Guns

[Swagger897]

Does anybody know the name of the model of this double barrel shotgun?
View attachment 108150

Nobody really knows... Tried to search the net but haven't fond an expense form for the movie

 

[BobK]

I can only really see this happening if everyone just stood still and watched the shooter. On the other hand, if everyone else had a one shot kill on the shooter, his spree would probably end faster.

The problem is, these shooting sprees almost always occur in gun-free zones so nobody's going to be shooting back. And the perps know this.

 

[Joel]

So, there is responsible people only in the United States, Switzerland and in some rogues States? That is not a lot of responsible people out there.

United States, Switzerland, and rogue states like Finland, Germany, Austria, France, Norway, Sweden, Canada...

So where do I fit? I'm a Canadian who was born in Halifax and grew up in Ontario. When I was 13, I got a shotgun for Christmas. I often went trap or skeet shooting, and regularly went hunting growing up. Am I a deep and deranged moron? Shockingly, I've never once shot or ever thought about pointing a gun at someone, crazy I know but somehow I've managed to avoid murdering people.

Something tells me you don't know the first thing about Canada's gun laws, let alone American ones. If you knew them, you'd know that most of the terrifying "assault rifles" the media likes to fear monger about are legal in Canada. You'd also know that there's an extensive gun culture in Canada (13th in the world in guns per person, with over 10 million guns in the country), and outside of the cities gun ownership and hunting is quite common. You'd also know that our gun laws are rife with inconsistencies that render them to be not much more than smoke and mirrors.

Don't be the annoying Canadian who brings every argument back to health care and this idea that America is the wild west. It's about as dumb a stereotype as the whole living in igloos and riding polar bears thing. It ignores the real issues, don't get transfixed by school shootings, the reason the US has a massive gun crime rate is gang related violence. Taking guns from Bubba's ranch isn't going to stop criminals in Chicago who are using guns which are already illegal. So tell me how disarming law abiding Americans is going to get gang members to turn in their guns which are already against the law?

 

[fredyellowone]

Wall of text

I have nothing against people hunting deers or collecting firearms that are well protected under cabinets made for that purpose. That being said, no, Canada does not allow citizens to get handguns for their own personal defense. And lastly, just wow. Little boy got a shotgun when he was 13? A tool that can kill when he was 13, while it's impossible to drink before 18 or drive before 16?

Yes, that's very irresponsible.

OR should I tell you : "Wow, you are so cool! You are my hero!"

 

[Famine]

And lastly, just wow. Little boy got a shotgun when he was 13? A tool that can kill when he was 13, while it's impossible to drink before 18 or drive before 16?

Yes, that's very irresponsible.

OR should I tell you : "Wow, you are so cool! You are my hero!"

What's the minimum age for eating with cutlery in Canada?

 

[Badasp5.0]

SNIP

As for the Second Amendment, only deep and deranged morons are going to think that guns will help you fight against whatever fascist governement would be elected, with some M16, Smith & Wesson revolvers, and a handful of grenades (And Bushmaster rifles or whatever); against any modern Occidental army, packed with f-22 raptors, tanks, cruise missile, destroyers, M 240 machine guns, bombs, AC-130 and Pave Low's.

Please give us some more insight on how technology is a instant defeat to a insurgency? Please explain your experience with Real world COIN operations or are you just talking about it since you played Call of Duty?

You never answered my question.

 

[Azuremen]

I have nothing against people hunting deers or collecting firearms that are well protected under cabinets made for that purpose. That being said, no, Canada does not allow citizens to get handguns for their own personal defense. And lastly, just wow. Little boy got a shotgun when he was 13? A tool that can kill when he was 13, while it's impossible to drink before 18 or drive before 16?

Yes, that's very irresponsible.

OR should I tell you : "Wow, you are so cool! You are my hero!"

I started shooting when I was 4. I never killed or shot anyone to date. Interestingly, because I was properly educated on handling firearms at a young age, I've noticed I treat them with considerably more respect than most people that view them as wildly dangerous and irresponsible to have youth handle. Basically, most adults don't understand how to handle guns properly because they have no experience - age doesn't magically make people more responsible.

Crazy, right?

Also, the plural of deer is deer.

And pretty sure many people drank before turning 18 or have operated a vehicle before being 16. Pretty certain most of those kids didn't instantly die or become anarchists. But heaven forbid such irresponsible behavior, report such thought crimes.

 

[Beeker1972]

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

I think this a fake quote from Isoroku Yamamoto, but it fits ...

 

[Joel]

I have nothing against people hunting deers or collecting firearms that are well protected under cabinets made for that purpose. That being said, no, Canada does not allow citizens to get handguns for their own personal defense. And lastly, just wow. Little boy got a shotgun when he was 13? A tool that can kill when he was 13, while it's impossible to drink before 18 or drive before 16?

Yes, that's very irresponsible.

OR should I tell you : "Wow, you are so cool! You are my hero!"

Well first, if you're distilling what I said down to a wall of text then I don't know how you expect to have a discussion. It was 3 paragraphs, not a manifesto.

And once again, you demonstrate don't know much about Canada's gun culture or laws, while trying to say it's superior to the US. You can legally get a gun license at the age of 12 (can't purchase until 18), and can hunt at 12. People regularly get their gun and hunting licenses at 12, it's nothing out of the ordinary or particularly dangerous. You'd think if it was dangerous it would have shown up in the statistics by now, but that's clearly not the case.

I don't know if you'd have been different, but when I was 13 I certainly wasn't irresponsible with guns, I grew up around them and knew how to handle them properly. I went through all the legal processes and passed the same tests (both practical and written) as any grown adult would have had to. I've never once in my life pointed a gun at anything other than a rabbit or a clay pigeon, yet it was dangerously irresponsible?

It's a hobby that I do with my dad, if my dad was a chef and bought me a 7" chef's knife so I could learn how to cook with him, would that be irresponsible? Why not?

 

[fredyellowone]

Some text, without being a manifesto

I honestly didn't know that one could get a gun license at the age of 12. I thank you for that precision. That being said, I assure you, I think that is utterly moronic. But that's not the point. The point is that in Canada, we can't use handguns the way they are in the United States. We cannot get them as easily. And that's a very good thing.

@Azuremen Started shooting at the age of 4? Yay! You sir, are my new hero! I hope you will do the same with your childs, Mr Deer (without an "S"), because 4 seems to be a little bit old. I think someone responsible enough should arm to the theet every child that is around 2 years old.

And not with those little '38! Only the best! Colt Python and WA2000!

 

[a6m5]

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

I think this a fake quote from Isoroku Yamamoto, but it fits ...

I'd believe it. He was one of the greatest military leader we ever had, and noted for fighting the Imperial Army brass against going to war with the United States. He was Navy, and he sure made Tojo(Army) look like an idiot in retrospect.

 

[FoolKiller]

And lastly, just wow. Little boy got a shotgun when he was 13? A tool that can kill when he was 13, while it's impossible to drink before 18 or drive before 16?

Yes, that's very irresponsible.

Between Boy Scouts, 4-H, and Conservation Camp I spent nearly every summer up to 12 learning outdoorsy skills, like safely handling and using a gun and bow and arrow. The gun instructors were law enforcement and/or former military. In fact, Kentucky Conservation Camp is run by the state government. Strange, those officially trained in firearms safety as a career felt it smart to teach children proper weapon safety in handling and usage.

As for your Bible Belt rant: Maybe try visiting us before making broad, ignorant, rude, and offensive stereotypical generalizations. You don't hear me making stereotyped comments about Canadians who don't agree with me about guns, or suggesting we purge them, do you, eh?

 

[Danoff]

I believe I was 11 or 12 when I first shot a gun with the Boy Scouts. We were well trained and supervised - nobody was going to get hurt.

Handguns are only a problem in the US among people who own and use them illegally in the first place.

 

[Joel]

I honestly didn't know that one could get a gun license at the age of 12. I thank you for that precision. That being said, I assure you, I think that is utterly moronic.

Why? The law has been this way for years and years, what it entails is going to a 8 hour class (or two 4 hr. classes) where you are taught in depth on all relevant legislation and safe practices with shotguns and rifles. You sit an exam and must pass with an 80%, as well as handle a rifle or shotgun and demonstrate to the federally approved examiners that you can safely load, unload, handle, lock, and carry a firearm. I did all of this and passed all the same tests that any adult would have had to pass before I ever laid hands on a gun, why is it "utterly moronic" that I could then use a gun under parental supervision at a shooting range or hunting (which also involves another course and test to be licensed)? The difference between guns and driving is that at 12 you have the mental capacity to safely handle a gun while supervised. Driving is different, you don't have the spacial recognition to evaluate road conditions at high speeds when you're 12. But you can certainly understand "don't point it at anything you don't want to shoot".

It's not just open season, my parents didn't hand me a gun on Christmas morning and drop me off in the woods the next day, the gun was locked up and my parents had the key, and the ammunition was locked in a separate box which was also locked (this is the way guns must be stored legally). I went hunting or sport shooting with my dad, and it was important that I had my own gun because I was 13 and couldn't handle the weight or recoil of the shotgun my dad bought when he was 20. It was safer for me to carry a gun which was of the appropriate size, weight, and power for someone my age instead of a bigger gun which I couldn't handle.

But that's not the point. The point is that in Canada, we can't use handguns the way they are in the United States. We cannot get them as easily. And that's a very good thing.

You're right, handguns are more tightly controlled (but what does that matter to gang members already selling illegal drugs?). The point of my posts is that the gun culture of the US and Canada is not all that different. If you go to a shooting range in either country, you'll find a group of people discussing the same sorts of things and doing the same sorts of things, shooting the same kinds of guns, including the infamous AR-15 and variants.

These people are not the problem. They exist in both countries, but only in one country is there a gun violence problem. The problem is gang violence with illegal handguns, gun enthusiasts by and large don't commit crimes with their sporting guns, here is some data about what kind of weapons were used in murders in the US. You are more likely to be beat to death by someone's fists than killed with a shotgun or rifle. Knives are nearly 3 times as common a murder weapon as rifles or shotguns. Yet the media demonizes "assault rifles" as the ones to be controlled. Why?

The reality is the landscape isn't all that different without inner city gang violence. Cities like LA and Chicago regularly have more murders in a year than in the entirety of Canada. Compare the murder rate in Chicago and Toronto, they're not even remotely the same and it has nothing to do with hunters, gun clubs, or 12 year olds. These cities already have very tight laws on guns, all the handguns used to commit murders in these cities are already illegal, but the solution is to take guns away from law abiding citizens?

 

[Azuremen]

@Azuremen Started shooting at the age of 4? Yay! You sir, are my new hero! I hope you will do the same with your childs, Mr Deer (without an "S"), because 4 seems to be a little bit old. I think someone responsible enough should arm to the theet every child that is around 2 years old.

And not with those little '38! Only the best! Colt Python and WA2000!

Well 2 is a bit you...

Oh, sarcasm. Because that's original and witty.

 

[XS]

Amidst the new shootings everywhere (mainly here in America) I'll just say this, I like guns, a lot. But I would gladly give mine up if it meant even a 20% reduction in gun violence. Hell, if it mean just a few more people a year wouldn't become victims. I don't know if any law could ever accomplish that, but should one arise, I'd give 'em up for the greater good. Not here to argue or say who's right or wrong, just want to toss a couple cents in.

 

[Swagger897]

Between Boy Scouts, 4-H, and Conservation Camp I spent nearly every summer up to 12 learning outdoorsy skills, like safely handling and using a gun and bow and arrow. The gun instructors were law enforcement and/or former military. In fact, Kentucky Conservation Camp is run by the state government. Strange, those officially trained in firearms safety as a career felt it smart to teach children proper weapon safety in handling and usage.

As for your Bible Belt rant: Maybe try visiting us before making broad, ignorant, rude, and offensive stereotypical generalizations. You don't hear me making stereotyped comments about Canadians who don't agree with me about guns, or suggesting we purge them, do you, eh?

Hehe....

But seriously... If only people today could realize that scouting isn't a place to have your sons molested by freak leaders. I too went through the same as you described, being an Eagle Scout myself, scouting influenced me a lot. Not by the adults, not by my friends, and not by the places or activities I did. It merely exposed me to other opportunities out there, in fact, 121 different ones. Without scouts, I'm not sure if I wouldn't want to be a meteorologist, an engineer, or some scientific researcher which appeals to me, that I first handed experienced through scouts.

Sure some can't afford it because average it costs $3,000 for one kid from 12-18, but you will reap the benefits from the card below...

On the guns part, we are allowed only .22 bolt actions, hand loaded (not ammunition but the process of loading) ammo at the age of 12, and black powder .30-.50 at 14 I believe. .20 pump at 14 as well. We are all instructed by NRA qualified instructors who undergo training every year to keep qualification. Being a scout and to obtain the rifle merit badge, everyone goes through all the same certification as the adults, but not the range ops certification.

Unfortunately, Boy Scouts is being hurt badly now by these knee jerk reactions, because since only .22 are allowed, and how it is the most wanted ammunition now, troops can't afford to teach the merit badge, or summer camps have to close ranges.. That means a merit badge will be not taught, or a discouraged scout who will quit because he couldn't get what he wants, and his parents have no bearings for him so they say whatever.. This leads to what we experience now in today's world, mass shooting because people were not instilled in proper uses of a rifle. And how to safely use them.

In my 7 service years in Boy Scouts alone, I have only come across one scout who shot at a person, whom it was himself due to bullying at school, which he was a part of JROTC. It was a very sad day for all of us to here this, because his dad is part of the Air Force. However, even worse, the weapon caused only blinding damage. He didn't use it against those who attacked him, but himself. He knew the serious litigations that would follow, because using a stone against words will outweigh the consequences. There are many other things that we should deal with, other than gun control, that should be addressed for the world. Cyber bullying right now should be top priority, if we are looking at some system that is broken or even non existent. Saying we (Americans) should reform the Constitution or Bill of Rights because they are out dated is a joke. That's no different than saying the Magna Carta never meant anything in the first place...

It will be the ignorant, irresponsible, and reckless ones who will be the troublemakers. Someone will influence someone else, and wallah a revelation sweeping across a nation amongst the gullible who can't figure out how to tie their shoes will be swept off their feet and taken cared for.. Ohh wait, that already happened, and you know what the cost was? 20 million Russian civilians lives. We don't need history repeating itself, so why bother going backwards, taking away, than actually giving more to each other..?

 

[fredyellowone]

Well 2 is a bit you...

Oh, sarcasm. Because that's original and witty.

Being a grammar nazi is also really original and witty

Edit : As much as using Stalin to justify guns.

 

[Azuremen]

Being a grammar nazi is also really original and witty

Edit : As much as using Stalin to justify guns.

I felt being a pedant was appropriate given your snide attitude and tendency to talk down to everyone that seems at odds with your opinion. An opinion that seems heavily built on assumptions and attacking the person rather than the point, pulling at contrived hypothetical situations, and ignoring rationally presented information that is contrary.

By all means, continue to play these cards as they do your stance no favors.

 

[FoolKiller]

@Swagger897 Eagle Scout? Nice. After Cub Scouts I went to computer camp at a local university and then Space Camp. I guess I decided at some point that being a kid learning how to shoot guns was trumped by learning to program video games and be an astronaut (if you thought gun use was moronic for a teenager...).

After all that I finished my final two years of summer in high school (as a counselor the second year) at a place no one would believe because it would destroy Bible Belt stereotypes. Guess who was the only person there who knew how to start the campfire, though.

Even then my parents had guns and my dad had me practice with them on a regular basis. A small .22 revolver, a 20 gauge shotgun, and an old musket that I only saw fired once. Mainly my dad kept them around to run off pests, since we had 14 acres of woodland. He had rock salt loaded shells for that. But my dad does have a conceal carry permit. Never seen when he is carrying, but I know he has the permit.

 

[Crash]

Conditions yes, but I'm sure many people in the US have a license and carry one around in public (am I right?), something which you can't do over here...

No, you are wrong. A quick read on Wikipedia and a quick calculation would show you that's not the case. Florida had ~850,000 concealed carry license holders out of a population of ~19 million people. That's less than 4.5% of the population. Likewise, the Government Accountability Office estimates that there are ~8 million concealed carry licenses active nationwide at the end of 2011, out of a population of ~313 million people at the same time. That's ~2.6% of the US population with a concealed carry license. No matter how you slice it or dice it, it's only a small faction of the population that concealed carries, and not as many as you think.

Not to mention that some people hold concealed carry licenses for reasons other than to carry in public, as some states grant reprieves from pistol purchasing waiting periods to concealed carry license holders.

Guns are useless. People don't need guns. (With the exception of military and police. And in those two case, it's because those people are agents of the State, and the first and main characteristic of any State is it's monopoly on violence - thanks to Max Weber, BTW.)

If the people don't have guns, then why does the police or military need guns? By banning guns, all guns are obviously going to disappear, so police and military wouldn't need it.

Only lunatics are thinking that they can and will protect their family with guns.

So how do you protect you and your family then? Or would you just prefer to let your family get raped and murdered?

fixing the inequities that is driving some Americans to live on palaces while another big bunch of the population is starving with unemployment, unable to afford medical care and/or decent lifestyle; all in the name of savage capitalism and that moronic protestantism doctrine that teach you that to be a good man and close to God, you have to be as rich as possible.

Not a topic for this thread, I will however, allow you to pay for all my expenses though. You seem to like giving your money away so that everyone is "equal".

Here, how about this. Why don't you find a few homeless people in your city or area and donate all your money every year to them so that they aren't starving? Why don't you help contribute to "fixing the inequities"?

At least, stupidity can be fixed right?

You should ask yourself this question.

We would also have to purge the Bible Belt from it's almost inalienable foolish state. No kidding, that "belt" is home of the most radical people in the United States.

What ignorant, offensive and rude stereotypes about the South. I don't agree with a lot of things going on and I make a lot of jokes about the South, and even I found this offensive.

I don't even know why you're talking anyways. Canada should just purge Quebec from it's almost inalienable foolish state. No kidding, that "province" is home of the most radical people in Canada. With Quebec sucking on the rest of Canada's teet yet still manages to moan and complain all the time and make the rest of the country accommodate their minority.

Look! I can make broad, sweeping and offensive stereotypes too!

Well maybe stupidy can't be fixed, after all.

I'm glad you've came to that conclusion.

Well i live in a society where they aren't really part of our culture, my dad had one (he was a cop), but the older i got; the more examples i saw of the bad they can do; in wars and conflicts; in shooting sprees... the millions and millions of people that died because of them. IMO this vastly outweighs the good that can come from them from target practice.

The fundamental point is that even if guns are banned, criminals (who by definition does not abide by laws) will still have them. Therefore, rather than putting non-criminals at a disadvantage, allow non-criminals and law-abiding folks to defend themselves.

The only way that banning guns would work would be if you simultaneously managed to destroy all guns in the world AND managed to uninvent guns, so that no one in the world has the capability of designing a tool that hurls a projectile.

Good luck with that last one.

Also i do not support hunting if not for the sole purpose of putting food on the table. God created life in all it's forms, who are we to end it just for the **** of it?

Are you a vegetarian? And that is a serious question.

When a madman enters a school and kills defenseless innocent children, it is only normal people are vocal to ban them outright.

All knives should be banned then (yes, your dinner knife will be included in the ban).

If i'm not mistaken that is exactly what happened for the Sandy Hook shooting as he got the guns of his mom no?

Lanza stole his mom's guns after murdering her. She didn't just give it to him.

 

[mister dog]

Amidst the new shootings everywhere (mainly here in America) I'll just say this, I like guns, a lot. But I would gladly give mine up if it meant even a 20% reduction in gun violence. Hell, if it mean just a few more people a year wouldn't become victims. I don't know if any law could ever accomplish that, but should one arise, I'd give 'em up for the greater good. Not here to argue or say who's right or wrong, just want to toss a couple cents in.

Amidst the back and forth flaming gun supporters vs gun opposers; i find this statement of XS quite refreshing. I wonder how the rest of you in this thread think about this? Would you be willing to give up your guns if it meant this would be for the greater good? And please don't reply that a law like that wouldn't be possible etcetera, just give us a straight yes or no.

No, you are wrong. A quick read on Wikipedia and a quick calculation would show you that's not the case. Florida had ~850,000 concealed carry license holders out of a population of ~19 million people. That's less than 4.5% of the population. Likewise, the Government Accountability Office estimates that there are ~8 million concealed carry licenses active nationwide at the end of 2011, out of a population of ~313 million people at the same time. That's ~2.6% of the US population with a concealed carry license. No matter how you slice it or dice it, it's only a small faction of the population that concealed carries, and not as many as you think.

Not to mention that some people hold concealed carry licenses for reasons other than to carry in public, as some states grant reprieves from pistol purchasing waiting periods to concealed carry license holders.

It would be nice if there would be only 8 million guns in private ownership in the US like that; but the truth is a bit more drastic to say the least:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828

(Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

"There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people," it said.

The fundamental point is that even if guns are banned, criminals (who by definition does not abide by laws) will still have them. Therefore, rather than putting non-criminals at a disadvantage, allow non-criminals and law-abiding folks to defend themselves.

Well you can compare that a bit to the situation here in Europe as almost none of us has guns. Criminality will always be there and it needs to be countered by the police but that's another discussion. On the other hand all those guns in the US do not prevent criminality neither no?

The only way that banning guns would work would be if you simultaneously managed to destroy all guns in the world AND managed to uninvent guns, so that no one in the world has the capability of designing a tool that hurls a projectile.

They don't need to be banned outright; in the case of the US they need to be controlled a lot more. Let's say start with only one gun per adult, no machine guns allowed etcetera that would help a great deal IMO.

Are you a vegetarian? And that is a serious question.

Nope but i did say i supported hunting for the purpose of food, not for "sport".

All knives should be banned then (yes, your dinner knife will be included in the ban).

And cars, and rocks, and plastic bags, and cords. This is a bit besides the point if you ask me

Lanza stole his mom's guns after murdering her. She didn't just give it to him.

Point is he got to her guns (machine guns included) in the end; the matter how he did it is not really relevant. If his mom or close relationships wouldn't have had guns in the first place there's a good chance those poor kids in Sandy Hook would have still been alive today.

 

[Zenith]

@mister dog You've been arguing with people here for how long and you think machine guns are legal for your Average Joe to buy here?

Inspirational. I'm going to go argue with my friend who's an electrical engineer how microchips will eventually lead to the rise of Skynet. I wouldn't do this normally because I know nothing about microchips, but you've inspired me.

The whole "give up your rights for the greater good" argument is something that's covered in this book called "1984," you should read it.

Short answer is no. Liberty is the greater good. People spend a lot of effort trying to secure it, those who would give it up for personal security deserve neither.

It's almost as if human rights are good things...

 

[fredyellowone]

Here, how about this. Why don't you find a few homeless people in your city or area and donate all your money every year to them so that they aren't starving? Why don't you help contribute to "fixing the inequities"?

I'm already helping poor people to the best of my abilities, actually.

So how do you protect you and your family then? Or would you just prefer to let your family get raped and murdered?

The odds of being raped and/or murdered are so low that I may as well being armed with a lottery ticket. Or Cayenne Pepper.

If the people don't have guns, then why does the police or military need guns? By banning guns, all guns are obviously going to disappear, so police and military wouldn't need it.

Because the State has the right to use violence. The whole concept of the modern State is based on that. Which may, or may not use it.

Are you a vegetarian? And that is a serious question.

That argument is so funny, almost even more that the one turning around Stalin.

Yes, because knifes = guns, right? We should say that to that guy in China who stabbed last year 22 people without being able to kill even one. I think that guy in China whould be pretty upfront to say that if he had a gun instead, his success rate would have been better. A lot.

Well anyway, we should just extend your great argumentation. And either ban everything (including paper clips and guitar strings - because I'm sure you can kill with those too); or allow everything (including atomic bombs and Bazookas, because I'm sure that if you're responsible enough, you can collect those without any danger.) Why not?

Libertyyyyyyy yeah!!!!!!!!!!

@mister dog Short answer is no. Liberty is the greater good.

You mean : your liberty is your greater good. Right?

Or maybe you forgot that your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins?

Well, anyway. One thing is sure, I'm glad I don't feel that much scared that I have to use a gun to build myself a false sentiment of security. Being scared of everyone must suck real good.

 

[Exorcet]

I honestly didn't know that one could get a gun license at the age of 12. I thank you for that precision. That being said, I assure you, I think that is utterly moronic.

Why?

 

[Zenith]

You mean : your liberty is your greater good. Right?

Or maybe you forgot that your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins?

Reading comprehension is not your strongest quality. Make a list of all of the rights that I violate by owning guns. If you can name a single one then I'll throw every gun I have in a dump.

Well, anyway. One thing is sure, I'm glad I don't feel that much scared that I have to use a gun to build myself a false sentiment of security. Being scared of everyone must suck real good.

You're the one wanting to ban guns and you accuse other people of being scared? I'll leave you to think about that.

 

[fredyellowone]

You're the one wanting to ban guns and you accuse other people of being scared? I'll leave you to think about that.

Thanks for the good laugh!

Walt Wawra say hello!

 

[Famine]

You mean : your liberty is your greater good. Right?

Or maybe you forgot that your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins?

Freedom isn't freedom if only one person has it.

Freedom is when everyone* has it.

*Except those who seek to obstruct others' freedom

Works for liberty too.

 

[Danoff]

Amidst the back and forth flaming gun supporters vs gun opposers; i find this statement of XS quite refreshing. I wonder how the rest of you in this thread think about this? Would you be willing to give up your guns if it meant this would be for the greater good? And please don't reply that a law like that wouldn't be possible etcetera, just give us a straight yes or no.

No.

Would you give up your car if it meant a large reduction in car accidents? Would you give up your internet access if it meant a reduction in child porn? Would you give up the ability to buy soda if it meant a reduction in obesity? Would you give up your right to have sex if it meant a reduction in rape?

See? It's not all that interesting a concept.

 

[Zenith]

Thanks for the good laugh!

Good reply. Let me know when you can actually present a counterpoint. I'll jot that one down as a "no contest."

Maybe I should put this in terms you understand...

:tup: