You know what; i didn’t need to do any of those things but I wanted to and I could, so I did.
Sorry for you that you can’t, even if you wanted to.
No idea, but it’s a male trate to enjoy blowing stuff up, driving fast, feel the little freedom our society allows us.
Sorry for you that you’ve lost this feeling. <snip, snip>
Don’t you think there’s a degree of contradiction between those two statements?
Alas in New Zealand like most developed countries the do-gooders and know-it-alls are working over time at curtailing the simple fun things in life.
Did you know that in NZ schools the “Mommy crowd” have banned the kids game Bull-rush? It’s too violent and little Johnny might stubb his toe!
So no, it’s not a contradiction it is a reality of the direction society is heading.
<AHEM> Volstead Amendment?
Where did you get the impression you will be able to defend yourself against criminals just because you got a gun. You’ve watched too many bad Hollywood flicks.They have all the advantages because they have the initiative so that it’s indeed stupid to try. The usual result will be that you’re dead or severely wounded if they have a gun which is almost a certainty in the US (thanks to the availability of guns they basically have to have them as well). An assault is not only stress for the victim, but for the criminal as well, his adrenalin levels are probably already through the roof and he’ll act on the slightest provocation and he is the one who was mentally prepared for the situation. Any credible law enforcer will always tell you to give in and not to provoke or try something stupid.
Nah, it’s easy to disarm someone even if you don’t have a gun. :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM6Bpz6-dio
Of course, that plan turns out badly if (a) the crook shoots you or (b) has enough brains to stay out of range.
Oddly enough, even armed police who don’t have the initiative get shot by armed crooks, for example this case where one of the two police killed by criminals was shot with his own revolver. http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/walsh.street.htm
Which rather proves your point about who has the initiative being critical.
Even if the victim is carrying concealed, the chances of dealing with a threat in the street depends upon anticipating the situation and getting in first. Once a gun is pointed at you, you’re not going to be able to get your own weapon out.
Very often, criminals often target homes with large weapons collections for obvious reasons. And again, the contradiction of a “home defense” argument pointed out by RS* is the impracticability of keeping a loaded weapon at the ready.
As far as banning guns in the US, there is no serious practical or realistic way too do this, since we are already inundated with weaponry. But I am very much for restrictions which prevent mentally ill assholes like the Virginia Tech shooter from acquiring weapons, and as I pointed out, wanton serial killers like the Dillons, Kleebolds, and Jon Lee Mohammads from getting guns from complete bastards using loopholes which are often knowingly skirted with the protections of the NRA. This is done, by an organization ostensibly set up to advocate firearms safety, via their incessant lobbying. And I find it almost criminal.
I see a lot of emotional, hyperbolic arguments made by their supporters. But no real substantive data or studies that related to any actual drop in crime rates tied to the possession of firearms. I think it’s fine for some to own weapons legally, after facing a few hurtles and registration process no greater than obtaining a drivers licence and legally operating a motor vehicle. Unfortunately, a minority of gun nuts have put even reasonable restrictions beyond reach in much of the United States…
Lunatics shoot up whatever their obsession is with that caused their “shame.”
A completely crass over-generalization.
I could provide statistics that gunowners are many times more likely to succumb to gun violence than nonowners…
And in both cases, THERE WERE campus police and security onsight quickly, but raving gun nuts (who got their weapons via loopholes fully sanctioned by the NRA) generally inhibit supermacho gunnutters from actually facing them since a gun is hardly useful if walking into an ambush.
That outlawing the carrying of guns will stop people from doing so, just as lowering the speed limit stops reckless driving.
Speed limits and “reckless driving” are two separate and distinct categories. They are related, but certainly not the same thing as “reckless driving” involves “endangerment” and stiff fines in parts of the country. And one can make the argument that the courts are far too lenient on actual 'reckless drivers" as some of the assholes here would be in jail or would have their licence revoked in parts of Europe like Germany, whereas they get their ticket reduced to a phony parking violation here…
In any case, I could also point out that it is often harder to get a car and a licence in many parts of this society than it is to get a gun…
That the only way to end gun violence is to ban guns, just like the only way to end medical malpractice is to ban doctors.
Another silly faulty logical comparison…
Guns make violent, disturbed people far more effective at expressing their psychosis. The murder rates and gun deaths of the US as compared to other industrialized nations speaks for itself…
That the dangers of guns outweigh their recreational uses, unlike alcohol and motorcycles.
That making it harder to get firearms legally will reduce their illegal use, just like making it harder to get a prescription will cut down on the illicit drug trade.
That one should judge all gun owners by the acts of a few criminals, just like one should judge all blacks by the acts of a few inner-city crack dealers.
That the same people who build illegal high-tech drug labs for less than $30,000 won’t build illegal low-tech gun shops for less than $10,000.
All ridiculous analogies typical of the emotional argument. All completely devoid of facts or data…
That your mini 14 without a bayonet lug and flash suppressor is okay to own but my mini 14 with those two features is an evil assault rifle.
My Mini was okay because it was made in the US. And as you know, many of the original restrictions have been lifted regarding magazine capacities and the like…
BTW, why do you need a lug for a bayonet or a flash suppressor? Actually, it sounds like an AC556, which was the assault rifle model designed for export (unsuccessfully)…
That the “Reasonable” uses for guns are hunting and target shooting, but not self-defense. In other words, it’s acceptable to use them as toys but not as lifesaving devices."
Nobody said you couldn’t defend yourself, just that those situations of the romanticized “High Noon” showdown are very unlikely…
Why do I think that you shouldn’t be standing by your letter box waiting for an invitation from the NRA to be its keynote speaker at its next rally against liberal numbnuts advocating gun control? 
Not terribly helpful as it isn’t a randomised controlled trail. They may have become gun owners because they percieve themselves to be at risk from gun violence and want to be able to respond in kind - the same people in a safer situation might not become gun owners.
As for “gun control”, recite after me the following rules…
- Position and hold must be firm enough to support the weapon
- Sight alignment and sight picture must be correct
- Weapon must point naturally at the target without any undue physical effort
- Shot must be released and followed through without undue disturbance to the firing position
If you follow these rules your gun will be well controlled!
You know what the real problem with gun control is?
It focuses on controlling guns.
Not on deciding who should, and shouldn’t, have a gun.
There’s not a shrink in the world who can predict who’s going to be a mass murderer (although all journalists can work it out retrospectively about ten seconds after a massacre :rolleyes:), but you don’t need a Ph. D. in deviant psychology to work out that some people shouldn’t have guns. Frequently the same people who shouldn’t be allowed to breed, but that’s an issue about controlling an even more dangerous gun which does a lot more and more enduring damage when it goes off.
Everyone knows it’s not guns that kill people, but people with guns.
So why not focus on trying to keep guns away from the people who shouldn’t have them, instead of making it harder for everyone to get a gun?
Particularly when making it harder for everyone to get a gun usually focuses on the absence of negatives, e.g. no convictions for violent crime, no disclosed history of mental disorders. Just about every frigging nut case who goes off on a massacre seems to pass those tests.
Why?
Because the tests are just paper bullshit, just going through the motions of mindless paper shuffling bureaucracy where form is more important than substance.
Does anyone ever bother to verify that a certified speed freak with a brain like a shattered mushroom who answers no to everything is actually truthful, or vaguely sane?
It’d make a lot more sense to investigate each applicant in depth. But that’d cost money, and be a terrible infringement of their liberties so that my liberties aren’t infringed by being shot by one of these nutcases. So governments stick with form over substance, giving the appearance of doing something while really doing very little to weed out the people who shouldn’t be allowed near a sewing machine for fear of using it on someone else, never mind a gun.
#1) Campus security was UNARMED…they like to keep that on the D-Low
#2) LOL…How do you know this? How do you know so much about tickets? Wow…hard to have a discussion / debate with an EOE
#3) Oh really? look in your morning paper, how many private citizens are selling cars from home and how many are selling guns? Be truthful now… 
look in the recycler, penny saver and compare the two.
The Volstead Act, 18th Amendment to the Constitution did not tread upon rights founded in the the first ten amendments, (the Bill of Rights.) Which is what I was referring to. The Bill of rights may never be diminished.
There is no claim of right to alcohol. And although the production of spirits was a cottage industry in the newly born U.S. (even the founding Fathers are known to have had distilling facilities on their farms) it was used as a barter good, as well as for personal use. And be that as it may, there is no reference to Alcohol in the Bill of Rights.
The Volstead act was repealed after it was found to cause more harm than it relieved.No one can legislate human nature.
Now since this topic has been stretched as far as it can be, I’m dropping this thread. There will come a time in human events where firearms will no longer be the tools of war,or hunting, and will have their use in bloodless sports, or exhibits in collections. The Human being is the true weapon, author, and creator of both the sacred, and profane.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as37-e.htm
#1) Oh good…are you saying its okay to own an assault rifle if its made in the USA? remember the voting record?? They are trying to get them again.
#2) LOL…DUDE…are you now telling me what type firearm I own? Why do I not find that hard to believe. The AC556 is a full auto weapon, I think I would know the difference. If you check they link above you will see all types of Ruger Mini 14’s , MY MINI 14GB is the 4th down, yours is the 6 or 7 down. Please tell me why mine should be banned and yours should not.
I have had fire insurance on my home for the past 30 years and thankfully I have not had to use it, should I cancel my policy? I’ve also had a fire extinguisher in my car and have not had to use it. Are you saying I don’t need them because chances are I may never have use for them?
LOL…This is getting old but I gotta ask this one.
#1) How do you know this and do you have anything specific to back this up?
#2) How do the criminals know which homes have large weapons collections in them? I’m 48 years old and NEVER have I seen a sign on someone’s front lawn claiming they have a large weapons collection inside.
I know maybe its the sandbag bunkers in the front yard or the smell of gun cleaner wafting from the open windows maybe its all the old issues of The American Rifleman overflowing the trash cans…but please tell me. Do you have anything to back this up?
This is gonna be good.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=504992&in_page_id=1770
Playing with toy weapons helps the development of young boys, according to new Government advice to nurseries and playgroups.
Staff have been told they must resist their “natural instinct” to stop boys using pretend weapons such as guns or light sabres in games with other toddlers.
Fantasy play involving weapons and superheroes allows healthy and safe risk-taking and can also make learning more appealing, says the guidance.
Thats encouraging…
But then we have this:
But teachers’ leaders insisted last night that guns “symbolise aggression” and said many nurseries and playgroups would ignore the change.
and
Chris Keates, general secretary of the The National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) union said: “Many parents take the decision that their children won’t have toy weapons.”
Sigh…
<snip, snip>
Nickdfresh and Raising Sun, what you guys forget is that it’s soo easy to take people’s freedoms away one piece at a time and its so gradual that you don’t miss them until they’re gone and then its too late.
One day you wake up and realise that half the fun things you used to do as a child/young adult are now illegal. Doesn’t that make you sad?
I know that it has happened in my time, we can’t celebrate Guy Fawkes by letting off skyrockets any more. And it pisses me off that the actions of some idiots and the noise made by fringe special interest groups affects the population as a whole.
Its time to stop taking the lazy route (legislating the object) and doing the right thing and making people responsible for their actions again.
Time to grow some balls again gentlemen!
Where the hell do you come from? Round where I live most of November sounds like a battlefield. Come to think of it, when I was in Nottingham the rockets were usually travelling horizontally, not vertically.
Edit: Oh, and Bas, don’t treat the Daily Mail like a news source. Think of it as the UK equivalent of the Weekly World News.