*DAMN R6 Forum

Wow, can you all believe this shit? Some guy is sniping people, he has 5 kills so far, all headshots! Who do you think this guy is?

A. Some disgruntled crazy dude.
B. An ex CIA assassin.
C A military sharpshooter.
D. Or....?

Remeber, this was in an area with alot of retired military and cia. Will they catch this guy, or will he continue to kill at will?

Post your thoughts on this, I know we all have some. I personally think he is an ex CIA assassin who is pissed for some reason....

This guy is a crazy dude with a high powered hunting rifle. If he was any of the other choices, he would have chosen men in power, not some random people in parking lots or walking down the street.

Also, hitting people in the head isn't that hard with a hunting rifle with a scope (probably 8-12x zoom) when they are standing still or walking in a straight line. Anyone who has hunted and used this type of weapon has the training on how to use it effectively because if you miss, your target will have ran away by the time you get a second shot.

Do you think it's funny?  

This isn't a game of RS.  If some sicko is out committing murders, it's not like a computer game.  Grow up.

Clarifying on my last post...

I don't think it is funny in any way, shape, or form. This guy is a psycho who needs to be taken down ASAP before he kills other people.

Also, when I said it was easy to fire a hunting rifle accurately with a scope, I speak from experience. Proper training and target practice (which this guy unfortunately has) makes for this guy to be a deadly and dangerous killer.

Why do we let people have guns in this country again?  Oh yeah, I remember, because we have been misinterpreting the constitution and won't come to our senses.  It doesn't matter if 15 kids die in a school shooting or if 5 people are gunned down for no reason in MD...as long as the NRA is happy so is the government.

"The Right to Bear Arms" - Second Amendment

How the fuck can you misinterpret that? You liberal whack jobs have already gotten your way with Assault Rifles because they are deemed "excessive" but the gun the MD/VA/DC shooter is using is a hunting rifle.

Also think of this: All it takes under your system is for one wingnut to get a gun through the black market to mess it up. Look what happens in Britian anytime there is a gunman - they have a hard time stopping him because he has the power in the situation. BAH, I don't want to have a second amendment argument with a liberal because it will go nowhere.

I must agree with you ass. Arguing with a liberal is life draining, but I must make one point.

The Right to Bear Arms is very important. We as Americans have always been under attack for our ideals on freedom and democracy. By dearming our nation, we take away the ability to defend ourselves (the people) against an attack. Originally the amendment was constructed because the American people were afraid the government would drop the constitution and put its own doctrine in place. By having arms we are able to defend what is very precious to us. Yes there's always going to be an abuse of the law in one way or another. No one can stop that. But taking away our freedom and rights is exactly what we wanted not to happen.

Our country is controlled now by excessive laws and unruly lawyers. We can't live our lives without the intrusion of someone or something into our personal lives. Before, we wanted small government so there was no possibility for someone to form a monarchy...but now people want the government to control their lives. People don't want to face the truth or the pain it brings. Just let someone else take care of it.

Hah...Complete and total bullshit I say. People need to wake up from their blind stuper. Democrats and Liberals are so programmed nowadays its really scary. Stop harping on the NRA. Start making a life for yourself instead of having a government employee do it for you.

First off, jn....I think nothing is funny, so don?t tell me to grow up. Im probably older than you kid. I made my statement as an explnation point saying 5 headshots is crazy and nothing to laugh about. I was stating he is highly skilled and its scary to see him out there picking off people for no reason. Im not laughing about it at all as I have a family of my own and this shit can happen anywhere anytime.

Sorry about the double post but I just wanted to say....Kilzo, your post is sick. Does this really excite you? Is it all a game for you? Seriously, it doesn't matter who the guy is or where he shot them. Its the fact that someone is murdering innocent people. You should be outraged...not estatic.

Sin, the Second Amendment gives the right to have guns in the possesion of a militia, not personal use.  Also, England has less gun violence per capita by a HUUUUGGGEEE margin when compared to the US.

Please Sin, I am a libral and I support guns in the United States. You know there was a little thing called gun control in Nazi Germany. It meant that they had the guns and you didnt, thus leaving your self defencless against a police state. Better 15 kids then citizens in concentration camps. BTW Bondo England's general crime rates are very large compared to US. Ture there is less gun violence, but there are more burglaries,rapes, e.t.c.

Yeah...but England is many people in small country...so how does their crime compare to that of the crowded areas in the US.  To compare a high population dense area to the US which is relatively low overall would be misleading.

Liberal whack job was in referrence to Bondo and some of the other hard line psychos that you see around the U.S. Capitol arguing this type of thing. If you are a liberal and offended, sorry, but it was meant to be aimed a true hardline liberals such as Bondo.

As for your argument about the Nazi Police "state" I don't know who that is aimed towards, Bondo or I, but that would never ahppen in the US as long as we have some rational thinking people running this country.

The Nazis implemented gun control and so did Stalin. I was just stating why gun control is bad.

      Expecting rational people to run the country is kind of farfetched. Representative democracy doesn't exactly select for rationality, or intelligence, or steadiness. It selects for the ability to lie and to make sound bites. Elected officials do what their constituents will be happy with, because they want to keep working. Currently, the constituents are cheering on increasing gov't control and surveillance of the populace in the interest of national security. The implications are left to the reader.

     Anyhow... pragmatically, gun control is a silly idea. It won't accomplish its most-cited purpose, which is to keep criminals from using guns when they commit their crimes. I offer exhibit A: recreational drugs are illegal in order to keep people from using them. Note the near-total failure of those laws to accomplish that goal. Criminals will still be able to get guns to commit crimes with. The old saw "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," is a clich?, but it's true.

That was a long time ago. Nazi germany doesn't excist anymore(as you hopefully know) and we live now in a modern civilation where you don't need weapons anymore.

I understand the reason behind the law when it was made but nowadays it is just a relict from the founder days.

In Austria you are not allowed to have weapons except you make a "weapon license test". Also there are strict laws how you have to keep the weapons and ammunition.

You are allowed to have weaps and defend yourself however what is wrong with difficult tests and strict laws. With such laws 80percent think twice about if they really need a weapon or not.

In Austria(8million population) only 3-4 guys get killed by a gun per year. When someone gets shot it is something "SPECIAL" and you can find a headline on the news papers. In the USA there is no day where someone doesn't get shot. Yes you have a population of 280+millions but I think there could be less victims with stricter controls and laws.

Regards,

Mauti

     Dismissing Cossack's post because the Third Reich isn't around anymore is shortsighted, and brings to my mind the phrase, "those who do not learn from the past, are doomed to repeat it."

     Dismissing his post because we "live in a modern civilization" is equally shortsighted. Technological progress most emphatically does not indicate sociological progress.

     That said, I do agree that tighter gun control, such as background checks and purchase limits, would be an overall good thing. Banning guns would be futile and would very likely never happen anyway. Of course, given how illogical, unreasonable, and powerful the National Rifle Association is, even the slightest increase in gun control legislation won't be passed.

Well, I think Cossack ignoring that banning guns HAS worked in countries without them becoming horrible dictatorships is just as one-sided.  Plus, you have to consider the political aspects...both Germany and the USSR were coming off of extreme changes with their country and were prime to have a dictator step up.  For Christ's sake, Germany supported Hitler, why would having guns change that.  On the other hand England was stable when they banned guns and they have not had any political strife due to it.  So using the history you remind us to consider Loth, it is likely that it would have no impact on how the goverment runs.  Also, as has been seen by the occasional group of people who build up guns and want to break away, their guns don't help them...so that excuse becomes meaningless anyways, having guns or not having guns doesn't matter because the government has more and better trained people to use them if you get out of hand.

P.S. I love how Sin thinks he somehow defeats my arguments simply by calling me a liberal...typical conservative. ;)

Ok here is what it comes down to. I LIKE SHOOTING MY .22! I am in common mind with Lothario on gun control.

If u only feel like men over there when u carry around a big gun, then  u are poor individuals. If a society is at such a low point that everyone needs weapons at home to feel secure then its nothing to be proud on.
Violence is funny in r6 but NOT in reality. Dont mix it all up.

btw.: i dont think the maryland sniper is fighting a evil nazi or communist goverment (lol). its just a crazy bastard with a rifle that he proably bought at the next supermarket ...

Kilzo, I don't care how old you are, your post was immature.

I agree that banning guns is ineffectual, but I think they should be extremely hard to get, as in Austria.  Of course the criminals are going to be able to figure out a way to get them if they are desperate enough, but that doesn't mean it should be so simple.  Everyday average Joes who like to shoot their .22s or hunt deer won't have any rights violated if they have to have background checks, etc. before getting a gun.

And maybe the occasional disgruntled postal worker would be able to do less damage because they didn't have a gun handy, as so many people do nowadays.

Plus, any fears about a police state are misguided.  Having a .22 or whatever at home might make you feel safer, but won't do a whole lot of good if somehow the military drove a tank into your backyard. . .

i agree strongly with Bondo and Mauti that the US should not have the right to bear arms.  Take a look at Canada, they only have guns for hunting and law enforcement and look at their crime rate:  in the year 2000, there were a total of 1308 murders reported, 76% of the murders were solved.  In the US in 2000:  ther were a total of 15520 murders, 63.10% of the murders were solved.  I know the US has a much bigger population than Canada but the truth still lies in the percentage.  England solved 92% of its murders.  In all of the percentages the US is lower than other countries and in a lot of cases much lower.  OK, scenario:  Lets say nobody can have guns, two guys run into a convenient store with crowbars and stuff, the clerk pulls out a tazer or stun-gun and shocks them, calls the police and calls it a day.  Isn't that better than:  two guys go in with 9mms the clerk sees them, pulls out a shotgun, fires and kills one guy while the other guy puts a bullet in the clerks chest.  I liked the first story, how bout u?

Also think about this:  A kid is just is mad at the world, he is playing with the idea of suicide after going on a rampage with his father's gun.  He's not sure he wants to do this, he's just thinking about it.  Don't u think the kid will be A LOT less likely to actually do that if his father didn't have a gun?  Think about it!

For those who absolutely feel the need to shoot guns off, I'm fully accepting of having gun clubs and hunting...but only if the guns are locked up at the gun clubs and hunting lodges and don't make it out into society.  I'm wholly against being able to even hold a gun outside of those restricted areas (obviously police/military are able to carry guns where they are needed for duty).

To bad I came to the topic late.  I wont reply on the later posts, but I will help defend Ass.  

I am strongly aganist Gun Control, which criminals create this contraversy.  Plain and simple, you can't stop people from getting weapons on the black market.  This is so true, what can't you get illegally? Personally, I have been offered C4 and even C6(more powerful liquid explosive), and how easy do you think it would be for guns?  You may think, "if we just crack down on guns entering the country, we would control the gun crime rates".  I will tell you to look at how we handle drugs.  It's illegal but yet we know how easy we can get weed and 100 other drugs, same goes with guns.  My point basically is, "if there's a will there's a way", yeah it may sound corny but its true.

History does repeat itself.  In Germany, the people were banned from havng guns making it easier for Hitler and the SS to control the population.  They couldn't fight back.  Power  corrupts.  That's why we have the constitutional right to bear arms.  If the government gets to much power, the people have a right to defend themselves from a corrupt government.  

As for the posts about compairing countries... sure you can find countries without as much gun related crime, but there can only be one country with the best crime rate.  Point being, we can always find countries with better statistics in a specific area. Meaning,  if we researched into other countries without gun control we could even find better crime rates than some countries with gun control.  In conclusion, I ask what county would you would you rather live in? Most likely the U.S. for the freedoms in which this country is founded upon.

As for kids geting guns from there fathers to kill other kids.  we can require guns to be stored in gun safes if there are kids in the house.  

HAHA, going to a gun club to just shoot guns is plain BULL SHIT and realistic.  I think Bondo lacks the experience/privlege to shoot a gun.  How would you like to go to a computer club to play  games or for personal use in fear of illegal activities that computers can be used for?  Where's the freedom?

If all guns get banned for some reason or another, (although, most likely won't ever happen in my life time), I'll keep my guns.

Ok, as the owner of more then one gun, I'll pop off here.

First, gun control = GOOD.  Gun ban's = BAD.  

There is nothing wrong with tighter controls over guns.  The question is, what controls.  Banning isn't control, it's an illusion.  The technology exists today so that by wearing a watch, bracelet, ring (you get the point) it unlocks a gun to fire.  Without that exact "key", the gun wont fire, no matter what.  That is a great form of gun control.  Only legal owners of those guns will be able to operate them.

That is gun control.

Now, to get on to some comments.  Colin, your stats don't compute.  You know that populations are way off, so don't bring up numbers.  As for the % of crimes solved, explain what that has to do with guns, if you can.

Bondo, you are just a knee jerk reaction liberal.  A gun is the great equalizer.  If my girlfriend is home alone (or wife in the future), and someone comes in the house to attack / rape her, I am all for her using a gun to defend herself.  No, I never expect this to happen, but as many have pointed out, crime does happen.  

I have personal freedoms, that should not be taken away until I do wrong.  Cars kill more people every year then guns do, by far.  Alcohol releated deaths are higher then gun related deaths.  Ban those first, if you dare, then talk about guns.  I don't think that my personal rights should be infringed upon until I do something wrong.  

Here's more food for thought for you.  In the states with more guns (legal) like Texas, where you are allowed to have them with you, openly, there are remarkedly less gun related crimes.  When the honest person can defend themselves against anyone, because they are equally armed, then the criminals lost their greatest advantage.  And it shows.

Damnit Bucc, that sounds like it was taken off of my term paper regarding the second amendment...I was going to use those same facts to defend myself, but you already did it for me, thanks  :D

P.S.: When I am out of college, one of the first things I am going to apply for is a handgun operator's license and probably a rifle license...I would rather be the one with the gun then some jackass trying to break into my house with one.

All well and good Bucc, assuming things go as planned...but suppose in the course of this robbery she misses and the robber instead of just stealing something is forced to kill her.  Or suppose she kills herself with it by accident (or sadly on purpose as having access to guns makes it easier for someone to committ suicide) or suppose you have a kid and he kills himself acciedentally or on purpose or kills someone else accidentally or on purpose.  All these very viable risks just to protect material items in your house (most robbers have no intention of killing or raping).  Sorry, but I just don't buy the protection element.  Your car/alcohol excuse is rather flimsy, those things have regular uses that aren't harmful.  Guns regular use is harmful (outside of gun club/hunting).

As for gun crime being lower in Texas.  You can lower gun crime either by cutting down on guns, or having everyone have a gun...I'd feel much safer with the former.

Rob, what about gun clubs is bullshit...how would you want to use a gun in a non-bullshit way.  There is no acceptable use of a gun outside of hunting or gun clubs, both of which I accounted for.  Any other use of the gun would be bad.

As for your question of which country I'd rather live in, Canada, Norway, Sweeden, U.K., Denmark, and Holland for a start.

Also, you say history repeats itself by showing the Nazi example, I say history repeats itself by showing the example of the successful restriction of guns in the U.K...or Austria like Mauti spoke of.  Sorry, but the ability to have guns isn't going to save us from anything.  The goverment has the military so if a dictator stepped up, us having pistols and rifles wouldn't save us...not that a dictator is going to step up.

Bondo, being the typical you, you neglect to look at what Bucc said about the various controls available. You would rather just say "guns are bad just because" and ignore other valid points. With the gun controls mentioned, a kid isnt going to be able to shoot himself/anyone else with a gun. Nor does the fact that someone has a gun cut down on suicide rates. If someone wants to commit suicide, there is plenty of other ways to do it - you don't need a gun.

You also negelct what I said about the UK - whenever someone obtains a weapon illegally through the black market, all hell brakes loose when it is used in a robbery or a shootout because not even the police have sidearms at their easy disposal. Not to mention that you live in a fantasy land if you expect everyone to give up their guns just because some liberal whack job thinks that we would live in his vision of a utopian society.

Also, if you have a gun, you are more likely to thwart a robbery than if you did not have a gun. Almost everyday on the news you see or hear about robberies thwarted because the cashier or the owner of a house repelled the robber because he fired a shot or flashed a weapon. More often than not, a gun will protect you rather than hurt you if you know what you are doing with it.

Responsible gun control = good
Negligent gun banning = stupid

     The idea of armed citizens, even a reasonably well-trained militia, successfully fighting the American military is farfetched at best. Look at the well-armed and -trained militias who have stood up to the American gov't in the recent past. There was never the least question of the militia winning; it was merely a question of how long until they surrendered or were killed. My position against the banning of guns (although not against some level of control, such as the Brady Bill or suchlike) is because of freedom. Freedom is a Good Thing?, but you have to take the bad with the good.

The reason I didn't mention Bucc's bit about the personalized guns...I think it is a fine idea.  It would seem mundane for me to say...I agree with you, I agree with you.  Wouldn't add much by doing that would I.  So let me get this straight thoug about his idea.  Is it like Judge Dreadd where only the person whose DNA matches that assinged to the weapon can use it and that the bullets are marked so they can tell whose gun it came from (well, this concept minus the sci-fi part).  That sounds fine to me but is that reality or is that truly just sci-fi.

As for people willingly giving up guns, no I never would think it would be easy.  Then again, I think humans will be extinct before the next millenium.  That may not happen either.

As for your U.K thing.  I consider a monthly gun incident that is four times worse due to guns being outlawed as better than four daily gun incidents.

well,
When you look at banning guns it wouldn't include rifles like the one the sniper is using. It would be more likely that handguns would be banned simply because they are used more in crimes, and easyer to conseal.
When you look at the wording in the consititution...
the 2nd amemdment is there for citizens to establish militias in order to help the army stop a invading army. however in modern days no country would march in to america with a standing army to take over, they would shoot a few nukes over.
By keeping guns, as its vaguely outlined in the constitution as a right, we are keeping high crime rates, more murders, and less safe streets.

I think I have to agree with Bondo on this issue. However, it would be very unrealistic for everyone to turn in all of their firearms. No one is going to change the Constitution. Of course, there are always loopholes. I think the government should ban the distribution of ammunition to civilians, not ban guns. Problem solved in the long run. It's completely Constitutional. People can still bear their guns all they want, but they'll run out of ammo eventually, especially if they do any recreational shooting. Even if people are hoarding(sp?) ammunition, it won't matter much. The police will still have access to it, so they can still deal with problems as they arise. Now, this is also unrealistic, because I'm sure selling ammunition is very profitable, like cigarettes, so they probably won't ban selling/giving it away. Now, for the record, I'm not a liberal, or a non-liberal(whatever they're called.) I don't really like to classify myself..I think people are tossing the word "liberal" around too much in this thread though. Anyways, that's just my idea, don't criticize it too much. You might hurt my feelings.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/banana.gif)

I was getting a bit lonely.

Jeb, you say that he used a rifle and thus it wouldn't be limited.  That is where I think the beauty of having rifles restricted to rifle usage areas so as to say gun clubs and hunting lodges (and the hunting grounds around it natually).  There is no need to have a rifle in your house.  With that done you only have to worry about pistols.  I think Mellow actually brings up a good thing on the pistols.  Just make ammunition taxed to hell to start and people will stop having ammunition, just like the high cost of cigarettes forces some to quit.

The problem with your taxation is that unlike cigarettes, guns and ammo are used by a larger amount of the population and hell would rain down on the political careers of those who supported such whack legislation.

As for your gun clubs, that is a stupid idea because what is your genius plan if a gun club is broken into and all of the rifles are stolen? The thief then has possession of all of the rifles and can rob anyone at will because he knows that no one around will have guns to stop him. Logic sucks, doesn't it Bondo?

Also, don't give me some crap like "well they can be secured" or "only responsible people will be kept in charge of the guns" because it would never happen. Anyone can be bribed and a skilled enough thief can break into just about anything he/she wants.

Sin, Shit happens, you can't protect against everything.  But you shouldn't accept a worse solution just because there isn't a perfect solution.  And police would still have weapons so it isn't like they couldn't be dealt with.

As for the taxation thing...that is bullshit, more people smoke, or drink, or drive than own guns.  All of the previous three have sin taxes on them so why not guns.

bondo its like this...
now hypotheticaly lets say they wanted to ban figure skating...
you would be outraged at that wouldn't you? But you and a few teenage girls couldn't stop the banning of figureskating alone.
Its like that over gun control because there are millions and millions more people, policical partys, and companys suport guns.
if they try to ban guns the entire state of texas might leave  ;D
besides if guns were banned then we couldn't use cool smilies like,
 (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/rambo.gif)
and ::)
and :-[
and (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/uzi.gif)

Well pretty much everything has been brought up and debated to all hell, but I just want to elaborate on one point. It is undeniable statistical fact that in places where common, law-abiding citizens are not restricted in their ability to have a gun (ie Texas) there is far less gun related crime than in places with tons of restrictions/bans. To Bondo and the other bleeding heart liberals, would you care to explain why you still try to argue that having guns makes things less safe when the cold hard facts prove otherwise?



And because I couldn't pass it up:


I thought that gun control was hitting your target...

That is gun control based on fear, not on safety...which is something I don't find acceptable.  Plus, it doesn't stop someone who doesn't value their life from using their gun.

Also, like I said, it is also undeniable statistical proof that not allowing people to own guns or having heavy restrictions on them also reduces gun-related crime...and does so by making it safer, not by making everyone more scared.

Bondo, chew on this...it was  a study done by your precious Canadians and their view on gun control. It essentially tears the liberal argument a new one.

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit/introduction.html

Here is another thing of why guns should not be restricted. It is part of American culture, especialy down here in Texas. Over here everyone carries a gun except for a few libral college chicks. I go out to my freinds land and shoot my .22. People will always use guns. Also what I meant by the use of militia is that if a dictitorial power comes in, one can defend themselves from getting taken in as a political prisoner. There is one thing an Army cannot do and that is fight the general population. It has been poven over and over again in Vietnam Afghanistan, e.t.c. Thus the second amendment allows the general population to be armed.

[Just fixed your BB code. Ace]

Sin, nothing in that link you gave me poked holes in my argument.  I understand that having guns reduces crime more than limited gun control...but nowhere in the US has strong gun control when compared to that of some other countries.

ok, old arguments are still valid.

to who said that americans could not successfully rise up against the american military, i'd disagree.  the militias that have tried it are nuts, and stand alone.  but if there was ever another popular revolt, you better believe that the american military wouldn't stand a chance.  it's been 150 years since the last popular revolt, but that's a large part of what the right to arms is about.

as for bondo.  what bondow ignores is the fact that those that let their kid get their gun should be punished.  that those of us that own guns and know how to take care of them shouldn't be punished for the stupidity of others.

yes, those controls on guns already exist (the rings and bracelets and fingerprints, not dna).  also, all explosives sold in america already have makers that survive the explosion, to show where it came from.  there is no reason that they can't do that with gun ammo as well.  they use it in tasers already.

even once you get the guns away from the violent criminals, they will just revert to knives or other weapons.  in all your stats, don't look for gun related crimes, but violent crimes.  because stabbing or beating will still leave the victem hurt or dead.

guns equalize people.  if i came after your ass with a knife, i'd have an advantage due to my size and strength.  even if we both had knives.  if we both had guns, the advantage is gone.

one last thing.  violence is a fact.  just like death.  our world and our race is caked in blood.  for good and for bad.  it's just a fact.  blood has been spilled for everything, every cause on earth.  nothing good has ever been built upon peace alone.  blood had to be shed.  you may not like that.  but you probably don't like death either.  not liking them will not make either go away.

Actually, there is a very good reason to only look at gun crimes.  Guns are both more deadly and more instant then knives.  Where as someone with a gun in the heat of the moment can use it, it would take serious intent for someone to kill with a knife...not just a moment of not thinking.  Secondly, guns can kill at distance.  You can run from a criminal with a knife, not from one with a gun.  Finally, with a gun you can take out a whole group of people.  You can go in somewhere outnumbered 5 to 1 and kill all of them.  With a knife they may get cut or some may even die but they would probably stop you.  These are among the reasons that guns are much worse than knives and other weapons that can be used to commit violent crimes.  Sure there will always be crime, but better to make it more difficult for the criminal by taking away the easiest means.

As for punishing people who leave it where a kid could get to it.  My point was that if you were having it somewhere accessable in case of a robbery (thus needing quick access) you can't prevent it really.  If you keep it in a gun safe, then it won't help you in the event of a robbery anyway.

I think that gun control is bad but taking guns away is completly wrong first off :

bondo:
1. your being rediculas you think that people are just gona hand over there guns and the problem will then end.  O wait thats totaly wrong first of all people wont give up there guns and people could still get them on the streets or the black markets.
2: Knives?? o i guess sence you cant kill at a distance they arent weapons and you mines well stap somone and say that for your backup heres a sanario

Bondo runs into a bar and stabs somone police come and he is arested his plee is "It cant kill at a distance"

good call bondo

3: Gun safes , bondo would u rather have your kid go on a rampage and kill himselve or others or get the gun 2 seconts later by opening the safe and shooting the rober, i choose choice b

once a again good call bondo


Assasin: i think most of your points are exelent , good job assasin =)

cossack: you all carry around guns, There is a major problem if somone carries a gun into a bar or a mall, hell its just some guy than BAM BAM!! ten people dead plus the killer

=(


Silents gives his 2cents

Bondo, considering that my gun safe is in my bedroom wall, and I can open it in about 5 seconds, your argument against gun safes is pointless.

Also, with the new gun locks that are available now (hard to find but out there), in the future, we don't have to worry about a kid getting it.  Unless the idiot owner is still an idiot and leaves the "key" with the gun, not wearing it.

And crime has always been around Bondo.  Violent crime has always been around, long before guns.  All you talk about is how guns can be used for the wrong things (and your fact about a women turning the gun upon herself is just wrong, studies show that women don't shoot themselves, they take pills or slit wrists, do your homework before you throw out those statements).  Bondo, there is nothing wrong with guns, there's something wrong with blaming the tool and not the user.  I don't blame alcohol for drunk driving deaths, I blame the driver.  I don't blame drugs for drug related deaths, I blame the user.  I don't blame guns for gun related deaths, I blame the shooter.

Well all I can say is what my old man told me is true : ?It?s better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it?

Many things in this world are dangerous, but without human involvment they can?t hurt anyone, therefore the theory stands true, |guns dont kill people, people kill people | Its all up to the individual to pull the trigger, and if there were better parenting these days, kids would?nt get hold of the guns. My father took me shooting when I was like 8 years old, he taught me that a gun was always loaded and to never play with them. If he so much as thought I touched one of his guns he?d have my ass. I learned not to mess with them because he had the forethought, patience, and knowledge to teach me, not just let me find out on my own curiousity.

Typical liberals though would rather have someone else take care of it rather than do something about it themselves. Take responsibilty for your own actions and make a pro-active choice to better yourself and your community, don?t leave it up to the Government.

When I was talking about the safe, I was talking about now, not when we have this nifty ring idea that I hope comes soon.  As for me being wrong about women killing themselves with guns, I wasn't being gender specific, Bucc had mentioned his gf as the example so I stuck with it.  I meant in general...you feel suicidal, if you have a gun you can kill yourself easily, if you don't have a gun you have to either work to find something (buy pills) or take a more painful approach (sliting wrist).

As for you Kilzo, I feel it is better to act proactively by trying to limit the threat, then to act reactively by jailing or executing them.  Then again...as the death penalty is so pricey what with the appeals, I think we should start supplying inmates with a cyanide pill so that if they ever get depressed while in jail, they can end it themselves.  Cheap and effective method and all without the legal hassles.  (ACLU would probably not like it but I think of it as offering a choice to the prisioner that very well may please them).

Bondo, read it.  My gun safe is in my bedroom wall and takes all of 5 seconds for me to open.  That's what kills your gun safe argument, not the other things (which do exist today).  The ring and bracelet locks are available today for hand guns.  20/20 did a story on it two years ago.  Research your facts.

It would really help your cedibility if you would learn to read the posts that you argue against.

And you can kill yourself easily, and with less pain then a gun plenty of ways Bondo.  With things that are around the house.  They say that slitting the wrists is very painless, especially when done in a hot bath.  Besides, I thought that liberals were for suiside?  

And being proactive is fine, until it tramples the rights of the innocent.  Which is what you are talking about.  We have the right to arms.  Along with life and liberty.  Anyone can kill, with or without a gun.  Don't think that limiting guns will end violence.  It wont.

First off, I understood that the ring/bracelet things are available, but I'm talking about them being widely used and required.

As for your wall safe thing...good for you, but not everyone keeps their guns in their bedroom, some have safes elsewhere.

And your last paragraph gets back to the original point.  The right to bear arms does not in the constitutional definition mean personal stores...it means you can have a militia with weapons.

I read your post and interpreted it perfectly, it seems you are the one who didn't interpret my post correctly to think I didn't.

i have two major objections to this post and therefore all of the pro-gun posts.

number one, people think they need guns for hypothetical situations such as the one that deadeye proposed (e.g. what they would do if someone broke into their house, etc.). however, if someone was to perpetrate a crime against you, to use a gun on them would make you equally bad if not worse than the person attacking you. outside the limited uses that bondo suggested, there are NO MORAL OR ACCEPTABLE uses for guns in modern society.

number two, i cannot stand when people present topics such as violence to be necessary elements of society. the statement that "nothing good has been built on peace alone" is wrong at best and deeply offensive at worst. multiple examples of good things that were built on peace are provided by the nonviolent direct action of activitsts everywhere, from Gandhi gaining freedom for his people to environmentalists tree-sitting and stopping logging trucks from destroying America's last remaining old-growth forests. violence is only a necessary part of society as long as people think of it that way; violence begets violence, and guns are a primary staple of violence created around the world. if more people would denounce such violent behavior (e.g. banning guns in the US), then peace would beget peace, and America and the world would be better for it. everyone can do their part to decrease violence. thinking like the kind that deadeye promotes is dangerous. change can be made. my primary example of people stating that something is simply a fact of life and being wrong comes from those that denounce socialism as being impossibly idealistic; look at sweden and norway, where it has worked to create the most just and peaceful countries on the planet. not liking violence may not do anything to change it, but not liking violence and doing something about it will.

 I wish I'd come to this a little earlier because I have a few things to say.

Personaly, I find it comforting to own a gun. At age 15, I own a rifle, strictly used for hunting. Personaly, even if someone was breaking into my house, I would never use it. Thats a fact, I have my gun for hunting, which is a sport. Many people, mostly younger people, like to think that if someone was breaking into their home, they'd go grab their gun, and force them out. And while that is perhaps true that they would. Seriously, 90%+ of all robberys are unarmed. If you bring a gun into things, you're actually increasing your own danger. If someones broke into your house, you ask them to leave, if they know anything about law, they're going to get the hell out of there, considering that if the fight you, and hurt you, that would greatly increase how much trouble they would be in. Also, if someone is breaking into your house, and they are armed, you're only putting yourself in unnecessary danger. Just get the hell out, call the cops, and have them deal with it. I really can't think of a situation where a gun could help you if you were thinking about your safty. Perhaps if you were in a room without any windows, doors etc, the intruder outside, about to break down the door, and you just happened to have the gun right in that room.

I am for more gun controle, a gun ban should be totaly out of the question though. I am thinking more into backround checks. Right now, almsot anyone can go out to the store, and pick up a rifle.

Judging from the fact that much of this seems to be democrats vs republicans, I can expect you guys to look through my post, and pick apart any little thing that you can think of while not actually adressing any of my points.

Deadlock, the one reason I could see the need for a gun for defense is if this person broke into your house solely to kill, rape, kidnap, or that type of intent commit a violent crime, not just theft or larceny.  This of course is an extremely rare occerance.  So I agree with you there, having a gun doesn't really make you safer but rather will increase your chance of harm.  If you make noise the robbers will likely hear it and run as fast as possible...it is like a snake, they are as afraid of you as you are of them.

While I personally don't feel the need to hunt or shoot off guns, I do understand that their complete banning won't happen.  But what would you say to my idea I stated earlier of allowing the weapons for those recreational activities, but to have them stored where these activities take place rather than at home?

 Bondo, that is a good point, but considering the rare occurrence of things like that, I would say that overall, having a gun in your house would actually increase the ammount of danger that you would be in. As for your comment about storing guns at the places that they would be used. While the idea of getting them out of houses is one that I agree with, I really don't see how it's possible though. An example of where this wouldn't work: When I was duck hunting in Juneau this summer, we'd go to the wetlands. To store guns there, you would have to have some sort of a building. For reasons of security, you would have to have someone working there so that you can check out your gun. That was create a job that would have to be set at many diffrent places around Juneau, at about 3:30 AM each morning. Also, for hunting trips etc. This would cause a big problem, and just wouldn't work.

Since 90% of these arguements ares based on hypothetical situations, lemme throw one out there. Let's say everywhere in America is like Texas, and you can carry a gun wherever you please. Now, although it is a deterrent(sp?) that damn near everyone has a gun, it can also cause major problems. Let's say there's an armed convenience store robbery. While the clerk is handing over the money, an unseen customer decides to play hero and pulls out his or her gun. Instead of this being a somewhat non-violent confrontation, it turns into  of a gunfight, and the clerk ends up dead. Now, before someone starts calling me a dumbass thin-blooded alligator-fucking liberal, please read the post again. Now, I'm not gonna BS some numbers, or look for statistics, but I'm sure this sort of thing happens now and again. I'm not saying that everyone with a gun is looking to start a fight, or will try to be a hero. All I am saying is that there are a lot of stupid people in the world, and shit happens. Unfortunately, it's unrealistic to ban guns in America, and it will probably never happen. I do believe there should be much stricter gun sales. Maybe a week of required gun safety courses, or a psychological exam or something. Throw a few tests in there too...I dunno. Whatever works.

Yah, 2 more people have been shot, but thankfully noone was killed. One was a 13 year old, the other a 43 year old woman. This guy is crazy.

I think teenagers ranging from at LEAST 13 - 18 years of age, should be taught basic gun safety. It's amazing how some teenagers don't realize the dangers of guns or how to deal with them properly when confronted. Safety, as in correctly holding the weapon(barrel shouldn't be pointed at anything more than the ground), disarming, (SHOULD ONLY BE ATTEMPTED BY AN ADULT) or warn an adult if a gun is just laying around. This is common sense people!!

When my dad first showed and allowed me to hold his newly purchased 9MM, I had a friggin' rush of adrenaline and a "sense of power" just HOLDING the thing. Immagine if he didn't show me the basic functions(safety switch, magazine release, and of course, the trigger... duh), who knows what would have happened, if I stumbled across it.

Now, my dad trusts me with handling a pistol safely. There's no need for "safes" "rings" or "bracelets." Sure, those all are great safety precautions. If your kid is suicidal, or you have some sort of criminal background history, you shouldn't OWN a gun.

This brings me to another point. The one reason my dad was motivated to purchase a firearm, SAFETY!! Yeah, it does open the doors for more fatal accidents or injuries in a sudden scuffle with criminial(s).

Say you get a flat tired on the highway, you're with your son, daughter, whoever. You have a loaded pistol in the glove box, but there's only one round. A car with 3 unkown people parks up behind. You immediately feel threatened at their presence. Reach for that pistol; hold it in your hand; they see the weapon. You try to reason with them and say, "Well guys, I just got back from the firing range and only have one bullet left. One of you three is going to die, so who is it going to be?" Depending on your appearance and confidence holding the weapon, they will be terrified. Unless you're dealing with ruthless convicts, I suggest you aim extremely well. Very few criminals want to die, and they are well aware of that.

Jo, good point.

as for the flat tire and 1 bullet thing. Hell i wouldnt tell them i have 1 bullet. i would tell the to scram and fire a round in the air, and say "leave or the next one will be fatal."  Use the bluff =D

A similar story story to this is the Texas Town Sniper (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/whitman/index.htm). Just thought you might want to read about these kinds of murders and what kind of a background this man might have. Toodlez.

Ok Bondo, re-read it.  When I was talking about the safe, I was talking about the SAFE, not the rings or bracelets.  And since it's here, your comment about comes soon is still wrong.  Just face it.  If you had said "used soon" you may not look like a weasel trying to backpeddle.

Tasty, good, be offended, and try and change society.  Look at Ghandi, you think everything is good from that?  You think there was no bloodshed involved??  Don't watch the movie, talk to some people from India, learn it from their point of view.  

I never said violence is necessary, I said it was a fact.  It happens.  It will always happen.  It's not necessary.  They aren't the same thing.

As long as someone wants something, and someone else stands in their way, violence will happen.  Because humans are just too selfish as a species to not.  Sure, there have been great fucking human beings, but for everyone of them, I'll show you 1000 monsters.  

Mr Mellow?  how many of those robberies would have been stoped without the clerk getting killed?  How many when nobody is around, does the jackass kill the clerk anyway??  

Nobody said blow the guy away for taking your stereo, or TV.  But if a guys is pointing a gun at a gas station clerk, or at a woman he's planning on raping, it would sure be nice if some good, honest people had guns of their own to stop him.  And if someone does shoot, or kill another person for stealing a TV, they go to jail in my state, because then, they are the criminal.  So, we are talking about an honest citizens right to keep and use a gun honestly.

And Bondo, someone that keeps a gun for home protection and doens't keep it in the bedroom is as much of an idiot as the guy that leaves it for his kid to find.  Go live on the west side of Detroit sometime, where you hear gunshots every single fucking night, and then tell me you, an honest person, shouldn't have a gun.

Bucc, I have the utmost respect for you, but that was rather retarded. If the clerk is cooperative and doesn't give the robber trouble, I seriously doubt the robber will kill him. They're trying to get out of there as quick as they can, and gunfire isn't going to make their escape any easier. It just attracts attention. Most robbers are not looking to kill someone anyways, they're just trying to get some money. Unless they're psychotic, they don't want murder on their record along with armed robbery. The best thing you can do in a robbery situation is to just be polite and cooperate. Attempting to stop an armed robbery is foolish and irresponsible. However, if you really want to get them with your gun, pull out the gun as they're leaving with the money and shoot them in the back(assuming their back is to you). haha. Simple as that. And no, I'm not condoning(sp?) shooting someone, nor do I really find it funny. Just kinda stupid humor I guess. As for home safety, if you really want to feel safe, move to a better neighborhood. I know there are money limitations, and some people are forced to live in bad areas, but I'm sure you can find a decent apartment or home in a safer area on the other side of the tracks. Just my 2 cents.

mr mellow, fuck off with the retarded remark.  i don't know where you live, but here, the news last week was all about the video from the pizza shop where it was robbed, and after giving up the money, they killed the three workers there, in cold blood.

it isn't retarded to think that this shit happens.  because all you have to do is watch the news to see it (at least in detroit).

if these assholes were smart and rational, they wouldn't be robing a gas station / liquor store / pizza place in the first place.  

and, as many of you will find out, when you first get out of college, and get a job in the city, and have tens of thousands of dollars of student loans to pay off, you may HAVE to live in the shitty part of town.  Most people don't live in their parents basement, they go do it on their own.  moving away from it isn't always an option, not right away.  five of us lived in that house.  even the guy that was against guns in college started learning to shoot with us.  it was the smart thing to do.

Deadeye, that's a pretty rare occurance, around where I live anyways. All I was trying to say that in an armed robbery, you're better off cooperating then trying to take them out. Provoking and/or shooting at them isn't going to better the situation, yanno? And Bucc, sorry about the retarded comment, I was just kind of surprised by what you said. I really don't have anything against people owning guns, but I was just trying to make a point that some irresponsible people would make a few wrong decisions during an armed robbery, and pretty much throw gasoline onto the fire. When someone has a gun already aimed at you, it's dangerous and stupid to pull out a gun and try to stop them, no matter how sneaky you are. The best thing to do is just give them the money, and once they leave, get out your pen and write down everything you can remember about them, and call the police. It's better to lose money then try to be a hero and lose your life. Now, I know some people have successfully stopped an armed robbery, but a lot of people have been killed or seriously injured trying to as well. Anyways, that's just my opinion. In Florida, I've never heard of anyone getting shot and killed when they didn't cooperate in a robbery. Like I said earlier, most (I know there are a few exceptions) robbers are just trying to get the money and leave as fast as possible.

Mellow, apology accepted.  And it's not that rare around here for the crooks to shoot without any reason.  Detroit wasn't the murder capital of the world for a decade for nothing.

Robbers aren't smart (not here).  Often they are drugged out as well.  You would think that it's obvious that they wouldn't want to make things worse, in many ways, that shooting someone would do.  Problem is, the crooks don't seem to feel that way (imagine talking logic with Bondo, the crooks just aren't wired to understand it).

And people that just pull out guns and start shooting at people they think are crooks, are criminals (and dumbasses) themselves, and are punished around here (and universially, I think).  But (and I mean an Opra sized BUT), if people tend to be armed (like in our ever popular and overused example of Texas), it gives crooks much more to think about.  A crook is afraid of a gun, as much as anyone.  So, crooks are less likely to pull a gun when they think that others will be able to pull one back (be it bystanders or shopkeepers).  This is born out by the fact that there are just less attempts at gun related crimes in areas with more guns (see Texas).

Think of everyone owning and carring hand guns as the micro cold war.  If one side has the ability to  destroy the other, and knows that both will be destroyed in the process, everyone is less likely to push that button (or pull that trigger).  The fact that the criminals are the ones with the guns is their advantage.  They use that advantage everyday.  They count on the advantage.  I say, take that advantage away.

You act like the cold war was a good thing...and I suppose in your example the USSR is the criminals?  Sorry, I'd rather have the minute threat of terrorism (now) then constant fear (the Cold War/Texas).

Getting back to this Maryland Sniper issue, I had a chilling revolation today while watching the news report...I am an avid reader of James Patterson and his Alex Cross series is about a Washington D.C. detective who must track down different serial killers.  Each one has it own M.O. to make the books varied but often it has interaction or a game between the killer and Cross.  I just think it is strangely similar...almost as if this guy wants to make a real life Alex Cross novel.

Since I lived through the cold war, and you didn't, I'll consider your opinion pretty much worthless.  All the cold war was to you is some pages in a history book.  We were not afraid all the time.  I'm much more worried about terrorist then I ever was about nukes being used.  And my point wasn't to put either side in the bad light (I leave that to whichever side you were on).  My point had only to do with the great deterent.  The death penelty isn't a deterrent (it doesn't work), everyone having guns, is (it does work).

I can kinda understand your point of view now Bucc, but there still needs to be a way to keep dumbasses from getting their hands on guns. I guess that'll be unlikely, cuz if criminals can get guns, idiots can too. The one thing that concerns me is that arguments could get out of control(especially if they people are drunk), and then guns come out, and the shit hits the fan.

     I offer for your consideration my personal criteria for the rightness or goodness of a law. A law is good if it protects the innocent. Period. For this purpose, I define "innocents" as people who are not involved in whatever is going on. Passers-by, small children, etc. This means, in part, that "crimes" which only endanger yourself and/or willing participants are not rightfully crimes. Based on this criteria, DUI should be a crime solely for the reason that it endangers others. Cliff diving or base jumping (if you're landing on unpopulated areas) should be legal, since there's only the possibility of the participants dying.

     People having guns is not a crime. People using guns to aid in theft or murder or etc. is a crime. Gun control laws should be designed to keep innocents safe. If someone is attempting to commit a crime and is shot and killed, that's natural selection at work. If that same someone shoots and kills a person in the course of the crime, they should be punished mercilessly. THE CRIMINAL IS IN THE WRONG. Precautionary measures ranging from the sensible (gun safes and locks) to the more ideal (user verification before the weapon will fire) are excellent, but they're not the whole solution. Ideally, a restructuring of laws is in order. Reforge the penal code so that the person who willingly violates the basic Libertarian principles (sanctity of property, of life, and of trust in business dealings; that is, don't steal, don't murder, and don't violate your contracts and/or commit fraud) is legally considered to be in the wrong and at fault. If you commit a crime, you should be damned no matter how you do it. If a shopkeeper kills a person who is robbing the store, that should be legal. Being engaged in committing a crime removes you from the protection of the law. The only way a criminal will be safe is if they get away cleanly, which most criminals can't do more than a few times.

     Only true crimes should be legally considered criminal, and committing crime should be extremely dangerous, both legally and personally.

Bondo, the USSR example is a very good one.  In a public area, if someone pulls the trigger, there will be many others to shoot right back.  Just like the cold war, they shoot missiles, we shoot missiles.  This wont make very many people to eager to push their suicide button.

btw, nearly 5 years ago my dad and brother-inlaw cought 3 teenagers that broke into 2 of our cars.  My oldest sister noticed movement at night and told my dad.  My dad then gave my brother-inlaw a .45 and he took his .44 pistols.  They waited for them to walk down one side of block, then my dad and bro drove 1 mile on our 2 mile block, and hide in some bushs on the side of the road waiting for them to come.  Some of them had small baseball bats.  As they came closer my dad yell out"FREEZE!"  then they screamed "DON"T SHOOT" as 2 guns aim OVER their heads(not aiming at them).  So the kids fell to the ground and spead eagle.  Now my dad could of took them to the cops, but he had a better plan.  My dad drove them to their houses at 3am; some crying.  Thier parent were woken up by thier kids nocking on the door.  At first one didn't want to nock on his own door, he said "my parents will kill me!".  My dad told him "nock on your door or we're going to the police"; he nocked on his door.  The parent we furious and they planed a meeting with all the kids and parents.  My dad had plenty of work for them to do and they paid 100 bucks in addition.  My dad recived Thank You's and work out in the best of ways.  Thoses kids could of gotten away with robbery and continue untill something harmful.  Sence my dad was armed we was able to change 3 kids paths in life.

Also,4 days ago our nextdoor neighbor was robbed to bad no one knew at the time.

Bondo can live in his constant fear, terified to go everywhere he goes(gas station,supermarket,mall,ect.).  He lives out just what terrorist wants, affaid of daily activities.  I'm not terrorized, I prefer our door to be unlocked, i'm in comfort.

I never said I lived in fear...I have absolutely no fear of death, death comes to us all and I'm fine with that be it tomorrow or when I'm 100.  But then again I'm not most people, most people are afraid of dying.

I got the impression that you  thought people walking around with guns were scarry.

It would be...to people afraid of dying...which like I said is most people.

i'm not afraid of dying, however, i am afraid of my younger brother and sister getting gunned down on their way to school. both of their school's have been in lock-down ever since the first shootings.

maybe you get a different perspective when these things happen only minutes from where you live, but frankly, fuck all of you who have trivialized these events.

It seems that you were speaking for yourself, saying "I'd".  Perhaps you didn't mean it.


Oh god, fuck you.  how many schools are in the U.S.? you think yours will be picked? how many people at your school? you think your bro or sister will get picked?  don't even worry about it.  I have had been in lock down 2 times, one shooting 4 miles away at a nearby High School, and another shooting minutes away.  I'm in San Diego and I pass by Santana High School nearly every day, going to HS and now college.  Happend to me 2 times,minutes away, my perspective hasn't changed.  yeah its horible to have school shooting across the nation, but worry about them crossing the street and not geting hit by cars.

school shootings are terrible and horrible things.  the thing that is truely disturbing though is that fact that school shootings have gone on in the inner city for years and years, but only gets big attention when it happens in the burbs to the yuppies kids.  guns are taked off kids in detroit high schools every week.  i'm sure it's the same in la and chicago and new york.  people should think about that too.

loth, i almost agree with everything you've said.  the only exception i have was probably not with what you were thinking, but just the way it came across.  i don't agree that it's ok to shoot someone that is robbing you, unless your life is actually threatened.  if some punk just pushes you out of the way, and starts pulling money out of the register, then leaves, killing him is still wrong to me (personal judgement on my part).  

but yes, i whole heartedly agree with everything else you said.  laws and penalties need to be there to punish the guilty and protect the innocent.  not to protect me from me.  not to infringe upon my liberties in case i may not respect others rights.

Often times you wont have to shoot the robber, as long as they see you are impowered with a gun.  You don't have to shoot to kill, if needed.

As usual I will support my fellow liberal in that we have a much more clear view of what was happening during the cold war. Purhaps the fact that he hasnt been through it makes him more knowledgeable uncovers facts you may have not known due to censoring of the media by the oppresive, for the most part conservitive, united states goverenment.

On the Sniper shootings I wouldnt be surprised if the guy learned from the U.S. government everyone with a half a mind relizes every one of our enemies, we at one time supported.

For those of you that have not shot a gun, shoot one. I have made the statement over and over again, that guns are supposed to be used to defend ones self from a tyrannical government. I bet you if all the citizens in Nazi Germany had guns, hitler wouldnt be in office for long. Remeber what ood ole Ben Franklin told us,"Those who seek security at the price of liberty deseve neither."  As one that has lived in communist Russia, I can tell  you that many people wisshed that they had guns. If the common peasant in the Ukrainian countryside had a gun, the USSR would not have passed through the year 1922.

Hey, I lived through the last 6 years of the Cold War...so I knew about the terrible reign of that dude with the thing on his head.  ;)

Cossack, if you feel you need them for security, then have guns in the way the writers of the constitution intended...in militias, not in private homes.  Still, I don't exactly see why people use the examples of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia to say we need it.  Both those countries were suffering huge social changes that opened the way for dictators.  That is the important factor there, not the lack of guns.  The US isn't in that spot so it would be a much better comparison to make to countries that have restricted guns during a period of stable goverment such as the UK and others in Europe, and none of them led to dictator rule.

God its sad to see how our world has turned out. 50-60 years ago people treated each other with respect and were fine with the way their lives went. They didn't have to rob the local mom and pop shop. I blame part of our problem today on Hollywood. Yes Hollywood. That means movies, music, tv, ads, promotions, etc. If you look at today's movies about 80% of them are all violent and have people shooting people. Now don't bullshit me and say someone can't be influenced by viewing this. I've seen 6-8 yr olds in horror/murder flicks with everyone being brutally murdered or killed. I blame the other on drugs and non-stable individuals. It's been proven that someone under the influence of a foreign agent has an altered personality. Happens with alcohol too. Combine drugs and violence and you get crime. If anything...Hollywood should tone down the violence in entertainment and our government control the drugs (which they do a poor job of already). Every child has an idol during their life and they look up to that person for guidance. When most of the idols are shooting up people in movies or rapping about cappin someone in the head....you'll get nasty results.

I forgot to add bad parenting. When parents don't teach the children properly about these dangers, they won't know the difference between right and wrong.

Man, where to start.

Zaitsev, you once again show the ignorance of people willing to argue over anything, facts be damned.  How in the world would you know what I read and listened to at that time.  I was a fucking liberal, in college, while the cold war was still raging.  I was one of those that registering for the selective service was scarry, because we thought there could be a draft.  So get off that high horse of liberalism, the air is too thin and you aren't thinking right.

Bondo, your version of the second ammendment doesn't jive with mine.  

"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."    
?

Notice those four last words.  SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  That is super strong language.  Very rarely is the term "SHALL" or "SHALL NOT" used in political documents.  Everything you are talking about is infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  It means everyone.  

Pyrex, there's always been crime and violence in Amercia (and everywhere else).  Look at the old west, or the gangster's.  Look at what kids were watching at the movies 60 years ago.  Look what they were reading before that.

The nightly news just brings it into our livingrooms and kitchens, from all over the world now.  And they do sensationalize it to boot.  

Yes, I do think that parents are getting more and more lax on the whole, and that's causing more and more problems.  But the problems have always been there.

Well, I live at over 7000ft...anyone live higher ;)?

As for your saying what I suggest being an infringement...that depends on if you think the constitution gives the right for the people to form militias which have weapons, or if they can have weapons independant of the militia.  I believe it says the former and thus what I suggest is no infringement.  I believe in no personally held firearms, not in no firearms.

I think you should re-read it then Bondo.

It says because a well regulated militia is needed, the peoples (PEOPLES, not militia's) rights to hold and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Back then, the Militia was only called upon when needed, from the general population, and they brought their own weapons.  Not weapons that belonged to the militia, nor to the government.  But their own.  The army had it's own guns, the militia was different.  So, the militia is the people, and they have that right.  If you are locking the guns up somewhere, that's an infringment.

Buc the whole reason that those laws were made is we were scared sick of the British. Now its different which is why if we didnt have this conservitive in office there would be stricter gun laws and things like this wouldnt happen. Look at Brittain and compare thier murder rate, even their unsolved murder rate to ours. It is a fact places with guns are more liely to have killings. A gun at home increases the chance of a death by 2/3. The fact remains that if we did a have a liberal in office gun control would be much better. You blame liberalism for your problems when your the one supporting the conservative party who...fancy that supports the NRA.

P.S. The snipers are also called SNIPER RIFLES. Fancy that???

Ok, fine, only militias can have it? I just made my own militia, the "I fucking hate liberals tring to infringe on my constitutional rights" militia. It's only member so far is me. My militia has never committed any crime as a whole, and none of the individual members have either. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason why members of the "I fucking hate liberals trying to infringe on my consitutional rights" militia should not be allowed to bear arms as per the constitution. So let me have my guns and get the hell out of my way.

(This doesn not mean that only militias should be allowed to have guns, I'm just playing devil's advocate for those who can't read the constitution)

I'd hafta agree with Pyrex. I'm extremely desensitized to violence, but oh well. I enjoy action and war movies, as most people do, so it's not a real solution to get rid of them. I think in a way they relieve stress.

Look, Criminals will get guns if they want them, gun laws or no gun laws.
if you take away personal arms all your doing is making it easier for them to commit crimes. Who do you think they are more likely to rob? someone who has a loaded shotgun lying in the closet or someone with no defense?

Who are they more likely to kill in the process of robbing, someone who is unarmed or someone who has a shotgun?

The one who can't defend themself. Duh.

I like you guys tactic of blame everything on liberals and lemme have my constititutional rights. I mean thats fine and dandy except it accomplishes nothing and isnt even conservative, its heading  towards anarchy. We have to look what the laws were made for and its sad you guys want guns when its a well know fact that guns lead to killing but I guess you guys simply dont care about killing as long as your fine just like you guys want to forget about the people on welfare and pay lower taxes just so that you are fine, same concept.

And you called me a moron.  The answer of course is the one who poses a risk (aka the one with a shotgun).

sigh. You would obviously kill the one with the shotgun. While you are shooting the one with n defense you get shot yourself you die. if you kill guy with shiotgun first you would still get the guy that has no defense cuase he has NO firearms to kill you with.

you retard the 2 guys dont live in the same house Lol. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/ass.gif)

Ok, this is complete fact accepted by the criminal justice community.  People either want to kill or don't want to kill in a crime.  Those that don't want to kill will only kill when they are threatened or (and in this case it rarely happens) if the hostages aren't cooperating.  They won't just kill people for no reason.  Those that do want to kill, it doesn't matter whether you have a gun or not because they want to kill you.  In either case, having a gun won't stop the crime from being attempted, but in one, not having a gun will stop the crime.

So no Mattster, the person who is unarmed won't be killed unless the gunman is there for the purpose of killing him.

Moose, I think he was assuming this was like a bank or store robbery.

Well regardless of all this political debate, If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night I take that as a threat on me and my family. I have a wife and two children, so any threat on them in my eyes is gonna get you killed, whether I have a gun, a baseball bat or a knife, or just my bare hands, so as you see, its up to the person to kill, not the weapon.

another person was just shot  :( this is so depressing.

Kilzo, I just pray that you don't make your wife a widow with that kind of attitude.

ok, i'll start with zaitsev.


zaitsev, this shows how little you know.  when the ammendment was written, it was not just directed towards the british.  also, you should take note that our founding fathers, sour on how a government can rule, knew that revolution was sometimes necessary, and thought that some time, in americas future, there may be a need for the people to rise up again (again, since they had just rose up against the recognized government).  and , i'm not pro bush, not at all, i'm not even a conservative.  there are just as many problems with the ultra liberals as there are with the ultra conservatives.  i'm a moderate.


ok, what in the hell does the solved vs unsolved rate have to do with guns.  NOTHING.  not a god damned thing.  second, i don't know what the murder rates are per capita in england, why don't you post them for us?

and your statement about a gun at home increases the chance of a death by 2/3's is such a mis representation of the truth.  if you are going to quote something like that, quote it all, and correctly.  death is a 100% occurance.  having a gun in the home makes the odds of you having a death related to a gun 60% more likely.  but it's still one small fucking percent.  cars, tobacco , red meat and alcohol kill more americans every year then guns do.  don't say it like it means that having a gun in the house makes it likely, because it's not.  it's just more likely then if you don't have a gun in the house (which makes a hella lot of sense, since you can't have a gun accident without a gun).


so, you are saying that our founding fathers were anarchists?  that's nonesense.  i'm not blaming anything on liberals, i'm saying that some people are reading ultra liberal propoganda, and thinking it is the gospel.  but, yes, i live in america, and want my american constitutional rights.


not the same concept at all, don't even try to start that argument.  you can't connect welfare to gun control.  the two have nothing to do with each other, and i like welfare (but it needs reforms), do don't try to paint me as a ultra right wing conservative.  also, the right to continue to bear arms is in the constitution for a reason, you just aren't seeing it.  just because you don't see the need doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  especially with your arguments.  and, of course guns are for killing, they were back then too.  what's your point?  i care about killing, i don't want to kill, but, more importantly, i don't want to be killed, or rely upon the good faith of my government to forever be right and true and keep me safe.

end of part one, it was too long for one post.

part two



now, on to bondo.  


bondo, show me that fact, because the violence i see on the 11pm news every night here in the city says that's full of shit.  also, that totally disregards sociopahts, that just don't care if they kill or not.  so, it's not a complete fact accepted by the criminal justice community.  so many violent crimes (armed robbery, rape, car jackings) end up with a dead body, because the criminal screws up, gets nervous, or is just too stoned (or crazy) to care.  like was said before, we just had a pizza place robed here the other night, and they killed everyone in the place, after getting the money.  why?  the tapes showed that it took too long and the robbers got pissed.  it took a whole 65 seconds.  the tapes were showed on the news.  


again, logic fails you.  not having a gun didn't stop any crime.  a crime was still comitted.  and even more outlandish of you, you ignore the fact that if you have a gun, you can stop those crimes from being comitted in the first place.  it may not stop the criminal from trying to kill you, but it can stop him from doing it.  that is the bottom line.

Deadeye, I did include sociopaths...they fall into the second category.

As for your example, like I said, if the hostages don't follow directions (going to slow as you say the reason was would be under this category).

As for my logic failing in the second part.  No, I was talking about the crime of murder being prevented, not the crime of robbery.  Having something stolen isn't a big deal.  Death is.  It isn't worth dying to save items.  Thus by not having a gun in most cases you save your life and lose your item.  If you do have a gun, yes, you may not have either, but just as likely and actually probably more likely both will happen.

As for your reply to Zait, saying more people die because of cars, tobacco, alcohol, and red meat is just like saying more Muslims die daily than Jews which of course is obvious seeing as there are 2 billion Muslims and only 15 million Jews.  Just like that, there are many more cars, tobaccco users, alcohol drinkers, and red meat eaters, then gun users.

Finally, you should stop thinking that only extreme liberals wish guns would be strictly regulated or outlawed.  Not every mother of a child killed in a school shooting who supports it is an extreme liberal, not every other person who doesn't own a gun and doesn't get the point of having one is an exttreme liberal.  This isn't such a limited political push.  Sure, liberals are less likely to stand by the "constitutional right" than conservatives and thus be more willing to consider it, but that doesn't make the issue partisan in public.  Plus, not every right should be a right.  That is why it is no longer a right to scream fire in a crowded public area or joke about being a terrorist in an airport.  These are violations or freedom of speech technically but no one really complains about that because they are in the interest of public safety.

Bondo, you mention the school shootings. Last time I checked, NONE of those shooting occured with guns that were legally owned. How many violent crimes do you think are committed with guns that are legally owned? (Don't make me waste my time searching for the stats, we both know the answer is hardly any). The fact of the matter is that people wish to push gun control legislations upon law abiding citizens when it's well documented fact that current gun control legislation has done shit to stop criminals from getting guns. In your beloved example of England, guess who are the only ones with guns? Not the police, not the law abiding citizens, but the criminals. It doesn't take a 5 year old to see how well that has (not) worked.

Also Bondo, a higher portion of people who drive cars are killed by them than the number of people killed by guns they legally own. This holds true for both absolute numbers and relative ratios.

Yes, but the more cars there are, the higher the ratio goes up because the risk increased exponentially, not linearly.  Also, if we didn't have such stupidly big cars we wouldn't have as many traffic deaths.  SUVs will probably disappear in 10 years when gas prices climb high enough that even the current SUV driving morons opt for smaller more efficient cars.  Also, maybe like the solution to SUVs, we should just make guns carry such a price that they will peter out on their own...and hey, it wouldn't be violating any rights because you could still have a gun...if you are willing to pay 1 million per bullet.  Then make having a gun a capital crime and we wouldn't have any of the gun issues you say would happen.

As for the school shootings, the school shooting in Arkansas was done with the guns owned by the shooters relations legally (I don't remember if it was a father or an uncle or what exactly).  Most of them have been guns of relatives that were legally obtained, not guns obtained illegally.  Besides, in Columbine they got them from a gun shop, not a unlicensed seller.  If the guns were taken away from the parents and gun shops they would be taken away from the kids and thus the school shootings wouldn't happen.

That's a fine plan in theory, but you forget that the ammunition companies would never charge 1 million dollars per bullet. That would be economic suicide. You will probably come back with "But the government can make a tax on bullets," but this is irrelevant and unconstitutional as the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.


Make having a gun a capital crime? Are you shitting me? Not only would this egregiously violate the second amendment, but it would blow the 8th amendment right out of the water. Last time I checked a punishment so harsh was something we would expect out of the Taliban when they were in power. Mullah Mohammed Bondo, you truly are a piece of work.


If parents leave their gun(s) around so their child can have access, that is the result of bad parenting, not bad gun laws.

Uhh, the fact that it allegedly would violate the constitution doesn't really matter as the solution (which was sarcastic) assumes they've already been banned.  But it would keep criminals from getting and using guns from other places like you always claim would happen if guns were banned.

You are always talking about your amendments like they would be the bible. I can only say the amendments were made by HUMANS and at their time they were useful. However times have changed and it would be useful to add some "rules" to the current ones: like you have to pass a difficult weapon owner test and psychology tests before you are allowed to own a weapon. Also we have a law that you are not allowed to store your weapons and ammution at the same place. You have to lock the seperatly.

Such laws wouldn't prevent the Maryland Sniper but they would reduce gun crime in general.

Yes I agree with you Ace that Bondo's ideas are too radical. However the laws could need an update.

Btw you always defend your amendments but isn't it your president who made a law that says everyone who is suspected(!!!) to be a terrorist doesn't have any rights...

Btw don't worry the US weapon lobby has  much power(money) so the weapon laws won't be changed.

if I remember correctly it takes 2/3rds the states to amend the constitiution, and that doesn't happen to often.  IF you made having a gun a capital crime half the state of texas would be dead.

If you look at the constitution it says that we have the right to bare arms in order to for militcias and protect the homeland if we were invaded by another country. But sadly in  modern day no country would march into the US on horseback and take over, they would send some nukes.
If you think that higher crime and murder rates are a viable reasons for fat red necks to shoot Deer in the spring then you need a reality check. If we would even impliment stricter gun control laws it would help, but the NRA is against it because its the first step in taking the guns away. Besides, bondo if were were to ban firearms it would most likely be handguns since the majority of roberys, and other violent crimes are commited using a handgun. Simply because its easyer to march into a 7-11 with a 9 under you jacket than a rifle.
Even if guns would be banned there would be a steady stream coming into the country from canada, or mexico so it probly wouldn't work to well.

mauti, since you seem to be able to be rational, you deserve a good reply.  bondo, on the other hand, ignores the broader truth for his "but in this case, you would be safer".

mauti, first, the vast majority of crimes are comitted with non registered weapons, so, unfortunately, your solution wouldn't actually solve much.  what it would do is help curb some of the accidental deaths that result from the careless owners.  and, to be honest, most of us owners that are legit, are all for better education and other sane controls.  i have no issue at all with some kind of gun test to get a lisense, after all, we have driving tests.  too bad it wont stop the crooks from getting the weapons.

second, our constitution, with it's ammendments, is as important to us as the bible is to chistians, the koran to mosulems and the scrolls (don't ask me to spell tora, since i don't have a clue) are to their believers.  we patriots are believers in something, the constitution is the embodyment of our beliefs.  and better then most, it allows for it to be adjusted (those ammendments) for things that were forgotten, or that have changed.

third, bush doesn't make laws (a president isn't allowed to), nor is that the constitution.  it's the constitution that is freeing some of those people who's rights are being infringed (as challenged by the aclu, of which, i am a member).  the 20 some that were arrested here in dearborn are now being forced to have open hearings.  that is our constitution in action.  as for those being held in cuba, those are prisioners of war, not americans, so the constitution doesn't apply, and the world courts need to get involved.

i've always agreed that laws need to be updated, and there are plenty of ways to do it, without banning guns or infringing upon our rights to bear them.

bondo, you said the crime is avoided, not just the crime of murder.  also, you did not include the sociopath, because you said they either intend to kill or not, a sociopath doesn't go out intending to, they just don't care either way.  you make blanket statments that don't fit.  you ignore more violent crimes, like rape, and you make criminals sound rational, like if you do what they say, you can't get hurt, which is bullshit.  sometimes, someone will just walk in and that scares them and BOOM.  why in the hell do you say it's more likely for the owner of a gun to end up dead in those situatioins??  what in the world are you basing that from?????  and zait's numbers were bull, which was what i was pointing out.  thanks for noticing.

and, it's the ultra liberals that want guns banned bondo, and it's some of that propoganda that zaits and you have been spewing, which is what i'm arguing aganst.  remember, it was you that cast me (incorrectly) as a conservative, so you brought it up.

So I ignore the broader truth?  Then perhaps I'm using the narrower truth?  That would still be truth then.  Sorry Deadeye, but you continue to think that because you say I'm not rational that I'm not, that isn't for you to decide...and I've seen a handful of people in this very thread support the same basic ideas as me (including Mauti who you just called rational) which is more then enough to show that I'm not irrational like you claim I am.

Last time I looked, you have not given any documented numbers either so why should we consider your writing off of any numbers given by others as wrong.  Sorry but just saying something is incorrect doesn't make it.

Now I'll provide some
http://www.cely.com/firearms/graph10.html
This is from the World Health Organization...it lists the homicide rates (not gun homicides, just homicides in general) per 100k.  You'll see the US has 10.8 per 100k where as England has .6 per 100k.  That is quite a difference.  Something is awry to make such a great split.  Population isn't a good reason as it is a rate and more importantly, the population density in England is higher than that of the U.S. and it traditional that more crowded areas have higher crime (look at the big cities of the U.S versus rural areas if you want to see this).  If it isn't guns than what is it?  Frankly I think homicide or as can be seen in graph 11 (just change the URL) the combined homicide and suicide rates.  It doesn't really matter the affect on the rate of robbery as the main point here is to save lives.  While having or not having guns has very little impact on the suicide rate as can be seen in the second graph, it does affect homicide rates, so I think this makes it quite clear that having strict gun control or bans is an effective way to not have deaths.

Try finding something up to date Bondo...that graph is 13 years old.

It doesn't matter that it is 13 years old, guns were still allowed in the US and still not allowed in England.  The comparison works just as well.

BTW, going by 1997 data it is 7 per 100k for the US and .75 per 100k for the UK.  This is based on the WHO numbers for cause of death by intentional numbers and under the assumption that there are approximately equal numbers of males to females in both (as it listed it seperately).  That can be found here http://www3.who.int/whosis/whsa/whsa_table1.cfm?path=whosis,whsa,whsa_table1&language=english.

So alas, now I'm looking at 5 years ago (the newest data they had there) and it is not quite as wide but still a huge gap.  To introduce another number, Austria was just above 1 per 100k and there according to what Mauti said long ago in this thread, the gun control is quite extensive but not completely banned like it is in England.  This would say that there isn't much change between having or not having guns if these measures are taken.  But it still shows that what the U.S has right now in terms of gun freedom, is a dangerous thing.

Oh, and according to this link (PDF file download) http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/phpep/dpn/issues/dpn56n19.pdf, Texas is over 10 as well so having more open policies have not lowered the amount of deaths, it just hasn't caused an increase.

So, with all these facts from reputable sources like the WHO and Texas government it is shown that all those saying I was wrong about not having or heavily restricting guns lowering murders are in fact going against the factual data and that I am supported by the facts.

I have to go with Bondo on this one, I no way would it infringe on your rights to raise prices of bullets, hell thats what thier doing with ciggerettes. You simply get the certain type of metal and tax it to hell and back. Im distrought that you guys can sit at home bitching about gun laws when there is a guy shooting up the capital area. The fact is that by having a goverrnment you must give up some of your rights and maybe it is time to say that owning a gun is one of them. I choose people to live over certain constitutional rights and we all know that rule was soley in place to allow militas to form, not so that 200 years later you guys can go shoot at animals and then when someone is shooting other humans it is OK.

I don't have time to rip on Bondo and his graphs (nice pictures, too bad they are missing a bunch of information, but I'll get to that when I have more time).

Zaitsev, that is 100% bullshit.  I don't know that the ammendment was just so we can form malitia's.  Did you even read any of the posts?  Do you even know what a Militia was back then?  The difference between them?

Zaitsev, most crimes comitted with guns aren't done with legal guns, so why in the hell would taking them away from the people that actually follow the laws do any good?  And what in the world is wrong with hunting??

Blaming the sniper that is lose killing people on the fact that he's using a gun is just stupid.  He's a fucking nut.  A loony.  If he didn't have a gun, he'd find another way to kill people, because that's what he's trying to do.  We humans have been killing each other long before guns, and will long after some other way of doing it happens.  Chaning tools wont stop the killing.  Change people, if you can.

Whats wrong with hunting is thats were people get these assult rifles legally. IF the gun is not legal its still harder to optain one if all guns are illegal because you know that its illegal without having the possibility of it being legal. Dont take me for an idiot of course I know what militias were back then just because you dont agree with my views doesnt mean you personally assult me. The fact remains if guns were illegal or made harder to optain then there would be less murders in the United States, and thats a fact. You may say fine i dont need a gun but you want one, when you have one your putting me in more danger as well.

Great, so Bucc is dissing the information supplied by the World Health Organization as wrong.  Just like he feels I shouldn't trust the UN to know better than him how to rank countries on quality of life.  So grand, especially since he doesn't have time to explain.

If u don't have time to post then plz don't post.  Since this is a mature (kinda) topic with a mature (sort of) debate, if u r gonna post, make a full post.

Btw, u guys need to back up ur arguement with FACTS and DATA...it seems some people r just spouting out ignorant partial-flames.  So far, i've only really seen bondo give us some proof and real facts so lets see some from the other side (not that i support the sale of guns at all).

Colin--- :D :D :DCuo

correct me if i'm wrong, but i was under the impression that you couldnt obtain assault rifles legally any more.

i'd add more, but since i have no strong opinion on this issue and no unmensioned facts to support either side, i will gracefully exit at this juncture

Colin, I had time to post, but not time to give Bondo's graphs what they deserve.  So I saved that and made a quality post.  So take it easy.

Zaitsev, yes, when you make statements like "we all know that rule was soley in place to allow militas to form, not so that 200 years later you guys can go shoot at animals..." I'll call it bullshit.  Because that's what it was.  We all don't know that the ammendment to the constitution was "soley" to allow militias to form.  I don't see it that way at all.  Neither do many people.  When you starte with a completely false statement like that, your whole argument is invalid (yes, that's what you learn in a logic class).  For your most recent post, you can't hunt with an assult rifle.  So I don't know what you are talking about.

Bondo, I'm not dissing World Health Organization at all.  I'm dissing the gay ass graphs that you posted links to that have no legend, no qualifying or quantifying information, nada, zip, zero.  That doesn't tell me if it includes guns only, or not.  If it includes suicides or not.  I can keep going on what it doesn't tell.  Hell, just give me what the axis is, that would be a start.  That graph, on it's own, doesn't say much at all.  Hell, the way I read it from your post, all those countries that are RED to the LEFT of the USA don't allow guns, but have many more deaths.  Where does that fit in the argument?  I can't tell, because there's not enough information on that page (http://www.cely.com/firearms/graph10.html).

Now, the really funny thing is that I hit the link back to the article that the graph was taken from.  Did you read that Bondo?  Here's where the link was:

If one reviews homicide and suicide data, despite high levels of gun ownership and high levels of gun control, the US fares well in comparison with many countries, even those supposedly "non-violent" nations whose gun controls the US is invited to emulate, such as Japan. How do US homicide, suicide, and intentional fatality (combined homicide and suicide) rates compare with other nations? Certainly the determinants of the levels of violence in a society are many and complex. [See Graph 10: "International Homicide Rates Comparison" and Graph 11: "International Intentional Fatality Rates Comparison"]

Now, it gets really interesting when you click on that Graph 11.  Which shows the suicide vs other homicide rates, and gun control levels that I was talking about.  Isn't that interesting.  In fact that whole page is kind of interesting, showing why the Vancover / Seattle study was such BS (I love the scientific method, which some people just don't seem to get).  I especially like that comment about violent crimes going up in Vancover after the gun ban.  That was priceless.

I don't argue where the numbers came from, or how valid they are.  What I'm "dissing" here Bondo, is the way that you present them.  Get a clue.

And yes, it is grand, now that I had time to comment like it deserved.

Also, I never said that the UN's figures were invalid.  I said to put it in perspective, look at the size of the countries and the populations.  Way to actually read there Bondo.

I believe your words were, "And you trust the UN..." or something of that nature and found it funny to trust the UN.

As for the graphs, graph 11 has the legend.  Also, I posted a link to the WHO site with newer numbers as well, so you can't say that the bad graph is bad support, it was one of three things I pointed out.

As for what the person writing on the site that had the link said, that was an opinion.  Sure, some countries with stricter gun control had higher homicides, but they are also shithole countries (El Salvador?)  But when it came to countries of equivelent levels of civility (North and West Europe and Japan/Australia/Canada) they all had lower rates and as far as I know every one of them has stricter gun laws.  And with the least homicides rate was England.  As bad as the graph may or may not be (I too was questioning why it didn't write that the numbers were per 100k) my point remains very strong, having the gun control clearly is one of the key reasons they have lower rates.  I see none of the evidence that led the author to claim that the US fares well in comparison to the other countries.

I saw elsewhere, after the UK gun ban, gun crime went up 40%, but contrary to what you seem to claim with the Texas case, robbery went down 20%.  And it is too short sighted to look at only the two years after the ban (which is where the 40% was) because the number of guns avaliable are still high but after time as no one will be getting guns legally to start, the guns won't be as available to get illegally.

Look at Germany and Switzerland there.

Also, tell me why all these great countries (your opinion) have higher suicide rates then the US has in both Homicide and Suicide (look at countries like Finland, Sweeden, Austria).  What is that saying about how easy it is to kill yourself without a gun (that aimed at another time, when you said guns make suicide easier).  Also, looking at it further, I find your graphs a bit suspect, since they change order from 10 to 11, and the England number goes up sharply on 11 compared to 10 (which is what you were making your point from).  There's something still not right about that.

Now, all that aside Bondo, listen to yourself, you are almost making my point.

The gun ban doesn't effect crime.  Crime and violence will still happen, with or without guns.  It's not about the guns.  Guns are a tool, and people that don't like personal responsibility have to blame something, so they usually blame the tool.  Just like all those people that bring suit because the bar should have stopped serving them, so they aren't responsible for drunk driving and killing that mother, people don't like to take responsibility.  Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  With or without guns.  America is a violent society, yes.  It would be great if it weren't, but it is.  Change the violence, don't think that taking away ONE tool will cure it.  It wont.

Buc suicide without a gun is totally different. And I am positive the ammendment wasnt put in place so that people could shoot at others, we were still scared sick of the Breitish and were still working on a full time army. As for assulting those countries, being an American we need to shut up because gun killings are highest in the US and so what you can commit suicide without a gunthat has nothing to do with the fact that guns make the home unsafe, not only that but the community as a whole. People still legally have assult rifles, when the law was changed they were not retracted to the government.

Bucc, I never said having guns raises the suicide rate, I said it makes suicide easier, which it does.  As for graph 11 being different.  If you read, graph 11 is suicide and homicide together rather than just homicide.  If you'll also notice, practically all the deaths for the countries with gun control are suicides where as for the US it is half homicides.  Also, have you looked at the other link where the data isn't contained in a graph.  That too clearly shows a difference between the homicide rates of the two countries.  Like I said earlier, whether it slows crime is not important, what is important is that less people are killed, and from the numbers, it is evident that less people are killed in these places with high gun control.

but more peopole are killed in other countries, that have tigheter gun control too.  and like the canada example, and the england, you just don't know if guns are the factor.

all you've shown is that there are less homicides and more suicides in many countries.  what you didn't show was if guns or gun bans were responsible.  bucc mentioned the scientific method.  the only way to really tell if gun bans work is to look at the countries that imposed them, before and after the bans.  bringing other factors into it just confuses the issue, and the data.  because for every england, there's an el salvador.

from the examples you gave, i could just as easily say that cold weather means less homicide, because in the warmer countries, there are many more homicides.  while colder nations have more suicides.  nations like the us and ussr have about an equal ammount, being that they are so large and cover numerous climate zones.  all your data would seem to support that.

You can only compare countries of similar stability and quality of life, so those like El Salvador are not comparable to the US.  On the other hand, England is comparable to the US.  There is no way to use the scientific method on social issues because it isn't a lab and there is no way to have control.  But that doesn't prevent valid conclusions from being drawn from the data available.  I never said guns were the only factor, but it IS clear that having stricter gun laws is A factor, and from these numbers a pretty significant one (once again, only taking countries of comparible social situations).

No, I think weather is more the factor Bondo.  I can draw those conslusions from that same data.  No problem.

Like the man said, compare places that have had bans then removed them, or vice verca, before and after.  Compare England pre ban to post ban.  Compare Canada pre ban to post ban.  That will give you a much, much better picture then will comparing different countries that have many other differences.  I do think Deadeye said that.

One thing is for sure.  Your argument will not have a valid conclusion when you start deciding what data you want, just to make it fit.  Go compare the homicide rate in England to the US's before the ban, see how they compared then to now.  You aren't even close to having data that actually supports your conclusion, let alone validates it.

This guy is a complete whack job.  He's practically in the next country, and I admit, I'm kinda nervous.  We even had a class trip cancelled because of this guy.  Its nuts.  
One funny thing I did manage to pull out of this was something I heard on the radio this morning.  They were talking about the one "witness" who gave false info and what they should do to punish him.  And someone said "hey, Why don't we make him pump gas for a month."  Amen to that.  Him and that sniper are screwed.  

*Continues to wait for anyone to post any actual numbers that prove me wrong, because I still am the only one to supply firm numbers*

I've heard that seattle has a high suicide rate because of the weather around here, but i think its mostly BS, i've never heard of anyone commiting suicide around here. shit it was 75? yesterday, and it hasn't rained to much yet.
try living on a res in south dakota and come back and talk about depression (they have the highest suicide rate per capita)

Bondo, we are mocking the huge leap you take when you draw your conclusions from that data, not that data.

First, I'll throw out one for all these people, including me, that think the laws involving what happens when you use a gun should include much heavier punishments.

"Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm."

That tells me that roughly half the prisioners don't get more time for using a firearm.  I know that they have an automatic kick up in this state.  For shame on the states that don't.  Any (criminal) use of a deadly weapon should be punished.

Next I'll throw out one for the violence in our society.

"The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 15,517 murders in 2000 were committed with firearms"

That tells me that a whole third of the murders (not homicides, but murders) were still comitted without a gun.  How many of the others do you think not having a gun would have stopped?  My guess is not many.  If you want to kill someone, you can kill them.  You don't have to have a gun to do it.

Here's one to show that criminals get most of their guns illegally.

"According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
*   a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
*   a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
*   family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%"

That pretty much speaks for itself.  

Those were all taken from the Department of Justice's web site.  Which was nice, because if you click down they tell you exactly what information was gathered, since when, and by whom.  That gives it some nice credibility.

Now, here are some more about mortality, and firearm mortality from our friends at the CDC.

Annual Firearm Deaths:? 28,663 (2000)
Firearm Homicide Deaths: 3.9 per 100,000 population (2000)
Firearm Suicide Deaths:?6.0 per 100,000 population (2000)
Death Rate for Black Males Ages 15-19: 62.2 deaths per 100,000 population (2000)

I threw that last one in to make a point, since young black males are the highest death rate in the USA.  

Oh, here's another good one for you.

The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.

Wow a 39% decline, with no ban on guns.  Oh my.  Oh me oh my.  How could that happen.  No big gun laws went into effect, most of them were in effect long before that.  But gee wiz Wally, it went down.

Now, all of those facts, as intersting as they are, are no more important then the ones you threw out.  Why?  Because they don't deal with the actual issue.  Are we safer or at more risk with guns?  You can look up the previous stuff on the DOJ or CDC web sites, if you really want, I'll give you the links, but they aren't important, like I said.  But here's a quote and a page you should read.

Victims use handguns an estimated 1.9 million times each year in self-defense against an attack by another person, according to a survey conducted by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck. Studies have found that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun cut the risks of injury in half.
Moreover, a study by economists John Lott and David Mustard of the University of Chicago, published in the January 1997 Journal of Legal Studies, examined the impact of concealed carry permits. Using data from all 3,054 U.S. counties between 1977 and 1992, the study found that:
*   Concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent.
*   Had right-to-carry prevailed throughout the country, 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults would have occurred during those 15 years.

That, and all kinds of other interesting information can be found HERE (http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba246.html)

Sorry for the double post, but the other one was too long.

Bondo, there are numbers that actually look at America, and how we do both with more or less guns in innocent hands.  There are university studies that are published.

So, happy reading, I doubt if you will bother.

Damn, Bucc brought out the flamethrower and Bondo is getting burned, ouch.

This is why I stayed out of this argument because you cant argue with a liberal and hope to change him or knock some sense into him. Many liberals are so deep in their own shit that it is damn near impossible to change their ways of thinking.

Have fun arguing, I have my own convictions on this issue, and no bleeding heart liberal is going to change my opinion.

P.S. Fuck you in advance if you want to criticize my use of liberal in this post or any other post.

bondo, you should just quit now.  your half assed attempt to find relevance in those figures continues to show the lack of understanding of logic you actually grasp.  it must be nice to know it all back at your age.  me, i still learn things every day.  most of all, i like to read both sides before making up my mind.  you sure seem to make up your mind, then try to find facts that support your side, while ignoring all else.

one a final note, to everyone.  the usa was a country built upon a set of principles and rights.  one of these was the importance of the individual rights and liberties.  another was the right to bear arms.  it is part of our society and nation.  that's good.  that's part of what america is about.  other nations are about other things.  that's great too.  i don't think that england or austria or any other country needs to change their outlook on gun control.  it's their right to govern themselves in the lifestyle they chose.  

so, for people that don't like our constitution, or it's ammendments, i can just say, cya.  bye.  don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.  it's good for people to have pride in where they live.  i expect mauti to think that austria is the best place in the world, and he is right, for him.  i think the usa (and michigan, specifically) is the best place in the world, and i've visited many.  and for me, that's correct.  but bondo, for a guy who has nothing good to say about the usa, and always says why other countries are better, why in the fuck do you stay here??  go!  begone!  please.  go where you will be happier.  go where you think it is better. you are an adult, there is nothing to stop you.  you'll have to move out from your mothers basement first, but that's ok.  everyone needs to take that first step.  what are you waiting for.  canada isn't that far away, and you speak the language (for most of it).  you seem to like it better.  what's stopping you??

Heres what guns can do for us:
*   In 1998 (the most recent year for which there are statistics) 10 young people a day died from gunshot.
*Gun homicide is the fourth leading cause of death for young people 10-14 years of age and the second leading cause of death for young people 15-24. [National Center for Health Statistics, 1997.]
*A youth aged 10-19 committed suicide with a gun every six hours in 1995 -- 1,449 young people in one year [National Center for Health Statistics, 1997].
*Gunshot wounds are the leading cause of death for both African-American and white teenage males [Journal of the American Medical Association].
*One in six parents say they know a child who accidentally shot himself or herself with a gun [Harvard School of Public Health].
<>Suicide is nearly 5 times more likely to occur in a household with a gun than in a household without a gun. [Kellerman, A.L. et al., N Engl J Med 327, 1993.]

In 1996, 2 people were murdered by handguns in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States. [FBI Uniform Crime Report]

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. [ Kellermann and Reay, N.E. Journal of Medicine]
*   Every day in America, 13 young people ages 19 and under are killed in gun homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. www.handguncontrol.org
*   In 1995, 3.280 children and teenagers were murdered with guns, 1,450 committed suicide with guns, and 440 died in unintentional shootings. Firearms killed a total of 5,285 of our young people. National Center for Health Statistics, 1997
*   In 1994, about 70% of the murder victims aged 15-17 years old were killed with a handgun. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1996
*   Two in 25 high school students (7.9%) reported having carried a gun in the last 30 days. Centers for Disease Control, 1995
*   Gunshot wounds are the second leading cause of death for all people aged 10-34. National Center for Health Statistics, 1993
*   For every child killed by a gun, four are wounded. Annest, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995
*   "The firearm injury epidemic, due largely to handgun injuries, is ten times larger than the polio epidemic of the first half of this century." Christoffel, Children's Environments, 1995
*   In 1992 the estimated cost in pain, suffering, lost quality of life, and loss of productivity due to gunshot violence was $113 billion. Miller, Textbook of Penetrating Trauma, 1995
*   The estimated cost of direct health care expenditures for firearm-related injuries in the United States in 1995 was $4 billion. Kizer, Journal of American Medical Association, 1995

:::sorry for double post length limitations just have to reinforce my point and ill be gone lickedy split:::

*   In addition to the $4 billion, $19 billion in additional indirect costs, such as lost potential earnings are reflected in the premiums paid for private health insurance, and as taxes through Medicaid. These costs often go unreimbursed. American College of Physicians, 1998
*   The average total cost of a single gun-related crime can be as high as $268,000. Most of this cost is borne by the taxpayer. The Washington Post, 1997
*   The total lifetime cost of a gun-related crime, including medical care, rehabilitation of the injured and incarceration of the assailant can run as high as $1,000,000. Again, most of this cost is borne by the taxpayer. The Washington Post, 1997
*   Based on studies of two sample populations, at least 80% of the costs of firearm injuries are borne, directly or indirectly, by taxpayers. Wintemute and Wright, Journal of Trauma, 1992
*   The most serious firearm injuries, such as traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injury (SCI) can require a lifetime of care and rehabilitative service costing upwards of $1,000,000 over the course of a patient's life. National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center (NSCISC), January 1998
*   It costs more than $14,000 to treat each child wounded by gunfire - enough to pay for a full year of college tuition. National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions, 1993
Annual Firearm Deaths:? 28,663 (2000)
Age-Adjusted Death Rate: 10.4 deaths per 100,000 population (2000)
Death Rate for Males Ages 15-19: 22.7 deaths per 100,000 population (2000)
Death Rate for Black Males Ages 15-19: 62.2 deaths per 100,000 population (2000)
Firearm Suicide Deaths:?6.0 per 100,000 population (2000)
Firearm Homicide Deaths: 3.9 per 100,000 population (2000)

Homicide????????????????? Suicide ??????????? Unintentional
?
USA???????????????????? 4.08 (1999)???????????? 6.08 (1999)????? 0.42 (1999)
Canada???????????????? 0.54 (1999)???????????? 2.65 (1997)????? 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland?????????? 0.50 (1999)???????????? 5.78 (1998)????? -
Scotland?????????????? 0.12 (1999)???????????? 0.27 (1999)????? -
England/Wales????? 0.12 (1999/00)??????? 0.22 (1999)????? 0.01 (1999)
Japan??????????????????? 0.04* (1998)?????????? 0.04 (1995) ???? <0.01 (1997)

WOW and my guess would be most guns in circulation in those countries go in the exact same order. Thus we must conclude the more guns the more deaths the more victims the more incent lives are taken away because people want to hunt animals.

SINCERLY ZAITSEV

P.S. to sin: Nobody cared or noticed your liberal comments it lacks maturity and also shows ignorence of stereotyping

I'm guessing a huge majority of that 80% were bought legally to begin with, especially the family/friends part.  If they weren't available to be bought legally to begin with, they wouldn't be available to be gotten through these means except the VERY SMALL exception of cases that are actually committed with smuggled guns.

Nice work Zait.  Just more reason why I am not burned as Jeb put it.  In fact it looks quite like the oppisite.  I guess calling us liberals (as if that were an insult) failed to be a winning strategy once again.

Guessing isn't a fact.  It's bullshit.  The point that speaks for itself is those guns are not obtained legally, because I'm NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE IT TO YOU.  THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL.

And, I've actually read that a good majority of the illegal guns SOLD on the streets are stolen in the first place.  

Here's Zaitsev's also not so brillant statement "WOW and my guess would be most guns in circulation in those countries go in the exact same order. Thus we must conclude the more guns the more deaths the more victims the more incent lives are taken away because people want to hunt animals."

There you go, basing a conclusion on a guess.  You can't base anything on those numbers logically except that there are more homicides in America per capita then in those other countries.  And more with guns.  You can't say that the actuall number of killings would go down, can you?  Not supported with those numbers.

HONESTLY, DID EITHER ONE OF YOU EVEN GO TO THE LINK?  READ IT?

Zaitsev, Criminals kill.  What's your point with all those figures?  We all know that criminals kill.  We all now have read that around 2/3 of those criminals kill with guns.  We all now have also read that having a legal gun at that time signifigantly lowers your chances (you, the innocent person) of getting killed. You quoted some of the same numbers as I did Zaitsev, but they don't mean much except that we have a violent society.

Zaitsev, are you going to stop violent crimes if all guns just went away?  Do you think that the number of violent crimes will even go down?  They wont.  Violence is part of America.  Taking away a tool will not solve it.  Taking away alcohol didn't solve any problems at the time either.  Why?  Think about that one.  Why?  There are lots of answers, but to simplify it, it's part of our culture.  Guns and violence are both part of it.  There was and will be plenty of violence and killings without guns.  But, all those legal owners can be safer with them.  All you've done is site examples of criminals, not legal gun owners.  How in the world is disarming the legal, non criminals going to put an end to anything but safety??

Look at your numbers and facts Zaitsev, then tell me how they can support your conclusions without you having to GUESS at anything.

Bucc, did you even bother to read what I wrote...that the guns were INITIALLY bought legally, not that the people who used them got them through legal means.  But if there aren't guns to be obtained legally, then the number of guns to be obtained illegally goes way down.

That was also the thought of many in terms of the England gun ban.  The full effects won't be seen for a little while because the guns being used are those sold before the ban and still making their way around.  But with no more guns making it to the country outside smuggling which isn't a huge amount, eventually the guns will truly be gone.

As for going to your link...I thought you were just citing the site you got your info from.  But now that I've gone there I don't see exactly what it has to do with arguing that having guns isn't a reason the US has such a high homicide rate in comparison to those countries that have strict or total gun control.  Once again, I never disagreed that having the laws like Texas does lowered crime (in fact I gave the reason it does but isn't the preferable way).  But Texas like I showed has just as high a homicide rate and thus that solution isn't a solution in the big picture of trying to prevent homicides.

Your guess that they were bought leagally doesn't mean much, since it is that, a GUESS.  I said that.  As for weapons being smuggled in, there are plenty.  I just watched a show on the Discovery chanel that was about US Customs, and how they intercepted a shipment of thousands of chinese made assult rifles.  Do you think that the number of smuggled guns would go up if criminals couldn't get them another way?  Do you think it's all that hard to smuggle things into the USA?  I look to history, and how effective the ban on alcohol was.  Anyone that wanted it could still get it.  Why would it be any different with guns?  How hard is it for you to find weed or coke that was grown outside the USA?  Don't be a fool Bondo.  If criminals are willing to pay for them, anything will find it's way here.

Ok, I ask again, where in the fuck do you you get that cutting down the number of guns will cut down the number of Homicides?  The numbers didn't go down in Canada or England, did they?  They were low before the ban.  I read more then once that the numbers went up.

You aren't going to reduce the number of homocides by removing guns, you are going to reduce the number of gun related homocides, maybe.

If you want to make it tougher on criminals that use deadly weapons (and not just guns) I'm all for it.  If you want to make hand guns safer so that there are fewer accidental deaths, I'm all for it.  But, if you want to take away part of my freedoms, that were established with this great country, because some criminals use those same items for evil and killing, then you need to come up with something a hell of a lot more convincing then numbers that show American is violent.  Hell, those numbers make me want to get another gun.  To be safer.

And, if you read that link I posted, you'd see lots of information, like Vermont, which blows what you said about Texas out of the water too.  It just shows me that you don't have the respect or even the intelligence to read an article that you are trying to discuss.  You are really a waste of time, since you can't even read the whole thing.  Hell, if you had even read the stuff that you linked to, it would have been a start.  But Bondo, you are just an opinion in search of validation.  In other words, your opinions mean less and less, because that's all you have.  They aren't even informed opinoins.

Like I said, you can't compare America with other countries.  There are too many differences.  It's not about violence.  It's about gun bans, and if they work or not.  If they would work in America or not.  All the real facts I read say NO.

All the Vermont example tells me is that I don't want to go to Vermont.

As for my opinions meaning less and less.  I could say the same about you because for you it is always an ideology thing.  I continue to see this word liberal thrown out by you.  That alone makes your opinion mean less.  You don't respect the opinion of liberals as has been shown in this thread.  You fail to realize that I, or even Zait and I, are not the only ones saying there should be extremely strict gun support.  In fact, the numbers supporting that are just as many as those that support your case.  Zait and I have both provided numbers to prove our case.  You have provided some numbers that basically say, the US is less bad in comparison to others when guns are available.  You need to get beyond looking at trying to be less bad, and try to be equal with the other countries.  Sorry, but you are in no position to decide whose opinions should be counted and whose shouldn't because you are biased.  But one thing can be said, your side is no more valid or logical than mine.

Bucc wrote: "...Zaitsev, are you going to stop violent crimes if all guns just went away?? Do you think that the number of violent crimes will even go down?? They wont.? Violence is part of America.? Taking away a tool will not solve it.? Taking away alcohol didn't solve any problems at the time either..."

Violence is part of America rofl. Indeed there will be always crime in every country but I seriously think that stricter gun laws would reduce deaths committed with guns. Taking away alcohol wouldn't solve any problems may you are right but you could make alcohol unattractive like the US did with cigarettes. That's the best example how laws can reduce smoking. They don't forbid it they just say you can't smoke here and there. It is also "uncool" to smoke. I don't have stats but I think many many guys don't smoke anymore or didn't start to smoke because of these laws.

Same would be with stricter gun laws: if you need an expensive weapon cupboard to keep your weapons safe most guys would think twice about buying a weapon because you ask yourself if you really need a weapon and if it is worth the high price. This wouldn't stop murderers but it would reduce gun accidents when kids are playing with daddy's loaded gun. I don't say guns are bad I just say you could save so many lifes with some additional laws. Many school shootings could have been prevented if the gun would be kept in a weapon cupboard.

In Austria we have a law called (1:1 translation) "Seduction to theft" I can't translate it but it says that e.g. you are riding with your mountainbike to the next supermarket. You  go in to buy something but you let your bike unlocked on the streets. Now someone takes it away. In this case you are also responsible for the theft because you lead someone to steal your bike. Another example you have to lock your house when you leave it or if someone steals something your insurance won't pay because you lead someone to do something.

What I want to say with this is if you give someone the possibility to do something it is more probable that it happens. Same with some school shootings: if they couldn't have taken the fathers gun so easily some shootings would remain as  a stupid daydream of a teenager.

And I think nobody of you can tell me only one reason against a law that says if you let your weapon alone at home you have to lock it. - Just one small step into a safer USA  ;)

Mauti, it's no joke.  America has always been violent.  It's not something to be proud of, but it is a fact.  Looking at the numbers, we still have a lot more homicides every year carried out without a gun then many of those European countries that Bondo talks about.  

And the taking away of alcohol not solving any problems wasn't a maybe, that too is history.  We did that to ourselves once.  And we started a whole new great empire of crime to get around it.

I don't personally know anyone that quit smoking because of the laws.  Me and my buddies never smoked because it's just stupid, and we decided that long before the current wave of laws.  The only people I know that ever smoked and quit personally were my parents.  And they quit back in the 70's.

I've always and will always agree that weapon locks, in all their forms are a good thing.  They don't need to be expensive, but it needs to be a crime for weapons not to be "safed" in some manner.  Remember Mauti, I'm the one all for the bracelet lock guns that are out there now.

Also, being from Europe, I know that you don't understand that most of our laws aren't National, but State laws.  In the state I live in, if you leave your gun where a kid can get it, and a kid does (and hurts himself or others), you are held responsible.  It's not as far as I want those laws to go, but it is the same direction that you are talking about.


As I just said, I'm all for laws like that, and we have one in my state.  I believe in gun safety and gun regulation.  I think it should be harder to get a gun then a drivers liscense.  BUT, that doesn't mean I agree with Bondo or Zaitsev that guns are the root of all evil, removing them removes the violence, or that they should be banned.  None of those solutions make sense for our society.


Now there is a perfect example of why I would never want to live in Austria.  I don't believe that it's my fault that I get robbed if I leave my house unlocked.  The criminal is the one responsible for his own actions in my book.  You make one of my earlier points for me.  Our societies are based upon differnt things.  In American, it's not your fault that you are robbed if you leave your bike or house unlocked.  It's the fault of the robber for stealing.  That's why America is a good place for me and Austria is a good place for you.  Nothing wrong with you guys doing it your way and us ours.  It's why people came to America in the first place, right?

Bucc what you claim is completly wrong. The VAST MAJORITY of murders involving guns in the US are over fights and someone gets angry and its a split second action, you hear about the premeditated ones in the news because they are so rare. However bursts of anger often kill with a gun at hand and dont, without one.

As to your comment about homicide going down with no guns, You look at us and we have tons of guns and tons of homicide but countries like Britain have less guns and less homicides. Coincidence? No, Less guns clearly mean less homicide which means a safer better  country. Even if a body buys a gun intended for recreational use (which in my opinion is completly disgusting) many wind up being grabbed in the midst of a fight and someone dies. You say criminals are criminals and that is completly false, we all have been so mad you dont know what to do and if you have a gun at hand bamm. Its not premeditated its just in fury humans quite frankly lose it and that would happen a lot less with knives etc.

Click this link, It is a known fact that US citizens have more guns then any other civi population and here are the results of that:

Link (http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/publications/reports/1990-95/reports/siter_rpt.asp#TABLE%20OF%20CONTENTS)

Then you are pretty dense if that's all it tells you.  Way to open your mind to education!


Ah, result to more bullshit when you can't actually argue facts.  I haven't been throwing out the word Liberal.  If you actually read my posts, I am a liberal, I admit to it.  Go ahead, go back and read some.  The only time I've thrown out terms like "Ultra Liberal" is when I was being called a "Conservative" by Zaitzev.  So.  Go ahead and read back.  You'll see others throwing out that term.  I've been arguing the facts.

And yes, you've just shown why your opinions mean less and less.  Because you can't even keep thses simple facts right in your head.  


You haven't provided numbers to prove your case at all.  The only thing that those numbers have proven is that America is more violent then (some) European countries.  That has nothing to do with how well gun bans work.  I've pointed out many times that you have to compare the same place before and after a ban.  The places that I can think of (Canada and England) didn't actualy get less violent, did they?  You say it "takes time".  I say, the numbers are speaking for themselves at this point.  You gave guesses to support conclusions, not numbers.

The numbers and links I provided were to show how violence compares in our Nation, with and without more LEGAL guns.  

Remember, this isn't about if Europe is a nicer place to be or live.  It could well be in your opinion (and I think Deadeye asked why the hell you don't go there).  This was about why a gun ban wouldn't work in the USA and why it would be stupid and WRONG.  Here, not there.  I wasn't comparing countries to each other, there are too many variables.  I was mocking that tatic.  


There's where you are wrong.  My side is much more logical because I'm providing facts that support guns in America and how well gun bans have worked.  I'm not comparing Homicide rates of countries, because they don't mean anything when talking about a Gun Ban in AMERICA.  I'm also not basing conclusions on guesses, like you and Zaitsev have.  I'm also reading your posts and your links, something that you have faild to do.  That's what makes my argument more valid and logical.

As for biased?  How am I biased exactly?  I haven't been reading your data??  I think I went over it better then you did.  I think I posted some of the same numbers before Zaitsev, even saying what they showed and didn't (which both of you just ignored, thank you very much).  No Bondo.  The biased one that isn't thinking sits in Colorado, not here.


There you go again, drawing conclusions out of your ass.  Where and When did I say that the USA was not equal or better then other countries?  I think it is better, THATS WHY I LIVE HERE, AND NOT CANADA ANYMORE YOU ASS.  Nice to see that you can read.

As for making America better.  I'm all for it.  Make much tougher penalties for those that commit violent crimes.  Use efforts to reduce violence in america.  Make gun locks manditory everywhere (the user ID's would work there too) to reduce the illegal use of legal firearms.  I'm all for those things.  But banning of guns.  Nope.  You haven't posted one fact to support how that works.  I've posted plenty to show how having more legal guns helps.  All you've shown is that you like other countries more then the USA.

Bucc you can bitch and try to rebuttle Bondo all you want, but you yourself said you cant fight statistics and the statistics clearly show,

 THE MORE GUNS THE MORE MURDERS THE MORE DEATHS THE WORSE THE COUNTRY

Has not having guns really hurt the brits or the candaians or the Japanesse? I dont think so and once you give up your glory and we can tighten up gun laws if not all together ban guns then we can have a better safer country and that is a  FACT that the STATISTICS show.

My last statement to this debate: At all I am happy to see that you, Bucc, agree with my last post. About the Seductive to theft thing I think you misunderstood me or better I explained it bad. When I said you are also responsible I don't mean that you get punished for leaving your bike or house unlocked but your insurance wouldn't pay because they say "you lead someone to steal your bike,..". I think it's the same in the USA or would your insurance pay when you don't lock your house and you get robbed!? I don't think so but maybe I am wrong.

Bucc, I was saying better in the view of this discussion.  Meaning the US is clearly worse when it comes to violence, and that your solution of having liberal gun laws (meaning free use) makes areas less violent than those that have moderate gun laws, is only making the US somewhat less violent, not making it as low in violence as Europe.  This had nothing to do with which country has better quality of life, and if you weren't so dense you would clearly see that.  But you continue to misread everything I say which is why you have failed to argue against my points.

Zaitsev, what claim is completly wrong?

Where do you get that VAST MAJORITY being arguments?  Again, the stats show that about 80% of gun crimes are comitted with illegal guns, not legal ones.  So if you are talking about a bunch of CRIMINALS running around, getting angry and offing people with ILLEGAL guns, then show me where that comes from please.


Now there is another prime example of Zaitsev not actually reading the studies out there.  The stats you showed prove none of that Zaitsev.  The number of violent crimes and homicides went up in Canada and England after their gun bans, not down.  Both those countries had low rates to begin with.  Yes, GUN RELATED crimes went down, but not VIOLENT CRIMES or HOMICIDES.  Thanks for paying attention.  Those countries have less crime and less homicides YES.  But, there is nothing to show that the gun bans are responsible.  That's what I've said, thanks for reading it so well.

BTW Zaitsev, nice wrong conclusion again.  Those countries that were much higher then the USA have less guns, but more murders.  So much for your foolish argument.

Mauti, you explained it ok, I may have come off a little harsh as talking to the wall that is Bondo has gotten me on edge (I hate talking, or posting to people that don't even bother to read half of what you write).

I've always believed in gun control.  I'm pretty sure I started this with a comment about my gun being in a safe right now.  But gun control isn't a gun ban.  I want more criminal control.  I think that would go much much further to solving some of the violence problems in the USA.
Here, insurance does pay if I left my house, car, or bike locked up.  It is not considered leading them or tempting them to do it.  Criminals are responsible for their own crimes, and average citizens shouldn't have to protect criminals from their urges here.

However, if you do things like put alarms on cars or houses or other things to deterr theft, you usually pay less for your insurance, since they see you as being more careful, and thus being a lower risk.


Bondo, this has been addressed many, many times.  Please, for once, talk about the points I'm making.  Yes, having more liberal gun laws (meaning free to carry, not to use, by the way) makes areas less violent.  You want to make it better, make the laws tougher on those that are careless with guns, or comitt violent crimes.  I mean much tougher.  PUNISH THE GUILTY!!!  How many times can I say that before you and Zaitsev here it??  In Europe, the punishments for using a gun, or other deadly weapon are much harsher then we have here too.  Hell, prisions in Europe are much harsher then what we have here, we seem to close all the harsh ones because some people think we are too hard on violent criminals.  Go figure.  Usually those are the same people that want to do things like ban guns.


Then say them better.  At least I read what you post.  At least I read your links.  At least I care to look at both sides of an issue.  

Bondo and Zaitsev, all your facts have proven is that the USA is more violent then many countries in Europe, but not as violent as some other countries (who also have gun bans).  Your arguments have only shown that you want a ban, and you don't care what studies show, you don't care what has happened in the past, and you don't think about the consequences.  

Have either of you addressed the fact that criminals would still be able to smuggle weapons in (just like they do drugs today)??  NO.  Have either of you addressed the fact that violent crimes were lower in those countries before the ban on guns??  NO (except for Bondo's weak "you have to give it time").  You have both discounted the fact that other countries, with gun bans, have a much higher homicide rate and violence rate the the USA, because that doesn't fit with your arguments.  

In other words, you can attack all you want, your attacks are weak and worthless because they have no base of fact to rest upon.  You two don't bother to educate yourselves and talk intelligently on the matter.  It's pathetic.

You see, Mauti there is bringing up points about ways to make it SAFER in America, not just why guns should be banned.  That is a cause worth fighting for.  I'm all for making it safer in America.  One of the proven ways to make it safer HERE is with more liberal gun laws and much tougher criminal punishments.  Those have both been proven to work.  You two just argue from your conclusion.  A conclusion is what comes at the end of an argument, not the begining (the begining is a premise, if you didn't know).  

So, unless Mauti or someone else of intelligence wants to discuss this further, or unless Bondo or Zaitsev actually have something that aproaches a logical argument, I'm done with this too.  Neither of you discusses the facts on why a gun ban would be bad, you just keep pointing to the fact that America is more dangerous then some other countries.  

When I said your claim it means you said "Criminals are Criminals" clearly implieing that all things are premeditated. Bucc your stats are completly biast reports I am sure the websites you are using tell otherwise, contrary to your argument. If there are less guns there are less accidental murders and violent crimes and thus less lives destroyed and no statistic you say will ever disprove that.

P.S. I recently saw a news flash that republicans are re calculating thier stance on gun registration

In places like england where they have harsh gun control laws the criminals can still get guns. if we tried to ban guns they would come in from canada and mexico. people who wanted a gun would have them.quite simply i like the idea of banning guns, however they would still get into the country.  
I"m suprised that no one has said that violent video games cause violent crimes. Video games seem to be a easy scapegoat for violent acts because no politician will drop balls and say we need to ban guns, but ban violent video games.
And you want to know the reason i'm glad bush is the president, because if gore had won Liberman would have more power.

Ok, you have many errors in your criticism of me Bucc.

First off, I never was going from a no guns or bust.  Throughout I've been saying gun ban OR extremely strong gun control.  What I don't agree with is allowing more guns.

As for punishing criminals who use guns more strictly...when did I say that wasn't a good idea.  I am strongly behind that (I believe I was the one who said using a gun should be a capital crime...I was joking in the extent but the point was the punishments should be ultra-strict.  Like automatic life sentences or exectutions for those who kill with guns.  And no less than 20 years for any other crime with a gun.  Also, free use or free ownership, it is fucking semantics.

As for my "weak" it takes time for the effect of a ban to show...what is weak, it makes complete sense to anyone with a brain that it takes time for the guns that existed prior to the ban to be removed.  You like to show that 80% number that were obtained illegally, but like I said, a huge number of those were obtained legally to begin with.  The smuggling of guns isn't a big deal when compared to the problem guns that were originally sold legally are.

Bucc, a conclusion is always a restatement of the introduction.  You state a point, give support and then conclude.  As for me being a wall, you are hypocritical, you are just as much of a wall for not seeing all the proofs supplied by Zait and I.  Same goes for your claim that our arguments are weak.  We have provided logical arguments supported by fact...which is what you claim makes your arguments strong, so if our arguments are weak, so are yours.

Finally, you have this US is violent and that it can't be changed attitude.  There is no reason the US couldn't be peaceful if proper steps were taken, but people like you who don't try to make the world a better place because you just say it is the way it is are the reason it is still violent.

Damn, I'm going to try yet again.


Clearly implying that all things are premeditated eh?  Since when are crimes of passion not crimes?  Since when are they not criminals?  You are now falling into the dumbass category Zaitsev.  There was no implication there, just a flat statement.  Also, if it were all the owners of LEGAL guns, then 80% wouldn't have been gotten by ILLEGAL means.  Making them already CRIMINAL.  You think?


My stats came from the Department of Justice, the CDC, Florida State University, etc, need I go on?  You show just how little you read.  I posted the same stats from the DOJ and CDC as you did, BEFORE YOU.  YEAH, I'M LOOKING AT JADED AND BIASED REPORTS.  I even posted links, did you go take a look (NO, or you'd know the sources).  You sir, are an idiot.


There are not less violent crimes.  There were more violent crimes after the gun bans in Canada and England.  Thanks for not reading yet again.  There were MORE VIOLENT CRIMES AFTER THE BANS.

And, there are plenty of ways to avoid accidental killings without banning guns.  I've agreed and support many of them.


And this would matter why?  I'm not a Republican.

Now, Bondo's turn.


Your extremely strong gun control is the next thing to a ban.  No guns in the home, only in shooting clubs.  It's way too strong, and only effects the legal owners, not the criminals.  So it doesn't do much to support less violence.


Then stop right there.  Punish the guilty.  Why isn't that enough?  Why should the innocent be punished too?  Aren't you one of the guys that's pro the legalization of pot and other drugs?  (which I am too, though I don't use).  Isn't this the same thing.  Don't drugs kill?  Aren't they bad for us?  Shouldn't we protect everyone from them?  And fatty foods next?  Just stop with punishing the guilty, and making it hurt.  That would be a great step.


It's weak because how many years does it take?  How many years Bondo.  You say it will make a difference, but the numbers don't.  Why are you right and they not?


That 80% came from the Department of Justice (aka the FBI).  Where is your support that they were obtained legally to begin with?  Where?  Is stolen obtained legally?

The smuggling of guns is a big deal.  Where do you think the automatic weapons that do so much damage usually come from??  Also, like I was pointing out and you missed completely.  If guns were banned in America, the smuggling of them would skyrocket, just like alcohol did in the 20's and drugs today.  How good are we at stoping drugs from coming into the USA?  Why do you think we would be better at stopping guns, if they became the ticket???????

Wow, showing off you LOGIC skills again.  Which don't exist.  Your definition of a CONCLUSION is what it is in a PAPER, not LOGIC.  Do you need me to slow down for you?  In logic, you start with a premise, then try to prove it true of false, then make a conclusion based upon those proofs.  The conclusion doesn't and often isn't, the same as the premise.  Isn't that amazing.  You really should take a class.

I'm not hypocritical.  I've been anti gun.  I was for getting rid of them, back when I was 17.  I have read what you say.  I've read the facts, even more the the ones you present.  While you haven't bothered to really read.  Go out to the pro gun sites and read.  But you wont.  I read both sides.  It's the only way to make an informed opinion.  Not just an opinion.

The so called "proofs" supplied by you and Zaitsev proved nothing about gun controll.  All it proved is that there are more homicides in the USA then in many European countries.  I've quoted both of you concluding based upon where you say "I would guess".  That's the catch.  You see that there are more homicides, that there are more guns, so you GUESS that must be the link.  You haven't proven any link at all.  Like Deadeye said.  He could link those same figures to climate just as easy, and they'd all still fit, and be just as invalid.  Why don't you see that??  Seriously, answer that!


Wrong again.  It can be changed.  But not with gun bans.  They wont work.  That's the attitude that I have.  Punish the guilty, protect the rights of the innocent.  Make it better.  But your knee jerk reaction of banning or all but banning guns isn't a solution to that problem.

Many thousands of people wouldnt own guns if it were illegal, they are law abiding citizens and every year a hand full make a mistake that ruins thier lives. I have heard personal attacks and rebuttles but nothing has disproven the fact that in countries with less guns there are less homicides?

So you are saying papers can't be logical because they start with an introduction (which is rephrased as part of the conclusion) instead of with a premise.  Now who is being illogical.  You accused me of starting with a conclusion, I was just showing you that I was starting with an introduction before moving to premises and finally going on to the conclusion.  But alas that was a bit much for you.


Are you retarded.  I made it very clear, while the person who is using the guns is obtaining them illegally in 80% of the cases like you point out.  But the gun was originally sold legally (as in, not smuggled) in most cases.  Thus if you made that original sale not happen, the criminal wouldn't be able to get it.  As for these smuggled guns.  Most crimes are committed with legal types of guns (handgun, shotgun, rifle, etc.) not with assault rifles and uzis or whatever type of illegal gun would be smuggled.


I've given my reason for this before.  Unlike drugs, cars, alcohol, fatty foods, and a number of other things that can be abused in a way that it hurts others, guns sole use is to shoot, a dangerous and unneccesary action to others.  All the others have specific uses that have absolutely no risk to others or even the user with precaution.  But guns specific use is to shoot an act under any circumstance which I put lower (ethically) than the proper use of drugs, cars, alcohol, or fatty foods.

"But your knee jerk reaction of banning or all but banning guns isn't a solution to that problem."

In what way is my reaction knee-jerk.  That would imply that I want guns banned because of the sniper incident.  I've supported a gun ban for much longer than a month.


Like I've said before, there are facts for everything, they don't prove any more than how they are interpreted.  When I say I guess, or I think, that is just like the people in stuff you quote making relations.  Guessing or thinking is what stat analysis is all about.  Nothing is so firmly positive in this world that guessing or thinking wouldn't be necessary.  As my bitchy Composition teacher said there is no such thing as a universal truth.

And every year, and larger handful of them kill themselves or others in drunk driving accidents.  And every year, a large number of them kill with kitchen knives.  How many lives have been ruined by alcohol, drugs or gambling?  I don't want you to protect me Zaitsev.  What ever happened to Liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  You don't need to take guns away from those of us that can handle them properly to protect the idiots that can't.  


No, you nitwit.  You WROTE that you start with a conclusion (look at the quote).  That is how a paper for an ENGLISH CLASS is written.  Not how logic works.  Don't even try to twist my words, you aren't good enough to pull it off.



That's the second time you've said that, and this is the second time I'm asking you to back it up.  How do you know this fact that you claim?  



So hunting and self protection are low on your list ethically.  Good for you.  Not on my list.  If you are talking about their legal use, then guns are more ethical then cars (which destroy our environment), and alcohol (which still is not good for your health, alcoholism is still legal).  If you talk about their illegal uses, or just abuses, or just accidents.  Cars kill, alcohol kills too.  How can they be more ethical then guns?



Again, you are so very, very wrong here.  I blame the poor state of public education, as exampled by that dumb statement by your Composition Teacher (If you don't think there are universal truths, you've never studied physics, amongst other things).

Bondo, you have yet to show any facts that support what good a gun ban would do.  Period.  If there are facts supporting it, show them.  Otherwise, just shut up.  And when you guess or think, you are not doing what stat analysists do.  Why?  Because you aren't looking at stats that matter.  You see, if you use stats that don't reflect the actual case, they don't mean anything.  Just like your conclusions.  As has been shown multiple times, anyone could just as easily conclude that the climate had more to do with the homicide rate then gun control did from your stats.  The warmer the climate, the more homicides.  The gun control or gun ban nations were on both sides of the USA.  So, is that conclusion right do you think????  If not, why?  It's based upon those same graphs you used.  That conclusion is wrong, btw, because there is just not enough data there to support that argument either.

Guys, I really think this thread needs to be locked. One side cannot make the other side see their point, so it's pointless. It's like arguing with a Creationist(is that a word?) about evolution. If you believe in Creation and not in evolution, this was not an attack on you, it was just the best example I could come up with. Anyways, both sides of this argument on guns have strong, valid points. However, it's starting to just degenerate into personal attacks on one another. It's obvious neither side is going to win this argument/debate, so let's just end it here, okay? All it has accomplished so far is frustration and anger. So, everyone be mellow and stop posting on the topic. That way we can all be
 (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/beer.gif) and  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/banana.gif) again.  ;D

Every single discipline of acedemic writing eh?  Thanks Bondo, once again you have shown us the smoking embers of the fire of knowledge.  In other words, you are wrong, again.  Maybe, after you have actually spent a little time in Acedemia, you'll find out that Expository writing has no place in many places.  Logic class would be one.  Any hard science would be another.  Oh, but I know what you will say, you didn't mean them when you said EVERY again.  Yes, we've all heard you say that before.


You made the claim, I want to see proof.  When you called me on it, I provided.  I know that you are bluffing, and can't produce these facts.  You are using an opinion to support an opinion, just like with all those guesses.


Yes Bondo, you did imply that you agreed with your teacher.  You said "Nothing is so firmly positive in this world that guessing or thinking wouldn't be necessary.  As my bitchy Composition teacher said there is no such thing as a universal truth."  That, is agreement if I ever heard it.  Nice try but no points again.

Mellow, you are right, it is time for this to end.  Bondo is worse then ignorant (since that's just not knowing something), he refuses to even read the other side.  He is what is known in sociology as a zelot.  They come in all forms, flavors and sizes.  You'll often find them in religion.  A good example are the terrorist bombers, who are religious zelots.  You can show them right exactly where in their holy writings it says they shouldn't do what they are about to do, and they just ignore it.  Because it just doesn't fit with their view.  I could point to 1000 studies that would show it is safer to have guns and Bondo would still refuse to even read them, because he is a zelot.  He knows what's right and best for everyone, and nothing will ever change his mind.  All at the age of 19, living in his parents basement going to community college.  I quit now like I should have long ago.

No Bucc, I meant every, including hard sciences.  When someone is doing research and after all the work they publish the article...what form is it in...expository.  The typical paper on ethics is a number of logical layouts set within what?  An expository paper.  Sorry, but it is the truth, every field of study uses expository writing.

As for my contention about the 80% number, you haven't done anything to prove what I said wrong, no number you provided clarified how many of those 80% were not originally bought legally.  I just presented a point about that.  You can try to prove me wrong if you wish but until you do that it remains a reasonable hypothesis.

As for your seeing me as agreeing with the teacher, just because you are not bright enough to notice the use of the word bitchy isn't my fault.

Finally, I find all these insults from you laughable because you are doing it all much much worse than I.  At least I don't profess to have proof for all my thoughts.  Having thoughts and then seeking to prove if they are true or not is what has fueled all scientific progress.  They all started with a theory or thought that didn't have proof.  Socretes didn't use proof hardly at all, he just used logic (which as you've disagreed with me before, does not need to be true).  I'm hardly a zeolot about gun control...I've never had anyone I know shot, I've never held a gun, and don't consider guns to be an issue in my area.  I just argue based on what is the politically and socially best alternative.  I'm not passionate about it, I just haven't yet been proven that it is wrong because the proof you provided is not greatly convincing.  Maybe YOU should look at how you are like a zeolot in your defense of the 2nd Amendment.  You are clearly more passionate about that then I am about banning guns.

Oh, and UCCS is a four year university with a highly ranked Business School, and it is just as difficult as any other state university.  But I suppose Western Michigan (which judging from the college football thread is your school) is the center of the acedemic world?

Gawd, I just can't help myself.


Gee Bondo, guess all those things I wrote that weren't expository just don't exist then.  Maybe they should take back all my degrees.  Of course, you have studied the different styles of writting, and know that only one exists, right?  You again, are an idiot.  There are plenty of papers published in the scientific community that are nowhere near expository.


So it's the "this figure is correct until you can prove it wrong" argument, eh?  We went through that.  You asked me to prove my figures, I did.  Now, I'm asking you to prove yours.  Come on now.  You threw it out there, you should be able to back it up.  And you just said it yourself.  That statement of yours is a "hypothesis".  You can't base conclusions off of a hypothesis, which is what you were doing.  You TEST a hypothesis, to get to a conclusion.  You are so easy Bondo, it almost isn't fun.


Bondo, if you actually knew half of what you pretend to, you would almost be smart.  Socretes used proofs all the time.  Proofs are the heart of logic.  You start with a premise.  You then start proving conditions about that premise.  Which will lead you to a conclusion.  You don't start with a conclusion, as you've said before.  You are right about having "thoughts" and then proving them true of false.  The problem is, you just want to hang onto the thought, not daring to think it could be false.  

What in the world makes you think you know more about logic then I do?  How many classes in it have you taken?  How many books on it have you read?  Did you belong to your debate team?  What?  Anything?


Bondo, you haven't even read half of what I supplied, so how would you know if the proof was convincing or not?  You didn't read shit.  You don't want the possibility of changing your mind, so you close it.  That's why you are a zelot.  As for me, if you had READ again, you would have seen that I once thought that getting rid of all hand guns would be a good thing.  I thought this back on campus as a freshman (as I said earlier).  Then, since I was arguing about it, I started to research it.  Everything that I found showed me that banning handguns would do no good whatsoever.  It would do some harm, as only criminals and law enforcement would then have them.  Yes, I actually thought it would be a good idea to look the stuff up.  Then, later, I lived in a shitty ass part of Detroit (also posted) which is where I finished my transition and actually purchased one.  I know that you can't be bothered to actually read these things, but it would make you look less stupid if you did.


Bondo, when you've gone to another State University, you can say if UCCS is as difficult.  Until then, you again don't really know what you are talking about.  As for me, I've have degrees from more then WMU, that was undergrad.  I also have an MS from Purdue and an MBA from UofM.  So, if you want to compare education, you'll lose.  Try to just get your BS with honors before you bring it up.

And the center of the acedemic world is Oxford.

I have still heard no rebuttle to the facts I posted that 70% of teen murders are with guns. Thus your squadering millions of young lives who are most if not all inocentand boom its gone. If you had a child and they were "accidentally" killed by a gun then youd be against unregistered guns, but it shouldnt take that for you to relize. If you wait until your child is killed to face the ugly facts your doing the same thing the US did, people have terrorists attack every week but we just talked until it happend to us. but boom to late for those 3500 who were in the towers.

Yes, I know Bucc, hence the joke that WMU was.  And I've attended both UCCS and the University of Norther Colorado so I've been to more then one...nice try though.  Great, so you went to WMU, Purdue and U of M.  And they are somehow more impressive then UCCS how exactly?

As for your claims that I'm not reading what you post, maybe instead of assuming, you should realize that even though in your narrow mind it seems that way, there are more than one way to process the information.  It seems much stronger proof to you then it really is.  Just in that paragraph you basically say, being anti-gun is a misconception of youth and that anyone smart is now pro-gun...and you think you aren't a zeolot?

I don't know if you realized but this isn't a scientific community here, it is a fucking game forum.  As such, there is no need to be an expert on every topic and make every point in the quality one would need to make it in a research paper.  There is no reason I can't make educated theories of things without being able to prove them 100%.  Until YOU get off your high-horse that you are of superior intelect and basically use the claim that the others are stupid as your tactic for arguing, then you will be seen as a moron.

hey should be on his high horse because hes right. bondo remember the constitution??

And how exactly does the constitution speak at all to whether it is safer to have or not have guns in a society.  All the Constitution is, is a legal document saying that in the U.S people HAVE the right to bear arms.  It isn't a proof that it is better to have guns.

Anyways, this argument isn't about gun control anymore so I will now take my leave...and unlike Bucc, I have the will power to not post in a thread after saying I'm done with it.

bah Damn another Killing....God i would just like take a crobar to his head after i cut of his balls and stuck porcupine pins up his ass.

well than nice post matt........sheesh

Sk,
Take some time to read the 2nd amendment.
"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."
We have the right to form militias, back in the late 1700s militias helped the regular armed forces in the country in case of invasion, like the revolutionary war and such.
Now that its more than 200 years after that was written, would another country march into the US on horseback and take over? FUCK NO, any other country would send a couple nukes over and regulate on us.
So what the NRA wants is the ability to keep murder rates high (acidental deaths included), unsafe streets, and all to get drunk and shoot deer, oh and form a militia (something that will never be needed again).
Anyone who "suports" guns is also suporting the acidental death of children.

The same idiots who suport the NRA are also the people who believe that God made the world in 7 days and have the rebel flag plastered on their truck.

There's no rebuttle to the fact that 66% of all murders are carried out with guns, since I posted that number for you.  I don't doubt that 70% of teen murders are with guns.  But what I do rebutt is that i'm squandering anything?  You haven't shown why those killings wouldn't have taken place without guns at all, have you?  Those are MURDERS, your own words, not accidental deaths.  I've asked you before Zaitsev, why do you think removing a tool will remove the problem?

I am very much against unregistered guns, thanks again for bothering to read my posts Zaitsev.  You know what, after you go back and read where I stand, I'll respond to you again, because it's pretty fucking obvious from your last couple posts that you havn't been.

As for Bondo, I'm done arguing with you.  You are too much of an idiot for me to bother with, like I said before.  And next time, don't tease us with that talk about leaving here and hiding in your skating forum.  Please, just go.

Jeb, you, on the other hand, I'll be glad to take the debate up with.


Actually, it was in case our own government got out of hand too.  This was written after the Revolution, it was an ammendment.  It was meant to clearify to us that the government can't disarm the people, because that is our strength to revolt as well.  We had just done it, our forefathers thought that we may have to do it again.  Also, it's not a right to form militias, it's a right or the people to keep and bear arms.  You have to read it as it was written.  It's because we wanted the "FREE STATE" to remain that way, so the people should be able to rise up to it's defense.  Back then, it meant both forigh and domestic, just like the oaths in the military are today.


Other countries wont nuke us.  If countries were to invade America ever, it would be for the resources.  If they nuke us, they can't have the resources.  Also, you should read your history a little better, it's only been 150 years since militia's were called into action, not over 200.  


The NRA doesn't want to keep murder rates high.  They are all for public CCW, which lowers those rates Jeb.  The NRA also gives away gun locks (trigger locks) here, to help keep children from using a gun accidentally.  The NRA is also big into education and teaching gun safety.  I do not like when the NRA gets involved in other political issues, it shouldn't.  But the NRA is not about crime, it's about responsible gun use Jeb.


Really?  I'm an evolutionist myself.  I also hate the rebel flag, but I do drive an Explorer.  Maybe you should think about stereotypes, and how bad they are.


Now that's just stupid and offensive.  Children die accidental deaths all the time, of many more things then guns.  How do you feel about Pot and Alcohol?  How about speeding?  How many children are killed every year from being hit by a car?  So if you speed, you are supporting those drivers that recklessly killed kids, right?  Wrong.  I don't support the assholes that don't know how to lock up their guns.  I say punish those fucks.  Supporting guns isn't supporting the accidental death of children, anymore then supporting anything else that could accidentally kill someone.

The sniper killings is just one aspect. It shouldnt take this much (12 shootings) for the conservatives to reestablish thier position, but even if this is a gun it would reduce all other  murders not just this particular instance. If we have higher gun control the suspects would be narrowed down and also thousands of lives would be saved annualy. Weather or not gun control would stop this man is beside the point. the point is that inocent lives are taken and many more ruined by guns in general this is unrelated to the current situation although with tighter gun laws seeing a gun stands out more nad MAYBE could prevent things like this from occuring.

let me just start by saying, bondo, you are a moron.  because only a moron would try to argue what is and isn't logical with someone that has a degree in philosophy.  next you'll argue with a math teacher that 1+1 doesn't equal 2.  one last thing bondo, what does uccs have that's considered the best program in the nation?  because wmu has what is considered the best program in the nation in two fields.  you should look these things up before you comment.  you really should.


zaitsev, you've never said why reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of murders.  what makes you think that?

as for guns standing out, it wouldn't make a bit of difference in this sniper case, because that varment gun he is using would stand out anywhere (.223 caliber rifle with a huge barrel and a scope).  

innocent lives are ruined by people, not by guns.  guns aren't good or evil.  drugs, cars, alcohol, knives, none of these things are good or evil.  people are good or evil.  want to make it a safer place, change people.  millions of people kill themselves with tobacco every year.  that doesn't make tobacco the problem.  it costs us millions in health care.  it's still not the problem.  the problem is people chose to use it.  education is the best tool for changing things.  but if someone wants to use tobacco, that's fine with me.  if someone wants to use drugs, that's fine with me.  if someone wants to have a gun, that's fine with me.  when they abuse it, and hurt or kill someone else, that's when it's not fine.  those are the ones that need to be changed.  as for me, i'll sit here with my guns, smoking this fat cigar, and drinking this beer, thanking the universe that i live in america, where this liberty is what the country was built upon.

some facts i pulled off the internet,
"In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day" (an estimated 20,000 people will die from aids, and people care about stoping those deaths)
Per 100,000 people
4 people die because of firearms in the US
.12 people die because of firearms in the UK where they have harse gun control laws

"The United States has the least restricted access to firearms of any democracy in the world. Consequently, the U.S. also has the highest firearm murder rate of any democracy in the world."

" During the Vietnam War, 58,000 American soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen were killed. During that same time period, more than 70,000 people in the United States were killed by firearms - mostly handguns. "

"According to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend than to kill an intruder."

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimates that handguns are involved in 71 percent of all armed crimes and 60 percent of all suicides."


We have guns to form militias and defend our country.
and there are 2 reasons to have a well regulated militia, security of a free state, and the right for people to keep and bear arms

and in order to keep guns we will be keeping more violent crime, and more acidental deaths. I think that stricter gun control laws would be a great thing for this country and more importantly the people of the country.
jeb
ps. i can't help but remeber what one of my dad law firm partners friends told me "never argue Gun control or the existance of god" and i also favor gun control, and atheism  ;D

Jeb, do me a favor and go back and read the posts that were already here.  We have already posted figures for 2000, by the DOJ (Department of Justice).

The part that nobody here seems to be able to answer is, how will banning guns stop violence?  There was violence before guns, there is violence after.

For your UK example, we've already discussed that too.  The violent crimes went up AFTER their stricter laws.  That was UP.  Same with Canada.  You have to look at cause and effect.  Gun bans don't end violence.  

Also, you can look at many other countries, that have much stricter gun control laws then the USA, and see a much higher homicide rate.  

So please.  Go back, read what's been written so we don't cover the same ground again.

guns don't cause violence, its a easier means of it. The maryland sniper had to wait 5 days to buy his gun legaly. That shouldn't happen. complete fingerprint registration would help the investigation with the sniper, but that is the first step in taking away guns acording to gun freaks.

20,000 deaths per year is a steap price to pay in order to keep a gun. all so you can go hunting, or better yet protect your home (while the gun is locked away in a inacessable place).

Jeb, the odds are that this gun wasn't bought legally by the shooter because he/she wouldnt want anything to be traced back to him/her if the gun was somehow recovered. This gun was probably stolen or was bought on the black market, the latter being most likely.

If it was bought legally, you sure as hell could bet that he would have been caught - I guarantee you they ran through their database of all guns that could fire that type of ammo and didn't find the guy they were looking for.[/quote]

Guns do cause violence because when your in a rage chances are you will be over it by the time you get another weapon but a gun is so quick and easy to use and so you dfo something before you think about it and your thrown in jail. You say guns wouldnt kill without people but I say less people would kill without guns. Not to ban guns totally maybe but rather fingerprint all byers wait 30 days write down all gun facts, make model, date bought, owner, house of owner, prints of owner. This system would save thousands of lives. As Jeb pointed out The US has the least gun laws and we are 33 times more likely to kill people with guns then greatbritain

everyone is pretty suborn when it comes to opinions in this issue, so arguing over gun control seems pretty pointless.
Just rest asured knowing that the police have surounded a white van at a gas station which is aparently the sniper, and the police have him. (acording to msnbc)
they aren't saying to much yet, but its him aparently.

all i have to say is WOW.  some people (cough,bucc, bondo, cough) need to spend a little bit more time away from the keyboard....  

maybe go play squash or tennis?  or throw a football around?  or go down to the green and play with the field hockey girls and break one of their sticks in half trying to hit the ball...rofl (don't ask)

Jeb and Zaitsev, what would work better is if you guys did more real research on what you are suggesting, and what is already in effect, and why some things would and wouldn't work.


Yeah, killing with a knife, baseball bat or car takes a long, long time, doesn't it?  Don't forget, most of the killings are by people that have the weapon illegally in the first place.  You guys always seem to ignore that.


Gee, and except for that 30 day wait, the state has all that info on me.  Glad you are up on what that laws actually are, and what you are talking about.  The state has my prints, has my addres, the gun info, etc etc etc.

And Jeb, like was posted long ago.  It take about 5 seconds for me to open my gun safe.  How is that unaccessable?  Also, I'm all for the electronic gun safetys that exist today, that let nobody but the owner fire the gun.  

You guys act like out of all the legal guns out there, they are all, or a good percentage of them, are used to kill people.  That's just nonesense.  You can throw out a figure like "a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to shoot a friend or family member", but what actual percentage of legal guns does that happen with?

Really guys, educate yourselves on this.  It's really disappointing to see you arguing over laws when you don't even know what laws exist.  And you Americans, who know that most of the laws are STATE laws, act like it's all a national thing.  Guns aren't good or bad, it's all in how they are used.  Change the way people use them, change the violence in our country.  Banning guns does no good.

Nobody has shown that less guns equals less violence.  In the countries where guns have been banned, or all but banned, violence has risen, not gone down.  

Make stiffer laws against criminals, like they do in the UK, don't let them get away with it.  There are plenty of things we can learn from other countries.  One of which is that the gun bans haven't worked (at least not yet).

Also, I keep pointing out, and nobody has argued about it, that if guns were banned that would only stop the legal owners.  Since most crimes are comitted with illegal guns, this won't stop them, it will only make it worse.  Bondo said smuggling isn't an issue, and it's not a BIG issue today, but if guns were banned, gun smuggling would be as big or bigger then bootleg alcohol was in the 20's, and pot and other drugs are today.  There is just no way to stop them all, or don't you think it would have happened with these other illegal things?  So all you would be doing is disarming the people that actually deserve the right to have and bear them.

The most important thing is that gun laws need to be enforced.  Today, so many gun laws are not.  That's where you should turn your anger.

This post is officialy over and gun control needs to be stepped up before you have these types of results from legal guns, which should be an oxymoron.

The worst of it is that the oxymoron reference was the only part of his post that actually made sense.

And Zaitsev, if you want guns to be illegal, why not move some place that they are illegal?  Leave America for those that believe in the constitution.

wow Bucc that was amazingly.....selfish and ignorent are the words im looking for!

no zaitsev, ignorant is someone that doesn't actually go and try to learn more on the subject.  you have been ignorantly following some numbers that don't have anything to do with the effects of gun control, all to further your argument.

you have never considered the consiquences of what gun bans would do, even though buccaneer asked multiple times.  

so, what's so ignorant about asking you why you don't leave if guns are so bad to you?  why is that an invalid question?

you say that "gun control needs to be stepped up before you have these types of results from legal guns".  so, are you saying that those university studies that show less violent crimes in the areas with more legal guns, and more liberal gun laws are all wrong?  those results are a fact.  it happens.  just like the fact that violence didn't go down when other countries went to ultra strict laws or bans.  you stand by numbers that are meaningless in this context and ignore others that are put before you.  how is that not ignorant and selfish?

Here's a few things about the military getting involved in the sniper search:

1.) It's unconstitutional. (meaning against the law for those who's brain cell is on the fritz)

2.) The FBI, ATF, and Secret Service all have snipers and specialists who could search for this guy. It would be most logical for the Secret Service to be involved since some of the shootings occurred in the Washington area.
(no the FBI, ATF, and Secret Service are not considered military)

3.) The police in conjuction with the agencies listed above (not to mention Homeland Security...where the hell are they?) are fully capable of finding this bastard.

4.) I say again. Unconstitutional. ILLEGAL ILLEGAL ILLEGAL.
Even for a freaking spy plane.

Please stop the crap about the military getting involved. THEY CAN'T AND WON'T. I listened to a talk radio show this afternoon and they described a poll taken by a local Washington news agency. Nearly half the people who voted said they wanted military involvement. CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? 48% of the people didn't give a damn if a military tank was parked in their driveway. Americans are such dupes when it comes to the Constitution and their rights. And for fucks sake...the military not getting involved with civilian police (and militia) is a very important part!!!

On gun control....We as Americans have the right to bear arms. This was set so we could have a way of defending ourselves from corrupt invaders and even our own government. I do believe that background checks and user identification weapons are a good choice. But completely taking our gun rights away is bullshit. Liberals like to blame our societal problems on "holes" in the Constitution but half the time its the liberal law makers who are making it easier for criminals to commit crimes. Our judicial system is a sham. Someone can go kill a family of 7 in cold blood and be out on peroll within 10 years minimum. Whoever kills an innocent person should be killed in return. PERIOD. The killer has no rights once he's violated someone elses...not to mention hurting the families of the victims.

BAH TO THIS DAMN SNIPER....AND BAH TO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CHANGE OUR RIGHTS....

They are in Colorado Springs and are quite chilly as winter is descending for the first time here.

Pyict, it isn't technically illegal for the military to get involved.  They would have to be requisted by the Governers of the states involved, except for DC, since it's not a State.

Also, the Secret Service can't get involved much.  It's not in their charter either.  They belong to the Treasury Department.  It was more a fluke that they guard the President (not really a fluke, but a very interesting story).

The FBI is the lead organization.  The ATF doesn't really belong, but they squeek in do to the fact that it is gun related.  But they are more about regulation and smuggling (think DEA, but for ATF).

The States could call in the National Guard anytime they want, this is within the power of the Governers.

Oh, and the Office of Homeland Security is just a post now, not an agency with officers, unless I missed something.  They are there for policy, not enforcement.

I also don't want tanks in the streets, don't get me wrong.  Just correcting some of the finer points.  

If the FBI wants to bring in some military help, I'm all for it.  It's their show, let them get help wherever they want it.  But these polls are just armchair quarterbacking.  What the hell good is a spy plane, drone, whatever, when you have no idea where he is going to strike next.

This criminal hasn't formed a pattern yet.  That's why it's so hard to do anything about it.  Random crimes are supposedly the hardest to investigate.  This guy is just finding a good spot, being careful to not leave evidence, and taking whatever shot of oppertunity seems to present itself.  He hasn't stayed in one area, hasn't kept a schedule.  It's scarry what a half intelligent nutball can do.  

I think the only way this case will really break is by luck.  Someone will eventually see him, with a package that looks like a rifle.  Maybe get a traffic ticket or something in more then one place.  But there isn't much for the cops to use right now.  Glad he has 1000 mile before he gets this way.

Yes that's right bucc. The governor can call in National Gaurd but im mostly talking about the main military. Army, Navy, Air Force, etc. Including spy planes. I was also stressing the cooperation between these agencies. With their resources pulled together, they can put an end to this asshole.




Sorry for this double post but i just caught jeb's post and had to comment.


Jeb...how would you defend yourself if a group of rogue military or some government agency came to your door, rounding up your family and sending them off to some unbeknownst place. It happens everyday in China. What's to  say it won't happen here.

And about people invading on horses. Yes you're right. Unless they were mentally retarded and on all known drugs, no one would invade us on horses. But....There are a crapload of countries that hate us...and who have far worse weapons than horses. The amendment gives us the right to defend ourself against an attack.

What if we are invaded by several countries and our defenses are spread thin. What's to stop the invaders from marching up to your doorstop and killing your family?  OH wait...you supported the banning of all weapons to civilians because so many children die from guns. Well you get to cry too when your family gets screwed by an invader into your home. What are you going to defend with then? Your fists? A bat? Maybe your penis? Oh maybe the invader will become nice, grow wings and a halo, and lay down his weapon. Maybe he'll cook you up a nice dinner and lay you to bed and all is forgiven. Or maybe he'll rape the women of your family and murder all of you in cold blood. Then steal all your valuable possessions which he'll pawn off and buy beer with. Oh I see. Lets lay down our defenses and all become really good pals. Then no one will need to commit crimes or murders.

You scream gun control. But what's to stop someone from using a knife? A pipe? A car?...Let's ban all those too. Let's put an end to drunk driving by banning cars. Let's cut our vegetables with our fingers because all our knives were confiscated. Oh hell why don't we all just sit in individual metal boxes for the rest of our lives and see what happens to the crime rate then.

LOL Bondo I think that was a damn good post up there

Okay so as not to infringe on your rights we will make every bullet cost 1000 dollars and guns 10 times that.

Py, gun control IS a good idea, i mean ytf does anyone need a rifle or semiautomatic weap in any city that has an established police force. Or is it just those of you who need an object that can kill from a distance in their hands to feel like a man........

just an update on the original thread topic (keep going on gun controll all you want. as long as it doesnt become a flame war, i dont care)

a man and his step son were aprehended early this morning, and are being questioned.

this info is a few hours old, so i dont know how accurate it is

just thought that you may want to know

So do me a favor and look up the word "infringe".  You'd find that raising the costs to those would qualify.  And you wonder why I get frustrated and call you a dumbass.


Silent, he was an AMERICAN SOILDER (a mechanic) in Desert Storm.  I think that makes him an AMERICAN, not a "stupid middeleastern" guy.

If this was him, notice he was not spec force, and never had sniper training in the military (taken from the news this morning).  He was a mechanic.  He's also black (african american if you like) so I don't think you sould tie this to the Middle East.


Cringe, maybe you should go back and read some of those studies, that showed how much more safe you were with those weapons (look to previous posts).  Violent crime has been shown to go down in areas with more liberal gun laws (meaning that more people carry them around legally).  So, YTF shouldn't we?  Guns are the great equalizer.  They keep big guys from me (except with evil intent) from bending little guys like you over and raping you.  With guns, size and strength don't matter.  A woman can fight off a rapist or murder, because she is just as deadly as he is.  That scares the criminals more then it does the liberals (as seen by the crime statictics.)

The guy might have been a mechanic, Bucc, but he had expert status (Hitting 36 of 40 targets at ranges between 50-300m timed) with an M-16A2 rifle (no scope). They found a BUshmaster .223 rifle with a scope and a tripod meaning that you truly don't need to have a sniper's touch, just a good shooters hand (which this guy obviously had to hit the expert status).

They aren't sure if this is the guy, but I sure as hell hope that he is and the terror in D.C. will be over.

For clarification, a Bushmaster .223 is built like a M-16 or CAR military rifle - so he obviously had experience and definitely had the touch for this type of gun. You can probably find a picture of one if you look on the internet somewhere.

Assassin, my point was directed at those that were specuating that this guy was specail forces trained.  Not that he didn't know how to shoot.

Anyone looking for what that gun is, it's also known as a "varment gun".  It's basicaly a legal version of a sniper rifle (just smaller caliber) used to shoot pests (varments) at long distance.  It's your basic .22 except the barrel is as thick as a shotgun (to improve accuracy).  I've used one to take care of a goper problem we were having once at the farm.  Not this model, ours didn't look that military.

One picture can be found here. (http://www.impactguns.com/store/bushmaster_varminter.html")

It's not that common of a gun, which is a good sign that this may be the right guy.

Wow completly legal weaponry to the very scope, man Im sure glad we didnt infringe on anyones rights though! I mean heck all hunters NEED autmatic rifles with sniperscopes I mean DUH right. Fine we wont infringe on rights lets just tax bullets to hell.

Way to read Zaitsev. It is a semi-automatic rifle, not an automatic rifle. For those of you who don't know the difference, a semi-auto allows you to fire in rapid succession without having to reload, pump, or cock the hammer of the gun. Most pistols are semi-auto except for revolvers of course.

Also Zaitsev, it doesn't matter even if it was an auto rifle because he could have done the same thing with a bigger and more powerful hunting rifle.

Bucc, guns provide the MEANS to kill and do great harm.  This is what some people (bondo and Zaitsev) have been trying to say!  By buying a gun, u have created the means for a possible murder or suicide.  Another point which has been covered is that banning guns, or making them a lot more difficult to obtain will also make illegal guns a lot more difficult to obtain.  In using a knife or a crowbar, u need to be very close and also need to have a lot more willpower (trust me, its true) do kill someone with it.  It's so much easier (mentally) to aim a gun and shoot people from far away than to go up to someone and stab them or beat them with a bat.  Gun r just so much easier for killers.  Must a horrible event such as even one more unnecessary killing have to take place?  Would something like that HAVE to be repeated?

Bucc, the rifles I was thinking about were more similar to these, also made by Bushmaster, and more likely to be the rifle the sniper used.

http://www.hdarms.us/page7.html#xm15

Assassin,

Could be, but I didn't see the bipod option on that one.  It was on the previous one (varment gun).

Colin,


Yes Colin, MEANS.  Guns are a tool, I've been saying that.  Getting rid of that tool doesn't change people, just the tools they use.


No, it hasn't been covered.  I argue that they will not be much more difficult to obtain.  Nobody has touched that one with me yet.  If every type of drug can be smuggled into and sold all over this country, why would guns be any different?  There isn't a huge market for it yet, but a gun ban would create that market.  The US government hasn't proven itself very good in keeping illegal things out of the country, why would guns be any different?


Trust you?  Why, have you done it?  Have you killed with both a gun and something else like a knife or baseball bat?  Remember that 1/3 of all the homicides in this country are NOT comitted with a gun.  So there are still plenty of people that find other means.


You see Colin, I blame the killer.  Not the gun.  There hasn't been any evidence shown that a gun ban would reduce violence in America.  I've looked, I've asked.  Nothing.  Just opinions that it would.  Gun bans in other countries have resulted in violent crimes going up, not down.  Studies in America show that places with the more "liberal" gun laws (ccw's and such) have less violent crime.  Bondo's own graphs show that many countries with strict gun control have more deaths (he just doesn't count them).  Go after the criminals, not the tools, which don't have to be used for crimes.

btw, i heard that the sniper demanded a ransom of 10 million bucks before he was "caught"

here is a speculation:  The U.S. realized that catching the sniper would be impossible and secretly gave the 10 million ransom to the sniper while planting one of their own guys as the "caught sniper".  Now the sniper will stop and the American people have their criminal...

Just a thought...

 :D :D :D :DColin----Cuo
*Retired*

actually thats not that bad an idea colin #2

interesting thought

Heh, looks like the people at CNN finally looked at my forum post and qualified what an expert marksman was  ;)

From the same article, I quote the story "The Bushmaster is the civilian version of the Colt-manufactured M-16 used by the U.S. military. They have the same capability, rounds and functions. "

That my friend is no varment gun. While it may not tbe the exact one that I linked to, you sure as hell bet that my original assesment of the gun was correct in it being a military style rifle. Also, if you read on in the article, he had a pretty scary set up - folding rear seat into the trunk where the scoped gun and tripod were kept, with a mechanism that allowed the trunk to open up enough to stick the barrel through. He also had holes in the trunk to see out of his sniper lens.

What puzzles me is where is this mysterious white van that they were always talking about, or was that a figment of everyone's imagination at the rest of the sniper scenes after it was first reported?

     I think the entire "white van" issue was just a coincidence.  Since people that were in the general area, where someone was shot, happened to notice that type of vehicle. The police, asking every witness of small details and what not, probably noticed a van in each report. Given that, they setup road-checks everywhere; looking for the "white van."

hmmm.  LMAO.  I would believe that if they were using the ransom to catch the guy, but to put their own guy to death (this could well be a death penalty case, depending on who gets the trial) I don't think so.  Like I said before, they were going to get lucky eventually with a tip of some sort (in this case, a tip regarding a previous crime that had a finger print of one of the men and same sort of weapon).  

Assassin, yes, that was a scarry layout with the van.  If it wasn't for a stupid little slip-up they made previously, this could have dragged on for a long time.  Thank goodness for such very thurough police work to put that connection together.

As for the white van thing.  I was counting on my way home earlier.  I saw at least two white mini-vans every mile on the way home (more if you count full size).  That must be one of the most common colors for vans and mini-vans.

no, i don't think they will put their own guy to death.  I think they will kinda make him dissappear once they tell the media that he is in jail or something.  But then again, i could also be completely wrong....

Colin! Stop giving the govt more good ideas that they couldnt come up with on their own. (lol jk)
That and if they wanted to make their guy dissapear they already have a whole program dedicated to that kind of stuff -> The Witness Protection Program, which basically makes u a completely new person with a new id, location, name, etc.

i was trying to search for something bondo wrote a while back, about the un rankins on the best countries to live in, and, if i remember correctly, the usa came in 3rd.  another north american country was one of the two abover it.  just to talk about how he keeps casting the usa in the sahdow of europe and throwing around un reports.

when i was, i came across this old quote from a voice in the past.  it seems this isn't the first time the gun ban issue has been raised here.:


i really like that point about not letting people under 26 drive, since they cause most of the fatal accidents.  what's the matter guys?  it would save thousands of lives every year of people under 26 weren't allowed to drive.  don't you care about those lives??