Omg, I did the dirty deed!

[Croosch]

I can kill you with a gun, with a knife, with a baseball bat, or with my bare hands.  What are you going to do...outlaw my hands?

Great point GS

You guys almost had me convinced about the whole gun argument at one time but I must say that this is probably one of the dumbest points made on the issue... knives, baseball bats, and... yes, believe it or not, hands have other uses besides killing people.  Guns, though they may be used for the "sport" of target shooting, were created with only one purpose in mind... I feel like I'm repeating myself.  The four things that you're comparing aren't even comparible.  Now if you had compared missiles, bombs, and guns which have the same purpose then I would agree with your statement.

a few things:
a) shooting guns is not a sport... just like hunting is not a game.
b) sheix: minnesota legalized the right to carry firearms a year ago... so this "NOTHERN Liberal Commie state" wouldn't do something silly like that.  When people vote a southern republican president in office that's just how our state acts... southern and republican (saddly).  You really see that living up here in the transition between offices.
if anybody made a law like that it would be some crazy southern baptist group.
c) it's not even about the argument "guns do kill people"... nobody can argue that guns are made for the purpose of killing and maybe that's the main reason I can't support them... and yes, in reality guns DO kill people... I know, guns don't think for themselves, save that argument for somebody who cares.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

I can kill you with a gun, with a knife, with a baseball bat, or with my bare hands.  What are you going to do...outlaw my hands?

Great point GS

You guys almost had me convinced about the whole gun argument at one time but I must say that this is probably one of the dumbest points made on the issue... knives, baseball bats, and... yes, believe it or not, hands have other uses besides killing people.  Guns, though they may be used for the "sport" of target shooting, were created with only one purpose in mind... I feel like I'm repeating myself.  The four things that you're comparing aren't even comparible.  Now if you had compared missiles, bombs, and guns which have the same purpose then I would agree with your statement.

a few things:
a) shooting guns is not a sport... just like hunting is not a game.
b) sheix: minnesota legalized the right to carry firearms a year ago... so this "NOTHERN Liberal Commie state" wouldn't do something silly like that.  When people vote a southern republican president in office that's just how our state acts... southern and republican (saddly).  You really see that living up here in the transition between offices.
if anybody made a law like that it would be some crazy southern baptist group.
c) it's not even about the argument "guns do kill people"... nobody can argue that guns are made for the purpose of killing and maybe that's the main reason I can't support them... and yes, in reality guns DO kill people... I know, guns don't think for themselves, save that argument for somebody who cares.

Actually, you skipped right over my knife argument...yes, knives have been used as weapons since long before most other instruments of warfare.  So, that one does go along with your guns argument.  And you wanna know what guns are good for?  Why is hunting not an acceptable use of guns for you?  That use of guns is how this country came to expand from the original 13 colonies all the way to the Pacific Ocean.  Self-defense is another good reason to have a gun.  Somebody will be much less likely to break into your home (and steal you blind) if you have a gun in the house to protect yourself, your family, and your stuff.  Take the example of Marion Carl, the first Marine Corps fighter ace of World War II.  A guy broke into his house years after he retired as a Major General in the USMC.  The guy had a shotgun and General Carl protected himself and his wife with the only thing he had available...his hands.  The guy shot General Carl in the face with the shotgun and killed him, but the General did manage to save his wife's life.  Now, if General Carl had a gun in his house for self-defense, the outcome would probably have been quite different.  As it is, we lost a great national hero because some punk kid wanted to steal some shit to buy drugs with.

You will NEVER convince me that guns are unnecessary, and I honestly don't give a damn if you think otherwise.  If the day comes that somebody ever tries to harm my family, I will NOT be the victim, I guarantee you that.[/size] 

[Croosch]

Why is hunting not an acceptable use of guns for you?

Because I'm against hunting unless it's for survival... which is pretty much non-existant today.

That use of guns is how this country came to expand from the original 13 colonies all the way to the Pacific Ocean.

Again, you're making a stupid comparison.  You're trying to tell me that owning a musket in the late 1700's has a similar meaning to owning an AK-47 for example today?  That's obsurd

I feel sorry for the former Major General.  I know I'm dreaming when I say this, but if people couldn't get their hands on guns in the first place (something that would have had to be done many many years ago) that punk kid wouldn't have had a gun to steal with.  Now back to reality, sure, a gun may have increased his chances of living... but my parents have never owned any gun for self defence (my dad being obsessed with history owns some old indian beaded rifles and a musket) and I still feel pretty damn safe, no less safe than I would carrying a gun.  Punk kids are at the bottom of my worries these days.

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

Luna-Dude,

You cant even CONCEIVE of the protection argument, being that youre from one of the safest cities in the entire UNited States...in one of the statistically safest states in the Union, so technically, you cant argue against THAT motivation for gun ownership. You yourself have pointed out that despite some of the recent headlines and murders up there, that sort of violent crime is by no means a headline dominator like it is in many southern and western states. There are 22 carjackings PER DAY here in dallas alone. If youve never lived in FEAR, (and you havent), then you are not remotely qualified to comment on the beliefs of those of us that do live in dangerous places, where Golly Shucks has been dead a LONG time, and the guy knocking on your door in the middle of the day is NOT the milkman..or utility worker..He is casing your home to take your shit and do you harm in the process...

Come live in MethTown for a few months, amid the VAST numbers of Gangs, Home invasions, aggravated burglaries and Carjackings (where 99%+ of THOSE guys ARE armed at all times)...see if you dont think you could use some extra protection. (and guess what, even if the laws changed, do you REALLY think they would throw aways THEIR guns? hint: they wouldnt)

Those guys have a name for nice, thoughtful, polite middle class white american kids like yourself...VICTIM.

You are absolutely entitled to your beliefs, but by virtue of the area, and circumstances of your upbringing, youre not qualified to judge those of us who dont live where or how you do...

Punk kids are at the bottom of my worries these days.

Thats because Minnesota is not widely nown for its Meth Labs, and myriad Violent Narco-trafficking Gangmembers. I promise, you would NOT feel safe walking around in ANY neighborhood of South Dallas or West Forth Worth. Youre white skin and rosy cheeks would call thugs to you like a dead cow calls to the vultures... And you could not fight them off with your rave Pacifier, and raybeams of Global Peace and Love...*(written with a friendly chuckle, ok?)

And Shooting guns IS actually a sport whether you like it or agree with it. Gun competition among licenced and responsible gun owners is a VERY normal and widespread thing in this part of the country. If you take a skill, refine it, and compete over it, it's a sport. Some would argue that Curling, shuffleboard, and ice skating (northern sports) are not sports either...

[Croosch]

Nevertheless, I still wouldn't own a gun if I lived down in Dallas... that I can promise you.  That and I would never move to Texas, crime being one of my lesser reasons

I'm not arguing against guns for protection... I would never own a gun, but I'm not arguing against the major, for example, owning a gun.  Simply because I wouldn't know, most of my arguements in these posts are me speaking for myself and what I believe.  If people want or need the protection of a gun they can have that for all I care... if the person is responsible and smart (I know there are a handful of legal gun owners today that do not fall under either of those) then they can go for it.

And Sheix, I agree with you that curling, shuffleboard (what the hell is shuffleboard?) are not sports either... I'm in whole-hearted belief that everybody who competes in that sport must be an athlete (to be an athlete one must be physically fit in my opinion) for it to really be a sport.  As for games, I believe games must be fun for all members participating and usually are competetive... games do not require athletes.  This is why hunting is not a sport or a game because I can't imagine the animals getting killed are enjoying getting shot.  And this is why, in my opinion, target shooting is a game because it does not require athletes.  I know, the whole athlete/sport issue has changed over the years but hey, just another one of my opinions.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

So I guess Archery (one of the oldest sports on earth) isn't a sport either, huh?  I mean, come on, archery...you know the only thing a bow and arrow are good for are killing things.[/size]

[Croosch]

So I guess Archery (one of the oldest sports on earth) isn't a sport either, huh?  I mean, come on, archery...you know the only thing a bow and arrow are good for are killing things.[/size]

no... archery is not a sport in my opinion.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

So I guess Archery (one of the oldest sports on earth) isn't a sport either, huh?  I mean, come on, archery...you know the only thing a bow and arrow are good for are killing things.[/size]

no... archery is not a sport in my opinion.

Better tell the Olympic Committee...they might need to rethink what a sport is:[/size]

http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/programme/index_uk.asp?SportCode=AR

[Croosch]

key words, my opinion... if you want to bring it to the olympic committee go ahead

[Ethion]

So I guess Archery (one of the oldest sports on earth) isn't a sport either, huh?  I mean, come on, archery...you know the only thing a bow and arrow are good for are killing things.[/size]

Never seen Robin Hood? The cartoon? They never killed with it.

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

Yes, Im digging up an old topic...

The reason is that the mainstream media doesnt report gun interventions very often..but this one here PERFECTLY and accurately reflects my reasons for advocating safe and responsible gun ownership...and its sorta funny.

Thief-Dude is lucky he didn't get killed.
73 year olds are notoriously bad aims.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/strange/news-article.aspx?storyid=59519

[spike]

I am for gun control, at least gun control of the types of weapons that GS listed above (mp5, ak-47 etc). Those are guns used specifically to kill someone. They are powerful and completely unneccessary in civilian life.

I do find myself thinking that people should be able to own some protection. While I agree that you live in a dangerous area sheix, I cannot wholy reconcile myself with your arguement, unless it is an outright war zone (or something like hurricane katrina). If its not a war zone, isn't it the police's job to keep you safe? Doesn't anything else smell a little bit like vigilante justice to you? Also, ain't nobody preventing you from moving.

It seems to me that guns may just create more violence. Allowing guns to be sold opens up a chance for gun trafficking, or guns being stolen. It releases weapons onto the street that might not have been there otherwise. It allows people to kill cops, rob stores, vicitimize innocent people.

And GS...boxers have to register their hands as weapons...I'm just saying.

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

POlice 'protection' is non existent..even in less dangerous areas.
Their presence is Re-active..not Pro-active.
ie..they come to your house to rope off the crime scene AFTER you're dead..not before...

This old man would likely be killed without the posession of his gun.

And yeah spike..very realistic to have everyone that lives in dangerous territory to just pack up and move.

That statement smacks of the experience or Non experience of a young person who has yet to bea victim of violent crime..or at least crime at this level.

Platitudes like "aint nobody preventing you from moving" shows exactly how lightly people like you take the security issue.

And your last paragraph includes reasoning so inherently lacking, that im surpirsed a smart guy like you didnt catch it.

So um..what about the guns that are already there and in circulation? Not legally obtained in 99% of all crime cases.. Liberals like you prefer that law-abiding citizens STAY at the mercy of criminals who have no respect for life and property simply becuase guns make YOU uncomfortable. CRIMINALS kill cops, rob stores and victimize innocent people.. How does that fact ALWAYS escape the gun control lobby?
Must be simply denial..

Lets all just stay at their mercy i guess eh?

I guess in some of those cases, not allowing citizens to protect themselves would insure that in some of those violent offences, no CRIMINAL gets shot (liberals are famous for protecting the criminal)..the victims just lose their lives, property, dignity, and feelings of security. Brilliant logical outcome to your reasoning...

And for the record..its not 'Vigilante Justice" to shoot a criminal who is in your home WITH A WEAPON, intent on hurting you and your family...is called 'self-defence'.

[BFG]

Shiex i think you highlighted the problem but i come to a different conclusion.

POlice 'protection' is non existent..even in less dangerous areas.
Their presence is Re-active..not Pro-active.

Rather than have everyone carrying guns and some kinda 'vigilante' setup, why not sort the police out to become Pro-Active rather than Re-active. Although you need a complete society overhaul to go with it.

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

Yes, and just as feasible; my new idea to cut down on SOCCER violence...Just restrict the sale of beer on game days in the UK.

sounds kinda silly in hindsight dont it?

hahah   I SAID SOCCER!! woot!

[Croosch]

It seems I've inherited my grandpa's russian WWII pistol (not sure of the kind)... what's this world coming to.  I guess he thought he would be in another war as this thing still has 2 full ammo boxes (over 900 rounds in the same WWII ammo boxes).

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

Crooshlet, you should keep the gun for sentimental reasons, but consider losing the shells (keep the boxes) 60 year old munutions are rarely stable..a large explosion will just give you more 'ammo' in your silly anti gun rants...

hahahahaha

 

ps: let us know what it is when you get it identified....would be interesting..
pss: ok, your rants arent silly...just retarded.
ppss: lol, jk again, i actually value your opinions...

(actually, ask a gun expert his opinion on the stability vs rarity/worth)

[Macuber]

Heres an interesting tidbit...

An off-duty Los Angeles police officer is in critical but stable condition Wednesday morning after being shot with his service weapon by his 3-year-old son while the two were in a pickup truck in Anaheim.

Enrique Chavez, 35, driving his Ford Ranger near Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue, stopped shortly before noon Tuesday when the boy, sitting in the back seat, got his hands on his father’s 9mm handgun, said Anaheim police Sgt. Tim Schmidt.

“How he got it, we don’t know,” Schmidt said, adding that there were two weapons in the vehicle.

The gun went off and the bullet plowed through the back of the driver’s seat, entering Chavez’s back and exited through his chest, Schmidt said.

Chavez was able to stop the truck and call out for help.

“He sat in the driver’s seat, yelling at people to help him,” Schmidt said.

Soo...Unfortunately, this is simply more proof that guns aren’t safe in anyone’s hands. No matter how much training anyone has, or what safety procedures they take, whenever there’s a gun around, everyone present is faced with a dire threat.

[Cell]

Seriously....plEASE! with this hippie  bullshit.  If the officer had his wits about him, he would have known where his guns were at all times.  Plus why does he need two on him when he has a kid in his car on a regular basis.  That particular guy is obviously a careless dumbass.  Let's not lump the whole thing into a nice package for your cause.  Personally I don't own any guns, but I do recognize the right for people to want to protect themselves and thier families the way they see fit, and the right own a gun for whatver reason they want one for.  And what do you propose?  Taking guns away from our police officers?  Why don't we take away everyone's cars because some idiots drive drunk, or some children steal keys from thier parents...and sometimes old people plow over crowded sidewalks. Nice attempt at an agenda driven point of view, but its a heaping serving of Marshmallow Fluff®

[BTs_FahQ2]

A police dog that was left in a pickup with the engine running apparently knocked the vehicle into gear and ran down a woman who was walking to her mailbox.

Oh Boy, time to take away our police dogs too. Unfortunately, no matter how much training a dog has, or whatever safety procedures we take........everyone present is faced with a dire threat!!!!

haha life is funny unless you were this lady
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13841261/

in short, stop worrying about everyone else, life is too short to worry about what everyone else has, just move along and push down those that are weaker.