Re: Political Attitude Overall

As a side note as a hunter I'd be fine with no guns.  COMPOUND BOWS FTW!

tongue

[i]Like I told your captain, the orphange attacked me.  It was self-defense.[/i]  -Richard the Warlock  [url]http://archive.lfgcomic.com/lfg0002.gif[/url]

Re: Political Attitude Overall

I need to get into practice with my compound, my Uncle wants to take me hunting but I can't hit much yet. It's either been too cold or I've been too busy to practice.
The worst is I'm left eye dominant, so I have to hold it in my left hand, I'm right handed.
I wouldn't mind trying to hunt with an atlatl and a spear, not to keep myself alive but as sport. That would be an experience.

But moving on.

I'll abdicate at the drop of a hat
(BFFC Moderator)

Re: Political Attitude Overall

True Warrior wrote:
Mandal_ShadowWarrior wrote:

Hate the people who use them, not the guns themselves.

Well the poeple who carry guns ARENT the problem............its the guns themselves.

I completely disagree.  It's been proven time and again *and convieniently covered up and/or under-reported* that the MORE private gun owners there are in an area, the LESS crime there is, INCLUDING gun-crime/murder.  Look at England.  Since the private ownership of handguns *I think gun ownership in general was outlawed, but I don't recall so I'll just say pistols* was banned gun related crime skyrocketed.  I believe it is the same in Australia and Canada *Canada hasn't banned gun ownership entirely...yet...but their restrictions are much higher then here and the crime rate has gone up accordingly; will source this later if anybody thinks I don't know what I'm talking about*

True Warrior wrote:

ok lets make an example........

Lets just say a man named Joe buys the first ever made gun. The poeple in his community are aware that Joe has the power to END A LIFE. So they decide to buy themSELVES guns to protect themselves from thier own fear. Now we have an entire community of gun owners. Somewhere along the line, somebody will lash out for whatever reason.............and shoot. This causes an unbalanced community and NOBODY trusts anyone else that owns a gun.
No more trust..............no more community.

ok... what exactly do you base this example on?  did this happen to you or your family?  where a neighbor bought a gun so your whole neighborhood bought an arsenal to fight him off if he went on a rampage, despite being a honest and good neighbor *or even a cranky, pain in the butt neighbor* ?  Not to rip you, but that sounds like a totally unrealistic scenario unless you can back it up with something. 

My primary issue with your comments is I'd like to know what it is you suggest?  You seem to want to reminisce about the good old days before guns when man hacked each other to death with swords and axes in the more brutal methods imaginable more then you want to talk about current issues.  The fact is, for better or worse, we DO have guns, and they're not going anywhere   

True Warrior wrote:

This is exactly what has happened in America today....................our country is now unstabble, unbalanced, and nobody trusts anyone else, and the single invention of GUNS created this..........

ummm..... I know you're smarter then this dude.  I'm fairly sure you could find an instance or two of countries having internal 'instability, off-ballance, and lack of trust' before the invention of firearms.  You need to check your history


True Warrior wrote:

lets just put it this way............................
No guns..................Massively less killings.

no, let's put it this way:

No guns, entire civilizations have been purged from history anyway, one bloody swing of a sword at a time.  Check recent events in parts of Africa....it still happens

True Warrior wrote:

all Im saying is that guns and weapons are the start of all the lack of trust. The actions themselves are OUR responsibility.

It's not "OUR" responsibility, it's the responsibility of the individual person who pulled the trigger.  You can't hold all gun owners responsible for the actions of some wacko.  Not sure if that's the point you're trying to make, but when you want all to give up their rights for the actions of a few, the essentially what you're saying     

True Warrior wrote:

Somewhere along the line, somebody will lash out for whatever reason.............and shoot.

think back to what I said. wink

TW

I'm going to make this as clear as I can, and keep in mind that I'm not belittling you in anyway, but am trying to make clear my point of view. 

What I think it is you stand for based on what I've read, and feel free to make it clear if you feel differently, is that you want to trade your rights and the rights of everybody else even if they don't agree with you for the illusion of safety.  The cold hard truth in life is that if you're suddenly faced with a person who for whatever reason wants to take your life and you're unable to defend yourself, chances are you're going to die.  The "Illusion" is that the police/government will protect you, but in reality, the police force's job is to catch your murderer...not to save your life.  There is no escaping this, for there is no way to prevent something you don't know is coming, no way for the police to arrest or prevent before a crime has been committed.  Only your own actions can save you in a dire situation. 

So, if you're walking down your street, and some phsyco comes at you with a gun, with a knife, with a friggin golf club, with the intent of taking your life and there's no cop in sight, you'd better pray that that neighbor you fear who did nothing wrong other then uphold his right to keep and bear arms is around to save your life

I really hope you'll think about that   wink

"You set a code to live by.  I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted...I won't be laid a hand on.  I don't do these things to other men, and I require the same from them."

Re: Political Attitude Overall

Yeah Ralin, I just got attacked by a psycho with a gun at my bus stop on wednesday tongue

Gun laws......hmm.....

Well, I agree that everyone needs a weapon to defend themselves in case some bad thing might happen in the future, but seriously, no wacko with a gun is probably gonna try and kill you. That usually doesn't happen to people. Just get a weapon to be safe, and know that you'll probably never have to use it.

I agree that if a murderer comes to your house, wth a gun, and when you notice the murderer is there and call 911, the police will be too late. I'm not sure how long it takes to get police cars to your house, but the average paramedic response takes 20 minutes. What if by some miracle you were still live, but losing blood fast from geting shot in the lung, as well as having trouble breathing? You'd die before help came.

And if everyone had a gun, burglars wouldn't rob as many houses in fear that they would get shot.

That's my 2 cents.

"None of this is really happening. There is a man. With a typewriter. This is all part of his crazy imagination."

Re: Political Attitude Overall

Commander Appo wrote:

Yeah Ralin, I just got attacked by a psycho with a gun at my bus stop on wednesday tongue

ummmm....not sure what your point is, considering this:

Commander Appo wrote:

Well, I agree that everyone needs a weapon to defend themselves in case some bad thing might happen in the future, but seriously, no wacko with a gun is probably gonna try and kill you. That usually doesn't happen to people. Just get a weapon to be safe, and know that you'll probably never have to use it.

...is EXACTLY my point

The rest of your quote is pretty much spot on imho.  There is always that possibility something will happen, no matter how rare, and if you can't protect yourself or your family, nobody else likely will. 

There's a simple slogan out there that's used for bumper stickers, but it's so true it's brilliant.  'When they outlaw guns, only outlaws have them'.  Them and the police... that's a whole other argument on why it's not good when the Gov. are the only people armed..

"You set a code to live by.  I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted...I won't be laid a hand on.  I don't do these things to other men, and I require the same from them."

Re: Political Attitude Overall

Since I haven't been around much, instead of rushing into this debate, I'm going to add my own twist to the discussion.

I am pro-guns in the same way that it seems a lot of people here are. I agree almost wholeheartedly with Ralin, but here's my question:

If you think it's right to own a gun for your own protection, do you feel that all guns should be legal? If you own a pistol for your own protection, why not an AK-47 or any other assault rifle?

ps. I think nunchaku being illegal is probably better for those people out there who think they "could totally use them correctly." A lot less broken bones for stupid users.

Good... Bad... I'm the one with the gun.
Hail to the King Baby!!

Re: Political Attitude Overall

Gun crime higher in America than any other country. There is very little gun crime in the Uk becuase they are banned. Civilians do not need guns.

I'm smiling because they havn't found the bodies yet. :)
I think, therfore i am I destroy, therfore i endure - IG-88 tales of the bounty hunters

Re: Political Attitude Overall

If civilians don't need guns, then I'd say governments don't need them either.
Or we can repeat some major moments in history where weapons have been taken from the people by governments in order to better subjugate them.

I'll abdicate at the drop of a hat
(BFFC Moderator)

34 (edited by IG-88 Friday, October 10, 2008 12:54 pm)

Re: Political Attitude Overall

Governments need them for authority and keeping peace. What does a civilians need a guns for, cleaning their teeth?

I'm smiling because they havn't found the bodies yet. :)
I think, therfore i am I destroy, therfore i endure - IG-88 tales of the bounty hunters

Re: Political Attitude Overall

Governmentsa are made of people though, when you get someone or someones on their high horse it doesn't matter who they are. They'll become corrupted.
It only takes one person to decide no one but the enforcers and government need weapons, and then, after it's implementation. It isn't a long jump of logic that you have superiority. You can do whatever you desire.

What do civilians need them for? To protect themselves from those who are supposed to be protecting them.

I'll abdicate at the drop of a hat
(BFFC Moderator)

Re: Political Attitude Overall

For fighting back when the military or law enforcement doesn't happen to be standing right next to them as they're getting raped, robbed, or assaulted. I hear from the grapevine that doesn't happen all that often.

"I AM A SEXY SHOELESS GOD OF WAR!" - Belkar

Re: Political Attitude Overall

Maltese Kentaiba wrote:

Governmentsa are made of people though, when you get someone or someones on their high horse it doesn't matter who they are. They'll become corrupted.
It only takes one person to decide no one but the enforcers and government need weapons, and then, after it's implementation. It isn't a long jump of logic that you have superiority. You can do whatever you desire.

What do civilians need them for? To protect themselves from those who are supposed to be protecting them.

Governments dont have weapons, military and police have weapons not politicions tongue. Why would we need to protect ourselves from police? Why should somone need a gun, noone needs somthing thats only use is killing. How is it better to have guns allowed if more people die because of it than if they wern't allowed.

I'm smiling because they havn't found the bodies yet. :)
I think, therfore i am I destroy, therfore i endure - IG-88 tales of the bounty hunters

Re: Political Attitude Overall

Politicians make the descisions that guide the actions of the military and other enforcement agencies!
Or are we unware of the KGB and the Waffen SS of Russia and Nazi Germany respectively? Two orginizations that weren't politicians but were definantly affected by them.

That, and I don't need a gun pointed to someone's head to do them harm. I could easily just do it with a pencil or my bare hands. It's too idealistic to believe otherwise.

I'll abdicate at the drop of a hat
(BFFC Moderator)

Re: Political Attitude Overall

Yes, that is a fair point but i dont see America in any danger of somthing similar anytime soon. As far as i know the KGB was only the Russian secret service. But do you really want guns if they cause more loss of life which could easily be prevented. Whatch the film Bowling for Columbine that may change your veiws.

I'm smiling because they havn't found the bodies yet. :)
I think, therfore i am I destroy, therfore i endure - IG-88 tales of the bounty hunters

Re: Political Attitude Overall

I love the 2nd.

Re: Political Attitude Overall

Even without guns, people would still kill people. Why is that so hard to understand? Why do we have to label a piece of metal as if it's the antichrist?
I own two swords, two shotguns, a set of nunchuks, a compound bow and yet I've never killed anyone in my life. My father collects shotguns and rifles, owns a revolver, he hasn't either. Sort of goes against this particular theory. Why does one crazed villian have to ruin the world for the rest of us?

I'll abdicate at the drop of a hat
(BFFC Moderator)

42 (edited by Adeptus_Astartes Friday, October 10, 2008 2:17 pm)

Re: Political Attitude Overall

The only thing is that people get their hands on guns and do something stupid with them. If the owner is responsible then its ok. But I understand peoples concerns. Maybe having stricter weapon control would make our country safer.

[i]The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed[/i]
[url=http://lfgcomic.com/page/1]Interrogations are hard...[/url]

Re: Political Attitude Overall

I dislike Michael Moore.

Someone pointed to how much should be open to the public. Now here's an interesting topic. Where's the line on firearms? If we allow pistols, what about assault rifles and such?

I'll abdicate at the drop of a hat
(BFFC Moderator)

Re: Political Attitude Overall

What most people who try to work on gun control figure is the bullet. For example, my state legislator is trying to get the .50 caliber bullet banned. She believes that there's no need for a bullet powerful enough to rip your head off from over 200 yards away. Of course, others will complain that if there's no .50 caliber bullet, what about the rifles that use them? People use those for hunting. You will have completely just made their time in getting a license and ammo, hunting gear, the rifle, a whole ton of stuff, a complete waste of time (P.S. - I'm with these guys). Of course, it naturally makes them angry. So, they fight back. With marches and pickets.

45 (edited by Adeptus_Astartes Friday, October 10, 2008 4:28 pm)

Re: Political Attitude Overall

Fett_II wrote:

What most people who try to work on gun control figure is the bullet. For example, my state legislator is trying to get the .50 caliber bullet banned. She believes that there's no need for a bullet powerful enough to rip your head off from over 200 yards away. Of course, others will complain that if there's no .50 caliber bullet, what about the rifles that use them? People use those for hunting. You will have completely just made their time in getting a license and ammo, hunting gear, the rifle, a whole ton of stuff, a complete waste of time (P.S. - I'm with these guys). Of course, it naturally makes them angry. So, they fight back. With marches and pickets.

Sabot round, the bullet is held in a large casing that fits the caliber of the rifle and when it leave the barrel, the casing splits away and falls harmlessly to the ground, the downsized bullet carries on


Maltese Kentaiba wrote:

I dislike Michael Moore.

Someone pointed to how much should be open to the public. Now here's an interesting topic. Where's the line on firearms? If we allow pistols, what about assault rifles and such?

I think if you have fully automatic guns then thats a bit much, hunters dont need them, and it only provokes, oh i dunno, killing people in the shoppingmall. Not to say that having a gun that can shoot a ton of rounds a second makes people kill others but if someone who has one decides to kill people one day would you rather have him or her having to pull the trigger every time they shoot or squeezing it down and sweeping it across a crowd of people?

[i]The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed[/i]
[url=http://lfgcomic.com/page/1]Interrogations are hard...[/url]

Re: Political Attitude Overall

Yeah I have to agree with AA here. Nobody needs a fully automatic weapon in my opinion, as there is no use for them (except for in the military).

People who collect tons of guns/swords and other weapons just so they can have them.....well, I don't understand that. One weapon is enough to protect yourself with. If it's hunting rifles, then that's different because you need different rifles for different terrains. But a sword? What would you do with it besides look at it, or maybe swing it around a bit?

"None of this is really happening. There is a man. With a typewriter. This is all part of his crazy imagination."

Re: Political Attitude Overall

I practice martial forms with one of mine. And the other is a ceremonial piece I keep for Inspiration.
For the experience, it's amazing to hold a sword and move through a martial arts form with it. It's an exciting recreation of history.
But to have a collection of something and not use it...it's like collecting army tanks I guess. You do it because you can.

There was a guy who strapped a sword to his back and held up traffic for a few hours while the police delegated with him.
And a lady who was convicted of a hate crime for chasing two spanish kids with a katana.
I guess that's what you do with them.

I'll abdicate at the drop of a hat
(BFFC Moderator)

Re: Political Attitude Overall

As radical as it sounds, I don't believe there should be any regulation on the type of weapons people can own. 

The Second Amendment doesn't say .."the right to keep and bear arms...as long as it's not bigger then such and such a caliber."  I know all the arguments about "But the Founding Fathers didn't know guns would someday be able to do this, and they never thought society would decide that." 

#1, people forget that at that time, people HAD the most advanced rifles in the world.  Many if not most civilians HAD rifles for home defense that were equivalent to our most advanced combat rifles.  It's only in recent times that armies have consistently had weapons that were better or even as good as were in the civilian field.

#2, there is a fundamental American principle that is broken by the banning of firearms: The ASSUMPTION of guilt on the part of legal purchasers of firearms that they're out to do something wrong, when there is no evidence to support this. 

and #3, there is a dangerous and Very slippery slope when you allow the government, ANY government, to slowly but surely take your means of defense.  Maltese hit it perfectly: Nazi German, Communist Russia, and most other totalitarian regimes have set a very clear pattern that we should learn from, and one of their trademarks is the confiscation of weapons from their populace. 

I'm not saying the gun laws banning machine guns back in the 20's were forwarding a Nazi agenda.  I'm not saying the restrictions placed on gun ownership in the 90's were directly linked to a desire to take us to Communism.  And I'm not saying that the even stricter laws that politicians want to further impose now are linked to a scheme to take us to either of these systems.  These are steps taken by people who I think have the honest intention of doing good as they see it.

What I AM saying is that no matter how good the intentions, they mean nothing if a stripping of our basic Right to defend ourselves is the cost.  And it is the cost many people are willing to pay for the promise of safety, while they get back little to no results, or as in many cases have shown do the reverse of the promised bliss and tranquility.  The ironic this is, the more gun laws Fail *every school shooting was in 'Gun Free Zones,' probably Every work place shooting broke dozens of city ordinances against allowing LAW ABIDING Citizens from carrying guns, and the list goes on*, the more laws are suggested because the last flurry of them apparently wasn't strong enough..... the sad thing is so many people agree

It is part of the natural order that governments wish to consolidate power, and the only way for them to do this is to take the rights of their citizens.  They do it in the name of public order and safety........yet I wonder how many of us feel as safe and secure at home as our grandparents and their grandparents did...

"You set a code to live by.  I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted...I won't be laid a hand on.  I don't do these things to other men, and I require the same from them."

Re: Political Attitude Overall

Maltese Kentaiba wrote:

Even without guns, people would still kill people. Why is that so hard to understand? Why do we have to label a piece of metal as if it's the antichrist?
I own two swords, two shotguns, a set of nunchuks, a compound bow and yet I've never killed anyone in my life. My father collects shotguns and rifles, owns a revolver, he hasn't either. Sort of goes against this particular theory. Why does one crazed villian have to ruin the world for the rest of us?

Obviously, but maybe not on such a high scale i'm talking about gun crime in particular not all murders, you really think the banning of guns wouldn't affect gun crime? Maybe becuase you're not a criminal or a person with a low sense of morality.

I'm smiling because they havn't found the bodies yet. :)
I think, therfore i am I destroy, therfore i endure - IG-88 tales of the bounty hunters

50 (edited by Ralin Drakus Saturday, October 11, 2008 2:23 am)

Re: Political Attitude Overall

IG-88 wrote:
Maltese Kentaiba wrote:

Even without guns, people would still kill people. Why is that so hard to understand? Why do we have to label a piece of metal as if it's the antichrist?
I own two swords, two shotguns, a set of nunchuks, a compound bow and yet I've never killed anyone in my life. My father collects shotguns and rifles, owns a revolver, he hasn't either. Sort of goes against this particular theory. Why does one crazed villian have to ruin the world for the rest of us?

Obviously, but maybe not on such a high scale i'm talking about gun crime in particular not all murders, you really think the banning of guns wouldn't affect gun crime?

Maybe this will answer your question:

Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997

"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws."

Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998

"Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."

Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998

"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."

Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998

"Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."

Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999

"Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever."

reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999

"The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."
--South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde

These quotes are all in response to the RISE in crime after the sweeping firearm regulation that engulfed Australia in 1996, which included the confiscation and destruction of 640,000 legally owned hunting rifles and shotguns.  All of this was the cause of a single mad man, and the anti-gun movement fueled media frenzy that followed

So to go back to your question, Yes, tighter regulation of LEGALLY OWNED guns Does affects the crime rates.... and not in a very good way, certainly not for Australians in the late 90's.

Not that I consider this as even the main point against banning the ownership of firearms.  I will NOT forfeit my weapons to the government, no matter what reason they give me.  Armed, I'm a citizen.  Disarmed, I'm a subject.  That might sound archaic or corny to some of you who have been taught how Government is our friend and lives to serve us, but I believe that barring a major turn in political events, you'll see how true it is within our lifetime... and it really frightens me

IG-88 wrote:

Maybe becuase you're not a criminal or a person with a low sense of morality.

What do you mean by maybe??

"You set a code to live by.  I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted...I won't be laid a hand on.  I don't do these things to other men, and I require the same from them."