The Maryland sniper

[Bondo]

So get off that high horse of liberalism, the air is too thin and you aren't thinking right.

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

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???

[Ace]

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)

[Mr.Mellow]

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.

[214_Mad_Moose]

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?

[Bondo]

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

[Ace]

The one who can't defend themself. Duh.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

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.

[Bondo]

The one who can't defend themself. Duh.

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

[Mattster]

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.

[214_Mad_Moose]

you retard the 2 guys dont live in the same house Lol.

[Bondo]

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.

[0 Kilz:M:]

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.

[cookie]

another person was just shot   this is so depressing.

[Bondo]

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

[Deadeye]

ok, i'll start with zaitsev.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Deadeye]

part two



now, on to bondo.  

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.

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.  

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.

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.

[Bondo]

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.

[Ace]

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.