet it was the actual number of firearms owned by law-abiding citizens that deterred crime since criminals were afraid of being shot in the act of a crime. Whereas laws that made punishments against criminals more lenient encouraged crime.


A quick question to Mickey: What makes you think the criminals are going to obey the law? The law-biding citizen may surrender their firearms (if they choose to do so), but the criminal will NEVER willingly give up their firearms thay've come to posess. So how does disarming the law-abiding make me safer? It doesn't.

[Yahoshua]

Maybe the solution - ignore the no carry rules in places you consider dangerous?

-S

My life is more important than a silly sign on a storefront (which is constitutionally illegal btw). If a store or organization doesn't want to support my rights, then I don't have to shop there. Likewise, nobody needs to know if I'm carrying concealed. As long as I'm law-abiding then there's no problem with me carrying.

[micky1up]

yes i see your point do you see mine the campus had a police force the town had a police force all the civilains around had guns and yet this man went on a 2 hr rampage all those guns and still 35 dead guns cant control gun crime if it could how come this happens with alarming regularity in your country schools workplaces nowhere is safe no matter how many guns

I think you are still way too emotional. It has been stated at least 2 times (probably more) that guns are not allowed on campus. Period. So there were no guns to take this guy down. Period.

Another thing - Most employers do not allow guns either.

Other schools do not allow guns either - no guns are allowed on public school property.

Begining to see the big picture yet? Everywhere these big rampages happen are places that the rampager has thought out before hand that he won't have any return fire. The few places I can think that would have allowed guns, and the victims were indivduals that think like you - easy targets.

-S

PS. You can put a cop on every corner (not gonna happen), and they still could not control something like this.so you rattified my arguement guns cant control guns im waiting to find out who this guy was i still wager he had no criminal record

[Skybird]

"The lightsabre of your father: not as clumsy or random as a blaster. An elegant weapon - for a more civilised age." (Kenobi, SW4)

[P_Funk]

sorry my meaning is that you gun culture is the biggest threat to you own nation in fact it the biggest threat you have ever faced and its your own culture thats nurturing it I don't think it's the gun culture, per se. I do, however, think it's the violence culture. That's far from limited to guns. Cause: massive breakdown in the moral fabric of society.

BTW, irony (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818224/posts). I personally am neither for or against gun control, since I have yet to hear a totally convincing argument in either direction.A quick question to Mickey: What makes you think the criminals are going to obey the law? The law-biding citizen may surrender their firearms (if they choose to do so), but the criminal will NEVER willingly give up their firearms thay've come to posess. So how does disarming the law-abiding make me safer? It doesn't.
Its not about the criminals surrendering weapons. Its about making it so that you can't have one to begin with. If you heavily regulate something its alot harder to get one.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the people that do these insane killing rampages for no reason usually aren't part of the Bonanno family. They're guys with registered weapons that they bought legally. Saying that the solution is to let everyone carry a concealed weapon is reactionary. Its saying that we won't prevent it, we'll just kill him first. Saying that we need to let people have guns with them at all times to protect themselves from other guys cause we let them have guns all the time is just... silly. It doesn't fix anything. The only ones that should be in a shootout are cops.

And using Israel as an example isn't apt. Its a different social environment.

[Yahoshua]

Absolutely correct mickey: Guns cannot control other guns. This is because guns don't walk around on their own and shoot people. Guns CAN and DO control people. A hammer in the hand of an honest worker can be just as deadly when placed in the hands of a man bent on proceeding with a murderous rampage.

And banning firearms will NOT stop the massacres. If a criminal wants to kill people they will find ways to do it.

http://english.people.com.cn/english/200106/08/eng20010608_72155.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

Firearms do NOT espouse crime, and as AL pointed out: It is the disintegration of the moral fabric of society and the "mercy for all" liberals who refuse to punish these criminals accordingly.

How many massacres have ocurred in Switzerland? One as I recall back in 2001 (the Zug Massacre), and the necessary steps to increase security followed. What security has been accounted for at our universities or school campuses?

Have you ever taken the time to investigate WHERE all these massacres take place? Schools are the primary place for massacres, and they are "Gun-Free Zones." One may as well put a bulls-eye on their chest to assist the next criminal gunman who comes along.


*EDIT*

Just saw your post P funk.

Please explain to me how Israel is an inappropriate example. In my book Terrorists = criminals, and Law Abiding Citizens = Concealed Carry Holders. It has been shown that the number of concealed carry permits in the nation have directly affected the terrorists: There are no drive-by shooting anymore.

And banning firearms hasn't exactly helped Britain much now has it? Criminal enterprises still purchase firearms and smuggle them into the country.......from Ireland.

http://www.hk94.com/hk/9-years-after-Britain-outlawed-handguns-3-shooting-deaths-stir-fresh-t22394.html

Another thing to keep in mind is that the people that do these insane killing rampages for no reason usually aren't part of the Bonanno family. They're guys with registered weapons that they bought legally.

I beg to differ.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176h.html

Saying that the solution is to let everyone carry a concealed weapon is reactionary. Its saying that we won't prevent it, we'll just kill him first.

So how exactly do you propose to "prevent" such occurences?

Saying that we need to let people have guns with them at all times to protect themselves from other guys cause we let them have guns all the time is just... silly. It doesn't fix anything.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperimentRev.pdf

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

http://www.gunlaws.com/NewYorkTimesAndGuns.htm

http://www.jpfo.org/deathchartlg.gif


The only ones that should be in a shootout are cops.

Let me make this clear: I don't trust other people with my own personal safety. The average citizen cannot afford a personal body-guard. And contrary to what popular belief may be, most Law-Enforcement Officers (henceforth known as LEOs') rarely train with their sidearm on a regular basis. And there are times when I question their training (this is strictly on a case-by-case basis). Don't take this to mean that I'm a cop-hater, but I certainly have no confidence in a department that would allow itself to be so permeated by a corrupt beaureaucracy.

Examples would be:

-The shootout in New York where more than 50 rounds (all of the pistol magazines of the officers on scene were emptied) were poured into an SUV.

http://thepoliticalrant.com/?p=493

-The shootout involving Winston Hayes, who was irresponsibly teasing officers by slowing down adn then driving around the block, did so continuosly until run off the road. He then nearly backed into an officer which touched off the shooting of 120 expended rounds.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4081/is_200507/ai_n15665676

And then there's the type of cop that irritates me to no end: Commando Cops.

http://www.hk94.com/hk/Proper-Procedure-for-Tactical-Entry-t22890.html


*EDIT*

And another incident just cropped up......LEOs' need to train more often, problem is that departments don't want or don't have the money for it.

http://www.nwitimes.com/articles/2007/04/13/news/top_news/doced47038d8bdcc308862572bc00083b4c.txt (http://www.nwitimes.com/articles/2007/04/13/news/top_news/doced47038d8bdcc308862572bc00083b4c.txt)


http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/Madtypist.gif

[waste gate]

Its not about the criminals surrendering weapons. Its about making it so that you can't have one to begin with. If you heavily regulate something its alot harder to get one.

Prohibition, the Volstead Act proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The 'war on drugs' shows the same problem. More violence, not less.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the people that do these insane killing rampages for no reason usually aren't part of the Bonanno family. They're guys with registered weapons that they bought legally.

I'd like to see some facts on that. As an example here in Littleton. The students were underage and their buying the weapons was illegal. No "registered weapons" (whatever those are)there.

[Heibges]

Its not about the criminals surrendering weapons. Its about making it so that you can't have one to begin with. If you heavily regulate something its alot harder to get one.

Prohibition, the Volstead Act proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The 'war on drugs' shows the same problem. More violence, not less.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the people that do these insane killing rampages for no reason usually aren't part of the Bonanno family. They're guys with registered weapons that they bought legally.

I'd like to see some facts on that. As an example here in Littleton. The students were underage and their buying the weapons was illegal. No "registered weapons" (whatever those are)there.

Actually, if I remember correctly, an 18 year old friend bought the weapons and ammunition for them.

[micky1up]

look until the USA gives up this outdated bill of right that they are entitled to bare arms crap that was wriiten when the US was under threat from the english the french and the real american the native red indian its the 2007 now this fasination with protection its my right its my right what about the rights of those 33 people today the basic right to live ? you claim to be the leaders of the free world i think you need to look it up in the dictionary the word freedom all i can see is a police state where your all afraid of everyone else your all packing pistols, assualt rifles and god knows what else where duz it stop when duz it stop , it dosent hit home until its your children brother sister or family on a slab in the morgue unfortunately thats what it takes for your people to realise when its too late i wager this man wastnt a career criminal or had any previous pyscopathic tendencies and if so this can happen anywhere at any time to anyone and as we have seen even with the experts involved trying to police this incident they cannot prevent it and dont say in to emotional of bloody course i am 33 innocent people are dead an all you can do is try to justify the gun laws and this outdated bill of rights ,just maybe your polititians need to grow back bones and get a little emotional too:damn:

[ASWnut101]

They put the period button on the keyboard for a reason.

:dead:


Oh, and from what I could make of your post, you claim the Bill of Rights is outdated. Why do you think so? Also, you claim we are a "police state." That explains why there is a "seceret police" officer on every street corner waiting, listening if we say the wrong thing, to lock us up. :roll:

[waste gate]

look until the USA gives up this outdated bill of right that they are entitled to bare arms crap that was wriiten when the US was under threat from the english the french and the real american the native red indian its the 2007 now this fasination with protection its my right its my right what about the rights of those 33 people today the basic right to live ? you claim to be the leaders of the free world i think you need to look it up in the dictionary the word freedom all i can see is a police state where your all afraid of everyone else your all packing pistols, assualt rifles and god knows what else where duz it stop when duz it stop , it dosent hit home until its your children brother sister or family on a slab in the morgue unfortunately thats what it takes for your people to realise when its too late i wager this man wastnt a career criminal or had any previous pyscopathic tendencies and if so this can happen anywhere at any time to anyone and as we have seen even with the experts involved trying to police this incident they cannot prevent it and dont say in to emotional of bloody course i am 33 innocent people are dead an all you can do is try to justify the gun laws and this outdated bill of rights ,just maybe your polititians need to grow back bones and get a little emotional too:damn:

I will say this only once. The 'Bill of Rights', the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, do not, I repeat, do not grant people any right(s). Those ten amendments restrict the government from denying those rights from anyone . Government is in no position to grant rights.

[Yahoshua]

Waste Gate, you're correct as far as restricting the government from restricting the people and restricting the government from "bestowing" rights.

But the Bill of Rights does in fact guarantee individual rights to the citizens.


If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist.
— Edward Livingston

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.


And might I point out that in the Militia act of 1792 dictated that ALL white citizens were to have and posess arms and be ready for active duty when called upon.

.....every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service....

Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Reading the Federalist papers is also a good idea:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm


As for being outdated Mickey:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp5ch01.htm


And I should remind you of British history also, in regards to the Magna Carta and the right of Habeus Corpus.

Should you now claim that since the Magna Carta is "outdated" that you and all other English citizens must therefore forfeit the right os Habeus Corpus? Or of the right to freely exercise ones' religion? (In this case the Church of England to freely exercise their beliefs).

That the seizure of land is only to be exercised when the debt in question is extreme and that widows shouldn't be required to pay off inhereted debts or loans? What makes you think such things are "antiquated" or "outdated?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#Content_of_Magna_Carta


http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/RantONRantOFF.gif

[waste gate]

But the Bill of Rights does in fact guarantee individual rights to the citizens.

There is nothing other than individual rights. Collective rights only exist under failed paradigms.

[August]

Its not about the criminals surrendering weapons. Its about making it so that you can't have one to begin with. If you heavily regulate something its alot harder to get one.

That strategy has failed completely when it comes to illegal drugs so I fail to see how it could potentially work in this situation. There are over 200 million legal firearms in this country and countless more not on the books, and countless more than that only a smugglers run away in any number of countries. So, short of conducting door to door house searches, guns, like drugs, are here to stay.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the people that do these insane killing rampages for no reason usually aren't part of the Bonanno family. They're guys with registered weapons that they bought legally.

Where did you get this from? From what i've read a great majority of these animals found less than legal ways to acquire their weapons.

Saying that the solution is to let everyone carry a concealed weapon is reactionary. Its saying that we won't prevent it, we'll just kill him first. Saying that we need to let people have guns with them at all times to protect themselves from other guys cause we let them have guns all the time is just... silly. It doesn't fix anything. The only ones that should be in a shootout are cops.

Why so silly? There were plenty of cops both on and off the VT campus this morning and that did not prevent this horrible crime from happening. Seriously, unless you put cops on every street corner, mall, school, park, restaurant and everywhere else people congregate, 24/7/365, they are never going to be a citizens first line of defense.

And using Israel as an example isn't apt. Its a different social environment.

Social environments as we know them are fast dissapearing in this age of instant communications and rapid travel, especially here in the west. Whatever stability they ever had was due mainly to their isolation and that just isn't possible anymore. What goes on in Israel is just a plane ride or a phone call, or an internet message away and that is going to increase rather than decrease as time goes on.

[Yahoshua]

But the Bill of Rights does in fact guarantee individual rights to the citizens.

There is nothing other than individual rights. Collective rights only exist under failed paradigms.

Just so I can make sure I'm understanding you correctly: You're agreeing that the Bill of rights refers to individuals, not the collective. Am I right, or am I right?

[moose1am]

Let them take all the firearms away from the Iraqis before they start that here in the USA. That should keep the antigun people busy for another century or so.

[NefariousKoel]

Let them take all the firearms away from the Iraqis before they start that here in the USA. That should keep the antigun people busy for another century or so.
LOL!

Excellent comparison the subject. :()1:

I guess us, as Americans, should become more like our 'culturally superior' European friends and pretend the rest of the world doesn't matter?

Great post.

[Tchocky]

Yay, another gun thread. Can't say I'm thrilled.

[micky1up]

Waste Gate, you're correct as far as restricting the government from restricting the people and restricting the government from "bestowing" rights.

But the Bill of Rights does in fact guarantee individual rights to the citizens.


If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist.
— Edward Livingston

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.


And might I point out that in the Militia act of 1792 dictated that ALL white citizens were to have and posess arms and be ready for active duty when called upon.

.....every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service....

Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Reading the Federalist papers is also a good idea:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm


As for being outdated Mickey:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp5ch01.htm


And I should remind you of British history also, in regards to the Magna Carta and the right of Habeus Corpus.

Should you now claim that since the Magna Carta is "outdated" that you and all other English citizens must therefore forfeit the right os Habeus Corpus? Or of the right to freely exercise ones' religion? (In this case the Church of England to freely exercise their beliefs).

That the seizure of land is only to be exercised when the debt in question is extreme and that widows shouldn't be required to pay off inhereted debts or loans? What makes you think such things are "antiquated" or "outdated?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#Content_of_Magna_Carta


http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/RantONRantOFF.gif


stop deflecting the arguement the right of free religious belifs is nothing compared to the right to bare arms and we have no where near the history of massacres that you have i agree its not just the guns its also your way of life that is a threat but you had loads of guns avalible to the police involved that dint stop the individual killing 30 people did it your comparing what happened yesterday to land siezures get a grip will you thats a big insult to 30 plus grieving families

[Skybird]

This thread is tzzzzz. :nope:

Firearms are tools of death, and exclusively so. they are designed to hurt and to kill, nothing else. This is what they excel in, they are of no other use. Like a Katana is optimized to cut only one material: human flesh, firearms are optimized to bring as much death as often and quickly as possible.

america makes a fetish of weapons, but this idol is a cruel god, and from time to time it demands your first-borne as a sacrifice.

If it is argued that a problem caused by firearms - can be healed by even more firearms and easy access to them, then the debate is beyond any hope. If the problem is compared to drug abuse, and Iraq war, then it has already dissappeared in the swamps of irrationality. - As expected.

the part of the bill of rights (I think the weapons thing is anchored in that, right?) that allowed citizens to carry weapons - was written in a different world, and time, when the young US where under threat by the British, and huge parts of the wilderness still were a "non-civilised" country. but these threats are gone. The Queen does not demand the submission of amerian citizens anymore. Would the bill of rights, if written today, include this part on weapons, too? I don't think so. Those minds authoring it were no idiots, and were considering the situation and it's future developement only so far, and not beyond. This passage today - is abused only. Or better: it's content and context gets perverted.

Violance is omni-present in media, film, TV, computer games. It serves as en example for social learning by example-setting. It influences thinking, and behavior patterns, especially of young ones still developing. But be assured that it has no effect on the minds of people and especially young ones. :smug:

Weapons are a very lucratice business in the the US. We all know that this has nothing to do with lobbying for less gun control laws. :smug:

I can assure you that none of the things anyone of you may grew fond of has anything to do with these events. So don't worry, none of you have to change his habits, and everything can happily stay as it is. :smug:

Seen that way, the shooting event has it's good sides. It tells us that everything is good. :up:

Firearms... every idiot can use them and cause havoc at short range without training. No quality in character is needed. No education. No self-discipline or self-restraint. Some very clever even are stupid enough to hurt themselves with them. Go on, sell them even more. See where it will lead you. - Probably straight to hell.

You arm yourself as if you expect to fight wars in your streets and cities, homes and living rooms? Guns, rifles, even automatic rifles, ha!: even explosives? Well, yesterday the fruits of your deeds have found you again. Stop complaining, these events are results of your very own society you have built. Welcome to the jungle. Both perpetrator and victims are your sons and daughters. They are no Martians who just fell down from the sky.

On the level of individual fates I express my condolences.

On a national, community-wide level I say: you got what you deserved. If you play with fire, you get your fingers burned.

[GakunGak]

SkyBird, you da man!:up: :rock:

[Letum]

SkyBird, you da man!:up: :rock:
http://www.b3tards.com/u/57a418c694bc7c6296b3/sky_and_the_birdsig.gif



I used to have some sympathy with the supporters of publicly owned firearms.
I reasoned that publicly owned firearms might go someway to help oppressed people fight back against the regimes that oppress them. However, I now see from the example of history that this is clearly not the case.

I find the personal security argument deeply ironic.

As for keeping firearms in the interest of sport or tradition, this has some merit, but not enough to out weigh the terrible cost.

In the UK I used to have a licence for a shotgun for the purpose of pest control. I believe this is the ONLY valid reason for a member of the public to have a firearm.
As I no longer have any pests I no longer have the licence!

Firearms don't make killers, but they do make it easier to kill.
It is far more emotionally difficult to kill with a knife than a gun.

[waste gate]

But the Bill of Rights does in fact guarantee individual rights to the citizens.

There is nothing other than individual rights. Collective rights only exist under failed paradigms.

Just so I can make sure I'm understanding you correctly: You're agreeing that the Bill of rights refers to individuals, not the collective. Am I right, or am I right?

You are correct, that is how I see it Yahoshua.

[Yahoshua]

But the Bill of Rights does in fact guarantee individual rights to the citizens.

There is nothing other than individual rights. Collective rights only exist under failed paradigms.

Just so I can make sure I'm understanding you correctly: You're agreeing that the Bill of rights refers to individuals, not the collective. Am I right, or am I right?

You are correct, that is how I see it Yahoshua.

Kay.

[Yahoshua]

As for being outdated Mickey:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp5ch01.htm


And I should remind you of British history also, in regards to the Magna Carta and the right of Habeus Corpus.

Should you now claim that since the Magna Carta is "outdated" that you and all other English citizens must therefore forfeit the right os Habeus Corpus? Or of the right to freely exercise ones' religion? (In this case the Church of England to freely exercise their beliefs).

That the seizure of land is only to be exercised when the debt in question is extreme and that widows shouldn't be required to pay off inhereted debts or loans? What makes you think such things are "antiquated" or "outdated?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#Content_of_Magna_Carta


http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/RantONRantOFF.gif


(A) stop deflecting the arguement the right of free religious belifs is nothing compared to the right to bare arms and we have no where near the history of massacres that you have i agree

(B) its not just the guns its also your way of life that is a threat but you had loads of guns avalible to the police involved that dint stop the individual killing 30 people did it

(C) your comparing what happened yesterday to land siezures get a grip will you thats a big insult to 30 plus grieving families

For god sakes START USING PUNCTUATON!!!

A. & C. This was brought up because you said our Constitution was "outdated." And my response was not only about our Constitution, but where the Constitution had roots of inspiration from: The Magna Carta.

The rights you enjoy under the Magna Carta are no different from the Constitution, and yet the constitution even added rights that were to be guaranteed by force. Or namely: U.S. citizens who are part of the militia (everyone over the age of 18 is involuntarily drafted into the militia, that part just isn't taught very well anymore). So that aspect of the argument DOES apply.

B. This is where all the problems come in: Guns do NOT cause crime. Guns account for a small percentage of weapons used in crime and they are acquired via illegal means (read John Lotts books I posted about earier, it goes into much greater detail on the issue).

More to come later, gtg school now.

[micky1up]

As for being outdated Mickey:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp5ch01.htm


And I should remind you of British history also, in regards to the Magna Carta and the right of Habeus Corpus.

Should you now claim that since the Magna Carta is "outdated" that you and all other English citizens must therefore forfeit the right os Habeus Corpus? Or of the right to freely exercise ones' religion? (In this case the Church of England to freely exercise their beliefs).

That the seizure of land is only to be exercised when the debt in question is extreme and that widows shouldn't be required to pay off inhereted debts or loans? What makes you think such things are "antiquated" or "outdated?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#Content_of_Magna_Carta


http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/RantONRantOFF.gif


(A) stop deflecting the arguement the right of free religious belifs is nothing compared to the right to bare arms and we have no where near the history of massacres that you have i agree

(B) its not just the guns its also your way of life that is a threat but you had loads of guns avalible to the police involved that dint stop the individual killing 30 people did it

(C) your comparing what happened yesterday to land siezures get a grip will you thats a big insult to 30 plus grieving families

For god sakes START USING PUNCTUATON!!!

A. & C. This was brought up because you said our Constitution was "outdated." And my response was not only about our Constitution, but where the Constitution had roots of inspiration from: The Magna Carta.

The rights you enjoy under the Magna Carta are no different from the Constitution, and yet the constitution even added rights that were to be guaranteed by force. Or namely: U.S. citizens who are part of the militia (everyone over the age of 18 is involuntarily drafted into the militia, that part just isn't taught very well anymore). So that aspect of the argument DOES apply.

B. This is where all the problems come in: Guns do NOT cause crime. Guns account for a small percentage of weapons used in crime and they are acquired via illegal means (read John Lotts books I posted about earier, it goes into much greater detail on the issue).

More to come later, gtg school now.


i agree guns dont cause crime but as seen over and over they are easy to get hold of when someone goes bannanas like this and all the guns in the world couldnt stop this individual so the arguement that for protection you all need guns is defunked even with them you couldnt stop this

[SUBMAN1]

i agree guns dont cause crime but as seen over and over they are easy to get hold of when someone goes bannanas like this and all the guns in the world couldnt stop this individual so the arguement that for protection you all need guns is defunked even with them you couldnt stop this
I find it a bit ironic that you still don't get the picture, and you still are emotionally upset about something happening in another country other than your own and you want to make sure we conform to your views.

Well, why don't you start with your own state for once? Your gun crime is on the rise (even though your Joe Public is unarmed - go figure). It has been rising every year this century.

The point is, your criminals now have channels to get the weapons they want, yet you have no way to defend yourself. So how do you explain that?

Now, why do you care what we do over here when you have your own problems? Your problems scare me way more than mine. I can do something over here. You over there just get to be a victim is all.

Nice

-S

[micky1up]

and yet even though ours is rising we dont have school masacres on the scale that you have them how many gun related crimes do you have a year ? i would wager even percentage wise we dont have a fraction of what you do! i have a house a wife 2 kids i dont own a gun ive never seen one in my civilian life outside of the navy except in the holster of a police man at the navy base, we have agreed that guns dont cause crime but what is the percentage of crimes that involves guns in the US ? the ready available nature of guns in the US is playing right into the hands of the lone madman whos got a grudge it isnt you hardend criminals that is doing this its everyday joe blog whos got a chip on his shoulder we can argue about it untill we are blue in the face but untill it happens to your family your never going to change your stance ,also we are not paraniod as a country right now and for many years your nation has been obsessed about protection and this is what the cost is

[SUBMAN1]

and yet even though ours is rising we dont have school masacres on the scale that you have them how many gun related crimes do you have a year ? i would wager even percentage wise we dont have a fraction of what you do! i have a house a wife 2 kids i dont own a gun ive never seen one in my civilian life outside of the navy except in the holster of a police man at the navy base, we have agreed that guns dont cause crime but what is the percentage of crimes that involves guns in the US ? the ready available nature of guns in the US is playing right into the hands of the lone madman whos got a grudge it isnt you hardend criminals that is doing this its everyday joe blog whos got a chip on his shoulder we can argue about it untill we are blue in the face but untill it happens to your family your never going to change your stance ,also we are not paraniod as a country right now and for many years your nation has been obsessed about protection and this is what the cost is

As you missed above - you are forgetting the stress of living in America. That is what triggers these whackos. How many times do I have tell you the same thing?

Anyway, you have a ton of gun crime related to street drugs. Its epidemic actually in the UK. Do you know that you can buy a sawn off shotgun in London for only 50 pounds? That is cheaper than I can buy it in the US! You can buy an AK-47 fully automatic for only 800 pounds! I'd have an even harder time getting something like that in the States! Don't tell me that you don't have a problem when you do. The only difference is, your problem is a problem where you and you government bury their head in the sand.

Pistols still command a premium in London though, costing upwards of 1000 pounds due to the concealment factor, but are still easily had.

[Ostfriese]

The point is, your criminals now have channels to get the weapons they want, yet you have no way to defend yourself. So how do you explain that?
The criminals to have the same channels over here, but still... My home nation Germany has one quarter of the US population (82 million), eight times the population density (232 ppl/km²) and far less than 1/30 the number of deaths caused by guns (~300/year)

Now, why do you care what we do over here when you have your own problems? Your problems scare me way more than mine. I can do something over here. You over there just get to be a victim is all.
To be honest - I'd like to know what difference a gun makes. I'd like what your options are just because you have a gun. Honestly. Even though there are areas which aren't too safe at night over here I can still walk around, and the chance of facing the wrong end of a gun is extremely low. But imagining the situation - what good would a gun in that situation do?

From my point of view you Americans are extraordinarily scared of being threatened with a gun. This is understandable, but it leads to the strange conclusion that having a gun on your own would prevent you from being threatened with a gun. How is that supposed to work? What are you going to do if someone points a gun at you? It doesn't matter whether you have a gun of your own in that situation, you're just as helpless as you were without a gun.
Or the situation at Virginia Tech yesterday. What difference would a couple of armed students have made? Those who wouldn't have been too scared of the chaotic situation would have run around, guns drawn - and not having the slightest idea who of all those armed person the bad guy was. Again I'm imagining the situation, running around the camus, my gun drawn, nowing s**t about the situation. Upon spotting some other person with a gun, what would have been my options? Asking him/her, whether he/she was the bad guy? hilarious, if he /she was, he would have shoot me halfway through my question. No, I think it would even have increased the death toll, as those armed heroes would have killed each other by mistake/accident.

I'd say that carrying a gun even increases your chances of becoming a victim.

[Skybird]

This guy offers some interesting perspective and cleans some myths.

http://www.guninformation.org/

On the second amandement:
http://www.guninformation.org/secondamendment.html
http://www.guninformation.org/cases.html

More links on that site, on the left menu.

He sums it up like this:


Top 30 Reasons to Oppose Gun Control


1. In over two hundred years of American history, the courts have never invalidated a gun control law based on the second amendment, but the NRA knows more about the law and the Constitution than the courts.
2. Patrick Henry opposed adding the second amendment to the Constitution. That's why quotations from Henry are used by pro-gun activists to support their interpretation of the second amendment.
3. The Founding Fathers intended to create a libertarian utopia. That's very evident from reading the following quotations:
James Madison wrote, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." (Federalist 51).
John Jay explained, "Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers." (Federalist 2)
4. Guns don't kill people, they just make the bullets go faster so that they can kill people.
5. It's a good idea to own a gun at home because a gun is more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member rather than a criminal.
6. There have been gun control laws for over 200 years in America, but because of modern day circumstances gun-control is no longer needed.
7. The NRA knows more about American history than historians do.
8. Although firearms are inanimate objects and therefore can't kill people, they do somehow have the magical power to keep a person safe from criminals.
9. Although firearms are inanimate objects and therefore can't kill people, they do somehow have the magical power to protect a person against political tyrrany.
10. Guns are a protection against political tyrrany. For example, private ownership of guns was very common in Iraq while Sadam Hussein was in power. Guns are the reason the Iraqi people have enjoyed so much more freedom than people in England where guns have been banned.
11. It's a good idea to make it easy for criminals to obtain guns.
12. According to the British Crime Survey, crime in England has gone down. However, the NRA is the best source of information about crime.
13. Using Gary Kleck's methodology it could be shown that millions of Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet or have been visited by aliens. Despite this, Kleck's studies reveal the truth about defensive gun use.
14. John Lott is a reliable source of information although he kept changing his story about where he got his information for a study in his book More Guns Less Crime.

15. Gun advocate Gary Kleck commented in his book Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control, "More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis." Kleck and Lott contradict each other so they both must be right. 16. During the 1980's the NRA tried to convince President Reagan to abolish the ATF, the law enforcment agency in charge of enforcing federal gun control laws. This is because the best way to enforce current gun laws is to abolish law enforcement.
17. It's a good idea to always have a loaded gun around when you lose your temper.
18. Children are safer if they have easy access to guns.

19. The International Crime Victim Survey found a positive correlation between gun ownership and increases in homicide and suicide, but the right to life doesn't matter. 20. Pro-gun propaganda is very good logic. Let's apply pro-gun propaganda to cars to demonstrate this- Cars don't kill people, people kill people. That's why stop signs and speed limits should be abolished.
21. Criminals don't obey laws and that's why all laws should be abolished.
22. Gun violence means more freedom. Just ask the family of any gun violence victim to verify this.
23. James Madison's first draft of the second amendment was "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." It is clear from this that the term "bear arms" refers to rendering military service and not to carrying guns for personal purposes. However, modern day circumstances have changed the meaning of the second amendment.
24. In United States v. Miller the Supreme Court recognized that the "possession or use" of a weapon must be reasonably related to a well regulated miltia to enjoy second amendment protection. That's why there is an individual right to own any military weapon whether or not its possession or use is related to militia activity.
25. In United States v. Miller the Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the second amendment is to promote an effective militia. That's why the first part of the second amendment doesn't matter.
26. Assault weapons crime decreased after the passage of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Gun crime went down the most in states that didn't previously have their own ban on assault weapons. That's why the ban was ineffective.
27. There is much more gun violence in the US than other industrialized nations, but it's better to face an armed criminal.
28. Chanting a lie over and over again will somehow make it come true.
29. The gun industry should have a special immunity to lawsuits that isn't enjoyed by other industries. The gun industry should not be held responsible when it's negligent.
30. Most murders in the US are commited with guns, but killing is not the purpose of a gun.

[SUBMAN1]

To be honest - I'd like to know what difference a gun makes. I'd like what your options are just because you have a gun. Honestly. Even though there are areas which aren't too safe at night over here I can still walk around, and the chance of facing the wrong end of a gun is extremely low. But imagining the situation - what good would a gun in that situation do?

From my point of view you Americans are extraordinarily scared of being threatened with a gun. This is understandable, but it leads to the strange conclusion that having a gun on your own would prevent you from being threatened with a gun. How is that supposed to work? What are you going to do if someone points a gun at you? It doesn't matter whether you have a gun of your own in that situation, you're just as helpless as you were without a gun.
Or the situation at Virginia Tech yesterday. What difference would a couple of armed students have made? Those who wouldn't have been too scared of the chaotic situation would have run around, guns drawn - and not having the slightest idea who of all those armed person the bad guy was. Again I'm imagining the situation, running around the camus, my gun drawn, nowing s**t about the situation. Upon spotting some other person with a gun, what would have been my options? Asking him/her, whether he/she was the bad guy? hilarious, if he /she was, he would have shoot me halfway through my question. No, I think it would even have increased the death toll, as those armed heroes would have killed each other by mistake/accident.

I'd say that carrying a gun even increases your chances of becoming a victim.

I'm sorry, but to be quite frank, that is some stupid logic. I mean, why have nuclear weapons? Same question pretty much.

[SUBMAN1]

This guy offers some interesting perspective and cleans some myths.

He is whacked too in my opinion. His logic and reasoning on those 30 statements show a complete lack of logic wisdom and intelligence. Sad.

-S

[Ostfriese]

I'm sorry, but to be quite frank, that is some stupid logic. I mean, why have nuclear weapons? Same question pretty much.
We're talking about guns, one person against another person, each seeing each other. Not about weapons of mass dstruction.

So, if you don't mind, answer my question. Properly, please.

[SUBMAN1]

I'm sorry, but to be quite frank, that is some stupid logic. I mean, why have nuclear weapons? Same question pretty much.
We're talking about guns, one person agains another person, each seeing each other. Not about weapons of mass dstruction.

So, if you don't mind, answer my question. Properly, please.
I did. Why have armies? Why have any sort of defense? I see nothing different. I did answer your question because there is no difference. The analogy is identical.

The key word is deterrence. ANother is response. More come to mind.

[Ostfriese]

I'm sorry, but to be quite frank, that is some stupid logic. I mean, why have nuclear weapons? Same question pretty much.
We're talking about guns, one person agains another person, each seeing each other. Not about weapons of mass dstruction.

So, if you don't mind, answer my question. Properly, please.
I did. Why have armies? Why have any sort of defense? I see nothing different. I did answer your question because there is no difference. The analogy is identical.

The key word is deterrence. ANother is response. More come to mind.
There is a serious mistake in your considerations. Armies and weapons of mass destructions result in fear, which itselfs may result in backing down (look at the US and North Korea). But this is not the case with guns, is the exact opposite. Your owning of a gun does NOT (repeat: does NOT) deter criminals of commiting crimes against you. It just increases the chance that you become not just a victim of robbery, but of murder.
Neither one nor a hundred armed students at Virginia Tech would have deterred that madman from his killing rampage.
The only 'response' you can make this way is setting an exclamation point that will just further provoke others .

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Guns. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2b_mFS3WM8)

[Skybird]

This guy offers some interesting perspective and cleans some myths.

He is whacked too in my opinion. His logic and reasoning on those 30 statements show a complete lack of logic wisdom and intelligence. Sad.

-S
It is a bitterly sarcastic summary, or conclusions from the main texts as I had linked them. If you want to deal with him, pick the main texts, not the 30 items on that list. His arguments and references to lawsuits have more substance than yours.

[SUBMAN1]

It is a bitterly sarcastic summary, or conclusions from the main texts as I had linked them. If you want to deal with him, pick the main texts, not the 30 items on that list. His arguments and references to lawsuits have more substance than yours.
Are you kidding? It is similar to this which is why I don't buy his arguments:

40 Reasons for Gun Control
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.
14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.
15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

[Kapitan]

I fight only when and where i need to, as for fire arms i do have weapons but use them on proper ranges and sites, i have in the past just done it for the sheer hell of it but looking back i dont think it was a wise choice.

Fire arms for firing in a range but for every day use as defence then no.

[Skybird]

MYTH: The crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and Australia since stricter gun control laws were enacted in 1996-1997.
TRUTH: The truth is that the UK police has changed its system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws. This change in recording crime made it appear that the crime rate went up. The British Crime Survey, which was unaffected by this change, shows a decrease in crime. Go to the section under violent crime in the British Crime Survey. "The increase in violent crime recorded by police, in contrast to estimates provided from the BCS, appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces. Taking into account recording changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 is estimated to have been a reduction of around five percent." (from Chapter 6- "Violent Crime in England and Wales" of Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002- pdf file (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf))
Here is a graph from the British Crime Survey. You can see that the gun lobby's claim that violent crime skyrocketed in the England after their 1997 handgun ban is clearly false.
http://www.guninformation.org/bcscrime9703.jpg
Source: Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003 (pdf file) (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf) (page 3)
Between 1997 and 2002, the overall UK crime rate fell by 27% (source) (http://www.policesupers.com/scripts/currentnews.ASP?news_id=314). The claim that following the gun ban Australia experienced big increases in crime has been refuted as an urban legend at www.snopes.com, a website that is devoted to exposing urban legends. "Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because 'criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed' are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback." (source) (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/ausguns.htm). Australia's homicide rate is lower than the homicide rate in the US and there has been little variation in Australia's homicide rate since their gun buyback (source) (http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/hvr.html). Not surprisingly, the National Rifle Association didn't let the facts get in the way of its claims that stricter gun laws had caused an increase in crime in Australia. Attorney-General of Australia, Daryl Williams, pointed out in letter to Charlton Heston that "firearms are being used less often in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery in 1998 compared with 1997." He also stated in his letter, "The 54 firearm-related homicides in Australia in 1998 equate to a rate of only 0.28 per 100,000 people. I have been advised that this compares to a rate which is in the order of 4 per 100,000 in the United States. Now that you have the facts, I request that you withdraw immediately the misleading information from your latest campaign."
MYTH: Keeping guns in the home increases personal protection.
TRUTH: Obviously, self defense is not a good argument against gun control since those who own firearms are actually more likely to be victims of homicide. Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide. Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) (source) (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/329/15/1084) and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide (source) (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/7/467). Guns make it more likely that a suicide attempt will be successful than if other means were used such as sleeping pills.
MYTH: Guns don't kill.
TRUTH:Guns make it easier to kill people. A study done by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence reported that a victim is about five times more likely to survive if an attacker is armed with a knife rather than a gun (source) (http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm). Guns simply make it easier to kill. Furthermore, The International Crime Victim Survey concluded that there is a correlation between gun ownership and an increase in both homicide and suicide. "The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the result of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total homicide and suicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide." (source- PDF File) (http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/understanding_files/19_GUN%20OWNERSHIP.pdf).
MYTH: Guns are used defensively 2.5 million times each year in the US.
TRUTH: Gary Kleck conducted a survey which concluded that 2.5 million people in the US each year use guns to defend themselves. One percent of the US population is between 2 and 3 million. So if only one percent of the survey respondents had answered the survey dishonestly that would make the results of the survey inaccurate by millions. According to the NCVS (National Crime Victim Survey) guns are used defensively less than 100,000 times each year (source) (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr). The NCVS surveyed over 90,000 people. In contrast, Kleck only surveyed about 5,000 people. Thus it would be reasonable to conclude that the NCVS provides a more reliable estimate of the number of defensive gun uses in the US. An article published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)87 (1997): 1430 revealed that using methods similiar to Kleck's, it could be concluded that nearly 20 million Americans have seen aircraft from another planet and that one million Americans have had contact with aliens.
"Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias. Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. [34] One question asked: 'Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?' [Page 1438] Ten percent of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, 'Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?' and 6% answered 'Yes.'By extrapolating to the national population, we might conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets. That more than a million Americans had contact with aliens would be incredible news--but not the kind actively publicized by reputable scientists."(source) (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm)
MYTH: People in Switzerland are heavily armed. There is an assault weapon in every Swiss home.
TRUTH: It's true that Swiss soldiers are required to keep their assault rifles at home. How big is the Swiss Army? 400,000 (source) (http://www.almc.army.mil/ALOG/issues/NovDec00/MS575.htm). There are about 3 million Swiss households (source) (http://www.statistik.admin.ch/stat_ch/ber01/eu0105.htm). 400,000/3,000,000= 0.133. Therefore, there is a military assault rifle in about 13% of Swiss homes. Switzerland also has rather strict gun control laws. In Switzerland a permit is required in order to purchase a weapon (The permit shows that you are at least 18 and don't have a criminal record). A permit is also required to carrry a weapon. Such a permit is mostly issued to people who work in security-type occupations. To obtain this permit, you have to demonstrate that you need to carry a weapon and that you know how to handle a gun safely and have knowledge of the law regarding firearms use(source) (http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/legaff/Fact/gunown.html). Soldiers in the Swiss Army are required to store their military weapons at home under lock and key and to undergo regular training. Strict gun laws in Switzerland minimize the dangers of gun ownership. However, such dangers can not be completely eliminated as illustrated by the case of Friedrich Leibacher who rushed into a session of parliament in the Swiss town of Zug. He used his Swiss Army assault rifle and a grenade to murder fourteen people. Eleven of these people were lawmakers (source) (http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/09/28/swiss_ed3_.php) .
MYTH: The 1976 handgun ban in Washington D.C. caused an increase in crime.
TRUTH: The handgun ban has prevented 47 deaths each year (source) (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/325/23/1615) Gun control has saved lives. Let's look at a graph that displays information about the homicide rate in the District of Columbia a decade before the ban and a decade after. There are random fluctuations in the crime rate from year to year so it's best to look at homicide data from many years. In the decade preceding the ban, the homicide rate exceeded 35 per 100,000 4 times. In the decade following the ban this happened only once. The average homicide rate of the ten years that followed the ban was lower than the homicide rate of the previous decade. Was this part of a general decrease in homicide that would have happened without the ban? If that were so you would expect the non-gun homicide rate to have declined as well as the gun homicide rate. However, there was only a statistically significant decrease in the number of homicides that involved firearms.

http://www.guninformation.org/dchomicide.JPG

MYTH: If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns.
TRUTH: If you outlaw guns, very few criminals will have guns. In America guns start out legal. Then they enter the black market one way or the other (source) (http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues_gun_traffic.ASP). So if you have less legal guns then there will less guns entering the black market and consequently less outlaws owning guns. Think about it. Nations with very strict gun control laws such as the UK, Australia, and Japan have much lower gun crime rates than the US. The most probable explanation for this is that criminals in the US have much greater access to guns due to less gun control. Saying "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns" is very misleading and completely absurd. If you outlaw guns, less outlaws will have guns. Would you rather have more or less outlaws owning guns? The answer is obvious.
MYTH:Gun ownership is a protection against political tyranny.
TRUTH: Private ownership of guns was very common under Saddam Hussein's regime (source) (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0310/p01s03-woiq.htm).It certainly didn't protect the Iraqi people against political tyranny. Gun control laws were enacted in Germany to disarm Hitler and those in the Nazi militia. In that case, gun control was a protection against political tyranny.

[SUBMAN1]

There is a serious mistake in your considerations. Armies and weapons of mass destructions result in fear, which itselfs may result in backing down (look at the US and North Korea). But this is not the case with guns, is the exact opposite. Your owning of a gun does NOT (repeat: does NOT) deter criminals of commiting crimes against you. It just increases the chance that you become not just a victim of robbery, but of murder.
Neither one nor a hundred armed students at Virginia Tech would have deterred that madman from his killing rampage.
The only 'response' you can make this way is setting an exclamation point that will just further provoke others .
Incorrect again. Having guns has been proved time and again that it lowers crime through deterrance. Removing them, and you crime goes through the roof - just examine the UK as a model on that one. That logic follows the #7 from my list above:

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

Anyway, if everyone would have been armed, this crazy would have been dropped, and no one would pay attention to it just like the guy who got shot in Seattle by a Concealed Pistol Permit holder. Hardly made the news, when if he were not carrying, he would have been guaranteed have been killed by the crazy. It is only when no one is able to stop the madman that it makes the news like this one did. People seem to foget this. Sad, but I think your country has brainwashed you into this idea. I in turn choose to look at it from a logical perspective.

A mans gun in home is no different from an army that protects ones country from outside aggression. And we all know what happens when one does not have a way to defend oneself in history - their country gets over-run. Happened time and time again.

-S

[Skybird]

And more:

MYTH: The second amendment is a barrier to gun-control.
TRUTH: In US history, no gun-control law has ever been invalidated by a federal court ruling on second amendment grounds. Furthermore, the courts have upheld numerous gun laws as being constitutional. For example, Washington D.C.'s handgun ban has been in effect for over a quarter century and has survived every court challenge that has come its way.
MYTH: The modern day militia includes every adult citizen.
TRUTH: In US v. Miller the Supreme Court, explained that historically "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." In more recently rulings the Supreme Court has made clear what the modern day militia is. "The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution....The passage of the National Defense Act of 1916 materially altered the status of the militias by constituting them as the National Guard." Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41, 46 (1965). And in 1990 the Supreme Court ruled that "Notwithstanding the brief periods of federal service, the members of the state Guard unit continue to satisfy this description of a militia." Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334, 355 (1990)
MYTH: The Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez establishes that the second amendment protects an individual right.
TRUTH: This was actually a fourth amendment case. In the case the court commented on the meaning of the word people as used in the Constitution. "While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." (United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 1990) Notice that the above quotation starts with "While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive....". So the Supreme Court is admitting it can't be sure about its analysis.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals explained the truth about United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez- "Citing dicta from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990), Hale argues that the Second Amendment protections apply to individuals and not to states or collective entities like militias. This argument is inapplicable to this case. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818; United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926, 98 S.Ct. 1493, 55 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); Cody, 460 F.2d 34. Whether the 'right to bear arms' for militia purposes is 'individual' or 'collective' in nature is irrelevant where, as here, the individual's possession of arms is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a militia." (U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992)
The court correctly points out that this passage from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez is dicta (an opinion voiced by a judge that has only incidental bearing on the case in question and is therefore not binding) so it's not the law. The court also pointed out that whether the second amendment protects a collective or an individual right the important thing is it's still right that exists only in connection with a well regulated militia.
Let's analyze the word "people" in the second amendment. It has been claimed that this word necessarily means each adult citizen in America. Let's look at how the word "people" is used in the preamble of the Constitution. "We the People of the United States....do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It clear that the word "people" in this context is being used in a collective sense. Obviously, not every adult citizen in America was involved in writing the Constitution. Likewise, saying that the Russians have nuclear weapons does not necessarily mean that each Russian owns a nuclear weapon. The word Russians is being used here in a collective sense. Saying that the people have the right to bear arms does not necessarily mean that each adult citizen has a right to bear arms.

Akhil Reed Amar, a leading scholar of constitutional law and author of The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction, explains that the word people is used in a collective sense in the US Constitution. "But the libertarian reading must contend with textual embarrassments of its own. The amendment speaks of a right of 'the people' collectively rather than a right of 'persons' individually. And it uses a distinctly military phrase: 'bear arms.'....The rest of the Bill of Rights confirms this communitarian reading. The core of the First Amendment's assembly clause, which textually abuts the Second Amendment, is the right of 'the people'--in essence, voters--to 'assemble' in constitutional conventions and other political conclaves. So, too, the core rights retained and reserved to 'the people' in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were rights of the people collectively to govern themselves democratically. The Fourth Amendment is trickier: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.' Here, the collective 'people' wording is paired with more individualistic language of 'persons.'" (Source) (http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/103wha.htm)
MYTH: All rights are individual rights.
TRUTH: In US v. Cruikshank (1875) the Supreme Court recognized that there are both collective and individual rights. The court stated, "Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights." MYTH: The second amendment protects a right to bear arms outside the context of a well regulated militia.
TRUTH: The second amendment starts off with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," Notice the word "being". The word "being" implies that the idea is not complete as in the following sentence- "The door being locked..." So you have to read the 2nd amendment as a whole. When the second amendment is read as a whole, it is clear that it protects the right of the people to bear arms within the context of an organized militia.
In United States v. Miller the Supreme Court explained that the purpose fo the second amendment was to "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the militia spoken of in Article 1 of the Constitution. "The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." (United States v. Miller) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/307/174.html).
Examining the meaning of the term bear arms further supports this conclusion. James Madison's first draft of the second amendment was "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." It is clear from this that the phrase "bear arms" refers to militia service and not to guns intended for personal use.
The American Bar Association has explained how the second amendment does not interfere with regulating weapons intended for private use. "Since today's 'well regulated militia' does not use privately owned firearms, courts since Miller have unanimously held that regulation of such guns does not offend the Second Amendment...As lawyers, as representatives of the legal profession, and as recognized experts on the meaning of the Constitution and our system of justice, we share a responsibility to the public and lawmakers to 'say what the law is.'" (Source) (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html)

[Skybird]

And finally:

"....In this case, we must decide whether this amendment grants constitutional protection to an individual whose possession or use of machineguns and pipe bombs is not reasonably related to an organized state militia. We hold that it does not.... As a member of Georgia's unorganized militia,[fn12] Wright claims that he has a constitutional right to possess machineguns and pipe bombs because these weapons are used by contemporary militia fighting forces....A careful reading of Miller, however, strongly suggests that only militias actively maintained and trained by the states can satisfy the 'well regulated militia' requirement of the Second Amendment. As the Miller Court emphasized, the 'obvious purpose' of the Second Amendment was to 'render possible the effectiveness of' the governmental militia described in the Militia Clauses of the Constitution.[fn16] Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818. Thus, the Second Amendment 'must be interpreted and applied with that end in view....'" U.S. v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/wright.htm)
"Appellant was convicted in the district court for the District of Kansas of knowingly possessing an unregistered machine gun in violation of 26 U.S.C. ?5861(d)....The second constitutional argument that appellant advances is that the prosecution here violated his right to bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment.[fn1] Defendant presents a long historical analysis of the amendment's background and purpose from which he concludes that every citizen has the absolute right to keep arms. This broad conclusion has long been rejected. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206....The purpose of the second amendment as stated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller, supra at 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, was to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia. The Court stated that the amendment must be interpreted and applied with that purpose in view. Id. To apply the amendment so as to guarantee appellant's right to keep an unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any connection to the militia, merely because he is technically a member of the Kansas militia, would be unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy. This lack of justification is even more apparent when applied to appellant's membership in 'Posse Comitatus,' an apparently nongovernmental organization. We conclude, therefore, that this prosecution did not violate the second amendment...." U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/oakes.htm)
"Appellant, Peter B. Thomas, argues that the City of Portland, Maine, and various city officials infringed his constitutional rights by denying him a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Established case law makes clear that the federal Constitution grants appellant no right to carry a concealed handgun. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (second amendment applies only to weapons that have a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.')...." Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41 (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/thomas2.htm)
"Douglas Ray Hickman appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees, who denied Hickman a concealed weapons permit. He complains, among other things, that the appellees' permit issuance policy violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. We have jurisdiction over his timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1291, and affirm on the basis that Hickman lacks standing to sue for a violation of the Second Amendment...We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen. We conclude that Hickman can show no legal injury, and therefore lacks standing to bring this action...." Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/hickman.htm)
"Wilbur Hale appeals his conviction of thirteen counts of possession of a machine gun pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. ?922(o) (West Supp. 1992) and three counts of possession of unregistered firearms pursuant to 26 U.S.C. ?5861(d) (1988). He argues....that the indictment violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms....we cannot conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual possession of military weapons....The rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of a certain weapon has 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,' the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the weapon. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818....After carefully examining the principles and implications of the then recent Miller decision, the First Circuit concluded that the existence of any 'reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well regulated militia' was best determined from the facts of each individual case. Id. Thus, it is not sufficient to prove that the weapon in question was susceptible to military use. Indeed, as recognized in Cases, most any lethal weapon has a potential military use.[fn4] Id. Rather, the claimant of Second Amendment protection must prove that his or her possession of the weapon was reasonably related to a well regulated militia. See id. at 923. Where such a claimant presented no evidence either that he was a member of a military organization or that his use of the weapon was 'in preparation for a military career', the Second Amendment did not protect the possession of the weapon. Id. Since the Miller decision, no federal court has found any individual's possession of a military weapon to be 'reasonably related to a well regulated militia.' 'Technical' membership in a state militia (e.g., membership in an 'unorganized' state militia) or membership in a non-governmental military organization is not sufficient to satisfy the 'reasonable relationship' test. Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387. Membership in a hypothetical or 'sedentary' militia is likewise insufficient. See Warin, 530 F.2d 103...." U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992) U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/hale.htm)
"This appeal concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Morton Grove's Ordinance No. 81-11,[fn1] which prohibits the possession of handguns within the Village's borders. The district court held that the Ordinance was constitutional. We affirm....The second amendment provides that '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.' U.S. Const. amend. II. Construing this language according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia. This is precisely the manner in which the Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), the only Supreme Court case specifically addressing that amendment's scope. There the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia....Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment.[fn9]" Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/quilici.htm)
"A jury convicted[fn1] James Cody of making false statements to a licensed firearms dealer in connection with the purchase of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. ?922(a) (6)....We find no merit in the contention that ?922(a) (6) violates appellant's Second Amendment right to bear arms. Since United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), it has been settled that the Second Amendment is not an absolute bar to congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms. The Second Amendment's guarantee extends only to use or possession which 'has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' ....We find no evidence that the prohibition of ?922(a) (6) obstructs the maintenance of a well regulated militia...." Cody v. U.S., 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir.) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/cody.htm)
"Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, William H. Becker, Chief Judge, for, inter alia, failure to make appropriate entries and to properly maintain records as required of a federally-licensed firearms dealer, and he appealed....With respect to a possible infringement of Second Amendment rights, we need only look to the rationale of the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939): 'In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of (the weapon) at this time 167 has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument'....Thus, in light of the defendant's failure to present any evidence indicating a conflict between the requirements of "922(m) and 923(g) and the maintenance of a well regulated militia, we decline to hold that the statute violates the Second Amendment...." U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/decker.htm)

"Defendant was convicted before the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Miles W. Lord, J., of violating the omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968...The next contention raised is that ' 1202(a)(1) violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms. We do not agree.... ....Although ' 1202(a) is the broadest federal gun legislation to date, we see no conflict between it and the Second Amendment since there is no showing that prohibiting possession of firearms by felons obstructs the maintenance of a 'well regulated militia.'" U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/synnes.htm)
"By virtue of 1996 amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968 which prohibit persons convicted of domestic violence offenses from possessing firearms in or affecting commerce, Jerald Gillespie can no longer carry a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. ?922(g)(9). As a result, he has lost his job as a police officer. Gillespie filed suit against the City of Indianapolis[fn1] seeking to have the statute declared unconstitutional and his employment with the Indianapolis Police Department preserved. The United States intervened to defend the constitutionality of the statute....The Second Amendment provides that '[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.' U.S. Const. amend. II. The link that the amendment draws between the ability 'to keep and bear Arms' and '[a] well regulated Militia' suggests that the right protected is limited, one that inures not to the individual but to the people collectively, its reach extending so far as is necessary to protect their common interest in protection by a militia...." Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/gillesp.htm) "This case requires a determination of whether certain provisions of the National Firearms Act as amended by the Gun Control Act of 1968, 26 U.S.C. ?5801 et seq., are an invalid infringement on the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution...It is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right....It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the States or that defendant's automatic membership in the 'sedentary militia' of Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees...." U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warin.htm)
"According to her complaint, in September, 1990, April Love tried to purchase a handgun at a shop in Prince George's County, Maryland.... On September 21, Corporal Ernest Pletcher reviewed the application and a computer printout from Maryland police and Federal Bureau of Investigation files. He discovered that Ms. Love had been arrested on four occasions....Citing law review articles, Love argues that she has an individual federal constitutional right to 'keep and bear' a handgun, and Maryland may not infringe upon this right....She is wrong on both counts. The Second Amendment does not apply to the states. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1876).[fn5] Moreover, even as against federal regulation, the amendment does not confer an absolute individual right to bear any type of firearm. In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right...." Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/love.htm)
"Major Henry Johnson was convicted by a jury of transporting a firearm in interstate commerce after having been convicted of a felony, 18 U.S.C. ?922(g). He appeals, challenging the district court's instructions and contesting the constitutionality of section 922(g). For the reasons set forth below, we disagree with Johnson's arguments and affirm the conviction....The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818. Johnson presents no evidence that section 922(g) in any way affects the maintenance of a well regulated militia...." U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/johnson2.htm)
“Appellant Raymond Rybar, Jr. was convicted following a conditional guilty plea to two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. Section(s) 922(o), which makes it 'unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun.' On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in rejecting his challenge to that provision as beyond Congress' commerce power and as violating the Second Amendment. Neither challenge is persuasive....In support, Rybar cites, paradoxically, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), where the Court upheld the constitutionality of a firearms-registration requirement against a Second Amendment challenge. Rybar draws on that holding, relying on the Miller Court's observation that the sawed-off shotgun in question had not been shown to bear 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' Brief of Appellant at 24-25; Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. Drawing from that language the contra positive implication, Rybar suggests that because the military utility of the machine guns proscribed by Section(s) 922(o) is clear, a result contrary to that reached in Miller is required, and the statute is therefore invalid under the Second Amendment....We note first that however clear the Court's suggestion that the firearm before it lacked the necessary military character, it did not state that such character alone would be sufficient to secure Second Amendment protection. In fact, the Miller Court assigned no special importance to the character of the weapon itself, but instead demanded a reasonable relationship between its 'possession or use' and militia related activity....Rybar's invocation of this statute does nothing to establish that his firearm possession bears a reasonable relationship to 'the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,' as required in Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. " U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807 (1997) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/rybar.htm)
"At stake in the present appeal is the vitality of several key provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968,[fn1] a statutory program which restricts the right to bear arms of convicted felons and other persons of dangerous propensities.[fn2]....U.S.Const. amend. II states: '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' Arguably, any regulation of firearms may be violative of this constitutional provision. Nevertheless, the courts consistently have found no conflict between federal gun laws and the Second Amendment, narrowly construing the latter to guarantee the right to bear arms as a member of a militia...." U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/graves.htm)
"Appellant, here petitioned the district court to enjoin the City of Philadelphia from enforcing its ordinance which regulates the purchase of firearms and transfer of same. Appellant's theory in the district court which he now repeats is that by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution he is entitled to bear arms. Appellant is completely wrong about that. As long ago at least as 1939 the United States Supreme Court held that there must be "* * * some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". There is nothing whatsoever of that kind in this appeal. It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939)...." Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 839 (1973) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/eckert.htm)
"Appellant Dennis E. Friel was indicted by a federal grand jury with two counts of possession of firearms by a person convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. "922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). [FN1] Appellant was convicted, after a jury trial, on both counts. He raises six issues on appeal, all of which we reject....Appellant argues generally that ' 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. Specifically, he asserts that the limits imposed by ' 922(g)(1) violate the constitutional right to bear arms. The Supreme Court plainly has held that the Second Amendment-'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'-applies only to firearms having a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia....'" U.S. v. Friel, 1 F.3d 1231 (1st Cir. 1993) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/friel.htm)
....These holdings, when considered within the broad intent of the Act, highlight the established principle that there is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939)...." U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/swinton.htm)
"In 1999, the State of California enacted amendments to its gun-control laws that significantly strengthened the state's restrictions on the possession, use, and transfer of semi-automatic weapons popularly known as 'assault weapons.' Plaintiffs, California residents who either own assault weapons, seek to acquire such weapons, or both, brought this challenge to the gun-control statute, asserting that the law, as amended, violates the Second Amendment....The district court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims. Because the second amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms, we affirm the dismissal of all claims brought pursuant to that consitutional provision....'Militia' appears repeatedly in the first and second articles of the Constitution. From its use in those sections, it is apparent that the drafters were referring in the Constitution to the second of two government-established and -controlled military forces. Those forces were, first, the national army and navy which were subject to civilian control shared by the president and Congress, and, second, the state militias, which were 'essentially organized and under control of the states, but subject to regulation by Congress and to "federalization" at the command of the president.'...."Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gunlawsuits/silvlckyr120502opn.pdf)(PDF file)
"....After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of carrying a pistol without a license, D.C.Code ' 22-3204 (1981), possession of an unregistered firearm, id. ' 6-2311, and unlawful possession of ammunition, id. ' 6-2361....We now hold that D.C.Code '' 6-2311, 6-2361, and 22-3204 (1981) do not violate the second amendment. We affirm appellant's convictions....We agree with numerous other courts that 'the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.'....The purpose of the second amendment is 'to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia.'.... Appellant cannot show that possession of a handgun by an individual bears any relationship to the District of Columbia's desire and ability to preserve a well regulated militia...."(Sandidge v. United States) (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/cases/sandidge.html)

[SUBMAN1]

MYTH:

Please post a link. THis did not format right.

[Skybird]

MYTH:

Please post a link. THis did not format right.
I gave the link before, you don't get it, and when i quote the text - you complain of not beeing given a link? :huh:

[SUBMAN1]

MYTH:
Please post a link. THis did not format right. I gave the link before, you don't get it, and when i quote the text - you complain of not beeing given a link? :huh:

Are you talking the liberal biased whacko that made the 30 reason list? Whya re you reposting it?

[SUBMAN1]

Here is some info on the UK gun problem for your own reading - not a leftist whacko who has his own opinions:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/0,,178412,00.html

Seems to me they have more shootings than the US!

[Ostfriese]

Incorrect again. Having guns has been proved time and again that it lowers crime through deterrance. Removing them, and you crime goes through the roof - just examine the UK as a model on that one. That logic follows the #7 from my list above:

Crime goes through the roof without gun control? That's hilarious, especially if an American tells this to a German. There's been very strict gun control in Germany since 1945, and our crime rates are WAY below American crime rates in just any aspect. Even though our population density is about 8 times higher than the American... Where would our crime rate be if we had no gun control at all? According to your theory there wouldn't be any crime here any more...

Sad, but I think your country has brainwashed you into this idea. I in turn choose to look at it from a logical perspective.

This is something I'm used to hear from Americans who have never been to my country. So full of themselves, so 'We are the world'. And to argue with brainwashing is again quite hilarious - this is something your media and your politicians can do far better and do far more than over here.

A mans gun in home is no different from an army that protects ones country from outside aggression. And we all know what happens when one does not have a way to defend oneself in history - their country gets over-run. Happened time and time again.

Like France in 1940, eh? Strongest defensive army in the world, supported by British Expiditionary Forces. Overrun within six weeks.

[SUBMAN1]

Crime goes through the roof without gun control? That's hilarious, especially if an American tells this to a German. There's been very strict gun control in Germany since 1945, and our crime rates are WAY below American crime rates in just any aspect. Even though our population density is about 8 times higher than the American... Where would our crime rate be if we had no gun control at all? According to your theory there wouldn't be any crime here any more...

Try with gun control. Google it, you'll be surprised. Our lowest crime rates in our entire country happen to be the same areas with the highest gun ownership. You might best rethink that idea.

This is something I'm used to hear from Americans who have never been to my country. So full of themselves, so 'We are the world'. And to argue with brainwashing is again quite hilarious - this is something your media and your politicians can do far better and do far more than over here.

This is coming from the same people that listened to the Nazi's.

Like France in 1940, eh? Strongest defensive army in the world, supported by British Expiditionary Forces. Overrun within six weeks.

Hahaha? What British? Hardly many there at the time to even make a difference. And then you are talking about the French - they are known for throwing out their white flag. Tell me something better. I like the Russians better. They had every last boy out there armed with their pathetic rifles and they stopped you dead in your tracks.

[August]

This is something I'm used to hear from Americans who have never been to my country. So full of themselves, so 'We are the world'. And to argue with brainwashing is again quite hilarious - this is something your media and your politicians can do far better and do far more than over here.
I'm an American. I've been to your country. I lived there for three years. I have (at last count) 57 German cousins, 10 sets of German Aunts and Uncles and one set of German Grandparents (now deceased). So believe me when I say this, for a German to complain that Americans are so full of ourselves is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

As for "We are the World", that part is true. Name one country that has a more extensive cultural and racial mix than the US. If you do manage to come up with one it sure ain't gonna be Germany.

[Fish]

This thread is tzzzzz. :nope:

Firearms are tools of death, and exclusively so. they are designed to hurt and to kill, nothing else. This is what they excel in, they are of no other use. Like a Katana is optimized to cut only one material: human flesh, firearms are optimized to bring as much death as often and quickly as possible.

america makes a fetish of weapons, but this idol is a cruel god, and from time to time it demands your first-borne as a sacrifice.

If it is argued that a problem caused by firearms - can be healed by even more firearms and easy access to them, then the debate is beyond any hope. If the problem is compared to drug abuse, and Iraq war, then it has already dissappeared in the swamps of irrationality. - As expected.

the part of the bill of rights (I think the weapons thing is anchored in that, right?) that allowed citizens to carry weapons - was written in a different world, and time, when the young US where under threat by the British, and huge parts of the wilderness still were a "non-civilised" country. but these threats are gone. The Queen does not demand the submission of amerian citizens anymore. Would the bill of rights, if written today, include this part on weapons, too? I don't think so. Those minds authoring it were no idiots, and were considering the situation and it's future developement only so far, and not beyond. This passage today - is abused only. Or better: it's content and context gets perverted.

Violance is omni-present in media, film, TV, computer games. It serves as en example for social learning by example-setting. It influences thinking, and behavior patterns, especially of young ones still developing. But be assured that it has no effect on the minds of people and especially young ones. :smug:

Weapons are a very lucratice business in the the US. We all know that this has nothing to do with lobbying for less gun control laws. :smug:

I can assure you that none of the things anyone of you may grew fond of has anything to do with these events. So don't worry, none of you have to change his habits, and everything can happily stay as it is. :smug:

Seen that way, the shooting event has it's good sides. It tells us that everything is good. :up:

Firearms... every idiot can use them and cause havoc at short range without training. No quality in character is needed. No education. No self-discipline or self-restraint. Some very clever even are stupid enough to hurt themselves with them. Go on, sell them even more. See where it will lead you. - Probably straight to hell.

You arm yourself as if you expect to fight wars in your streets and cities, homes and living rooms? Guns, rifles, even automatic rifles, ha!: even explosives? Well, yesterday the fruits of your deeds have found you again. Stop complaining, these events are results of your very own society you have built. Welcome to the jungle. Both perpetrator and victims are your sons and daughters. They are no Martians who just fell down from the sky.

On the level of individual fates I express my condolences.

On a national, community-wide level I say: you got what you deserved. If you play with fire, you get your fingers burned.

Great post Skybird! :up:

[Fish]

I'm sorry, but to be quite frank, that is some stupid logic. I mean, why have nuclear weapons? Same question pretty much.
We're talking about guns, one person agains another person, each seeing each other. Not about weapons of mass dstruction.

So, if you don't mind, answer my question. Properly, please.
I did. Why have armies? Why have any sort of defense? I see nothing different. I did answer your question because there is no difference. The analogy is identical.

The key word is deterrence. ANother is response. More come to mind.

You want to compare a lunatic with your army? :hmm:

[Godboo]

Somewhat off topic but whatever.

The second amendment was written so militiamen could fight against the British in the American Revolution. It gives people leverage over their government in case that government tries to become tyrannical.

The second amendment wasn't written to give people a means of personal self defense against fellow citizens, that's just an unintended consequence.

The intention of the 2nd Amendment is still very much relevant today. If the US government tries to become oppressive, the people have a means of revolution. The 2nd Amendment only becomes important when the government tries to take it away.

[SUBMAN1]

You want to compare a lunatic with your army? :hmm:

Wouldn't it take a lunatic army to invade the US too? :hmm: So yes is the answer to the question.

[Skybird]

MYTH:
Please post a link. THis did not format right. I gave the link before, you don't get it, and when i quote the text - you complain of not beeing given a link? :huh:

Are you talking the liberal biased whacko that made the 30 reason list? Whya re you reposting it?

Can you counter in substantial, legal argument any of what the man says in argument and says by referring to lawsuits and valid laws and remarks on the second amandement, yes or no?

Labelling someone as a "liberal leftist whacko" does honour to a pubescent male teen trying to impress his girlfriend by behaving loud - beyond that, it is pointless. so please, enlighten us: could you counter what the man says on the legal situation, yes or no?

COULD YOU BUSTER ANY OF THE MYTH BUSTING THAT THE MAN HAS CONDUCTED? Referring to postings 213, 215, 216 here.

[August]

COULD YOU BUSTER ANY OF THE MYTH BUSTING THAT THE MAN HAS CONDUCTED? Referring to postings 213, 215, 216 here.
A 10 second research project yielded this:

TRUTH: In US history, no gun-control law has ever been invalidated by a federal court ruling on second amendment grounds. Furthermore, the courts have upheld numerous gun laws as being constitutional. For example, Washington D.C.'s handgun ban has been in effect for over a quarter century and has survived every court challenge that has come its way.
A three-judge panel led by Senior Judge Laurence Silberman struck down parts of Washington, D.C.'s strict gun-control ordinance as a violation of residents' Second Amendment right to bear arms in Parker v. District of Columbia[/QUOTE].

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1173434606378

[SUBMAN1]

MYTH:
Please post a link. THis did not format right. I gave the link before, you don't get it, and when i quote the text - you complain of not beeing given a link? :huh:
Are you talking the liberal biased whacko that made the 30 reason list? Whya re you reposting it?
Can you counter in substantial, legal argument any of what the man says in argument and says by referring to lawsuits and valid laws and remarks on the second amandement, yes or no?

Labelling someone as a "liberal leftist whacko" does honour to a pubescent male teen trying to impress his girlfriend by behaving loud - beyond that, it is pointless. so please, enlighten us: could you counter what the man says on the legal situation, yes or no?

COULD YOU BUSTER ANY OF THE MYTH BUSTING THAT THE MAN HAS CONDUCTED? Referring to postings 213, 215, 216 here.

Pretty much all of it has a counter argument. I am not going to post a 50 mile long thread against all of it. I do not write books on a forum like you do. If you want to pick a subject out of his mix, then fine, by all means, lets discuss it. But to just post all that crap in mass, forget it. This is a forum remember?

-S

[SUBMAN1]

COULD YOU BUSTER ANY OF THE MYTH BUSTING THAT THE MAN HAS CONDUCTED? Referring to postings 213, 215, 216 here.
A 10 second research project yielded this:

TRUTH: In US history, no gun-control law has ever been invalidated by a federal court ruling on second amendment grounds. Furthermore, the courts have upheld numerous gun laws as being constitutional. For example, Washington D.C.'s handgun ban has been in effect for over a quarter century and has survived every court challenge that has come its way.
A three-judge panel led by Senior Judge Laurence Silberman struck down parts of Washington, D.C.'s strict gun-control ordinance as a violation of residents' Second Amendment right to bear arms in Parker v. District of Columbia.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1173434606378[/quote]

Thanks for taking the time on that August. That right there goes to show that this man does not speak the truth from the start.

Get the point yet Skybird?

[Fish]

[This is coming from the same people that listened to the Nazi's.



Is that necessary?

[SUBMAN1]

[This is coming from the same people that listened to the Nazi's.


Is that necessary?

You attack me and my country in a similar fasion, turn about is fair play. So yes.

-S

[Skybird]

(...) D.C. government officials offered no immediate word about possible appeals, but it appears likely that the city, under new Mayor Adrian Fenty, will at least seek an en banc review of the ruling. "The fact that, even on this panel, there was one dissent is a sign that the decision is open to question," says David Gossett, a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw in the District, which wrote a brief for the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Center in support of the D.C. ordinance. (...)
Even if the high court rules in favor of an individual right, it would not spell the end of all gun regulation. As even Silberman points out, the high court has allowed reasonable restriction of other individual rights such as freedom of speech. But such a decision could trigger litigation over a range of laws, including those that make criminal penalties more serious if they involve possession of firearms. (...)
The Miller court in 1939 and many scholars since have viewed it as an articulation of the right of state militias -- not individuals -- to bear arms. Over the years, the high court, apparently glad to avoid the hot-potato issue, has consistently declined to take up Second Amendment challenges to laws restricting gun use and possession. (...)
Henderson's dissent dismisses the majority decision as "superfluity" because, in her view, the Second Amendment applies only to states -- not to the District of Columbia.

Havinf red the article three times, I found it a bit difficult to see it as such a definite case.

The article August linked to, is from the imminent past: five weeks ago, early March 2007. But Miller-US is from 1939 - almost seventy years ago.

@Subman,

nice zig-zagging of yours. Will there come anything substantial from you? The guy gave solid references to legal aspects of the issue, and additionally referred to the questionable quality of several crime statistics as well. Can you, will you counter it, or zig-zag even more? I am no expert on these things, so if you can proove that it is all wrong what he says, me and probabaly others as well would be interested to learn about where the guy is misinformed. If you have substantial legal arguments, now is the time to bring them and give up loudness instead.

[Skybird]

Further investigation gave me a link to this text from 1788 that is worth to take note of:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

[SUBMAN1]

@Subman,

nice zig-zagging of yours. Will there come anything substantial from you? The guy gave solid references to legal aspects of the issue, and additionally referred to the questionable quality of several crime statistics as well. Can you, will you counter it, or zig-zag even more? I am no expert on these things, so if you can proove that it is all wrong what he says, me and probabaly others as well would be interested to learn about where the guy is misinformed. If you have substantial legal arguments, now is the time to bring them and give up loudness instead.

Did you bother to read my last post on the subject to you? I didn't zig zag. You are quoting in mass. If you feel like arguing a 'single' point, bring one specific point to the floor and we can argue about it. Then we can move on to 'another' point. Such a concept! Wow! What you post above is 50 pages of crap! I am not going to write a book on a forum thread!

So when you feel like getting specific and bringing one point from the subject to discuss, feel free. I am waiting.

-S

[Skybird]

And having felt a growing feeling of alarm, I searched a bit for this judge Laurence Silberman (August's article) and found this, amongst others:

Laurence Silberman: the Right Man or the Right's Man?
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13902

[Skybird]

@Subman,

nice zig-zagging of yours. Will there come anything substantial from you? The guy gave solid references to legal aspects of the issue, and additionally referred to the questionable quality of several crime statistics as well. Can you, will you counter it, or zig-zag even more? I am no expert on these things, so if you can proove that it is all wrong what he says, me and probabaly others as well would be interested to learn about where the guy is misinformed. If you have substantial legal arguments, now is the time to bring them and give up loudness instead.

Did you bother to read my last post on the subject to you? I didn't zig zag. You are quoting in mass. If you feel like arguing a 'single' point, bring one specific point to the floor and we can argue about it. Then we can move on to 'another' point. Such a concept! Wow! What you post above is 50 pages of crap! I am not going to write a book on a forum thread!

So when you feel like getting specific and bringing one point from the subject to discuss, feel free. I am waiting.

-S

Zig.

that guy gave opposing arguments to several of your statements you made during this thread. What further pointing do you need? You think he is wrong and you are right on these points? Okay, we are waiting.

[SUBMAN1]

And having felt a growing feeling of alarm, I searched a bit for this judge Laurence Silberman (August's article) and found this, amongst others:

Laurence Silberman: the Right Man or the Right's Man?
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13902

And your point would be?

[SUBMAN1]

Zig.

Hardly, but I can see how you want to degenerate the discussion into something resembling zig and zag to avoid the main points. The problem is, I see you don't have any. Thanks for trying.

-S

[ASWnut101]

Somewhat off topic but whatever.

The second amendment was written so militiamen could fight against the British in the American Revolution. It gives people leverage over their government in case that government tries to become tyrannical.

Yet nowhere does it say in the Constitution, Declaration, or Bill of Rights that it was intended to be used only against the British.

The second amendment wasn't written to give people a means of personal self defense against fellow citizens, that's just an unintended consequence.

The intention of the 2nd Amendment is still very much relevant today. If the US government tries to become oppressive, the people have a means of revolution. The 2nd Amendment only becomes important when the government tries to take it away.

I understand what you are saying. It clearly grants us the right to keep the guns. It's not whether or not you shoot someone, but the right to actually have them.


You are correct about it not giving us the right to kill someone in self-defence, which is why we made laws for that. We use the 2nd amendment to keep our weapons, not use it as an excuse to kill another. :yep:


P.S.: Welcome, I guess. It's just sad that we first meet in a political discussion.

[Ostfriese]

Is that necessary?

Nah, nevermind. I'm used to that. I've met many decent American people over the years, and most of them were both able and willing to think about other people's arguments before answering. Unfortunately there are always some who pull the 'nazi' card once they run out of arguments :)

[SUBMAN1]

Unfortunately there are always some who pull the 'nazi' card once they run out of arguments :)
Excuse me, but please put it into context. You attacked me the same way, so I gave it back to you. Sad that you try to scoot around that part.

-S

PS. Let me remind you where my response came from :

This is something I'm used to hear from Americans who have never been to my country. So full of themselves, so 'We are the world'.
What I find ironic in your statements is that you are trying to infuence my thoughts and country, yet you say that I think 'I am the world'. I have not even talked about your country before this. Find that a bit hypocritical now that I put it into that context, no?

[Skybird]

Zag. (@subman)

So many post of yours, but actually prooving nothing, and giving your personal paroles instead. Plenty of arguments had been given to you that indicate you are wrong in several of your staements - and you don't take on it.

I think most readers have made their conclusions by now. Giving you links was not good enough. Quoting the text made you complain. Demanding you to proove that this fella is wrong on where he refutes your claims makes you evading even more.

Zig.

No need to continue for me here, it speaks for itself. Your place.

[Ostfriese]

I understand what you are saying. It clearly grants us the right to keep the guns. It's not whether or not you shoot someone, but the right to actually have them.


You are correct about it not giving us the right to kill someone in self-defence, which is why we made laws for that. We use the 2nd amendment to keep our weapons, not use it as an excuse to kill another. :yep:
No one doubts that you have those laws - but you still have got quite a high homicide rate. About 6 cases for every 100.000 people. What's the reason that not one single western European nation comes anywhere close to this (average below 1 per 100.000 people)?

[Ostfriese]

Excuse me, but please put it into context. You attacked me the same way, so I gave it back to you. Sad that you try to scoot around that part.

-S

PS. Let me remind you where my response came from :

Quite sweet :) But unfortunately your argument backfires. I was born long after the war (1969, fyi). So, I had nothing to do with the Nazis and am only oblieged to prevent such things from happening again.
You, however, still have a gun and claim you wouldn't hesitate to kill a human being if you just felt yourself in danger.

[SUBMAN1]

Quite sweet :) But unfortunately your argument backfires. I was born long after the war (1969, fyi). So, I had nothing to do with the Nazis and am only oblieged to prevent such things from happening again.
You, however, still have a gun and claim you wouldn't hesitate to kill a human being if you just felt yourself in danger.
No it doesn't. The same thing is happening again I see. That is what my problem is with it. It is how you have been brought up. It is also something I don't agree with since I do not think it is right either.

And yes, I will not roll over and play dead and let my self become a victim when I can do something about it. There are two types of people in this world, and I understand that people in this world who consider themselves victims have a phycological abnormallity that makes them dispise other people that have the ability to help themselves. Sigmund Frued originally coined this way back when. ANyway, I doubt you will ever see my side of the coin because you are unable to.

-S

PS. I wish the German people would ditch this mentallity and have a mentallity of pride like they once had. Be strong in the world again, rival the US or anyone else. THe problem is, I see them caving in... Guns is only one minor point in the bigger picture to me.

[August]

Further investigation gave me a link to this text from 1788 that is worth to take note of:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

Your point Skybird? Hamilton had a lot of funny ideas, including that it was ok to fight duels. But if you want to play the "What the Founding Fathers meant" game here's another quote from the same time period:

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

and another:

Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

and another:

Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):
Conceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3. and another and just as key to this argument:

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

[Ostfriese]

No it doesn't. The same thing is happening again I see. That is what my problem is with it. It is how you have been brought up. It is also something I don't agree with since I do not think it is right either.

And yes, I will not roll over and play dead and let my self become a victim when I can do something about it. There are two types of people in this world, and I understand that people in this world who consider themselves victims have a phycological abnormallity that makes them dispise other people that have the ability to help themselves. Sigmund Frued originally coined this way back when. ANyway, I doubt you will ever see my side of the coin because you are unable to.

-S

It may just be that I've advanced far enough in terms of civilization to learn that there are far more dangerous weapons than a gun :) In any case it's easy to predict that what you call 'helping yourself' just end at exactly the same point. Being a victim.

[SUBMAN1]

It may just be that I've advanced far enough in terms of civilization to learn that there are far more dangerous weapons than a gun :) In any case it's easy to predict that what you call 'helping yourself' just end at exactly the same point. Being a victim.
Now your not making any logical sense again. Being a victim? Try again since that is the wrong answer.

Also - your advancement in civilization is going the wrong direction. Try backwards. Try turning yourself into a sheep. You will feel more at home.

Read up on phycology. Maybe Skybird can clue you in. Frued has already gone through the victim theory.