By Cyrax [249578]
In reality if a person is brought up with proper gun safety no one can be shot by accident.
It really is that simple.
No it is not. No matter how careful people are, accidents will and do always happen with guns. It would decrease injuries and deaths but not stop them.
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains, an' go to your Gawd like a soldier. Soldier of the Queen!
By bosox [278767]
So to really get a grasp on the situation, you must understand that law abiding citizens who legally own guns are not the problem. The guns being used in the streets by gangs to kill each other are not firearms being sold legally by people registering with their local state police department.
could it be that some of those weapons are either stolen or "stolen" from their legal owners?
By JimboJones [337620]
There is a reason nobody has successfuly invaded the United States in over 200 years. Every one has a gun.
you actually think that is a serious argument?
Yep.
it hasn't been successfully invaded due to the fact that it is a defensively sound location and with the largest navy in the world and one of the best air forces a sea-based or air-based assault would be wiped out, coupled with a massive ground military force and the best technology would be the biggest deterrent, rather than some plebs with some guns if they can get through that, unarmored, untrained civilians would be a push over
I'm so good, on my birthday I phone my mum to congratulate her
It's hard to be humble, when you are as great as I am
By PopadaPill [900338]
when i talk about it im kinda talking about if your were to start afresh,no one or a very small percentage of ppl had guns,same with gun crime...would you still want to own one,have laws where any tom dick or harry could have one if he ''looked'' normal.I think USA as had it now with guns,may as well stay as you are..nothing will change,your flooded with guns.
Ban/strictly control the sale or manufacture of ammunition. Maintain a watch at your borders to limit smuggling. The problem will dry up eventually. Have gun amnesties prior to and after making private possession illegal without a stringently controlled license like they did here. Thats off the top of my head... I'm sure there are far better methods of removing them from circulation. It certainly wouldnt be easy, but its not unachievable either.
what? and not get the moneys from lobbyists? and have people from the weapon industry unemployed?
outrageous!
and then who would be selling the weapons to the next war for oil so the average joe can have cheap gas?
guns are staying, even though the ones wanting to keep them don't realize what's really going on
By JimboJones [337620]
There is a reason nobody has successfuly invaded the United States in over 200 years. Every one has a gun.
you actually think that is a serious argument?
Yep.
it hasn't been successfully invaded due to the fact that it is a defensively sound location and with the largest navy in the world and one of the best air forces a sea-based or air-based assault would be wiped out, coupled with a massive ground military force and the best technology would be the biggest deterrent, rather than some plebs with some guns if they can get through that, unarmored, untrained civilians would be a push over
By JimboJones [337620]
There is a reason nobody has successfuly invaded the United States in over 200 years. Every one has a gun.
you actually think that is a serious argument?
Yep.
it hasn't been successfully invaded due to the fact that it is a defensively sound location and with the largest navy in the world and one of the best air forces a sea-based or air-based assault would be wiped out, coupled with a massive ground military force and the best technology would be the biggest deterrent, rather than some plebs with some guns if they can get through that, unarmored, untrained civilians would be a push over
finally, some sense
And those would also be the same defences that those same plebs would be facing if/when they decide to overthrow their government. The best you can say about it is that it would be over fast.
Well folks, thats it, I've left the game. To those of you who think of me as a friend, I thank you and wish you all the best. Enjoy the game, and take care.
By Swag [929733]
Im not sure where the socialism thing came from nor does it have anything to do with being a gun enthusiast. If youve asked me before now i must have missed it. Ill play your game though, here we go :
First, the definition of socialism.
Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Second, why obama is a socialist.
Look at what parts of the private sector that the government has taken over or gained some sort of ownership since obama has taken office.
The auto industry
The mortgage industry
The healthcare industry to some extent
The banking industry
The student lending industry (the government totally pushed out all private lenders)
Then we get to the redistribution of wealth. No one can deny he wants this. Since Obama has become president, payments such as welfare, social security, and unemployment benefits have been approximately half of the growth in personal income. This comes on top of raising taxes on anyone who makes over 250k a year. That is redistribution of wealth.
Next, he is very fond of his fathers ideologies. His father was a confirmed socialist and even wrote a paper titled "Problems with our socialism."
Both of his brothers are marxist, of which one he said is the person who made him the proudest.
Bill Ayers. Enough said.
There are many more reasons i believe he is, but i dont feel like going through it all.
Lol, we have already had the redistribution of wealth going on for the last 30 years. Its called reaganomics, which has been a complete and utter failure. The idea that wealth will eventually "trickle" down is a complete lie, it didnt work when Reagan did it and it didnt work when Bush did it. All it has done is give the rich more money and screw working people.
Trying to reverse the trend of all the money going to the top is not "socialist". Before Reaganomics the wealth of bottom and the top were growing at relatively the same pace, afterwards the top has grown +200% while the middle class and poor have gone down or stayed the same, as did standards of livings and wages.
Oh by the way, temporarily owning stock in a company in order to protect a private company isnt socialist and a healthcare system that benefits private companies isnt socialist either.
He didnt raise taxes for people making over 250k and even if he did that wouldnt be "redistributing wealth", that would be taking back stupid tax cuts that Bush made that is contributing to our national debt. Keeping the tax rates lower than they have been in 60 years while I debt is going up so much is fiscally irresponsible.
I think the contents of this thread just proves how controversial the gun laws are in America. Ignoring the input from non-Americans, there does still seem to be two distinct sides to this - those who believe it their God given right to own a gun and those who believe gun ownership should be more tightly controlled or even outlawed.
Your Second Amendment to the United States Constitution gave American citizens the right to bear arms. What you have to remember though is that this was legislated in 1791. A lot has changed since 1791, for example (and this is just a few of the changes your country has seen since 1791):
Until 1865 slavery was legal in America, times changed as did your society as legislated in your 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution when slavery was abolished.
Between 1861 - 1865 you all had a real big fight and killed in excess of 620,000 Americans
By the 1890s the Indian wars had been controlled and were finally considered to be over.
You were not too keen on black Americans mixing with the white ones and even in 1954 you would not allow mixed schools or allow black men commissions in your army.
Look at America today, some 221 years after you legislated the right for Americans to bear arms. It is not the same country, you do not have the same environment where you are in such danger as to need weapons in your house for self protection. Bigger things have changed in your country over the past 200 odd years so why are you so defensive about owning a gun?
Is it a penis size thing?
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains, an' go to your Gawd like a soldier. Soldier of the Queen!
Im not getting in to an argument about something totally unrelated to the thread. I shouldnt have commented on his remarks at all. Bottom line is i see the definition, i see whats happening and ive made my decision on what i believe is happening. You have your opinion and i have mine. I guess only time will tell.
By JimboJones [337620]
There is a reason nobody has successfuly invaded the United States in over 200 years. Every one has a gun.
you actually think that is a serious argument?
Yep.
it hasn't been successfully invaded due to the fact that it is a defensively sound location and with the largest navy in the world and one of the best air forces a sea-based or air-based assault would be wiped out, coupled with a massive ground military force and the best technology would be the biggest deterrent, rather than some plebs with some guns if they can get through that, unarmored, untrained civilians would be a push over
finally, some sense
And those would also be the same defences that those same plebs would be facing if/when they decide to overthrow their government. The best you can say about it is that it would be over fast.
You are under the false assumption that the military would be on the governments side. Coming from a military family, living in a town thats largest employer is a military base and having many many military friends, i can tell you that wouldn't be the case.
By DieselMack [470785]
Why the hell would you feel the need to carry a gun? No doubt the OP is an American?
This thread is messed up as is your head if you think its clever to advertise such a sick demented subject.
If you think its normal then I suggest you get the hell out of your country and move to somewhere more humane!
If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
In my opinion, carrying guns is worse than selling your child for sex.
Im sure there are many people that will look down on you for posting such rubbish.
You are not clever and not wise.
R- Pathetic
DieselMack, for as long as I have been around and seen your post I have to say this is one of the most judgmental of all I have seen.
First Americans with a Legal Right to carry a weapon must have so many hours of gun training and safety lessons before they are even issued a permit. In my state they do not just hand out guns. Nor do they in any other state that I am aware of. There is at least a 7 day waiting period before you can take a gun from the shop to your home. This is to do background checks to make sure you are not forgive me for using this term loosely Legally Sane ,Make sure you are up to date on your training and to make sure you have not committed a crime with any weapon!
As for you saying carrying a gun worse then selling a child for sex! That is the most disgusting asinine thing I have ever seen in my life! Selling guns for sex or drugs is more likely to happen then selling your children! And it is our right in the United states to carry a weapon to protect our self, Guy comes up behind me with a gun you better believe your balls I want a way to protect myself!
And for the greater understanding I am not for nor ageist carrying a weapon. I have seen both ends of what it can do. I personally would not own one,I do believe however if it comes between that crack addict trying to get into my house or him being shot...Well shoot the son of a *****
By JimboJones [337620]
There is a reason nobody has successfuly invaded the United States in over 200 years. Every one has a gun.
you actually think that is a serious argument?
Yep.
it hasn't been successfully invaded due to the fact that it is a defensively sound location and with the largest navy in the world and one of the best air forces a sea-based or air-based assault would be wiped out, coupled with a massive ground military force and the best technology would be the biggest deterrent, rather than some plebs with some guns if they can get through that, unarmored, untrained civilians would be a push over
finally, some sense
And those would also be the same defences that those same plebs would be facing if/when they decide to overthrow their government. The best you can say about it is that it would be over fast.
You are under the false assumption that the military would be on the governments side. Coming from a military family, living in a town thats largest employer is a military base and having many many military friends, i can tell you that wouldn't be the case.
lol... okay, I guess I'll just take your word for it then, and not the evidence of history throughout the world.
Well folks, thats it, I've left the game. To those of you who think of me as a friend, I thank you and wish you all the best. Enjoy the game, and take care.
By Swag [929733]
Im not getting in to an argument about something totally unrelated to the thread. I shouldnt have commented on his remarks at all. Bottom line is i see the definition, i see whats happening and ive made my decision on what i believe is happening. You have your opinion and i have mine. I guess only time will tell.
I think Obama might be a socialist
or
Obama has a socialist agenda
So which countries would be talking about in this here history lesson would we be talking about Neil? Im pretty sure that none of them are democratic countries where there soldiers are gathered by volunteering only. Enlighten me good sir.
By JimboJones [337620]
There is a reason nobody has successfuly invaded the United States in over 200 years. Every one has a gun.
you actually think that is a serious argument?
Yep.
it hasn't been successfully invaded due to the fact that it is a defensively sound location and with the largest navy in the world and one of the best air forces a sea-based or air-based assault would be wiped out, coupled with a massive ground military force and the best technology would be the biggest deterrent, rather than some plebs with some guns if they can get through that, unarmored, untrained civilians would be a push over
finally, some sense
And those would also be the same defences that those same plebs would be facing if/when they decide to overthrow their government. The best you can say about it is that it would be over fast.
You are under the false assumption that the military would be on the governments side. Coming from a military family, living in a town thats largest employer is a military base and having many many military friends, i can tell you that wouldn't be the case.
so...if it comes to that, leave it to the military, yes?
population's input would be irrelevant: the military would either be making the coup, or protecting the government from the arms bearing people trying to overthrow them.
in both scenarios, your privately owned guns have no reason to exist.
By Swag [929733]
Im not getting in to an argument about something totally unrelated to the thread. I shouldnt have commented on his remarks at all. Bottom line is i see the definition, i see whats happening and ive made my decision on what i believe is happening. You have your opinion and i have mine. I guess only time will tell.
I think Obama might be a socialist
or
Obama has a socialist agenda
your beliefs must not be mistaken with facts
Sorry. Im not 100% sure that Obama is socialist. I do however, believe that he is based on what i have heard him say and what i have seen.
By JimboJones [337620]
There is a reason nobody has successfuly invaded the United States in over 200 years. Every one has a gun.
you actually think that is a serious argument?
Yep.
it hasn't been successfully invaded due to the fact that it is a defensively sound location and with the largest navy in the world and one of the best air forces a sea-based or air-based assault would be wiped out, coupled with a massive ground military force and the best technology would be the biggest deterrent, rather than some plebs with some guns if they can get through that, unarmored, untrained civilians would be a push over
finally, some sense
And those would also be the same defences that those same plebs would be facing if/when they decide to overthrow their government. The best you can say about it is that it would be over fast.
You are under the false assumption that the military would be on the governments side. Coming from a military family, living in a town thats largest employer is a military base and having many many military friends, i can tell you that wouldn't be the case.
so...if it comes to that, leave it to the military, yes?
population's input would be irrelevant: the military would either be making the coup, or protecting the government from the arms bearing people trying to overthrow them.
in both scenarios, your privately owned guns have no reason to exist.
You are missing the point. IF something like that happened, the military would no longer be the military. They would be no different than the rest of us.
Ive actually had conversations about this with friends and family in the military and there would be only one option. No way they would go against their families, friends and fellow countrymen.
By Swag [929733]
Im not getting in to an argument about something totally unrelated to the thread. I shouldnt have commented on his remarks at all. Bottom line is i see the definition, i see whats happening and ive made my decision on what i believe is happening. You have your opinion and i have mine. I guess only time will tell.
I think Obama might be a socialist
or
Obama has a socialist agenda
your beliefs must not be mistaken with facts
Sorry. Im not 100% sure that Obama is socialist. I do however, believe that he is based on what i have heard him say and what i have seen.
see? so your fear that in his possible second term he will surely be taking away your rights to own a gun is based on your personal perception and has no actual facts supporting it.
Not if you follow the rules. It's human stupidity, kinda like you right now.
I'm sorry if you forgot to say that before, but not being able to read your mind doesn't make me stupid.
I only showed you a video of a trained person (from the police force) showing kids about gun safety and shooting himself.
besides, guns, like any other mechanisms, can fail and that can cause accidents.
so next are you going to say "if you follow the rules" AND the gun doesn't malfunction?
One of the rules is to keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction (toward the ground) so if it does malfunction you or someone else won't be shot. If you want to know more about safe firearms handling it's all over the internet...
By the way both of those videos were of handguns which I have fired once at a range. Basically I'm unfamiliar with the safety procedures, But I imagine they are much the same.
In NZ you need to go through a VERY long and expensive process to be a certified handgun owner. As well as the fact they are useless to me. I see no reason to own one, but I can understand people in other countries that want them.
Basically if you follow the rules / procedures properly it is impossible for someone to be shot. But dumb things do happen as you have shown.
By Swag [929733]
You are under the false assumption that the military would be on the governments side. Coming from a military family, living in a town thats largest employer is a military base and having many many military friends, i can tell you that wouldn't be the case.
so...if it comes to that, leave it to the military, yes?
population's input would be irrelevant: the military would either be making the coup, or protecting the government from the arms bearing people trying to overthrow them.
in both scenarios, your privately owned guns have no reason to exist.
You are missing the point. IF something like that happened, the military would no longer be the military. They would be no different than the rest of us.
Ive actually had conversations about this with friends and family in the military and there would be only one option. No way they would go against their families, friends and fellow countrymen.
right, they would no longer be the military. let's just overlook the part where they'd still have the training, the organization and the equipment.
my country has had a revolution started by the military, and that "No way they would go against their families, friends and fellow countrymen." did happen.
but none of that has anything to do with the reasoning behind general population being able to own guns.
All i can go off of is what ive heard military members say.
Im done debating, anti gun people have hijacked this thread enough and i wont feed it anymore. The thread is for gun enthusiast, not for people to bash people with guns.
Not if you follow the rules. It's human stupidity, kinda like you right now.
I'm sorry if you forgot to say that before, but not being able to read your mind doesn't make me stupid.
I only showed you a video of a trained person (from the police force) showing kids about gun safety and shooting himself.
besides, guns, like any other mechanisms, can fail and that can cause accidents.
so next are you going to say "if you follow the rules" AND the gun doesn't malfunction?
One of the rules is to keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction (toward the ground) so if it does malfunction you or someone else won't be shot. If you want to know more about safe firearms handling it's all over the internet...
By the way both of those videos were of handguns which I have fired once at a range. Basically I'm unfamiliar with the safety procedures, But I imagine they are much the same.
In NZ you need to go through a VERY long and expensive process to be a certified handgun owner. As well as the fact they are useless to me. I see no reason to own one, but I can understand people in other countries that want them.
Basically if you follow the rules / procedures properly it is impossible for someone to be shot. But dumb things do happen as you have shown.
even when pointed towards the ground there is a risk of ricochet.
and I didn't mean just being shot, there are other kinds of accidents.
By Swag [929733]
So which countries would be talking about in this here history lesson would we be talking about Neil? Im pretty sure that none of them are democratic countries where there soldiers are gathered by volunteering only. Enlighten me good sir.
Well, one of them would be America. Look up the Whiskey Rebellion. There are dozens of rebellions and insurrections every year that are brutally put down by their respective governments - take a look at the Arab Spring for a start. You'd be labelled as terrorists the moment a shot was fired in anger, and you would be put down mercilessly.
Claiming the right to own guns to keep the government afraid of you is a nonsense. They'd crush you in a heartbeat.
Well folks, thats it, I've left the game. To those of you who think of me as a friend, I thank you and wish you all the best. Enjoy the game, and take care.
Well that's why I said safe direction, because I knew you would say anything to try and refute what I said.
What are you talking about? primer failure? trapping your finger when closing the bolt? Most of those problems can be fixed with buying quality ammunition or checking ammunition prior to firing, when buying a car you check if it's mechanically fit don't you? maintain it? check the oil? same principle applies to firearms.
Be more specific then... there are lots of things that can go wrong, you specified the mechanism...
By Swag [929733]
So which countries would be talking about in this here history lesson would we be talking about Neil? Im pretty sure that none of them are democratic countries where there soldiers are gathered by volunteering only. Enlighten me good sir.
Well, one of them would be America. Look up the Whiskey Rebellion. There are dozens of rebellions and insurrections every year that are brutally put down by their respective governments - take a look at the Arab Spring for a start. You'd be labelled as terrorists the moment a shot was fired in anger, and you would be put down mercilessly.
Claiming the right to own guns to keep the government afraid of you is a nonsense. They'd crush you in a heartbeat.
For one, the Arab spring is nothing close to what we are talking about. First, those people werent volunteers, they were probably told your in MY military, (notice i didnt say the COUNRY'S military), or you die. These people are fighting for freedom, which is something we've had for him 200+ years. Theres a big difference in militarys when it comes to a country's and a militia that belongs to some dictator.
Like i said, ive had the conversation before and the general consensus is "f**k that, if that happened the military would no longer pull rank."
![Spurtung [96875]](http://awardimages.torn.com/96875-74581-large.png "Spurtung [96875]")
![Gogs247 [1531870]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1531870-9598-large.png "Gogs247 [1531870]")
![Hypocritical [1280905]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1280905-55599-large.png "Hypocritical [1280905]")
![Entropy [887804]](http://awardimages.torn.com/887804-61357-large.png "Entropy [887804]")
![Cyrax [249578]](http://awardimages.torn.com/249578-1693-large.png "Cyrax [249578]")
![TedThomas [887131]](http://awardimages.torn.com/887131-65195-large.png "TedThomas [887131]")
![Swag [929733]](http://awardimages.torn.com/929733-83272-large.png "Swag [929733]")
![BambinaDuckie [477368]](http://awardimages.torn.com/477368-50666-large.png "BambinaDuckie [477368]")
Follow @TornRPG