The Maryland sniper

[Bondo]

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.

[Deadeye]

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.

[Bondo]

as for bondo.  what bondo 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.

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.

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.

[*DAMN Silent Killer]

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

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

[0 Kilz:M:]

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.

[Bondo]

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.

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).

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

[Bondo]

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.

[tasty]

ok, old arguments are still valid.


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.

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.

[Deadlock]

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.

[Bondo]

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?

[Deadlock]

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.

[Mr.Mellow]

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.

[ReapeR]

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.

[electronicjo]

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.

[Oso]

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

[bronto]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.  

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.

[Mr.Mellow]

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.