Raoul's China Saloon (V4.0 Beta)

The Bar Room => The BS-Wrestling Pit => Topic started by: gonzo on May 03, 2013, 02:38:38 AM

Title: Guns
Post by: gonzo on May 03, 2013, 02:38:38 AM
Tried to find the "What's in the water" thread, but the search function isn't very helpful.

I've been caned, and canned, on here before for "Anti-Americanism", as it was termed. Sounds like a crime. However, THIS little story made me wonder why people [i.e., Muricans] won't do anything serious about gun violence. Fuck the constitution, written 200 plus years ago with nasty Brits, Injuns, French, and mooses lurking.............you get the picture?

.A two-year-old girl has become the second child in the US to be shot dead by a sibling this week, after her five-year-old brother shot her with a rifle designed for children, officials revealed on Wednesday.
Officials in Kentucky say the five-year-old boy was playing with a rifle designed for children and given to him as a gift, when he accidentally shot his younger sister.
The two-year-old girl was pronounced dead after being rushed to a hospital following the shooting on Tuesday in rural Kentucky, police said.
The death follows a similar incident on Monday where a five-year-old girl in a remote Alaska community was reportedly shot and killed by her eight-year-old brother.
Cumberland County coroner Gary White identified the two-year-old Kentucky girl as Caroline Starks and said the children's mother was cleaning the house at the time and had stepped outside onto the porch.
"She said no more than three minutes had went by and she actually heard the rifle go off. She ran back in and found the little girl," Mr White said.
The .22 calibre rifle had been given to the boy last year and was kept in the corner of a room. The parents did not realise a shell had been left in it.
"It's a Crickett," Mr White told the Lexington Herald-Leader. "It's a little rifle for a kid ... the little boy's used to shooting the little gun."
The Crickett is just one of many child-sized rifles on the market and is sold with the tag line 'My First Rifle'.
It comes in a number of child-friendly barrel designs and colours, including hot pink for little girls.
A host of accessories are also available, like story books and a gun-toting beanie baby of the rifle's mascot, a cartoonish cricket.
An autopsy was set to be conducted but Mr White said he expects the shooting will be ruled accidental.
"Just one of those crazy accidents," Mr White said
.

"Just one of those crazy accidents", said Mr. White. Well he got one word right. Lucky it was a child-friendly rifle.
This is one fucked society.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Pashley on May 03, 2013, 03:08:28 AM
Yes, but there are arguments the other way. Here's one of the few examples arguing for guns rights from a left-wing perspective.

http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html

I'd say the guy has the right to call himself "the polemicist"; he argues well.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: The Local Dialect on May 03, 2013, 03:25:13 AM
Fortunately for some, unfortunately for others, in America you can't just say "fuck the constitution." The process of amending it is incredibly difficult -- you don't just need a simple majority you need a supermajority. Here:
Quote
The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend.  As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways.  First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today).  This first method of amendment is the only one used to date.  Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Because any amendment can be blocked by a mere thirteen states withholding approval (in either of their two houses), amendments don't come easy.  In fact, only 27 amendments have been ratified since the Constitution became effective, and ten of those ratifications occurred almost immediately--as the Bill of Rights.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm

On the subject of gun control, there just isn't that kind of a consensus. An attempt to amend or abolish the 2nd amendment without following the law regarding constitutional amendments, and I am not even slightly kidding here, likely result in a Civil War, it is that serious.

I don't think it is easy for non-Americans to understand what a big deal the Bill of Rights is to Americans. Most people believe the slippery slope argument to be true -- that if you tamper with one amendment, it is only a short step from tampering with the rest of them.

I am for stricter gun control. I hate guns and never want to own one personally. I am sad that the 2nd amendment was included to begin with, but I realize that the answer is not as simple as "just abolish it" (and I am super left leaning, so that should tell you something). That won't ever happen in the United States and any non-American wishing to have an intelligent discussion about gun control in America needs to realize that the "why don't you people just do something" approach is not going to get you anywhere because even people who are in favor of gun control generally love the constitution and don't want to see it destroyed.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 03, 2013, 04:02:02 AM
Personally, I'm in favor of the right of law abiding citizens being able to own firearms, but would have ZERO issue with requiring all purchasers to undergo some basic safety training - we do it for cars, so why not with other things than can easily kill?

That being said, what flavor of crack cocaine do people have to be on to let a 5 year old have a fully functional 22 caliber rifle with ammunition and play with it unattended? mmmmmmmmmm llllllllll aqaqaqaqaq

Teach a young child (under CLOSE supervision) on a "child sized rifle" - Depends on the child, the parents, and a few other factors (but for the love of God, lock up the gun and ammo when not supervising its use).

I owned a .410 gauge shotgun at age 12 (a traditional 12th b-day present in my family) before getting a decent air rifle for target practice when I was 14 or 15.  Even so, I would hesitate turn a 5 year old loose with a low powered BB gun.

Letting a child that age run loose with an actual firearm?  bibibibibi aoaoaoaoao bibibibibi aoaoaoaoao bibibibibi aoaoaoaoao

Too bad he didn't shoot both of his parents before they can reproduce again.

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on May 03, 2013, 05:30:47 AM
The American Constitution has changed a lot and it has never been obeyed to the letter. Nothing against the document which is an incredibly ambitious and positive undertaking, but the anti-terrorist laws from the last decade override the 5th amendment, the 1st amendment likewise.
They had to amend the declaration to include women and non-white people at a later date etc

The famous 10 Amendments are all pretty general, "the right to bear arms" doesn't specify what kind of arms etc, a lot of weaponry is excluded from the 2nd amendment, you aren't allowed to buy nerve gas grenades etc
Of course it has to be interpreted rather than just treated as gospel.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: gonzo on May 03, 2013, 05:44:09 AM
It's not my country. If people want the right to shoot each other or, better still, let little kids shoot each other, go for it. Just don't expect non Muricans to regard you as sane.
Jeez, I used to get this sort of rhetoric from my old friend Phil, who I thought was highly intelligent and mostly sane!!
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CWL on May 03, 2013, 07:19:35 AM
In the States I have a CHL and my guns were purchased according to the law with background checks.  Funny how the government permits me to carry a concealed weapon, yet there are some in the government that view me as some sort of terrorist.  Go figure...  Fuckers...

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Stil on May 03, 2013, 09:55:30 AM
Changing laws may not actually do much. Do we think that in this part of Kentucky anyone would follow the 'new' laws?

It's part of the culture and culture is not so quickly changed.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: BrandeX on May 03, 2013, 11:10:10 AM
The American Constitution has changed a lot and it has never been obeyed to the letter. Nothing against the document which is an incredibly ambitious and positive undertaking, but the anti-terrorist laws from the last decade override the 5th amendment, the 1st amendment likewise.
They had to amend the declaration to include women and non-white people at a later date etc

The famous 10 Amendments are all pretty general, "the right to bear arms" doesn't specify what kind of arms etc, a lot of weaponry is excluded from the 2nd amendment, you aren't allowed to buy nerve gas grenades etc
Of course it has to be interpreted rather than just treated as gospel.

Good point, you could ban all firearms - the smithys would love it if the Gov. indicated that people CAN "bear arms" (just not anything with a projectile) which includes swords and the like.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on May 03, 2013, 01:29:55 PM
There are no easy, generalized solutions to problems like this that exist on the extremes of good sense. People who demonize guns as the root of the problem and people who think guns are fundamental to their political survival can argue forever.

The article shows a common mistake on basic gun safety. The same things happen everyday with cars, electricity, etc. There is no way to avoid the individual learning curve or the risks of life.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 03, 2013, 01:42:57 PM
Changing laws may not actually do much. Do we think that in this part of Kentucky anyone would follow the 'new' laws?

It's part of the culture and culture is not so quickly changed.

True, but real change does happen over time. Drunk driving used to be much more prevalent, but laws and enforcement have cut the death in half over the last 20 years or so.

I think the smoking rate in the U.S. is not much more than half of what it was 30 years ago. I think you can credit regulations and laws for much of that.

I can't find much sense in the assertion that passing laws can't change behavior. It seems like that's the whole basis for making change in the West.  In China?  That's a different story altogether.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on May 03, 2013, 02:31:57 PM
Sure, you can change behavior, they also did that very successfully in China as well. Remember the Great Leap Forward, the Great Cultural Revolution, etc?
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: The Local Dialect on May 03, 2013, 02:32:16 PM
The American Constitution has changed a lot and it has never been obeyed to the letter. Nothing against the document which is an incredibly ambitious and positive undertaking, but the anti-terrorist laws from the last decade override the 5th amendment, the 1st amendment likewise.
They had to amend the declaration to include women and non-white people at a later date etc

The famous 10 Amendments are all pretty general, "the right to bear arms" doesn't specify what kind of arms etc, a lot of weaponry is excluded from the 2nd amendment, you aren't allowed to buy nerve gas grenades etc
Of course it has to be interpreted rather than just treated as gospel.


Big Ol' TL;DR here because I can get all history teacher geek in this thread and it is interesting to me. ;)

Actually, those amendments to the constitution are a good example of just how hard it is to change the dang thing.

The amendments which outlawed slavery, gave black people citizenship, and gave blacks the vote were only ratified after the Civil War, and basically the Southern states were forced to ratify them as one of the conditions of being readmitted to the union. Collectively they're called the "Reconstruction Amendments" because they were part of the plan that was imposed upon the South, as the losing party, after the Civil War. In the case of slavery, it took a civil war to change this part of the constitution.

And women? The 19th amendment wasn't ratified until 1919, and women had been agitating for voting rights since before the Civil War.

Importantly too, those amendments involved making additions to the Constitution, giving certain people additional rights, not taking away rights that Americans already had.

The Bill of Rights is basically inviolable to most Americans (anti-terrorist laws aside, because I actually agree with you about that, but many don't, and, importantly, no one has actually attempted to amend the constitution with those laws) -- even some of your most hardcore liberals will take issue with the idea of repealing the 2nd Amendment altogether, and it just isn't, at the moment, a realistic solution to the gun problem. As Stil points out, guns are as much a cultural problem as they are a legal one. When you propose disarming a population and a good percentage of that population believes wholeheartedly that it is their god-given right to bear arms, they're not going to give up those arms easily, and the conflict could easily be bloodier than any school shooting.

So we are probably stuck with the 2nd amendment, but it is mostly up to the Supreme Court to interpret it, and the SC has been called upon to interpret the 2nd amendment, and other amendments, many times. The constitution is NOT a document that has one strict interpretation and yes, there the SC has had to make exceptions -- the "fire in a crowded building" rule, various rulings about prayer in school, etc. The SC historically has tried to stick with what the founding fathers intended with their bill of rights, but since they are dead and we can't ask them, we are left trying to define what the spirit of the law is. With regards to the 2nd amendment, the SC has tended to side against stricter gun controls in recent years (since the 70s anyhow), due basically to the power of the NRA, but that wasn't always the case.

It is possible that we could go back to a different interpretation of the 2nd amendment, one that focused on the rights of states to form militias. It is also possible that we could see bans on certain types of weapons, enforced background checks, laws about storage of weapons, or other constraints.

Ultimately though, I think in order for there to be a big challenge to the way the 2nd amendment is currently interpreted, there would have to be a massive shift in American culture. Right now there is a lot of fear in America and not a lot of faith in the government. People aren't going to give up their guns in a time of uncertainty. Maybe if the economy turns around and we have a new era of peace and prosperity, people will feel less need for their firearms, but I just don't see it happening any time soon.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 03, 2013, 04:48:20 PM
I think the prior post misses the point and, because of that, goes too far.  Over 90% of the population supported the background check law.  Even in Republican states like Montana and North Dakota support reached 90% yet those DEMOCRATIC senators voted against it.

Also, the bill lost by receiving the majority of votes, (54 - 46).  Yes, it garnered the majority vote.  The Democrats should have forced the Republicans to filibuster. Standing in the Senate well droning on for days about the evils of background checks, would have doomed their effort under the public scrutiny.

So, the problem at the moment, isn't cultural,it's political.  Two fundamental problems: i) The American Legislature greatly over-represents rural citizens who, naturally, are very pro-gun.  ii) Without reform in political financing, small, well-financed groups, (like the NRA), will always have fighting downhill and with much better weapons. (sorry for the pun).

Amending the Constitution IS very difficult.  But that doesn't have to be the answer; or even close. Reasonable laws within the confines of the 2nd Amendment can go most of the way toward eliminating the problem. Just talking about eliminating the 2nd Amendment damns the effort to failure. Any real gun control advocate shouldn't even mention it.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: The Local Dialect on May 03, 2013, 05:21:31 PM

Amending the Constitution IS very difficult.  But that doesn't have to be the answer; or even close. Reasonable laws within the confines of the 2nd Amendment can go most of the way toward eliminating the problem. Just talking about eliminating the 2nd Amendment damns the effort to failure. Any real gun control advocate shouldn't even mention it.

I'm kind of unclear as to how I missed the point, as I think we're basically on the same side.

If we're talking about enacting stronger gun control laws, then the problem is political.

If we're talking about abolishing the 2nd amendment and "taking away the guns" then the issue is definitely cultural/historical/emotional/political/legal. It would be a completely doomed undertaking. But if you're talking with non-Americans and point out that this will never happen and that the focus needs to be on working within the current framework you get the "fine, shoot each other for all we care" response.

I post on other boards and gun control is a big debate that comes up often, and one thing that non-Americans often really don't get is why we can't just change the constitution. So I was mostly addressing that.

I get the sense sometimes from non-Americans that they sort of feel like America has an "I've tried nothing and nothing works" attitude towards gun control, but the reality is that the problem is complicated and very polarizing, and sometimes even a bit counterintuitive (see Democratic senators voting against background checks).

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 03, 2013, 05:57:55 PM
Probably only partially understood your message at this late hour, but thought you said that the problem is cultural. Thought you might have said that eliminating the 2nd Amendment was the only way around that cultural barrier, but re-reading it tells me that part of my understanding was just confusion.

I assume that guns can be owned in a safe manner and should be allowed. Elimination would not be my goal. Responsible purchasing, training and selling, (and perhaps both tracking the weapons and using the technology that "fingerprints" a bullet to its firearm), should be enacted.  But, I don't believe guns should be banned.

The vast majority of people, including gun owners, want sound background checks. That doesn't sound like a cultural divide. The problem is that the political system is not venting the public pressure, but instead, bowing to the special interest pressure who, not coincidentally, have the money and the fanatics.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CWL on May 03, 2013, 11:29:33 PM
What is American culture?  Maybe one can say that the U.S. has been slowly losing its "American Culture" since the beginning, if there ever was one. 

Personally, I think the U.S. has been losing its vision of its founding principles.

As far as culture is concerned, the U.S. is a conglomeration of subcultures, many of which do not share its founding principles. 

Change the culture??? 

Which culture(s)?
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: The Local Dialect on May 04, 2013, 12:47:12 AM
Probably only partially understood your message at this late hour, but thought you said that the problem is cultural. Thought you might have said that eliminating the 2nd Amendment was the only way around that cultural barrier, but re-reading it tells me that part of my understanding was just confusion.

I assume that guns can be owned in a safe manner and should be allowed. Elimination would not be my goal. Responsible purchasing, training and selling, (and perhaps both tracking the weapons and using the technology that "fingerprints" a bullet to its firearm), should be enacted.  But, I don't believe guns should be banned.

The vast majority of people, including gun owners, want sound background checks. That doesn't sound like a cultural divide. The problem is that the political system is not venting the public pressure, but instead, bowing to the special interest pressure who, not coincidentally, have the money and the fanatics.

Ok, we definitely agree. I was also making the argument that we can't eliminate the 2nd amendment, it just won't happen. I think that if there hadn't been a second amendment in the first place, things would be different, but we have one and it isn't going anywhere, ever. I was addressing mostly to our European buddies in this thread, who tend to throw up their hands in exasperation at us Americans and our insistence on our rights.

I don't personally like guns, but I don't think that an outright ban is realistic or even the right thing to do. Working within the constitutional framework and enacting and enforcing strict gun control laws is an actual accomplishable goal.

The point I was making about culture is not that there's a cultural divide within America, it is that there's a cultural divide between the way Americans see guns and the way many non-Americans see guns. America, all of it, has gun culture. This is something that most Europeans, Australians, Chinese, don't understand. I have never owned a gun, never fired a gun, and probably never will, but if my country were to take away that right altogether, I would not be happy. That's (political) culture. If I'd grown up with different expectations regarding my rights, I likely wouldn't feel this way, but there it is.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 04, 2013, 01:35:03 AM

The vast majority of people, including gun owners, want sound background checks. That doesn't sound like a cultural divide. The problem is that the political system is not venting the public pressure, but instead, bowing to the special interest pressure who, not coincidentally, have the money and the fanatics.

Ok, we definitely agree. I was also making the argument that we can't eliminate the 2nd amendment, it just won't happen. I think that if there hadn't been a second amendment in the first place, things would be different, but we have one and it isn't going anywhere, ever. I was addressing mostly to our European buddies in this thread, who tend to throw up their hands in exasperation at us Americans and our insistence on our rights.

America, all of it, has gun culture. This is something that most Europeans, Australians, Chinese, don't understand. ... if my country were to take away that right altogether, I would not be happy. That's (political) culture. If I'd grown up with different expectations regarding my rights, I likely wouldn't feel this way, but there it is.

I think that's very relevant. Other countries have guns as an important part of their culture, but in the U.S. there are at least two big differences: one is that it is intertwined with The Constitution. This enlists the conservatives into the pro-gun cause whether they care about guns or not. For them The Constitution is tantamount to The Bible. Second is the huge rate of violent crime in The U.S. compared to Europe, Australia etc.  Who can blame anyone for shaking their his over the U.S.'s inability to connect the dots, let alone actually DO something about it.

Personally, I will lay down my life if anyone tries to repeal the 3rd Amendment:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Who wants some smelly, English soldier siting on your sofa ordering bangers and mash and watching Benny Hill all day?

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: caley1313 on May 04, 2013, 01:45:03 AM
Heh, Ya'll missing the point. It ain't got nothing to do with the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, et all. It's all about the American Military Industrial Complex. We Yanks spend more (circa $900 billion) on our guns and accessories than the rest of the world combined. That's right: THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. Be damned if we're gonna have a two-year old girl killing in Kentucky get in the way of the bigger picture. And it's people that kill people; not guns. Also, if we weren't protecting ya'll from your neighbors and each other, who would? Heeee, Hawwwww
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 04, 2013, 02:28:27 AM
Any chance we can get Mattel to start producing a hot pink Barbie Bazooka?  ahahahahah

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 04, 2013, 02:35:35 AM
Any chance we can get Mattel to start producing a hot pink Barbie Bazooka?  ahahahahah



True story. Many years back when super-soakers were just getting popular, there was a string of killings because some kids in ghettos were accidentally soaking gangstas and were, in turn, getting shot dead by the criminals in retaliation. 

So the government swooped into action by outlawing..........the super-soakers
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on May 04, 2013, 03:16:21 AM
Well, come on. It's not against the law to be a criminal.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on May 04, 2013, 03:26:33 AM
if we weren't protecting ya'll from your neighbors and each other, who would? Heeee, Hawwwww

Yup and you're also the one killing our neighbors and each other
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: latefordinner on May 04, 2013, 05:07:05 AM
Quote
Also, if we weren't protecting ya'll from your neighbors and each other, who would? Heeee, Hawwwww

"We have met the enemy and he is us" -Walt Kelly (in a different context, to be sure)
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on May 04, 2013, 05:17:56 AM
I think the cultural aspect is very very important and is often overlooked. The anti-gun people often overlook the fact that the US isn't the only rich country with relaxed gun laws. Canadians can buy guns pretty easily and over in Europe a lot of the central and eastern countries have pretty relaxed gun laws without the same problems as in the US.
Scandinavia has very high gun ownership but they very rarely use them on each other

It's another long discussion as to WHY Americans like shooting each other so much but I don't think it's just to do with the right to bear arms.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on May 04, 2013, 06:35:18 AM
Canadians can buy guns pretty easily

Really, where did you hear this?
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on May 04, 2013, 07:02:53 AM
Canadians can buy guns pretty easily

Really, where did you hear this?

A Canadian guy I knew was into his guns...definitely sounds easier to get guns than England (although we're one of the strictest)
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 04, 2013, 07:23:19 AM
Canadians can buy guns pretty easily...


Just walk south 'til you hit the border.  I think they will issue you one for free soon.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: becster79 on May 04, 2013, 10:22:24 AM
All simple really- why the hell does an average person need a gun? It seems to be some power thing. It's not a weapon, it's a killing tool, plain and simple. You use a gun simply with the aim to kill what's in front of you.

What kind of normal person would want one of these, unless they were some psychopath in need of some kind of "control" over other's lives? I have not heard one normal reason justifying why anyone other than police or military need a gun.

Makes me sick.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on May 04, 2013, 11:40:59 AM
Well, it seems simple to me. The 2nd Amendment gives everyone the right to bear arms, true. It says nothing about bearing bullets. Let people buy as many guns as they want, just don't let them buy bullets. Also, the amendments says nothing about firing pins. Or firing pins. Semantically, I can think of a many ways one could get around that pesky amendment. But the very simple fact is that no politician, not one who wants to remain a politician, is going to touch the Bill of Rights. Outlawing this doesn't work either. Cocain, heroin, smack, crack, murder, grand theft auto, burglary, cuban cigars, drunk driving, all these are illegal.
The argument is, normally, if the criminal has a gun, I want one too. Why a small child need a gun, that is beyond my understanding. Please bear in mind, I am not a fan of guns, but I can understand the argument.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on May 04, 2013, 01:32:06 PM
It's illegal to kill grizzlies but how else are Americans going to get the bear arms that they have the right to?
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: The Local Dialect on May 04, 2013, 02:20:10 PM
It's illegal to kill grizzlies but how else are Americans going to get the bear arms that they have the right to?

 bpbpbpbpbp
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: dragonsaver on May 04, 2013, 02:59:02 PM
Well done kitano.   agagagagag agagagagag agagagagag

I have no problem with people owning shot guns to hunt pheasants, rifles to hunt deer and other game.  Maybe a hand gun to protect from a home invasion etc.

What I don't understand is machine guns and military high powered, multiple shot guns.

I was on the high school rifle team. I was marksman with a FNC1 when in the military reserve.  I have fired a machine gun and they are hard to control and hit the target. 
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 04, 2013, 03:36:49 PM
All simple really- why the hell does an average person need a gun? It seems to be some power thing. It's not a weapon, it's a killing tool, plain and simple. You use a gun simply with the aim to kill what's in front of you.

What kind of normal person would want one of these, unless they were some psychopath in need of some kind of "control" over other's lives? I have not heard one normal reason justifying why anyone other than police or military need a gun.

Makes me sick.

Oh, please! There's nothing inherently abnormal about owning a gun for hunting or protection. Unless you believe that your food appears magically at the grocery store without harming a hair on the head of any living creature.

Vegetarian?  Those are just people who can't hear their carrots scream.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on May 04, 2013, 04:22:16 PM
All simple really- why the hell does an average person need a gun? It seems to be some power thing. It's not a weapon, it's a killing tool, plain and simple. You use a gun simply with the aim to kill what's in front of you.

What kind of normal person would want one of these, unless they were some psychopath in need of some kind of "control" over other's lives? I have not heard one normal reason justifying why anyone other than police or military need a gun.

Makes me sick.

Oh, please! There's nothing inherently abnormal about owning a gun for hunting or protection. Unless you believe that your food appears magically at the grocery store without harming a hair on the head of any living creature.

Vegetarian?  Those are just people who can't hear their carrots scream.

There aren't armies of hunters wandering around the wilderness hunting chickens, pigs and cows for supermarkets lol

Hunting wild animals for sport has nothing to do with food.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CWL on May 04, 2013, 10:33:36 PM
Wild turkey, rabbit, venison, etc... make tasty dishes. 


Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on May 05, 2013, 12:58:41 AM
I believe there is some confusion here. In most countries I know of, one can own a gun. All you have to do is have a clean criminal record, take some classes and be supervised and then you can receive a hunting license, which gives you permission to hunt. Now, one can hunt with a hunting rifle, I believe there are different rifles for different prey, with a crossbow or even a bow and arrow. That means you are allowed, in your home, to have both rifles and ammo. You are allowed to transport them, however I am a bit fuzzy on the rules for carrying them to the actual hunt. I believe they have to be in a clearly visible, standard gun-bag.
There is a big difference between owning a large rifle for hunting, for which you have to be certified and the rather lax rules in the US which enables you to own sub-machine guns, powerful and small handguns made from a plastic polymer which can cheat metal detectors and such.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 05, 2013, 03:33:39 AM
I'm unaware of any major crime waves associated with SMGs or with those very expensive polymer pistols.  Any form of fully automatic weapon requires a special license complete with close, personal attention from the happy, friendly people from the BATFE.  The penalties for illegal possession of a fully automatic weapon are extremely harsh.

The "assault rifles" everyone is so up in arms (ahahahahah) about are really assault-style rifles.  Civilian versions look similar (or even identical) to real military assault rifles that have a full auto setting, but are 100% incapable of firing in full-auto mode.  If my squirrel rifle (watch out ETR!) looked significantly cooler, it would be considered to be an assault rifle in the eyes of the media - which is much more focused on appearance than on function.

By definition, a weapon is something that can kill what's in front of you.  A gun, a knife, an arrow, a sword, or a pair of knitting needles can all be used to kill, or to main, or merely to threaten.  All can be used for other purposes too.

I've used my guns to kill.  A few birds, a couple of squirrels, some snakes, and also one raccoon that was acting odd enough to make me very worried that it was rabid.  I've also used them for target practice and felt far safer living way way out in the boondocks knowing that if anyone decided to pay an unwelcome visit, I'd have a full array of options available to suggest that the unwanted guests leave.

Personally, my favorite anti-snake weapon is a shovel, but, depending on how tight the area is, sometimes a shotgun is more practical.  On the other hand, the shovel also comes in handy for burying the bodies, . . . and murdering innocent carrots. uuuuuuuuuu
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on May 05, 2013, 04:00:45 AM
True, EL, but how many school massacres, diner mass killings, Charles Whitmanesque crimes have you come across which involved a sword? Why does anyone need to hunt squirrels? You shot my uncle!! I knew it... agagagagag
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on May 05, 2013, 05:03:30 AM
Or as the dog said, you shot my paw
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: caley1313 on May 05, 2013, 06:39:38 AM
In America, I live in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. I live on the Nash County side, which is divided from the Edgecombe County side by a rail line which literally runs thru the middle of the city. The Edgecombe County side is poor and predominately black. The Nash County side is more affluent and predominately white. The Edgecombe County side has over a dozen murders annually with the hand gun the weapon of choice. The Nash County side has nary a one. One can do all the social, economic and anthropological studies one wants. I'm just saying...it is what it is. My guess, being an expat Canadian who is a permanent resident of Carolina, is that the war of emancipation didn't fix all the problems.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 05, 2013, 06:52:05 AM
I'm unaware of any major crime waves associated with SMGs or with those very expensive polymer pistols.  Any form of fully automatic weapon requires a special license complete with close, personal attention from the happy, friendly people from the BATFE.  The penalties for illegal possession of a fully automatic weapon are extremely harsh.

The "assault rifles" everyone is so up in arms (ahahahahah) about are really assault-style rifles.  Civilian versions look similar (or even identical) to real military assault rifles that have a full auto setting, but are 100% incapable of firing in full-auto mode.  If my squirrel rifle (watch out ETR!) looked significantly cooler, it would be considered to be an assault rifle in the eyes of the media - which is much more focused on appearance than on function.

By definition, a weapon is something that can kill what's in front of you.  A gun, a knife, an arrow, a sword, or a pair of knitting needles can all be used to kill, or to main, or merely to threaten.  All can be used for other purposes too.

I've used my guns to kill.  A few birds, a couple of squirrels, some snakes, and also one raccoon that was acting odd enough to make me very worried that it was rabid.  I've also used them for target practice and felt far safer living way way out in the boondocks knowing that if anyone decided to pay an unwelcome visit, I'd have a full array of options available to suggest that the unwanted guests leave.

Personally, my favorite anti-snake weapon is a shovel, but, depending on how tight the area is, sometimes a shotgun is more practical.  On the other hand, the shovel also comes in handy for burying the bodies, . . . and murdering innocent carrots. uuuuuuuuuu


I agree with all of this except the connotation that a "squirrel rifle" can be similar to an "assault rifle".  Is your squirrel rifle semi-automatic and can fire over 45 rounds per minute?  Does it have a 30-round magazine?  If so, you must really suck as a marksman and forget about protecting anything with it.

But, your larger point is well taken. The infamous AR-15 is a weak weapon an is used like a spray gun. Why anyone would want one can only be explained by EL's coolness factor.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: caley1313 on May 05, 2013, 06:55:03 AM
True, EL, but how many school massacres, diner mass killings, Charles Whitmanesque crimes have you come across which involved a sword? Why does anyone need to hunt squirrels? You shot my uncle!! I knew it... agagagagag

One must hunt squirrels. They are tree rats of nuisance in Carolina. We tell ya'll that we shoot em to flavor our Brunswick Stew, but that's a lie. We shoot the rodents because they are vicious and greedy little vandals. Just saying... Caley
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 05, 2013, 07:00:22 AM
All simple really- why the hell does an average person need a gun? It seems to be some power thing. It's not a weapon, it's a killing tool, plain and simple. You use a gun simply with the aim to kill what's in front of you.

What kind of normal person would want one of these, unless they were some psychopath in need of some kind of "control" over other's lives? I have not heard one normal reason justifying why anyone other than police or military need a gun.

Makes me sick.

Oh, please! There's nothing inherently abnormal about owning a gun for hunting or protection. Unless you believe that your food appears magically at the grocery store without harming a hair on the head of any living creature.

Vegetarian?  Those are just people who can't hear their carrots scream.

There aren't armies of hunters wandering around the wilderness hunting chickens, pigs and cows for supermarkets lol

Hunting wild animals for sport has nothing to do with food.


I disagree. I could argue that no hunter I know would ever waste the meat that they shot and they would consider it an abomination to do so.  That would be true, but it avoids the larger point.  

Living creatures survive by killing and eating other living creatures. Staying connected to that fact of life through hunting, I believe, is good for the soul. Becster is sickened by a person's desire to own a gun.  I invite her to visit a food processing plant.

And to say owning a gun is about control and power just dead-ends any meaningful debate. Certainly, it is about power, control, etc. for some people. But that ignores the vast majority of people who are responsible gun owners, but grounded in reality unlike Becster's statements above.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Just Like Mr Benn on May 05, 2013, 08:17:38 AM
If Jesus' husband, John The Evangelist, had had a machine gun, then there'd have been no crucifixion and a whole lot of these problems could have been avoided.

#stillwasn'tcontraversialenough

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 05, 2013, 08:46:15 AM
If Jesus' husband, John The Evangelist, had had a machine gun, then there'd have been no crucifixion and a whole lot of these problems could have been avoided.

#stillwasn'tcontraversialenough



And if Christ had been born in the 20th Century, Catholic children would be wearing little, tiny electric chairs around their necks.
            Lenny Bruce
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on May 05, 2013, 09:16:01 AM
Way off topic, guys. There is no need to start bringing religion into this discussion. I don't quite know who Lenny Bruce is, some comedian I think, however, the quote from him is not related to the topic and unnecessarily offensive to a lot of people who do not come to the Saloon for that. I am sure that if they want to, they can find Mr. Bruce on Youtube.  Every time faith is brought up, it always gets messy. So please keep it secular, ok  agagagagag agagagagag.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: cruisemonkey on May 05, 2013, 09:18:18 AM
Hunting wild animals for sport has nothing to do with food.

It does if you eat them. Personally, I never shoot anything I'm not going to eat.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: The Local Dialect on May 05, 2013, 09:27:18 AM
Yeah, I've never been hunting myself but all of the people I know who go hunting definitely eat what they kill. Same with fishing. Where I grew up deep sea sport fishing was a huge deal and if the fishermen caught more than they could eat personally they'd give fish away to friends and even sometimes just people hanging out there at the dock.

This might be cultural? But in the USA you definitely hunt both for sport and food.

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: The Local Dialect on May 05, 2013, 11:27:25 AM
Way off topic, guys. There is no need to start bringing religion into this discussion. I don't quite know who Lenny Bruce is, some comedian I think, however, the quote from him is not related to the topic and unnecessarily offensive to a lot of people who do not come to the Saloon for that. I am sure that if they want to, they can find Mr. Bruce on Youtube.  Every time faith is brought up, it always gets messy. So please keep it secular, ok  agagagagag agagagagag.

Just to back etr up, I'll also say that let's keep the tone of the discussion respectful, on both sides. This is a contentious topic that has the potential to get pretty heated, and so far everyone has been pretty even keeled, so let's keep it that way.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 05, 2013, 12:12:35 PM
Way off topic, guys. There is no need to start bringing religion into this discussion. I don't quite know who Lenny Bruce is, some comedian I think, however, the quote from him is not related to the topic and unnecessarily offensive to a lot of people who do not come to the Saloon for that. I am sure that if they want to, they can find Mr. Bruce on Youtube.  Every time faith is brought up, it always gets messy. So please keep it secular, ok  agagagagag agagagagag.

Sorry about that. It's such an old, common joke that its offensiveness has long since evaporated for me leaving only the humor.  And, as a recovering Catholic, I've always assumed some right to tell it. Doesn't even seem to really be a religious joke for me anymore.  Can you imagine the response it received in the early '60's?

ETR; do a little reading about Bruce.  I'm guessing you'd have liked him. The video doesn't hold up all that well from the '60's, but he was a ground-breaking comedian; one of the first to bring social commentary into comedy and a hero of George Carlin. The Dustin Hoffman movie "Lenny" is not bad either.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: opiate on May 05, 2013, 12:23:29 PM
All simple really- why the hell does an average person need a gun? It seems to be some power thing. It's not a weapon, it's a killing tool, plain and simple. You use a gun simply with the aim to kill what's in front of you.

What kind of normal person would want one of these, unless they were some psychopath in need of some kind of "control" over other's lives? I have not heard one normal reason justifying why anyone other than police or military need a gun.

Makes me sick.

I had a shotgun in my home since I was 18. It was for home defense. Thankfully I never had to use it for it's intended purpose. I wish I could have one here in China. I have a wife and child and would like to be able to protect them with something more effective than shouting.

I find your attitude to be more than a little disturbing and irrational. There are any number of legitimate reasons to own a firearm. Sport shooting, home defense, hobby, hunting...etc
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: AMonk on May 05, 2013, 12:45:15 PM
Personally, I don't like guns - in any manner, fashion, shape or form. 

However, I can see the point that my D-I-L's BFF made.  She stated that she lives out in the (US)countryside.  No close neighbours, but plenty of wildlife.  She has had coyotes and bears aoaoaoaoao wandering around in her backyard from time-to-time.  Under those circumstances, I can see good reasons for having firearms.

For me and Hubby (in our small home in Bda), a barking dog, a stout cedar billy club and a machete will suffice agagagagag
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on May 05, 2013, 12:52:17 PM
Way off topic, guys. There is no need to start bringing religion into this discussion. I don't quite know who Lenny Bruce is, some comedian I think, however, the quote from him is not related to the topic and unnecessarily offensive to a lot of people who do not come to the Saloon for that. I am sure that if they want to, they can find Mr. Bruce on Youtube.  Every time faith is brought up, it always gets messy. So please keep it secular, ok  agagagagag agagagagag.

Sorry about that. It's such an old, common joke that its offensiveness has long since evaporated for me leaving only the humor.  And, as a recovering Catholic, I've always assumed some right to tell it. Doesn't even seem to really be a religious joke for me anymore.  Can you imagine the response it received in the early '60's?

ETR; do a little reading about Bruce.  I'm guessing you'd have liked him. The video doesn't hold up all that well from the '60's, but he was a ground-breaking comedian; one of the first to bring social commentary into comedy and a hero of George Carlin. The Dustin Hoffman movie "Lenny" is not bad either.

I am sure I would. However, to some Saloonies the joke might not be as funny. People can be just as sensitive about their faith today as they could in the 60's. If you search around the Saloon, you will find numerous threads that descended into war due to comments on faith. I'm an agnostic, but I don't tell religious. Having decided to not belong to a certain faith does not bestow a right to make insensitive remarks about it. We have a BS Wrestling Pit for that.  agagagagag agagagagag

I would like to chime in and confess to owning not only one gun but two: an Eighteenth Century Dueling pistol and a late Eighteenth Century Blunderbuss. I am pretty sure I cannot fire them, albeit the curator at the Royal Danish Miltary Museum said they were in perfect working order. I actually had to get a permit to hang them on my wall, although I am pretty sure the swords, daggers and bayonets on it would be more efficient against a burglar.  agagagagag
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 05, 2013, 12:53:51 PM
Personally, I don't like guns - in any manner, fashion, shape or form.  

However, I can see the point that my D-I-L's BFF made.  She stated that she lives out in the (US)countryside.  No close neighbours, but plenty of wildlife.  She has had coyotes and bears aoaoaoaoao wandering around in her backyard from time-to-time.  Under those circumstances, I can see good reasons for having firearms.

For me and Hubby (in our small home in Bda), a barking dog, a stout cedar billy club and a machete will suffice agagagagag

I agree with you, but as a born-and-bred country bumpkin, I find it more than a little paradoxical that people from the city find country life dangerous and/or scary. I routinely hear coyotes, see large deer in my front lawn and have families of mice trying to take up residence in my basement, but the only real threat I'm under when home is turkey poop, bee stings and teenagers making out nearby. The last of which I have taped and posted to YouTube.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 05, 2013, 12:59:45 PM
Every time faith is brought up, it always gets messy. So please keep it secular, ok 

Sorry about that. It's such an old, common joke that its offensiveness has long since evaporated for me leaving only the humor.

I would like to chime in and confess to owning not only one gun but two: an Eighteenth Century Dueling pistol and a late Eighteenth Century Blunderbuss.

NnnnnYeahhh...that doesn't count. It's the sort of "gun" that Niles Crane would own.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on May 05, 2013, 01:08:02 PM
@cruisemonkey and LD

I meant that people don't hunt out of necessity. It is a sport though, food is grown not caught including meat
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 05, 2013, 01:15:03 PM

I meant that people don't hunt out of necessity. It is a sport though, food is grown not caught including meat

You're the last person I would have thought to use such a euphemism. Meat is "grown"?  Have you visited one of these "growth farms"? Makes it sound like some sort of encounter session. Do these chickens engage in "est"?
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on May 05, 2013, 01:18:24 PM
Mary, Mary, quite contrary
How does your meat garden grow?


Doesn't sound right somehow.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: The Local Dialect on May 05, 2013, 01:36:31 PM
LOL, meat garden. Could be a good band name.

Yeah, I know what you mean kitano. It is sport, for most people. Most American hunters don't really hunt out of necessity unless they're living a doomsday prepper survivalist lifestyle by choice. There is the "defense against wild animals" element. If I lived somewhere with bears in my backyard, I might see where owning a gun could be advantageous, but in reality that gun would probably have a greater chance of hurting me than the bear. I used to live in Texas and yeah we'd hear coyotes all the time but it never crossed my mind that I'd need to shoot one.

I have actually seen hunters with rifles while hiking in the deep backwoods of Yunnan. My husband tells me that in these really remote areas local officials sort of turn a blind eye to hunters. The rifles looked to be sort of DIY, and were definitely not the sort of thing you'd see any kind of criminal using. Now that's actual sustenance hunting (or poaching, in some cases), and in a country with some of the strictest gun laws on the planet.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: caley1313 on May 05, 2013, 01:39:41 PM
Lenny Bruce. Wonderful stuff. If we can't take his words to be funny stuff, then we're taking ourselves far too seriously. Great thread to all who have posted. I've enjoyed the liberals and idealists much. Not too sure how they would have fared in Houston this past weekend with the NRA. No, I take that back. I know exactly how they would have fared. They wouldn't have counted an iota of jism. Caley
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on May 05, 2013, 01:41:26 PM

I meant that people don't hunt out of necessity. It is a sport though, food is grown not caught including meat

You're the last person I would have thought to use such a euphemism. Meat is "grown"?  Have you visited one of these "growth farms"? Makes it sound like some sort of encounter session. Do these chickens engage in "est"?

I was actually going to say 'raised' but I remember that website all about the food industry with the videos of animals on conveyor belts and so on...

I was struggling with the right term when I was writing that post but I think it was just avoiding planning tomorrow's lesson lol
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 05, 2013, 01:46:29 PM

I meant that people don't hunt out of necessity. It is a sport though, food is grown not caught including meat

You're the last person I would have thought to use such a euphemism. Meat is "grown"?  Have you visited one of these "growth farms"? Makes it sound like some sort of encounter session. Do these chickens engage in "est"?

I was actually going to say 'raised' but I remember that website all about the food industry with the videos of animals on conveyor belts and so on...

...I think it was just avoiding planning tomorrow's lesson lol

Well, that's reason enough for ANY transgression.  Including meat consumption.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 05, 2013, 01:49:57 PM
I've enjoyed the liberals and idealists much. Not too sure how they would have fared in Houston this past weekend with the NRA. No, I take that back. I know exactly how they would have fared. They wouldn't have counted an iota of jism. Caley

How high did the bounty get for liberals, idealists and gun control activists?
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on May 05, 2013, 01:50:31 PM
LOL, meat garden. Could be a good band name.

Yeah, I know what you mean kitano. It is sport, for most people. Most American hunters don't really hunt out of necessity unless they're living a doomsday prepper survivalist lifestyle by choice. There is the "defense against wild animals" element. If I lived somewhere with bears in my backyard, I might see where owning a gun could be advantageous, but in reality that gun would probably have a greater chance of hurting me than the bear. I used to live in Texas and yeah we'd hear coyotes all the time but it never crossed my mind that I'd need to shoot one.

I have actually seen hunters with rifles while hiking in the deep backwoods of Yunnan. My husband tells me that in these really remote areas local officials sort of turn a blind eye to hunters. The rifles looked to be sort of DIY, and were definitely not the sort of thing you'd see any kind of criminal using. Now that's actual sustenance hunting (or poaching, in some cases), and in a country with some of the strictest gun laws on the planet.

I've got nothing against hunting for sport, I think that it's legal pretty much everywhere

I would say to the 'back to nature' argument you should really make yourself a bow and arrow or a knife or something
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 05, 2013, 01:54:41 PM
Houston NRA meeting.  You gotta see this sh!t to believe it. 

http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2013/05/scenes-from-the-2013-nra-convention-in-houston-texas/#1
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 05, 2013, 02:00:46 PM
LOL, meat garden. Could be a good band name.


I've got nothing against hunting for sport, I think that it's legal pretty much everywhere

I would say to the 'back to nature' argument you should really make yourself a bow and arrow or a knife or something

I agree completely. It would be much more visceral and effective. But it is not "back" to nature.  It is already natural.  We've just managed to remove ourselves from such unpleasantness...or convince ourselves that we have.

The Hindu god Kali is my sponsor in this discussion. 
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: The Local Dialect on May 05, 2013, 02:03:34 PM
Houston NRA meeting.  You gotta see this sh!t to believe it.  

http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2013/05/scenes-from-the-2013-nra-convention-in-houston-texas/#1

Oh the NRA.  kkkkkkkkkk I don't know whether to  ahahahahah or  ananananan at some of those pictures.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on May 05, 2013, 04:00:43 PM
More fuel for the fire. As they say, only in America   kkkkkkkkkk

http://thestar.blogs.com/worlddaily/2013/05/in-gun-friendly-arizona-its-now-the-law-thou-shalt-not-destroy-guns.html

Protestors railed against the NRA in Washington D.C. last month, when the U.S. Senate voted down a bill that would tighten background checks for gun buyers. Last week in Arizona the NRA won another victory. The state Senate passed an NRA-supported law forbidding cities from destroying guns surrendered in buyback programs.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 05, 2013, 04:34:58 PM
More fuel for the fire. As they say, only in America   kkkkkkkkkk

http://thestar.blogs.com/worlddaily/2013/05/in-gun-friendly-arizona-its-now-the-law-thou-shalt-not-destroy-guns.html

Protestors railed against the NRA in Washington D.C. last month, when the U.S. Senate voted down a bill that would tighten background checks for gun buyers. ...

It received a majority approval of 54 - 46. Cold comfort for those who want an need protection, but it's worth noting.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 05, 2013, 11:38:22 PM
I agree with all of this except the connotation that a "squirrel rifle" can be similar to an "assault rifle".  Is your squirrel rifle semi-automatic and can fire over 45 rounds per minute?  Does it have a 30-round magazine?  If so, you must really suck as a marksman and forget about protecting anything with it.

But, your larger point is well taken. The infamous AR-15 is a weak weapon an is used like a spray gun. Why anyone would want one can only be explained by EL's coolness factor.

It can pump out rounds as fast as I can pull the trigger.  I've got a pair of 30 round mags that clip together in an inverted fashion, so when the first runs dry, I eject, flip, reinsert, chamber a round, and can keep trying to thin out ETR's relatives. bababababa



As for massive knife assaults at schools, that particular aberration seems to be mostly confined to the Big Silly, at least so far.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: dragonsaver on May 06, 2013, 01:32:12 AM
I was watching Bill Maher tonight doing is opening comedy dialogue.

He was commenting on the NRA convention in Texas.  He said: "well at least it is good for the economy in Texas, the hotels, the restarants, and, oh yes the hookers cuz they really love men with small penises".   ahahahahah ahahahahah   bpbpbpbpbp
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 06, 2013, 03:01:39 AM
I agree with all of this except the connotation that a "squirrel rifle" can be similar to an "assault rifle".  Is your squirrel rifle semi-automatic and can fire over 45 rounds per minute?  Does it have a 30-round magazine?  If so, you must really suck as a marksman and forget about protecting anything with it.

But, your larger point is well taken. The infamous AR-15 is a weak weapon an is used like a spray gun. Why anyone would want one can only be explained by EL's coolness factor.

It can pump out rounds as fast as I can pull the trigger.  I've got a pair of 30 round mags that clip together in an inverted fashion, so when the first runs dry, I eject, flip, reinsert, chamber a round, and can keep trying to thin out ETR's relatives. bababababa



Wow!  You must HATE squirrels. I was assuming, at most, a single-shot .22.  Maybe even an air gun.  Do the squirrels in your neighborhood shoot back? Receive military training from Hezbollah?  Sell heroine on street corners?  Now, I want to take a few shots at them.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on May 06, 2013, 03:34:20 AM
Wow!  You must HATE squirrels. I was assuming, at most, a single-shot .22.  Maybe even an air gun.  Do the squirrels in your neighborhood shoot back? Receive military training from Hezbollah?  Sell heroine on street corners?  Now, I want to take a few shots at them.

Nah, they're just smarter than EL    ahahahahah
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 06, 2013, 03:45:55 AM
Wow!  You must HATE squirrels. I was assuming, at most, a single-shot .22.  Maybe even an air gun.  Do the squirrels in your neighborhood shoot back? Receive military training from Hezbollah?  Sell heroine on street corners?  Now, I want to take a few shots at them.

Nah, they're just smarter than EL    ahahahahah

There's just so damned many of them.  No matter how many thousands of them I killed, no matter how many of their corpses I'd hang up on display, they kept coming back. aqaqaqaqaq aqaqaqaqaq aqaqaqaqaq

For some reason, my applications for licenses to use fragmentation grenades and flamethrowers to control the little varmints were all turned down.  Stupid bureaucrats who live in cities just don't understand how bad the squirrel situation can be. llllllllll

I finally had to move to a country where all the squirrels had already been killed and eaten. bjbjbjbjbj
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 06, 2013, 06:52:07 AM
Maybe this belongs in the "What's In The Water in the U.S" thread, but...

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/02/pro-gun_demonstrators_bring_th.html

http://thinkprogress.org/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/17/704301/concealed-guns-library/

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 06, 2013, 08:30:35 AM
I would think that all guns to be used inside of libraries should be required to be equipped with silencers.  Otherwise, they could be far to distracting to those who want to read books.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: gonzo on May 07, 2013, 02:23:29 AM
Everything here ends up as piss weak attempts at humour.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Just Like Mr Benn on May 07, 2013, 05:06:48 AM
It's difficult to say anything about this issue, because I don't think that allowing the public to own guns is wrong. I think it's insane, ridiculous and irresponsible.

I understand that people want to own guns, in the same way that people want to be able to drive without speed limits, have monkeys as pets and numerous other stupid things.

Of course a government shouldn't control every aspect of our lives. People should be allowed to smoke cigarettes, drink large servings of sugary drinks etc.

However at the start of the thread someone posted a link from a so called liberal suggesting that owning guns was a human right. It's a valid opinion that people should be allowed to live their lives without interference of any kind from government, but it's hardly liberal. If you give people the right to own all and any guns, you should give them the right to create and own weapons of all kinds including biological agents, explosives and nuclear weapons. If a Libertarian proposes this, then fair enough, but a liberal???

Surely most people would accept limitations on universal personal freedoms. There has to be a line somewhere, and to believe that line should be drawn where it currently is in the USA is, as I say insane, ridiculous and irresponsible.

So, then there's the argument that you can't change things. There isn't a law in history that hasn't had people saying things like, 'You have a good point, but the South will never give up their slaves'. Lets just keep things as they are and value the hypothetical possibility of failure above the actual historical incidences of success, such as Australia.

American politicians are prostitutes, selling themselves to the highest bidder, invariably the NRA. This doesn't just affect guns. The NRA make their poodles toe the line on absolutely any policy that could possibly have consequences for gun ownership.

Most countries, as some people have pointed out, allow some form of gun ownership. There isn't a country in the world where knives are banned, and even if they were, you can't even keep weapons out of prisons as log as you have a sock and something hard to tie inside.

It's not about guns. it's about sensible restrictions on freedom for the greater good.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 07, 2013, 05:11:57 AM
Everything here ends up as piss weak attempts at humour.

You really should read back a few pages before making such over-reaching generalizations. kkkkkkkkkk
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CaseyOrourke on May 07, 2013, 05:41:04 AM
Fortunately for some, unfortunately for others, in America you can't just say "fuck the constitution." The process of amending it is incredibly difficult -- you don't just need a simple majority you need a supermajority. Here:
Quote
The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend.  As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways.  First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today).  This first method of amendment is the only one used to date.  Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Because any amendment can be blocked by a mere thirteen states withholding approval (in either of their two houses), amendments don't come easy.  In fact, only 27 amendments have been ratified since the Constitution became effective, and ten of those ratifications occurred almost immediately--as the Bill of Rights.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm

I know this is off the subject, but I am a stickler for accuracy.  The Twenty-first Amendment to The Constitution which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition) was done in state conventions because it was assumed that many state lawmakers were either beholden or afraid of the temperance movement.

Now that being said, the Eighteenth Amendment was the only amendment which restricted what somebody considered a right as per the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution.
Quote
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Although the Eighteenth Amendment had the best of intentions, it opened the door for the era of gangsters and organized crime running rampant all over the country.  An amendment repealing or even modifying the second amendment could set the nation on a route where the bloodbath would make the Prohibition era pale in comparison.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: The Local Dialect on May 07, 2013, 06:37:29 AM
Quote from: Just Like Mr Benn link=topic=8383.msg153995#msg153995

So, then there's the argument that you can't change things. There isn't a law in history that hasn't had people saying things like, 'You have a good point, but the South will never give up their slaves'. Lets just keep things as they are and value the hypothetical possibility of failure above the actual historical incidences of success, such as Australia.

The slavery argument is always a bit disingenuous because the South didn't just "give up" their slaves, they lost an incredibly bloody civil war and therefore did not have a choice in the matter.

We could fight a civil war over the 2nd amendment too, but luckily there doesn't seem to be anyone in the USA who wants to push the issue that far.

That's not to say people who support sensible restrictions on gun ownership shouldn't lobby for it -- they, we, should. But have others have also pointed out, when you approach the issue from the point of constitutional amendments, you doom your argument from the start.

And Casey, thanks for pointing that out. I was looking for a short and simple explanation of the amendment process and missed that part where they said constitutional convention hadn't been used. You're right, the 21st Amendment was passed through state conventions. Maybe I'll email that guy and let him know he's made a mistake. :D
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: adamsmith on May 07, 2013, 07:48:35 AM
it would be interesting to see how a civil war over gun ownership rights would play out.

Gt rid of gun side:

How do we stop them??
I dont know, maybe we should go to the gun store and buy a gun. llllllllll llllllllll llllllllll


please note: this is not an argument for/against, just wish to point out the irony of the idea, and not directed at any individuals opinions.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: AMonk on May 07, 2013, 09:12:00 AM
I'm taking this  offtopic

In the OP, gonzo quoted ...

.A two-year-old girl has become the second child in the US to be shot dead by a sibling this week, after her five-year-old brother shot her with a rifle designed for children, officials revealed on Wednesday.

And he wondered why the USA doesn't amend its gun Laws.

However, whilst this story made the news, other children were being bullied, raped, beaten, burnt, stabbed and abused in various and sundry other ways by myriad assailants - including their parents, grandparents and other caregivers.  And, for the most part, the stories don't make the nightly News. They don't rate so much as a passing mention in the local media.
 
I would ask the Question -- Why are there still children around the world being hurt, damaged and even killed?  Why are WE all (not just the USA - Australia, Canada and the UK also have some abysmal records in this area) not ending the violence against innocents? 

I am more concerned about this, than about who owns what guns in the US.










.... and I am now going to  oooooooooo
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 07, 2013, 10:28:51 AM

.A two-year-old girl has become the second child in the US to be shot dead by a sibling this week, after her five-year-old brother shot her with a rifle designed for children, officials revealed on Wednesday.

And he wondered why the USA doesn't amend its gun Laws.
 
I would ask the Question -- Why are there still children around the world being hurt, damaged and even killed?  Why are WE all (not just the USA - Australia, Canada and the UK also have some abysmal records in this area) not ending the violence against innocents? 

I am more concerned about this, than about who owns what guns in the US

Because we can't legislate away psychosis. But, we can through legislation, mollify some of its effects.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on May 07, 2013, 10:57:46 AM
Everything here ends up as piss weak attempts at humour.

Naturally, this is the Cabana, not exactly a room for serious discussion. What should it turn into instead? A indignant soap-box thread in which we can all belly-ache about gun laws in a foreign country. Is this not a bit old hat, really? America has loose gun laws, there are some people in America who are really on guns and sometimes they do really stupid things with said guns. You think righteous ire on an internet forum, the remit of which deals with education in China, is going to have any effect on this?
Have a cup of tea, read a book and smile at the fact that you are, hopefully, not in America and thus the guns cannot harm you.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 07, 2013, 11:25:56 AM
Everything here ends up as piss weak attempts at humour.

Naturally, this is the Cabana, not exactly a room for serious discussion. What should it turn into instead? A indignant soap-box thread in which we can all belly-ache about gun laws in a foreign country. Is this not a bit old hat, really? America has loose gun laws, there are some people in America who are really on guns and sometimes they do really stupid things with said guns. You think righteous ire on an internet forum, the remit of which deals with education in China, is going to have any effect on this?
Have a cup of tea, read a book and smile at the fact that you are, hopefully, not in America and thus the guns cannot harm you.

In other words, "get a hobby and take a nap".

BTW: I have no idea what "gonzo" meant. I thought the joke was pretty good. Better than the average bear's.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: George on May 07, 2013, 08:52:40 PM
And just to throw a cat among the pigeons.........a plastic gun!
http://www.readability.com/read?url=http%3A//www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185 (http://www.readability.com/read?url=http%3A//www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185)
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Granny Mae on May 07, 2013, 09:27:16 PM
I saw this on the News last night. I find it hard to accept that anyone can, or will be able to, access information on how to make this weapon.  bibibibibi  Another "can of worms" has been opened.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on May 07, 2013, 10:38:57 PM
Not something I would fret too much about. The article does not say you can print your own bullets. A gun without bullets is, well, a piece of metal or plastic.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: piglet on May 07, 2013, 11:31:17 PM
I beg to differ
http://defcad.org/browse/
very very worrying imho  aoaoaoaoao
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: The Local Dialect on May 08, 2013, 12:02:29 AM
I beg to differ
http://defcad.org/browse/
very very worrying imho  aoaoaoaoao

I saw high-explosive anti-tank warhead on that list! http://defcad.org/125mm-heat/   aoaoaoaoao

They say they're just models though ...

But this is really neither here nor there wrt gun control I guess. That site isn't even blocked in China ... these guns could be made anywhere by anyone.

Also?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-creates-functional-gun-on-3d-printer,32343/

“Sounds cool, but I’d probably rather just buy a real gun than trying to figure out how to set up another printer.”  ahahahahah
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 08, 2013, 12:10:34 AM
Looks like they still haven't figured out the firing pin.  This means that you still can't print 100% of the components of a gun . . .

yet. aoaoaoaoao aoaoaoaoao aoaoaoaoao


Title: Re: Guns
Post by: gonzo on May 08, 2013, 02:25:10 AM
It's difficult to say anything about this issue, because I don't think that allowing the public to own guns is wrong. I think it's insane, ridiculous and irresponsible.

Precisely. This "I need a gun to defend my family" argument holds water in Afghanistan, Mali etc., but in the USA? Look at GUN DEATHS  the US and similar countries on Google, then do the Maths.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 08, 2013, 04:10:37 AM
Check the crime stats for Washington DC vs. the local gun restrictions before counting on laws alone to protect innocent people from violence.

I'll make all the anti-gun people in the world an ironclad promise.  Find a way to make sure that all the criminals surrender all their guns first.  Once they've done so, I'll happily give my complete and total support for all remaining guns to be placed under super-tight restrictions.  I'll even donate a certain very fine weapon in my collection that the press would call an "assault shotgun" to any local police agency that wants it.  I'll throw in the ammo too.

Until then, I have to agree with my brother (now serving as a police chief):

After 23 years in law enforcement I can say without a doubt, "An unarmed citizen is a victim waiting to happen".


This does highlight one very nice thing about China compared to the USA.  Since there are so very few stray guns out there, it limits the types of concealable weapons available to violent criminals.  This definitely tilts the arms race in favor of homeowners in the event of a break in.  Never bring a knife to a sword fight. uuuuuuuuuu
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 08, 2013, 08:25:05 AM

Until then, I have to agree with my brother (now serving as a police chief):

After 23 years in law enforcement I can say without a doubt, "An unarmed citizen is a victim waiting to happen".


And if you have a weapon, what are the statistics of trying to use it against an assailant?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 08, 2013, 09:20:45 AM

And if you have a weapon, what are the statistics of trying to use it against an assailant?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

The bulk of those statistics are amazingly well manipulated.  You just have to know how to ask the right question and define the terms in ways that favors your own preferred outcome.  For example, studies showing that guns are rarely used to defend the home as opposed to killing someone else in the home typically define "defend" as killing an intruder.  Common defenses can involve displaying a gun, firing a warning shot, wounding an intruder, or, my personal fav, that amazingly worrisome sound of chambering a round in a pump action shotgun - any burglar who doesn't instantly flee when that noise comes from the master suite likely has a death wish.

Anyone want to bet what the statistics are from (pick a country, ANY country) on the number of deaths (murder, accident, suicide) of members of a household from kitchen knives vs. the number of intruders killed with kitchen knives?  Why do I suspect that these stats would show kitchen knives are much more dangerous to family members and much less dangerous to burglars than guns in the US are?

Statistically, dogs are much more likely to bite a family member than to bite a burglar (or even a postman).  Still, a largish dog is VERY high up on the list of burglary deterrents.

Feel free to check the burglary rates for Switzerland - where virtually every home has a gun (and I don't think they all keep large dogs).  They've also got significantly lower gun accident rates - simple evidence that proper training in how to safely handle a firearm will reduce unnecessary deaths far faster than trying to round up all the weapons from a populace containing quite a few people who won't cooperate due to either criminal tendencies or for Constitutional reasons.

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on May 08, 2013, 10:28:22 AM
simple evidence that proper training in how to safely handle a firearm will reduce unnecessary deaths far faster than trying to round up all the weapons from a populace containing quite a few people who won't cooperate due to either criminal tendencies or for Constitutional reasons.

And there you have the crux of the problem. There is no IQ test that goes along with gun ownership nor is there a full scale training requirement. Some people do and good for them
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CWL on May 08, 2013, 02:08:46 PM
Precisely. This "I need a gun to defend my family" argument holds water in Afghanistan, Mali etc., but in the USA? Look at GUN DEATHS  the US and similar countries on Google, then do the Maths.

Take up all the guns from the vatos and homies first.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GUN_VIOLENCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-05-07-19-27-18

Reports show gun homicides down since 1990s

A study released Tuesday by the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. That's a 39 percent reduction.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on May 08, 2013, 02:24:38 PM
It's difficult to say anything about this issue, because I don't think that allowing the public to own guns is wrong. I think it's insane, ridiculous and irresponsible.
Why do you trust the public less than those whom I assume you trust, such as police, military, etc.?

To give my question some perspective as an American, did you happen to follow the story a couple of months ago about the Los Angeles Police Department going on a shooting rampage to try and murder someone named Chris Dorner?
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on May 08, 2013, 02:52:26 PM
A study released Tuesday by the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. That's a 39 percent reduction.

Never trust a gov't report

According to wiki (who are 1% more reliable):
In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicide deaths, and 14,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States

A total of over 33thousand gun related deaths
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on May 08, 2013, 03:01:38 PM
A man named Adam Kokesh has called for a July 4th (US Independence Day) march on Washington, D.C. for people carrying loaded guns. Guns are mostly illegal in D.C. He said on a radio program that this was to be interpreted as an armed attack on the government.

There was a famous event from Pennsylvania back in the 50's where several thousand people showed up for a march carrying loaded rifles. It was perfectly peaceful. Hope this one turns out the same way.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 08, 2013, 04:17:00 PM

And if you have a weapon, what are the statistics of trying to use it against an assailant?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

The bulk of those statistics are amazingly well manipulated.  You just have to know how to ask the right question and define the terms in ways that favors your own preferred outcome.  For example, studies showing that guns are rarely used to defend the home as opposed to killing someone else in the home typically define "defend" as killing an intruder.  Common defenses can involve displaying a gun, firing a warning shot, wounding an intruder, or, my personal fav, that amazingly worrisome sound of chambering a round in a pump action shotgun - any burglar who doesn't instantly flee when that noise comes from the master suite likely has a death wish.

Anyone want to bet what the statistics are from (pick a country, ANY country) on the number of deaths (murder, accident, suicide) of members of a household from kitchen knives vs. the number of intruders killed with kitchen knives?  Why do I suspect that these stats would show kitchen knives are much more dangerous to family members and much less dangerous to burglars than guns in the US are?

Statistically, dogs are much more likely to bite a family member than to bite a burglar (or even a postman).  Still, a largish dog is VERY high up on the list of burglary deterrents.

Feel free to check the burglary rates for Switzerland - where virtually every home has a gun (and I don't think they all keep large dogs).  They've also got significantly lower gun accident rates - simple evidence that proper training in how to safely handle a firearm will reduce unnecessary deaths far faster than trying to round up all the weapons from a populace containing quite a few people who won't cooperate due to either criminal tendencies or for Constitutional reasons.



A lot to chew on here, but just two comments on my part. One is that it's not enough to claim manipulation. You have to give some sort of evidence to discredit the statistics.

Secondly, regarding Switzerland. I think that is a perfect scenario. Again, I have no problem with people owning weapons, (I have three myself). The keys are to disallow ownership to unstable people and to train the owners.  But if the U.S. government tried to implement the system of training, tracking and denial of carrying permits, that law would die faster than a Mayfly on the interstate highway.

I also love the dog analogy. In the U.S. you have to register your dog and go in for certain shots periodically to "maintain" the dog.  If you tried to require registration of guns and periodic checkups of those guns quality or level of competency of the owners, you'd be branded the "New Stalin" and could expect a ceaseless run of negative TV ads on your behalf.

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CWL on May 08, 2013, 11:53:41 PM
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, tells Benghazi witnesses that "death is a part of life."

I wonder if he and the other members of his caucus share his views?  And, just how and why would those views differ when it comes to guns??? 

Yee Haw!
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: caley1313 on May 09, 2013, 12:43:35 AM
Everything here ends up as piss weak attempts at humour.

You really should read back a few pages before making such over-reaching generalizations. kkkkkkkkkk


Well said, and I'd add that in the satirical bent all too often the truth can be found.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 09, 2013, 01:11:27 AM
You are supposed to give the dog shots so it doesn't get rabies and go psycho.  Guns do need maintenance, but I doubt routine inspections of the working conditions of firearms would have a huge impact on gun deaths.  A gun can sit untouched in a cabinet for longer than a dog lives.  I don't think too may people are killed by mechanical failure in firearms.

Did a little research and stand by manipulation.  The premier study displayed on the Brady website and repeatedly touted as "proof" that guns cause more problems than they solve was deeply flawed.

1.  Only killing in defense was considered successful defense.  Scaring the intruder away, wounding the intruder, or holding the intruder at gunpoint until the police arrived did not count.  Imagine if we defined success by the police only in terms of how many suspects they blew away. uuuuuuuuuu

2.  There was a "control group".  Since the study group were all dead by gunshots and couldn't be questioned, the researcher came up with the brilliant idea of not questioning the controls directly.  This meant that neighbors or family members of the control group were asked "does that person keep a gun in the house?"  Oddly enough, despite living in a high crime area, the control group was reported to have significantly fewer guns in the home than the national average.  If the controls were assumed to have guns equal to the national average, the statistics would have shown that guns in the home were a protective factor.

3.  Even if we ignore items 1 and 2, no one seems to want to fix the far more dangerous items the study found.  The flawed methodology showed that guns increased the ratio of death by gunshot 2.7 times.  The same study said that anyone in the home using illegal drugs increased the ratio 5.7 times.  A history of domestic violence increased the ratio 4.4 times.  Renting the home increased the ratio 4.4 times.  Living alone increased the ratio 3.7 times.

Based on this, you can make yourself far safer from gun deaths by:
1.  Keeping drugs out of your home. (makes sense)
2.  Not getting into fights with your spouse (makes sense)
3.  Buying your house instead of renting. mmmmmmmmmm
4.  Not living alone.

Therefor, we should call on all people who are against guns violence to push for capital punishment for all drug and domestic violence offenses (not by firing squad - we're trying to reduce gun deaths).  We should further demand immediate passage laws banning the rental of housing and against living alone in order to promote public safety.

Or, we could ignore that deeply flawed research and use some common sense:
1.  Make firearms safety training easily available to anyone who wants it.  Over time, ways can be found to more and more strongly encourage taking these classes.
2.  Pass an amendment limiting the rights of anyone with an IQ less than their own shoe size - no guns, no voting, no driver's licenses, etc.
3.  Require all guns used in libraries to be equipped with silencers.  Having a librarian going "Shhh!" at you during a gunfight can throw off your concentration.  Plus, it's always courteous not to make too much noise in libraries.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on May 09, 2013, 02:38:27 AM
I find the argument about protecting yourself incredibly specious

If you actually do need a gun to protect yourself then you are in a pretty hellish situation, like just going about your day and not hurting anyone you still might end up having to shoot someone to protect yourself, it's like giving bulletproof vests to schoolkids to stop school shootings, it's mind blowingly negative!
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 09, 2013, 05:26:59 AM
I find the argument about protecting yourself incredibly specious

If you actually do need a gun to protect yourself then you are in a pretty hellish situation, like just going about your day and not hurting anyone you still might end up having to shoot someone to protect yourself, it's like giving bulletproof vests to schoolkids to stop school shootings, it's mind blowingly negative!

Have you ever had your house broken into?  I have.  More than once.  Thankfully never when I've been home.  Saved me a lot of cleaning expenses. uuuuuuuuuu

If it happened and you were home, what approach would you take with the uninvited (and likely well armed) houseguests?

a.  Run like hell.  If you are unarmed, it's a good idea - if you have a clear path to an exit.
b.  Hide in a closet and call the cops.  Not bad, but you may not be able to get to a closet.  Make it a quick call.  Smart burglars are usually ready to break through interior doors with ease.
c.  Use your mighty kung fu to defeat them.  Sorry, gun-do is one of the most successful forms of wushu.  If you aren't an amazing martial artist, this is a great way to get yourself maimed or killed.
d.  Fall to the floor begging for mercy and offer to show them were all the valuables are hidden.  Higher chance of survival than option C, but still not a recommended approach.
e.  Welcome them to your home.  Offer them a drink and try to reason with them.  Works 1 time in a thousand.  The other 999 times don't usually turn out so well.
f.  Go for the nearest weapon the moment you have a hint that something isn't right.  You should have more than one and they shouldn't all be in one place.  Remember, don't pull the trigger until you've IDed the target.  It would be sad to kill Spot or some other valued family member.  Of course, it would be sad if you, Spot, and all of your family went down without a fight because you were well protected from specious arguments.


If you lived in a rough neighborhood where gangs had been known to shoot the occasional passerby for no obvious reason, you would find it a negative thing to give body armor to children?  Body armor doesn't stop shootings.  It does reduce the likelihood of the wearer dying.  Not everyone has the means to move to a better neighborhood.  Not every city has the means to quickly clean up streets that are out of control.

Maybe we should also tell people not to lock doors to keep out thieves.  After all, we wouldn't want to have a negative attitude. ahahahahah

Of course, if we go to the "successful defense only means killing the suspect" definition, I guess positioning police snipers on rooftops would be a far more proactive approach to dealing with violent criminals.

Take a moment to think like a criminal.  Imagine how gun-toting criminals would react if suddenly every law abiding citizen turned in their weapons.  Disarm the criminals first and I'll happily throw my support behind amending the Constitution to restrict all the remaining weapons.  Leaving the criminals armed with guns while removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens is an open invitation to mayhem.

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CWL on May 09, 2013, 06:16:51 AM
I find the argument about protecting yourself incredibly specious...

It must be nice to live in a society in which everyone lives by the Golden Rule.

A place where everyone is equal, everybody shares in the means of production and the powers that be care for all equally.

Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: latefordinner on May 09, 2013, 09:09:40 AM
As the veteran police officer might just as truthfully have said, "an armed civilian is a perp waiting to happen"
Arming the civil populace is how the criminals got the guns and how the neighborhoods became unsafe in the first place. Too late to do anything about that now, that horse is well and truly out of the barn. Best to keep doing more and more of what got it this way.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on May 09, 2013, 09:35:30 AM
The vast majority of burglars are opportunists, they will go around looking for empty houses that are easy to get into.
The situation EL describes where the best option is to have a load of guns stashed around your house so if anyone comes in trying to harm your family you can shoot them in the face is pretty awful. I'd have an option F of moving to a civilised country

The problem with all of these scenarios where you are protecting yourself is that it has such a low estimation of society. The fact that people feel the need to have guns in their house to stop people coming in and killing them is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, not a justification for anything!
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: The Local Dialect on May 09, 2013, 10:09:26 AM
The vast majority of burglars are opportunists, they will go around looking for empty houses that are easy to get into.
The situation EL describes where the best option is to have a load of guns stashed around your house so if anyone comes in trying to harm your family you can shoot them in the face is pretty awful. I'd have an option F of moving to a civilised country

The problem with all of these scenarios where you are protecting yourself is that it has such a low estimation of society. The fact that people feel the need to have guns in their house to stop people coming in and killing them is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, not a justification for anything!

I never felt the need to own a gun in America and I doubt that even if I returned tomorrow, I'd ever own a gun. I agree with you -- it is a sad state of affairs if people are so fearful that they feel like they must own guns in order to defend their homes/families against attacks.

While I support (a restricted interpretation of) the constitutional right to bear arms, I do not feel like most people actually need guns in order to go about their daily lives.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 09, 2013, 11:04:04 AM
You are supposed to give the dog shots so it doesn't get rabies and go psycho.  Guns do need maintenance, but I doubt routine inspections of the working conditions of firearms would have a huge impact on gun deaths.  A gun can sit untouched in a cabinet for longer than a dog lives.  I don't think too may people are killed by mechanical failure in firearms.


Yeah, the analogy gets a bit tortured at this point, but there's still validity.  If you want a gun you should have to prove that you're capable of using it safely.  Not just at the point of purchase, but routinely. You have to renew your drivers license yearly, don't you?

But just TRY to require any of this in the U.S. today? 

Again, IMHO, the debate should not be "whether you can own a gun or not", but should be under what terms.  Today you can buy a gun at a gun show or online requiring nothing but money.  The latest vote in The Senate was only meant to close that loophole and it failed, (even though it had a 55 to 45 majority and a 90% approval rating).

It's a totally ridiculous set of circumstances that will make the country increasingly violent and dangerous. Not to mention the comment it makes on our, so-called, representative Democracy.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 09, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
... I'd have an option F of moving to a civilised country

...The fact that people feel the need to have guns in their house to stop people coming in and killing them is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, not a justification for anything!

While I support (a restricted interpretation of) the constitutional right to bear arms, I do not feel like most people actually need guns in order to go about their daily lives.


Yes, but if you choose to live in THIS world, you may certainly want a firearm for valid protection reasons.  Unfortunately the NRA has fixed it so that there are so many guns in peoples' hands today that there no putting the Jeanie back in the bottle.  Can you imagine if the government tried to take guns away from U.S. citizens.  What great YouTube material. "American Idol" ratings would plummet.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on May 09, 2013, 12:33:26 PM
While I support (a restricted interpretation of) the constitutional right to bear arms, I do not feel like most people actually need guns in order to go about their daily lives.

A few years back, a buddy and I took a weekend in Boston. At the time buying booze in Ontario was very restrictive. So it Boston we knew we could get loaded (sorry for the pun). We went into a liquor store. The clerk did all the work behind the counter with one hand as the other stayed in his hand. At first we thought he was either wierd or had a problem. After a couple of minutes, he turn, slightly raised the pocketed hand and we saw one big ass hand gun.

We thought, holy mackeral, how would you like to work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year for 25 years like that?   aoaoaoaoao I'd just shoot myself. I jokingly wondered about his insurance premiums
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 09, 2013, 01:35:12 PM
71 children killed in the U.S. since Newtown.  Average age: 6

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/gun-deaths-children-newtown-caroline-sparks-crickett-firearms
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 10, 2013, 12:43:47 AM
As the veteran police officer might just as truthfully have said, "an armed civilian is a perp waiting to happen"
Arming the civil populace is how the criminals got the guns and how the neighborhoods became unsafe in the first place. Too late to do anything about that now, that horse is well and truly out of the barn. Best to keep doing more and more of what got it this way.

I would agree if you said "an armed idiot is an accident waiting to happen".  Switzerland arms the bulk of it's civilians.  Through training (or perhaps in combination with feeding stupid children to wolves), they successfully reduce the idiot quota.  Yet with all those guns, you don't read a lot about armed criminals or home burglaries there.

The vast majority of burglars are opportunists, they will go around looking for empty houses that are easy to get into.
The situation EL describes where the best option is to have a load of guns stashed around your house so if anyone comes in trying to harm your family you can shoot them in the face is pretty awful. I'd have an option F of moving to a civilised country

The problem with all of these scenarios where you are protecting yourself is that it has such a low estimation of society. The fact that people feel the need to have guns in their house to stop people coming in and killing them is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, not a justification for anything!

Excuse me, but could you please name a civilized country where there is not some chance of surprising a burglar?  While you're at it, would you please provide a means for all people living in risky areas to move there?

I had burglar arrested on my roof here in China.  He'd been surprised while robbing another house nearby, ran up the stairs of the house next door, and then crossed over to my roof (easier than it sounds).  When I heard the crowd outside, I almost went up to my roof to try to get a better look at what was going on.  Since then I have a new rule - if there's a disturbance in the street below, I don't go topside without some handy item like a sword or golf club.  Since then, there's also this innocent looking golf club sitting just inside the door to the floor I live on.  I'd rather not freak out the local police, so I don't keep any swords sitting out on public display.

When I was a child, my father came home early while the house was being robbed.  Thankfully the burglars were just about done and exited the other end of the house as he entered.  After that, one pistol was carefully concealed near the door we usually used.  I knew where it was, knew how to use it, and was forbidden to touch it unless there was an intruder.  Oddly enough, I never took it to school and blew away any of my classmates (not that removing a few selected ones from the gene pool wouldn't have been an excellent idea for improving society).

If you want a gun you should have to prove that you're capable of using it safely.  Not just at the point of purchase, but routinely. You have to renew your drivers license yearly, don't you?

I haven't taken a new driving test since I was 16.  Most of the time, I renew my license by mail.

Other than annually, I do agree that some sort of basic safety training should be mandatory.  This could even work Constitutionally - after all, that right is partly based on a "well regulated militia" and such a group should be trained.

Of course, I could imagine the howls from the anti-gun side if all high school seniors were required to take a "state militia training" class that included safe handling, use, and storage of firearms.  Too bad.  Even if you don't own a gun and never intend to own a gun, a basic familiarity with firearms safety wouldn't hurt you and could potentially be helpful sometime in the future.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 10, 2013, 01:52:07 AM
@EL...They don't even check your eyesight to renew your license? 
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: caley1313 on May 10, 2013, 03:01:48 AM
I've been reading this thread, literally shaking my balding head. Glad ya'll can vent idealism about what is right and wrong with the American gun society. As David Hume, the English empiricist once said, "There ain't no absolutes." It is what it is. It will not change. Money begets money. The $900 billion American Industrial Complex feeds itself; it is an unmovable entity. All hail the beast. You think Lord of the Flies was an allegory? Think again. We're too far down that road; gun believers beget gun martyrs. Long Live the King. God Bless America. Now, I must mount the steed (my trusty ebike) and head out to the market. I hear they have local strawberries on sale. (Feeding the boy, that is an absolute I am glad to indulge.) Ya'll have a great day. Caley from Shaoxing
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: caley1313 on May 10, 2013, 03:04:59 AM
I've been reading this thread, literally shaking my balding head. Glad ya'll can vent idealism about what is right and wrong with the American gun society. As David Hume, the English empiricist, once said, "There ain't no absolutes." It is what it is. It will not change. Money begets money. The $900 billion American Industrial Complex feeds itself; it is an unmovable entity. All hail the beast. You think Lord of the Flies was an allegory? Think again. We're too far down that road; gun believers beget gun martyrs. Long Live the King. God Bless America. Now, I must mount the steed (my trusty ebike) and head out to the market. I hear they have local strawberries on sale. (Feeding the boy, that is an absolute I am glad to indulge.) Ya'll have a great day. Caley from Shaoxing
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 10, 2013, 03:09:24 AM
But, things DO change.  As Max Planck said, "Funeral by funeral, science makes progress". Not directly aimed at gun use, but appropriate nonetheless.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 10, 2013, 03:32:58 AM
@EL...They don't even check your eyesight to renew your license? 

Evidently, I have to be able to read the renewal letter and find the proper slot to squiggle my signature into every 5 years or so.

On the super-rare occasions I've gone in, they verified that I wasn't 100% blind.  Of course, in Florida, those so old they've gone completely blind usually get their licenses suspended within 10-20 years.

Then again, being blind doesn't always mean you can't use a gun properly. When I was a kid, my great grandmother spotted a big diamondback rattlesnake in the yard in front of their house.  She wasn't up to handling a shotgun, but my great grandfather was just about blind.  In the end, he held the shotgun and she got it pointed in the right direction and he pulled the trigger.  I'm sure the snake was very deeply surprised when this ungainly method of attack proved successful. ahahahahah
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on May 10, 2013, 05:10:16 AM
I'd hate to be standing in the same state as someone he wants to shoot at. It's okay to aim at a lone snake, but towards some people in a room where he must guess who the bad guy is  aoaoaoaoao
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 10, 2013, 06:30:32 AM
@EL...They don't even check your eyesight to renew your license? 

When I was a kid, my great grandmother spotted a big diamondback rattlesnake in the yard in front of their house.  She wasn't up to handling a shotgun, but my great grandfather was just about blind.  In the end, he held the shotgun and she got it pointed in the right direction and he pulled the trigger.


Aint nothin' wrong with that.  Just like the military; one gives the coordinates, and the other discharges the weapon.  Been working since the time of the catapult.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 10, 2013, 08:34:40 AM
I'd hate to be standing in the same state as someone he wants to shoot at. It's okay to aim at a lone snake, but towards some people in a room where he must guess who the bad guy is  aoaoaoaoao

Needless to say, at an early age I learned the MOST critical rule of gun safety.  If this were more widely known in the USA, the rate of homicides and accidental deaths by firearms would be greatly reduced.

It's really very simple.  DUCK! :wtf:
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 10, 2013, 09:13:41 AM
I'd hate to be standing in the same state as someone he wants to shoot at. It's okay to aim at a lone snake, but towards some people in a room where he must guess who the bad guy is 

Needless to say, at an early age I learned the MOST critical rule of gun safety.  If this were more widely known in the USA, the rate of homicides and accidental deaths by firearms would be greatly reduced.



As did I. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and safety-conscious. But there's a percentage of numb-skulls in any hobby and a percentage of innocent accidents. Add that on top of the criminal element and you have to wonder if it's worth it. Personally, I think it is.

I play softball every summer with a guy whose, then, 17-year old son was killed with his own hunting rifle when the family dog lept on him by surprise, discharging the rifle.  His last words were, literally, "The safety was on".
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 10, 2013, 12:08:47 PM
I saw my brother manage to accidentally discharge a shotgun with the safety on once.  Luckily, it wasn't pointed at anyone.  That's something else that people who haven't taken a class (or learned the hard way) don't know.  A safety makes a gun much less likely to fire, but generally does not make it physically impossible for the gun to fire.

Pointing a gun with the safety on at someone and pulling the trigger is a very bad idea, but some idiots have done it.  The same goes for an "unloaded" gun.  Some people don't get the concept of the possibility of a chambered round even if the magazine is empty or removed.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on May 10, 2013, 01:32:22 PM
I may be a bleeding-heart, lily-livered, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, tofu-eating milk-sop European here but I would still argue that, to me, pointing a gun at anyone at anytime is a dashed silly thing to do. Unless you actually want to commit a felony, then waving firearms around is an excellent way of achieving that goal. Not saying that people can't have guns, some countries have laws safeguarding that right and they seem to enjoy having them, so peace be with them and all, however I would still state that pointing those guns at people, without the intention of committing manslaughter or murder, is a fooolish thing to do. Now, y'all can get up in rigteous indignation and tell me what a ignorant dumbass I am, but please don't, because you might as well try to convince a kangaroo to not jump or a fish to take salsa lessons. agagagagag agagagagag
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 10, 2013, 04:12:33 PM
I may be a bleeding-heart, lily-livered, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, tofu-eating milk-sop European here but I would still argue that, to me, pointing a gun at anyone at anytime is a dashed silly thing to do.

No, you're just sensible.  It should NEVER be done.  I remember seeing my dad break my brother's rifle over his knee when my brother had done something similar...only to an animal. If anyone ever pointed a weapon at me, in fun or otherwise, he would find out shortly the seriousness of such carelessness. 

Unless you're Dick Cheney, of course.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Granny Mae on May 10, 2013, 10:27:38 PM
Thank goodness Australia seems to have learned something about weapons ownership. I have just transferred my five firearms to the D-I-L, but am not entirely defenceless. I have hammers and knives etc strategically placed around my home. Most intruders would not expect a defenceless old lady to cause any problems. uuuuuuuuuu I do know how to use these things if necessary. bfbfbfbfbf
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 11, 2013, 03:27:19 AM
The general rule that should be driven into anyone's head is to never point a gun at any living thing unless you are willing to be responsible for killing it.  Safeties fail.  "Unloaded" weapons sometimes aren't.  Guns are weapons and tools, not toys to be played with in jest.

Getting that through a few thick skulls into some tiny little brains would greatly reduce accidental deaths and injuries at least as much as training people to duck.  The Swiss managed to do it.  Maybe we should get copies of their gun safety training materials and have them translated into English.

Thank goodness Australia seems to have learned something about weapons ownership. I have just transferred my five firearms to the D-I-L, but am not entirely defenceless. I have hammers and knives etc strategically placed around my home. Most intruders would not expect a defenceless old lady to cause any problems. uuuuuuuuuu I do know how to use these things if necessary. bfbfbfbfbf

I can see the headline - Sweet Little Old Lady Hammers Two Burglars To Death

Another reason I love Granny Mae. akakakakak
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 11, 2013, 03:37:01 AM
Safeties fail.  "Unloaded" weapons sometimes aren't.  Guns are weapons and tools, not toys to be played with in jest.


Same thing should be taught with regard to automobiles.  Brakes fail, steering jams..they are just machines. Yet I don't see any kind of respect given to those possibilities by drivers OR pedestrians.

But, back to guns...the person in the article below was my neighbor growing up. 

http://www.ocala.com/article/20091216/ARTICLES/912161011
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 11, 2013, 05:08:59 AM
Sounds like the scumbags deliberately targeted a disabled guy.  Not all burglars are opportunists waiting for the home to be empty.

Blew one away while being knocked out of his wheelchair - that's good shooting, and a fine example of why homeowners should be allowed to defend themselves.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CWL on May 11, 2013, 07:26:35 AM
Same thing should be taught with regard to automobiles.  Brakes fail, steering jams..they are just machines. Yet I don't see any kind of respect given to those possibilities by drivers OR pedestrians...

True.

-------------------

Cell phones and driving. 

http://www.textinganddrivingsafety.com/texting-and-driving-stats/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2012/09/18/it-is-time-for-a-parental-control-no-texting-while-driving-phone/

Texting while driving causes 11 teen deaths EVERY DAY.

Where's the outcry?

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Granny Mae on May 11, 2013, 11:15:51 PM
From what I'm hearing about the weapons in America, I'm surprised that anyone would be stupid enough to break into a home when they know that someone is at home. bibibibibi

CWL, that info on texting and driving was really interesting and important. As one of the "old farts" who does not keep up with technology, it is a wake up call to me, particularly when I am driving. I am being called upon to go out bush and look after the two Grandsons for a couple of months; boy, are they going to be glad to see the back of me after I finish drilling them about this topic. bfbfbfbfbf My neighbour and I were at the movies yesterday and we were the only people in the theatre who were not using some sort of device (cut it out EL, I just read your mind) whilst waiting for the movie to start. What is wrong with people that they can't just sit quietly or chat to their neighbour? bibibibibi
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: caley1313 on May 12, 2013, 10:50:42 AM
I may be a bleeding-heart, lily-livered, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, tofu-eating milk-sop European here but I would still argue that, to me, pointing a gun at anyone at anytime is a dashed silly thing to do. Unless you actually want to commit a felony, then waving firearms around is an excellent way of achieving that goal. Not saying that people can't have guns, some countries have laws safeguarding that right and they seem to enjoy having them, so peace be with them and all, however I would still state that pointing those guns at people, without the intention of committing manslaughter or murder, is a fooolish thing to do. Now, y'all can get up in rigteous indignation and tell me what a ignorant dumbass I am, but please don't, because you might as well try to convince a kangaroo to not jump or a fish to take salsa lessons. agagagagag agagagagag

Your are not an ignorant dumbass...you just haven't been listening. It's about the money, amigo. The rest is smoke and mirrors.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: The Local Dialect on May 12, 2013, 10:54:12 AM
I may be a bleeding-heart, lily-livered, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, tofu-eating milk-sop European here but I would still argue that, to me, pointing a gun at anyone at anytime is a dashed silly thing to do. Unless you actually want to commit a felony, then waving firearms around is an excellent way of achieving that goal. Not saying that people can't have guns, some countries have laws safeguarding that right and they seem to enjoy having them, so peace be with them and all, however I would still state that pointing those guns at people, without the intention of committing manslaughter or murder, is a fooolish thing to do. Now, y'all can get up in rigteous indignation and tell me what a ignorant dumbass I am, but please don't, because you might as well try to convince a kangaroo to not jump or a fish to take salsa lessons. agagagagag agagagagag

Your are not an ignorant dumbass...you just haven't been listening. It's about the money, amigo. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

Well, sure. But even if we accept that premise, then what? Is there anything that us well-meaning idealists can do about the situation?
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on May 12, 2013, 12:28:40 PM
That is a moot point to make, everything is about the money.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 12, 2013, 01:34:44 PM
That is a moot point to make, everything is about the money.

Yeah, there are financial interests involved and in play, but I don't buy this premise.  The gun owners are adamant about this right. It runs more deeply in our culture than money.  Okay, maybe not THAT deep, but it certainly stands on its own without the money.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: dragonsaver on May 12, 2013, 01:45:59 PM
That is a moot point to make, everything is about the money.

Yeah, there are financial interests involved and in play, but I don't buy this premise.  The gun owners are adamant about this right. It runs more deeply in our culture than money.  Okay, maybe not THAT deep, but it certainly stands on its own without the money.

Ahhhh, BUT the gun lobby (money guys) and the NRA, keep telling and reminding and telling and reminding the people about how it is their right. About how taking away anything is violating their rights.  If you tell someone often enough about something then they will believe it.

As teachers, we know if we tell students they are smart and can do something they will try harder vs the Chinese way of complaining and telling students / children they are stupid and lazy if they don't get the highest mark in the class.  

What the USA has that doesn't exist (or is minimal) in other countries is the gun manufacturers lobby.  
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: caley1313 on May 13, 2013, 12:23:32 AM
That is a moot point to make, everything is about the money.

Nothing moot about it. T'is an absolute.

Is there anything we can do about it?   No.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: caley1313 on May 13, 2013, 12:28:14 AM
That is a moot point to make, everything is about the money.

Yeah, there are financial interests involved and in play, but I don't buy this premise.  The gun owners are adamant about this right. It runs more deeply in our culture than money.  Okay, maybe not THAT deep, but it certainly stands on its own without the money.

You can't have it both ways. It is either about the money or not. Take the NRA and their deep-pocket lobbying. Do you really think the politicians of America wouldn't have made some significant restrictions to gun products and regulations over the past 30 years if it weren't for NRA handouts? Who supports the NRA? The large and small LLCs of the military industrial complex. Connect the dots. No, idealism never trumps money.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 13, 2013, 05:01:26 AM
That is a moot point to make, everything is about the money.

Yeah, there are financial interests involved and in play, but I don't buy this premise.  The gun owners are adamant about this right. It runs more deeply in our culture than money.  Okay, maybe not THAT deep, but it certainly stands on its own without the money.

You can't have it both ways. It is either about the money or not.

Well, yes I CAN have it both ways because both elements are relevant factors.  Everyone knows about the NRA lobby, (actually, the NRA is not the biggest gun lobby by a long shot; sorry for the pun), but if you don't think that the culture of gun ownership doesn't run deep at the grass roots level, just log on to Facebook or any social media.  

It's easy to dismiss this as being owned by the fanatics, but that distorts the truth regarding how many responsible gun owners/hunters that share a wholesome, (yes, wholesome), family experience of hunting that goes back generations.  The opening day of deer hunting season, (always overlapping with Thanksgiving), is a ritual and rite of passage that is truly a wonderful event for boys and girls coming of age and a family bonding tradition that can and should be left alone.

You may find hunting disgusting and that opinion is fine, but if you belittle this set of gun supporters you've reduced the discussion to an argument and lost a valuable ally.  These people want safety as much as you do.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 13, 2013, 06:22:38 AM
My neighbour and I were at the movies yesterday and we were the only people in the theatre who were not using some sort of device (cut it out EL, I just read your mind) whilst waiting for the movie to start.

 afafafafaf afafafafaf afafafafaf

And, back on topic.  People:

messing with phones DURING movies
too stupid to use turn signals
who either can't count to 10 or can't read the sign over the express checkout lanes
etc., etc., etc.

are why I never got a concealed carry permit in the USA.  I'd have to have 3 shopping carts to carry all the ammo I'd need for a quick trip to town. bababababa

Keeping my guns at home while living out in the boondocks with only dangerous animals and the occasional druggie either wanting to break in or just running by while having a really bad trip saved me a lot on ammo bills.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CaseyOrourke on May 13, 2013, 07:57:22 AM
I may be a bleeding-heart, lily-livered, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, tofu-eating milk-sop European

I heard the same terms used to describe Oregonians, but I digress.

I looked up the intentional homicide rate worldwide done by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate). The murder rate per 100,000 people in the United States is actually quite low, 4.8%. Honduras has a 91.6% murder rate.

The US is #1 in gun ownership 88.8 guns per 100 people where Honduras is at #88 with 6.2 guns per 100.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country)

Even with death by firearms, the US is still not the worst on a percentage basis (#57).  That's reserved for Jamaica #75 and Honduras #74.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate)

So for all the talk about gun ownership leading to a higher murder rate is hogwash.  People who want to murder somebody will use whatever means or whatever weapon is available.

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 13, 2013, 08:26:37 AM
So for all the talk about gun ownership leading to a higher murder rate is hogwash.  People who want to murder somebody will use whatever means or whatever weapon is available.

I would tend to agree regarding the suicide rate too.  If you really want to end it all, there are plenty of highly effective means.  The only ways a gun to increase the likelihood are:

1. If a gun is right there and the next alternate takes time to arrange, some people might reconsider.
2.  The chances of failing an attempted suicide by gun are significantly lower than by many other common methods.

#2 would be very hard to quantify due to the number of so-called suicide attempts that are only intended to draw attention and not to actually result in death.  It can sometimes be hard to tell the difference between a failed suicide attempt and a fake suicide attempt.

For those truly intent on suicide, but who don't like guns, an easy alternate method is to soak yourself in gasoline, light up, and leap from a 50+ story building.  Make sure to notify the authorities and press just before hand.  This way you'll have a clear landing zone and there will also be better videos of your final moments for YouTube.  Don't forget to shove a few beer bottles full of gasoline in your pockets first so that you end it all with a big fireball on impact.  uuuuuuuuuu
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 13, 2013, 09:42:36 AM
So for all the talk about gun ownership leading to a higher murder rate is hogwash.  People who want to murder somebody will use whatever means or whatever weapon is available.

I would tend to agree regarding the suicide rate too.  If you really want to end it all, there are plenty of highly effective means. 


I used to firmly believe this as well. But recently the U.S. Army has been doing much research into suicide prevention because of the high rates. I don't remember the specifics, (I could probably find it again), but they found that just by making the prescription medicine caps harder to open, they lowered the rates of suicide by overdose.

Before someone replies with the obvious retort, I already realize this is not going to prevent ALL suicides by any stretch of the imagination. But the point being that suicide is often a very impulsive act and by forcing the person to take more time, the emotion sometimes subsides.  Would anybody's second amendment rights be irreversibly wounded by a mandatory waiting period to buy a gun or requirements to store and trigger-lock all weapons?



Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 13, 2013, 09:47:20 AM
I wonder if those hard to open bottles also discourage people from taking the correct dosages of medications on the proper schedule. kkkkkkkkkk

Suicide reduction via frustration.  Damn, that's depressing. bibibibibi

I'm a Suicidal Failure, I've got to get some help
I have Suicidal Tendencies but I can't kill myself

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Stil on May 13, 2013, 10:13:21 AM

So for all the talk about gun ownership leading to a higher murder rate is hogwash.  People who want to murder somebody will use whatever means or whatever weapon is available.


I'm not sure that the talk can be viewed as hogwash based on the statistics shown, because that assumes gun ownership as the only factor in murder rate. You can't compare Honduras and the US based only on this. Their may indeed be no difference in the murder rate in the US were guns to be legislated as illegal but using another country with different economics, culture, population density, etc as the example is not useful.

The US has it's own culture and it has to looked at in a vacuum for that discussion.

I agree that if you want to murder someone or commit suicide there are many ways to accomplish the goal but I tend to think spur of the moment murders and especially accidental deaths would decrease. That said, it's interesting that with most difficult problems of society, liberal people generally talk about education being the key to change, however with this issue, they are quick to say "make a law".
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 13, 2013, 10:30:41 AM
The US has it's own culture and it has to looked at in a vacuum for that discussion.

The gun debate got very quiet today when representatives of both sides agreed to hold talks in a vacuum.  Only later did someone suggest that the representatives probably should have worn space suits. ahahahahah

Quote
That said, it's interesting that with most difficult problems of society, liberal people generally talk about education being the key to change, however with this issue, they are quick to say "make a law".

Too bad we can't make a law requiring education.

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 13, 2013, 10:57:40 AM

So for all the talk about gun ownership leading to a higher murder rate is hogwash.  People who want to murder somebody will use whatever means or whatever weapon is available.


You can't compare Honduras and the US based only on this... using another country with different economics, culture, population density, etc as the example is not useful.


I would think the Australian example would be a far more relevant comparison than Honduras. And that would not help the pro-gun argument. And where does the U.S. rank in the formerly-categorized First World countries.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 14, 2013, 12:42:16 AM
Australia isn't a good comparison.  So much space and so few people.  Fire a gun randomly and you're more likely to accidentally bag a kangaroo than hit a person. ahahahahah
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on May 15, 2013, 01:53:56 PM
On behalf of the Marsupial Equality League, I would like to complain and warn that, as we speak, several kangaroos have been negotiating for the acquisition of assault rifles. agagagagag

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 16, 2013, 12:08:52 AM
On behalf of the Marsupial Equality League, I would like to complain and warn that, as we speak, several kangaroos have been negotiating for the acquisition of assault rifles.



Good for them.  As Paul Rodriguez said, "It's not a sport if the other side doesn't know it's in a game".
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on May 16, 2013, 12:31:32 AM
On behalf of the Marsupial Equality League, I would like to complain and warn that, as we speak, several kangaroos have been negotiating for the acquisition of assault rifles. agagagagag

AK47 now means Assault Kangaroo with 47 rounds
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Granny Mae on May 16, 2013, 09:47:32 PM
In the late 60's and early 70's, "Roo" shooting was our main source of income as we battled droughts on the land with no Government assistance. I had part time work on a country Telephone Exchange and at night I went out shooting Kangaroos with my husband. Sometimes we skinned the roos and sometimes we were able to sell carcases. Sorry to get sidetracked here, but this discussion brought back so many memories. I hated killing the animals, but it came down to survival for us, which is something I hope my son never has to go through. alalalalal
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 18, 2013, 10:46:35 AM
I was taught the basics of hunting as a kid, but never really got into it.  Eating a rabbit it one thing, but I never enjoyed the concept of blowing it away with a gun, disemboweling the corpse, and skinning the carcass.

There was this one tangerine tree.  It was a different variety from any of the others.  It was taller, and the tangerines were much larger and sweeter.  So many time's I'd be at the top of the ladder, leaning as far out as I could to pick a perfect one, only to have it collapse in my hand because one of ETR's relatives had hollowed it out from the other side.

It was a little wasteful not eating the squirrels, but I wasn't hunting for meat, I was defending the crops from pests. bababababa
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Calach Pfeffer on May 18, 2013, 01:00:08 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/The_leading_gnu.JPG)

Home protection.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on May 18, 2013, 02:02:37 PM
So you willingly admit, in public, to pre-meditated murder of several of my kinsmen, over annoyance of being denied a fruit, a fruit that grows on trees, which grows in nature, which is where squirrels live? I'm calling the forest lawyers... agagagagag
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 21, 2013, 08:19:49 AM
So you willingly admit, in public, to pre-meditated murder of several of my kinsmen, over annoyance of being denied a fruit, a fruit that grows on trees, which grows in nature, which is where squirrels live? I'm calling the forest lawyers... agagagagag

It wasn't murder.  It was open warfare over critical resources.  There was a whole grove of assorted citrus trees available, but your scruffy little kinfolk wouldn't stay out of the one tree I was defending.  Stern defensive measures had to be taken. bababababa

BTW - It was more than several. uuuuuuuuuu
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on May 21, 2013, 01:19:00 PM
We had airguns when we were kids and we used to shoot at crows and rabbits (and each other, 3 brothers....)

For me it all stopped when I was about 7 and I actually shot a rabbit down. Because I had fatally wounded it my dad made me finish it off with my hands and that strangely put me off killing things breaking a beautiful little creatures neck to make sure it died slightly less painfully
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Granny Mae on May 22, 2013, 10:03:27 PM
I saw a couple of segments on TV about these plastic weapons that folks will be able to make with very little effort and cost after consulting the internet. The Australian Police have advised that the same laws will apply to these as apply to any other firearm. bfbfbfbfbf  agagagagag
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 23, 2013, 05:58:58 AM
I saw a couple of segments on TV about these plastic weapons that folks will be able to make with very little effort and cost after consulting the internet. The Australian Police have advised that the same laws will apply to these as apply to any other firearm. bfbfbfbfbf  agagagagag

The next big leap in 3D printing technology will be the ability to recycle the plastic from one printed item and use it to make the next item.

Just print up a gun, get rid of that neighbor who won't stop annoying you, melt the gun down, print up some beer mugs, and invite the crime scene investigators in for a drink. Gets rid of the evidence and also saves you the effort of cleaning the gun. ahahahahah

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on May 23, 2013, 02:31:30 PM
An expat I just met in Guangzhou bought a not-so-awesome, but functional 3D printer for 5000 RMB. That's about $800 USD. 'Snice when technology trickles down finally.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on May 23, 2013, 02:49:04 PM
I think that 3D printed gun is an awful idea

People are going to be downloading pirate copies of guns to make on their cut price 3D printers. It'll be like Deadwood, guns exploding in people's faces or just firing off in a random direction
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 23, 2013, 03:02:02 PM
How long before we start printing people?  Imagine haw many EL's would be mass produced.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on May 23, 2013, 05:22:01 PM
Pirate copies of EL printed on cut price printers
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 24, 2013, 12:23:33 AM
That would save me a lot of money.  Cloning equipment and supplies are expensive. kkkkkkkkkk

Think I'll print up some pirated copies of Gong Li. akakakakak
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Granny Mae on May 24, 2013, 10:18:32 PM
On Australian TV (In Brisbane) last night, they showed a hand gun being made of plastic. They said it took 1 minute to make and it cost A$35. They compared the force of this weapon with tyre pressure in an average vehicle. I can't remember the figure, but it was truly not even on the same page. This weapon fell apart after it was fired, unlike the one demonstrated by the Inventor. I am really afraid that we will hear of horrendous things happening, especially since the weapon is untraceable. bibibibibi
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Tree on May 25, 2013, 05:22:24 PM
I guess people also print ammo as well, which is terrifying. I saw an article with people 3d printing shotgun slugs.

My state just passed a concealed carry permit law, I guess it was one of the last holdouts against it as most others already had such laws. I suppose it is hard to explain gun culture to people outside it. The culture is one of bold self reliance, or at least the feeling of such. What terrifies me is not the guns themselves, but how the culture likes to prophecy and emphasize worst-case scenarios. This is good for the bottom line, and triggers some primal human emotions. Pick up any bounty hunter magazine, or google one, to get a feel for this.

This kind of thinking is common enough, but when any thought becomes the primary reality filter it distorts reality as perceived. Thus it increases the chance of illogical action, the core of which is an armed populace.

For decades things have been relatively quiet, but there is always that undercurrent present. I do not know if this is a uniquely American trait, so I'd love it if somebody from a low armed population could chime in on this. I can report that my Canadian friends think it's just nuts and wonder why we put up with guns at all.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Granny Mae on May 25, 2013, 11:47:57 PM
I am concerned about the young School aged kids who will probably think it is smart to make a weapon and probably no one will know except friends. When something goes wrong, then we will hear about it. From what I am told, many parents have no idea what their children are up to on the internet and a lot of young people seem to have money to buy the necessary materials.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on May 26, 2013, 03:04:46 AM
I can not see any logic to the argument against people having basic weapons, such as the guns we are talking about. This is infinitely more illogical coming from people who live in the most militant country of the past (pick your time frame) 6o years at the very least. Of course I'm talking about the USA, the greatest producer and seller of weapons in the world.

If you think that isolated incidents of gun violence like the Sandy Hook shootings are an argument against people having guns, then how do you react to the Mai Lai Massacre of the Vietnam War? Or did you read about the mass graves recently found of dead Iraqis?

If you do not likewise condemn the countless massacres committed by USA (and every other country's) police and military, most of which were official policy and not bad apples or isolated incidents, if you do not condemn these and demand the removal of weapons from these institutions that murder thousands and thousands of innocent people, what does that imply when you get upset about drastically fewer being killed and use that as a basis for condemning not only the basic technology of firearms that's over 500 years old, but only condemn violence when in the hands of your neighbors and not when in the hands of people who are literally brain-washed to follow any order whatsoever, on penalty of death, incarceration, or loss of job?

I was enlisted in the USMC. These are not, for the most part, highly trained people. They are repetitively trained at very basic stuff, but not given advanced weapons training. And those who are highly trained technically are also highly brain-washed. The common soldier is generally just one small notch above a typical civilian gun owner, who unfortunately doesn't have common sense when it comes to gun safety and causes a lot of avoidable accidents, but also does not suddenly become violent just because they own a gun.

In other words,  for those of you who think that civilian gun ownership is wrong, why do you implicitly support state-authorized violence that has been proven illegal, malicious, and rampant over a long period of time, but essentially deny your neighbors the ability to defend themselves from common criminals? Because of extremely rare, random killings that are not even statistically relevant?

This argument about guns is useless when it is between the two extremes of people who think gun ownership is a pivotal political principle, either pro or con, but I don't think people who are worried about their neighbors having guns have any moral or logical footing whatsoever.

Can you at least admit that the only justifiable violence in your view is that which is authorized by the state? Or perhaps argue against that?
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 27, 2013, 03:06:05 AM
I'm not to worried about a gun with all the energy of the pressure in a tire, especially if it falls apart after 1 use.  A properly built potato cannon sounds a lot more threatening.

Printing slugs is NOT printing functional ammo.  You still need shell casings, primers, and powder.  If you only care about the projectiles themselves, "shotgun ammo" is available anywhere that you can buy ball bearings.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on May 27, 2013, 03:23:58 AM
I'm not to worried about a gun with all the energy of the pressure in a tire, especially if it falls apart after 1 use.  A properly built potato cannon sounds a lot more threatening.

Printing slugs is NOT printing functional ammo.  You still need shell casings, primers, and powder.  If you only care about the projectiles themselves, "shotgun ammo" is available anywhere that you can buy ball bearings.


Yup! Just ask the Boston Bombers.

(that wasn't meant to be funny. look how easily they were able to construct a device)
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 27, 2013, 06:59:54 AM
@gzwriter: I don't want to ban guns, but, I don't see a problem distinguishing between personal ownership of weapons and state ownership.  What we allow to go on within our borders doesn't have much bearing on what goes on outside them and directed at us.  Even if the U.S. was the most peaceful country in the world and confiscated all weapons, it could certainly justify a national defense.  Maybe not the 800 billion dollar-per-year defense system we currently have, but a reasonable one.

And I have to take issue with your statement "... the countless massacres committed by (the) USA ... most of which were official policy and not bad apples or isolated incidents...".  What do you mean by "official policy"?  That infers that something like The My Lai Massacre was sanctioned by the civilian government.  Abu Ghraib?  Maybe.  But, the majority of these kinds of incidents?  You have some 'spainin' to do in order to justify an accusation that malicious.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on May 27, 2013, 02:40:55 PM
A-Train,

I don't think you responded to my question, so let me try it another way. How does the distinction of personal and state ownership of guns change the end result of violent death? Why do you accept one and condemn the other?

Do you think there are "just" wars? If so, then the USA has always been on the side of right and not might, right? Other countries are the same.

The official US policy of the Vietnam War, albeit an unadvertised one, was to create body count. That's what the commanders were ordered and those who delivered it were promoted., e.g., free fire zones for killing stone age man with the latest technology.

The most superficial analysis of the past 100 years of US military history is replete with massacres of foreign enemies, and this omits Native Americans prior and Bonus Army during. The particular Mai Lai massacre is an example of something that may not be specifically according to policy, but is the inevitable, predictable, and desired result of official policy that creates conditions allowing plausible deniability for those who make the policy, all the while the slaughter continues on the ground.

Why were we in Vietnam again? Allegedly to save it from the communists. Sounds about as believable as being in Iraq because Saddam and OBL were best friends, or because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or because Saddam could gas London in 45 minutes with Colin Powel's anthrax or fictitious yellow cake. You know all of these are false, right?

I really doubt you could make much of a case *for* the US foreign policy/military in the past 100 years. Why don't you 'splainin' that?

Best,
Michael
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on May 27, 2013, 04:33:06 PM
gzwriter

It's entirely possible to disagree with both!

I don't think that you should be able to buy guns without a licence and insurance and being on a list and so on, just like driving a car

I don't agree with America constantly invading countries for the benefit of their arms companies either

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Granny Mae on May 27, 2013, 10:46:11 PM
I'm not to worried about a gun with all the energy of the pressure in a tire, especially if it falls apart after 1 use.  A properly built potato cannon sounds a lot more threatening.

I didn't explain that very well EL. There is a hell of a lot of pressure and I think that tyre pressure was used as a means of conveying something that most people understand. I can promise you that this weapon is really deadly. Most city folk are taken aback when I comment that I owned 5 weapons, so I suspect that most city folk don't own one unless it belonged to Grandfather. I suspect that this will be why quite a few young ones may want to make one of these 3-D plastic ones on the quiet and I am afraid for them because I know what can happen. These kids didn't grow up with weapons as we did.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 28, 2013, 12:45:12 AM
Sadly, what it's going to take is a few idiots printing up air guns or real firearms and getting mutilated when the weapon self-destructs to give people the idea that this isn't a safe hobby.

Even the venerable potato cannon can blow up in your face if you use sub-standard components.  3D printers use a variety of plastics.  Some may be able to withstand the conditions involved in firing projectiles, but a lot will fail on the first or second use.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 28, 2013, 05:13:48 AM
A-Train, Do you think there are "just" wars? If so, then the USA has always been on the side of right and not might ...

I don't think the U.S. participation in WWII was at all unjust.  I also believe that the intentions during WWI were honorable and generous, but with disastrous results, (namely, WWII).  ALWAYS on the side of right?  F*@k NO!  The Iraq invasion was a moral and strategic disaster that is still hard for me to believe was perpetrated.  Viet Nam?  See below.

The particular Mai Lai massacre is an example of something that may not be specifically according to policy, but is the inevitable, predictable, and desired result of official policy that creates conditions allowing plausible deniability for those who make the policy...

Why were we in Vietnam again?

We entered under a fear-based, false premise called the "Domino Theory". Ignited by a pure lie called the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident".  I was against that war BEFORE my brother served there for a year, came back to burn his uniform and medals and told us of some dishonorable inside realities. 

But, the average American didn't support the war out of monetary gain or conquest. They truly swallowed the fear mongering that our political leaders served up. The truth of the matter took a long time to come out, but eventually, most of us figured out the ugly truths, swallowed our pride and withdrew.

The only place I differ with you a little is what I think is your premise that Americans didn't care about, or actually supported, the collateral damage you mention.  I think the exposing of this is what turned Middle-America against the war. And massacres, rape, random murder has almost ALWAYS been a part of war. And I would argue that it SHOULD be. The old adage that armies don't go to war, but countries do underpins my statement.

But terrorism today is a different thing from the warfare I'm commenting on above.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on May 29, 2013, 09:47:26 AM
A-Train, thanks for your response. I think we have a similar viewpoint on the history of war. I have been surprised and disappointed because of my perception that Americans in general support the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, support torture, and are amazingly ignorant of the wars we are conducting in: Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and fomenting in Syria. Maybe my perception does not accurately include Americans who object, but whose voices aren't heard. I don't know.

Basically I agree with everything you said about those wars, especially Vietnam. There are always people with good intentions who go to war and somehow it always turns out the premise was a bunch of lies to benefit small minorities.

I got us of the main topic because I think the reason for a national defense is similar for personal defense. Violence is unavoidable; it can't be eliminated from the equation at any level.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on May 29, 2013, 11:36:51 PM
Finding fault with U.S. foreign policy is easy. But are you willing to admit that there have been positive results from it as well?  The policy of "Containment" against the USSR was peaceful and successful. The support of West Berlin and Germany was ultimately positive. And where was Europe during the '90's Balkans crisis when thousands were being slaughtered on their back porch? And if you had to choose, would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea? Because I think The ROK would look a lot more like the DPRK without that war. Looking forward, where will Australia be during China's ascendance if the U.S. does not continue its pivot to The Pacific?

Churchill said that you can always count on The Americans to do the right thing, after they've exhausted every other possibility. That about sums it up.

Sorry for the rant. I shouldn't post about US foreign policy during Memorial Day week.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on May 29, 2013, 11:59:56 PM
Yes, I can readily admit the positive results of US foreign policy. It gets complicated, though, when you I to understand things from a broader and broader perspective. In that light, a somewhat singular agenda comes into view that doesn't permit momentary good guy status that excludes how things got to the point that the "bad guys" had to be vanquished. It's never that simple, just saying.

As far as I know, LOL, I didn't choose where I was born, so it was lucky for me to be born in the USA for many reasons, unlucky for a few others. No place is perfect. Freedom is crucial to make life meaningful no matter where you're from, so that's the good part and why those with the most political freedom should exercise it, partly by holding themselves to high standards.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on May 30, 2013, 03:12:08 PM
Finding fault with U.S. foreign policy is easy. But are you willing to admit that there have been positive results from it as well?  The policy of "Containment" against the USSR was peaceful and successful. The support of West Berlin and Germany was ultimately positive. And where was Europe during the '90's Balkans crisis when thousands were being slaughtered on their back porch? And if you had to choose, would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea? Because I think The ROK would look a lot more like the DPRK without that war. Looking forward, where will Australia be during China's ascendance if the U.S. does not continue its pivot to The Pacific?

Churchill said that you can always count on The Americans to do the right thing, after they've exhausted every other possibility. That about sums it up.

Sorry for the rant. I shouldn't post about US foreign policy during Memorial Day week.

I really don't want to get into a politics argument but I can't just let it pass that 'the cold war policy of containment was peaceful and successful'

Not for the rest of the world it wasn't
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CaseyOrourke on May 31, 2013, 04:54:34 AM
Gzwriter: I spent many years in the Air Force stationed as liaison to Army and Marine units.  You should know that the average grunt, squid, jarhead and us flyboys don't run around the base on a daily basis with weapons strapped to our hips or slung across our backs.  I might also add, I am a crack shot and well experienced with firearms.

If we drew our weapons for an exercise we were never issued live ammunition and Gawd help the soldier who managed to sneak a few rounds so he could pop them off for fun.  In all the time I was active duty other than the firing range, the only time I was issued live rounds was for Operation Just Cause, and even then we were forbidden in having live rounds in our weapons, let alone the chamber.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 31, 2013, 05:51:17 AM
  In all the time I was active duty other than the firing range, the only time I was issued live rounds was for Operation Just Cause, and even then we were forbidden in having live rounds in our weapons, let alone the chamber.

Nice to hear that the lessons about putting soldiers into a combat zone without having loaded weapons that should have been made abundantly obvious after what happened in Beirut in 1983 were still being ignored in 1989.  Whoever made that decision in Panama should have been court marshaled or declared to be mentally incompetent.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on May 31, 2013, 08:02:03 AM
Nice to hear that the lessons about putting soldiers into a combat zone without having loaded weapons that should have been made abundantly obvious after what happened in Beirut in 1983 were still being ignored in 1989.  Whoever made that decision in Panama should have been court marshaled or declared to be mentally incompetent.

Sorry EL, but you should ask many of your allies about this. Look up "Friendly Fire" I think more Canadians were killed in Iraq from the Americans than the enemy. The Brits and Canucks had to walk backwards when in unison with the US soldiers
 asasasasas
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on May 31, 2013, 09:09:40 AM
Friendly fire sucks.  Sounds like some people forgot the first rule of gun safety - DUCK!

On the other hand, getting shot or blown to pieces because you don't have ammo in your weapon to even try to defend yourself strikes me as ruining the whole point of deploying soldiers into a combat zone.  If they can't have bullets, we should just have just sent meter maids, school crossing guards, and maybe some of those WalMart greeters to protect the Beirut airport or to grab Manuel Noriega.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CaseyOrourke on May 31, 2013, 11:43:15 AM
 In all the time I was active duty other than the firing range, the only time I was issued live rounds was for Operation Just Cause, and even then we were forbidden in having live rounds in our weapons, let alone the chamber.

Nice to hear that the lessons about putting soldiers into a combat zone without having loaded weapons that should have been made abundantly obvious after what happened in Beirut in 1983 were still being ignored in 1989.  Whoever made that decision in Panama should have been court marshaled or declared to be mentally incompetent.


I should have specified that those rules were for the support and staff weenies who were in the followup waves and went into areas removed from the fighting.  Us combat types went in first, loaded for bear and ready to kick booty.  
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on May 31, 2013, 11:59:02 AM
I was in the Air Wing of the USMC and after boot camp we rarely touched any weapons. Supposed to re-qualify with the M-16 once a year, but if you weren't on a big base it wasn't a very common thing, and even then two or three days on the range with some basic target shooting ain't going to do much. My whole time in, I kept waiting for the "real" training to begin, but I finally figured out the real training was just getting conditioned not to question anything, no matter how completely, unbelievably stupid it was.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CaseyOrourke on June 01, 2013, 03:43:46 PM
I was in the Air Wing of the USMC and after boot camp we rarely touched any weapons. Supposed to re-qualify with the M-16 once a year, but if you weren't on a big base it wasn't a very common thing, and even then two or three days on the range with some basic target shooting ain't going to do much. My whole time in, I kept waiting for the "real" training to begin, but I finally figured out the real training was just getting conditioned not to question anything, no matter how completely, unbelievably stupid it was.

Most of the marines I worked with were in ANGLICO teams. I noticed the Marines needed an officer and seven enlisted troops to do what I did on my own as an AF Staff Sergeant who was J-TAC certified. 

A few years ago I was getting in some practice controlling airstrikes. A ANGLICO team had just proceeded me and they stuck around, because they wanted to see how us Air Force types did it.  They were surprised to see I was all alone,  so the marine officer told me, if I needed help, just ask. I chuckled as told him to watch and see how we do things here in the Big Leagues.  Once I finished my runs, A marine private asked me, "Sarge, just what is it you do, and how can I join up?"

As far as weapons, I qualified monthly with my weapons   
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on June 01, 2013, 03:52:38 PM
Well, I'm not surprised to hear such a story. What I saw in my time enlisted was not favorable. I kept wondering, "Why don't they have us on a long-term training timetable for being more well-rounded soldiers, etc?" Answer: that's not what they want from Marines, that's for sure. I was the dummy who watched too many John Wayne movies or something.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on June 05, 2013, 02:18:37 AM
Not sure if this belongs here or on the "What In The Water In The US" thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q7V0xEPge0

Now, no matter how terrible you are at shooting, you can kill with precision from one kilometer away...for just $22,000.  Saw this on The Colbert Report. Just wait 'til this gets in the hands of every Jasper with a line of credit.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on June 05, 2013, 08:27:51 AM
Holy snot! aoaoaoaoao aoaoaoaoao aoaoaoaoao

OK, if anyone hasn't noticed, I'm all for the 2nd amendment as well as the right to hunt.  Yes, there are drawbacks, but I believe that attempting to outlaw personal firearms in the USA would create massive problems that would make the consequences of prohibition look small by comparison.

However, this technology crosses the line for both hunting and personal defense.  Hunting is supposed to be a skill and should be more difficult than walking up and shooting an immobilized animal.  The animal is supposed to at least have a chance to avoid being shot.  This removes all the challenge from the sport.  Home and personal defense does NOT include the ability to blow away a person standing a kilometer away.  "When I looked at him in my sniper scope, he looked kind of threatening" isn't going to be a valid argument for self defense.

Personally, I'm not happy that anyone has this level of technology in a man-portable firearm.  Give it time and every police car will have an "insta-sniper" kit in the trunk.  Snipers should be well trained and deployed only when and where appropriate.

My only hope is that it's a lot less effective than claimed.

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Granny Mae on June 05, 2013, 10:31:21 PM
Can you even begin to imagine what man will come up with in 50yrs time?
In Australia on the TV last night,they were talking about the REALLY high percentage of School leavers who had difficulty reading and writing. Can you imagine them following any written instructions, particularly those relating to firearms? bibibibibi
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on June 06, 2013, 01:09:24 AM
Reminds me of a Constitutional Amendment I'd support:

In order to exercise the right to vote or possess firearms, a citizen, upon reaching the age of 18, must pass a test of basic literacy and common sense.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on June 07, 2013, 09:55:38 PM
Reminds me of a Constitutional Amendment I'd support:

In order to exercise the right to vote or possess firearms, a citizen, upon reaching the age of 18, must pass a test of basic literacy and common sense.


And who decides what the definition of these are? Basic literacy? "See Spot Run"? A Dan Brown novel? A NY Times article? "Calvin and Hobbes"? equally problematic is common sense.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: latefordinner on June 08, 2013, 04:42:35 AM
I'd vote for a combination of calvin and hobbes, the simpsons and, idunno, maybe the recipe for rice krispie squares. That ought to disenfranchise the tea-farty loonies without inconveniencing the mainstream lunatics.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Stil on June 08, 2013, 05:13:19 AM
Field sobriety test.

If you pass.... no gun for you!
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on June 09, 2013, 06:38:45 AM
And who decides what the definition of these are? Basic literacy? "See Spot Run"? A Dan Brown novel? A NY Times article? "Calvin and Hobbes"? equally problematic is common sense.

"See Spot Run" all by itself would be a HUGE step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on June 24, 2013, 07:36:16 PM
... and ammo

SPOKANE, Wash. (RNS) Still angry about the idea of an Islamic cultural center opening near Ground Zero, a group of Idaho gun enthusiasts decided to fight back with a new line of pork-laced bullets.

South Fork Industries, based in Dalton Gardens, Idaho, claims its ammunition, called Jihawg Ammo, is a “defensive deterrent to those who violently act in the name of Islam.”

The bullets are coated in pork-infused paint, which the company states makes the ammo “haram,” or unclean, and therefore will keep a Muslim who’s shot with one of the bullets from entering paradise.

“With Jihawg Ammo, you don’t just kill an Islamist terrorist, you also send him to hell. That should give would-be martyrs something to think about before they launch an attack. If it ever becomes necessary to defend yourself and those around you our ammo works on two levels,” the company said in a press release earlier this month.

The company’s website bills the bullets as “Peace Through Pork” and a “peaceful and natural deterrent to radical Islam.” There’s a related line of apparel that feature slogans like “Put Some Ham in MoHAMed” and a target poster that says “Give Em a Spankin with some Bacon.”

“The nullifying principle of our product is only effective if you are attacked by an Islamist in Jihad,” the company’s website says. “Otherwise, our ammo functions just like any other ammunition, so we obviously insist upon defensive use of our ammo only-not offensive.”


Company officials declined requests to comment.

However, Shannon Dunn, assistant professor of religious studies at Gonzaga University, said South Fork’s concept is based on an inaccurate understanding of the Quran.

“There is no penalty for coming into contact with pork given by the Quran,” she said, pointing to verses that prohibit the consumption of pork and carrion that are reminiscent of Jewish dietary laws outlined in Leviticus.

“To my knowledge, Muslims, especially unknowingly, would not be banned from heaven for eating or getting hit by pork,” she said. “There are some interpreters who suggest that Muslims should eat pork rather than starve, if faced with that alternative.”

Nevertheless, the ammo has plenty of supporters, with more than 4,300 people liking it on Facebook. One fan, Ted of California, said he planned to buy 500 rounds. Another, Jeffrey, said he hoped someone would smuggle the bullets into U.S. military troops.

Tracy Simmons is editor of Spokane Faith & Values.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on June 25, 2013, 12:33:10 AM
That's eerily similar to an event in India that caused massive rebellions against the British colonialists after they used pork fat in part of their ammunition. It was called the Sepoy Rebellion.

The people marketing those bullets from Idaho are shameful, like that idiot going around burning Korans.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on June 25, 2013, 02:13:28 AM
Why do they give big people toys to small minded people? No, guns and ammo are not toys, but an IQ test has never been required to pocess either.

The making of another bad J-C van Dammit or Steven Segalling movie
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on June 25, 2013, 05:41:41 AM
Announcing the newest line of ammo from WTF Were We Thinking Industries.

Death by Chocolate rounds are hollowpoints where the hollow has been filled by the finest chocolate.  Designed as the final kiss goodbye in a relationship gone permanently bad, these rounds are a gift of chocolate that the recipient won't ever have a chance to forget.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on June 25, 2013, 08:58:28 AM
Maybe Muslims and pork is like vampires and garlic?
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on June 25, 2013, 09:35:19 AM
Hi kitano, I'd like to respond to what you said in a straight manner. Not trying to hit back at you, just want to go with the topic.

Whatever you say about Muslims, they have maintained their faith and culture by adhering to their beliefs and principles, which include dietary and banking practices, among other things. If you don't maintain the strictness of these practices, you gradually lose them to have them replaced by someone else's practices and group identity.

As most people probably know, pork is very dangerous to eat because of the types of parasites that you can get from it, which can make their way into any part of your body, including your brain.

Here's a five minute local news story about a woman who got a brain tumor from eating pork.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs6qm03g8c0
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on June 25, 2013, 09:40:18 AM
Maybe Muslims and pork is like vampires and garlic?

That's just ignorant   kkkkkkkkkk
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on June 25, 2013, 10:37:25 AM
Maybe Muslims and pork is like vampires and garlic?

I think we should all refrain from making comments like the one above. Let's all try to not make derogatory comparisons targeting specific groups, ethnic, religious or otherwise. I am sure there are forums where one can gladly compare members of a large religious community and their beliefs and customs to undead parasites and silly superstition, however, I would hope that the Saloon would not be one such forum. I am sure Kitano meant his comment in the most light-hearted way, but it's the kind of remark that can seriously rub people the wrong way. Rule of thumb: If you want to keep the peace, don't make fun of religion. 
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: old34 on June 25, 2013, 10:56:06 AM
Maybe Muslims and pork is like vampires and garlic?

..... Rule of thumb: If you want to keep the peace, don't make fun of religion

Big Thumbs for that.  bfbfbfbfbf bfbfbfbfbf bfbfbfbfbf

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on June 25, 2013, 11:37:51 AM
My comment was clearly a joke about the thinking behind the product, it's not directed at Islam at all it's a joke about the product.

honestly
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on June 25, 2013, 01:42:11 PM
That's what I figured. It's in the same vein as the originally shtoopid pork bullets, LOL.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on June 25, 2013, 02:29:33 PM
deleted
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on June 25, 2013, 03:15:17 PM
Maybe Muslims and pork is like vampires and garlic?

Now if you had said Superman and Kryptonite, I wonder if it would have drawn the same ire.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on June 25, 2013, 03:43:34 PM
Maybe Muslims and pork is like vampires and garlic?

Now if you had said Superman and Kryptonite, I wonder if it would have drawn the same ire.

Only from Kryptonians
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: English Gent on June 26, 2013, 11:18:45 AM
ill tell you what ive noticed about the american constitution, the fanatics, and indeed peaceful citizens go on about the fifth amendment, the fourth etc etc. and that its 'in the constitution' so cant be changed, ever. well, what do they think these amendments are?! they are CHANGES to the constitution, over time, that they love so much, so there is no problem restrictng guns with an amendment. the us constitution can even be abolshed if enough people vote for it!
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on June 26, 2013, 01:37:49 PM
ill tell you what ive noticed about the american constitution, the fanatics, and indeed peaceful citizens go on about the fifth amendment, the fourth etc etc. and that its 'in the constitution' so cant be changed, ever. well, what do they think these amendments are?! they are CHANGES to the constitution, over time, that they love so much, so there is no problem restrictng guns with an amendment. the us constitution can even be abolshed if enough people vote for it!


ha

wish we had a like button on here
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on June 26, 2013, 04:29:02 PM
ill tell you what ive noticed about the american constitution, the fanatics, and indeed peaceful citizens go on about the fifth amendment, the fourth etc etc. and that its 'in the constitution' so cant be changed, ever. well, what do they think these amendments are?! they are CHANGES to the constitution, over time, that they love so much, so there is no problem restrictng guns with an amendment. the us constitution can even be abolshed if enough people vote for it!


Very true! But, not unlike The Bible, conservatives want to hold the Constitution permanently in place just like the document itself is preserved under glass.  Sacrilegious to even think about it in any other way but literally.  The result, like the Biblical stories, it atrophies.  And since the Constitution itself skews power to the conservatives, it is committing a slow suicide.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Granny Mae on June 26, 2013, 10:57:03 PM
I saw a couple of things on TV not long ago about weapons, and I must admit to being a bit uneasy. One was about "pretty" weapons for girls, like pink coloured rifles. I kept getting the impression that these were being treated and assessed as toys. According to my observations, children are children and they can't really be expected to take on such responsibility as weapon ownership. When I was growing up in the country with my six brothers, we were taught to shoot rabbits as a means to getting a meal and this was only when Dad was with us. I've been shot with a slug gun because of my brothers' stupidity; I can't begin to imagine what could have happened had we had free access to the .22 rifles. The other thing was about women somewhere being given a free weapon. The interviewed woman said that she would use it to defend herself if necessary.  Is it just me, or is there something very wrong with a system such as this?
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: kitano on June 27, 2013, 01:25:01 AM
I saw a couple of things on TV not long ago about weapons, and I must admit to being a bit uneasy. One was about "pretty" weapons for girls, like pink coloured rifles. I kept getting the impression that these were being treated and assessed as toys. According to my observations, children are children and they can't really be expected to take on such responsibility as weapon ownership. When I was growing up in the country with my six brothers, we were taught to shoot rabbits as a means to getting a meal and this was only when Dad was with us. I've been shot with a slug gun because of my brothers' stupidity; I can't begin to imagine what could have happened had we had free access to the .22 rifles. The other thing was about women somewhere being given a free weapon. The interviewed woman said that she would use it to defend herself if necessary.  Is it just me, or is there something very wrong with a system such as this?

Like with a lot of conservative ideas they just seem to have a very low opinion of humanity. The having guns solution doesn't stop people wanting to kill each other it just says that it will be harder if we all have guns
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on June 27, 2013, 01:33:58 AM
ill tell you what ive noticed about the american constitution, the fanatics, and indeed peaceful citizens go on about the fifth amendment, the fourth etc etc. and that its 'in the constitution' so cant be changed, ever. well, what do they think these amendments are?! they are CHANGES to the constitution, over time, that they love so much, so there is no problem restrictng guns with an amendment. the us constitution can even be abolshed if enough people vote for it!

It's deliberately difficult to change the Constitution.  If it were easy, I'd support an amendment requiring some sort of basic intelligence test to drive a car, own a gun, vote, etc.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on June 27, 2013, 02:01:48 AM
I think a lot of people are confused. I just watched an American politician give a speech arguing that the Constitutional rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness had been protected in some same-sex legislation. Hmm...The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution. The rigt to life, liberty and property is safe-guarded in the Fifth Amendment, but happiness is never mentioned.
There is the Constitution, which simply outlines the structure, election process and powers of the individual parts of the Government, then there are the first 10 Amendments are known as the Bill of Rights, the 10th and 11th being inserted by President Madison.
The Bill of Rights is, essentially, sacrosant. Yes, it can be changed. Removing or adding a constitutional amendment merely requires something as simple as a new constitutional convention requested by two-thirds of the States or a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. So, English Gent, I think we can agree that it is quite possibly not just a matter of enough people voting. Especially with regards to the Bill of Rights.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on June 27, 2013, 03:55:51 AM
It's deliberately difficult to change the Constitution.  If it were easy, I'd support an amendment requiring some sort of basic intelligence test to drive a car, own a gun, vote, etc.

That would certainly cut down on elected officials committing drive by shottings
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on June 27, 2013, 04:17:29 AM
Removing or adding a constitutional amendment merely requires something as simple as a new constitutional convention requested by two-thirds of the States or a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. So, English Gent, I think we can agree that it is quite possibly not just a matter of enough people voting. Especially with regards to the Bill of Rights.

I have to disagree with your conclusion.  The last amendment was 21 years ago and the one prior was 21 years before that.  In this environment, it could NEVER happen again.  The requirements are:

1, a) To propose an amendment 2/3 of The House and 2/3 of the Senate would have to approve a joint resolution or:

1, b) 2/3 of the 50 states legislatures would have to call for a national convention; this has NEVER been done. To open a Constitutional Convention means that anything and everything would be open to a vote...neither party wants that.

To ratify the proposed amendment;

2, a) 3/4 of the 50 state legislatures would have to approve it or:

2, b) Conventions in 3/4 of the 50 states would have to approve it, (done once...for Prohibition)

Yes, 27, (17 if you exclude the initial Bill Of Rights), have passed in well over 220 years of the thousands proposed.  And this was before the extreme partisan politics took hold over the last 20 years; which I blame mostly on redistricting. So to say that "...it's just a matter of enough people voting" drastically ignores the realities of present day politics.  We can't even get background checks accomplished even though well over 50 of the 100 Senators voted for it.



Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on June 27, 2013, 09:03:02 AM
A-Train, my conclusion was meant to be facetious, as was rather obvious when I employed the word "simple' in relation to anything political. English Gent made the somewhat odd conclusion that constitutional problems can be resolved by making people vote. I merely stated that solution was very simple, as in not simple at all. I do actually teach Am hist for a living, so I am not remotely unfamiliar with either the Constitution, when it was written, the amendments nor the process that goes into adding or removing an ammendment.  agagagagag
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on June 27, 2013, 04:55:06 PM
A-Train, my conclusion was meant to be facetious, as was rather obvious when I employed the word "simple' in relation to anything political. English Gent made the somewhat odd conclusion that constitutional problems can be resolved by making people vote. I merely stated that solution was very simple, as in not simple at all. I do actually teach Am hist for a living, so I am not remotely unfamiliar with either the Constitution, when it was written, the amendments nor the process that goes into adding or removing an ammendment.  agagagagag

My guess is that you are one of the few who understand the complexities. Including the vast majority of Americans.  Or, I should say,ESPECIALLY, the vast majority of Americans.   agagagagag
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on June 28, 2013, 01:34:05 AM
Meh...I can't blame the Americans for that. I have never read, studied, researched or paid any interest to the Danish constitution. America is in no way alone in having a population who, in some cases, does not read their own constitution.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on July 01, 2013, 04:01:02 AM
Meh...I can't blame the Americans for that. I have never read, studied, researched or paid any interest to the Danish constitution. America is in no way alone in having a population who, in some cases, does not read their own constitution.

I believe it says "All Squirrels will be sent to China."
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on July 01, 2013, 10:13:24 AM
No, but it does say that if I call the Queen a trumped-up dole recipient and her off-spring a perfectly sound argument for why inbreeding is a very bad idea, I can go to jail. If she said went on TV and called me something nasty, it would be just fine. Monarchy...bleh...that's one thing the Chinese got right...get rid of the royalty, maintain the buildings and get all the money from the tourists.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on July 01, 2013, 11:06:47 AM
I have to report that ETR has been taken away in chains politely requested by the Danish Embassy to come in and have a chat regarding his anti-constitutional statements regarding Her Majesty and Her Majesty's children.

The ambassador has issued a statement that once Eric has been properly brainwashed informed regarding his proper relationship to Danish royalty, he can then be released back into the public realm with minimal risks of repeating this anti-social behavior.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on July 14, 2013, 12:53:56 PM
The Danish Queen looks like Olive Oil's ugly, older sister.

On another note, I just read that Missouri has decided to follow the playbook of Ohio and signed into law a notion that schools can, if they want to, have weapons training, as in bang-bang-pow-pow training, as classes all the way down to the first grade...It has been a loooooooong time, but I recall that in first grade we were not even allowed to play softball because it was, and I quote the Principal here, "too violent"...times have changed and I am too old to understand them  agagagagag agagagagag
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on July 14, 2013, 02:42:39 PM
Riflery training used to be common in the USA about 60 years ago. Kids brought their weapons on the school bus and there were indoor and outdoor shooting ranges. Wasn't everywhere, but was common.

I don't have a problem with this kind of training in school under the right circumstances. I first learned how to shoot guns and also bows and arrows in summer camp at the age of 6 or 7, and if I had kids, I would consider it one of my responsibilities to teach them self-defense, including how to shoot guns.

Guns are very basic technology. Probably easier and safer than riding a bicycle.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on July 14, 2013, 02:55:55 PM
Yep, weapons in school is a good idea. What could possibly go wrong with that?
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Stil on July 14, 2013, 11:14:16 PM
Anybody watch the show Vice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_(television_show))?

The third episode has a story about weapon training in a New Mexico school.

A pretty good show with a couple of stories about China in there.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on July 15, 2013, 06:04:49 AM
With Texas' new voter ID law, you will be allowed to vote if you show a gun license, but a student ID will not qualify. 

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/06/512245/texas-voter-id-law-which-accepts-gun-licenses-but-not-student-ids-challenged-in-court/
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on July 15, 2013, 06:43:29 AM
Yep, weapons in school is a good idea. What could possibly go wrong with that?
My drivers education training was probably the best-structured and most useful class I had in 12 years of public school and had a very positive effect on my future safety. I think gun education could have similar benefits, although there's not as much of an ubiquitous need since we obviously encounter moving vehicles more than guns...even in Texas :)

I also think the idea of gun training falls into the category of self-defense, which is a very good skill to have. I think it would be fine if public schools taught this, but also ok if there are other priorities with limited resources and let the parents do it. Depends on what you think is important.

I'd consider the importance of a course on how the local political system worked to be less than driver safety and more than guns/self-defense, but all three would be good to know.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on July 15, 2013, 06:47:17 AM
With Texas' new voter ID law, you will be allowed to vote if you show a gun license, but a student ID will not qualify. 

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/06/512245/texas-voter-id-law-which-accepts-gun-licenses-but-not-student-ids-challenged-in-court/
A fairly obvious attempt for the current power majority to try and deal with their shrinking demographic.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on July 15, 2013, 07:02:29 AM
I believe that any gun safety class in the public school system needs:

1.  To be an elective.
2.  Parents and students to fill out and sign an application form.  This should include a statement that if the student makes anything that might be interpreted as a threatening gesture with a loaded weapon, the instructor is obligated to use all necessary force to end the threat.
3.  To automatically bar any students already shown to have disciplinary or mental health issues.
4.  To allow the instructor the final decision in who gets to take the class along with the power to instantly and permanently eject any student at any time for any reason.

The middle school cesspit I spent a year teaching at was full of kids I wouldn't trust with a sharp pencil.  The few good students would have been much better off if they could have been trained and armed.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on July 15, 2013, 09:08:34 AM
I can see the point but...uhh...I don't think a first-grader needs to learn to defend him/herself with a gun. When I was in 3 grade we had mandatory jiu-jitsu classes. That sufficed, unless there are roaming gangs of 1st graders running around with guns.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on July 15, 2013, 01:48:28 PM
I can see the point but...uhh...I don't think a first-grader needs to learn to defend him/herself with a gun. When I was in 3 grade we had mandatory jiu-jitsu classes. That sufficed, unless there are roaming gangs of 1st graders running around with guns.
Other first graders running around with guns is not the primary or secondary problem, LOL, although there are unfortunate cases that occur regularly where children that age treat real guns like toys with tragic results. Part of why I think gun education is useful, even for a person who never intends to own a gun, is that it can still prevent accidents. If the adult owners of these guns had any idea about gun safety, most of these kinds of accidents would probably be prevented.

Anyway, there are lots of safety topics and most of them are left to the parents. Elective firearms training in schools is a lot like drivers education training, which not only was elective/optional in my school system, but I had to pay a small fee to do it.

There's a lot of gun training that can be done without ammunition. When I was in the military, we spent an entire week, nearly eight hours a day, learning about our rifles' cleaning, operation, methods of shooting, etc., before we ever fired a shot.

I can understand if people would not be eager to have kids with loaded weapons at school, so gun safety and knowledge could be taught without ammo. Once you pass knowledge and safety classes, help arrange your parents to take you to the shooting range. Stuff like that.
Title: Texas Justice
Post by: CaseyOrourke on August 06, 2013, 07:15:53 AM
Forget the source, read and watch the news story. Here is some justice, handed out Texas style.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/05/armed-husband-dishes-out-lethal-dose-of-texas-justice-after-suspects-kidnap-him-and-his-wife-then-force-them-to-rob-bank/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/05/armed-husband-dishes-out-lethal-dose-of-texas-justice-after-suspects-kidnap-him-and-his-wife-then-force-them-to-rob-bank/)

Two guys break into a house in the small Texas town of Columbus, tie up the husband and when the wife, a bank teller, returns home, the men at gunpoint force her to drive back to the bank after hours, open the vault and remove cash.  They then direct them to drive out to a deserted section of highway.  The husband, a reserve sheriff's deputy with a gun hidden in the car, secretly retrieves it and shoots both suspects, killing one.  The town is rallying around the couple, saying it is nice for the "good guys" to win one. 
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on August 07, 2013, 12:00:54 AM
A couple of the commenters on the article point out that he forgot Zombieland Rule #2 . . .

Double Tap
 bababababa
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on August 07, 2013, 02:46:31 PM
I've heard of justifiable homicide. Do they have a category for commendable homicide?
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on August 08, 2013, 02:36:05 AM
I've heard of justifiable homicide. Do they have a category for commendable homicide?

EXCELLENT IDEA!!!! agagagagag agagagagag agagagagag agagagagag agagagagag
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Guangzhou Writer on August 09, 2013, 07:18:08 AM
Property crime is one thing, but when you get into kidnapping you're taking someone's life in your hands. If you're doing a life or death crime and your victim kills you, that's justice.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Granny Mae on August 09, 2013, 11:24:36 PM
I couldn't agree more Guangzhou Writer! bfbfbfbfbf
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Day Dreamer on August 15, 2013, 04:18:03 PM
I wish they'd kill this thread  bibibibibi
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Granny Mae on August 16, 2013, 12:13:08 AM
There was something on the news last night about the "Bikies" and the way they are bringing weapons into Australia. The Law Enforcement spokesperson made an interesting comment. In effect he said that the "victims" of a lot of these recent shooting crimes are actually criminals themselves who just didn't happen to get the shot off before the killer. He didn't think that these people were victims in the same sense as ordinary members of the public, and as such, the same laws should not apply to them or their family members who try to sue and manipulate the law to their advantage. I know that this will probably open "Pandora's box", but I am more than inclined to agree. bfbfbfbfbf  We now have such tough Gun Laws in Australia, that criminals appear to be gaining the advantage. bibibibibi
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: gonzo on August 19, 2013, 07:56:35 AM
I started this thread 15 or so weeks ago-by far the most responses I've ever scored; way in front of stuff about teaching and living in China that I've put up, which is interesting.

This time a young Australian on a baseball scholarship was gunned down while on a daytime jog in Oklahoma. Maybe it hasn't made the US news sites: too common. What is wrong with that fucking country?
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on August 19, 2013, 09:18:02 AM
The exact same thing that's wrong with every country where innocent people can be killed by some disaffected person using guns, knives, or any other weapon.

Stop focusing on one kind of weapon and read the news more broadly.  School massacres happen without guns.  Dead joggers happen without guns.  I heard anti-knife public service announcements on the radio in the UK the year before I came to China.  From the tone of the announcements, you would have thought they were talking about grenade launchers.

I believe the source of the real problem is 2-fold.  First, the sense of personal responsibility seems to be waning faster and faster in many supposedly developed countries.  Second, the concept of "mainstreaming" the mentally ill allows those who really need treatment (or possibly involuntary committal) to slip under the radar, often never even getting a formal diagnosis of mental illness until they are working with a defense attorney.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CWL on August 19, 2013, 01:43:33 PM
The exact same thing that's wrong with every country where innocent people can be killed by some disaffected person using guns, knives, or any other weapon.

Stop focusing on one kind of weapon and read the news more broadly.  School massacres happen without guns.  Dead joggers happen without guns.  I heard anti-knife public service announcements on the radio in the UK the year before I came to China.  From the tone of the announcements, you would have thought they were talking about grenade launchers.

I believe the source of the real problem is 2-fold.  First, the sense of personal responsibility seems to be waning faster and faster in many supposedly developed countries.  Second, the concept of "mainstreaming" the mentally ill allows those who really need treatment (or possibly involuntary committal) to slip under the radar, often never even getting a formal diagnosis of mental illness until they are working with a defense attorney.


Hear, hear!

Unfortunately taxpayers will now be on the hook to pay for the incarceration of the "alleged" killers.  That is unless some libtard lawyer comes along and talks about how they weren't breastfed as babies, or Father Bob yanked their wee wee when they were little, or that son of bitch Bush ruined their lives... blah, blah, blah....  Unfortunately three of the millions of rounds of ammo acquired by the DHS will not be used to settle the matter.  Oh no...they're saving those for the further intimidation of the law abiding citizenry.  After all, the government needs protection from the legal gun owners.  The present government needs to be tossed away, and with it the current hack president.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on August 19, 2013, 02:27:10 PM

Stop focusing on one kind of weapon and read the news more broadly. 


I agree there is a broader problem, but the availability of guns in the U.S. leverages that problems to heights not seen anywhere else in the First world.

Since 1968, more Americans have been killed by guns than in all of its wars combined.  1.4 million citizens killed.  And yes, a crazed lunatic will kill someone with a knife, but the increase in numbers killed from guns leverages the underlying problem.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on August 19, 2013, 03:27:20 PM

Stop focusing on one kind of weapon and read the news more broadly. 


I agree there is a broader problem, but the availability of guns in the U.S. leverages that problems to heights not seen anywhere else in the First world.

Since 1968, more Americans have been killed by guns than in all of its wars combined.  1.4 million citizens killed.  And yes, a crazed lunatic will kill someone with a knife, but the increase in numbers killed from guns leverages the underlying problem.

Uhmm...isn't this thread somewhat going in circles? Everything there is to say about guns, guns in America, guns in the world, the violence perpetrated using guns, has been said. Come on guys, you have all pointed out how bad things can be done with guns, posters have with great gusto jumped into the "I can find an example of a gun-related crime in America too!" game, with a side-order of "Those Americans are just all too fond of firearms and we should point this out as much as possible" soap-box oratory. The problem has been laid bare, examples have been given, so now it is time to dwell upon the logical, rational solution to the problem. There is really no obvious point in commenting over and over and over again on something one is upset about/disagrees with/believes should be changed if one does not provide a doable, viable, usable hypothesis for a solution.
But to prove I understand the point of the thread, let me say: Guns are bad. Boo! Boo to guns.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Stil on August 19, 2013, 04:41:01 PM
Guns are fine.... cool even.

Now bullets are a different matter. Evil little things.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on August 19, 2013, 07:42:56 PM

Stop focusing on one kind of weapon and read the news more broadly. 


I agree there is a broader problem, but the availability of guns in the U.S. leverages that problems to heights not seen anywhere else in the First world.

Since 1968, more Americans have been killed by guns than in all of its wars combined.  1.4 million citizens killed.  And yes, a crazed lunatic will kill someone with a knife, but the increase in numbers killed from guns leverages the underlying problem.

...it is time to dwell upon the logical, rational solution to the problem. There is really no obvious point in commenting over and over and over again on something one is upset about/disagrees with/believes should be changed if one does not provide a doable, viable, usable hypothesis for a solution.


But that's precisely the problem. Reasonable, logical solutions are always assassinated by the crazed rhetoric.

A few reasonable solutions: background checks on all who wish to own a gun, registration and required proof of ability to handle a gun, shared data bases of crimes perpetrated by gun owners.

Yet, any politician who tried to institute these would get politically crucified. I'm afraid that soap-box oratory is part of the DNA on this issue and ignoring that fact leaves only white-paper essays that make perfect sense but are irrelevant to any effort at change.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Granny Mae on August 19, 2013, 11:32:25 PM
Another really sad part about that young Aussie guy being gunned down, was that the perps were about 15yrs old. bibibibibi Apparently they would have continued on their rampage had they not been apprehended so quickly. As teachers, it must make many of you folk wonder what could happen if an incident really got out of hand in your classroom or School grounds. I saw something on the News which showed several incidents of students attacking teachers and other students. This was to do with an article about discipline (or lack of it) in Aussie schools. In my day, one was very careful about any "bad" behaviour, as one could and would be caned by the Headmaster. We had tough kids in my day too, but they knew their place. To be perfectly honest, I feel that we are FAR too weak as a Nation in relation to discipline in schools, homes and jails (goals).  Sorry if I sound like an old goat, but when I was young, most people in the Country towns had weapons and we didn't have the huge problem we have today which necessitated the introduction of our very strict gun ownership laws. I keep saying "they are lucky that I don't run this Country". bibibibibi
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CWL on August 20, 2013, 09:44:52 PM
When I was looking on the Internet for articles concerning the Aussie who was shot, most did not mention the race of the alleged shooters.  I did find two articles that mentioned one of them was white.  White my ass...  WTF   I knew something was up when the articles mentioned that the car was black but didn't mention the race of the shooters.  I am sure there won't be a peep heard about this from Jackson, Sharpton, etc... and our illustrious president won't say, "If I had a son, he would look like one of them".  Regardless if the shooter is white, black, brown, etc..., it is always the parents that get me when they say shit like:  "My son is not that way” or “My son is a good kid".  Furthermore, Obama and HUD can kiss my ass concerning their Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing proposal. 

Yee Haw America!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/police_australian_player_killed_J8hM1jhw9Us1DltFFWCGQM
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Granny Mae on August 20, 2013, 10:53:51 PM
What really stands out to me, is that these young people did not appear to consider that there would be consequences.  bibibibibi  As a species, we certainly appear to be evolving in a manner which does not give me any confidence. Most animal species know that there is a code of behaviour to be followed. Why not mankind? We just seem to look for excuses. On TV right now, they are discussing the fact that we are becoming a Nation of bystanders, particularly when it comes to bullying. bibibibibi I know that this is really about guns, but ultimately it comes down to human behaviour.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CWL on August 21, 2013, 12:10:10 AM
http://www.ibtimes.com/beijing-bans-selling-knives-attempt-curb-stabbings-after-two-fatal-attacks-1359229

Beijing officials went on a city-wide crackdown on illegal weapons on Monday, seizing over 300 guns. (Private firearms are not permitted in China.) But they went further. The following day, Beijing police issued an order instructing supermarkets to take knives off their shelves after two separate stabbing incidents left three people dead and three others injured last week.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-07/29/content_16847897.htm

... a man was randomly attacking passersby with a knife on the side of a road in the city's Luohu District.

Yee Haw!
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: A-Train on August 21, 2013, 12:03:05 PM
I am sure there won't be a peep heard about this from Jackson, Sharpton, etc... and our illustrious president won't say, "If I had a son, he would look like one of them". 


I have no idea what parallel you think you're drawing here.  In the Travon Martin case the shooter was tried and found not guilty. Are you supposing that this is what might happen with crazed mass-murderers like this last one?  What's the connection?
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: The Local Dialect on August 23, 2013, 05:46:46 AM
I am temporarily locking this topic so that it can be reviewed by the moderator team. I am also throwing it in the pit, where it probably should have been to begin with.

Please everyone review the Saloon rules. This thread breaks them outright and we've been tolerant of it so far as it has been a mostly civil discussion, but it is starting to cross certain lines.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: The Local Dialect on August 23, 2013, 11:36:08 AM
Unlocking this thread again.

Please keep it civil and respectful. Also? The Saloon is probably not the place to discuss certain sensitive issues. Religion, race, politics -- coversations on these topics have the potential to do some very lasting damage to our community. There are lots of forums on the internet specifically designed for debating current events that are much more "anything goes" than we are able to be here. The Saloon needs to remain a safe place for ALL members to discuss issues that (for the most part) relate to living and working in China. To quote our own forum rules, written by the Duke himself:

Quote
9. It is strongly requested that you avoid topics, such as religion, military service, and so on, that evoke strong personal feelings and lend themselves to angry debate or worse. DO state your mind in a civil manner, but please think carefully about what you write here.

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: CaseyOrourke on August 24, 2013, 02:34:25 PM
I am sure there won't be a peep heard about this from Jackson, Sharpton, etc... and our illustrious president won't say, "If I had a son, he would look like one of them". 


I have no idea what parallel you think you're drawing here.  In the Travon Martin case the shooter was tried and found not guilty. Are you supposing that this is what might happen with crazed mass-murderers like this last one?  What's the connection?

What I think he means is soon after Travon Martin was shot Jackson and Sharpton were mugging for the camera screaming it was a case of racism and needs to be prosecuted on a federal level as a hate crime (which could still happen to Zimmerman despite the fact he was acquitted). 

Up to now all we have seen from Jackson was a tweet saying it was "senseless violence and should be frowned upon." Sharpton on his TV show saying the "killing wasn't racial, it was a random act and the system worked, the kids were arrested.

Title: Re: Guns
Post by: gonzo on September 19, 2013, 02:06:17 AM
I started this thread 18 pages ago, but haven't really checked it since. This journal article is worth a read, or at least a browse, if only to check the table of gun ownership and gun related death by country. South Africa is the only odd statistic: low gun ownership, high gun related deaths. This probably has something to do with the white minority owning guns, and shooting at the black majority, who can't afford them bcbcbcbcbc bcbcbcbcbc.
http://www.amjmed.com/webfiles/images/journals/ajm/AJM12080.pdf
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on September 19, 2013, 03:42:32 AM
Is that registered gun ownership or unregistered gun ownership? One could, to play the devil's advocate, argue that firearms related casualties could just as well be carried out by people of the same skin colour but using illegal firearms, which then could lead to a defensible questioning of the statistics in the journal. Also, I recall an episode of "Yes, Prime Minister" in which Sir Humphrey Appleby proves to Bernard that one can, essentially, make statistics prove anything one wants.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: gonzo on September 19, 2013, 05:24:40 AM
one can, essentially, make statistics prove anything one wants.
You can prove anything using statistics. 89% of people know that! [attr. Homer Simpson]
I'm not sure how you get statistics for unregistered ownership.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on September 19, 2013, 06:27:48 AM
Increased number of guns would tend to increase the chances of murdered via guns, the same way that increased numbers of cars increase one's chances of being deliberately run over.  On the other hand, do guns and gun control laws do anything to decrease one's overall chances of being murdered?

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf



Title: Re: Guns
Post by: English Gent on September 19, 2013, 06:36:03 AM
So if everyone owns guns, then murder rates might go down.... Great, USA jails must be nearly empty....oh, wait a sec...!  mmmmmmmmmm
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: gonzo on September 19, 2013, 08:03:32 AM
On the other hand, do guns and gun control laws do anything to decrease one's overall chances of being murdered?
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pd
One would imagine so.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: ericthered on September 19, 2013, 08:47:17 AM
Spiffy conclusion. I have about 50 books next to me dealing with crime and punishment from Mesopotamia to present day and murder, heinous or otherwise, crops up rather a lot in them, before and after the invention of the gun. Gun control deals, one could argue, with the legal acquisition of firearms, obtaining licenses and such. Criminals, being right rapscallions, rarely bother with such niceties. So gun control does, indeed, limit the possibility of one getting gunned down by a person who has legally acquired a gun. It does not, however, do jack-diddley to prevent you getting shot by some shady character who purchased a firearm with the serial number filed off...or stabbed..or strangled...or bludgeoned...run over...tazed....decapitated...shot with a bow'n'arrow/crossbow...poisoned...hung...no guns would definitely limit the possibility of getting murdered.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Escaped Lunatic on September 19, 2013, 08:53:26 AM
So if everyone owns guns, then murder rates might go down.... Great, USA jails must be nearly empty....oh, wait a sec...!  mmmmmmmmmm

Read the article.  An interesting point is that repeat offenders are less likely to engage in direct confrontational violence in places where the victims may be armed with guns.

Another is the inverse relationship of gun control laws and overall level of violent crimes between states in the USA.  There's also quite a bit about the growing violence levels within the UK as gun laws get tighter and tighter (ironically, with the intention of reducing violence).

Since most violent crimes are the result of repeat offenders, those over-filled US jails are at least partly responsible for the levels of violent crime in the US (including homicide by gun) slowly falling off.  Personally, once elected as the Emperor of Earth, I'm going to rearrange sentencing to limit the punishment for victimless crimes to nothing more than a fine (or, in some cases, a spanking), but plan to keep repeat violent offenders incarcerated.  They'll be hard at work for many years, forever running in giant hamster wheels to generate electricity.