Ban the guns

[CptStern]

:upstare: that's like saying cars kill people not drunk drivers, of course the bullet is what causes them to die but the person shooting the gun kills them.

notice the :upstare: in my post

 

[Bodacious]

If guns kill people then I can blame my pencil for spelling mistakes, or my keyboard.

 

[Kebean PFC]

Originally Posted by ALEXDJ
yeah but the point is if that guy didn't have a gun, he simply would not have shot anybody, simple as that, no gun = no shooting, why are you so afraid to exsept that notion

Who is the "guy." If you mean a criminal, then they would still have a weapon. No gun = No shooting... are you a moron?? lets imagine that the government was able to take civillian weapons... where would they go? Lemme think here... black market! So now criminals have guns and i dont... hmmm sure sounds like a plan to me!!

Alex you have no experience in firearms at all, what gives you the right to tell me what to do with them? It is the fact that you are afraid or guns, or at least thier owners becuase you know that you wouldn't be able to use guns to protect you if the need arose. Let me give you some advice. Go to a rifle or pistol range and get some hours in... then come back and we'll talk. It is pointless to argue with someone who has never used a gun before.

 

[short recoil]

Who is the "guy." If you mean a criminal, then they would still have a weapon. No gun = No shooting... are you a moron?? lets imagine that the government was able to take civillian weapons... where would they go? Lemme think here... black market! So now criminals have guns and i dont... hmmm sure sounds like a plan to me!!

Alex you have no experience in firearms at all, what gives you the right to tell me what to do with them? It is the fact that you are afraid or guns, or at least thier owners becuase you know that you wouldn't be able to use guns to protect you if the need arose. Let me give you some advice. Go to a rifle or pistol range and get some hours in... then come back and we'll talk. It is pointless to argue with someone who has never used a gun before.

I think he is on about jeff wiese, the minnesota thing.

Its quite funny when gun control people actually try guns, and they change their mind.
I remember some guy on T.V was doing something on gun control and he went and fired an AK, you could see he was struggling not to grin.

In my experience it is often people whg don't understand guns that fear them completely.
I'm not talking people who just generally think guns are a bad idea but there are actually people that like think guns are "evil" sort of stuff.

 

[Voodoo_Chile]

May I point out that over the past 14+ pages no progress has been made on either side.

All ye have done is said
1. Guns=Death
2. People With Guns=Death
3. People without guns but some other sharp implement=Death
etc.........

I realise this is a very drastic compression of 14 pages but it still has to be done,You are not gonna be able to solve this issue here or on any forum,and while it is enjoyable to have a lively debate,Would a few new Ideas hurt?

Im staying firmly neutral on this issue because as in almost all physical and verbal conflicts, both sides claim righteousness and both sides are partly right and wrong at the same time.

I will add this however so it cant be said I didnt make an entirly unconsrtuctive post:

Ireland has a limited form of gun ownership,People(Predominatly farmers) are allowed licenced Shotguns,Hunting rifles and Low Calibur Pistols.It requires a very rigorous process to get one however and are used for sport only.
However there has been a recent increase in both the number of guns stolen from private premises aswell as an increase in armed robbery,particularly Securicor Vans.Now this raises the issue,Since the criminals only have 2 main sources of weapons.The black market,which operates everywhere and must be near impossible to stop,and stolen private guns.If those guns were removed would that lower the number of guns out there or simply increase demand for black market(And likely more dangerous) weapons?

 

[Calanen]

I've posted this before - but it gets unnoticed.

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/se...-JFP-8-3-99.pdf

This study cites pther studies which show 700,000 to 1 million defensive gun uses in the United States per year. Thats a lot of people who would be dead or injured if they did not have a firearm. A hell of a lot more than those who are killed from gun accidents.

And yes it includes people who defend themselves from wildlife. But whether it is wildlife or not that is attacking you, without the gun you would still be mained or killed.

 

[firemachine69]

:upstare: the guy is full of crap, he's very misleading in the majority that he says about canada

"Toronto's recent wave of street murders -- more than 40 since the beginning of 2001 -- debunks the claim that Ottawa's gun registry is making Canadians safer from crime.... Nearly all of the Toronto murders have been committed with handguns."

funny how he neglected to mention that there were a total of 60 murders that year ...in a city with a population of over 4 million


"especially if you like to pay 60% of your income in taxes"

he had to remove this line because it's a bold faced lie ...no way I pay 60% or even half that in taxes

he also had to edit the bit on healthcare because it was inaccurate

They're both BSers.

But what? A month ago, an UZI type weapon, no serials, was used for a drive by. That's insane. Just goes to prove, the honest, law-abiding people get the short end of the stick.

 

[ChareltonHest]

Wow, someone from a former Soviet Empire telling us guns should be banned.

ROTFL.

Gun-Conttol is, has been, and will always be the tool of tyrants for the purpose of control.


C.H.

 

[CptStern]

Wow, someone from a former Soviet Empire telling us guns should be banned.

ROTFL.

Gun-Conttol is, has been, and will always be the tool of tyrants for the purpose of control.


C.H.

:rolling: I guess most of the free world is run by a bunch of tyrants


maybe the US will invade these countries and save us from tyranny

 

[CptStern]

But what? A month ago, an UZI type weapon, no serials, was used for a drive by. That's insane. Just goes to prove, the honest, law-abiding people get the short end of the stick.

source? where exactly did this happen? and who were the victems?

 

[skull24]

Bows and Arrows were deadly weapon and still is but it take skill to us it and the Sword is the same way. It's deadly and can kill but you have to be brave to stab and kill the person you use it on. The gun dose not take great skill but you do need some to use it. I guess my point is, weapons are weapons no matter the weapon some people are just crazy or unskilled or just killers and will kill you with what ever they can from an arrow to a sword to the gun. People have been killing people from the being of human exist and they will until the end of human exists. We are what we are tribes that fight for control over land and resources and will continue to do so forever or until we run out of resources and land.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Constitution is not perfect and guns are bad, i'm willing to bet my life, that if you get rid of all the guns in US, the murder rate will drop down a lot.

The right to keep and bear arms has prevented individuals like Stalin from rising to power in this country. The framers of the constitution, who suffered under tyrannical rule knew this and that is why the 2nd amendment was included in the bill of rights.

Guns are banned in Russia right? How is the murder rate over there? What's the violent crime like? How is the young democracy fairing over there without the ability to counter Putins grab of their freedoms? I'll let you know, it's far worse than it is here.

doctors accidentally kill 100,000+ people per year in the USA. where is the outrage and call for banning doctors?

 

[CptStern]

"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"



please, the US would steam roll right over any militia group bent on overthrowing the government.

as the kent state massacre proved the US goverment has no qualms ordering troops to shoot americans

 

[Bodacious]

The things you have to belive to support gun control

· That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

· That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn't really want to shoot you and he'll let you go, but that you should give him your wallet, because he'll shoot you if you don't.

· That Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.

· That "NYPD Blue" and "Miami Vice" are documentaries.

· That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

· That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with nuclear weapons.

· That Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

· That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

· That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

· That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

· That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.

· That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1917.

· That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.

· That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.

· That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.

· That it is reasonable to jail people for carrying but not using guns, but outrageous to jail people for possessing marijuana.

· That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it's for possessing a gun.

· That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the "gun problem."

· That the first amendment absolutely allows child pornography and threats to kill cops, but doesn't apply to manuals on gun repair.

· That a woman in a microskirt, perfume, and a Wonderbra, without underwear, is a helpless victim, but someone getting paid $6 an hour to deliver the cash from a fast food place to the bank at the same time every night is, "asking for it." And you won't allow either of them to carry a gun.

· That Illinois' law that allows any government official from Governor to dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, and the law that prohibits any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million dollar jewelry business, is reasonable. And it isn't a sign of police statism.

· That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare hands.

· That with the above, a 90 lb woman attacked by a 300 lb rapist and his 300 lb buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.

· That gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence, but sex education in school doesn't encourage kids to have sex.

· That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950's and 1960's, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.

· That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time, and anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

· That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, and that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren't aware of the dangers involved with guns.

· That the gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

· That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, and the increase in crime requires more gun control.

· That 100 years after its founding, the NRA got into the politics of guns from purely selfish motives, and 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the black civil rights movement was founded from purely noble motives.

· That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

· That we don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, and we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of that Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive government.

· That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of society.

· That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

· That guns cause crime, which is why there are so many mass slayings at gun shows.

· That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army only has 3 million of them.

· That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

· That the Constitution protects us, so we don't need guns, and can confiscate them, thereby violating the 5th amendment of that constitution.

· That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, yet a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen."

· That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, and gunmakers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

· That a handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

· That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population used to support owning slaves.

· That one should ignore as idiots politicians who confuse Wicca with Satanism and exaggerate the gay community as a threat to society, but listen sagely to politicians who can refer to a self-loading small arm as a "weapon of mass destruction" and an "assault weapon."

· That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has machinegun toting guards.

· That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.

· That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

· That guns should be banned because of the danger involved, and live reporting from the battlefield, which can keep the enemy informed of troop deployments, getting thousands of troops killed and perhaps losing a war, is a protected act that CANNOT be compromised on.

· That the right of online child pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is a constitutionally protected extension of the Bill of Rights, and the claim that handguns are for self defense is merely an excuse, and not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

· That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

· That a house with a gun is three times as likely to have a murder, just like a house with insulin is three times as likely to have a diabetic.

· That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need larger capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals alone, and therefore need less ammunition.

· That we should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

· That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we issue cops beer instead of guns.

· That police and soldiers are the dregs of society who were unfit to get any real job, which perfectly qualifies them with the high moral standards and keen intellects to handle these complicated tools and be our guardians.

 

[pentagon]

The things you have to belive to support gun control

that about sums it up lol

 

[ChareltonHest]

please, the US would steam roll right over any militia group bent on overthrowing the government.

That would depend on the tactics now wouldn't it? If there was an uprising, it isn't going to be muzzle to muzzle fighting in the streats. Like our forefathers, people would strike from the shadows and be portayed as "terrorists" probably.

Back in 1776, our forefathers were deemed "ungentlmanly" and cowardly for shooting from behind trees instead of going against the British in a normal fashion -out in the open.

As for the "milititia", the militia is any able bodyed male, and female, that owns a weapon.

"The 'divisions' of the army of American constitutional liberty get into their cars and drive to work in this country every day to jobs that are hardly military in nature. Most of them are unmindful of the service they provide. Their arms depots may be found in innumerable closets, gunracks and gunsafes. They have no appointed officers, nor will they need any until they are mobilized by events. Such guardians of our liberty perform this service merely by existing." -Mike Vanderboegh
( http://www.doubleought.com/1pistol.html )

It's like the rattlesnake on your revutionary flag with the words "Don't Tread on Me!" The rattlesnake is not tread on, for he has sharp fangs.

It is a natural human right that a person has the ability of having force. To defend his life, family, and to back up his rights -as words are nothing without force to back them up. We have a system of checks and balences; one is the force of Gov't vs the force of an armed population.

Just because you don't see a right excersized in action doesn't mean it is obsolete. Our rights keep tyranny away. It is when those rights are taken away, that tyranny starts to form to where you would need the right. You see? Why do you think they want the guns gone? They would like to exercise unjust power without having to "look down the barrel of an 'assault weapon'" as one cop was quoted saying.

Remember Waco. The "police"(Jack-Booted-Thugs;" Asses, thugs, and fools of ATF") attacked a group of people, and those people defeded themselves. It can happen here. Hitler managed to demonize the Jews so badly, that people sat by while the Jews were abuse, and eventualy killed. They did the same at Waco, but on a smaller scale: They lied and demonized those people, using the lapdog media, till they could get America to accept that 'they had it coming' when the Gov't burned the place, familys and all.

Genocide happens on large scales, and small scales.


C.H.

 

[ChareltonHest]

Nice post Bodacious.


C.H.

 

[CptStern]

please, the US would steam roll right over any militia group bent on overthrowing the government.

That would depend on the tactics now wouldn't it? If there was an uprising, it isn't going to be muzzle to muzzle fighting in the streats. Like our forefathers, people would strike from the shadows and be portayed as "terrorists" probably.

Back in 1776, our forefathers were deemed "ungentlmanly" and cowardly for shooting from behind trees instead of going against the British in a normal fashion -out in the open.

As for the "milititia", the militia is any able bodyed male, and female, that owns a weapon.

"The 'divisions' of the army of American constitutional liberty get into their cars and drive to work in this country every day to jobs that are hardly military in nature. Most of them are unmindful of the service they provide. Their arms depots may be found in innumerable closets, gunracks and gunsafes. They have no appointed officers, nor will they need any until they are mobilized by events. Such guardians of our liberty perform this service merely by existing." -Mike Vanderboegh
( http://www.doubleought.com/1pistol.html )

It's like the rattlesnake on your revutionary flag with the words "Don't Tread on Me!" The rattlesnake is not tread on, for he has sharp fangs.

It is a natural human right that a person has the ability of having force. To defend his life, family, and to back up his rights -as words are nothing without force to back them up. We have a system of checks and balences; one is the force of Gov't vs the force of an armed population.

Just because you don't see a right excersized in action doesn't mean it is obsolete. Our rights keep tyranny away. It is when those rights are taken away, that tyranny starts to form to where you would need the right. You see? Why do you think they want the guns gone? They would like to exercise unjust power without having to "look down the barrel of an 'assault weapon'" as one cop was quoted saying.

Remember Waco. The "police"(Jack-Booted-Thugs;" Asses, thugs, and fools of ATF") attacked a group of people, and those people defeded themselves. It can happen here. Hitler managed to demonize the Jews so badly, that people sat by while the Jews were abuse, and eventualy killed. They did the same at Waco, but on a smaller scale: They lied and demonized those people, using the lapdog media, till they could get America to accept that 'they had it coming' when the Gov't burned the place, familys and all.

Genocide happens on large scales, and small scales.


C.H.

insurgents not terrorists .....................:E


oh and waco ended with them all dead

 

[Tr0n]

insurgents not terrorists .....................:E


oh and waco ended with them all dead

Yea it did sadly.

Don't see why they just couldn't siege them till they gave up instead of going in.

 

[Calanen]

please, the US would steam roll right over any militia group bent on overthrowing the government.

That would depend on the tactics now wouldn't it? If there was an uprising, it isn't going to be muzzle to muzzle fighting in the streats. Like our forefathers, people would strike from the shadows and be portayed as "terrorists" probably.

1776 and people with canons that were hard to move and muskets that were hard to fire is a very differnt thing to today's modern army. Remember the LA riots? It took what 2500 National Guardsmen about 8 hours to put that down.

Speaking of which, a guy I worked with in the US was one of those National Guardsmen. He said that a squad of 4 guardsmen got into a police car, when the cop said 'Get in - I need some help'. They were responding to a call about a woman reportedly being assaulted by a gun toting man.

Anyway, they see the guy, and he has a pistol and is peeping around the corner of a doorway. They call on him to come out, and he does not.

The 4 Guardsmen are taking cover behind the patrol car - and the cop says, 'Cover me - Im going in'. The Guards sergeant says 'Lay down covering fire!' And the 4 Guardsmen open up on the building. The guy was so shaken by machine gun fire tearing strips off this building that he started screaming 'Stop Stop!' - and threw out his pistol into the street and gave himself up.

'Cover me' means different things as between different services.

But the point is - that if you think a bunch of civilians with guns, even really good guns, is going to make one bit of difference to well armed and trained troops think again. One M1A2 Abrams tank coming down the road would wipe out most civilians pretty quickly. How about an Apache Helicopter? Or a Vulcan on a bradley. The days of the Minutemen are over.

The thing about that aspect of the Second Amendment - ie it was there to keep the state in power, there is theoretically no limit to what you would need. On that basis, as the State gets more arms, purportedly your access to arms should not be infringed. And yet it is. Taken to its logical or illogical conclusion, fringe groups would need nukes and tanks to check the states power today.

My own view is that the right to bear arms, is an anachronistic throwback to when the state did need citizens to protect it against the british. Now, citizens would be no match for a professional army.

 

[bliink]

Don't see why they just couldn't siege them till they gave up instead of going in.

They tried it for a bit, but politics forced them to go in I think. (ATF wanted to prove that it still needed/could still use its SWAT-type attack team)

My own view is that the right to bear arms, is an anachronistic throwback to when the state did need citizens to protect it against the british. Now, citizens would be no match for a professional army.

Especially when the main pro-gun advocates (the NRA) are a right wing conservative organisation, and so is the government in power. 2nd ammendment is obsolete imo

 

[CptStern]

Don't see why they just couldn't siege them till they gave up instead of going in.

bad publicity?

 

[Tr0n]

Hell it was bad publicity going in and burning that place down! :|

 

[Calanen]

Some people believe that the ATF deliberately (more recklessly, ie knowing what they were doing would lead to the blaze) set the building on fire - and then machine gunned people as they fled the fire out the back door.

There were infra red cameras from above taking footage, which seemed to show sustained muzzle flashes perhaps from a stationay belt fed tripod machine gun. There has been claim and counterclaim about this however:

http://users.erols.com/igoddard/wacoflir.htm.

Some say Yes, some say No. Who is right? I do not know.

A good look at what happened is this site:

http://www.carolmoore.net/waco/TDM-index.html

Whether what they did was intentional or just a bungled raid, could have been handled a lot better.

 

[bliink]

Some people believe that the ATF deliberately (more recklessly, ie knowing what they were doing would lead to the blaze) set the building on fire - and then machine gunned people as they fled the fire out the back door.

There were infra red cameras from above taking footage, which seemed to show sustained muzzle flashes perhaps from a stationay belt fed tripod machine gun. There has been claim and counterclaim about this however:

http://users.erols.com/igoddard/wacoflir.htm.

Some say Yes, some say No. Who is right? I do not know.

A good look at what happened is this site:

http://www.carolmoore.net/waco/TDM-index.html

Whether what they did was intentional or just a bungled raid, could have been handled a lot better.

The fact that there is that much controversy would lend itself to the assumption that certainly something was going on dishonestly; the extent of which is debateable though

 

[Calanen]

I think non-lethal law enforcement is going to be the way to go in the future. Cops will just fire things that paralyse people in some way or another. The Pentagon is spending a lot of money on non-lethal means of taking people down, Time Magazine did a big story on it a few years ago. The bad PR from killing people (even people who I think are better off being killed) is too hard for cops and the government to deal with. So very efficient non-lethal methods of law enforcement will be coming to you, really soon.

And btw - I think that Tasers and so on are just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[bliink]

And btw - I think that Tasers and so on are just the tip of the iceberg.

Have you been tasered before?
Point of info: It hurts like **** :O

 

[Tr0n]

Have you been tasered before?
Point of info: It hurts like **** :O

Sounds like fun to me!

Shoot someone and keep on tasering them.

 

[Kebean PFC]

Have you been tasered before?

Funny thing is, I have, in front of my school. The police were doing a demonstration, and nobody volunteered, so they were gonna pick, i just went out there. It doesn't hurt, it feels weird, like you can't move any part of you, you just fall over, and that hurts

(They had a gym pad set up, so i didn't hurt myself, but i could see where if you fell on the concrete it would hurt.

Oh a Bliink, as much as i respect your views (not only becuase you are a mod, but out of common courtesy) I really think it is absurd for people that don't live in the US to try and tell us what is obsolete, and what needs to be fixed. You don't live here, you don't know what its like, to be honest a gun ban wouldn't really do anything. It would most likely be like prohibition, with the most law abiding turning their guns in and the rest locking them in closets, hoping they don't get caught.

Oh Funny thing, yesterday in rifle team, we watched a video on matenence and how to obtain the maximum performance from you 853 rifle. The guy that was talking was a real redneck and he said that "To ensure maximum performance of your rifle, you must remeber to

Spoiler

let her breathe for 4 seconds in between pumps.

I laughed so hard... it was incredible...

 

[bliink]

Oh a Bliink, as much as i respect your views (not only becuase you are a mod, but out of common courtesy) I really think it is absurd for people that don't live in the US to try and tell us what is obsolete, and what needs to be fixed. You don't live here, you don't know what its like, to be honest a gun ban wouldn't really do anything.

hence the "imo"

 

[Tr0n]

hence the "imo"

Took only 3 words too shoot him down.

Well done.

Also to add on...whats the point of complaining about our gun laws when ya'll know they won't change or anything.I'm always gonna have a gun...**** the law.

 

[GhostFox]

It doesn't hurt

They gave you a very low voltage shock then.

In most precincts it is a requirment for officers to be tasered themselves before they are allowed to carry one. It is done in a safe enviroment, the idea being that cops will have a better idea of how suspects will react to a taser if they have experianced it themselves.

I know a few cops who have gone through this, and they all screamed like babies while they were being "hit" by the juice. Apparently the pain is terrible, but brief.

This doesn't mean I am anti-taser however. Sure it hurts, but it doesn't kill you (normally). Every person tasered is 1 life saved.

 

[Calanen]

Have you been tasered before?
Point of info: It hurts like **** :O

I'm not saying Tasers dont work - only they are a very small fraction of the non-lethal devices that will be used over time. Tasers can take down angry bulls, not just people.

 

[Calanen]

Oh a Bliink, as much as i respect your views (not only becuase you are a mod, but out of common courtesy) I really think it is absurd for people that don't live in the US to try and tell us what is obsolete, and what needs to be fixed. You don't live here, you don't know what its like, to be honest a gun ban wouldn't really do anything. It would most likely be like prohibition, with the most law abiding turning their guns in and the rest locking them in closets, hoping they don't get caught.

Ive lived in the USA. I lived in San Diego where there was no crime problem at all really. Its probably too late for the US to remove guns, more of the gun culture than Australia. Removing guns from regular folks just stops the dad from killing the wife and the kid. Which is a good thing. But it does not stop, criminals from shooting each other or civilians.

But when I am in a bar, or chatting on the net - and i meet some really stupid redneck going on about killing all the blacks, it wakes me up in the middle of the night to think, this clown can buy an automatic rifle.....

How do you regulate things so that people can defend themselves and so the unwanted people do not have guns - I do not know. But either every1 has guns or no1 does. The in-between bit is what causes the most grief.

Australia has melted down a lot of guns, spent billions buying them back. The criminals still have them, they always did. I saw in the Australian chat rooms the other day people saying they could sell x and y gun just pm them. Whether they could or not how would I know? But I imagine that criminals can still get their guns very easily.

 

[bliink]

Australia has melted down a lot of guns, spent billions buying them back. The criminals still have them, they always did. I saw in the Australian chat rooms the other day people saying they could sell x and y gun just pm them. Whether they could or not how would I know? But I imagine that criminals can still get their guns very easily.

You could buy a replica glock 17 from Queensland, and then have it converted into something that will fire 9mm for 50 bucks.
Most illegal guns in Aus (I'm guessing, and speaking about guns that aren't hunting rifles/shotguns/farm weapons etc) are leaked from the police/security industry.

 

[Calanen]

Bliink was right, for Australia at least:

According to the report, firearms seized at crime scenes and in routine policing can commonly be traced back to licensed Australian owners and arms importers. Thefts occur from private sources and the stocks of licensed arms dealers, while some licensed arms dealers have been prosecuted for illegal firearms sales to criminals. The authors conclude: ‘It seems clear that the domestic leakage of firearms from licensed owners to criminals exceeds the volume of guns shown to have been smuggled into Australia.’ 63 But importation can still be regarded as a problem. In the 2001-2002 financial year, Australian customs authorities seized 812 illegally imported firearms including 204 handguns, nearly three times the number seized in the previous year.64

This report demonstrates I think that Australia still has quite a serious guncrime problem, despite the laws. But it also shows, that most of the guns come from legal places first - ie stolen from lawful owners rather than imported.

Indeed, customs now inspects *every* container. How do I know? Because I just imported one and was given a sheet which said that customs does - costs you 250 per hour to have it done now too.

Here is the report - its 2004. Heavy reading for those who are used to comic books though:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/9C0252B88F63421ECA256ECF00073CB7

 

[bliink]

Bliink was right, for Australia at least:

And you'd get the same problem if you banned guns in the US... there's no way to escape them short of stopping production 100% (and thats never going to happen!)

 

[ChareltonHest]

But the point is - that if you think a bunch of civilians with guns, even really good guns, is going to make one bit of difference to well armed and trained troops think again. One M1A2 Abrams tank coming down the road would wipe out most civilians pretty quickly. How about an Apache Helicopter? Or a Vulcan on a bradley. The days of the Minutemen are over.

You are thinking of a full-blown civil war. If it came to that(tanks in the streets), it would be done by state succession. A splitting up of America, each side forming it's own nation or faction -each with whatever military resources it had at it's desposal.

Until the Gov't comes right out and declares that the people will have no rights from this point on and declare openly of a dictatorship, it will still have to be seen as playing by the rules of democracy and of a free society.

When thinking of an armed population being a deterant against Gov't tyranny, don't think tanks and wareplanes in the streats. Think of day-to-day policing and Gov't abuse. As the police adopt more military-like tactics, less respect for people's rights, and being above the law at times, more abuse and exesive-force is likely to occure. There are times were guns for resistence is needed; they are nessesary to equalize the players. But they don't win the conflict.

Truth and information wins the conflict. In order to win, the police don't rely on raw force alone, but the ability to convice the majority that they're justified in using it. For example: If the police wanted to murder a group of people like they did at Waco, they couldn't just admit to it. They would have to lie about what was going on, and control the information leaving the area. They won the Waco battle, in a way, because of that reason: They used the lapdog media to lie, lie, lie, and demonize the Davidians. I don't think the Davidians died in vain though. Their sacrafice woke many people up and resistence groups in the form of watchdogs started. Because of this, the Gov't hasn't taken on a operation of that scale since.

The thing about that aspect of the Second Amendment - ie it was there to keep the state in power...

The 2ndAmd was a restriction on Gov't. The Bill of Rights was created to spell out what the Gov't can't do. It did not give us any rights either, our rights are "self-evident".

"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."

It is not a collective right for the state only to call up a militia...although that was part of it. As Larry Pratt of the GOA said: "I think the problem today is with the term 'well-regulated'. Today, there is the misconception that you can't have a regulation of anything unless the Gov't regulates it. But in 1776, our forefathers weren't thinking about that at all." "The militia regulated itself. The militia has the guns at home, not in an armoury like the national guard." Also notice that, to anti-gun types, the phrase "the right of the people.." in the other amendments implys an individual right...except in the 2ndAmd's case. If you want to debate the 2ndAmd as still being nessesary, fine. But don't try to say it doesn't say what it does. That is realy getting old.

There are other examples of people being disarmed, and then being defenceless. One of the best places is: www.a-human-right.com/ I am sure many of you, epecialy those from the other side of '"the pond" have heard the anti-gun side of things, well here is the pro-gun side. Educate yourself on both

Bottom line: The right to have the ability of force is a natural, and most bacis of human rights. You don't know what the future will bring. Having laws against guns leaves everyone defencless. It creates a situation where the two most notorious and monsterious hold the monopoly on firepower: The Street-Thug(who doesn't obey the law anyway) & the Gov't Thug.

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Tom. Jefferson

C.H.

 

[ChareltonHest]

This report demonstrates I think that Australia still has quite a serious guncrime problem, despite the laws.

Sounds like the laws are the problem.

Gun-Control's sole function is getting guns out of the law-abiding's hands, while the street-thug gets them anyway. "Access to weapons" isn't the problem....actualy, it is: People that need to defend themselves can't get access to weapons that should be readily availiable due to harrassing, downright wrong "Gun Control".

It's like this idiot mayor in Illinious, US lately. He has decided that there is some kind of "crisis"(There's always some kind of "crisis" happening for those with an agenda) concerning gun-violence.

His "cure"? Get this...to put further restrictions on those that legaly carry concealed weapons! That is not only down right insulting -to say that these people that aid society by being armed against crime are somehow the problem, but it is downright suicidal to the cause of preventing violence.

"Hey, people are getting shot! Let's make sure people are even more susceptible to geing killed!"

Not that I'm niave enough to think this mayor realy cares about stopping violence...that is obvious.


C.H.

 

[Calanen]

Gun-Control's sole function is getting guns out of the law-abiding's hands, while the street-thug gets them anyway. "Access to weapons" isn't the problem....actualy, it is: People that need to defend themselves can't get access to weapons that should be readily availiable due to harrassing, downright wrong "Gun Control".

I dont think the gunlaws would change very much. That is, gun crime largely falls outside what the law can restrict. And they have been going softly softly on the street gangs because of being labelled as 'racial profilers' given they are predominantly Lebanese gangs.

Probably in my day to day life, I am sheltered enough so I will never need a gun to defend myself. There are heroin addicts around here - and they break in sometimes. Im assuming though they wont have firearms, because 1) they would have sold the gun for heroin or 2) would use the gun in a holdup to get more money for heroin. They may have knives however.

Id feel a bit better about this fact though if I had one. As I posted the other day, I was terrified when the idiots next door were breaking in when they lost their keys. And I could hear there were two of them.