guns and patriotism
Pages :
[1]
2
Pick
07-14-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
There have only been a few presidents that had any foreign affairs experience when entering office. Al Gore would not have been one of them.
Don't confuse this with the whole Iraq debate being closed. The article only talked about the uranium from Africa incident. That is closed. What more would you have them do on it? Those that hate Bush will rant and rave on and on, but until he leaves office after 2008 you'll be screaming about it.
And in will step another excellent conservative leader.....:bigthumb: :bigthumb:
There have only been a few presidents that had any foreign affairs experience when entering office. Al Gore would not have been one of them.
Don't confuse this with the whole Iraq debate being closed. The article only talked about the uranium from Africa incident. That is closed. What more would you have them do on it? Those that hate Bush will rant and rave on and on, but until he leaves office after 2008 you'll be screaming about it.
And in will step another excellent conservative leader.....:bigthumb: :bigthumb:
fordjay16
07-15-2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Pick
He said it, you even admitted it.....
no, he never said he invented the internet.........i said gore was one of the main people behind getting the internet started but he didn't invent it. read more careful. its just like when gore said he was going to have a gun law and somehow a rumor spread that he was going to try to take away hunting rifles and such...........in reality he was trying to get machine guns and pistols off the streets he was never going to take hunting rifles.
He said it, you even admitted it.....
no, he never said he invented the internet.........i said gore was one of the main people behind getting the internet started but he didn't invent it. read more careful. its just like when gore said he was going to have a gun law and somehow a rumor spread that he was going to try to take away hunting rifles and such...........in reality he was trying to get machine guns and pistols off the streets he was never going to take hunting rifles.
freakray
07-15-2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by fordjay16
no, he never said he invented the internet.........i said gore was one of the main people behind getting the internet started but he didn't invent it. read more careful. its just like when gore said he was going to have a gun law and somehow a rumor spread that he was going to try to take away hunting rifles and such...........in reality he was trying to get machine guns and pistols off the streets he was never going to take hunting rifles.
Whatever you say can, and will be twisted, corrupted and used against you, by Pick. :tongue:
no, he never said he invented the internet.........i said gore was one of the main people behind getting the internet started but he didn't invent it. read more careful. its just like when gore said he was going to have a gun law and somehow a rumor spread that he was going to try to take away hunting rifles and such...........in reality he was trying to get machine guns and pistols off the streets he was never going to take hunting rifles.
Whatever you say can, and will be twisted, corrupted and used against you, by Pick. :tongue:
fordjay16
07-15-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by freakray
Whatever you say can, and will be twisted, corrupted and used against you, by Pick. :tongue:
:1:
Whatever you say can, and will be twisted, corrupted and used against you, by Pick. :tongue:
:1:
Pick
07-15-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by fordjay16
its just like when gore said he was going to have a gun law and somehow a rumor spread that he was going to try to take away hunting rifles and such...........in reality he was trying to get machine guns and pistols off the streets he was never going to take hunting rifles.
He wanted to take away all guns capable of firing anything but a single-shot round, so yes, that is a large amount of hunting rifles......there are lots of semi-automatic hunting rifles.
its just like when gore said he was going to have a gun law and somehow a rumor spread that he was going to try to take away hunting rifles and such...........in reality he was trying to get machine guns and pistols off the streets he was never going to take hunting rifles.
He wanted to take away all guns capable of firing anything but a single-shot round, so yes, that is a large amount of hunting rifles......there are lots of semi-automatic hunting rifles.
freakray
07-15-2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Pick
He wanted to take away all guns capable of firing anything but a single-shot round, so yes, that is a large amount of hunting rifles......there are lots of semi-automatic hunting rifles.
Unless you're a useless shot, that shouldn't bother you too much.
What did people do before semi-automatics?
Some of the best big game hunters I know (personally) in Africa use bolt-action rifles
He wanted to take away all guns capable of firing anything but a single-shot round, so yes, that is a large amount of hunting rifles......there are lots of semi-automatic hunting rifles.
Unless you're a useless shot, that shouldn't bother you too much.
What did people do before semi-automatics?
Some of the best big game hunters I know (personally) in Africa use bolt-action rifles
Pick
07-15-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by freakray
Unless you're a useless shot, that shouldn't bother you too much.
What did people do before semi-automatics?
Some of the best big game hunters I know (personally) in Africa use bolt-action rifles
beats me....I'm game with a bolt action, but some hunting requires semi's i guess.....
Unless you're a useless shot, that shouldn't bother you too much.
What did people do before semi-automatics?
Some of the best big game hunters I know (personally) in Africa use bolt-action rifles
beats me....I'm game with a bolt action, but some hunting requires semi's i guess.....
taranaki
07-15-2003, 05:52 PM
Another damn good reason to support Al Gore.I am certain that when the constitution was drafted, the idea of people holding military-type weapons for leisure purposes was not the intention.If you cant shoot straight enough to hunt with a single shot weapon,you're not fit to own a gun.
Pick
07-16-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
Another damn good reason to support Al Gore.I am certain that when the constitution was drafted, the idea of people holding military-type weapons for leisure purposes was not the intention.If you cant shoot straight enough to hunt with a single shot weapon,you're not fit to own a gun.
That's not the point of the right to own a gun.....the point is so the citizens can protect themselves......say from an "oppressive regime".....which Al Gore coincidently was and almost was again a part of.......:eek:
Another damn good reason to support Al Gore.I am certain that when the constitution was drafted, the idea of people holding military-type weapons for leisure purposes was not the intention.If you cant shoot straight enough to hunt with a single shot weapon,you're not fit to own a gun.
That's not the point of the right to own a gun.....the point is so the citizens can protect themselves......say from an "oppressive regime".....which Al Gore coincidently was and almost was again a part of.......:eek:
freakray
07-16-2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Pick
That's not the point of the right to own a gun.....the point is so the citizens can protect themselves......say from an "oppressive regime".....which Al Gore coincidently was and almost was again a part of.......:eek:
I would say Bush is far more oppressive than Gore.
Do you have something to substantiate your comment about Al Gore being part of an oppressive regime? I find that statement fascinating, even from you.
You can protect yourself with a handgun, you sure as hell don't need anything fully-automatic or semi-automatic to protect yourself.
That's not the point of the right to own a gun.....the point is so the citizens can protect themselves......say from an "oppressive regime".....which Al Gore coincidently was and almost was again a part of.......:eek:
I would say Bush is far more oppressive than Gore.
Do you have something to substantiate your comment about Al Gore being part of an oppressive regime? I find that statement fascinating, even from you.
You can protect yourself with a handgun, you sure as hell don't need anything fully-automatic or semi-automatic to protect yourself.
YogsVR4
07-16-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by freakray
I would say Bush is far more oppressive than Gore.
Do you have something to substantiate your comment about Al Gore being part of an oppressive regime? I find that statement fascinating, even from you.
You can protect yourself with a handgun, you sure as hell don't need anything fully-automatic or semi-automatic to protect yourself.
Gore would have been the worst president this country ever had. The man was a spineless twit. Regardless of the fact that I disagree with most of his policy stands, the man flip flopped on the issues more times then a chicken on a rotisserie.
Aside from that. I wouldn’t say he was part of an oppressive regime. He was certainly opposed to personal freedoms (read his suggested tax legislation and his stand on gun ownership)
As for what you can protect yourself with..
As the saying goes, “Needs got nothing to do with it.” A criminal with a weapon is a criminal with a weapon regardless of its make/design. A person defending themselves using whatever they have at their disposal is wholly understandable.
I have a semi-automatic .308 - why should I give that up? Like the other 94,999,999 gun owners in this country, I haven’t harmed anyone today.
I do agree that there is a cap as to the type of weapon a person can have. I’ve never heard a good reason to have a howitzer or a hellfire missile collection in your arsenal, but the firing mechanism behind a hand gun or rifle is not the spot to draw the line.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
I would say Bush is far more oppressive than Gore.
Do you have something to substantiate your comment about Al Gore being part of an oppressive regime? I find that statement fascinating, even from you.
You can protect yourself with a handgun, you sure as hell don't need anything fully-automatic or semi-automatic to protect yourself.
Gore would have been the worst president this country ever had. The man was a spineless twit. Regardless of the fact that I disagree with most of his policy stands, the man flip flopped on the issues more times then a chicken on a rotisserie.
Aside from that. I wouldn’t say he was part of an oppressive regime. He was certainly opposed to personal freedoms (read his suggested tax legislation and his stand on gun ownership)
As for what you can protect yourself with..
As the saying goes, “Needs got nothing to do with it.” A criminal with a weapon is a criminal with a weapon regardless of its make/design. A person defending themselves using whatever they have at their disposal is wholly understandable.
I have a semi-automatic .308 - why should I give that up? Like the other 94,999,999 gun owners in this country, I haven’t harmed anyone today.
I do agree that there is a cap as to the type of weapon a person can have. I’ve never heard a good reason to have a howitzer or a hellfire missile collection in your arsenal, but the firing mechanism behind a hand gun or rifle is not the spot to draw the line.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Pick
07-16-2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by freakray
You can protect yourself with a handgun, you sure as hell don't need anything fully-automatic or semi-automatic to protect yourself.
That's not the point......the point is we have the right to won them...... imagine if you banned automatic weapons to the general public.....and then a drug-ring or terrorist group decided to buy some high power and automatic weapons on the black market and starting raising hell. Citizens would be helpless. And the military and cops would be the only ones with automatic weapons...... and imagine if terrorists broke into a military stock and stole some......handguns obviously won't cut it...... terrorists and gangsters are going to get high powered weapons no matter what......so banning them is pointless. 99% of semi-automatic owners have never used it on another person. Ever see the LA shootout? Like hell handguns are enough to defend yourself. There were fully trained cops with single-action .38's getting torn to pieces. .
You can protect yourself with a handgun, you sure as hell don't need anything fully-automatic or semi-automatic to protect yourself.
That's not the point......the point is we have the right to won them...... imagine if you banned automatic weapons to the general public.....and then a drug-ring or terrorist group decided to buy some high power and automatic weapons on the black market and starting raising hell. Citizens would be helpless. And the military and cops would be the only ones with automatic weapons...... and imagine if terrorists broke into a military stock and stole some......handguns obviously won't cut it...... terrorists and gangsters are going to get high powered weapons no matter what......so banning them is pointless. 99% of semi-automatic owners have never used it on another person. Ever see the LA shootout? Like hell handguns are enough to defend yourself. There were fully trained cops with single-action .38's getting torn to pieces. .
Pick
07-16-2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by freakray
Yeah, and imagine your friend George Bush actually protected us from terrorists, then why would we need to worry about all this stuff you mention?
Ever see the real world?
Bush can't protect us from criminals that have mo regard from human life and just randomly rape and kill.
If you're going to argue be rational. Terrorism will always be around......but we are trying our best to rid the world of it.
Yeah, and imagine your friend George Bush actually protected us from terrorists, then why would we need to worry about all this stuff you mention?
Ever see the real world?
Bush can't protect us from criminals that have mo regard from human life and just randomly rape and kill.
If you're going to argue be rational. Terrorism will always be around......but we are trying our best to rid the world of it.
Accord_Zero
07-16-2003, 03:29 PM
How would Gore have been opressive? You don't see taking away the freedoms as being oppressive? The same freedoms Bush claims to protect? What about the PATRIOT Act? What about PNAC? PNAC is more of JEB'S wet dream than W's.
Yogs - You say you're a libertarian, but you seem to support Bush over anything Gore would stand for. How in the world can a libertarian support someone like Bush. On anything? His whole presidency is based on lies! (that can be said about probably every president though...)
Yogs - You say you're a libertarian, but you seem to support Bush over anything Gore would stand for. How in the world can a libertarian support someone like Bush. On anything? His whole presidency is based on lies! (that can be said about probably every president though...)
freakray
07-16-2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Bush can't protect us from criminals that have mo regard from human life and just randomly rape and kill.
If you're going to argue be rational. Terrorism will always be around......but we are trying our best to rid the world of it.
You of all people talking about being rational?
Criminals are one thing, you were spouting off about terrorits getting this and that.....if you're going to pose an argument, at least pay attention to what you're posting.
Bush can't protect us from criminals that have mo regard from human life and just randomly rape and kill.
If you're going to argue be rational. Terrorism will always be around......but we are trying our best to rid the world of it.
You of all people talking about being rational?
Criminals are one thing, you were spouting off about terrorits getting this and that.....if you're going to pose an argument, at least pay attention to what you're posting.
Pick
07-16-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by freakray
You of all people talking about being rational?
Criminals are one thing, you were spouting off about terrorits getting this and that.....if you're going to pose an argument, at least pay attention to what you're posting.
I was referring to both.......if you'll read what I typed. As far as I'm concerned raping and killing is terrorizing.....
There's no need to get pissy.
You of all people talking about being rational?
Criminals are one thing, you were spouting off about terrorits getting this and that.....if you're going to pose an argument, at least pay attention to what you're posting.
I was referring to both.......if you'll read what I typed. As far as I'm concerned raping and killing is terrorizing.....
There's no need to get pissy.
Pick
07-16-2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Accord_Zero
How would Gore have been opressive? You don't see taking away the freedoms as being oppressive? The same freedoms Bush claims to protect? What about the PATRIOT Act? What about PNAC? PNAC is more of JEB'S wet dream than W's.
Yogs - You say you're a libertarian, but you seem to support Bush over anything Gore would stand for. How in the world can a libertarian support someone like Bush. On anything? His whole presidency is based on lies! (that can be said about probably every president though...)
:newbie:
What freedoms does the patriot act take away?
How would Gore have been opressive? You don't see taking away the freedoms as being oppressive? The same freedoms Bush claims to protect? What about the PATRIOT Act? What about PNAC? PNAC is more of JEB'S wet dream than W's.
Yogs - You say you're a libertarian, but you seem to support Bush over anything Gore would stand for. How in the world can a libertarian support someone like Bush. On anything? His whole presidency is based on lies! (that can be said about probably every president though...)
:newbie:
What freedoms does the patriot act take away?
freakray
07-16-2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Pick
There's no need to get pissy.
:grinno:
There's no need to get pissy.
:grinno:
freakray
07-16-2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Pick
What freedoms does the patriot act take away?
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php
:loser:
What freedoms does the patriot act take away?
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php
:loser:
YogsVR4
07-16-2003, 04:02 PM
The patriot act should be scrapped and in its place, put some teeth into immigration and secure the boarders. Make people go through proper channels to be here (visiting, studying or to become a citizen).
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
taranaki
07-16-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Bush can't protect us from criminals that have mo regard from human life and just randomly rape and kill.
If you're going to argue be rational. Terrorism will always be around......but we are trying our best to rid the world of it.
The feeble-minded insistence on swamping America with personal firearms only makes it easier for criminals to get hold of weapons.We don't have unrestricted access to firearms in this country,and incidences of armed offending are relatively rare.The softball bat under my bed would be more than a match for the arsenal of 99.99% of burglars,if they could pick up a second hand handgun in a bar for 30 bucks ,the ratio might be somewhat less favourable.
As to the utter bollocks about citizens protecting themselves from their own government....it's a pathetic excuse.This is the 21st century for Christ's sake,the notion that the U.S. government could ever turn against its population is pie in the sky fantasy.If the government ever wants to subvert its citizens,it will do so in ways that the average Joe doesn't notice and can't fight with a hand weapon,the Patriot act being a classic example.The way that the pro-gun lobby desperately clings to an obsolete clause of the constitution to justify continued public ownership of weapons of mass destruction is pathetic.
Quick quiz - How many people are killed by guns in America each year?
How many are killed by drunk drivers each year?
Do you think the numbers are even close? You're correct, they are not. In 2001 (the last year for which stats are available), 28,913 people were killed by guns in the U.S., while 15,778 died in car crashes involving drinking.
So why is it that people are slowly getting wise to the anti-social nature of drunk driving,but cling to their guns like they will actuallyy reduce the chance of them getting hurt by a firearm.
If you take away the guns,the place gets safer.That's a fact.
Bush can't protect us from criminals that have mo regard from human life and just randomly rape and kill.
If you're going to argue be rational. Terrorism will always be around......but we are trying our best to rid the world of it.
The feeble-minded insistence on swamping America with personal firearms only makes it easier for criminals to get hold of weapons.We don't have unrestricted access to firearms in this country,and incidences of armed offending are relatively rare.The softball bat under my bed would be more than a match for the arsenal of 99.99% of burglars,if they could pick up a second hand handgun in a bar for 30 bucks ,the ratio might be somewhat less favourable.
As to the utter bollocks about citizens protecting themselves from their own government....it's a pathetic excuse.This is the 21st century for Christ's sake,the notion that the U.S. government could ever turn against its population is pie in the sky fantasy.If the government ever wants to subvert its citizens,it will do so in ways that the average Joe doesn't notice and can't fight with a hand weapon,the Patriot act being a classic example.The way that the pro-gun lobby desperately clings to an obsolete clause of the constitution to justify continued public ownership of weapons of mass destruction is pathetic.
Quick quiz - How many people are killed by guns in America each year?
How many are killed by drunk drivers each year?
Do you think the numbers are even close? You're correct, they are not. In 2001 (the last year for which stats are available), 28,913 people were killed by guns in the U.S., while 15,778 died in car crashes involving drinking.
So why is it that people are slowly getting wise to the anti-social nature of drunk driving,but cling to their guns like they will actuallyy reduce the chance of them getting hurt by a firearm.
If you take away the guns,the place gets safer.That's a fact.
YogsVR4
07-16-2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
Quick quiz - How many people are killed by guns in America each year?
How many are killed by drunk drivers each year?
Do you think the numbers are even close? You're correct, they are not. In 2001 (the last year for which stats are available), 28,913 people were killed by guns in the U.S., while 15,778 died in car crashes involving drinking.
So why is it that people are slowly getting wise to the anti-social nature of drunk driving,but cling to their guns like they will actuallyy reduce the chance of them getting hurt by a firearm.
If you take away the guns,the place gets safer.That's a fact.
According to http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01facts/01facts.htm
In 2000 a total of 28,663 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (tables 18 and 19). This number was 0.7 percent lower than the 28,874 deaths in 1999. Firearm suicide and homicide, the two major component causes,accounted for 57.9 and 37.7 percent,respectively,of all firearm injury deaths in 2000. The other components —firearm accidents,firearm injuries of undetermined intent,and legal intervention involving firearms accounted for 2.7, 0.8,and 0.9 percent,respectively.population (table 25).
Doing the math, you get 16,596 deaths because of homicide. Of those (I lost the link) ~3000 were caused via self defense. ~1500 were deaths self inflicted but not suicide attempts (accidents). There were more people killed by drunk drivers then by firearms used by people intending to cause harm.
Removing guns does not make a society safer. http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/ar2001/03h8.htm That is a fact.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Quick quiz - How many people are killed by guns in America each year?
How many are killed by drunk drivers each year?
Do you think the numbers are even close? You're correct, they are not. In 2001 (the last year for which stats are available), 28,913 people were killed by guns in the U.S., while 15,778 died in car crashes involving drinking.
So why is it that people are slowly getting wise to the anti-social nature of drunk driving,but cling to their guns like they will actuallyy reduce the chance of them getting hurt by a firearm.
If you take away the guns,the place gets safer.That's a fact.
According to http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01facts/01facts.htm
In 2000 a total of 28,663 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (tables 18 and 19). This number was 0.7 percent lower than the 28,874 deaths in 1999. Firearm suicide and homicide, the two major component causes,accounted for 57.9 and 37.7 percent,respectively,of all firearm injury deaths in 2000. The other components —firearm accidents,firearm injuries of undetermined intent,and legal intervention involving firearms accounted for 2.7, 0.8,and 0.9 percent,respectively.population (table 25).
Doing the math, you get 16,596 deaths because of homicide. Of those (I lost the link) ~3000 were caused via self defense. ~1500 were deaths self inflicted but not suicide attempts (accidents). There were more people killed by drunk drivers then by firearms used by people intending to cause harm.
Removing guns does not make a society safer. http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/ar2001/03h8.htm That is a fact.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
TexasF355F1
07-16-2003, 05:05 PM
Not to mention the number of black market fire arms those damn worthless piece of shit gang bangers buy and use. Even if guns were banned their would be an increase in black market guns. And considering our 2nd Amendment is "right to bare arms" itll never happen. And I for one am for the right to bare, and my dad is a member of the NRA.
taranaki
07-16-2003, 05:41 PM
even on your revision of the figures,Yogs, the fact remains that the United States has the highest rate gun ownership,and the highest rate of firearms offending in the western world.Do you think,perhaps that these two concepts might be related?:frown:
YogsVR4
07-17-2003, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by taranaki
even on your revision of the figures,Yogs, the fact remains that the United States has the highest rate gun ownership,and the highest rate of firearms offending in the western world.Do you think,perhaps that these two concepts might be related?:frown:
I only quote the CDC.
I do not dispute that gun related violence would decrease if there were less guns. I submit that until the criminals are disarmed I am not going to give up mine.
I am a law abiding citizen (except for that pesky speed limit) and like others, I would be required to give up my weapons (who knows if I’d get reimbursed for them) if a law were passed outlawing them. Once again, it’s the law abiding citizens who are being disarmed by the law.
We have a tremendous number of laws on the books and punishments available to people who commit crimes with guns. If they were prosecuted to the full extent, including execution for those who commit murder, each and every time, the amount of gun related violence would continue to decrease. Just prosecuting for the maximum term would decrease violence overall.
Lastly, (since we’ve drifted a long way from the thread topic) is that violence in this country less then most and more then some, regardless of the weapon or if no weapon is used at all. I just hopped around google looking up different statistics and there are some real eye openers. The fact the US has more violence with guns is true. The fact that if guns were taken away, violence would be reduced is not supported. It would just mean less gun violence.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
even on your revision of the figures,Yogs, the fact remains that the United States has the highest rate gun ownership,and the highest rate of firearms offending in the western world.Do you think,perhaps that these two concepts might be related?:frown:
I only quote the CDC.
I do not dispute that gun related violence would decrease if there were less guns. I submit that until the criminals are disarmed I am not going to give up mine.
I am a law abiding citizen (except for that pesky speed limit) and like others, I would be required to give up my weapons (who knows if I’d get reimbursed for them) if a law were passed outlawing them. Once again, it’s the law abiding citizens who are being disarmed by the law.
We have a tremendous number of laws on the books and punishments available to people who commit crimes with guns. If they were prosecuted to the full extent, including execution for those who commit murder, each and every time, the amount of gun related violence would continue to decrease. Just prosecuting for the maximum term would decrease violence overall.
Lastly, (since we’ve drifted a long way from the thread topic) is that violence in this country less then most and more then some, regardless of the weapon or if no weapon is used at all. I just hopped around google looking up different statistics and there are some real eye openers. The fact the US has more violence with guns is true. The fact that if guns were taken away, violence would be reduced is not supported. It would just mean less gun violence.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
freakray
07-17-2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
We have a tremendous number of laws on the books and punishments available to people who commit crimes with guns. If they were prosecuted to the full extent, including execution for those who commit murder, each and every time, the amount of gun related violence would continue to decrease. Just prosecuting for the maximum term would decrease violence overall.
Valid point, if you look at South Africa's violent crime statistics, the cases of violent crime increased significantly after the government abolished the death penalty.
The death penalty was/is and always will be a great deterrent(sp) when considering violent crime.
Unfortunately, with the way the law is leaning in SA, you can get a longer jail term for armed robbery than you do for murder :bloated:
We have a tremendous number of laws on the books and punishments available to people who commit crimes with guns. If they were prosecuted to the full extent, including execution for those who commit murder, each and every time, the amount of gun related violence would continue to decrease. Just prosecuting for the maximum term would decrease violence overall.
Valid point, if you look at South Africa's violent crime statistics, the cases of violent crime increased significantly after the government abolished the death penalty.
The death penalty was/is and always will be a great deterrent(sp) when considering violent crime.
Unfortunately, with the way the law is leaning in SA, you can get a longer jail term for armed robbery than you do for murder :bloated:
Ludelover
07-17-2003, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Bush can't protect us from criminals that have mo regard from human life and just randomly rape and kill.
If you're going to argue be rational. Terrorism will always be around......but we are trying our best to rid the world of it.
Randomly rape and kill?? hmm, ever heard of Viet Nam, i believe many civilians were raped and killed by go-lucky american military. There is bad EVERYWHERE in the world. Terrorism will always be around, but you must look at the root of the problem, behind the scenes, perhaps at why these groups are angry?
Bush can't protect us from criminals that have mo regard from human life and just randomly rape and kill.
If you're going to argue be rational. Terrorism will always be around......but we are trying our best to rid the world of it.
Randomly rape and kill?? hmm, ever heard of Viet Nam, i believe many civilians were raped and killed by go-lucky american military. There is bad EVERYWHERE in the world. Terrorism will always be around, but you must look at the root of the problem, behind the scenes, perhaps at why these groups are angry?
DMC12
07-17-2003, 06:49 PM
Replace G. W. Bush?
Who would be a better president?
Surely not Al Gore, inventor of our beloved internet!
Who would be a better president?
Surely not Al Gore, inventor of our beloved internet!
Grande
07-17-2003, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
Quick quiz - How many people are killed by guns in America each year?
How many are killed by drunk drivers each year?
.
45,000 people a year die in car crashes in the US.
170,000 people a year die in car crashes in Europe.
Should we take away cars too?
Quick quiz - How many people are killed by guns in America each year?
How many are killed by drunk drivers each year?
.
45,000 people a year die in car crashes in the US.
170,000 people a year die in car crashes in Europe.
Should we take away cars too?
freakray
07-17-2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Grande
45,000 people a year die in car crashes in the US.
170,000 people a year die in car crashes in Europe.
Should we take away cars too?
Can you show us where you got those figures?
Now, to make it more realistic, why don't you compare the number of people living in America to the number of people living in all countries in Europe.
Now compare the land area of Europe and America.
Now using those figures create a realistic comparison of the number of fatalities caused by automobile accidents.
Now, consider that you are comparing several countries combined figures to one countries figure, is this really a realistic comparison?
45,000 people a year die in car crashes in the US.
170,000 people a year die in car crashes in Europe.
Should we take away cars too?
Can you show us where you got those figures?
Now, to make it more realistic, why don't you compare the number of people living in America to the number of people living in all countries in Europe.
Now compare the land area of Europe and America.
Now using those figures create a realistic comparison of the number of fatalities caused by automobile accidents.
Now, consider that you are comparing several countries combined figures to one countries figure, is this really a realistic comparison?
taranaki
07-17-2003, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Grande
45,000 people a year die in car crashes in the US.
170,000 people a year die in car crashes in Europe.
Should we take away cars too?
Cars are extremely useful pieces of equipment,with a multitude of functions.It is extremely rare for someone to intentionall use a vehicle as a murder weapon.
Guns have only 4 functions.
To hunt.
To kill vermin.
To kill people.
To threaten people.
You could argue 5 if you include target shooting as a seperate use,but by far and away the biggest howls of protest come from the sorry individuals who want to keep their guns on the off-chance that a crim might break into their house and require some serious threatening.I'm not sure what the odds of such an attack are in the ordinary suburbs of the U.S.,but around here,you are just as likely to be hit by lightning.Burglars prefer to work in unoccupied houses.Throw the 'rapist' argument out of the window,too.You've got practically unrestricted access to guns,and yet there are still too many rapes happening.Your obsession with guns is not preventing crime,it is escalating the effects of it.
45,000 people a year die in car crashes in the US.
170,000 people a year die in car crashes in Europe.
Should we take away cars too?
Cars are extremely useful pieces of equipment,with a multitude of functions.It is extremely rare for someone to intentionall use a vehicle as a murder weapon.
Guns have only 4 functions.
To hunt.
To kill vermin.
To kill people.
To threaten people.
You could argue 5 if you include target shooting as a seperate use,but by far and away the biggest howls of protest come from the sorry individuals who want to keep their guns on the off-chance that a crim might break into their house and require some serious threatening.I'm not sure what the odds of such an attack are in the ordinary suburbs of the U.S.,but around here,you are just as likely to be hit by lightning.Burglars prefer to work in unoccupied houses.Throw the 'rapist' argument out of the window,too.You've got practically unrestricted access to guns,and yet there are still too many rapes happening.Your obsession with guns is not preventing crime,it is escalating the effects of it.
Grande
07-18-2003, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by freakray
Can you show us where you got those figures?
Now, to make it more realistic, why don't you compare the number of people living in America to the number of people living in all countries in Europe.
Now compare the land area of Europe and America.
Now using those figures create a realistic comparison of the number of fatalities caused by automobile accidents.
Now, consider that you are comparing several countries combined figures to one countries figure, is this really a realistic comparison?
you got me all wrong, I wasn't comparing the two countries, I was saying that the US and Europe both suffer from the automobile plague.
Can you show us where you got those figures?
Now, to make it more realistic, why don't you compare the number of people living in America to the number of people living in all countries in Europe.
Now compare the land area of Europe and America.
Now using those figures create a realistic comparison of the number of fatalities caused by automobile accidents.
Now, consider that you are comparing several countries combined figures to one countries figure, is this really a realistic comparison?
you got me all wrong, I wasn't comparing the two countries, I was saying that the US and Europe both suffer from the automobile plague.
Grande
07-18-2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by taranaki
Cars are extremely useful pieces of equipment,with a multitude of functions.It is extremely rare for someone to intentionall use a vehicle as a murder weapon.
Guns have only 4 functions.
To hunt.
To kill vermin.
To kill people.
To threaten people.
You could argue 5 if you include target shooting as a seperate use,but by far and away the biggest howls of protest come from the sorry individuals who want to keep their guns on the off-chance that a crim might break into their house and require some serious threatening.I'm not sure what the odds of such an attack are in the ordinary suburbs of the U.S.,but around here,you are just as likely to be hit by lightning.Burglars prefer to work in unoccupied houses.Throw the 'rapist' argument out of the window,too.You've got practically unrestricted access to guns,and yet there are still too many rapes happening.Your obsession with guns is not preventing crime,it is escalating the effects of it.
I live in the US, I'm 40 years old, I have a collection of rifles, and I've never had anyone point a gun, or shoot in my direction. To be killed by a gun you have to put yourself in that environment, either gangbanging or driving your Mercedes through Harlem, I mean, if you're stupid, you get shot. I have absolutely no problem in seeying drug dealers and scum like them gunning each other down in the street.
Stop being so sensitive to people dying, people die all the time, and they died a lot 300 years ago and beyond. Man has always killed man, for amusement or for money. Whenever Archaeologists find fossilized sculls of cromagnons and neanderthals, they almost always have some sort of hand ax or spear markings, showing how they died.
Start thinking of the gun as a population control device. Since the 60's the Earth's population has doubled, that's a strain on the World's resources. More polution, destruction of nature and generally more stupid people are allowed to roam this planet than should be allowed. If some idiot shoots himself while cleaning his revolver, it was probably suicide, and if he was too dumb to know how to shoot himself, he would have hung himself.
What I'm saying in simple terms is, if you're lucky enough to end up facing the wrong side of a .45, your time has come, go in peace.
Cars are extremely useful pieces of equipment,with a multitude of functions.It is extremely rare for someone to intentionall use a vehicle as a murder weapon.
Guns have only 4 functions.
To hunt.
To kill vermin.
To kill people.
To threaten people.
You could argue 5 if you include target shooting as a seperate use,but by far and away the biggest howls of protest come from the sorry individuals who want to keep their guns on the off-chance that a crim might break into their house and require some serious threatening.I'm not sure what the odds of such an attack are in the ordinary suburbs of the U.S.,but around here,you are just as likely to be hit by lightning.Burglars prefer to work in unoccupied houses.Throw the 'rapist' argument out of the window,too.You've got practically unrestricted access to guns,and yet there are still too many rapes happening.Your obsession with guns is not preventing crime,it is escalating the effects of it.
I live in the US, I'm 40 years old, I have a collection of rifles, and I've never had anyone point a gun, or shoot in my direction. To be killed by a gun you have to put yourself in that environment, either gangbanging or driving your Mercedes through Harlem, I mean, if you're stupid, you get shot. I have absolutely no problem in seeying drug dealers and scum like them gunning each other down in the street.
Stop being so sensitive to people dying, people die all the time, and they died a lot 300 years ago and beyond. Man has always killed man, for amusement or for money. Whenever Archaeologists find fossilized sculls of cromagnons and neanderthals, they almost always have some sort of hand ax or spear markings, showing how they died.
Start thinking of the gun as a population control device. Since the 60's the Earth's population has doubled, that's a strain on the World's resources. More polution, destruction of nature and generally more stupid people are allowed to roam this planet than should be allowed. If some idiot shoots himself while cleaning his revolver, it was probably suicide, and if he was too dumb to know how to shoot himself, he would have hung himself.
What I'm saying in simple terms is, if you're lucky enough to end up facing the wrong side of a .45, your time has come, go in peace.
sidewinder69
07-18-2003, 12:49 AM
GOOD JOB! Spoken like a true American!!!! :loser:
You're just trying to perpetuate violence and show that as long as it's "the lower end" i.e. drug dealers, and thugs using weapons to kill each other it's ok, and helps diminish the population. And that you can only get a gun pointed at you if you are in Harlem or are gangbanging.
Three letters: WTF!?!?!?!??! So if you're exiting out of McDonalds and get to your vehilce and a "gangbanger" comes up to you with a gun are you honestly going to say to your attacker:
"Well I guess I was stupid becuse now I have a gun pointed in my face! Hey that looks like a genuine .45, well I guess I'll go in peace."
You crack me up buddy. Hey hope you go hunting and get shot at. :bigthumb: Cause apparently to get shot you have to:
A: Be in Harlem with a Mercedes
or B: A gangbanger.
So which one is it when you get shot in the woods hunting??? :confused: Maybe that will get you back to your senses. *shrug*
I'm done.
You're just trying to perpetuate violence and show that as long as it's "the lower end" i.e. drug dealers, and thugs using weapons to kill each other it's ok, and helps diminish the population. And that you can only get a gun pointed at you if you are in Harlem or are gangbanging.
Three letters: WTF!?!?!?!??! So if you're exiting out of McDonalds and get to your vehilce and a "gangbanger" comes up to you with a gun are you honestly going to say to your attacker:
"Well I guess I was stupid becuse now I have a gun pointed in my face! Hey that looks like a genuine .45, well I guess I'll go in peace."
You crack me up buddy. Hey hope you go hunting and get shot at. :bigthumb: Cause apparently to get shot you have to:
A: Be in Harlem with a Mercedes
or B: A gangbanger.
So which one is it when you get shot in the woods hunting??? :confused: Maybe that will get you back to your senses. *shrug*
I'm done.
freakray
07-18-2003, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Grande
I live in the US, I'm 40 years old, I have a collection of rifles, and I've never had anyone point a gun, or shoot in my direction. To be killed by a gun you have to put yourself in that environment, either gangbanging or driving your Mercedes through Harlem, I mean, if you're stupid, you get shot. I have absolutely no problem in seeying drug dealers and scum like them gunning each other down in the street.
Yes, you live in the US in your little comfort zone and blatantly display your ignorance:mad:
To be killed by a gun you have to put yourself in that enviroment indeed!
Listen up son, I have friends that were shot and died, they did not put themselves in that enviroment, they were not "gangbanging" nor "driving their Mercedes through Harlem", nor were they "dealing drugs".
Those friends of mine, 4 to be exact, were living life as everyday citizens in a crime torn country, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and were selected by fate to be 'next'
If you think my friends were stupid, then you are a moron, they were not stupid, they were in public places doing everyday things.
Gordon was driving to work, they put an AK-47 to his truck window, pulled him out the truck, pulled the trigger and left in his truck.
Andre was driving home from work, stopped at a Stop sign and that was the last, his girlfriend was in the car, she saw him shot and then the animals raped her!
Clark was shot in front of his parents 'by accident' as the gunman put it, he admitted to be aiming at somebody else and Clark stepped across him, this was admitted in court.
Ridwaan was driving by a bus stop when a gang fight broke out, he wasn't in any gang but he took a stray bullet to the neck.
These were real people that I grew up with, they were not doing anything wrong, but they died by gunshot.
When you have travelled further than your local woods to hunt squirrels, then you can make such inept ridiculous comments as yours, but you honestly don't have a clue!
Naki, I apologise for the heated post, feel free to remove it if you think it's necessary.
I live in the US, I'm 40 years old, I have a collection of rifles, and I've never had anyone point a gun, or shoot in my direction. To be killed by a gun you have to put yourself in that environment, either gangbanging or driving your Mercedes through Harlem, I mean, if you're stupid, you get shot. I have absolutely no problem in seeying drug dealers and scum like them gunning each other down in the street.
Yes, you live in the US in your little comfort zone and blatantly display your ignorance:mad:
To be killed by a gun you have to put yourself in that enviroment indeed!
Listen up son, I have friends that were shot and died, they did not put themselves in that enviroment, they were not "gangbanging" nor "driving their Mercedes through Harlem", nor were they "dealing drugs".
Those friends of mine, 4 to be exact, were living life as everyday citizens in a crime torn country, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and were selected by fate to be 'next'
If you think my friends were stupid, then you are a moron, they were not stupid, they were in public places doing everyday things.
Gordon was driving to work, they put an AK-47 to his truck window, pulled him out the truck, pulled the trigger and left in his truck.
Andre was driving home from work, stopped at a Stop sign and that was the last, his girlfriend was in the car, she saw him shot and then the animals raped her!
Clark was shot in front of his parents 'by accident' as the gunman put it, he admitted to be aiming at somebody else and Clark stepped across him, this was admitted in court.
Ridwaan was driving by a bus stop when a gang fight broke out, he wasn't in any gang but he took a stray bullet to the neck.
These were real people that I grew up with, they were not doing anything wrong, but they died by gunshot.
When you have travelled further than your local woods to hunt squirrels, then you can make such inept ridiculous comments as yours, but you honestly don't have a clue!
Naki, I apologise for the heated post, feel free to remove it if you think it's necessary.
freakray
07-18-2003, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by sidewinder69
GOOD JOB! Spoken like a true American!!!! :loser:
You're just trying to perpetuate violence and show that as long as it's "the lower end" i.e. drug dealers, and thugs using weapons to kill each other it's ok, and helps diminish the population. And that you can only get a gun pointed at you if you are in Harlem or are gangbanging.
Three letters: WTF!?!?!?!??! So if you're exiting out of McDonalds and get to your vehilce and a "gangbanger" comes up to you with a gun are you honestly going to say to your attacker:
"Well I guess I was stupid becuse now I have a gun pointed in my face! Hey that looks like a genuine .45, well I guess I'll go in peace."
You crack me up buddy. Hey hope you go hunting and get shot at. :bigthumb: Cause apparently to get shot you have to:
A: Be in Harlem with a Mercedes
or B: A gangbanger.
So which one is it when you get shot in the woods hunting??? :confused: Maybe that will get you back to your senses. *shrug*
I'm done.
Sidewinder, we finally agree, well said sir:bigthumb:
GOOD JOB! Spoken like a true American!!!! :loser:
You're just trying to perpetuate violence and show that as long as it's "the lower end" i.e. drug dealers, and thugs using weapons to kill each other it's ok, and helps diminish the population. And that you can only get a gun pointed at you if you are in Harlem or are gangbanging.
Three letters: WTF!?!?!?!??! So if you're exiting out of McDonalds and get to your vehilce and a "gangbanger" comes up to you with a gun are you honestly going to say to your attacker:
"Well I guess I was stupid becuse now I have a gun pointed in my face! Hey that looks like a genuine .45, well I guess I'll go in peace."
You crack me up buddy. Hey hope you go hunting and get shot at. :bigthumb: Cause apparently to get shot you have to:
A: Be in Harlem with a Mercedes
or B: A gangbanger.
So which one is it when you get shot in the woods hunting??? :confused: Maybe that will get you back to your senses. *shrug*
I'm done.
Sidewinder, we finally agree, well said sir:bigthumb:
Grande
07-18-2003, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by sidewinder69
GOOD JOB! Spoken like a true American!!!! :loser:
You're just trying to perpetuate violence and show that as long as it's "the lower end" i.e. drug dealers, and thugs using weapons to kill each other it's ok, and helps diminish the population. And that you can only get a gun pointed at you if you are in Harlem or are gangbanging.
Exactly
GOOD JOB! Spoken like a true American!!!! :loser:
You're just trying to perpetuate violence and show that as long as it's "the lower end" i.e. drug dealers, and thugs using weapons to kill each other it's ok, and helps diminish the population. And that you can only get a gun pointed at you if you are in Harlem or are gangbanging.
Exactly
Grande
07-18-2003, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by freakray
Yes, you live in the US in your little comfort zone and blatantly display your ignorance:mad:
To be killed by a gun you have to put yourself in that enviroment indeed!
Listen up son, I have friends that were shot and died, they did not put themselves in that enviroment, they were not "gangbanging" nor "driving their Mercedes through Harlem", nor were they "dealing drugs".
Those friends of mine, 4 to be exact, were living life as everyday citizens in a crime torn country, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and were selected by fate to be 'next'
If you think my friends were stupid, then you are a moron, they were not stupid, they were in public places doing everyday things.
Gordon was driving to work, they put an AK-47 to his truck window, pulled him out the truck, pulled the trigger and left in his truck.
Andre was driving home from work, stopped at a Stop sign and that was the last, his girlfriend was in the car, she saw him shot and then the animals raped her!
Clark was shot in front of his parents 'by accident' as the gunman put it, he admitted to be aiming at somebody else and Clark stepped across him, this was admitted in court.
Ridwaan was driving by a bus stop when a gang fight broke out, he wasn't in any gang but he took a stray bullet to the neck.
These were real people that I grew up with, they were not doing anything wrong, but they died by gunshot.
When you have travelled further than your local woods to hunt squirrels, then you can make such inept ridiculous comments as yours, but you honestly don't have a clue!
Naki, I apologise for the heated post, feel free to remove it if you think it's necessary.
I've never done anything to anybody, I'm just tellin you how it is. If you got some anti American agenda, that's your problem, and there is really nothing you can do about it except bitch on the internet, and insult honest working folk like myself, good night.
Ps: I don't live in the woods, I see that your immagination is really at work.
Yes, you live in the US in your little comfort zone and blatantly display your ignorance:mad:
To be killed by a gun you have to put yourself in that enviroment indeed!
Listen up son, I have friends that were shot and died, they did not put themselves in that enviroment, they were not "gangbanging" nor "driving their Mercedes through Harlem", nor were they "dealing drugs".
Those friends of mine, 4 to be exact, were living life as everyday citizens in a crime torn country, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and were selected by fate to be 'next'
If you think my friends were stupid, then you are a moron, they were not stupid, they were in public places doing everyday things.
Gordon was driving to work, they put an AK-47 to his truck window, pulled him out the truck, pulled the trigger and left in his truck.
Andre was driving home from work, stopped at a Stop sign and that was the last, his girlfriend was in the car, she saw him shot and then the animals raped her!
Clark was shot in front of his parents 'by accident' as the gunman put it, he admitted to be aiming at somebody else and Clark stepped across him, this was admitted in court.
Ridwaan was driving by a bus stop when a gang fight broke out, he wasn't in any gang but he took a stray bullet to the neck.
These were real people that I grew up with, they were not doing anything wrong, but they died by gunshot.
When you have travelled further than your local woods to hunt squirrels, then you can make such inept ridiculous comments as yours, but you honestly don't have a clue!
Naki, I apologise for the heated post, feel free to remove it if you think it's necessary.
I've never done anything to anybody, I'm just tellin you how it is. If you got some anti American agenda, that's your problem, and there is really nothing you can do about it except bitch on the internet, and insult honest working folk like myself, good night.
Ps: I don't live in the woods, I see that your immagination is really at work.
freakray
07-18-2003, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Grande
I've never done anything to anybody, I'm just tellin you how it is. If you got some anti American agenda, that's your problem, and there is really nothing you can do about it except bitch on the internet, and insult honest working folk like myself, good night.
Ps: I don't live in the woods, I see that your immagination is really at work.
Excuse me for giving you more credit than you deserve.
You are familiar with the State of Pennsylvania?
It's one of the Eastern States in America, looks like a big rectangle on a map.
Now why the hell would I be living in PA if I had an anti-American agenda?
Wait, let me rephrase that, why would I be an American citizen if I was anti America.
I am not anti America, I am anti ignorant morons, or as the saying goes, I don't suffer fools very well.
You may consider yourself an honest working person(you're probably too naive to think anything else), and you may well be, but your views are still pretty darn screwed!!
My 4 friends were innocent people who, like you describe yourself, had done nothing to anybody. They are still dead and they still died from gunshot wounds.
As to the bitching on the internet, you come here making ridiculous statements and then accuse us of having nothing better to do?
P.S. For the over-active imagination you have, I think the woods would be too scary for you to live in.
I've never done anything to anybody, I'm just tellin you how it is. If you got some anti American agenda, that's your problem, and there is really nothing you can do about it except bitch on the internet, and insult honest working folk like myself, good night.
Ps: I don't live in the woods, I see that your immagination is really at work.
Excuse me for giving you more credit than you deserve.
You are familiar with the State of Pennsylvania?
It's one of the Eastern States in America, looks like a big rectangle on a map.
Now why the hell would I be living in PA if I had an anti-American agenda?
Wait, let me rephrase that, why would I be an American citizen if I was anti America.
I am not anti America, I am anti ignorant morons, or as the saying goes, I don't suffer fools very well.
You may consider yourself an honest working person(you're probably too naive to think anything else), and you may well be, but your views are still pretty darn screwed!!
My 4 friends were innocent people who, like you describe yourself, had done nothing to anybody. They are still dead and they still died from gunshot wounds.
As to the bitching on the internet, you come here making ridiculous statements and then accuse us of having nothing better to do?
P.S. For the over-active imagination you have, I think the woods would be too scary for you to live in.
zebrathree
07-18-2003, 09:01 AM
After the Aromoana shootings in 1991, NZ got tough on firearms ownership. We have one of the highest ratio of firearms to people, per capita, in the world. We have moderatly low firearms offending.
Why?
Because we have the best system in the world for firearms licensing.
The key to reducing firearm mortality rates lie in tightening up who can and cant buy or sell firearms, as well as limiting what you can and cant buy on your class of license. I myself cannot see much use for a M16, unless you are a collecter. In which has it should be de militerised.
In NZ you cannot buy Semi Automatics without the appropriate class of license, which is difficult to get. Fully automatic rifles or machine guns are banned, unless as stated, you hold a collectors license.
As to the hunting aspect. You dont need a semi to hunt, unless you plan on taking on a family of bears all at once in a bad case of X-Hunting. A good bolt action will suffice. Bolt actions are more accurate, anyway.
I myself have a rifle in mind for long distance target shooting, when I get older and more mature. Its a Remington 700. It is a bolt action rifle and is extremely accurate, in the right hands. It is perfect for hunting also. My point is, in a roundabout kind of way, that you dont need a follow up shot when hunting as you would have if you had a semi auto.
So, in conclusion, the key is not so much in arms control as such, but rather in arms licensing and determining who can and cant hold a license. Firearms regualtion comes into this, naturally.
Why?
Because we have the best system in the world for firearms licensing.
The key to reducing firearm mortality rates lie in tightening up who can and cant buy or sell firearms, as well as limiting what you can and cant buy on your class of license. I myself cannot see much use for a M16, unless you are a collecter. In which has it should be de militerised.
In NZ you cannot buy Semi Automatics without the appropriate class of license, which is difficult to get. Fully automatic rifles or machine guns are banned, unless as stated, you hold a collectors license.
As to the hunting aspect. You dont need a semi to hunt, unless you plan on taking on a family of bears all at once in a bad case of X-Hunting. A good bolt action will suffice. Bolt actions are more accurate, anyway.
I myself have a rifle in mind for long distance target shooting, when I get older and more mature. Its a Remington 700. It is a bolt action rifle and is extremely accurate, in the right hands. It is perfect for hunting also. My point is, in a roundabout kind of way, that you dont need a follow up shot when hunting as you would have if you had a semi auto.
So, in conclusion, the key is not so much in arms control as such, but rather in arms licensing and determining who can and cant hold a license. Firearms regualtion comes into this, naturally.
taranaki
07-18-2003, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Grande
I've never done anything to anybody, I'm just tellin you how it is. If you got some anti American agenda, that's your problem, and there is really nothing you can do about it except bitch on the internet, and insult honest working folk like myself, good night.
Ps: I don't live in the woods, I see that your immagination is really at work.
So....in your mind,anti-gun means anti-American?Well,thanks for clarifying that,I for one am quite happy to re-assess the value of your opinions on the topic.The assessment will be in a downwards direction.If you have bought into the bullshit that somehow it is an act of patriotism to own a gun,good for you.But where I come from,there's a damn sight more to measuring the worth of a fellow citizen than whether he agrees with my position on firearms.If you feel insulted by the fact that people don't always agree with you,stay out of this forum.Only people who are mature enough to accept that other people have opinions and are entitled to voice them tend to last the distance here.
I've never done anything to anybody, I'm just tellin you how it is. If you got some anti American agenda, that's your problem, and there is really nothing you can do about it except bitch on the internet, and insult honest working folk like myself, good night.
Ps: I don't live in the woods, I see that your immagination is really at work.
So....in your mind,anti-gun means anti-American?Well,thanks for clarifying that,I for one am quite happy to re-assess the value of your opinions on the topic.The assessment will be in a downwards direction.If you have bought into the bullshit that somehow it is an act of patriotism to own a gun,good for you.But where I come from,there's a damn sight more to measuring the worth of a fellow citizen than whether he agrees with my position on firearms.If you feel insulted by the fact that people don't always agree with you,stay out of this forum.Only people who are mature enough to accept that other people have opinions and are entitled to voice them tend to last the distance here.
freakray
07-18-2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Pick
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
You Do Not Speak English ?
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
You Do Not Speak English ?
YogsVR4
07-18-2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Pick
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
He’s using that morons piss poor post for a slam. Don’t worry about it. There are idiots on all sides.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
He’s using that morons piss poor post for a slam. Don’t worry about it. There are idiots on all sides.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
YogsVR4
07-18-2003, 11:35 AM
Is their any chance that this thread will get back on topic? Or should it be locked and have someone open another "Guns" thread if they want to keep this going?
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
freakray
07-18-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
He’s using that morons piss poor post for a slam. Don’t worry about it. There are idiots on all sides.
:cheers:
He’s using that morons piss poor post for a slam. Don’t worry about it. There are idiots on all sides.
:cheers:
freakray
07-18-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
Is their any chance that this thread will get back on topic? Or should it be locked and have someone open another "Guns" thread if they want to keep this going?
Perhaps a split is in order?
Is their any chance that this thread will get back on topic? Or should it be locked and have someone open another "Guns" thread if they want to keep this going?
Perhaps a split is in order?
TexasF355F1
07-18-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
So....in your mind,anti-gun means anti-American?Well,thanks for clarifying that,I for one am quite happy to re-assess the value of your opinions on the topic.The assessment will be in a downwards direction.If you have bought into the bullshit that somehow it is an act of patriotism to own a gun,good for you.But where I come from,there's a damn sight more to measuring the worth of a fellow citizen than whether he agrees with my position on firearms.If you feel insulted by the fact that people don't always agree with you,stay out of this forum.Only people who are mature enough to accept that other people have opinions and are entitled to voice them tend to last the distance here.
Naki, of course you know I favor the right to bare arms but with limited uses, most of which being for hunting. But I totally agree with what you said. People do get offended especially when they first enter the politics forum. I had to actually review this area for a while before I understood that everyone in here may feel opposite of me but it doesnt mean they hate me. You said it best by saying you have to be mature enough to accept others opinions no matter if you like what they have to say or not.
So....in your mind,anti-gun means anti-American?Well,thanks for clarifying that,I for one am quite happy to re-assess the value of your opinions on the topic.The assessment will be in a downwards direction.If you have bought into the bullshit that somehow it is an act of patriotism to own a gun,good for you.But where I come from,there's a damn sight more to measuring the worth of a fellow citizen than whether he agrees with my position on firearms.If you feel insulted by the fact that people don't always agree with you,stay out of this forum.Only people who are mature enough to accept that other people have opinions and are entitled to voice them tend to last the distance here.
Naki, of course you know I favor the right to bare arms but with limited uses, most of which being for hunting. But I totally agree with what you said. People do get offended especially when they first enter the politics forum. I had to actually review this area for a while before I understood that everyone in here may feel opposite of me but it doesnt mean they hate me. You said it best by saying you have to be mature enough to accept others opinions no matter if you like what they have to say or not.
Grande
07-18-2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
So....in your mind,anti-gun means anti-American?Well,thanks for clarifying that,I for one am quite happy to re-assess the value of your opinions on the topic.The assessment will be in a downwards direction.If you have bought into the bullshit that somehow it is an act of patriotism to own a gun,good for you.But where I come from,there's a damn sight more to measuring the worth of a fellow citizen than whether he agrees with my position on firearms.If you feel insulted by the fact that people don't always agree with you,stay out of this forum.Only people who are mature enough to accept that other people have opinions and are entitled to voice them tend to last the distance here.
No, I said you're anti American because you're always posting crap to discredit and tarnish America.
If we give up our guns then we should give up our cars as well. I can show you 1000 reasons why we should, just go to the street racing area of this forum. I don't know of anyone in my life that has been shot or has shot anyone, yet I know of 10 people in my life that have died in car crashes, and I live in New York.
So....in your mind,anti-gun means anti-American?Well,thanks for clarifying that,I for one am quite happy to re-assess the value of your opinions on the topic.The assessment will be in a downwards direction.If you have bought into the bullshit that somehow it is an act of patriotism to own a gun,good for you.But where I come from,there's a damn sight more to measuring the worth of a fellow citizen than whether he agrees with my position on firearms.If you feel insulted by the fact that people don't always agree with you,stay out of this forum.Only people who are mature enough to accept that other people have opinions and are entitled to voice them tend to last the distance here.
No, I said you're anti American because you're always posting crap to discredit and tarnish America.
If we give up our guns then we should give up our cars as well. I can show you 1000 reasons why we should, just go to the street racing area of this forum. I don't know of anyone in my life that has been shot or has shot anyone, yet I know of 10 people in my life that have died in car crashes, and I live in New York.
Grande
07-18-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by freakray
Excuse me for giving you more credit than you deserve.
You are familiar with the State of Pennsylvania?
It's one of the Eastern States in America, looks like a big rectangle on a map.
Now why the hell would I be living in PA if I had an anti-American agenda?
Wait, let me rephrase that, why would I be an American citizen if I was anti America.
I am not anti America, I am anti ignorant morons, or as the saying goes, I don't suffer fools very well.
You may consider yourself an honest working person(you're probably too naive to think anything else), and you may well be, but your views are still pretty darn screwed!!
My 4 friends were innocent people who, like you describe yourself, had done nothing to anybody. They are still dead and they still died from gunshot wounds.
As to the bitching on the internet, you come here making ridiculous statements and then accuse us of having nothing better to do?
P.S. For the over-active imagination you have, I think the woods would be too scary for you to live in.
You know, I didn't attack you personally yet you keep insulting me, you are obviously a whaste and have not yet come to the realization that man will keep dedstroying man as long as man exists. I have realized that already, that makes me so much smarter than you. I can't waste anymore time with you.
Excuse me for giving you more credit than you deserve.
You are familiar with the State of Pennsylvania?
It's one of the Eastern States in America, looks like a big rectangle on a map.
Now why the hell would I be living in PA if I had an anti-American agenda?
Wait, let me rephrase that, why would I be an American citizen if I was anti America.
I am not anti America, I am anti ignorant morons, or as the saying goes, I don't suffer fools very well.
You may consider yourself an honest working person(you're probably too naive to think anything else), and you may well be, but your views are still pretty darn screwed!!
My 4 friends were innocent people who, like you describe yourself, had done nothing to anybody. They are still dead and they still died from gunshot wounds.
As to the bitching on the internet, you come here making ridiculous statements and then accuse us of having nothing better to do?
P.S. For the over-active imagination you have, I think the woods would be too scary for you to live in.
You know, I didn't attack you personally yet you keep insulting me, you are obviously a whaste and have not yet come to the realization that man will keep dedstroying man as long as man exists. I have realized that already, that makes me so much smarter than you. I can't waste anymore time with you.
freakray
07-18-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Grande
You know, I didn't attack you personally yet you keep insulting me, you are obviously a whaste and have not yet come to the realization that man will keep dedstroying man as long as man exists. I have realized that already, that makes me so much smarter than you. I can't waste anymore time with you.
Let me help you....
There is no 'h' in waste
Destroying is spelt d-e-s-t-r-o-y-i-n-g
You didn't attack me, yet the following was posted in a post in response to mine:
Originally posted by Grande
If you got some anti American agenda, that's your problem, and there is really nothing you can do about it except bitch on the internet, and insult honest working folk like myself
Seems like you were taking blind swings in that post to me, what do you say. I even got the impression Naki felt the same since he mentioned you accusing your fellow Americans of being Anti-American
You're not smarter than me, you're more arrogant than me, that is the difference.
In addition, if you were as smart as you claim, your spelling would be a lot better.
Do me a favor, don't waste any more time with me, I would rather not converse with a moron.
You know, I didn't attack you personally yet you keep insulting me, you are obviously a whaste and have not yet come to the realization that man will keep dedstroying man as long as man exists. I have realized that already, that makes me so much smarter than you. I can't waste anymore time with you.
Let me help you....
There is no 'h' in waste
Destroying is spelt d-e-s-t-r-o-y-i-n-g
You didn't attack me, yet the following was posted in a post in response to mine:
Originally posted by Grande
If you got some anti American agenda, that's your problem, and there is really nothing you can do about it except bitch on the internet, and insult honest working folk like myself
Seems like you were taking blind swings in that post to me, what do you say. I even got the impression Naki felt the same since he mentioned you accusing your fellow Americans of being Anti-American
You're not smarter than me, you're more arrogant than me, that is the difference.
In addition, if you were as smart as you claim, your spelling would be a lot better.
Do me a favor, don't waste any more time with me, I would rather not converse with a moron.
gigatron
07-18-2003, 03:23 PM
Hey guys ;) Just visiting the neighbourhood. I see things haven't changed hehe :rolleyes:
freakray
07-18-2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by gigatron
Hey guys ;) Just visiting the neighbourhood. I see things haven't changed hehe :rolleyes:
:wave: Hey Gig
Hey guys ;) Just visiting the neighbourhood. I see things haven't changed hehe :rolleyes:
:wave: Hey Gig
YogsVR4
07-18-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by freakray
:wave: Hey Gig
Originally posted by freakray
Do me a favor, don't waste any more time with me, I would rather not converse with a moron.
hmmmmm.......... :loser:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
:wave: Hey Gig
Originally posted by freakray
Do me a favor, don't waste any more time with me, I would rather not converse with a moron.
hmmmmm.......... :loser:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
freakray
07-18-2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
hmmmmm.......... :loser:
Be nice, I was being polite...... :thefinger
hmmmmm.......... :loser:
Be nice, I was being polite...... :thefinger
sidewinder69
07-18-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
He’s using that morons piss poor post for a slam. Don’t worry about it. There are idiots on all sides.
I'll drink to that. To all the morons!!!! :cheers: Hater. :thefinger
He’s using that morons piss poor post for a slam. Don’t worry about it. There are idiots on all sides.
I'll drink to that. To all the morons!!!! :cheers: Hater. :thefinger
taranaki
07-18-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by freakray
Perhaps a split is in order?
SPLIT COMPLETED.:smile:
Perhaps a split is in order?
SPLIT COMPLETED.:smile:
gigatron
07-18-2003, 06:48 PM
so what do you do with your gun? :rolleyes:
taranaki
07-18-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Grande
No, I said you're anti American because you're always posting crap to discredit and tarnish America.
If we give up our guns then we should give up our cars as well. I can show you 1000 reasons why we should, just go to the street racing area of this forum. I don't know of anyone in my life that has been shot or has shot anyone, yet I know of 10 people in my life that have died in car crashes, and I live in New York.
Your argument trying to compare guns with cars has already been discredited.I resent the suggestion that I post 'crap',if you disagree with my opinions,that's fine by me,but if you are so ignorant and arrogant as to simply slander them without making the basic effort to put up a credible and logical counter-argument,then please,don't bother coming into this forum.Badly spelled flaming is not an acceptable standard for this board.If you have a decent argument as to why you should be entitled to own a pistol or semi-automatic weapon,I'd love to hear it.
No, I said you're anti American because you're always posting crap to discredit and tarnish America.
If we give up our guns then we should give up our cars as well. I can show you 1000 reasons why we should, just go to the street racing area of this forum. I don't know of anyone in my life that has been shot or has shot anyone, yet I know of 10 people in my life that have died in car crashes, and I live in New York.
Your argument trying to compare guns with cars has already been discredited.I resent the suggestion that I post 'crap',if you disagree with my opinions,that's fine by me,but if you are so ignorant and arrogant as to simply slander them without making the basic effort to put up a credible and logical counter-argument,then please,don't bother coming into this forum.Badly spelled flaming is not an acceptable standard for this board.If you have a decent argument as to why you should be entitled to own a pistol or semi-automatic weapon,I'd love to hear it.
sidewinder69
07-18-2003, 07:04 PM
What gun!!?!?!? Oh you meant that question for the American's!!!! :bigthumb:
Apparently it's to protect them from other ppl. with guns. :lol:
You'll most likely be dead before you reach for the weapon in the bedside drawer. Damn they should make that into a song.
"You'll most likely be dead BE-FORE, you reach for the weapon in the bedside drawer." The second part is to be sung at twice the speed of the first part.
NM.
Tell me how good of a shot you are in the dark??? Are you're sure you can stop a robber. Maybe you'll aim for his torso, and end up shooting your own kid in the head because he's using them as a human sheild. But you'll get that damn robber good!!!!
*shrug* Just one of many posibilities.
Apparently it's to protect them from other ppl. with guns. :lol:
You'll most likely be dead before you reach for the weapon in the bedside drawer. Damn they should make that into a song.
"You'll most likely be dead BE-FORE, you reach for the weapon in the bedside drawer." The second part is to be sung at twice the speed of the first part.
NM.
Tell me how good of a shot you are in the dark??? Are you're sure you can stop a robber. Maybe you'll aim for his torso, and end up shooting your own kid in the head because he's using them as a human sheild. But you'll get that damn robber good!!!!
*shrug* Just one of many posibilities.
Neutrino
07-18-2003, 07:04 PM
Ok i was dragged at a gun show last year....lets just say that i about freaked out.....two things in particular silencers - and glass knives what other use they have beside murder???
also two years ago a schizophrenic forgot his pills and killed 10 people in salt lake.....
why are phsychopathic people allowed to have guns and why are tools used in muder(silencers) not regulated.....how is any of that patriotic......
"the right to bear guns" should be a privilege not a right.....as driving is.....so at least a proper gun control should be in order.....
if you are a phycho or a criminal you should not have the right to bear a weapon
also two years ago a schizophrenic forgot his pills and killed 10 people in salt lake.....
why are phsychopathic people allowed to have guns and why are tools used in muder(silencers) not regulated.....how is any of that patriotic......
"the right to bear guns" should be a privilege not a right.....as driving is.....so at least a proper gun control should be in order.....
if you are a phycho or a criminal you should not have the right to bear a weapon
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025