Guns

[FoolKiller]

I'm not disagreeing with that, however guns were designed to kill whereas chainsaws were designed to cut wood. You can hurt yourself or rather even kill yourself with a pencil.

Intended use is not a factor when the disastrous result comes from misuse. Avoiding unintended consequences are the goal of this forced training you wish to have, but based on the accidental death statistics Pako posted guns should be near the bottom of the list of concerns.

It's not my intention to lump all gun owners into the same category.

I didn't think it was, which is why I was telling you to be careful. I could see a badly worded phrase turn into a flame war fast.

I think if more gun owners followed a similar path as I follow then the Liberal left wouldn't be so opposed to gun ownership and make such a stink about it.

Seriously? You think the people that get pissy over collectors items with firing pins removed would be easily swayed by a regularly updated safety course certification?

And the only time I ever had a Tim Taylor moment was when I got my Sawzall and cut up the frame to my truck to lower it. I hurt myself in the process because I wasn't thinking., now I tend to have a lot more respect for my tools and what they can do...although accidents still happen.

MOAR POWAH!!!! I can powerslide my lawn mower when its damp.

Yes I think it justifies it. The refresher course could be a simple as taking a test to prove that you still understand those basics. If you are going to own something like a firearm, it shouldn't really bother you that you are being asked to prove you can handle it safely. Especially when proving that safety just reinforces that people should be allowed to own guns.

But if it is about safety, and not intentional killing, then why stop at guns? Why not go down those accidental deaths stats and assign courses + refreshers for all those things? If it is just about safety then those who complain are ill-informed and I shouldn't have to make personal sacrifices just because they are ignorant.

I don't have the answers on all the logistics of how to go about doing this, nor should one person be excepted to have all the answers. My idea would be to have people have a license similar to how your drivers license is, when you wish to renew it you take a quick refresher course and there you go you get your license.

But it can't be enforced the same as a car. In a car you are out and about and cops can see your tags and tell if you have renewed or not. Unless you have a gun on your hip they cannot just pick you up in day-to-day routine, they would have to come into your home.

You seemed to be a little offensed by the post I made, so allow me to apologize for any inconvenience 👍

Nope, no offense taken and no apology needed. I am just honestly trying to figure out where you have these crazy ideas that I can personally see aren't true.

I do have a prejudice when it comes to the US and guns. But this is only due to the information I have heard and seen on the internet, TV, books or whatnot (news stories about young men killing others in school).

Do not develop a bias because your local media is biased. If I did that in the US then I would be telling you that it is the video games that cause the violence, and I am sure that you can tell me right now that no amount of playing GTA or Halo will turn you into a killer. The rate of kids killing others is not any higher than it was years ago, but today we have media that can report it over the globe in an instant.

But school shootings only happen once every couple of years, and while guns are used that means nothing. If a sick person decided to kill someone they will kill them.

On that, I think the way of life between us is so different that I cannot imagine owning a firearm. I'd be afraid to shoot myself in the foot, hence why I think Joey made a good point of people required a basic training before purchasing a weapon.

Which is the problem. You don't know enough about firearms to know that half an ounce of intelligence can prevent this kind of thing. A properly working gun that hasn't been modified (although properly modified will still be safe) should not be going off for no reason whatsoever. Kids may have guns that "just go off" but that is because they don't realize what they are playing with, and they shouldn't have a gun at all.

I don't know if you Americans carry firearms at all times, but I can understand it would be normal since the risk of you getting attacked is much greater than here.

Um, just how dangerous do you think the US is? The majority of the population doesn't even own a gun, and a lot of those who do don't walk around with it on them.

As for the risk of getting attacked, I have no problems walking around at night without any protection (although I may argue my fists are weapons ). I do not feel at risk of being attacked when I am out in public.

Once again, apologies if I offended you in any way 👍 I will now retreat from this discussion and look deeper into the facts. Since I'm not American, I feel like a discussion like this is not a place for a Norwegian to be

No one is offended and you are welcome, but do keep in mind that your country has one of the lowest crime rates anywhere, but also that America is not just a bunch of people shooting each other in the streets. Most of us don't have guns and never have any intention of breaking the law.

There is a reason why it's the second one.

Because if the first one doesn't work the second one will.

 

[Omnis]

On that, I think the way of life between us is so different that I cannot imagine owning a firearm. I'd be afraid to shoot myself in the foot, hence why I think Joey made a good point of people required a basic training before purchasing a weapon. If I'd see someone on the streets with a weapon, I'd freak out myself. I don't know if you Americans carry firearms at all times, but I can understand it would be normal since the risk of you getting attacked is much greater than here.

I'm sure all gun owners are too. That's why gun owners are not reckless like the gun grabbers would make them out to be.

 

[Pako]

As far as shooting yourself in the foot, I bet you only do it once. Having the fear of shooting yourself in the foot should help keep you from shooting yourself in the foot because of your awareness. There are some real idiots out there, but you can't fix stupid nor should you take away the rights of good people because we have law brakers.

Just thought I should point out, young hunters are required to attend hunters safety. This can be up to a six week course on gun safety and hunting safety. A great course.

The biggest thing that is drilled into the kids is to respect the gun and be constantly aware of your surroundings. We really aren't a bunch of gun toating cowboys out here in the west.

 

[Joey D]

Most of the guns I shoot are designed for sport. Killing isn't even a secondary priority. You don't have to shoot people or animals; paper, pumpkins, random objects, they all work fine. I've done a lot a shooting, but have never killed or intended to kill anything with a single shot.

I think you missed what I was saying, guns were invented as a killing instrument and their main purpose is still for that. Yes there are hundreds of other uses, just like a pencil.

I haven't seen people get overly excited about guns either. I joined a shooting range in high school, and everyone from age 5 to 80 could be found shooting there. There was never a gun related injury, not even one, in the four years I shot at the range. Everyone there respected guns, there was no getting carried away in an adrenilne rush, as fun as it was to obliterate lines of targets down range.

You mean to tell me that when you go to the range you have zero excitement when you shoot? You've never had that urge to do better or make a more skilled shot? Or even have very focused concentration? I'm not saying just by picking up a gun makes all people turn into Yosemite Sam.

Yep, and that applies to everything beyond guns.

Yep, I never said it was solely applied to firearms either.

Seriously? You think the people that get pissy over collectors items with firing pins removed would be easily swayed by a regularly updated safety course certification?

I said they would make as much of a stink about it, I'm sure there will always be those who complain until guns are gone from society. I know quite a few left wing supporters who's sole reason they do not like guns in the US is that there isn't proper training that goes along with them. I have to imagine there are more people out there then the 5 I know like that who have a similar idea. I'm just trying to think of ways that will allow both sides to exist a bit more peacefully.

But if it is about safety, and not intentional killing, then why stop at guns? Why not go down those accidental deaths stats and assign courses + refreshers for all those things? If it is just about safety then those who complain are ill-informed and I shouldn't have to make personal sacrifices just because they are ignorant.

I support additional training for other unsafe things as well, mainly refresher courses for driving a car. As I've stated though, the main purpose of a gun is to kill whereas the main purpose of other things is not. This is why I have a stronger support of gun training, although I would like to see improved driver's training first.

But it can't be enforced the same as a car. In a car you are out and about and cops can see your tags and tell if you have renewed or not. Unless you have a gun on your hip they cannot just pick you up in day-to-day routine, they would have to come into your home.

You should be able to, these are just ideas but one could have to show their license in order to buy ammo or reserve a booth at a firing range. It's not fool proof but then again nothing ever is. Thousands of people get away with driving around without a license, insurance or proper tags on their number plates. It's just pitching and idea.

 

[FoolKiller]

I support additional training for other unsafe things as well, mainly refresher courses for driving a car. As I've stated though, the main purpose of a gun is to kill whereas the main purpose of other things is not. This is why I have a stronger support of gun training, although I would like to see improved driver's training first.

I'm not just talking about cars, I am talking about all kinds of things that can accidentally kill people. Looking at Pako's stats the only thing with repeated refreshers is Medical accidents, and those are still higher than accidental gun deaths. Poisons and noxious substances are high; let's make everyone have a license to take home Drain-O. Bleach? Safety course on not letting it near ammonia. Non-road vehicles are on there too. I am assuming that this means ATVs and farm equipment, but mowers and possibly bicycles may be on there too. But just going with ATVs and farm equipment; training with a refresher so you can round up your cattle. And don't forget that all these courses will of course come with a $30 fee and you can pay by credit card, but that will be an extra $25 convenience fee.

Then the main purpose of a gun does not play into this at all. Your training courses would not prevent any intentional homicides. They are designed to prevent accidents only. As such, you should only look at accidents to determine the necessity of safety training.


But in the end lets look at why we really require licensing for cars and none of these other things. And for this I will ignore the fact that it provides a convenient excuse to track your property taxes. Cars are used on public roads around multiple other people who mostly have zero relation to you. If you are not properly able to operate a motor vehicle on a road you put others at risk as much as yourself.

Evey other item on the accidental death list is to be used in a private setting for personal use only. For guns, if you want to carry in public you have to have a license given after taking a training course. But if your gun stays at home or is not handled during transport to a private shooting range/club you are only putting yourself and those who wish to be around you and your gun at risk.

Do you see the difference? If you want to have your gun on you in public we do make you do the same as a car, but if you keep it at home it is no more of a risk to the general public than an unlicensed car you keep in storage.

 

[Pako]

Good points, there is some error in your thinking though. There are a lot of hunters on public land that are over the age of 16 that are not required to be licensed or trained in any way to go busting through the woods shooting at anything that moves.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not just talking about cars, I am talking about all kinds of things that can accidentally kill people. Looking at Pako's stats the only thing with repeated refreshers is Medical accidents, and those are still higher than accidental gun deaths. Poisons and noxious substances are high; let's make everyone have a license to take home Drain-O. Bleach? Safety course on not letting it near ammonia. Non-road vehicles are on there too. I am assuming that this means ATVs and farm equipment, but mowers and possibly bicycles may be on there too. But just going with ATVs and farm equipment; training with a refresher so you can round up your cattle. And don't forget that all these courses will of course come with a $30 fee and you can pay by credit card, but that will be an extra $25 convenience fee.

I do agree there needs to have a line drawn somewhere, however I think firearms should be on the side the line which require training. I also believe you should have to have some sort of operator's license for things like farm equipment, ATV's, tractors, etc. Make it an endorsement on your driver's license, like you do with a motorcycle. Sure a lawn mower is going to far, but something like and ATV or a snowmobile? I can defiantly seeing where training might help cut down on the accidents.

Do you see the difference? If you want to have your gun on you in public we do make you do the same as a car, but if you keep it at home it is no more of a risk to the general public than an unlicensed car you keep in storage.

As far as I'm aware of it's pretty easy to get a concealed weapons permit if you do not have a criminal record. I believe in Michigan you take a very simple course, fill out some papers, get a background check, and pay a huge processing fee. Just because someone isn't a felon doesn't mean they aren't an idiot.

Also as Pako pointed out, you don't need any special permit to go romping through the woods during hunting season blasting away at anything furry or feathered. Yes I took a hunter's safety course when I turned 16, however it was a joke and basically was a 2 hour class that told you not to shoot at rustling in the bushes. In no way did it teach you how to overcome "buck fever" or the "thrill of the hunt", both of which can be very dangerous activities and lead to hunting accidents.

Even at a range you are in a public place, and I don't want the guy in the booth next to me to suddenly decide to open fire on other shooters. Either that or he could just as easily forget gun safety and accidently point a loaded gun at someone. I don't know him any better than I know a stranger on the street most of the time.

About the only way I can see not justifying increased training or some sort of license is if you are a collector who never fires their guns and keeps them on display with the firing mechanisms disabled. I know there are numerous people out there like that, my grandpa being one of them.

 

[FoolKiller]

Good points, there is some error in your thinking though. There are a lot of hunters on public land that are over the age of 16 that are not required to be licensed or trained in any way to go busting through the woods shooting at anything that moves.

Wait a second. You all have public (government owned) property that is open to hunting without any kind of license whatsoever? In KY there are game farms, but you are still required to be licensed. Heck you can't fish on a game farm without a license. They only time you can do any form of hunting or fishing without a license in KY is if you are on your own property, and for hunting you still have to buy tags for each kill.

But those licenses do not require safety courses. Even still, if you go to a public game farm you are aware of the situation and people aren't just roaming wherever in public with guns the same as they do with cars.

I do agree there needs to have a line drawn somewhere, however I think firearms should be on the side the line which require training.

Based on what? So far all I have gathered is because its intended use is killing, which is not affected by safety training. If we had larger numbers of accidental gun deaths you may be able to convince me but right now I see you promoting a law that is mostly unnecessary because statistics are showing people are much more careful with guns than other things. Just because it has a dangerous potential is not reason enough without the necessity behind it.

I also believe you should have to have some sort of operator's license for things like farm equipment, ATV's, tractors, etc.

Why? You are forcing personal safety.

Sure a lawn mower is going to far, but something like and ATV or a snowmobile? I can defiantly seeing where training might help cut down on the accidents.

No amount of trainings will prevent idiots from letting their kids piggyback on the back of a single seat vehicle or trying to imitate stunts seen on TV.

As far as I'm aware of it's pretty easy to get a concealed weapons permit if you do not have a criminal record. I believe in Michigan you take a very simple course, fill out some papers, get a background check, and pay a huge processing fee. Just because someone isn't a felon doesn't mean they aren't an idiot.

You also just described a car license, although when my dad got his concealed permit he had to attend multiple nights of a course, so he actually got more than he did for a car.

Also as Pako pointed out, you don't need any special permit to go romping through the woods during hunting season blasting away at anything furry or feathered.

See my response to him.

Yes I took a hunter's safety course when I turned 16, however it was a joke and basically was a 2 hour class that told you not to shoot at rustling in the bushes. In no way did it teach you how to overcome "buck fever" or the "thrill of the hunt", both of which can be very dangerous activities and lead to hunting accidents.

Can you truly have an affordable safety course that can effectively prevent a temporary psychological delusion? This goes beyond simple gun safety.

Even at a range you are in a public place,

I wish I could figure out how over the last 20 years we got to accepting public as not meaning government owned but anywhere people can gather. Unless the government owns that range it is a private business. This mass acceptance of the now common misuse of the term public is what has allowed government to gain more and more control over our daily lives and businesses.

and I don't want the guy in the booth next to me to suddenly decide to open fire on other shooters.

No training will prevent this.

Either that or he could just as easily forget gun safety and accidently point a loaded gun at someone. I don't know him any better than I know a stranger on the street most of the time.

If it is a respectable range you should be able to report him and have him removed.

 

[Pako]

Wait a second. You all have public (government owned) property that is open to hunting without any kind of license whatsoever? In KY there are game farms, but you are still required to be licensed. Heck you can't fish on a game farm without a license. They only time you can do any form of hunting or fishing without a license in KY is if you are on your own property, and for hunting you still have to buy tags for each kill.

*snip*

Yes and no. Yes we do have state land that we can hunt on. You have to have a hunting license but it's a over-the-counter purchase that requires no training certificate (if you are 16+ years of age) and are a resident of Montana. You have to buy a general conservation license then you buy individual licenses (tags) for each type of critter you are going to shoot. There are area specific restrictions on what you can hunt, but again..it's public land and if you are 16+ years of age, no safety or formal training is required. Responsible parents play a huge role in passing down safe hunting practices to their children and most of the kids around here have been going out with their parent(s) since they could walk. Guns are a way of life around here and I will tell you there will be some pissed off people if the government tries to take that lifestyle away.

Everything you could ever want to know about hunting regulations in Montana:
http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/default.html

 

[Exorcet]

I think you missed what I was saying, guns were invented as a killing instrument and their main purpose is still for that. Yes there are hundreds of other uses, just like a pencil.

No, a gun's main purpose isn't killing by default. If a pistol is a sport pistol, its main purpose is sport. Clubs were originally meant for killing/combat, a baseball bat is like a club. Is it a killing tool? Rockets engines, jet engines, and computers came from the military, they aren't labeled as deadly weapons. Blades were really great at killing people when they first appeared, and they're still good at it. Despite this, there a dozens in every house (knives) and in commercial use (farming, etc). You could even attack the iron that the blades are made out of. Iron was popular because it made your sword the better one, it later became the foundation for modern technology. The original purpose of guns in moot here because that purpose does not apply to all modern guns. Now of course there is the case of self defense with a gun, which could be very roughly equated with having lethal intent, but it is in self defense. I don't think there is anything wrong with harming someone trying to harm you. If guns should be illegal because they can harm someone, so should every other potentially harmful thing. From glass bottles to people's fists (If you're saying this is exaggerated, I'm just making a point).

You mean to tell me that when you go to the range you have zero excitement when you shoot? You've never had that urge to do better or make a more skilled shot? Or even have very focused concentration? I'm not saying just by picking up a gun makes all people turn into Yosemite Sam.

I haven't seen people get overly excited about guns either. I joined a shooting range in high school, and everyone from age 5 to 80 could be found shooting there. There was never a gun related injury, not even one, in the four years I shot at the range. Everyone there respected guns, there was no getting carried away in an adrenaline rush, as fun as it was to obliterate lines of targets down range.

Where did I say that? I just said that despite all the fun and getting pumped from shooting, people could maintain control. If someone wanted to harm someone else, I don't think he wouldn't get a [twisted] rush cutting the other guy up with hedge cutters.

Yep, I never said it was solely applied to firearms either.

Just about every gun owner I've ever talked to at least gets some sort of adrenalin flowing when they are shooting, because guns aren't exactly dull. There are always going to be those who take anything to far and I have a feeling that with guns there are quite a few that would.

Well technically, I never said that you said it applied only to fire arms. But you did seem to put emphasis on guns when you said what you said.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Armed citizens never deter crime... http://www.dosenation.com/listing.php?smlid=6229

 

[BayConRong]

... You know I'm now depressed because i live in Washington. Thanks Lifters. I'm glad there haven't been any robberies in my neighborhood. But it seems to me that your news article shows the exact opposite of your captioning there.

This whole thread reminds me of this book

Perhaps if there were more screening on who gets to own guns. You realize that in order to get a Visa you have to go through strict background checks and an interview? That's just to get a visa which holds no danger by itself but you have to go through almost nothing to get a concealed weapons permit.

 

[Solid Fro]

Beck knows:

 

[Keef]

Wow, I didn't realize there was heavy stuff like that floating around in the states. I think it's pretty cool that they're challenging the Federal government.

But, are state governments any more sane than at the top? Is this a true-to-Constitution movement, or is this simply a way to transfer all the power from the Feds to the States, so what the Feds are doing can be done on a State level?

 

[FoolKiller]

But, are state governments any more sane than at the top? Is this a true-to-Constitution movement, or is this simply a way to transfer all the power from the Feds to the States, so what the Feds are doing can be done on a State level?

I would say it is a mix. The citizens are making an honest Constitutional movement and a number of the politicians probably think they are too. But in the end you will likely see the same old BS on the state level because that is just the nature of government.

The thing is that you can't just not defend your rights because someone else will try the same thing later on. You can lose them now or have them to defend later.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Thinking about states...

Study: Most Liberal States Are Least Free

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 1:03 PM

By: Dave Eberhart Article Font Size



According to a new study released by the Mercatus Center of George Mason University, some of the most liberal U.S. states rank lowest when it comes to personal freedom.


The study, which calls itself the “first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres,” made a host of findings:



The freest states in the country are New Hampshire, Colorado, and South Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low taxes and government spending -- and middling levels of regulation and paternalism.



New York is the least overall free by a considerable margin, followed by New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, and Maryland.


Unfortunately, say the report authors, these freedom-disadvantaged states “make up a substantial portion of the total American population. Moreover, these bottom five states have considerable ground to make up even to move off this ignoble list, let alone into a creditable position in the rankings.”



When weighing personal freedom alone, Alaska is the clear winner, while Maryland brings up the rear.


Sarah Palin’s Alaska does extremely well on personal freedom, conclude study authors. Reasons for its high personal freedom alone score include: fully legalized possession of small amounts of marijuana (accomplished through a court ruling), the best (least restrictive) gun laws in the country, recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships, and possibly the best homeschooling laws in the country.



As for freedom in the different regions of the country, the Mountain and West North Central regions are the freest overall -- while the Middle Atlantic lags far behind on both economic and personal freedom.


There are real benefits to scoring high on economic and personal freedoms, conclude the study’s authors. Their analysis demonstrated that states enjoying more economic and personal freedom tend to attract substantially higher rates of internal net migration.


The Problem with Being Liberal


According to the study, previous research has shown that, as of 2006, Alabama and Mississippi were the most conservative states in the country, while New York and New Jersey were the most liberal. In the index put forth by the new study, Alabama and Mississippi fall in the middle, while New York and New Jersey are at the bottom.


“The problem is that the cultural values of liberal governments seem on balance to require more regulation of individual behavior than do the cultural values of conservative governments,” say the study’s authors. “While liberal states are freer than conservative states on marijuana and same-sex partnership policies, when it comes to gun owners, home schoolers, motorists, or smokers, liberal states are nanny states, while conservative states are more tolerant.”


Some Individual State Profiles



Illinois is one of the worst states to live in from a personal freedom perspective (#49). On economic freedom it is in the middle of the pack (#29). Illinois has the fourth harshest gun control laws in the country, after California, Maryland, and New York, and the state’s victimless crimes arrest rates are almost unfathomable: In 2006, more than 2 percent of the state’s population was arrested for a victimless crime (and that figure does not count under-18s). Nearly one-third of all arrests were for victimless crimes.



Texas (#7 economic, #5 personal, #5 overall) has one of the smallest state governments in the country. As a percentage of corrected GSP, Texas has the second lowest tax burden in the country and the third lowest grants-adjusted government spending. However, government employment is a standard deviation higher than the national average. Gun control is better than average, but the state falls short on open-carry laws, stricter-than-federal minimum age for purchase rules, and dealer licensing.

Alcohol is less regulated than in most other states, and taxes are low. Low-level marijuana cultivation is a misdemeanor, but otherwise marijuana laws are very harsh.



Colorado, the #2 state, achieved its ranking through excellent fiscal numbers and above-average numbers on regulation and paternalism. The state is the most fiscally decentralized in the country, with localities raising fully 44.5 percent of all state and local expenditures. By percentage of adjusted GSP, Colorado has the third lowest tax burden in the country, surpassed only by Tennessee and Texas. It has resisted the temptation of “sin taxes,” with low rates on beer, wine, spirits, and cigarettes. On the other hand, Colorado’s smoking bans are among the most extreme in the country, with no exceptions or local option for any locations other than workplaces. Colorado is 1 of 12 states to have decriminalized low-level marijuana possession.



Oregon (#36 economic, #7 personal, #27 overall) is the freest Pacific state. Oddly, government spending is high but taxes are low, resulting in rather high state debt. Public safety and administration look particularly ripe for cutting. Gun control laws are

about average. Marijuana possession is decriminalized below a certain level, and there is medical marijuana (cultivation and sale are felonies, though). Oregon is one of the few states to refuse to authorize sobriety checkpoints. Oregon is the only state to permit physician-assisted suicide. Private and home school regulations are quite reasonable. State land use planning is far advanced. The minimum wage is the highest in the country when adjusted for average wages.



The study touts that it improves on prior attempts to score economic freedom for American states in three primary ways: (1) it includes measures of social and personal freedoms such as peaceable citizens’ rights to educate their own children, own and carry firearms, and be free from unreasonable search and seizure; (2) it includes far more variables, even on economic policies alone, than prior studies, and there are no missing data on any variable; and (3) it uses new, more accurate measurements of key variables, particularly state fiscal policies.


“We develop and justify our ratings and aggregation procedure on explicitly normative criteria, defining individual freedom as the ability to dispose of one’s own life, liberty, and justly acquired property however one sees fit, so long as one does not coercively infringe on another individual’s ability to do the same,” note the authors.


© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

My dad once told me something and it's stuck with me. "If you outlaw guns, then the only one with guns are outlaws." Of-course thats where our gun ideas end. He is not happy with some of my guns, as the media puts it, my assault rifles. He doesn't see the reason to own these type of weapons. But he, as responsible taxpayer and a loving father, has never tried to take them from me, so why should the government. The Constitution is not a buffet, where you pick what you want, it is more of a entree, where you take what you get. A violation of one right, opens the doors for all rights. As for education, as someone has already stated, you can't cure stupid. I don't need the Man to teach me to lock my guns, treat them like they're loaded or only shoot what you are shooting while making sure you don't hit anything behind your target. If anything, gun accidents are natures way of weeding out bad seeds. As for guns don't deter violence, explain why Japan did not take ground war to the United States homeland in WWII. They knew American civilians were pack'n.

 

[FoolKiller]

My dad once told me something and it's stuck with me. "If you outlaw guns, then the only one with guns are outlaws." Of-course thats where our gun ideas end. He is not happy with some of my guns, as the media puts it, my assault rifles. He doesn't see the reason to own these type of weapons.

Turn his statement around on him.

If the government outlaws assault rifles then the only one with assault riflles are the government.

 

[Exorcet]

"If you outlaw guns, then the only one with guns are outlaws."

Is that a good thing?

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

Is that a good thing?

Huh? In my opinion, no. Like I said, that is the only thing, about guns, that we see eye to eye on.

 

[Solid Fro]

Turn his statement around on him.

If the government outlaws assault rifles then the only one with assault riflles are the government.

That's why I have a strange fascination for AR type weapons. If its good enough for the United States Army, then it's good enough for me.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

As for guns don't deter violence, explain why Japan did not take ground war to the United States homeland in WWII. They knew American civilians were pack'n.

Or they were already spread thin in china and were advancing into southeast asia.

Or, they didn't have the capacity to move supplies and troops all the way across the pacific.

 

[Joel]

Well, to offer a Canadian perspective, I have grown up around guns, and i will explain the system here in Canada. First off, to recieve your "gun licence" which is commonly known as an FAC (firearm acquisition certificate) or PAL (possession and acquisition licence), you must first take a course, followed by an exam, and the younest you can be is 12. no, you can not buy or legally own a gun at 12 (18 is the minimum) at 12 with a firearms course completed you can take a hunter safety course and from 12-14 you can hunt with someone over 18 with the courses done, however, you can only have one gun between the two people. at 15, you still huntoff
the adult's tag, but can carry your own gun. and at 18 you have full privileges to hunt on your own. i guess i should mention the classification system. The very first course you take for firearms is the non-restricted course. This category covers your basic shotguns and rifles for sporting or hunting purposes. later on, you can take the optional restricted course, which for most people is the handgun course. If you go further, you can take a prohibited course, and this covers all of your assault rifles, short (very short) barreled pistols, etc.

 

[dranddad]

I vote for the top one, but then again nobody should have weapons, I tell you why, if you have a weapon, gun, knife, rocket, missile atomic bomb, don’t matter what it is, at some point or other you are going to use it, its not the weapon that is the dangerous thing its we humans, we are the most dangerous animal on the planet, we are the only ones that will kill for sport, we are the only ones that will kill for curiosity, we are the only animal that kills countries, as you have something I want and lastly, we are the only sadistic animals that will enter a school full of kids age 7, 8, ,9, 10 and kill as many as we can before killing our selves. So should we have weapons, would you allow any animal this right, or would you also think twice before giving the most dangerous animal on the planet a weapon.

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

I vote for the top one, but then again nobody should have weapons, I tell you why, if you have a weapon, gun, knife, rocket, missile atomic bomb, don’t matter what it is, at some point or other you are going to use it, its not the weapon that is the dangerous thing its we humans, we are the most dangerous animal on the planet, we are the only ones that will kill for sport, we are the only ones that will kill for curiosity, we are the only animal that kills countries, as you have something I want and lastly, we are the only sadistic animals that will enter a school full of kids age 7, 8, ,9, 10 and kill as many as we can before killing our selves. So should we have weapons, would you allow any animal this right, or would you also think twice before giving the most dangerous animal on the planet a weapon.

Dude, your way off. Dolphins kill, kidnap, and rape for sport. Some monkeys are so territorial, that they'll rip the testicles off an intruding monkey. I own several guns, and have yet had any thoughts of violence.

 

[dranddad]

Dude, your way off. Dolphins kill, kidnap, and rape for sport. Some monkeys are so territorial, that they'll rip the testicles off an intruding monkey. I own several guns, and have yet had any thoughts of violence.

The question is do they use Guns. you only have to look back at history to see where we have come from and where we are heading. There is not a year that goes by, that you don’t hear in the news of another war, drive by shooting, young boy stabbed to death

It was just my opinion in the pole and why I selected the first option; there was no need to attack me like that saying I’m way off

Dude you'll find I am never far off, I didn’t say you had violent thoughts, I said we are the most dangerous animal on the planet, you make referents to a how dangerous a monkey is, would you put an AK47 in the hands of a monkey and show him how to pull the trigger.

I’ll not say anymore in this opinion poll, that was the option and why I chose it, if you don’t like it you just have to live with, same as I have to live with people owning guns, which I have never owned, but thanks for your reply. 👍

 

[Solid Fro]

I vote for the top one, but then again nobody should have weapons, I tell you why, if you have a weapon, gun, knife, rocket, missile atomic bomb, don’t matter what it is, at some point or other you are going to use it, its not the weapon that is the dangerous thing its we humans, we are the most dangerous animal on the planet, we are the only ones that will kill for sport, we are the only ones that will kill for curiosity, we are the only animal that kills countries, as you have something I want and lastly, we are the only sadistic animals that will enter a school full of kids age 7, 8, ,9, 10 and kill as many as we can before killing our selves. So should we have weapons, would you allow any animal this right, or would you also think twice before giving the most dangerous animal on the planet a weapon.

You should read up on this British chap named John:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

I'll make sure I keep a spare gun around just to protect you... from those nasty dangerous fluffy animals.

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

Sorry, I shouldn't have attacked you like that, the thing that got my riled up was this comment.

I tell you why, if you have a weapon, gun, knife, rocket, missile atomic bomb, don’t matter what it is, at some point or other you are going to use it,

It appeared to me that you listened to too much liberal media hype, that guns are bad and so are gun owners.

I have to say, IMO, that we humans are not the most violent creatures, we just made tools to make death easier.

 

[FoolKiller]

It was just my opinion in the pole and why I selected the first option; there was no need to attack me like that saying I’m way off

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

I’ll not say anymore in this opinion poll, that was the option and why I chose it, if you don’t like it you just have to live with, same as I have to live with people owning guns, which I have never owned, but thanks for your reply. 👍

Well, I was going to discuss morality and rights with you, but I see you are just a drive-by opinionator. You apparently don't care if people agree or disagree, and even though you feel strongly enough to discuss a topic you do not feel strongly enough to convince people who disagree that you may be right.


It never ceases to amaze me that people will wander willingly into the Opinions forum, find a thread topic they have an opinion about, fail to notice that the thread has been an ongoing debate for six years, and act as if they got attacked because they entered into that debate and were debated.

 

[dranddad]

Well I see you would like me to respond, you talk of morality and rights.

Quote
“Well, I was going to discuss morality and rights with you, but I see you are just a drive-by opinionator. You apparently don't care if people agree or disagree, and even though you feel strongly enough to discuss a topic you do not feel strongly enough to convince people who disagree that you may be right”.

But this is not on topic, but as you are so hell bent on just attacking and trying to pick holes in what I said, try this.

As I have been shot with a riffle by a civilian I still have the scare from the 5 hour operation to prove it, then ask me again, do I support complete illegality of civilian ownership. Then the answer has to be yes, this guy was caught and went to jail for 5 or 7 years.

I’m sure 90% of you have never been shot, so who gives you the right to talk morality and rights to me.

So please if your going to reply, make sure you stay on topic, there is no need for comments like this.

I'll make sure I keep a spare gun around just to protect you... from those nasty dangerous fluffy animals.

It appeared to me that you listened to too much liberal media hype, that guns are bad and so are gun owners.

Which I made no references to at all

And I do so apologies to all members and moderators for this reply.