haven't read the 2nd half of this thread...i'll do it later...but:

^^when i was flying out of London, the cops around the airport were carrying MP5s (and SIG P226s)

9/7/2006 7:24:49 PM

Quote :

"What are the long run statistics in both cases? Specifically, did the increases in gun-related crime last? Or was it a temporary thing both law enforcement systems ultimately adjusted to?"

You would also have to ask how the law enforcement system adjusted. I don't think having to hire 2 or 3 times as many police to maintain the peace levels before you banned the guns would be an optimal or even desired solution.

(note to people who failed critical reading, the "2 to 3 times" example was a hypothetical to illustrate the point, I am not claiming that is what has happened)

9/7/2006 8:11:08 PM

apparently my CCP background check took about 50 days instead of 90

9/7/2006 8:15:43 PM

i dont feel nearly as safe, go ask the police to hold it for you for another month or so.

9/7/2006 9:57:51 PM

k

9/8/2006 12:57:55 AM

Just stoppin in to post a response to something on page one. Not gonna read the thread...you guys are tiresome, you know.

Quote :

"hooksaw: Guns are simply tools. In the right hands, said tools keep this country free, put food on the table, provide security for homes and neighborhoods, provide recreation and competition for marksmen (and women), give collectors the enjoyment of preserving a beautifully crafted instrument, and so on. In the wrong hands, a screwdriver or a hammer or an axe can be deadly weapons. What matters is what one does with the tools available."

Nope, you can't compare guns to screwdrivers, hammers, and axes. Homey don't play that.

bgmims and jlphipps suck for commending hooksaw on his absurd post. As usual, cyrion rocks with sensibility.

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 6:17 AM. Reason : sss]

9/8/2006 6:13:18 AM

Quote :

"What are the long run statistics in both cases? Specifically, did the increases in gun-related crime last? Or was it a temporary thing both law enforcement systems ultimately adjusted to?"

Well, considering that England's sweeping handgun ban was in 1997, and the Aussies followed a year later (led by Rebecca Peters), and since then crime has risen nearly every year since then, I'd say that the gun ban didn't help with reducing crime.

You people just dont get it. Gun control is not about reducing crime at all. Bill Clinton and Diane Fienstein even said so themselves. It's about expanding government and beauracratic power.

Please find me just one case where a gun control law was conclusively proven reduce the violent crime rate in a free country.

9/8/2006 8:36:49 AM

after looking at it some more the South Africa example seems contested. gun owners say the study skews the facts, others use it as an example of halved crime in the cities.

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 10:33 AM. Reason : .]

9/8/2006 10:25:32 AM

Quote :

"Nope, you can't compare guns to screwdrivers, hammers, and axes. Homey don't play that."

with all your reasons and elaboration, you convinced me!

9/8/2006 11:14:06 AM

I pulled this in from another gun-related thread: "When your ass gets in a sling, who do you call? Ghostbusters? No! You call someone with a gun to come and save your ass--whether it's the police, the Army, or a 'cowboy.'

Don't worry, though, when the shit hits the fan and you unarmed nancy-boys are crying for help, I might save you. All the left-wingers talk shit about a cowboy--until they need one. Just ask the French" (hooksaw).

9/8/2006 11:25:14 AM

if i recall correctly, in the other thread you posted that in, nobody commented back...most likely cause they read it and were like "shit, maybe he's right!"

I think I might buy a PPK/S today

9/8/2006 11:30:51 AM

One day cyrion was sleeping in his apartment.

A man crashed through the glass like a SWAT member.

This man was there to steal his beloved computar and tww and was armed with a 50 calibur machine gun (lord knows why).

Cyrion was disarmed and dismayed, but at that moment a glorious shadow emerged.

The shadow cowboy's bullets burst forth and decimated the evil intruder.

Had it not been for a gun, cyrion most certainly would have died (or lost his beloved intarweb).

Cyrion's thanks would never be enough for that man.

That man...was hooksaw.




There, I wrote your little story out for you.


[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 11:41 AM. Reason : jesus christ spelling]

9/8/2006 11:40:05 AM

.50 cals are pretty tough to come by

maybe i should buy a .50 desert today with a 14" barrel since its christmas in september

9/8/2006 11:41:29 AM

it needed to be that menacing to take out my bad ass

9/8/2006 11:43:17 AM

thats pretty tuff

9/8/2006 11:43:32 AM

yeah, most criminals won't spend the money it takes to own a .50

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 2:35 PM. Reason : .]

9/8/2006 2:35:08 PM

they could just steal it

9/8/2006 2:36:42 PM

yeah if you want to go around committing crimes with a weapon of that size

you'll probably get caught with it though

9/8/2006 2:42:41 PM

Springfield XD .45 13+1

9/8/2006 2:51:18 PM

I don't own any firearms

they are bad

9/8/2006 3:30:12 PM

Perhaps you should spend more time on learning how to spell and punctuate properly and less time on failed attempts at wit, cyrion ("50 [sic] calibur [sic] machine gun"). I realize you purposely misspelled some of the words in your post; others appear to be out of ignorance.

One more thing: It is highly improbable that anyone would be "armed" with a .50 caliber "machine gun." If you had ever carried one, you would know why--due to its weight, the weapon is generally ring-mounted on a vehicle (for rotation) or positioned on very sturdy bipods. In addition, the trigger requires both thumbs to depress and the recoil is a motherfucker. It is more likely that your fictitious paramilitary attacker would be armed with an M60, a SAW, or an AR-15, which would all be quite effective in causing your demise, figuratively speaking, of course.

9/11/2006 6:24:32 AM

"Danger--if you meet it promptly and without flinching--you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!" (Winston Churchill).

9/13/2006 4:26:12 AM

Well, I guess we are all in agreement with my last post. Feels good, doesn't it?

9/15/2006 11:49:52 PM

To SourPatchin/BridgetSPK/Whoever You Are: "Homey [might not] play that." But hooksaw does.

I found the following links in about thirty seconds. If I did in-depth research, I would find MANY more such incidents!

SCREWDRIVERS:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9801E4D8123CF934A15753C1A96E958260

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:134643823/Life+for+thug+who+killed+woman+with+screwdriver.html?refid=ency_botnm

HAMMERS:

http://news.pajamasmedia.com/science/2006/09/14/10823603_Woman_73_killed_.shtml

http://www.sundaytribune.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3432100

http://www.news10.net/storyfull1.asp?id=8157

AXES:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4347919.stm

http://www.spectacle.org/398/karla.html

BONUS WEAPON-MACHETES (two articles on the same horrific period during which approximately 800,000 human beings were hacked to death):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3246291.stm

http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/alumni/dm8/rwanda_txt.html

One more thing, SourPatchin/BridgetSPK/Whoever You Are: PWNT!

9/16/2006 12:20:20 AM

WOW, YOU CAN KILL A MAN WITH A SCREWDRIVER?!?! THANKS FOR THAT SHOCKING REVELATION! YOU SURE KICKED OUR ASSES!

I am a gun owner.
I am a member of the US Shooting Sports Assoc. (since 1995).
I have won various shooting sports awards (target rifle, primarily).
I support gun control through registration of arms and increased firearm education.

9/16/2006 12:56:51 AM

You will note well, PinkandBlack (aka smart-ass), that I was responding to the following sentence posted by SourPatchin/BridgetSPK/Whoever You Are: "Nope, you can't compare guns to screwdrivers, hammers, and axes. Homey don't play that." In fact, I can compare the two and I have efficiently and effectively done so.

In the comparison at issue, I am comparing hand-held, man-made instruments that can be used to kill or not. My comparison is apples to apples and dead-on--whether the Pink-os-andBlacks and the SourPatchin/What-the-Fuck-Evers of TWW agree or not.

[Edited on September 16, 2006 at 1:46 AM. Reason : .]

9/16/2006 1:45:43 AM

Quote :

"In fact, I can compare the two and I have efficiently and effectively done so."

Guns are designed to kill. You havent compared it to anything designed to kill.

9/16/2006 1:52:44 AM

Intent of design has nothing to do with anything, Josh8315. You continually post that point like it's some earth-shattering revelation.

The fact of the matter is you should be more concerned with the intent of individuals using any object against another. Hell, I could have a nuclear warhead in my living room with a lamp shade on it; if I do not have any intention of using it, the original intent of its design is irrelevant. Why can't you grasp that?

9/17/2006 4:24:31 AM

^^ PS: Why are you so focused on guns as instruments of death? During the Columbine massacre, the killers also deployed over a dozen propane bombs and other types of explosives. I await your propane control proposal.

Are moving vans designed to kill? Are jetliners designed to kill? Your position is absurd.

http://columbine.free2host.net/weapon.html

9/17/2006 4:37:06 AM

One thing I don't really like about guns, is that people with them will resort to using them before attempting to use other options.

Yes, the gun may help you in a dangerous situation, but it may also make a rather safe situation completely out of control.

I know of someone who (In an act of complete idiocy) became so heavily intoxicated that they did not know where they were. They were blacked out and attempted to enter the wrong person's apartment. They knocked on this person's door for over 15 minutes (Without ever opening it). Instead of calling the police, the dude answered the door with a gun and shot the person twice.

Anyway, guns will probably never be taken away from the general population, and I'm not sure that I even think they should be. I guess my point was that people buy guns to use them, and some people are probably just waiting for that opportunity to use it for "self defense"..

Quote :

"Are moving vans designed to kill? Are jetliners designed to kill? Your position is absurd."

You can kill somebody with anything. I mean you can kill somebody with fucking water dude. That doesn't mean we should all go buy a gun. Your position is pretty flawed as well...

[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 9:09 AM. Reason : ]

9/17/2006 9:04:05 AM

i dont know man. all i know is ive been outside all morning (yes, i get up at 5am, PUSSIES) throwing knives at trees and shooting shit. i hit the neighbor's dog and proceeded to bust out a rockin' guitar solo after doing so. im a badass.

9/17/2006 9:19:16 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps you should spend more time on learning how to spell and punctuate properly and less time on failed attempts at wit, cyrion ("50 [sic] calibur [sic] machine gun"). I realize you purposely misspelled some of the words in your post; others appear to be out of ignorance. One more thing: It is highly improbable that anyone would be "armed" with a .50 caliber "machine gun." If you had ever carried one, you would know why--due to its weight, the weapon is generally ring-mounted on a vehicle (for rotation) or positioned on very sturdy bipods. In addition, the trigger requires both thumbs to depress and the recoil is a motherfucker. It is more likely that your fictitious paramilitary attacker would be armed with an M60, a SAW, or an AR-15, which would all be quite effective in causing your demise, figuratively speaking, of course."

i guess there is no room for hiperbolly in hooksaws world (yeah you like THAT spelling). sorry that you were too busy riding my nuts about spelling and trivial matters (such as which massive gun i chose to joke about) to post anything worthwhile.

Quote :

"In the comparison at issue, I am comparing hand-held, man-made instruments that can be used to kill or not."

that is only 1 dimension of the issue. as i've said before, what about range, damage potential, usability? you cant exactly throw a screwdriver at someone 10 times while they are running away. an axe takes a little more heft to swing, thus making a second shot more difficult if you miss. a single knife poke may or may not be so bad.

so again, thanks for attacking bridget about a general comment and ignoring others.

Quote :

"One thing I don't really like about guns, is that people with them will resort to using them before attempting to use other options. Yes, the gun may help you in a dangerous situation, but it may also make a rather safe situation completely out of control."

this has been one of my major concerns as well. nobody is saying that criminals should have the run of town, but i dont have a very high opinion of the regular citizens either.

9/17/2006 9:59:52 AM

why do yall fail to hold people accountable for their actions but yet blame inanimate objects

9/17/2006 10:23:34 AM

Quote :

"^^ PS: Why are you so focused on guns as instruments of death? During the Columbine massacre, the killers also deployed over a dozen propane bombs and other types of explosives. I await your propane control proposal."

propane isnt designed to kill

its amazing how one argument works just about half the time

9/17/2006 12:28:03 PM

i understand the argument about how guns are, more or less, designed to kill, whereas MOST of the other examples are used as improvised weapons.

the bottom line to me, though, is the personal responsibility argument. a gun is simply a tool, and won't do anything good or bad on its own. the problem is what some people DO with guns, and that's where the solution(s) should focus.

nobody argues for the regulation of knives when someone gets stabbed.


or how about this? sports cars and sportbikes are designed for high performance, but only a few fringe lunatics argue for their regulation when somebody goes and wraps a fast car or bike around a telephone pole.

beer and liquor are designed to intoxicate you, yet only a few fringe lunatics argue for their (further) regulation when somebody gets drunk, drives, and hits a family head-on.

No, they recognize that having legal availability of alcohol isn't the problem--it's driving drunk that's the problem.

9/17/2006 12:38:52 PM

then why stop at guns if it only matters how we use them, ie, 'personal responsibility'?

why not gernades? napalm?

ive heard no answer here. i could fish with daisy cutters.

9/17/2006 12:45:42 PM

partially because grenades and napalm have basically no utility other than killing people (which is not the case with regular small arms)

partially because it's tougher to safely use either of them than small arms


but mostly because i'm a pragmatist and not an ideologue. i recognize that it's perfectly ok to make a sound decision in a grey area rather than carry everything past the limits of sensibility to its logical extreme, just for the sake of being ideologically homogenous.

9/17/2006 12:51:56 PM

what about m16, or a big assault rifle? that will kill and defend well, will it not?

9/17/2006 12:54:56 PM

and

Quote :

"then why stop at guns if it only matters what they're designed for? why not knives? alcohol? ive heard no answer here. i could fuck myself or other people up with all kinds of stuff besides guns--WITHOUT EVEN USING THINGS FOR OTHER THAN THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE. "

i mean, there's no limit how to how far we can take the nanny-state.

[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 1:00 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

9/17/2006 12:55:41 PM

^^ "big assault rifles" aren't a problem. the Assault Weapons Ban was on the short list of most asinine pieces of legislation ever devised, on several different levels. thank God for the sunset clause (it's like they knew it was fucking stupid when they passed it, so they mercifully added a sunset clause)

and you can legally own a full-auto M16 if you have a few hundred dollars for a Class III license and a while to wait for the background check. You probably can't afford to buy an M16, but you'd be legal.

[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 12:59 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

9/17/2006 12:58:20 PM

so you think its ok for anyone to be able to get their hands on an m16?

9/17/2006 1:00:59 PM

I think the current setup is just fine. Anyone can legally own one, provided he pass the stringent FBI investigation.

Furthermore, Class III weapons are--nearly without exception--so prohibitively expensive (due to market forces) that riff-raff can't afford them.


finally, if I wanted to go on a killing spree, there aren't that many scenarios where an M16 would be my weapon of choice. It's not particularly powerful, it's big and hard to conceal, and--by rifle standards--it's not particularly accurate. it's a great weapon for military use against the Red Army in Europe, but not the best thing for robbing a bank, shooting up a school, being a sniper, etc.

[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 1:07 PM. Reason : asdfasdfsd]

9/17/2006 1:03:47 PM

so its ok to have deadly weapons out there as long as they are expensive?

9/17/2006 1:26:38 PM

it's ok with me if they're out there, regardless.

If I'm not mistaken, there has not been a single instance of a crime being committed with a registered Class III weapon.

M16s are not a problem.


Pawn-shop "saturday night specials" up through the mid-grade stuff like Glock are what's generally used in the commission of crimes...and still, the answer is to deal with the crime--not outlaw what's used in the commission of the crime.




you pretty much haven't made a single well-conceived response to anything I've said.

let's summarize your responses to me so far:

Quote :

"then why stop at guns if it only matters how we use them, ie, 'personal responsibility'? why not gernades? napalm? ive heard no answer here. i could fish with daisy cutters."

This is the mark of someone who lacks the cognitive finesse to make decisions in the grey areas, and has to fall back on the crutch of ideology and making every decision black and white.

Quote :

"what about m16, or a big assault rifle? that will kill and defend well, will it not?"

(this argument is silly to anyone who knows anything about guns, though maybe not to the uninformed masses)

Quote :

"so you think its ok for anyone to be able to get their hands on an m16?"

again, maybe sensible to the uninformed masses, but totally retarded to anyone who knows anything about guns. Anyone with a clean past and a few months to spare CAN LEGALLY own an M16, and so far, I'm pretty sure that it's NEVER hurt ANYTHING.

Quote :

"so its ok to have deadly weapons out there as long as they are expensive?"

I'm not particularly extreme in my views on much of anything. Like I said, I'm first and foremost a pragmatist. I think any sensible person who's familier with my political stances and thoughts would agree that I at least see both sides of most issues.

However, I'm pretty much staunchly against any more gun control than we have now, and I yet to EVER TALK TO A SINGLE PERSON who was strongly in favor of gun control who knew jack shit about guns. Most of them don't even really know about the laws concerning guns.

PinkandBlack is about the closest thing i've seen to an exception to this rule, and he seems only moderately pro gun control.

[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 1:41 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

9/17/2006 1:39:45 PM

Quote :

"nd I yet to EVER TALK TO A SINGLE PERSON who was strongly in favor of gun control who knew jack shit about guns."

You dont need to know rocket science to want to visit mars. You dont need to know how the mind of pedophile works to know that pedophilia is wrong.

There is only one thing the masses need to know about guns; we've got tons of them, and a lot of people in our country get killed by accident and on purpose in situations that would not have been fatal had we had fewer firearms. No country has as much gun violence as us, and no country has enough guns as us, and no country has as much violence in general as us, even the crazy arabs in the middle east.

9/17/2006 2:02:07 PM

^ Those are some pretty wild claims you're making, I hope you have some statistics to back them up.

Quote :

"Guns are designed to kill. You havent compared it to anything designed to kill."

Fine, you want to do it that way:

You can kill people with a:

Bow and Arrow

Sling

Trebuchet

Crossbow

and Knife

all of which were designed to kill. Why don't you want them banned?

9/17/2006 2:11:07 PM

many of those are banned

9/17/2006 2:14:16 PM

Quote :

"and no country has as much violence in general as us"

that's our problem...not the guns.

Quote :

"You dont need to know rocket science to want to visit mars. You dont need to know how the mind of pedophile works to know that pedophilia is wrong. There is only one thing the masses need to know about guns..."

That's all well and good, provided the masses don't try to dream up ways to to regulate guns.

It's analogous to the ignorant masses trying to revamp our space program to be more safe or cost effective or something--for that, you need rocket scientists...or trying to do some sort of psycho-eval on a pedophile--for that, you need a psychologist. John Doe can want to visit Mars or know that pedophilia is wrong--that goes without saying. John Doe can also want fewer accidental and wrongful gun deaths, but in the limited ways that gun control is the answer, it helps to know about the things you're legislating.

Basically without exception, every person I've ever talked to who was a big gun-control supporter didn't know shit about guns, yet still felt qualified to write the rules concerning them. The aforementioned Assault Weapons Bad is the most egregious example of this I can think of--it basically was a bunch of people who didn't know shit getting wrapped up in technical details that they didn't understand, who succeeded only in outlawing scary looking guns that not only were not particularly more dangerous than all sorts of other guns, but were not even the guns most often being used in crimes.

________________________________

^what out of those are banned?

and for the record, I'd rather get shot with most guns than get hit by a broadhead-tipped arrow.

[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 2:20 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 2:20 PM. Reason : ^]

9/17/2006 2:19:00 PM

Quote :

"Peter Cuffaro of Wheeling, West Virginia, is challenging that state's ban on the use of crossbows during that state's archery seasons. Cuffaro, who was paralyzed from the chest down after a 1983 diving accident, has filed a complaint arguing that the ban violates the Americans with Disabilities Act."

http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2003/000415.html

just a quick news search.

Quote :

"That's all well and good, provided the masses don't try to dream up ways to to regulate guns."

yea. some laws are bad, yes the assualt one has holes.

Quote :

"that's our problem...not the guns."

There is correlation and good reason for causation.

[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 2:28 PM. Reason : 234]

9/17/2006 2:26:31 PM

Crossbows aren't illegal.

Crossbows are often not allowed for hunting purposes, at least in archery season. In NC, you can't hunt with a crossbow in archery season unless you have a physical handicap that prevents you from using a "normal" bow.


and there is NO causation in that guns don't do anything on their own.

Murder is already illegal. If you're willing to murder someone, don't you think you're probably willing to break some misdemeanor firearm law in the process? What exactly do you aim to accomplish?

[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 2:33 PM. Reason : asfadfsada]

9/17/2006 2:30:48 PM