*DAMN R6 Forum

Well, something like this was bound to happen on the fourth of July. Anyway, I will put money down that this was not a terrorist attack, but more likely a retarded fool. No one with half a brain tries to attack the El Al counter at an airport - especially considering that their security is more heavily armed than the LAPD.

But then again, it could be a diversion for something bigger.

Sound off on your reactions to the shooting here.

Well, I heard just briefly about it but I was going out to have our Independance Day picnic and not doing that would be letting the terrorists win ;).  I'll go watch the news now so I can have a better reply

P.S.  To those who are offended that I made a joke in such a serious thread, it is my belief that there is no better time, not having a sense of humor would be letting the terrorists win.

P.P.S.  I apologize for the second one.

assassin my friends friend who is going to hawaii who we are meeting there was at LAX and heard the shootings, thats scary =(

As I sat with my parents (who let me drink at home) at a dinner party with a bunch of adult neighbors of ours, discussing current events, politics, global understanding, and diversity, I really wanted a martini.

Being under 21, however, all I could think was, "god bless America"

p.s.  I'm not sorry for that
p.p.s.  I'm weird....sue me

Indeed, legal drinking age should be 18 if not lower like it is in Europe (which oddly has less dangerous alcohol use).

not so odd if you think about it. for them ther is less of a temptation ?to drink ?as a sign of rebellion. it's no longer the forbidden fruit, therefore it no longer is as desireable as it once was

p.s. i also heard a plane crashed in san demis(that's what i thought i heard) today as well
p.p.s. if  anyone has more info on either event, please share it with us

Yeah Brain...I had just woken up around 11:30 a.m. and flipped on the tube. They were talking about wildfire dangers from fireworks this holiday and then the anchorman at knbc 4 LA kinda jumped in his seat and said their was breaking news - a shootout at LAX. Well, you ugys basically know the story of that so on to the other event - the crash of a Cessna 310 Twin Engine aircraft.

The pilot called in two maydays saying that he had problems gaining altitude so he tried to ditch the plane on a grassy field. The only problem with that is that his wing clipped a tree and came crashing down to the ground - literally on top of a family who was picknicking. As it stands right now, 4 are dead (the two in the plane and two children on the ground) and like 10 more are injured, some critically and some not. The plane crashed approximately one hour after the shootings at LAX so the newschoppers were working double time until they were forced out of airport airspace.

p.s. I was drinking as often as I wanted in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico...for you kiddies, as long as you have $, they ignore their "drinking age" of 18.

About it not being odd that they don't have the problems, I was being cynical.  Most people would claim that lowering the drinking age would create problems but they ignore the example of Europe.

Being older than 18 I'd rather just go to Canada to do my drinking, not as hot and you can drink the water.

about the drinking age, i think that it should be lowered to 19, that way you dont have high school seniors buying for their freshman 'friends'
and that is the biggest problem that i see with an 18 yr old limit

Giving alcohol to those under the age limit is illegal regardless of what the age limit is so that is a bad reason.  It isn't like high school parties have a hard time finding alcohol.

Well it seems we went off topic but well I can tell you to drink alcohol isn't really bad as long you don't drive and beat your wife or girlfriend... Legal age in Austria is 16. However there aren't controls - most kids smoke their first cigarette with 12(I don't think it's good at all and please don't think all kids at 12 are smoking in Austria they are usually trying(!) their first cigarette at this time not more - most kids start smoking regulary between 15 and 17) and same with vodka & co.

I think America is so screwed in this case - everyone has the right to own a gun(question at which age can you buy a gun?) but you can't drink alcohol under 21, rofl. What is more dangerous kids playing with daddy's pumpgun or drinking some vodka at a party?

However you can buy cigarettes and alcohol at any age only in clubs and bars you have sometimes age controls but when you are drinking alcohol on the streets or at home nobody cares. It is so funny that you have to hide the alcohol bottles in public - It really makes me laugh. These laws are childish - I'll come to hell if I see a bottle of alc or what!?

In many points America is so conservative - HORRIBLE - Also Bush's statements about sex and how to prevent it completly until you marry ahu forgive me but he is one of the most prudish politicans I know. What the hell is wrong with sex? - Nothing.

Ok I stop before I get a fit of rage...

Bye,

Mauti

Of Course Mauti is right, America is too conservative and prudish.  What is most glaring is that America condemns sex and nudity and rates things with it strictly, yet violence is largely uncensored.  It is no wonder homosexuality hasn't been accepted to the level it has in Europe (at least to my knowledge of how things are in Europe).

On topic:
LA Airport shootings... yeah, I figure just a complete wacko that probably missed a flight or got bumped or something.  Maybe someone upset by what's going on right now... but just a complete wacko.

The Cesna that went down... yeah, two mayday calls and he tried to ditch in the lake... but the plane skipped like a stone and ended up on the crowded beach.  I heard the pilot, co-pilot and one little girl on the beach died (the second kid on the beach was alive at the hospital when I saw the news.

Off Topic:

Being one that can remember when the drinking age was 18 in Michigan and 19 in Ohio (both are 21 now) and 19 in Windsor (still).  I'd like to say that it is insurance companies you can thank for the drinking ages going back up... they were the big lobiests of it.  

Myself, I think that 19 is a good age to set it at.  Drunked high school kids in public are annoying.... better to make them wait until post high school... just for us older drinkers.  Seriously, when you are 25, go to a concert and see some 14-15 year old girls falling down, yelling and throwing up all over themselves.  The 16-17 year old boys aren't much better.  Sure, there are guys (and some girls) that can actually handle their liquer and just get a mellow buzz going at a young age, but in America, that's the exception, not the rule.

Mauti, in Michigan, you have to be 21 to get a handgun permit.  It's another thing that's different from state to state.  In Texas, I think they give you one in the crib (ok, maybe not, but close to it)

Well, I think his point was that if you can get a gun at any age then you should be able to drink at 18 or 16 or whatnot.  In my personal experience if I could drink, I wouldn't much.  I have found one drink that was really good this pink lemonade vodka thing, but most drinks are so nasty I can't see why alcohol should be such a big problem (although it is in the states).

    As Grifter said, legal ages for things vary from state to state. In California, you must be 21 to purchase a handgun, but 18 for a rifle or shotgun (which sort of makes sense... but not really). The drinking age in California is 21, and if I recall correctly, the smoking age is 18. It may be 21 these days, I haven't kept up on it since I'm not a smoker myself.

Mauti's comments re: the conservatism of America really rang true for me. I feel the same way. I've discussed morality at length with my friends, with myself being the radical who desires change. Their arguments for the current, conservative system are fairly common throughout America's population.
    Regarding lowering the drinking age, the counter-argument is that if it was lowered, every high-schooler would be constantly drunk, alcoholism would run rampant, and the world would explode into a great fireball. (OK, maybe not that last part.)
    About sex and the legislation thereof... well, to put it mildly, Americans are truly sick and mentally diseased when it comes to the topic of sex. The common American opinion about any relaxation of "morality" laws (I truly hate that term) is like this. If, for instance, the laws governing nudity were relaxed or thrown out the window entirely, then immediately all of America would be filled with wild-eyed, drooling men raping women and children. I am exaggerating the language of the argument, but not the argument itself. Americans have been trained from a very early age to regard sex, or even nudity, as something dirty that is best kept secret, something dangerous and tainted. It honestly disgusts me. Children are taught these things by their parents, who were taught by their parents, and so on. It's a natural consequence that America's laws are as conservative as Americans are.
    Even something as straightforward and logical as legalizing marijuana is met with reactions that border on paranoia.
    The idea of relaxing legal controls on sex, drugs, or alcohol is invariably met with the idea that less legal controls will lead to epidemics of drug use or sexual crimes, whichever is under discussion. That's the American viewpoint, and very few ever question it. So the laws stand for year after year.

    Unfortunately, America is swinging further and further into conservatism. it hasn't reached its limit yet, and it won't for about another decade or so. I'm afraid of what civil liberties and freedoms Americans will voluntarily give up as the slide continues.

American conservatism is why I think the nation sucks and think Europe and Canada are better, sure, it may be a great place to live economically but no one is more stressed out than americans and no wonder as we are so repressive in thought.

BTW, since when is not allowing guns liberal??  The whole "right to bear arms" was a pretty liberal measure to insure that if our government ever got out of control, the power would still be with the people....  

People really lose sight about the point of things.

The only thing guns do is shoot people (outside of hunting), or in other words invade their rights.  Thus every time a gun is sold, someone's rights are violated, that makes it wrong.  And the second amendment doesn't give citizens the right to all have their own guns for protection, it give the citizens the right to have local militia that would have guns.

He has a point Grifter.  Maybe we've even got a right to own guns, but I don't see what useful purpose they have.  You don't use a handgun for hunting...and the arguments that it is for "protection" are a little hollow.

Gotta love the middle-aged Christian Coalition GOP soccer Moms packing heat in their minivans  ;D

Amendment II


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. [/i]


Again guys, read into the meaning of it.  

First, the militia and people are both spelled out, not joined.  A well regulated militia in 1700's speak equals the Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines, Coast Guard, National Guard, etc....  that answer to the government.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a different matter.  

That was put in there because the people should always have the power to stand up and protect themselves from the GOVERNMENT....  You have to remember that this was written and formed while we were starting a REVOLUTION.  So, one of our founding principles in this country is just that.  We aren't going to let any rule of force hold down the people if the people don't agree with it.

As for every gun sold infringing upon someone's rights, that's pure Bullshit.  What percentage of guns sold in America have actually been fired at a human being.... let alone hit one?  Not nearly as many as Bondo seems to think.  BTW, my uncle uses a hand gun to hunt with... amongst others...  I own 3 guns (all came to me from my grandfather)... none of those have ever been fired at a PERSON....  a bunch of paper targets and some rabits.... and lots of clay pigeons, but no people.

As it stands today, the constitution is pretty clear that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.... but the States have done a bunch of infringing already (damn conservatives... always wanting to over regulate).  

On a side note... when people all bore arms (usually swords), people were much more polite on the whole.

oh sweet Jesus, what has happened to this thread.

Back on topic:

The gunman was an Egyptian living in America via a green card. He was packing a .45 (which he used), a 9mm (which he didn't), and a 6-inch knife. He had 100's of rounds on his possession which looks like he thought he would last for more than 10 seconds...but of course as we now know, the El Al security agent killed him with an Uzi. Both of the innocents who died were from Israel.

Plane crash: 4 killed (pilot, co-pilot, 12 year old girl, and 15 month old boy), 4 more critically wounded.

yawn...this stuff happens everyday...

It just makes front page news when paranoid media types realize that it happened ON THE 4TH OF JULY!

gasp...

;D

and yes, I think r6 and rs have desensitized me to violence.

Loud, this ain't exactly a yawn when it happened at the same airport people here, such as myself or Assassin, use. While it wasn't in the terminal I'm usually in, it's still disturbing to think about how many times I've flown in and out of LAX. It's going to make the front page regardless of what day it is on.

Grifter, no matter how many guns you get, the goverment will have superior weponry so that excuse is bullshit.  You aren't going to put down govermental oppression with a pistol.

And I wasn't saying that guns are all actually used to shoot people, I said that that is their only purpose and that either they haven't been used (training doesn't count as use) or they HAVE shot someone.

And in truth it doesn't matter if banning guns would be constitutional or not as Congress can change the contsitution.  We live in a day when having guns in homes does absolutely no good other than to have people die.  More kids die from gun accidents that robbers do from people who have the gun for defense using it.  Actually, more people who have a gun for defense have probably died as a result when compared to robbers.  It just doesn't work.  And  that doesn't take into account the incredible amount of gun violence in our nation that isn't present in any nation with strict gun control or bans.  And hunting is not a right, it should be banned like the rest and any killing of animals (because hunters argue animal overpopulation) can be handled by the proper govermental agencies.  Of course I'll accept a start by banning all non-hunting guns (meaning handguns despite a people who do use it to hunt) and letting hunting contiune but I think it must go as well.

If everyone bore guns, they wouldn't get nicer, they would get deader.

Well Bondo.... for an environmentalist (you did call yourself one), you have some screwy views on hunting.  Every environmentalist I know understands carrying capacity and the preditor / prey relationship.  Man is a preditor, btw.  And hunting is a right to Native Americans (one of the perks of having a blue card.... as a registered Native American, I can hunt or fish anytime, anywhere).  Or are you telling them how to live thier lives??

As for your point about people not being able to overthrow the government.... two things.  

Fist, our rights to bear arms have already been infringed (look up the meaning and tell me how Congress passed anti assult rifle laws without changing the Constitution first??  Now THAT was unconstitutional!).  If we had the unfettered right to bear arms that they did in 1791.... anything that the militia had the people had (cannons even).  So going back to the SPIRIT of the second amendment.... YES, it is what it was meant.

Second.  I have news for you...  if the majority of America rised up with just a good rifle and handgun, the US Armed Forces wouldn't stand a chance...  The standing forces of the US are actually a pretty small number.  And a "varment rifle" (which is a legal sniper rifle for killing pests on farms) can kill at over 1000 yards too...  Remember.. the IDEA was that Americans would be armed... so that no threat... forign or domestic... would bring down the democracy.  And having superior NUMBERS has beaten having superior WEAPONS on many occasions.... or did you sleep through lectures on Vietnam and WW2?

And Bondo, here is your quote:

The only thing guns do is shoot people (outside of hunting), or in other words invade their rights. ?Thus every time a gun is sold, someone's rights are violated, that makes it wrong.
You said someone's rights are violated each time a gun is sold.  I couldn't disagree with you more.  Since it's our RIGHT to have these arms, it would be a violation to not be able to buy them.  And I also pointed out that the overwhelming majority of guns have never been fired AT a person, let alone hitting them.  

Let me break it down for you simply....  taking away guns from the people in order to reduce violent crime is like taking alcohol away from the people in order to stop drunk driving deaths.  They both are trying to solve a problem by attacking a tool... not holding the PEOPLE responsible.  Now, I'm pretty sure you are not for making alcohol and drugs illegal....  you just think that people should be allowed to do them, and if they cause a problem, make the punishment actually scare people... right??  Why not do the same for guns....?  Just make all crimes commited with a gun that much more punishable (an automatic 10 years, not 2 in Michigan let's say... or more).  Hold the owner of the gun responsible for not locking it up properly... and not teaching his kid to respect it if he was going to have it in the house.  

I can't believe that liberals want to take rights away from the people because they think the people can't handle themselves.... when it's just the FEW that don't.  

One more little fact for you... Texas has a lower (one of the lowest) rate of gun related crimes in the US... and it's legal there to wear a sidearm still (go to west Texas sometime and see the guys still wearing their gun belts).  There are two reasons.... 1) if everyone is packing heat, then you having a gun to comitt a crime with isn't so overwhelming.  2) their punishments are HARSH in Texas.  I mean, passing a bad check for over $50 the first time is a FELONY.... and people go away forever in their prison system.  Hell, Texas is the only state where it's still legal to have both a rifle and open aclohol in your vehicle (unless that has changed in the past 4 years, since last I was there).  

People can use alcohol without getting drunk or driving, but the use of pistols is in defense (to shoot attackers) or in crimes (to shoot hostages if needed).  This is all outside of hunting.  Considering that the only use then is a possible (once again I never said a majority have been used to shoot someone, just that a majority are owned with the main purpose that it might be used to shoot someone, whether in defense or not).  Getting shot is a violation of rights greater than the ownership of guns, therefore guns should be illegal.

About the Native American thing, fine, let them hunt under the auspices of the govermental agencies I spoke of to keep animals from overpopulating areas.  But southern white hicks don't NEED to hunt.  Removing guns is an act for the greater good of the majority, even if a few people are hurt by having it affect their hobby (they should just go fishing as that would still be legal).  But I think the first part covers that predator capacity that you claim I was ignoring.

And last time I checked gun control was a liberal agenda and anti-gun control was what conservatives supported (NRA moneymen).

As for the goverment being overthrown, while they may be ineffective and slightly corrupt, they aren't going to start being a dictatorship (it is to bipartisn to do so).  And saying that if all people rose up (and you must remember that all people wouldn't rise up, only half as most are not bold, example the revolutionary war) that the army would be defeated, then I guess you are saying that China would kick our asses.

First, China did kick our asses.... twice.  If we invaded China today, we'd get our asses handed to us.  

If half the population of the US rose up against a forign or domestic threat.... yeah, they'd pretty much kick any ass involved there too....  The US Armed Forces is pretty damn small compared to the population of the country.  And it's not like Air Power would make that much of a difference in a war of that sorts.  Or the Navy.

Now, let's go to your argument against GUNS.....

People can use alcohol without getting drunk or driving, but the use of pistols is in defense (to shoot attackers) or in crimes (to shoot hostages if needed). ?This is all outside of hunting. ?Considering that the only use then is a possible (once again I never said a majority have been used to shoot someone, just that a majority are owned with the main purpose that it might be used to shoot someone, whether in defense or not). ?Getting shot is a violation of rights greater than the ownership of guns, therefore guns should be illegal.


First, one of your premises is still false.  Guns are not purchased just to shoot people.  I've never even thought of using a hand gun to shoot anyone... in defense of my home or not.  I have taken it to a gun range and shot the shit out of paper targets though (and no, not human shaped targets, just bullseyes).  So I contest that most people that own guns don't plan on ever using them... and don't.

As for those that do, here's another example of one of the truths behind guns that the "gun control" advocates don't like being brandied about.

Take this for example:

Another study, by Prof. John Lott of the University of Chicago, showed that by adopting "shall issue" concealed carry handgun laws, 31 states have reduced murders, on average, by 7.7 %, rapes by 5 %, aggravated assaults by 7 % and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens would have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies.

As Prof. Lott characterized his findings: "Criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats." "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal, p. A13, August 28, 1996.


My point still stands... taking away a tool wont stop the way people act.  It'll just change the tool.  Sure, less people will die from stab wounds, but it wont stop any violence... it'll just change the type.  There will be as many stabbings as there are shootings.

Also, my other point still stands.  The last stitistics I could find were from 97... (and according to everything I've read, gun related deaths are down from then.. but no hard numbers).  In 97, there were 31,000 deaths from guns (of all types) in the US.  In that same year there were over 60,000 deaths from Automobiles.... it's estimated that half of those involved drugs or alcohol (I couldn't find a hard number anywhere on it yet).  Add to those numbers how many people die from OD's and other Alcohol / Drug related causes (shooting yourself while drunk or high counts as both a gun death and an alcoholl related death... no?)...  So why would you be for things like legalized drugs and alcohol and not for guns??  Alcohol can be used without killing someone... so can guns... what's your point??  Both are dangerous.

Now, for hunting... you say that people should go fishing instead... my, aren't you becoming the Republican... You should drink alcohol instead of doing drugs.  This is why I love being a moderate.  Liberals and Conservatives are bipolar.  They switch sides and don't even realize it.  Seriously, you have not said why hunting is wrong, just that other ways could be found around it.  Why should they be??  Why should my liberty be infringed upon??  

It's the same with alcohol, drugs, driving, hunting, guns... all of it.  Why in the hell should my liberties be cut off just because some people aren't responsible enough to handle it??  Punish the guilty, not the innocent.  Hell, automobile accidents cause twice the number of deaths in the US then guns.... let's get rid of them!  Or, most of those are by people under the age of 26... let's make the new driving age 26!!  Stupid, isn't it.

The government doesn't need to protect me from myself... I don't need to be told to wear a helmet, seatbelt, what I can't drink or smoke, who I can sleep with (and what it will cost) or if I can own a gun.  I am an adult and can be responsible for myself.

I didn't say if we invaded China, I said if China invaded us (as I was talking about the ability of our army to defend agains a huge but underequiped force attacking in this country).  That is a big difference.

But why do you shoot the paper targets?  To become better at hitting what you want to hit?  And why would one do that?  So they can hit the robber if they need to.  Like I said, target practice doesn't count as the use, that is just training for a real use.

You made my argument for me...less people would die from being stabbed.  And people don't accidentally stab themselves because they found their daddy's knife in the closet and thought it wasn't loaded.  How about this, guns are not allowed to be kept in privite dwellings, only at registered gun clubs with secure gun vaults.  Because then it could be garenteed that the gun would be used for recreation/hunting and not for shooting people.  Also, while the numbers changed, it isn't a direct corelation that the gun situation had any impact, it could have been a number of other factors.

Hunting is wrong because guns should be outlawed, and I'm not switching sides, I'm still supporting the removal of guns.  And you are wrong to think that a liberal donotes some sort of stance, liberal is a way of thinking, not a specific party platform on issues.  And like I said, Republicans are the ones who are against gun control so I am in no way taking a "conservative" stance.  I'm not against hunting for moral obligations, I'm against hunting because I feel guns need to be outlawed.  And you said I claim that someone should use alcohol and not do drugs?  I never said that.

Cars are necessary (unless we had a successful mass transit system for the whole nation), guns aren't.  And guns shouldn't be a right for the reasons I've already said.

You didn't say who invaded who... you just said if we fought China.


Bondo, thanks for telling me what I think and what my motivations are.  You never let me down.  No, I shoot little paper targets to win $$ from my buddies... just like they do with me out on the golf course.  My guns are kept in a gun safe, the the ammo is nowhere near them... they are never loaded at home.  So, if a robber actually entered my house... grabbing my gun would be the last thing I would personally do.  I live in a very safe neighborhood... crime here is mostly coporate or car theft... so I'm not to terribly worried about being invaded in my own home.  If it did ever happen, I'd call the cops, keep me, the wife and the dogs all locked up in the bedroom and grab that sword off my bookshelf.  I wouldn't shoot someone for trying to steal my TV.   So you have shown you don't know what the hell you are talking about in this case.


Again, hold the people responsible for their weapons.  Don't protect them from themselves... if you are right to infringe upon this liberty... then why isn't it right for the government to say no to Alcohol, Drugs and Prostitution??  It's just them trying to protect people from themselves....  takign away the tools of the stupid acts.. not correcting the acts themselves.


So, you take away an activity like hunting because you object to guns....  that means that if you object to drunk driving killing people, you'd be for the outlaw of Alcohol and Drugs... right??  It's the exact same thing afterall..  And I didn't say that you said that... I meant that is the way you are acting... exactly like our government acts (in its' stance on alcohol v drugs).


Cars are necessary in your opinion...  but they have only been around for a hundred years.... so I guess the country could survive without them....  So it's ok that they kill so many people... because you think they are necessary... I see.

Ok, so let me see if I have all those reasons right... guns are bad because they are used to kill people... besides hunting and other uses.. they are used to kill...  and that some children find their daddy's loaded gun and blow their own heads off... or thier sisters....  That about sum it up?  Guns kill people... especially stupid people or the children of really stupid people.

That's the problem you want solved.... right?

So why not endorse some of the new technologies that keep guns from being fired by accident??  That keep anyone but the owner from firing it??  Wouldn't that make the accidental deaths go way down??  

It's old but it's true... guns don't kill people, people kill people.  A gun doesn't point itself or pull it's own trigger.   (Ok, really bullets kill people... but you get the point).

If you don't want to take alcohol and drugs away from people to stop drunk driving (and OD's and all the other deaths that they cause), you shouldn't want to take away guns to stop killings... it's the same argument in both cases.  Either we are free to be responsible adults, or we are not.  Which do you believe in?  How can you seperate them?

Continued in next post....

America hasn't been invaded since the mid 1800's (I don't count the Indian Wars), but that doesn't mean it wont ever happen again.... does it?  Who says that the next Hitler wont decide to invade the USA?  That he wont rouse the economy and blood lust in Mexico?  Nobody has a crystal ball... we can just count on the fact that history repeats itself... and be prepared.  Just think how much different WW2 would have been if the French had all had weapons in their homes 60 years ago... They may have never needed our help... the Nazi's may have been stopped then and there.  That is the kind of thinking that made our forefathers write the second ammendment...  granted, they were thinking Brits... but it's the same thing.  

BTW, of historical note, it's almost 190 years since the Fort Dearborn Massacre (my home town), which was the last time that Detroit and Michigan was invaded.  We still have a celebration every August part of which is a rememberance of it (Fort Detroit and Michilimackinac (aka Mackinac or Mackinaw Island) also fell.  Many women and children died, along with the men and the militia.  This isn't important to my points... but came to mind as I was writing the post.

For clarification, the last time America was invaded was by the Mexican rebel Pancho Villa in 1916.

Obviously this debate is going nowhere with Grifter taking the Conservative side of the issue and Bondo taking the ultra-liberal side of the issue...personally I agree with Grifter.

Grifter, hunting is a use of guns, drunk driving is a by product of irresponsible drinking, it isn't a use of alcohol so yes there is a difference.

And I noticed you skipped over the part where I said (as what would be a compromise) that guns be allowed but they have to be stored only in licensed gun clubs or hunting lodges of sorts.  Places where the gun will be used for recreational purposes (like your shooting of paper) and not for personal use?  And if the gun isn't turned back in then the gun shop just calls the police and tells them that you didn't return your gun and you are arrested.  How is that for a means of gun control that would solve problems.  Then you jack up the penalty for crimes committed with a gun and that helps as a deterent.

Bondo, gun deaths are by and large the result of irresponsible gun use. Since the two seem quite analogous, I guess you should be arguing that alcohol be banned too. Of course, we already know how you feel about the government regulating stuff like drugs and alcohol. (Read any thread about weed for more info.) You can't have it both ways.

    Actually, the ineffectiveness of the American government is intentional. The framers of the Constitution were understandably cautious about the effects of having a government which is too powerful or too effective, or both. When you have an effective government, what ends up happening is the people lose their rights. Of course, Americans are doing a pretty good job of discarding their rights anyway, but that's beside the point.



    Booyah. Preach on, brother. : ) The caring-parent role of the government is highly offensive. Besides which, it only attacks the tools, not the problem (to steal a phrase).



    I apologize for employing this old saw, but it is both germane and a truism: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Drugs are illegal. Last time I checked, that doesn't prevent anyone who wants them from being able to get them. People under 21 (in CA) aren't supposed to be able to get alcohol, but anybody who wants it badly enough can get it with little trouble. Fully automatic weapons are illegal in California, but people can still get them. Think this through. Forbidding people to have things does not stop them from having them. It never has, and it never will. It is much more logical to simply punish the snot out of anyone who commits a violent crime, or who commits vehicular manslaughter while drunk, etc., rather than punishing everyone indiscriminately.

I disagree with you Bondo...  you said it right, but have the arguments confused... yes, Hunting is a use of guns... but you said hunting wasn't bad...  you said guns were... because they kill people.

So killing people is a result of the abuse of guns and of alcohol and drugs and driving automobiles.  Combining the abuse of a couple of these is a sure fire recipe for disaster....

So why ban guns and not the others??  It's all the same... either you are protecting us from ourselves or you aren't!  Wanting it both ways isn't logical.

BTW, the so called conservatives and so called liberals (because most of them switch gears like we've seen here) both are for forms of gun controll in our country... The so called conservatives just don't take it as far as the so called liberals...

See, the problem is, the Liberals want to make gun issues different then any other personal right and responsibility....  The Conservatives feel the same way... guns are DIFFERENT in their arguments.  My point is that this shouldn't be about guns (or drugs, or alcohol, et al).  It's about taking personal fucking responsibility.  If someone shoots, treat it as attempted murder and put them away for the rest of their lives (unless justified under the law for some reason).  If someone commits a crime while using a handgun... treat it almost as bad as attempted murder... lock them up and throw away the key.  Guess what... if that started happening, that abuse of guns would go way down.  Fuck cruel and unusual punishment... punishment is supposed to be cruel. It's what the word means.  Prison isn't supposed to be a summer camp...  Hell, public floggins worked.  If you ever read Starship Troopers (which is absolutely nothing like that aweful movie).  He has an interesting position on punishment.  First, it was immediate.  Second it was usually a public caining (to paraphrase.... 'god put some great pain receptors on your ass... where you can't really cause any damage.  That used as negative reenforcement has worked for thousands of years.  Who are we to think we know better').  Thrid, if it were a younger offender, their parent was flogged right next to them.  Tell me getting your mother or father publiclly whipped wouldn't put you back in line (if you survived the trip home).

To coin a few other popular phrases... why take away guns when the government doesn't enforce gun laws now??  We don't need more laws, we need better enforcement of the ones we already have.

Bottom line.  I'm the truely liberal one on my feelings towards personal liberties....  Let people do what they want... make it all legit.  Then hold people responsible for themselves.  If another person dies because of someone's abuse, hold them responsible.  That goes for little johnny finding his daddy's gun, to taking his mother's coke and OD'ing... all of it.  Don't let that mother stay in that house and give another kid the chance to do it too... don't give that father a second chance to leave the gun unloaded.  Don't let people off the hook.  Run a red light and kill another driver... go to fucking jail for a while to think about it. But give the rights and the liberty to the people!!  Don't infringe upon my rights because some dickheads abuse those rights.

    Ah, Heinlein. : ) His writing was strictly average, but his ideas were fascinating. Starship Troopers is one of his books that I will recommend to anyone, based on the strength of the ideas. Stranger in a Strange Land and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress are the others (and maybe The Puppet Masters for being good old pulp sci-fi). The Hollywood-izing of Starship Troopers was pretty infuriating - they managed to suck out nearly every important philosophical part of the story, leaving it as just a war movie against bugs. (And they even ruined that! Three words: no power armor.) The only redeeming part of it is that in the scenes where Rico's teacher is lecturing, the teacher's dialogue is verbatim from the book. Those scenes also the most intellectually interesting parts of the movie. No coincidence there. Anybody who hasn't read Troopers, go read it. It's a pretty short book, and despite a little bit of silly-to-the-point-of-being-annoying writing (the apparent asexuality of the main character, specifically), it's excellent and thought-provoking.

    Now, I must reparaphrase your paraphrasing, Grifter. Heinlein's phrasing was more along the lines of, "Pain is a highly evolved survival mechanism. If something hurts, it's contra-survival. Pain is therefore an excellent punishment for many crimes, since it sends a message that has been hard-coded by millions of years of evolution." And something you forgot to mention about his views on punishment: if the offender is a juvenile, his identity is absolutely NOT protected. Keeping it a secret just because he's a kid means that he does not suffer the humiliation which is an integral part of this system of punishment (that's the reason the floggings are public and publicized on TV).

    Pain and public humiliation would work rather well to reduce crime, I think. According to some research or other, Americans are more afraid of giving a speech in public than they are of death. We're mortified by the thought of being embarrassed publicly. Start making a huge public spectacle of humiliating and beating the crap out of guys who rob liquor stores, and the guys who are planning on robbing a liquor store might think twice.

warning: strong opinion which may be objectable follows.

First of all, quoting Henry David Thoreau, "That government is best which governs least".  While I have never been a user of weapons (outside of RS..hehe) I think that citizens should retain the right to possess weapons as it is people that kill people and not the guns.  In the end government laws don't do shit for anyone because if someone wants a gun, they are going to get it, just like drugs. Further gun control laws/the removal of guns would mean that the people that want to obtain guns for more innocent reasons wont get them and the people with other things in mind will resort to other means of getting a gun which is ten times worse. Plus, who the hell wants a police state where the government can do what they want and the citizens are helpless to fight back? I think the laws are fine how they are, you can't do anything to stop what has already begun. Guns have been around for ages, guns last for ages. I am anti-violence and ANTI-HUNTING, but i still support the right to bear arms.

I enjoyed that movie but I guess I'll read the book  :(

The movie wasn't all that bad, in and of itself. It just wasn't faithful to its source material. Did you ever watch the cartoon series based on Starship Troopers, called "Roughnecks"? Now that was flurking great. Far more faithful than the movie was, and really well-written. Naturally, it only lasted a couple of seasons.

Lothario, yes, you did a much better job of paraphrasing it. ?I haven't read that book in 18 years or so, but some of it's messages are still with me.

Bondo, btw, the reason I didn't comment on the gun club suggestion is that I ran out of space... ?so here you go.

First, I've stated a good case on why these rights should not be infringed upon AT ALL... ?

Second, That's what they did in England.. now, two of my English friends come to America to hunt... because they can't even have the gun at the gun club anymore. ?It was tried there... and they went down that slippery slope... to the point where they lost their shotguns almost completely.

Third, that still goes against the ideals of our forefathers about being able to protect themselves against threats both domestic or forign in nature.

Fourth, it doesn't let the women fight off the rapist murderer that's attacking her... which is a very legit useage in my opinion.

If you want to take away the guns.. take away the private sale of alcohol too... and put breathalizers on the door so you aren't allowed to leave the bar until you are sober... that sounds about equal. ?Both are infringing upon the rights of people that haven't actually done anything wrong.... ?why do you want to punish the innocent along with the guilty??

Grift, once again you ignore my offered compromise, maybe you just can't find a reason for it to be bad and are shying away from looking silly ;).

Killing people is also a use of guns, not an abuse really.  Guns were invented to kill people, alcohol and drugs weren't (outside of cyanide and the like).

? ? Guns were invented to kill people. That's true. The original purpose of guns was to kill people, and the main purpose is still to kill people, since militaries are the biggest "consumers" of guns. However, the mor?s of American society and most other societies say that it's a Bad Thing? to shoot someone else intentionally. That convention is fully understood by all people who are not insane. That means that using a gun to kill someone is indeed an abuse of that gun, and should be punished as such.

? ? The need to punish abusers of guns does not imply a need to punish users of guns. There is a direct analogy to alcohol. The vast majority of alcohol drinkers do so responsibly. The tiny minority who are not responsible, who end up injuring or killing other people by driving drunk or otherwise while under the influence of alcohol, those people are punished. The right to own alcohol is not taken away, nor even discussed with a straight face. Alcohol serves no useful purpose, not even as much as guns do. Thus, alcohol is wholly destructive. Nothing good comes from it, yet people are killed and injured every day as a direct result of alcohol. Despite the inherent danger and destructiveness of alcohol, any red-blooded American who's breathing and over 21 can purchase some Jack Daniels, by God! And without even a license or background check!

? ? Punish the minority who have shown that they need to be punished. Don't punish everyone because of that minority.

Or, you could just look at the post immediately before yours, and you'd see it.  Yes, I know that you were already making your post when I posted mine, I looked at the times.



Both have the same effect really.  BTW, Tobacco is a drug as well.

Like Lothario said... the use of alcohol and drugs is dangerous to the user and to others.  You aren't for protecting them.... ?  How come?  How can you be both for the liberty of people to chose their own paths (even when that leads to dangers to themselves and others) in the case of drugs and alcohol... and be against that liberty for gun owners??  

Be truely liberal... give peole LIBERTY!  Let them have the responsibility to take care of themselves.

Here's another one for those who think of themselves as liberal or conservative...

The typical liberal is against the death penalty, but pro abortion.

The typical conservative is against abortion, but pro death penalty.

My question is, how does that fucking work?  They both think it's ok to end a life, but it's a matter of WHEN.  I love idiots that actually try to justify some logic there.  People try to make things more complicated then they are... try not to just work back to the simple facts and truths.

The simple facts on gun control are:
1)people have been killing each other long before guns came around.
2)guns are the great equalizer... a big guy with a knife won't be raping and murdering the woman that has a glock in her handbag.  
3)even if illegal, the bad guys will still have guns.


Ok, I'll go back to basics.... what's the fucking problem that's trying to be solved??

If it's kids getting dad's gun and blowing sister's head off... well, there are lots of technologies out there to help that sort of thing from happening.  Ther are bracelets and watches that have to be worn for the gun to fire (those are real... 20/20 even did a special on them over a year ago).

If it's crooks using guns to rob, rape and murder people... enforce the laws that are there.... make the punishments tougher.  

If it's the guy that pulls out his gun and kills his wife in an argument.... put him in jail with the rest of the crooks.  If he was going to kill her, he would have done it with whatever tools were at hand (even his bear hands).

If it's the guy that blows his head off, why?  Liberals are for assisted suiside ;).  Seriously... if they are going to do it, they are going to do it.  With or without the gun.  It's just the tool.

Punish the guilty, protect the liberties of the innocent!

You use this argument as if it is a bad thing.  So they lost their shotguns almost completely...good.  Politically Europe is better than the US, so why doubt them on the issue of guns.  They have been outlawed or heavily restricted through much of Europe and it has been a positive thing overall.

You say that like it's a fact and not just your opinion.  Spoken like someone that has never really been there.

Is there no crime in Europe anymore??  Did I miss that on the news right after the story about the armed robbery at Euro Disney??

And, sorry, but if Europe is so damned good... why did so many (and so many still), come to the USA to live and work??  

Seems to me that not everyone (many of them in Europe) happen to agree with you.

Also, I see that you are ignoring the points of Lothorio and myself in regards to why not just punish the guilty and leave the rest of us our liberty???

Because the owning of guns is a stupid liberty to have.  I agree with the argument that on drug use, that any abusive use that endangers or ingures others should be punished severely, as I do with all other violations of others rights.  But I don't agree with either of you that guns are a liberty that should be had in the first place.

    I'm not surprised that Europe's restrictions on guns turned out well. Despite that, there are many ways to deal with a problem this complex.

    I'm more or less ambivalent about gun ownership. Shooting appeals to me, and I will almost certainly take it up as a hobby one of these days, but honestly, if guns were banned in America, it really wouldn't have a huge effect on my life one way or the other.
    With that said, I'm against the banning of guns in America. Not because it's a "right," which is a word that is infused with far too much vitriol and burdened by far too many connotations to use safely or precisely in this context. Rather, I'm against the banning of guns because it is a freedom.
    Responsible adults should be free to do anything they damn well please, as long as it's not hurting someone else. As soon as they hurt someone else, then you can go ahead and saw out their liver using a spork from Taco Bell. But up to that point, they should be free from any and all government-created restrictions on their activities.

Bondo,

drug, alcohol and tobacco use are stupid liberties as well.... but you argue for them... why do you want it both ways?  People that use drugs are stupid.  But that should be their right (or freedom, for Loth).  I don't have a problem with people being free to live their lives the way they want... don't infringe our freedoms... that includes guns.  

Once you start infringing... why do you get to say where it stops?  That's just as wrong as the laws now saying that weed, etc are out.  It's you forcing your morality on me.  What next... forcing your "faith" upon me?? ;)

And well said Loth, well said.

Odd, I didn't realize the ownership of guns was a moral issue.  Honestly I'd be fine with them if they did the licensed storage places such as gun clubs and hunting areas, that keeps the guns where they should be.  And it doesn't limit the ability to use guns properly, only to limit their improper use.

So you are still defining "proper" use of a gun...

Infringe upon our liberties some more.... infringe upon our use of alcohol or automobiles!!  Tell us that we can only drink alcohol in establishments where children can't get in.... and we can't get out until we've proven we are sober...

Premise #1: America has a problem with Gun violence
Premise#2: Strong punishment has failed largely to deter said violence
Premise#3: If violence can't be prevented reactively, it must be prevented proactively.
Conclusion#1: America must act proactively to reduce Gun violence
Premise #4: The best way to proactively reduce gun violence is to restrict access to them.
Conclusion #2: America must reduce access to guns.

DAMN YOU GRIFTER, YOU SHEEP SHAGGING BASTARD
you locked my pledge thread, you bastard, you didnt even let me have the last word in my own thread!  could you be any more inconsiderate?

damn you gifter, danm you to hell, where there will be no sheep, only fugly snowcows!

Brain, he couldn't risk it, it was two within tying Loud's thread for most posts.

i defer to my final argument in my thread

why shouldn it be alowed to surpass that thread?

if i was to go into baseball and get close to breaking the home run record my rookie year, should the bud selig say  that any home runs i hit after i get with in 2 homers, dont count towards the record, simply because i'm new or he doesnt like how i got to that point?

i think that the obvious answer in that situation is no. why should this situation be any different?

Sorry Bondo, that excuse is bs. I think everyone remembers the grand daddy of all threads on this forum: http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/YaBB/YaBB.pl?board=GR&action=display&num=1011011013&start=180

Has 193 posts in it.

Bah (wishes he was moderator still and could do some trimming of the inferior Top players thread).  Fine then, Grifter has the honors, still no need to allow the pledge one (which had stopped being on any real topic towards the end) from passing the terrorism one.

Ok, I'm going to take those one at a time Bondo...


Correction: America has a problem with VIOLENCE.  Violence is the action, guns are just a tool.



I disagree.  Our court systems haven't been punishing effectivly (plea bargins to save $$$).  Also, the laws about violent crimes, especially those comitted with weapons, need to REQUIRE much stronger punishments.  That would be the first logical step.  (when it's 5 years for robbery, 6 if you use a gun in Michigan... that isn't much of a threat).



First, that's a premise with a conclusion, not a premise.  Second, I disagree with it under principle.  You can not prevent ANYTHING reactively... you can only deter.  



Correction: America must act to reduce violence.

(on a side note, everywhere that has adopted a liberal CCW policy, violent crimes were reduced.. see previous post for one such study)



That's an opinion.  A different opinion has it that if guns are much more accessable, then violent crime is reduced.



Sure, your conclusion fits the false premises.

OK, now that that is over, I see the basic flaw in your logic Bondo.  You want to reduce GUN VIOLENCE.... not VIOLENT CRIME.  You want to do this by making owning a gun a CRIME.  

I'm all for reducing VIOLENT CRIME...  but rape and murder will still happen, with or without guns... and some studies show that with more guns those crimes are reduced.

Here's another one for you....

Premise 1: Alcohol use impares judgement and coordination.
Premise 2: Automobiles accidents are the number one cause of unnatural death in America (2:1 over guns)
Premise 3: Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is responsible for as many deaths in America as guns. (roughly estimated everywhere I looked that half of all traffic fatalities involve alcohol or drugs... can't find hard numbers...)
Premise 4: We all want to reduce the number of unnatural deaths in America.
Conclusion 1: A complete ban on alcohol and drugs will result in saving roughly 30,000 American lives each year (see earlier posts for where that number came from).


Man, that is so wrong in so many ways.  Taking away a liberty to prevent people that abuse that liberty from doing so.  The fact that banning it's biggest effect is on the people that wouldn't abuse it in the first place.... those that abuse it (drunk drivers and criminals with guns) will be the ones to still find a way (just like they always have... remember prohabition?)

Too many holes in your logic Bondo... too many holes.

And you still refuse to tell me why we shouldn't all be treated as responsible adults in regards to guns, alcohol, tobacco, drugs and prostitutes??  Is it because there is no good anwer ;)

My argument was valid and logical, you may argue that it was unsound but it was valid.  I would argue with the soundness of yours as well, your first premise says that alcohol use impairs judgement and coordination which it doesn't...abusive alcohol use does but alcohol use doesn't.

And you want an answer to your question, adults aren't reasonable. ;)  I don't accept your argument that guns as a liberty are no different than alcohol, drugs or prostitution either.

    I would tend to think that the death penalty and stronger punishments do not act as a deterrent because of the gaping flaws in the American justice system.

     How many criminals who are convicted of violent crimes actually go to prison for the full length of their sentence? How many do not go to prison at all? The criminals who do wind up in prison are not being punished very harshly. Prison isn't pleasant, but it's far from the worst place you could ever be, and while you're there, you get to study law to try to reduce your time in prison while making contacts and learning how to be a better criminal when you get out.

    The death penalty is an excellent idea. If a person has shown by deed that they are unfit to live among society, then they must be removed from society. People who are sentenced to one or more life sentences with no possibility of parole should not repeat not go to prison. Keeping them fat and happy in prison costs taxpayer money. A lot of taxpayer money. The justice system decided that these people needed to be removed from society permanently, but then shied away from killing them to solve the problem. A corollary to this is that the length of time a person sits on death row needs to be drastically reduced. If a person has been sentenced to die, don't make the taxpayers pay to keep them breathing for twenty years. Using the death penalty in cases where it's warranted and then actually following through and killing the person would make the possibility of death as the cost of crime a real threat, which may then serve as a real deterrent.

    The other benefit of killing the people who have proven that they cannot live in society would be to sharply reduce prison overcrowding. The number of prisons in the United States has risen sharply in the past fifty years or so, and that is one reason the prison system is so ineffective. When there's no place to put a criminal, they don't go to prison. It's no wonder that prison isn't much of a deterrent... it's hardly a threat!

    For less severe crimes, especially nonviolent crimes, I think public flogging (as mentioned in a previous post) would work rather well. Humiliation is a strong deterrent. Prison should be far harsher than it is currently, and it should be left for the people who need to be punished over a long term rather than being crowded beyond capacity both with criminals who should simply be dead and with people who shouldn't be there in the first place.

First... Wrong.  Alcohol use impairs judgement and coordination from it's immediate use.  You are always diminished, even if you don't notice it.  The diminishment just increases with the amount of alohol.  You don't have to abuse alcohol to have your judgement or coordination effected.  You just have to use it.

As for the death penalty... that just goes to show how stupid that is as a punishment.  First, it takes way too many years to actually execute someone to be effective... but that has to be because it's even worse to execute an innocent person.  It's a stupid punishment... there are much better.

But still... your logic is flawed.  You have false premises, which can't produce true conclusions.

What you keep giving is your opinioins... but your logic isn't backing them up.  



You say you don't accept it, but you can't refute it either it seems.  

First, I said responsible adults... and if people shouldn't be treated like responsible adults... then why should they have any of those other liberties that you say they should have?  The guy that visits the prostitue and gives his wife AIDS obviously isn't responsible enough to wear a condom... let alone honor his vows... drinking and driving... depression... cancer.... the list can go on and on...

You have to either let people live and be responsible for their own actions or not.  The biggest problem in our society is that people all want don't take this responsibility.  They want the freedoms that are important to them... and not the FREEDOM for all.  I don't do drugs... I don't visit prostitutes... I don't even drink anymore.  But I'm all for these being lawful.  Because I do equate freedom and responsibility with how we should all be treated and accounted for.  That includes the things I'm for and not for.  I hate what the Nazi's stood for, but I'm for letting them in the Thanksgiving Day parade.  Why, because freedom has to be for everybody, or it's not really freedom.  Just because I loath their message doesn't mean that as Americans, they don't have the right to shout it from the tallest building if thats what they choose.  

That's the issue I'm defending here Bondo...

There are still plenty of others.... protection from invasion.. the fact that you can't really controll something like guns from the criminals... the fact that places with more LIBERAL gun controll laws (ie, more citizens carry them) have less violent crimes... the fact that you do have the right to protect yourself (and an 80 pound woman needs something powerful if she's being attacked by a 300 pound gorilla with a knife)...  

But just the basic freedom to choose right and wrong, that's what part of it is all about.  What makes this any different from any other liberty...?