Gutter ball for "Bowling for Columbine"! (long)

[Army]

Enjoy the truth, you flea-bitten dogs of Liberal excuses!

(It's long, but a very good read)
By Dave Kopel:

Bowling Truths,
Michael Moore’s mocking.

In the field of mockumentary filmmaking, there are two giants. Rob Reiner created the genre with his film This is Spinal Tap. Michael Moore has taken the genre to an entirely different level, with Bowling for Columbine.

In 1984, This is Spinal Tap premiered as the world's first self-described "mockumentary." The film purported to be a documentary of a heavy-metal band called "Spinal Tap." In fact, there was no such band. No group had ever hit the charts in the 1960s with a song called "Listen to the Flower People." No rock drummer named John "Stumpy" Pepys had ever died in an inexplicable gardening accident. No arena rock performance had ever featured a pair of midgets dancing around an 18-inch replica of Stonehenge.

Over the course of the movie, most viewers figured out that "Spinal Tap" was not a real band. The realization often came somewhere between the band's rocker "Big Bottom" ("I met her on Monday; it was my lucky bun day") and the sensitive ballad "Lick My Love Pump."

Still, a substantial portion of the audience sat through the entire film without ever realizing that the whole thing was a joke. They left the theatre believing that there really was a band called Spinal Tap. In response, the creators ended up producing a Spinal Tap MTV video, and even a 1992 Spinal Tap "Reunion" tour. The stupidity of a fraction of the audience had brought its own "reality" to life.

This is Spinal Tap is an excellent movie which was, unfortunately, neglected by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. No such fate befell Bowling for Columbine. While only an unusually dim minority believe that Tap is truth, Bowling for Columbine has seduced almost all of its audiences with its brazen mockumentary.

You can't really understand the artistic accomplishment of This is Spinal Tap if you naively expect to find the album Smell the Glove in your local music store. Likewise, you cannot understand the brilliance of Bowling for Columbine if you actually believe the purported facts in this mockumentary. For the benefit of the overly credulous, let me summarize some of the "facts" in Bowling for Columbine. Then, I will explain how Michael Moore demolishes the pretensions of the audience and of elite cinematic opinion in a way that has never before been accomplished.

FICTITIOUS "FACTS"
The introduction of Bowling is a purported clip from an NRA documentary, announcing that the viewer is about to see a National Rifle Association film. Obviously, Bowling is not an NRA film, and so Moore makes it clear right at the beginning that Bowling is not a documentary (based on true facts), but rather a mockumentary (based on fictitious "facts"). It's a humorous movie, but the biggest joke is on the audience, which credulously accepts the "facts" in the movie as if they were true.

The first mockumentary "fact" is the title itself. The Columbine murderers were enrolled in a high-school bowling class. After the NRA introduction, the film begins on the morning of April 20, 1999, the day of the Columbine murders. Narrator Moore announces that on that day, "Two boys went bowling at six in the morning." This serves as a setup for a later segment looking at the causes of Columbine, and arguing that blaming violent video games (which the killers played obsessively) or Marilyn Manson music (which the killers enjoyed) makes no more sense than blaming bowling.

In fact, the two killers ditched bowling class on the day of the murders. The police investigation found that none of the students in the bowling class that morning had seen the killers that day. The police report was completed long before the release of Bowling for Columbine, so the title itself is a deliberate falsehood. (I don't use the word "lie" because the mockumentary genre allows for the use of invented facts.)

After the April 20 lead-in, Bowling begins an examination of middle-American gun culture, and indulges the bicoastal elite's snobbery toward American gun owners.

We are taken to the North County Bank in Michigan, which — like several other banks in the United States — allows people who buy a Certificate of Deposit to receive their interest in the form of a rifle or shotgun. (The depositor thereby receives the full value of the interest immediately, rather than over a term of years.)

Moore goes through the process of buying the CD and answering questions for the federal Form 4473 registration sheet. Although a bank employee makes a brief reference to a "background check," the audience never sees the process whereby the bank requires Moore to produce photo identification, then contacts the FBI for a criminal records check on Moore, before he is allowed to take possession of the rifle.

Moore asks: "Do you think it's a little bit dangerous handing out guns at a bank?" The banker's answer isn't shown.

So the audience is left with a smug sense of the pro-gun bank's folly. Yet just a moment's reflection shows that there is not the slightest danger. To take possession of the gun, the depositor must give the bank thousands of dollars (an unlikely way to start a robbery). He must then produce photo identification (thus making it all but certain that the robber would be identified and caught), spend at least a half hour at the bank (thereby allowing many people to see and identify him), and undergo an FBI background check (which would reveal criminal convictions disqualifying most of the people inclined to bank robbery). A would-be robber could far more easily buy a handgun for a few hundred dollars on the black market, with no identification required.

The genius of Bowling for Columbine is that the movie does not explicitly make these obvious points about the safety of the North County Bank's program. Rather, the audience is simply encouraged to laugh along with Moore's apparent mockery of the bank, without realizing that the joke is on them for seeing danger where none exists. This theme is developed throughout the film.

From the Michigan bank, Moore moves on to an examination of the rest of Michigan's culture — or, more precisely, to eccentric and unrepresentative segments of that culture, thereby playing to the audience's feelings of superiority over American gun owners.

For example, hunting is a challenging sport, requiring outdoor skills, wildlife knowledge, patience, and good marksmanship. Most members of the urban audiences cheering Bowling for Columbine are no more capable of participating in a successful hunt than they are of conducting a three-day, backcountry cross-country ski trek, or playing rookie-league baseball. The vast majority of hunters are also very safety-conscious. In 2000, for example, there were 91 fatal hunting accidents in all of North America, within a population of over 16 million hunters.

Yet Moore ignores all of this. Instead, he comically reports an incident in which some reckless hunters tied a gun to their dog to take a funny picture, and one of the hunters was shot. According to the police reports, the foolish hunters had only a still camera, but Bowling presents a fabricated video clip which purports to have been filmed by the hunter's friend. Because the clip appears to be a home movie, Bowling makes hunters seem viciously callous: The "hunter" holding the camera continues recording after his fellow hunter has been wounded, rather than immediately stopping to help the friend.

Similarly, the ideology of gun ownership and civil liberty is not presented by reference to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, or to legal scholars such as liberal Democrats Sanford Levinson or Larry Tribe. Instead, Moore goes to the Michigan Militia.

While Moore allows the militia members to present their case, he makes the group (which has no record of illegal violence or any other illegal activity) appear extremely dangerous by informing viewers that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols attended militia meetings. Moore conveniently neglects to mention that the two were eventually kicked out, for talking about violence.

James Nichols, the brother of a convicted mass murderer, is offered as a spokesman for the right of free people to resist tyrannical government.

ON TO LITTLETON, LOCKHEED, AND 9/11
Bowling then departs Michigan and heads for Littleton, Colo., to develop the thesis that American militarism created the mass-murder atmosphere that resulted in Columbine.

Aerospace contractor Lockheed Martin has a factory in Littleton, so Moore asks a company spokesman if "our kids say to themselves, 'Well, gee, Dad goes off to the factory every day, and he builds missiles, he builds weapons of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'" The camera then takes a shot of a workplace safety slogan — "It has to be foreign-object free" — to imply that Lockheed Martin employees revel in the killing of dehumanized foreigners.

Of course the connection is nonsense. While one killer's father once served in the Air Force, neither family worked in the defense industry. The other killer's parents were gun-control advocates — so much so that they forbade him to play with toy guns — unlike the many children who are shown with toy guns elsewhere in the film. One of the killers' gun suppliers was the son of a Colorado anti-gun activist. Thus, Moore might just as well have asked a spokesman for a gun-prohibition group if "our kids say to themselves, 'Well, gee, mom and day say that guns are just for killing innocent people. So if I have a gun, I guess I should use it for killing innocent people.'"

Moore returns to the bowling theme a few scenes later, to present the argument — which the audience of course supports — that neither bowling nor Marilyn Manson was responsible for the Columbine crimes. The audience is encouraged to feel intellectually superior to the politicians, who are pictured blaming Marilyn Manson.

Yet the connection the movie draws between Lockheed and the Columbine mass murder is even more tenuous than the connection with Manson. The Columbine killers had no connection to Lockheed, but they did listen to Marilyn Manson. And Brian Warner's choice of the stage name of "Manson" shows that mass killers can enjoy enduring pop-culture fame — precisely what the Columbine killers hoped to achieve. (I avoid mentioning their names so as not to assist their vicious quest.)

After blaming Lockheed for 13 deaths at Columbine, the film moves on to blaming the United States government for 3,000 deaths on September 11. It does this by arguing that we got what we deserved, because our nation revels in the killing of civilians by air.

A montage of U.S. foreign-policy atrocities (to the tune of "What a Wonderful World") concludes with the statement that the U.S. gave $245 million to the Taliban in 2000-01. The next shot is of the World Trade Center in flames.

In fact, that money was not given to the Taliban government, but rather to U.S. and international agencies that distributed humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan. In other words, the fact that the United States gave money to Food For Peace and for girls' schools for Afghan refugees is supposed to prove that the America deserved to be attacked by al Qaeda.

Right after the footage of the airplanes hitting the Twin Towers, Bowling shows a B-52 memorial at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Moore intones: "The plaque underneath it proudly proclaims that this plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve 1972." The point is obvious: that the United States government and al Qaeda both perpetrate murder by airplane.

In fact, the plaque on the B-52 at the AFA is not as Moore describes it. The plaque says "B-52D Stratofortress. 'Diamond Lil.' Dedicated to the men and women of the Strategic Air Command who flew and maintained the B-52D throughout its 26-year history in the command. Aircraft 55-083, with over 15,000 flying hours, is one of two B-52Ds credited with a confirmed MIG kill during the Vietnam Conflict Flying out of U-Tapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southern Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas Eve, 1972."

Moore thus confirms the absurdity of the blame-America-first position popular among the Hollywood Left, by showing that such views require the ignoring of obvious facts — such as the difference between financial aid to a dictatorship and humanitarian aid to refugees, or between fighting enemy pilots and perpetrating war crimes against civilians.

BLAME IT ON THE NRA
A long mockumentary segment reports on the NRA convention in Denver in May 1999. The segment begins with NRA president Charlton Heston holding an antique rifle above his head and delivering the signature line: "From my cold dead hands." Actually, Heston never displayed a rifle or uttered that line at the Denver convention.

Moore bashes the NRA for being insensitive by holding its convention in Denver two weeks after the Columbine murders. That insensitivity is heightened by the implication that Heston did the "cold dead hands" rifle display there. Viewers are not informed that the NRA convention had been scheduled many years in advance, that Mayor Webb (who at the last minute told the NRA to cancel the convention) had eagerly solicited the NRA convention for Denver, or that the NRA drastically reduced its four-day convention, holding only its annual members' meeting, in an afternoon session legally required by its non-profit charter from the state of New York.

The litany of scapegoating (Lockheed Martin, the United States, the NRA) then abruptly shifts into the anti-scapegoating segments concerning bowling and Marilyn Manson.

In keeping with the mockumentary format, Moore tells the audience that bowling was "apparently the last thing they did before the massacre." Even if the killers hadn't skipped class, this statement would be untrue. Bowling class was at 6 A.M.; the killings began around 11 A.M.

The "scapegoat Lockheed and the NRA" segments serve as a perfect counterpoint to the "don't scapegoat bowling or Manson" segment. By leading the audience into fatuous scapegoating of Lockheed and the NRA, the film demonstrates the pervasiveness of scapegoating — even by people who denounce it.

A cartoon history of the United States comes next, on the theme that American gun owners are racist. The Second Amendment is said to have been written "so every white man could keep his gun." Actually, at the time of the Second Amendment, every state allowed free people of color to own guns. Moreover, anti-slavery activist Lysander Spooner would later use the Second Amendment as part of his argument to show that slavery was unconstitutional. Gun prohibition, he argued, is a condition of slavery; the Second Amendment guarantees the right of all people to own guns; hence slavery, and its attendant gun prohibition, are unconstitutional.

The audience is now informed that the National Rifle Association was founded in 1871, "the same year the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." The voice-over says that this was just a coincidence, but the cartoon shows gun owners helping Klansmen to murder blacks.

The phrasing of the Klan line leaves some viewers with the impression that the Klan was created in 1871, even though the group was founded in 1866 in Tennessee. What happened in 1871 was congressional passage of the Ku Klux Klan Act, which allowed the president to suppress the Klan by denying Klansmen the writ of habeas corpus. (The Klan was, of course, composed of men who fought on the losing, pro-slavery side of the Civil War.)

President Ulysses S. Grant signed the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 into law, and worked for the rapid extermination of that terrorist organization. Grant dispatched federal troops into South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida to destroy the Klan and to protect black voting rights. In an April 1872 report to Congress, Grant pointed out the continuing problem in some southern counties of the Ku Klux Klan attempting "to deprive colored citizens of their right to bear arms and the right of a free ballot."

President Grant also signed the Enforcement Act of 1870, which made it a federal crime for the Ku Klux Klan or similar conspiracies to interfere with the civil rights of freedmen — including their Second Amendment right to arms.

Frederick Douglass justly called Grant "the benefactor of an enslaved and despised race, a race who will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services."

The 1871 founders of the National Rifle Association were thus diametrically opposed to the Confederates who founded the KKK. The NRA founders were Union officers who had fought on the winning, anti-slavery side of the Civil War. Dismayed by the poor quality of Union marksmanship during the war, the NRA's founders aimed to improve the shooting skills of the American public at large. The first NRA president was Ambrose E. Burnside, who had served as commander of the Army of the Potomac.

Ulysses Grant left the presidency in 1877, but continued his long career of public service in retirement. In 1883, he was elected president of the National Rifle Association. From 1871 until the end of the century, nine of the NRA's ten presidents had fought against slavery during the Civil War. These included Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock, a hero of Gettysburg, and Gen. Phillip Sheridan, the famous Union cavalry commander. During Reconstruction, Gen. Sheridan served as military governor of Louisiana and Texas, and removed hundreds of local officials (including the governors of both states, and the chief justice of the Texas supreme court) from office for failing to respect the rights of freedmen and for failing to enforce laws for their protection.

In Bowling, Michael Moore brags that he is an NRA "Lifetime member." So it might be expected that Moore would inform viewers about the NRA's noble anti-slavery history. But Moore's connection to the NRA is bizarre; he told Tim Russert that he joined the group so that he could be elected its president and make it support gun control. This is aggrandized self-delusion, rather like Barbra Streisand announcing that she was becoming Catholic so that she could be elected Pope and make the Church support polygamy.

The supposedly racist nature of white gun owners is reinforced by Bowling's statement that an 1871 law made it illegal for blacks to own guns. No such law existed, although it is true that many gun laws from the late 19th century — such as licensing and registration laws, or bans on inexpensive guns — were selectively enforced in the South so as to deprive blacks of firearms. These are the same kinds of laws that Moore promotes today. Indeed, he turned the Bowling for Columbine premier into a fundraiser for the Brady Campaign, which works hard to outlaw inexpensive guns used by poor people for protection.

MEDIA FEAR-MONGERING
Having established the racism and paranoia of American gun owners, Moore now begins an extended sequence depicting the media as racist fear-mongers. He first argues that the media create irrational fears about black criminals. (According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, table 43, 4,238 blacks were arrested for murder and non-negligent manslaughter, compared to 4,231 whites.)

University of Southern California Professor Barry Glassner, author of The Culture of Fear, gets lots of camera time to explain how the media sensationalize crime and hype fears to unrealistic levels. And this is where Bowling's genius truly shines.

On the one hand, Bowling works the audience into self-righteous anger at "the media" for using cheap sensationalism to promote fear. At the very same time, the film uses — you guessed it — cheap sensationalism to promote fear. The very techniques which he decries in the media, Moore uses himself, with obvious approval from the audience. Moore thus enacts a real demonstration of how the audience is itself complicit in the cycle of fear.

Moore criticizes weakly researched media stories that scare people over nothing (such as phony stories about razors in Halloween apples), but at the same time, his own factual claims are either invented or taken grossly out of context.

For instance, Moore lets Glassner criticize the media for sharply increasing coverage of homicides during a period when the actual homicide rate was falling. Yet his own frantic film about the terrible dangers of American gun violence comes even as gun crime rates have fallen sharply from their early 1990s levels.

Glassner's book points out that an American schoolchild is much more likely to be killed by lightning than in a school shooting. Yet Moore's film rests on the premise that the Columbine shooting represents an American epidemic of violence.

Even while denouncing Americans for being so afraid of violent crime, Bowling for Columbine works hard to make them still more afraid.

The audience accepts Moore's cinematic fear-mongering — while congratulating itself for being too sophisticated to fall for media fear-mongering. So even as Bowling offers its audience the superficial social satisfaction of being less media-malleable than the rubes who are presented as typical Americans, the audience nevertheless falls for sensationalistic media exploitation. The L.A. Weekly noted the "tabloid" nature of Moore's film, and the film's tawdry use of cheap emotion and cheap shots could indeed serve as a model for an aspiring tabloid television producer.

Accordingly, the smug audience of Bowling is degraded not merely to the level of ordinary gullible Americans who buy into the fear-mongering on the evening news, but still further — to the trash-news level of people who are easily manipulated by tabloid media.

Thus, Bowling turns the audience's very pleasure in watching the movie into a deconstruction of the audience's blue-state social pretensions. The Bowling audience is every bit as ignorant and fearful as the audience for Inside Edition.

Moore's technique is that of turning an audience's acceptance of a work's superficial message into a much deeper message which critiques the audience itself. Thus, Bowling for Columbine makes the audience complicit in its own delegitimization and degradation. Most of the audience, of course, never "gets" the real point.

Moore's clever techniques of inversion reach an apogee with the Willie Horton ad. Political historians will remember that in the 1988 Democratic primaries, candidate Al Gore criticized Gov. Michael Dukakis for a Massachusetts furlough program under which Willie Horton — who was serving a murder sentence of life without parole — was given a weekend furlough, and raped a woman. During the fall campaign, the pro-Bush National Security Political Action Committee ran a Willie Horton commercial.

The official Bush campaign ran its own advertisement, "Revolving Doors," which attacked the furlough program but did not mention Willie Horton.

But Moore pastes text from the National Security PAC ad over film from the Bush commercial, thus creating the impression that Bush invoked Willie Horton. Moore falsifies the advertisement by pasting onscreen the text: "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." This libels Willie Horton, who perpetrated a rape but not a murder during his furlough. The audience already knows that it is supposed to be angry about the Willie Horton ad, because it was unfair and because it politically seduced gullible Americans. So Bowling does a "Willie Horton" of its own on the audience, making the film's version of the ad into a falsehood and so turning the audience into dupes of a Willie Horton ad — just like the 1988 dupes of the original ad. For good measure, the ad makes the audience believe that a black man is guilty of a crime he never committed; Bowling thereby perpetrates the same manipulation of racial fears which it accuses the media of perpetrating.

OH, CANADA!
After over an hour spent on the horrors of the United States, Moore switches to the peaceful society of Canada. He begins by arguing that Canada and the United States are very similar — except that Canada has a generous welfare state, and no culture of fear.

It's true that Canada does have a lot of guns compared to England or Japan, but Canada's per-capita gun ownership rate is about a third of the American level.

Moore films the over-the-counter purchase, no questions asked, of some ammunition in a Canadian store. The Canadian government has pointed out that such a transaction would be illegal, since the buyer is required to present identification. Moore did not respond to a request from the government's Canadian Firearms Centre to explain whether he staged a fake purchase, edited out the ID request, or broke the law.

Moore then tells the audience that 13 percent of the Canadian population is minority ethnic, the same as in the U.S. Actually, it's about 31 percent in the U.S. More significantly, blacks and Hispanics, who are involved in well over 50 percent of American homicides (both as victims and as perpetrators) make up about 2.5 percent of the Canadian population. In the United States, each group makes up about one-eighth of the U.S. population.

Comparing U.S. gun-death totals with Canada's, Moore offers a U.S. total that includes death by legal intervention (e.g., a violent felon being shot by a police officer) while omitting this same category from the Canadian total.

We return to Flint, Mich., for a long segment on Kayla Rowland, a six-year-old girl who was fatally shot in school by a male classmate the same age. Moore blames Michigan's requirement that welfare recipients work at a job. Because the killer's mother, Tamarla Owens, commuted to work in a shopping mall 70 hours a week, and because she still could not pay her rent, she was about to be evicted. She thus moved in with her brother, and then her unsupervised son found a handgun, brought it to school, and killed Kayla Rowland.

Actually, Owens earned $7.85 an hour from one job ($1,250 a month, almost entirely tax-free), plus at least the minimum wage from her second job, and received food stamps and medical care. Her rent was $300 a month. Michigan had rent-subsidy and child-care programs too, but Owens apparently did not know about them. So, contrary to the impression created by Moore, Michigan's welfare-to-work program is generous: Even without the rent subsidy, Owens earned more than enough to pay the rent. Perhaps Owens's caseworker should have told her about the available subsidies, but the caseworker's mistake hardly means that the Michigan system is the Dickensian horror portrayed by Moore.

Moore tells the audience that Ms. Owens and her son were living with Owens's brother. He doesn't tell the audience that their home was a crack house, or that the stolen gun was received by the brother from one of his customers, in exchange for drugs.

"No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl," says Moore. Actually, the killer was the class bully; said that he hated everyone at school; had been suspended for stabbing a child with a pencil; and, subsequent to the shooting, stabbed another child with a knife.

We now get a quick cut to Charlton Heston speaking at a gun-rights rally in Flint, holding a rifle above his head. Moore explains that Heston came to Flint after Rowland was killed. Later, when interviewing Heston, Moore tells him, "You go to these places after they have these horrible tragedies." There's a considerable distortion here. Kayla Rowland was killed on February 29, 2000. Heston appeared at a Bush campaign rally in Flint over half a year later, in mid October.

Moore told Phil Donahue that "The American media wants to pump you full of fear." And that's just what Moore himself does, terrifying and angering his audience about American gun owners, George Bush, American media, American foreign policy, American welfare policy, the National Rifle Association, and the American character. The theme of the movie could well be encapsulated by D. H. Lawrence's claim that "The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer."

Bowling for Columbine revels in the tabloid-style, raw exploitation of emotion — in promotion of unjustified fear, in falsehoods and quarter-truths, in oversimplification of the problems of race, and in mean-spirited pandering to the audience's bigotry about people of different social backgrounds.

In this way, Bowling subverts its own audience. To participate in Bowling's emotional journey is to surrender to the very same mendacious hate- and fear-mongering that the movie purports to criticize. Liking Bowling for Columbine is no different from liking the sleaziest "news" show on television, except that the audience for the latter doesn't claim to be more aesthetically — or morally — sophisticated than the mainstream American public.

Bowling also subverts elite Hollywood opinion. Imagine if the Academy gave the award for "Best Music — Original Song" to a film that used an unoriginal song, such as "Jingle Bells." Such an award would show that the Oscars are based on Hollywood politics rather than on artistic merit. The presentation of Best Documentary to Michael Moore for a film based on so much untruth has proved the same thing.

Some readers may doubt that Moore intentionally created an entire film whose subtext so thoroughly contradicts its literal text and that so effectively mocks its audience and its creator. My response is that we are long past the era of being chained to an artist's precise intentions. Georgia O'Keefe is said to have denied that her flower drawings were evocative of female genitalia. Does that mean we should pretend that O'Keefe paintings are not overflowing with female genitalia?

The fact is that a mockumentary larded with untruths and brazen self-contradiction is gobbling up documentary prizes: a special award at the Cannes Film Festival, the National Board of Review's "Best Documentary," the International Documentary Association's choice for best documentary ever, and the Academy Award for Best Documentary.

Countless actors and producers may have railed at the Academy for poor taste, but no artist has ever demonstrated the film elite's hyper-partisan preference for political correctness over truth as thoroughly and well as has Michael Moore.


Heh heh heeeeeeh! I love this guy! Army

[Ov3rmind]

I read the whole thing, holy crap. Prolly would have made sense if I watched the movie.

[-Carnifex-]

I read as far as "they listened to Manson" crap. They didn't actually, he was viewed as a poseur.

[Collegeboy]

Looks like someone doesn't like someone questioning American culture. I think the writer has a problem with MM, and tried to take minuet things and twist thing to try and downgrade a great film.

I loved the movie. It has a great message. Why is a gun so deeply imbedded in our culture. Why does a bank give out a gun as a reward for depositing money?

Why is it that we are so quick to protect this thing that is killing us at great numbers?

Why does the average citizen feel like they need to own a mini gun?

All of these are good questions that MM tried to answer in his Documentary.

[irbodden]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Looks like someone doesn't like someone questioning American culture. I think the writer has a problem with MM, and tried to take minuet things and twist thing to try and downgrade a great film.

I loved the movie. It has a great message. Why is a gun so deeply imbedded in our culture. Why does a bank give out a gun as a reward for depositing money?

Why is it that we are so quick to protect this thing that is killing us at great numbers?

Why does the average citizen feel like they need to own a mini gun?

All of these are good questions that MM tried to answer in his Documentary.

Collegeboy, you sir an idiot. The bank did not give out guns for making a deposit so simply, that was stagged. He spent the day before getting everything setup so he could simply walk in and out with a gun. Which is total BS.

You obviously are lacking the brain cells to even be able to follow your own radical movie. He never said he is 'against guns'.

"After making out Canada to be a haven of nonviolence, Moore asks why. He proclaims that Canada has "a tremendous amount of gun ownership," somewhat under one gun per household. He visits Canadian shooting ranges, gun stores, and in the end proclaims "Canada is a gun loving, gun toting, gun crazy country!"

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

He twists, edits, and makes up things just like you Collegeboy.



:rolleyes:

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by irbodden


Collegeboy, you sir an idiot. The bank did not give out guns for making a deposit so simply, that was stagged. He spent the day before getting everything setup so he could simply walk in and out with a gun. Which is total BS.

You obviously are lacking the brain cells to even be able to follow your own radical movie. He never said he is 'against guns'.

"After making out Canada to be a haven of nonviolence, Moore asks why. He proclaims that Canada has "a tremendous amount of gun ownership," somewhat under one gun per household. He visits Canadian shooting ranges, gun stores, and in the end proclaims "Canada is a gun loving, gun toting, gun crazy country!"

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

He twists, edits, and makes up things just like you Collegeboy.



:rolleyes:

Of course he twist things around, but making them up, that is a far cry. They might be stretched to the brink of breaking, but they have truth to it.

You have to understand what he is trying to do. He is trying to explain why a gun is so revered in the US, even though it does what it does. Why is it? That is what he is trying to do. Does it matter the painstaking process he had to go through to get a gun at the bank. The fact is he got one. Why did he get a gun, because he opened a savings account of some sort.

Now I am not antigun, I own a gun just like many other people. But I do not think that it is the right of US people to own a mini gun, or an automatic weapon or any other mass destruction weapons.

As for your comments about me, I will not even comment.

[1stdeadeye]

CB,
You sir are a buffon. How can you of all people support a film that twists and distorts the truth. MM told no truth in this film, he made it up! Look at the NRA bits, he took old footage and made it fit what he wanted. You who argues against bias and distortion have no leg to stand on (pun intended)!

The Rifle/Bank bit has been going on for years. They are giving hunting rifles, not ak47s! This is offered in liue of some interest. Banks have done variations of this around the country, wheter they gave away Big screen TVs or motorcycles. This is a bank that found a successful niche.

You and Michael Moore are cut from the same cloth. You will distort or create facts to fit your reality. You will not acknowledge when you are wrong. You both deserve the severe booing you recieved. You here on AO and MM at the Acadamy Awards where he was booed off the stage! Of course, you will probably state the the audience was booing Bush and not him!:rolleyes:

[Collegeboy]

Funny I am not a fan of MM, I don't agree with his tactics. But I can't blame him for trying to awaken the US citizens to a growing problem.

MM uses the same tactics that the far right and the right uses; he just uses them to suit his needs.

Could he have told the 100% truth about the problem with guns? Yes, but then it would be a boring piece of footage that no one would watch. He had to make it hollywoodish to get the play it did get and get the basic message out. This is the same thing the news does every night. The same thing the government does.

I disagree with his tactics, but not his purpose.

The sad fact is people are trying to discredit him, instead of answering his basic questions. Why is it that we feel the need of a gun to remain safe? Why is it that we feel we have to have a gun? Why is it that we are so gun crazy? Why is it that you can get a gun at a bank for opening up an account? Why is it that in the same store I can buy toilet paper, and food, I can also buy a gun and ammunition?

[irbodden]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Funny I am not a fan of MM, I don't agree with his tactics. But I can't blame him for trying to awaken the US citizens to a growing problem.

MM uses the same tactics that the far right and the right uses; he just uses them to suit his needs.

Could he have told the 100% truth about the problem with guns? Yes, but then it would be a boring piece of footage that no one would watch. He had to make it hollywoodish to get the play it did get and get the basic message out. This is the same thing the news does every night. The same thing the government does.

I disagree with his tactics, but not his purpose.

The sad fact is people are trying to discredit him, instead of answering his basic questions. Why is it that we feel the need of a gun to remain safe? Why is it that we feel we have to have a gun? Why is it that we are so gun crazy? Why is it that you can get a gun at a bank for opening up an account? Why is it that in the same store I can buy toilet paper, and food, I can also buy a gun and ammunition?

He says he makes documentaries, therefore he should not be adding "Hollywood" to it. How hard is that to understand?

There is nothing wrong with owning a gun and the guns being sold at Walmart are not the ones that are used in the majority of homicides in the United States buddy.

You are seriously never going to make it any where in life..

[MagMan5446]

Originally posted by irbodden


You are seriously never going to make it any where in life..


On a side note...


You are 14 years old. You know nothing about life.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Funny I am not a fan of MM, I don't agree with his tactics. But I can't blame him for trying to awaken the US citizens to a growing problem.

MM uses the same tactics that the far right and the right uses; he just uses them to suit his needs.

You can't condemn one and condone the other, that makes you a hypocrite! And how is it a growing problem? Gun violence is on the decline. Heck, drinking and driving are far more dangerous to America at large! We have over 10 times more deaths from car accidents then guns, should we ban cars next? MM would have us do that wouldn't he?


Could he have told the 100% truth about the problem with guns? Yes, but then it would be a boring piece of footage that no one would watch. He had to make it hollywoodish to get the play it did get and get the basic message out. This is the same thing the news does every night. The same thing the government does.

This movie was a flop. He is a self agrandizing fool!

I disagree with his tactics, but not his purpose.

IBID..

The sad fact is people are trying to discredit him, instead of answering his basic questions. Why is it that we feel the need of a gun to remain safe? Why is it that we feel we have to have a gun? Why is it that we are so gun crazy? Why is it that you can get a gun at a bank for opening up an account?
To obtain that gun in lieu of some of your interest. First of you are buying a Certificate of Deposit with a term of between 5 and 10 years. You are depositing in excess of $25k as well. Further they are giving you a $2000 plus hunting rifle which they do not give you in the bank. That part is an absolute falsehood. They have a deal with a firearms dealer who provides the rifle at his location. The bank is not a registered dealer. When I first got into banking 10 plus years ago, I worked at Standard Federal Savings Bank(Bethesda, MD). We sold 10 year gift CDs that gave you a big screen tv. Did we have them there in the bank? No you fool, you get a gift certificate. That bank does the same thing and has been doing it for years. Again, it is a marketing gimmick that has helped that little bank grow it's deposits.

Why is it that in the same store I can buy toilet paper, and food, I can also buy a gun and ammunition?
It's because you live in Alabama fool! You can probably get booze their too. The only state with more rednecks then you guys is West Virginia. In WV, you can get gas at that same store!:p

[irbodden]

Originally posted by MagMan5446



On a side note...


You are 14 years old. You know nothing about life.

Since when am I 14 years old? :confused: :rolleyes:

You sir, are another idiot.

[MagMan5446]

Oh, watch out! He's 15, or maybe even 16!

Yet he thinks he's king crap of turd mountain...


You sir, have no room to be calling anybody a fool or any other name. As little as these words mean, it's an issue of respect. You don't have any for anybody, as one can tell from the rudeness of all your posts.

[Miscue]

Calm down ya'll... or the iron fist will clench the mouse and click the ban button.

[irbodden]

Originally posted by MagMan5446
Oh, watch out! He's 15, or maybe even 16!

Yet he thinks he's king crap of turd mountain...


You sir, have no room to be calling anybody a fool or any other name. As little as these words mean, it's an issue of respect. You don't have any for anybody, as one can tell from the rudeness of all your posts.

You know I am not 14, it's been addressed before.

And yes, I do have a right to call some one a fool if that person is one. Collegeboy happens to be a fool, however he is pretty smart. Unfortunatly he won't get any where in life he makes comments like he does on here, in public. That's how the world is, but I am only 6 1/2, what do I know? :rolleyes: . How many radicals do you see as CEOS?... that's what I thought.

Yes, my posts can be rude. Especailly when a troll such as yourself makes an effort to be an idiot and say I am 14 years old when you know that's not the case. Even if I was 14 years old, what does it matter? By that logic your word is worthless (How old are you again?) compared to 1stdeadeye's, SHartley's, etc. Is that how it should be? And this "14 year old" happens to side with the more intelligent, older members of the board more often then not. :rolleyes:

[Miscue]

The iron fist provided forewarning, but you failed to heed it.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Miscue
The iron fist provided forewarning, but you failed to heed it.

Oh no, Dr. Claw and MADD! LOL. That really brings me back!

BTW, who got banned?

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by irbodden

Even if I was 14 years old, what does it matter? By that logic your word is worthless (How old are you again?) compared to 1stdeadeye's, SHartley's, etc. Is that how it should be? And this "14 year old" happens to side with the more intelligent, older members of the board more often then not. :rolleyes:

Ouch, I am "older"? Ughh! No one had better call me sir!!
Time to go rub the Ben Gay on my arthritic hands.;)

[shartley]

LOL Good article. I have often torn apart Moore’s crapfests myself. Thanks for posting it Army.

And why on earth is ANYONE even trying to discuss this with CB? LOLROF When I read HIS post I almost laughed myself off my couch….. while the Article made me smile, CB’s true to form self, beckoned forth gut wrenching guffaws. He is AO’s example of Moore’s target audience and staunchest support group. After reading all his posts on AO I sometimes feel he is exactly like Moore, and with that said, why bother? LOL

Oh… HAPPY EASTER! :D

[Miscue]

"Guffaw?"

/me consults his Scrabble dictionary... ;)

[bornl33t]

this film infact caused a great deal of confusion to european countries. In fact it got them to believe all of america is like that. I'm not even going to say what my poor parents living in Germany had to endure because of this crap.
Too bad this isn't the wild west... we could lynch moore then....

[bornl33t]

on a side note MM needs a good diet plan... his first chin is being enveloped by his 3rd
Also I'm currently taking comb donations for this poor homeless and crazy man.http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/1946/MichaelMoo_Grani_982868_400.jpg

[-Carnifex-]

From what I heard it took MM all of 5-10 minutes to fill out the paper work for the gun.

You're out of bounds calling people Idiots. If you're trying to edbate something personal attacks is not the way to do it. Socrates comes to mind, can't quite remember the quote though: When the debate is lost the loser turns to slander.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by shartley
LOL Good article. I have often torn apart Moore’s crapfests myself. Thanks for posting it Army.

And why on earth is ANYONE even trying to discuss this with CB? LOLROF When I read HIS post I almost laughed myself off my couch….. while the Article made me smile, CB’s true to form self, beckoned forth gut wrenching guffaws. He is AO’s example of Moore’s target audience and staunchest support group. After reading all his posts on AO I sometimes feel he is exactly like Moore, and with that said, why bother? LOL

Oh… HAPPY EASTER! :D

That would make things easier for you now wouldn't it, but the fact is no, I am not MM of AO. MM is a far left wacko who uses stretch of the truths to try and push his ideas. Like I said I agree that we need to address the gun issue, but I don't agree with the stretching of the truth. But I find it funny that you all are condoning MM for his actions while not condoning the media and the administration when they do the same thing. At least I am even.

1DE. One can not buy liquor in Wal-Mart in Alabama. Heck you can not even buy alcohol on Sundays in Alabama. But if you think Alabama has some rednecks (Well if that is even a term hehe) go out west to Montana and etc, to the NE in Vermont and New Hampshire, and to Louisiana and Florida (pan handle) now those places also have a lot of "rednecks”

[-Carnifex-]

Not to mention, it seems you're all overlooking the point of the movie. Americans (For the most part, I'm not saying everyone with a gun is paranoid.) are afraid, so they buy guns to protect themselves.

[DaosBeoulve]

It's because you live in Alabama fool! You can probably get booze their too. The only state with more rednecks then you guys is West Virginia. In WV, you can get gas at that same store!

Ahem....

We can buy gas at Walmart too.

:D

I just didn't want those West Virginians to feel all special or anything, ya know? :cool:

;)

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
That would make things easier for you now wouldn't it, but the fact is no, I am not MM of AO. MM is a far left wacko who uses stretch of the truths to try and push his ideas. Like I said I agree that we need to address the gun issue, but I don't agree with the stretching of the truth. But I find it funny that you all are condoning MM for his actions while not condoning the media and the administration when they do the same thing. At least I am even.
I don’t see anyone “condoning” his actions.. but maybe yourself to a point. ;) I think most of us are “condemning” his actions. And where on earth did you see anyone NOT condemning the media for similar things? I constantly condemn the media (more importantly NEWS media) for misleading people with partial truths…. But MM goes WAY past partial truths to down right lies, exaggerations, and total fabrication of “facts”.

No, what MM does and what is seen by done by the News Media (and EVERY political administration) is far from being the same thing…. Well no more the same thing as a human is a mammal and so is a whale. ;)

I think you will find that I am about the most "even handed" of most of the people you will ever come in contact with.......... Many times to a fault.

[CasingBill]

This says it all. This is my firm belief. This is why I carry everyday!!


Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.

[-=Squid=-]

Ok, before I tell you how I feel about guns, I will first say this. DO NOT insult me because I am only 16. DO NOT insult each other, for it only makes you look more unintelligent...anybody can name call, but not everybody can argue a legitamit point. Now, onward...

What is the point to guns? Really, why are they needed? Now, I am not talking about hunting rifles, although I do think there should be tighter restrictions, I am talking about handguns and other semiautomatic weapons. So, why do we need them? The only use they have is to kill people. Now, please, if you have an argument against this on what basis they have, please inform me. Did you know that more people in america were killed by handguns (33000 people) in ONE year, by other americans, than in the vietnam war, (30000) which lasted THREE years? Another fact, In one year, there wasnt one country that had more handgun deaths in one year that america. We beat every other researched country by 30000 people. You cant argue with statistics, and I know there is no person here who can argue a valid point on owning a handgun or other semiautomatic weapon.

[Miscue]

Um... self-defense?

Sure beats being one of the 33,000 other people who couldn't defend themselves against an <B>illegal</B> usage of a handgun.

[CasingBill]

First of all I would really be interested in where you get your statistics. According to FBI stats, over 98% of legal guns will not be used in commiting a crime. I carry a semi-automatic handgun because of my work, where I work and what I carry at work. If someone is going to rob me I am going to make every effort to shoot before I'm shot. A fellow business owner was shot dead only a block away from me last year. Although I don't expect to be robbed it would be foolish for me to not be prepared.

Now let me ask you this. Although you are only 16 answer this. IF you were married and had kids and while you were sleeping some night, someone broke into your house. This person has a gun. He wants to rape your wife, kill you and kill your kids. What are you going to do? Call 911??? By the time they get there you will already be dead.

Take the case in Brooklyn several months ago. This same type of event did happen. The intruder was shot inside a little boys bedroom by the boys father. Unluckily he was only wounded. The very presence of gun ownership deters crime.

[CasingBill]

I have no idea where you got your stats from but this is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics


The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 15,517 murders in 2000 were committed with firearms.

How do you get 300000 murders by gun if there were only 15,517 in on year???? And only 66% were from firearms!!!

[Miscue]

An MM documentary perhaps?

Well... murders don't count all accidental deaths... justified shootings... etc...

Still a long ways to 30,000 I'd imagine, after tallying it all up.

[CasingBill]

or maybe from CB...lol

Wait...I know...thats including deer!!!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -=Squid=-
Ok, before I tell you how I feel about guns, I will first say this. DO NOT insult me because I am only 16.

No problem Junior! ;)

DO NOT insult each other, for it only makes you look more unintelligent...anybody can name call, but not everybody can argue a legitamit point. Now, onward...

We save the insults for CB! BTW, there are rednecks in every state DB!;)

What is the point to guns? Really, why are they needed? Now, I am not talking about hunting rifles, although I do think there should be tighter restrictions, I am talking about handguns and other semiautomatic weapons. So, why do we need them? The only use they have is to kill people. Now, please, if you have an argument against this on what basis they have, please inform me. Did you know that more people in america were killed by handguns (33000 people) in ONE year, by other americans, than in the vietnam war, (30000) which lasted THREE years? Another fact, In one year, there wasnt one country that had more handgun deaths in one year that america. We beat every other researched country by 30000 people. You cant argue with statistics, and I know there is no person here who can argue a valid point on owning a handgun or other semiautomatic weapon.

First off, did you get your statistics from Michael Moore? Who taught you your history? That teacher should be smacked. Vietnam lasted over 10 years from the advisors to the final pullout. In Vietnam, we lost about 50,000 people. We have more auto fatqalities every year then that. Where did you get your handgun numbers? According to the FBI, in 2001, we had a total of 15,980 murders. Even if everyone of them was from a handgun, you are wrong. Also if 1/2 of them are hungun related, that would be generous. Suicides and justifiable use of firearms doesn't equal your quote. Get it right or be quiet!

As for why, as you are too young to legally possess a pistol, you may not understand. Target shooting and shooting for sport is fun. Go to a range some time and try it out.

BTW, Here are the crime facts, not the lies you quote: FBI CRIME REPORT FOR FULL YEAR 2001 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/01crime2.pdf)

So please bring facts, not a CB arguement!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by DaosBeoulve


Ahem....

We can buy gas at Walmart too.

:D

I just didn't want those West Virginians to feel all special or anything, ya know? :cool:

;)

Sorry man WV has everyone beat! That is a scary state. My wife's family owns a cabin and some hunting land in a little place called Old Town, Maryland. It is real close to PawPaw, WV. About 4 years ago while fishing at the cabin, we made a run into WV for fun. At a gas station accross the river from Cumberland, the convienence store sold: Gas, Groceries, Booze, Firearms, and Porn. That scared me. Imagine all those rednecks with porn and guns!:eek: ;)

As for CB, rednecks are everywhere, even in Jersey.:eek: Be careful about calling names though, if you bring NH into it, Shartley might get mad!

[Rooster]

"Looks like someone doesn't like someone questioning American culture. I think the writer has a problem with MM, and tried to take minuet things and twist thing to try and downgrade a great film.

I loved the movie. It has a great message. Why is a gun so deeply imbedded in our culture. Why does a bank give out a gun as a reward for depositing money?

Why is it that we are so quick to protect this thing that is killing us at great numbers?

Why does the average citizen feel like they need to own a mini gun?

All of these are good questions that MM tried to answer in his Documentary."

Why do people feel the need to flap their fat gums to spew tripe? Oh yeah, becuase its their right, just as gun ownership is. You can take my freedom when you give up your freedom to flap your fat mouth about it.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
From what I heard it took MM all of 5-10 minutes to fill out the paper work for the gun.

THINK! This was a work of fiction. They don't give you a gun at the bank! This bank started doing this in conjunction with NRA marketing about 6 years ago. The article about it in American Banker was funny. The bank gives out gift certificates to redeem for the rifle at an affiliated firearms dealer. Come on you can't think a bank would hand out guns in it's lobby do you! MM was taking "artistic license" with the truth, you know making stuff up. It makes for better theatre!

You're out of bounds calling people Idiots. If you're trying to edbate something personal attacks is not the way to do it. Socrates comes to mind, can't quite remember the quote though: When the debate is lost the loser turns to slander.

Ah I love quotes. One of my favorites is that it is better to be silent and considered a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Again I say to you think. This was his movie and it was not a documentary! BTW to get that rifle, MM just deposited around $25,000 of his own money for the next 10 years at a very, very low rate. That rifle is also considered taxable income on his 1099-INT. So if he really did go through with it, He put a bunch of money into a dead account for 10 years and will pay taxes this year on $2000 in interest in the form of the rifle for something he will never use!


I have a great counter too. Does anyone remember Carl Rowe (SP?)? He was a libereal columnist for the Washington Post about 15 years ago. He was an anti-gun crusader as well. Then a group of teens broke into his backyard to play in his pool. He shot one of them with an unregistered handgun. Got to love those hypocrits!

[DaosBeoulve]

Sorry man WV has everyone beat! That is a scary state. My wife's family owns a cabin and some hunting land in a little place called Old Town, Maryland. It is real close to PawPaw, WV. About 4 years ago while fishing at the cabin, we made a run into WV for fun. At a gas station accross the river from Cumberland, the convienence store sold: Gas, Groceries, Booze, Firearms, and Porn. That scared me. Imagine all those rednecks with porn and guns!

Ya know, for one second there, I was all warm and fuzzy inside, and actually thought AL might not be that bad.

Then, I realized that we can, in reality, one-up you.

Not only do we have stores that sell all of that, they also add in fishbait, old Chevy parts, and sometimes even used tires.

Yeah, once again, Alabama retains its title of worst state in the US. YAY

;)

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Ah I love quotes. One of my favorites is that it is better to be silent and considered a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
[/B]

Once again, you prove to me that you have no idea how to debate.

"From what I heard" means that it may very well not be the truth. I didn't see the movie, therefore I said "From what I heard." So please, tell me how I made myself look foolish? Merely because I could not remember a quote?

[Collegeboy]

Why do you need a gun to make yourself feel safe at home?

[DaosBeoulve]

Why do you need a gun to make yourself feel safe at home?

There's a plethora of reasons.

For one, security systems can be bypassed. Even the best security systems.

People are stupid.

Drugs. They cost money.

[-Jôker-]

"Why is it that in the same store I can buy toilet paper, and food, I can also buy a gun and ammunition?"

"It's because you live in Alabama fool! You can probably get booze their too. The only state with more rednecks then you guys is West Virginia. In WV, you can get gas at that same store!"

you can buy food,toilet paper,cigs,alcohol,guns,kives,ammo,camo,clothes,tv s and even GAS at............WAAAAAAALLLLL-MAAAAARRRRRT

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by DaosBeoulve


There's a plethora of reasons.

For one, security systems can be bypassed. Even the best security systems.

People are stupid.

Drugs. They cost money.

But why do you need a gun to feel protected. I mean here in the US people claim they need a gun to feel protected, while in other areas of the world, people don't feel so. Is it because the US has more crime, is more dangerous. No it isn't so why is the US people so afraid that they feel they need a gun to feel safe.

[Smegma]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Why do you need a gun to make yourself feel safe at home?

Its very easy to say this when you never been in a situation in which you needed one. A couple of months ago there was a drive by shooting and my neighboor was almost killed; hidding under a matress while you her shots less than twenty feet away instills a very helpless feeling.

I feel its better to have one and not need it than it is to need one and not have it.

I am very touchy on this subject and decided to do a personal report on it just after the drive by. I found out that on average, something like 14% of yearly deaths were firearm related, but half of those deaths were self inflicted (not children, suicides), just thought that was interesting. Ill post some quotes i found from my research:


"The majority of peace officers I've talked to agree that gun laws only result in armed criminals preying on defenseless citizens. Instead of useless anti-gun owner legislation, what we need and need right now are tough anti-crime measures. Anti-gun bills only cloud the real issue. And those of us who actually battle crime pay the price."
Lt. Harry Thomas: Cincinnati Police Division,
American Rifleman, August 1989



"Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."
Deputy Chief Joseph Constance:
Trenton, New Jersey Police Department,
speaking before a Senate Committee, 1993



"My personal opinion is mixed. We need to do something to make some sense out of what is happening on the streets, but as a practical matter, people who are illegally using firearms are not going to be stopped by licensing."
Major Aaron Campbell: Miami Metro Dade Police Department,
The Washington Times, December 10, 1993



"The anti-gun sentiment concerns me. It's another freedom someone is trying to take away. It's an artificial solution to the crime problem. In Memphis, very few semi-automatic firearms are confiscated from criminals. Let's leave law-abiding citizens alone. Criminals will continue to get guns illegally."
Ray Maples: Memphis Police ***'n President [American Rifleman, July 1989, pg.58]

[Smegma]

Here is another one that i forgot about. I didn't know this and it shocked me at first. For all that wonder why we have firearms, you should read this:

"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov't) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order" (Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).

BTW, we should focus more on keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, not law abiders. Stripping our firearms only leaves us more voulnerable. I makes me safe to know that when i go to sleep at night, my dad and his glock can atleast defend us.

[Smegma]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


But why do you need a gun to feel protected. I mean here in the US people claim they need a gun to feel protected, while in other areas of the world, people don't feel so. Is it because the US has more crime, is more dangerous. No it isn't so why is are the US people so afraid that they feel they did a gun to feel safe.

Have you ever been shot at?

[Jonneh]

Here's an idea, why not keep guns out of the hands of EVERYONE, then no one would shoot each other! woah

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


But why do you need a gun to feel protected. I mean here in the US people claim they need a gun to feel protected, while in other areas of the world, people don't feel so. Is it because the US has more crime, is more dangerous. No it isn't so why is the US people so afraid that they feel they need a gun to feel safe.

[Smegma]

Originally posted by Jonneh
Here's an idea, why not keep guns out of the hands of EVERYONE, then no one would shoot each other! woah

If you could do it, i would be all for it, but its never going to happen.

[Python14]

# of people my guns have killed: 0

Who am I hurting with my firearms?

[-=Squid=-]

Actually, the statistics came from a book called "Give a boy a gun" I didnt say it lasted only 3 years, but during that time span thats the number killed. 1stdeadeye, unless you were "kidding" by calling me junior ( :rolleyes: ) I have just comepletely lost all respect towards you. Ok, to the point. Self defense? Phooie. If nobody had handguns we wouldnt have to defend ourselves against them would we? And if a person is stupid enough to break into a home unarmed, just stab them. lol. Point again, handguns are not necessary for any reason.

EDIT: 98% wont be used in crime. I say 30,000, (BTW to the person who said 300,000...umm no.) imagine how many guns there are? I would easily believe that 30000 is only 2% of the handguns in the nation.

[Smegma]

handguns are not necessary for any reason.
I can't believe that you just said that. You're telling me that you can't come up with one good reason for a handgun.

[Smegma]

i was searching around and i found this. It's MM's brief history lesson on America and firearms.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/america.php

[Army]

Originally posted by -=Squid=-
Ok, to the point. Self defense? Phooie. If nobody had handguns we wouldnt have to defend ourselves against them would we? And if a person is stupid enough to break into a home unarmed, just stab them. lol. Point again, handguns are not necessary for any reason.

A firearm keeps you away from any close physical contact with a bad guy. A normal person can close a 15 foot gap in less than 1/2 second, imagine how fast a hyped on adrenaline/drugs punk can move.

Stab them? Do you know how easy it is to take a knife from someone? Do you have the foggiest how little immediately incompacitating damage is done in a knife fight? Do you know exactly where a very effective stab must be placed? Can you do this while getting the crap beat out of you?

I don't keep firearms handy to defend against another gun, I do it to protect my family from ANY predator, four and two legged. Sarah and I both shoot rifles and handguns. I compete in Practical Pistol matches, don't I have a reason for a pistol for that? Sarah loves whacking the 750yd gong at our club range with my rifles, does that make her a "sniper"? Hardly, but it does show that she can outshoot 3/4 of the people that shoot at our range!

I'm not afraid of anything, except for spiderwebs that fall across my face *ewww*, so I don't need/keep/collect guns out of fear.

BTW, 14 years ago, my wife defended Sarah and herself from a group of 5 drunk "gang" members. They had already thrown a large barrel through the bedroom window, showering them both with glass. My wife grabbed the bedside shotgun and racked the slide to chamber a shell, yelling out; "If any of you *bleepity bleeping bleepers* are still out there, I'll gonna blow your *bleepiy bleeping* heads off!". The responding Police simply asked her to unload the gun, and put it back by the bed, then thanked her for not making a mess out on the sidewalk.

You'll notice I said "responding" Police. See, they can only come to your house to help you AFTER a crime has been commited. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that the Police are under NO obligation to protect you (Hayes Vs State). That leaves it up to yourself, doesn't it? Personally, i don't plan on waiting for the Police to show up before the bad guy in my house decides I'm a liability to him.

Another BTW; Those "death by gun" stats are old stale numbers that the CFDC and Handgun Control has bantered about for years. The "children" they cite as dying from guns, range from 2 months to 26 years old. Call me silly, but legally you ain't a kid after 18. These numbers also include those shot by Police and Security officers (one should conclude that these particular "kids" are really bad guys).

[-Carnifex-]

You see, this is why I have the utmost respect for Army. No personal attacks, only calm, collected reason. I appreciate your sincerity Army.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Army


I don't keep firearms handy to defend against another gun, I do it to protect my family from ANY predator, four and two legged.

Especially those rabied ground squirrels.

Vicious little critters.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


But why do you need a gun to feel protected. I mean here in the US people claim they need a gun to feel protected, while in other areas of the world, people don't feel so. Is it because the US has more crime, is more dangerous. No it isn't so why is the US people so afraid that they feel they need a gun to feel safe.

[bornl33t]

well I'm sure there are ppl out there that feel the same way about us paintballers as some of you about NRA members. Don't dis it cause you don't like it. If they take away the guns paintball is next.... if you want to see guns banished, then hand over your paintball gun too...

[Collegeboy]

I just want to know why people in the US feel they need a gun to feel safe, when people in other countries don't feel so?

[shartley]

I would like to stress what others have already stated…. Crimes are by far mostly committed by illegally purchased firearms. By making guns “illegal” you don’t remove the problem…. Legal guns are not at fault, nor are people who legally own them.

Criminals will always find a weapon. And by trying to eliminate their “weapon of choice” you only remove it from those who own and use them legally and take away their CHOICE of protection. What is next? Knives? Ball Bats? Maglights? Pots and pans?

Why do Americans feel the need to have guns to feel safe? Because our criminals use them more prolifically than other countries. Also, our “correctional institutions” are notorious for being some of the most lax in the world as well as criminals know that chances of them serving their entire sentence is slim to none… for the most part.

The rights of the CRIMINALS in this country far outweigh the rights of for victims, or potential victims…. Who have already HAD their rights taken away by the criminals. Kind of odd isn’t it?

Also, it is of little consolation when being robbed, attacked, etc. to know you can dial 911. 911 is far too often a REACTION and too late. And as a former police officer I can say without a doubt that 911 IS needed, but is not the end all for public safety. And people legally owning firearms has never been a problem for me. I used to treat every situation with caution, there is nothing routine…. ever.

Too many people just want to see the “gun”, and forget everything else in the big picture. The only times I have ever had problems with people with guns (and yes, I have had them) it was NOT with legally purchased firearms.

CB… you want to know why people in this country feel the way they do, yet you LIVE here. You either live a VERY sheltered life, or are trolling. For someone as intelligent as you seem to be, to not know the simple answer to your own question is alarming.

[Collegeboy]

Americans act like they live everyday in fear from someone breaking in their house and trying to do harm to their family. Why is that? Why is it that Americans have to turn to a gun to protect their family when most of the world can use other things? Why is a gun so culturally accepted in the US but not in other countries?

To say that the criminal has more rights in the US then in other countries is an exaggeration. If you look at other countries especially GB you will find criminals suing their victims for harm the criminal got when breaking into the victims house and the criminal most of the time wins.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Americans act like they live everyday in fear from someone breaking in their house and trying to do harm to their family. Why is that? Why is it that Americans have to turn to a gun to protect their family when most of the world can use other things? Why is a gun so culturally accepted in the US but not in other countries?

To say that the criminal has more rights in the US then in other countries is an exaggeration. If you look at other countries especially GB you will find criminals suing their victims for harm the criminal got when breaking into the victims house and the criminal most of the time wins.
First of all, most Americans don’t live their lives in fear. LOL YOU and others want to make it look like that. I also don’t drive down the road in fear, but I put on a seatbelt. ;) And you know what? They help…. Proof of that was this past week when I was hit.

Who said the US gives criminals MORE rights than other countries? I know I didn’t. And who was talking about civil actions? I sure as heck wasn’t. I think you need to bone up on criminal VS civil. ;) I was talking how the CRIMINAL court system treats criminals and victims, not the civil court system. And did you know you can sue for anything?

The CRIME in other countries is often different than it is in the US as well. But you don’t want to look at that, just how folks choose to defend themselves.

Yes, guns are a part of our culture. Heck, we wouldn’t even BE a culture if it were not for guns. We would still be a part of GB’s culture. ;) But the impact guns have on the average person in the US is also a bit misleading too… and the MYTH of the gun plays a good part in that. Think the “Wild West” was filled with gunslingers and duels in the streets every day? ;) Heck, the most prolific killers in that time period in American history have names most people would not recognize… and the ones they DO recognize have few to NO actual deaths involved.

Again, we see how the media (be it movies, press, books, etc.) can make more of a situation than it really is…. As well as those who want to cause a problem, gain attention, or have some adjenda.

So again, yes, we do have a problem in the US. And many of us do wish to have the choice to protect ourselves and families with guns. But we don’t cower in fear as you suggested. And why? Because we DO have the right to protect ourselves with guns…. :D

Crimes are also committed with the aid of cars….. BAN CARS!!!! ;)

[Jack_Dubious]

"Sure I've got a permit. It's called the Second Amendment." -Ted Nugent


JDub

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-


Once again, you prove to me that you have no idea how to debate.

"From what I heard" means that it may very well not be the truth. I didn't see the movie, therefore I said "From what I heard." So please, tell me how I made myself look foolish? Merely because I could not remember a quote?


First, in a debate, you debate facts!

Second all I did was list my favorite quote. What you took it to mean is your perception!;)

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -=Squid=-
Actually, the statistics came from a book called "Give a boy a gun" I didnt say it lasted only 3 years, but during that time span thats the number killed.

Read your post again. You said "Vietnam War, which lasted THREE years". Also as for facts, I'll take the FBI's over your book.

1stdeadeye, unless you were "kidding" by calling me junior ( :rolleyes: ) I have just comepletely lost all respect towards you.


Hmmm, what does ;) mean? Re-read my post! ;)

Ok, to the point. Self defense? Phooie. If nobody had handguns we wouldnt have to defend ourselves against them would we? And if a person is stupid enough to break into a home unarmed, just stab them. lol. Point again, handguns are not necessary for any reason.

The point of any gun in self defense is not to have to use it. If you confront an intruder and point a gun at them, hopefully the deterrent effect of it will make them surrender or flee. Also, I am only 5'7". If I were confronted by a 6'5" intruder who had intention to injure myself or family during the course of his crime, a gun would be my best chance.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -=Squid=-
Did you know that more people in america were killed by handguns (33000 people) in ONE year, by other americans, than in the vietnam war, (30000) which lasted THREE years?

This was your exact quote!;)

[-=Squid=-]

OK, firstdeadeye, all of your points are valid and understood but your missing mine. If nobody has handguns, the chances of having to use one for defense are SO much more slim, and even in the few cases you must defend yourself via handgun, I could guaruntee you the ammount of deaths in the united states would go down. Also, your wife used a shotgun, not a semiautomatic pistol. Big difference there, and as I said before I feel that rifles are A OK because some people have the hobby of....rum tum tum..hunting. Owned.

[-=Squid=-]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


This was your exact quote!;)
EEK...sorry about that. Anyways, lets say we still keep handguns. Just VERY tight restrictions on owning one so only intelligent people can have one? Which means you so you can be happy now eh? Still, wouldnt that reduce the number of deaths drastically? Or this, now dont quote me on this one, but in the comparison of deaths by handgun in the US and other countrys, I THINK it was britain, only had 143 or so deaths in one year?? Guess what..there is a law prohibiting handguns there.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -=Squid=-

EEK...sorry about that. Anyways, lets say we still keep handguns. Just VERY tight restrictions on owning one so only intelligent people can have one? Which means you so you can be happy now eh? Still, wouldnt that reduce the number of deaths drastically? Or this, now dont quote me on this one, but in the comparison of deaths by handgun in the US and other countrys, I THINK it was britain, only had 143 or so deaths in one year?? Guess what..there is a law prohibiting handguns there.

If "if's" and "buts" were candy and nuts oh what a party we'd have!

There are too many guns out there now to consider your choice. Pandora's box has been opened. You are not going to close it without a lot of blood.

As for your previous post, my sister in law is 4'11". She weighs maybe 90 pounds. She couldn't handle a shotgun if she tried. However her .38 LadySmith is prety much custom made for her.

Also with Britan, look at total deaths per 1000. That is how to make accurate comparrisons. Britan has higher per capita stabbings then the US. Should they ban knives?

Squid, I understand your meaning. I am simply stating that humans will find a way to kill each other. Whether with a gun, knife, brick or bow & arrow, murders will happen. You can't have the level of civil liberties that we enjoy without them. If you wish to give up all of your civil rights and move to Singapore, you can live in a crime free atmosphere, just remember to properly dispose of your gum to avoid that caning! It is a difficult trade off and that is why there are no easy answers to this issue.

[-=Squid=-]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


If "if's" and "buts" were candy and nuts oh what a party we'd have!

There are too many guns out there now to consider your choice. Pandora's box has been opened. You are not going to close it without a lot of blood.

As for your previous post, my sister in law is 4'11". She weighs maybe 90 pounds. She couldn't handle a shotgun if she tried. However her .38 LadySmith is prety much custom made for her.

Also with Britan, look at total deaths per 1000. That is how to make accurate comparrisons. Britan has higher per capita stabbings then the US. Should they ban knives?

Squid, I understand your meaning. I am simply stating that humans will find a way to kill each other. Whether with a gun, knife, brick or bow & arrow, murders will happen. You can't have the level of civil liberties that we enjoy without them. If you wish to give up all of your civil rights and move to Singapore, you can live in a crime free atmosphere, just remember to properly dispose of your gum to avoid that caning! It is a difficult trade off and that is why there are no easy answers to this issue.


Well, I think I want to end this. NEither of us are going to say, "Oh, now I see, your right" so I will end it with this. I am not antigun. I only think there should be tight retrictions, and although we own some handguns, I still feel that the number of murders would drastically decrease if it were illegal to own one, I still am not antigun. So how about we just call it evn and quit arguing over it?

[Collegeboy]

If you carry around a gun in your house for the purpose of protecting your family or your belongings then you are indeed living in fear of something happening in which you have to "protect" them from.

If you felt safe, if you felt that no criminal would do harm to your family then you wouldn't need a gun for protection, simple as that.

So why do people in the US feel it is necessary to own a gun for protection when people in other countries don't think so.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
If you carry around a gun in your house for the purpose of protecting your family or your belongings then you are indeed living in fear of something happening in which you have to "protect" them from.

If you felt safe, if you felt that no criminal would do harm to your family then you wouldn't need a gun for protection, simple as that.

So why do people in the US feel it is necessary to own a gun for protection when people in other countries don't think so.
I don’t know a single person who owns a handgun that carries it around their house. LOL Generally criminals don’t commit crimes at a residence during the hours of normal “up and about” hours. LOL

I would agree with you though, IF people are walking around their homes carrying their guns to protect their families, they have a serious problem….. either they need to find a new neighborhood, or seek some counseling.

In a society that does have crime, a gun can be a safety precaution, as well as device. Like I said, I don’t expect to get into an accident every time I jump in my car, but I put on my seatbelt before I step on the gas. Home owners get home owner’s insurance too. Do they expect their home to burn down? How about auto insurance? How about the fire extinguisher I have next to my stove? Do I expect my stove to catch on fire every time I cook? The list can go on and on….

But according to your arguments, each case listed above is caused by irrational fears. Nope, sorry, there is a difference between preparing yourself for something that may happen (and does quite often) and going overboard and living in “fear” as you put it. And I for one have quite a few “weapons” around my house… to include a big dog… that does not make me “afraid” that something will happen, but you bet it does make me feel more “safe”.

Again, there is a difference between rational awareness and preparation VS illogical fears.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
If you carry around a gun in your house for the purpose of protecting your family or your belongings then you are indeed living in fear of something happening in which you have to "protect" them from.

Those would be the paranoid people. I would avoid them at all costs if I were you! ;)

If you felt safe, if you felt that no criminal would do harm to your family then you wouldn't need a gun for protection, simple as that.

So why do people in the US feel it is necessary to own a gun for protection when people in other countries don't think so.

Why? Because we can. We have the freedom and right to do so. In so many other countries, ordinary citizens are not afforded that right, so they don't have them. That simple. Maybe we should commission a poll asking how many of them would like one?;)

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -=Squid=-



Well, I think I want to end this. NEither of us are going to say, "Oh, now I see, your right" so I will end it with this.
That is the beauty of America, we can agree to disagree! We each have our views and opinions. This is fine by me.

I am not antigun. I only think there should be tight retrictions, and although we own some handguns, I still feel that the number of murders would drastically decrease if it were illegal to own one, I still am not antigun. So how about we just call it evn and quit arguing over it?

Yes you are anti-gun, you commie pinko!!;) :p ;)

Can we agree to laugh at my rapier wit? ;):rolleyes:

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Why do you need a gun to make yourself feel safe at home?

Only one reason.

Because when the criminal breaks in the cops aren't going to be standing there to stop him from doing so.

There's ZERO reason to have to justify gun ownership in this country to ANYONE.

It's called the Second Amendment.

And anyone who says that it isn't an individual right must then also say that the First isn't either.

I do not give my responsibilities to anyone else to carry out.

this is the major difference between those of us who who take care of ourselves and those of you who'd rather have someone else do it for you.

[-=Squid=-]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Originally posted by -=Squid=-
[B]

Can we agree to laugh at my rapier wit? ;):rolleyes:

But of course! Sorry for the typos, bad grammar, and horrible punctuation in the last post! And my closure, NYUK NYUK NYUK! :p

EDIT: Regarding the dificulty in stabbing, mabe if you all were a 733T ninja like myself, you wouldnt be having this problem?

[Skreemer]

while I have alot of feelings on the gun control issue, I think I will just leave you with one of the better things I have seen online about it.

Michael Z. Williamson on Gun Control (http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/rants/guncontrol.htm)

I own more than one gun. They all stay locked in a very large safe in the basement. Those guns have killed many a wiley paper target in thier day yet have never been held, pointed, or used in anger. I didn't buy them out of some delusion paranoia that people were going to come get me in the night. I bought them for the satisfaction of doing something right when on the gun range I can show the discipline, patience, and technical skill to be able to handle myself properly with something that can cause alot of damage.

Shamelessly pulled from a weblog on Rachel Lucas's website (http://www.rachellucas.com/archives/cat_guns_guns_guns.html)

"To Phillipe and other genuinely interested and open-minded Europeans, let me simply refer you to that great unbiased, uncorruptible teacher: History. Ask yourselves why intellectual elites so love totalitarian states where people are unarmed sheep. Look at the examples of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Saddam. If you hate America so much, then ask yourself why no one 'fools' with Switzerland."

[joeyjoe367]

I've always said, If I have to be on one end of a gun, I'll be on the end pulling the trigger. That's pretty much all I have to say about that.

Someone said, "Why don't we just get rid of all handguns" or something to that extent; Well, that'd be *GREAT* except that there's already too many out there.

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.


Why I feel threatened is aside the point, IMO.

[Collegeboy]

I meant it as have a gun in your house for protection.

Why do people in the US feel they need a gun for protection when people in other countries feel like they can protect themselves with other things?

Simple question. One that still hasn't been answered.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I meant it as have a gun in your house for protection.

Why do people in the US feel they need a gun for protection when people in other countries feel like they can protect themselves with other things?

Simple question. One that still hasn't been answered.
What? BULL CRAP! LOL It HAS been answered. Don’t you READ? LOLROF

[Bob01RT]

because you don't want to be caught with a knife at a gun fight.

[Cristobal]

Hey Army, can you post where the article came from?


I want to know if he cited his sources anywhere -- which he should have, given the article wrote.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I meant it as have a gun in your house for protection.

Why do people in the US feel they need a gun for protection when people in other countries feel like they can protect themselves with other things?

Simple question. One that still hasn't been answered.

Here we go again! If you don't hear the answer you want, it wasn't posted.

Here is a simple answer: Because we can and the majority of the rest of the world isn't allowed to by their own governments. Except the Swiss, they are REQUIRED to have a gun and be trained in it's use!

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I meant it as have a gun in your house for protection.

Why do people in the US feel they need a gun for protection when people in other countries feel like they can protect themselves with other things?

Simple question. One that still hasn't been answered.

Once again you show your disdain for any viewpoint other than your own.

So far on current events around here you're 0-1.

Looks like you're going for 0-2 real fast.

Let me make it as plain as I can for your stunted intellect.

It is MY right.

There is NO justification needed.

And anyone who says there is, is only looking to take that right away.

[Jonneh]

It won't work now, because you're all too attached to them, but I guarantee, that if live guns were outlawed, as they are here, that gun related deaths would drop dramatically.

The truth is, that if someone is set on using a gun to commit crime, then not a lot is going to stop them. It's true we get gun crime in the UK, just a few months ago some girls were shot and killed about 30 minutes from my house. I'm willing to bet that most gun related deaths are not premeditated but spur of the moment things (such as anger or revenge or whatever). Surely if people didn't have a gun, then the thought to shoot them wouldn't even have occured to them.
[pointless rhetoric]Isn't the loss of your firearm(s) worth at least one persons life?[/pointless rhetoric]

[Collegeboy]

I am not looking for a justification for your owning a gun, heck I own a gun. But I am asking why do you feel you have to have a gun for personal protection when most of the world feels they don't need one?

And beside the resent comment of never bring a knife to a gun fight, there hasn't been an answer. I am not looking for the right answer, I just want to know you line of thought.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am not looking for a justification for your owning a gun, heck I own a gun. But I am asking why do you feel you have to have a gun for personal protection when most of the world feels they don't need one?

Here we go! You assume that the rest of the world feels they don't need one. How do you know, did you ask them. It may be that they are not allowed. Doesn't mean they don't want one!

Me, I just like to stare at them in my vault every now and then. They are pretty....*drool*:p

[shartley]

OMG! LOL

I think someone needs to go back and take “Reading Comprehension” again…. Or take it if they have not……

;)

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
It is MY right.

There is NO justification needed.

And anyone who says there is, is only looking to take that right away.

See when me and FOL agree on something, then it definately has to be right. :)

JDub

[Rooster]

"Ok, to the point. Self defense? Phooie. If nobody had handguns we wouldnt have to defend ourselves against them would we? And if a person is stupid enough to break into a home unarmed, just stab them. lol. Point again, handguns are not necessary for any reason."

this is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever read. You are scared of guns? Thats fine whatever. If someone comes into my house weilding a crowbar, they are going to leave with one or two rather big holes in their body, if they are able to leave at all. At your house he's going to leave with anything he wants.

[Rooster]

"Isn't the loss of your firearm(s) worth at least one persons life?"

I would gladdly die or kill to keep my rights. So no, I guess it isn't.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by shartley
OMG! LOL

I think someone needs to go back and take “Reading Comprehension” again…. Or take it if they have not……

;)

Yeah maybe you all. So why is it.

[joeyjoe367]

wow, you've really got your head stuck up your... umm...CLOUDS

That's been answered serveral times in the last page buddy. If you don't feel like debating the answers, then stop posting that question.

[Collegeboy]

I am not arguing I am a waiting an answer. Reading back the closest time someone came to answer this question is Shartley and he didn't answer it completely.

He said the reason that the people in the US need a gun to defend themselves, and the people in other countries don't is because.

"Why do Americans feel the need to have guns to feel safe? Because our criminals use them more prolifically than other countries. Also, our “correctional institutions” are notorious for being some of the most lax in the world as well as criminals know that chances of them serving their entire sentence is slim to none… for the most part.

The rights of the CRIMINALS in this country far outweigh the rights of for victims, or potential victims…. Who have already HAD their rights taken away by the criminals. Kind of odd isn’t it?

Also, it is of little consolation when being robbed, attacked, etc. to know you can dial 911. 911 is far too often a REACTION and too late. And as a former police officer I can say without a doubt that 911 IS needed, but is not the end all for public safety. And people legally owning firearms has never been a problem for me. I used to treat every situation with caution, there is nothing routine…. ever.

Too many people just want to see the “gun”, and forget everything else in the big picture. The only times I have ever had problems with people with guns (and yes, I have had them) it was NOT with legally purchased firearms."

So we need more guns to protect us against guns. Is that what you are saying in the first part.

What is it about our prisons offering criminal rights that makes you feel you need a gun to protect your family.

The above is the closest one has come to attempting to answer the question. Even it doesn't answer it.

So I will ask again.

Why do Americans need a gun for protection when most of the world doesn't?

[Russ]

collegeboy said,
Why do people in the US feel they need a gun for protection when people in other countries feel like they can protect themselves with other things? I got a problem with the "people in other countries" part of that. What other countries? Do you, in fact assume to know just what people, in what countries, are or aren't armed? Do you think that only Americans arm themselves for self-protection?

And to answer your question as to why I feel the need to arm myself, well, it's because I CAN! It's an option, a priviledge that we Americans have. A right to self defence. I have a right to own firearms for my personal enjoyment as well. I also compete, collect and hunt with guns. It's my RIGHT as an American. It has nothing to do with paranoia.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Russ
collegeboy said, I got a problem with the "people in other countries" part of that. What other countries? Do you, in fact assume to know just what people, in what countries, are or aren't armed? Do you think that only Americans arm themselves for self-protection?

And to answer your question as to why I feel the need to arm myself, well, it's because I CAN! It's an option, a priviledge that we Americans have. A right to self defence. I have a right to own firearms for my personal enjoyment as well. I also compete, collect and hunt with guns. It's my RIGHT as an American. It has nothing to do with paranoia.

That doesn't answer the question of why do you feel you need to have a gun for protection.

[-=Squid=-]

Originally posted by Rooster
"Ok, to the point. Self defense? Phooie. If nobody had handguns we wouldnt have to defend ourselves against them would we? And if a person is stupid enough to break into a home unarmed, just stab them. lol. Point again, handguns are not necessary for any reason."

this is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever read. You are scared of guns? Thats fine whatever. If someone comes into my house weilding a crowbar, they are going to leave with one or two rather big holes in their body, if they are able to leave at all. At your house he's going to leave with anything he wants.

Why dont you actually read the whole thing before you pass judgement? Im not going to even remotely consider thinking over this reply which merely was written on a pick and choose basis, reading, remember, what you want to. The dumbest thing? Why dont you actually back up your immature comments by telling me WHY its the dumbest thing, rather than some off topic meaningless crowbar story? You never even said why it was "teh dumbest thing ever!!!1!1!" Why dont you be a little more thorough in your useless replies next time eh? :rolleyes:

[-=Squid=-]

Originally posted by Russ
collegeboy said, I got a problem with the "people in other countries" part of that. What other countries? Do you, in fact assume to know just what people, in what countries, are or aren't armed? Do you think that only Americans arm themselves for self-protection?

And to answer your question as to why I feel the need to arm myself, well, it's because I CAN! It's an option, a priviledge that we Americans have. A right to self defence. I have a right to own firearms for my personal enjoyment as well. I also compete, collect and hunt with guns. It's my RIGHT as an American. It has nothing to do with paranoia.

In britain handguns are outlawed, and there were under 200 hand gun deaths in one year, as opposed to americas 33000.

[Russ]

You seem to feel that I must explain a "NEED", when, in fact, it's really because "I CAN"

People need food & shelter. There's not much more to it. All the rest is what we want.

[Miscue]

Why not bring up Vatican City too? My guess is they had 0 deaths.

You're comparing a small country to a big country with varying circumstances.

Anyone remembered what happened to all the unarmed people disliked by the Nazi Party?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by -=Squid=-


In britain handguns are outlawed, and there were under 200 hand gun deaths in one year, as opposed to americas 33000.

eh wrong but thanks for playing.

Gb and Australia both enacted draconian gun laws, and home invasions WHILE THE RESIDENTS WERE HOME shot up to new record highs.

Know why?

Because the criminals KNEW there weren't going to be any guns in the home for defense.

Makes it real convenient for criminals don't it.


Here's my answer to CB's question.

Why do I feel the need to have a gun in the house for self defense?

Because I'd rather the criminal who broke in was shot frigging DEAD than my wife.

Of course this won't satisfy you. Nothing that doesn't agree with whatever drug induced fantasy you happen to occupy does.:rolleyes:

[bornl33t]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife

Of course this won't satisfy you. Nothing that doesn't agree with whatever drug induced fantasy you happen to occupy does.:rolleyes:

heh, finally someone says what I've been thinking all along.

[Collegeboy]

At least you answer the question not completely but you attempted. Why a gun, when you can kill someone with a bat (Or other devices) instead, and they have less repercussions then a gun? Why do you feel this need to kill this guy when most of the world would be sufficient to just get him/her out of the house?

But let me ask you this. Will you be able to use the gun or your wife, or anyone else in the house? I saw a report that said something like the majority (I say majority for i can't remember the exact numbers) of gun owners can't pull a gun on someone else or more or less in the 3 seconds or so it takes for the intruder to come to you pull the trigger with the accuracy or the mental stability to accurately hit the intruder or even to sufficient amount of harm.

[shartley]

I think the big problem with the question is the word “NEED”. Because of that one word, it tosses out the whole question as a valid attempt to gain honest insight.

Why do Automag owners “need” to own an Automag?
Why do I “need” to own a Mustang?
Why do people “need” big TVs?
Why do people “need” to post on AO?
Why do people “need” to own pets?
Why do people “need” to have more than one child?

The list can go on and on… and I think it is pretty obvious that “need” ruins each of the above questions….. And why? Because the issue is not one of “needing”, but of “wanting”, or having the RIGHT to decide that for themselves. It is about the choice people make for themselves and the right to make it.

I think we can all agree that with a little creativity we can turn our homes into “Vietnam themed B rated Movie” compounds, with pongee sticks, pits, logs with spikes that swing from the walls or ceilings, etc. I think we can also agree that a baseball bat can be a great weapon on an intruder…. As well as a crowbar, rope, chairs, hammers, swords, fire pokers, and more things than I feel necessary to list.

The issue is not one of whether Americans feel the “need” to use firearms to protect their homes and families, and that other places DO NOT, but one of choice. Americans feel the NEED to have the CHOICE to defend themselves, their families, and their property with whatever measures they deem necessary and that are protected by the Constitution of the United States.

This does not mean that gun owners are not held accountable for their actions when shooting someone. The same as when a police officer shoots someone. And guess what? The same thing would apply if you hit someone with a ball bat, crowbar, or hammer.

As it stands, we have the RIGHT to own guns, and this is protected by our Constitution, and Bill of Rights. We have the RIGHT to protect ourselves and our families with any and all measures granted by LAW, and that includes firearms. Asking why Americans feel the “need” to own a gun for personal, family, and property protection is just like asking why Americans feel the “need” to drive 65 MPH on a highway with a 65 MPH Speed Limit. It is not a NEED issue, but one of WANT, and being allowed to make the choices that are currently protected by Law. I wonder why Americans feel the “need” to Vote… ;)

Now the issue of why they feel the need for protection of ANY kind is another issue. And THAT has been answered. Guns are only the CHOICE for protection, not the reason for a need… just like laundry detergent…. The question should not be why you “need” one brand over another, but why you need to wash clothes in the first place. The rest is only a choice of what detergent is used, not that the washing is even done, or needs to be.

And I like the fact that in the United States we can choose whatever detergent we want to use, and choose the form of protection we use as long as it is covered by our Laws and Constitution. As for what the rest of the world does….. Does that really matter? Will the rest of the world protect me and my family when/if we are being robbed, attacked, etc.? Do criminals care what the rest of the world thinks or uses to protect (or NOT protect) themselves with? The answer to these questions is “Not likely.”

Law abiding citizens don’t “need” to answer to anyone as to their reasons for owning guns. And I know people who don’t own a single gun who are FAR more scared of crime than any of the people I know that DO own guns. And most of the people I know would like to be as well armed, if not MORE so, than those that would try to take what they have, hurt them, etc.

It is also brought up about accuracy of firearms and the ability to use them affectively under pressure (or not)…. The same can be said for everything from knives to ball bats. Any weapon a person chooses to use to protect themselves can be affective, or ineffective. And I always suggest that folks take lessons to use whatever “weapon” they choose to use as their main source of protection, more so if it is a firearm.

And think about it, there is a reason why Police Officers in the US carry guns and not just Billy Clubs. Do they also carry “stick” forms of weapons? Yup, most do (and now mace).

So, we now would suggest that the citizens of our nation have less of a right to protect themselves from criminals than our police do? Our citizens should not be given the same opportunity for “levels of force” than our police have? I think if you can answer why our Police carry firearms you will answer why the American People deserve the right to choose to own them as well. Police protect our communities (when they can), but don’t patrol our homes and property….. WE DO. ;)

[Collegeboy]

Ok then let me rephrase this. Why do Americans choose to use a gun to protect their house when most of the world doesn’t?

It takes more mental power to shoot someone with a gun then it does to beat them over the head with a bat.

As for me, I rather use a bat then my gun for I feel that since most of the robbers are unarmed and are unwilling to get involved in a shot out , I feel I am protecting myself more by not bringing a gun into the equation then by having one. With the laws the way they are now a robber would be stupid to bring a gun into a robbery.

[-Carnifex-]

Personally I prefer knives and bats, they're so much more personal.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Ok then let me rephrase this. Why do Americans choose to use a gun to protect their house when most of the world doesn’t?

It takes more mental power to shoot someone with a gun then it does to beat them over the head with a bat.

As for me, I rather use a bat then my gun for I feel that since most of the robbers are unarmed and are unwilling to get involved in a shot out , I feel I am protecting myself more by not bringing a gun into the equation then by having one. With the laws the way they are now a robber would be stupid to bring a gun into a robbery.
Because we have the CHOICE to do so. And that choice is protected by our Constitution.

As for mental power…. What? I have extensive firearms training and have been an instructor, and I can tell you without a doubt that using ANY weapon when trained to do so takes about the same “mental power” as any other…. And when trained correctly and you are familiar with the weapon, it takes very little “mental power” (and most of the time NONE) to use it. And you said you own a gun?

Using any weapon for self protection should be instinctive and automatic… period. You are not out target shooting, playing a video game, or anything else…. you are protecting your life, family and possessions. And the same “mental power” that would get you hurt while using a gun would get you hurt while using a ball bat, knife, or anything else.

I am also glad you feel the way you do. I am also glad that you have that right. But just because you feel that way does not mean it is the only way to feel, or the CORRECT way to feel. What if someone who feels that using ball bats should not be a choice for you to choose from? Heck, much of the world does not even HAVE ball bats. ;)

Also, your idea that “most” robbers are unarmed will most likely get YOU killed if a robbery is botched. And guess what? What you think is stupid to do while committing a CRIME is not the top priority for a criminal who IS committing a crime. LOL Oh, but that all hinges on your idea that the world works on “logic”, “reasoning”, and “rationale”. Sorry CB, but all that goes out the window when dealing with CRIMINALS. LOL

It is about CHOICE my friend, CHOICE. And whether you feel you need something or not does not mean those who DO are wrong, or should not. That is one of the great things about our country…. Our RIGHTS. And the same rights that cover your choice to use a bat for protection covers those who choose a gun. And why would it matter to you? Why would it matter to ANYONE what folks use to PROTECT themselves with? LOL Criminals should be the only people even slightly worried about that issue. And they are the BAD GUYS!!!! ;)

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Ok then let me rephrase this. Why do Americans choose to use a gun to protect their house when most of the world doesn’t?



Because my 5'6" wife with a bat could not fend off a 6'5" large male intruder. To protect herself and my children, she can defeat that intruder with my Glock 17. The gun is the equalizer that a bat or knife can not be. It can allow a much smaller and weaker person fend off a larger and stronger attacker!

[Russ]

Thanks Sam, for expressing my point far more eloquently than I could've.

[Collegeboy]

I do own a gun, I own a 12 gauge over and under shotgun which I use to shoot skeet, trap, clay etc..... with. And by owning and shooting my gun I know there is a difference from clay targets, or paper targets, or that diet coke can then from a real life breathing person that is one second away from you.

They recently did a TV show that said most buglers will run away by a light coming on or a sound. And given that most burglaries are not armed (for it means extended stay if they were) means that by pulling out a gun you are introducing them to a weapon now. If you fire that weapon at them then good (You will be in trouble but you are safe), but if you freeze up in that 2 seconds or so it takes the burglary to reach you you are dead. No amount of training on a gun, no amount of shooting paper targets can train someone for that 2 second or so time frame where they shoot or not.

But this is not the question being asked. Why do Americans feel they need a gun for protection, when many if not most foreigners feel the opposite.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I do own a gun, I own a 12 gauge over and under shotgun which I use to shoot skeet, trap, clay etc..... with. And by owning and shooting my gun I know there is a difference from clay targets, or paper targets, or that diet coke can then from a real life breathing person that is one second away from you.

They recently did a TV show that said most buglers will run away by a light coming on or a sound. And given that most burglaries are not armed (for it means extended stay if they were) means that by pulling out a gun you are introducing them to a weapon now. If you fire that weapon at them then good (You will be in trouble but you are safe), but if you freeze up in that 2 seconds or so it takes the burglary to reach you you are dead. No amount of training on a gun, no amount of shooting paper targets can train someone for that 2 second or so time frame where they shoot or not.

But this is not the question being asked. Why do Americans feel they need a gun for protection, when many if not most foreigners feel the opposite.
Go ahead and put your life on what you saw on a TV show. That is YOUR right. I choose not to make that gamble with my life or that of my family. But to each their own.

And guess what? If you fire a weapon at a burglar and he/she is NOT armed, but you THOUGHT they were, you will not be in that “trouble” you claim folks will be in. The issue is whether you THINK they are, not if they ARE. ;) If you have reasonable reason to believe they pose a serious threat to you and your family, whether they are armed or not does not really make that big of a difference.

You are also assuming that EVERYONE will freeze when the time comes to shoot. That is an assumption that I would not want to put MY life on the line for if someone was pointing a gun at me… or I knew/thought they had one.

And you are not even taking into account that it is ALWAYS a good idea to make your intentions well known and give an intruder the chance to get out. Most of the time they WILL get out. And who said folks would NOT turn on a light? Who said folks would NOT make a sound? You assume a lot for the sake of argument. Even more so when the SAME arguments could be used no matter WHAT weapon you chose to defend yourself and property with, including your bat.

And then you come back and ask the SAME question you keep asking, and that has been answered time and time again, by more than one person, and in more than one way. And you ignore the FACT that choosing a gun for protection does not in itself mean folks feel they NEED it. They WANT it. Do you NEED the exact car you drive (if you drive one), or could you use another type of car? Do you NEED the exact TV you have, or would a smaller one work? You sure like to confuse issues a lot, again for the sake of argument alone.

And since when did YOU know what MOST foreigners feel? Because they don’t use guns for protection that means they don’t WANT to, or they wouldn’t if given the CHOICE? Interesting…

Tell you what CB… why don’t you just tell us all what YOU want to hear and I will more than gladly type it out for you word for word… because no matter how many times people tell you EXACTLY what you have asked them to tell you, you claim they haven’t.

[Russ]

Why do Americans feel they need a gun for protection, when many if not most foreigners feel the opposite. You keep asking, you keep getting answers (from a few of us). Why? It's the best tool for the job, IMO.

So,I guess I'll keep asking you, WHAT foreigners? many to most? The only other country I've read about is England & Australia...that ain't "most".

It seems to me that you are just trolling at this point...

[Russ]

Sam, you beat me to this time :)

[Collegeboy]

No one has said why Americans need/want a gun to protect them from burglaries and most foreigners don't. They say why they want one, but not what makes most Americans feel that way and most foreigners feel differently.

As to how I know this, it comes from experiences with foreigners from all walks of this earth. Many of which comes over the net, the rest come from personal experience.

[Skreemer]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

But this is not the question being asked. Why do Americans feel they need a gun for protection, when many if not most foreigners feel the opposite.

Then again how many foreigners have you interviewed and asked, "If being attacked in your home by an unknown person armed with an unknown weapon, and given the choice between knife, bat, or gun which would you choose?"


Someone else has said it and it brings to mind an old advertising quote, "God created man, Samuel Colt made then equal."

A gun is the weapon of choice for those that have that option because for the most part, it is an equalizer. You also mention that the person might freeze up or hesitate, the natural fight or flight response. This response would happen if the person is faced with some other critical and immediate descision. A car pulls out in front of you when you're traveling at 70MPH, what do you do? Some would swerve, some would slam on the brake, and others would do a combination of the two, and then again there are other folks out there that will freeze up with thier foot on the gas and plow right into the obstacle. How do we lessen the probability of that happening? Training and constant conditioning in both mindset and body.

The reason Americans choose a gun over other forms of protection? Simple, we have that choice. It's ingrained in our society that a gun equals freedom of one sort or another. While we have a gun and the right to choose no one can force us to thier will. The gun can almost (not always) mean that might does not always equal right. The reason most Europeans won't make the same choice, is because they don't have that choice.


a side note: For all the folks that point out how great gun control is take a look at a few places on the map: Northern Ireland, That little pre-school in england that got shot up buy a guy that bought and illegal handgun, Beirut, France sometime last year where an Armored car was attacked with RPG's and then the remainder of the guards were gunned down, The british MI6 building where some dissedent launched an RPG at it, The prison in France where there was an RPG attack on it and prisoners were freed. What's up with this? When will these countries get around to banning RPGs? Why is the RPG a weapon of choice for these acts?

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
No one has said why Americans need/want a gun to protect them from burglaries and most foreigners don't. They say why they want one, but not what makes most Americans feel that way and most foreigners feel differently.

As to how I know this, it comes from experiences with foreigners from all walks of this earth. Many of which comes over the net, the rest come from personal experience.
What? LOL You are a walking contradiction.

You first say no one told you why AMERICANS want the guns, then say they DO tell you why they want one… but then that we Americans are not speaking for the rest of the world on the matter and how THEY feel. LOL I can’t speak for someone in another country on THAT matter because they never TOLD me. I can only look at what choices they HAVE, the types of crime they have, the law enforcement they have, the punishments for crimes they have, and THEN try to make a rational and logical theory as to how they MAY feel…. But still not truly know.

But YOU on the other hand have so much experience with what you read on the internet, what some foreigners tell you (which are a VERY small slice of a BIG world… LOL). Heck, you can’t get 50 Americans in a room and have them agree on every issue, what makes you think that the little bit you have seen represents anything substantial? Oh, I know why… because you think it somehow proves you are right.

Why don’t YOU tell us what YOU think is the reason? Why don’t YOU tell us what YOU think the rest of the world thinks? Simply put, no matter how many times we answer your question, you want to claim we didn’t (even though in your first paragraph above, you said BOTH that we didn’t, and that we did… LOL).

[Collegeboy]

You know that reading comprehension class, you might want to take it.

I said that no one has said why Americans feel they need a gun while many foreigners feel they don't.

I then said all that has been said was why you feel you need a gun. But no one has said what makes Americans different in that feeling.

People in GB can own a gun or a hand gun, (single shot 12 gauge shotgun, or a 22 caliber pistol) yet everyone I have talked too from GB, including my relatives, all said that they chose not to use a gun as protection. Why is that if it is so good at protecting your family and your house?

My idea is it is culture. In America people grow up loving a gun, thinking it is great and should be respected, they are constantly being reminded that it is our right to own a gun. People are told of how in the Am. Rev. War it was farmers with their shotguns that defeated the Brits (over exaggeration but ok). While in other countries the gun is looked at as an evil incarnation that shouldn't be in the hands of the general populace.

This is the idea I think that was trying to be portrayed in MM film. But no people tried to discredit the author instead of discrediting the text.

So I would still like to know why you all think that Americans turn to a gun for protection when most of the world wouldn't.

[Army]

3/4 of the world, has been under a King or some sort of Monarchy, that has always kept the commoners unarmed,for fear of insurection to the crown.

The crown has been well protected by it's very own personal army for many centuries, and crime was always punished by swift death, or the "dungeons". European mentality on personal safety has been to cower and/or run when confronted by evil people. The thought train has been; "The Kings men will save me, for I am unarmed and powerless to do anything to stop evil."

3/4 of the world STILL has this mentality when it comes to personal defense. Let's look at England...(again, sorry my Brit friends)...If you are confronted by an armed bad guy (knife, bootjack, club, doesn't matter), and you defend yourself to the point of physically harming that bad guy, YOU will be charged with assault! If you use anything that can be construed as a weapon, additional charges will be filed AGAINST YOU. Now, you tell me what incentive Europe has to defend themselves at all? (BTW, that scenario comes from a true case of an elderly gentleman beating the crap out of a hooligan with an umbrella, used like a sword, when he tried to rob the otherwise law-abiding gentleman.) England has laws that confiscated nearly all firearms, including most airguns, that have resulted in the rocketing crime rates they now enjoy, while our crime rates have steadily fallen as private gun ownership has risen.

THAT'S why America thinks differently from "the rest of the world" when it comes to personal defense. There's your answer, which requires no more questions from you. It's all spelled out completely, with no need to twist my words into the blather you enjoy posting.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must measure the rooms in my house for firing lanes.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
You know that reading comprehension class, you might want to take it.

I said that no one has said why Americans feel they need a gun while many foreigners feel they don't.

I then said all that has been said was why you feel you need a gun. But no one has said what makes Americans different in that feeling.

People in GB can own a gun or a hand gun, (single shot 12 gauge shotgun, or a 22 caliber pistol) yet everyone I have talked too from GB, including my relatives, all said that they chose not to use a gun as protection. Why is that if it is so good at protecting your family and your house?

My idea is it is culture. In America people grow up loving a gun, thinking it is great and should be respected, they are constantly being reminded that it is our right to own a gun. People are told of how in the Am. Rev. War it was farmers with their shotguns that defeated the Brits (over exaggeration but ok). While in other countries the gun is looked at as an evil incarnation that shouldn't be in the hands of the general populace.

This is the idea I think that was trying to be portrayed in MM film. But no people tried to discredit the author instead of discrediting the text.

So I would still like to know why you all think that Americans turn to a gun for protection when most of the world wouldn't.
That is NOT what you said. Sorry. And you keep saying NEED. LOL You sure like that word, it puts a spin on the issue that has already been removed… but you want to keep putting it in there.

Also how many times has cultural reasons been given? But you missed that….. again and again….

And how many times are OTHER reasons given for the differences? But you missed them too… again and again…

You use your LIMITED interaction with people from another country as your basis for your OPINIONS…. Oh well. But you are the educated one aren’t you…..

You are trolling, nothing more…….. good day.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Army
3/4 of the world, has been under a King or some sort of Monarchy, that has always kept the commoners unarmed,for fear of insurection to the crown.

The crown has been well protected by it's very own personal army for many centuries, and crime was always punished by swift death, or the "dungeons". European mentality on personal safety has been to cower and/or run when confronted by evil people. The thought train has been; "The Kings men will save me, for I am unarmed and powerless to do anything to stop evil."

3/4 of the world STILL has this mentality when it comes to personal defense. Let's look at England...(again, sorry my Brit friends)...If you are confronted by an armed bad guy (knife, bootjack, club, doesn't matter), and you defend yourself to the point of physically harming that bad guy, YOU will be charged with assault! If you use anything that can be construed as a weapon, additional charges will be filed AGAINST YOU. Now, you tell me what incentive Europe has to defend themselves at all? (BTW, that scenario comes from a true case of an elderly gentleman beating the crap out of a hooligan with an umbrella, used like a sword, when he tried to rob the otherwise law-abiding gentleman.) England has laws that confiscated nearly all firearms, including most airguns, that have resulted in the rocketing crime rates they now enjoy, while our crime rates have steadily fallen as private gun ownership has risen.

THAT'S why America thinks differently from "the rest of the world" when it comes to personal defense. There's your answer, which requires no more questions from you. It's all spelled out completely, with no need to twist my words into the blather you enjoy posting.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must measure the rooms in my house for firing lanes.

Finally someone has answered the question with their opinion. It only took 4 pages or so.

But why would I twist your words around, I just want people’s opinions.

If I wanted an argument I would argue the right to own a gun or not, but I don't want an argument.

[nerobro]

Lets change the point of view. It appears (at least in the last few posts) that the arguement has been going towards the "why people SHOULD be allowed to have guns" argument.

Lets go the other way. Why shoudln't they be allowed to have firearms. Look at it this way. People who SHOULD have guns probally will buy them and keep them responcably. People who are scared of them, and don't like them, won't buy them on their own.

The biggest issue I see is the LACK of a properly armed populace. One guy with a gun, can turn any situation into one HE owns in this day and age. One gun on an airplane. One gun on a rail car. One gun in a corperate office. Heck, even one gun in a goverment office.

Making sure that there's less than one complete gun in any situation is a very very difficult deed. A much simpler task is to make sure you know you have at least one, preferably more guns in your control. Given the person who wants to do a bad deed knows this fact, and doesn't want to die, he will not use his wepon. Given he has decided that death is ok, he may get his job done, but he will also be removed from the gene pool. It would take time for this to work.... But eventually guns would no longer be the problem. IE countries like switzerland, or isreal.

Guns are only a problem if they are in the minority.

Now people seem to want to keep guns away to keep kids safe, beucase they'll do something bad with a gun. School shootings only happen with kids who haven't been brought up around guns. Or it's a teacher or parent or some other adult coming to the school to kill. Now if people were allowed to carry guns...... a person like that would be stopped before to many people were killed.

So many situations could be avoided if people were scared to use guns. Right now, you could brandish a firearm just about anywhere, expect to do what you wanted to do, before retaliation of some sort. Think about columbine, if the teachers were armed, the boys would have been stopped darned near imedately. The 9-11 airliners would have been stopped.

You can't get away with the kind of gun related violence that we see in the news if the guy next to you is armed.

Back on to the point I was trying to make though. The main arguements for peopel not being alowed to own guns seem to focus around the idea that they aren't responcable enough to handle a gun.

By that logic, becuase I might have a child in the house, I shouldn't be allowed to own any strong cleaning products; for fear of the child consuming them or their wastes. I shouldn't be allowed to have a basement or a seccond story; for fear I might let the child go down stairs or go up stairs and fall out a window, or fall down the same stairs they climed. I shouldn't be allowed to own a car becuase I might kill myself, my child, or another with it.

I'm not allowed to own a gun because I MIGHT kill someone with it. Look at the number of people murdered each year with a gun. Then look at the number of pedestrians killed in car accidents. I mention pedestrians becuase otherwise the comparison would be talking about gunfights, instead of accidental shootings. (we can never really solve murder.... people will always kill people. rocks, knives, chemicals, fists, garottes, nooses, what have you. We will find a way to kill each other.)

I don't mind needing to have a cheap[/free licence to own a gun. I think that's fair, given I need a licence to own a car.

I think I really needed an outline on this.... Maybe I didn't make to much sence here. (and these freaking small windows down't help)

Long story short, is that untill proven otherwise, you should be allowed to own a gun.

As for the comment that the rest of the world doesn't choose to guard their home with guns, go and try to break into a house anyhere in south america or aftrica. Or anywhere in the middle east for that matter. I'll garuntee you're met with the muzzle of some AK clone.

[Rooster]

"Why dont you actually read the whole thing before you pass judgement? Im not going to even remotely consider thinking over this reply which merely was written on a pick and choose basis, reading, remember, what you want to. The dumbest thing? Why dont you actually back up your immature comments by telling me WHY its the dumbest thing, rather than some off topic meaningless crowbar story? You never even said why it was "teh dumbest thing ever!!!1!1!" Why dont you be a little more thorough in your useless replies next time eh?"

Your ignorant post didn't deserve a more meaningful responce. This one doesn't either.

[Army]

Uh-Uh CB, I answered your original question a while ago, now I answered your edited question...just like everyone else has.

Do not call that my "opinion" either, what I wrote is fact. See? You did twist my words.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Army

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must measure the rooms in my house for firing lanes.

HOORAH!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Army
Uh-Uh CB, I answered your original question a while ago, now I answered your edited question...just like everyone else has.

Do not call that my "opinion" either, what I wrote is fact. See? You did twist my words.

Amen Army, amen! I think many of us have. My 5'6" wife versus a 6'5" intruder is all the reason I may ever need. Like was said earlier, God did not make men equal, Samuel Colt did!

Whether a 5' weakling or a 7' monster, a firearm is the only way to have a level field.

CB, if you could see past your need to argue, you would see that your question was answered many times over here.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Army
Uh-Uh CB, I answered your original question a while ago, now I answered your edited question...just like everyone else has.

Do not call that my "opinion" either, what I wrote is fact. See? You did twist my words.

My question has been the same since the begining I do beleive.

And no that is your opinion.

[shartley]

Yeah Army, it is your opinion… it is only fact if CB or someone CB wants to use a source says so. Silly you……

[Rebel46_99]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


And no that is your opinion.

And WHERE exactly do you get your "facts"?

Oh yeah, wait! You "read" it somewhere, that's right.

[Collegeboy]

AH so I get it, you all don't really care what the person says just who says it.

What Army said was clearly an opinion. What I said above is my opinion. Easy as that.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
AH so I get it, you all don't really care what the person says just who says it.

What Army said was clearly an opinion. What I said above is my opinion. Easy as that.

Well here is a fact. Without a handgun, my 5'6" wife could not handle a 6'5" intruder. With that Glock, if I am not home, she can handle herself and protect our children. That damn simple!

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Well here is a fact. Without a handgun, my 5'6" wife could not handle a 6'5" intruder. With that Glock, if I am not home, she can handle herself and protect our children. That damn simple!

And that is your opinion. A 6'5" intruder can be handled very easy by a 5'6" woman without the needs of a gun. How do all the woman in other countries do it?

[bornl33t]

why guns?
a.) because we can
b.) because we like them... they are like sports cars EVERYONE wants a cool one
c.) sport like paintball
d.) to shoot intruders...... because we Americans as philosophy choise to do something about a problem rather then sit back and let someone else do the job. Americans don't like to feel helpless. Trust me, ppl in England, Germany, Australia WISH that they could do something other then calling 911 or their prospective counterpart and hopeing the door will hold. In this Americans are unique.

I think those 4 reasons justify gun owership.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


And that is your opinion. A 6'5" intruder can be handled very easy by a 5'6" woman without the needs of a gun. How do all the woman in other countries do it?

Massive amounts of armpit hair and a vile body odor.

Our women bathe.

You fail to grasp the simple fact, it's nobody's damned business why we choose to have a gun in the house over any other means of self defense.

I don't give two hoots in hell why any other country does or does not choose to.

My RIGHT to carry and own a firearm is an ENUMERATED right in the Constitution.

Period.

[bornl33t]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


And that is your opinion. A 6'5" intruder can be handled very easy by a 5'6" woman without the needs of a gun. How do all the woman in other countries do it?

they don't watch the Eruopean vers of americas most wanted... Also you gotta remember houses in Europe are solid brick with THICK doors bars over the windows double locking dea bolts :D

[aaron_mag]

Wow. Hadn't noticed this thread but any gun control thread is bound to cause controversy. In my family there are two gun nuts (my brother and my father) and one who is not too fond of guns (myself). They even have AK-47s and AR-15s.

My take on it is this....do people NEED guns like that AK-47 and the AR-15? Of course they do not need them. Should they be easily accessible for every idiot? Of course not. Here is the twist, however. Do people need paintball guns? Of course not and there are plenty of idiots that should not have them.

Unfortunately there is no way to segregate one from the others. I believe that recreational shooters have a right to participate in their sport in a safe and responsible manner just as I believe that paintball players have a right to do the same. To take away the rights of the majority based on the actions of a very small minority is tyranny of the minority to the extreme!

Lets look at an analogy. Someone has a communicable disease like aids. In a sense they can be a biological weapon so they should be locked up right? Of course we do not believe this because taking away the freedom of an individual based on a hypothetical danger is ridiculous! For me the same logic applies to rabid gun control. We will not have made ourselves any safer but just less free.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


And that is your opinion. A 6'5" intruder can be handled very easy by a 5'6" woman without the needs of a gun. How do all the woman in other countries do it?

How pray tell master of all knowledge? My wife has two little ones to care for. She doesn't have time to take martial arts lessons. Also if there are more then on intruder? Again the gun is the equalizer. There is no other form of defense that so levels the playing field. Take my sister-in-law for example, she is tiny. I could let her take a whack at me with a baseball bat and walk right through it. Can't walk through a bullet!:p ;)

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


And that is your opinion. A 6'5" intruder can be handled very easy by a 5'6" woman without the needs of a gun. How do all the woman in other countries do it?

If a 200 lb male wanted to rape and kill a 130lb female, this could not be done because the female would be able to run away, overpower the male, find help before he could do so, or figure out some other means of dealing with the situation. This is the reason why women are neither raped, nor killed by men. This also means that, every man in jail for raping or killing a woman is innocent, because this simply cannot be done. Men particularly in other countries are especially innocent because women in other countries can deal with them. If women in other countries can do this, why can't U.S. women do it? This is because, guns are allowed in the U.S., whereas countries that do not allow guns have women who can fend off attackers because of this.

So, again... Why do Americans feel as though they need guns when other countries do fine w/o them?

This is reality -> X













This is where you are -> &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp X

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


How pray tell master of all knowledge? My wife has two little ones to care for. She doesn't have time to take martial arts lessons. Also if there are more then on intruder? Again the gun is the equalizer. There is no other form of defense that so levels the playing field. Take my sister-in-law for example, she is tiny. I could let her take a whack at me with a baseball bat and walk right through it. Can't walk through a bullet!:p ;)

1de is right about this. First off CB I believe that you are a good sized male so you don't know what it is like to be smaller. I have been in the martial arts since I was a kid and I can tell you that size and athletic ability make a big difference. For awhile I did full contact kick boxing and I was around 180 and in pretty good shape. They used to throw me in there with a guy who had 50 pounds on me and I used to spend the rounds running like a chicken with my head cut off to make sure he didn't get in a good shot on me. This is the reason they don't put middle weight fighters in with heavy weight fighters in boxing. To argue that a smaller person in general will have no trouble defending themselves from a larger and stronger opponent is ridiculous. I like martial arts movies as much as the next guy but I can recognize the difference between fantasy and reality! :D

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


And that is your opinion. A 6'5" intruder can be handled very easy by a 5'6" woman without the needs of a gun. How do all the woman in other countries do it?

BOSNIA!

Yep, all of those innocent Muslim women that were raped and murdered by Serb death squads handled themselves just fine without guns didn't they? Do you think that civil war would have been different had the muslims been armed from the start? I bet the people in that foreign country wanted guns to protect themselves and their families.

Nigeria

How about the civil unrest there last year when the muslims in the north went on a killing and burning rampage? Do you think all of their christian victims would have liked a gun? Think that would have made a difference.

I could go on and on with examples. Also, don't compare us to Europe. It is not a valid comparrison. European countries are in general much older then the US. The US is a baby in the eyes of the world. Further, Europe has a much greater degree of homogeny then the US. Our diversity makes us strong, but also causes rifts. We have the right to defend our selves with firearms against danger. In Bosnia, those ethnic rifts caused mass murder. Why? The general population was unarmed. Again because of "America's Love Affair with the Gun" this can never happen in America. WE CAN FIGHT BACK!

[CasingBill]

CB...if you really want to know why other poeple in other countries don't have this percieved(on your part)fear, then why don't you go there and find out?? I think you owe it to yourself since you seem so bent on this quest for your version of truth.

Our founding fathers had the foresight to realize that a people who could not protect themselves from a tyrannical government would eventually find themselves in the predicament they were trying to avoid. Hitler and Nazis are the perfect example.

If all guns are outlawed in GB and Australia, how is it possible that there are still gun crimes?? It can't be!:confused: Do you mean to tell me that criminals still have guns? The perfect reason why we should all have the right to own guns. The bumper sticker is right. When guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns.

Side note: In NYC they are trying to ban the sale of paintball guns because they resemble real guns.

How do you propose my 88 year old grandfather protect himself in his house? If an intruder breaks into his house, how can he defend himself? He can't even get out of bed. But I bet he can reach over to his night stand and hit whoever comes into his bedroom with a .38.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
I could go on and on with examples. Also, don't compare us to Europe. It is not a valid comparrison. European countries are in general much older then the US. The US is a baby in the eyes of the world. Further, Europe has a much greater degree of homogeny then the US. Our diversity makes us strong, but also causes rifts. We have the right to defend our selves with firearms against danger. In Bosnia, those ethnic rifts caused mass murder. Why? The general population was unarmed. Again because of "America's Love Affair with the Gun" this can never happen in America. WE CAN FIGHT BACK!

Now I got to call you on this BS! We do not have mass murder due to our ethnic rifts because of an armed populace? That is just ridiculous. How about we don't kill each other because of ethnic rifts because our culture promotes acceptance. How about because we have a stable economic and political system?

Do not compare us with Europe? Europe is a good comparison with the United States. Don't forget that Germany had its own Columbine type events.

Europe also has strong cultural traditions and has a right to those strong cultural traditions. Guess what? America has a cultural history and that includes the mid west and hunting. Should mid westerners be forced to give up their cultural heritage? This is the argument that holds weight for me.

To say that I need a gun in America while I don't need one in Europe because here we have ethnic diversity and there they do not is absurd. It implies that we are less cohesive as a society than European countries which is certainly not true. You also mention that we are a new country versus the European countries. Are you advocating that guns should be banned more and more as the United States ages as a country? I thought not....

[CasingBill]

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/deadhand.jpg

[Collegeboy]

I am a 6'4 300 pound man who is presently walking around on one leg. Being a big guy I know that a 5'6 woman with a baseball bat or any hard stick that hits me in the head or in the knee or in any other vital area (I am not going to mention that other area) will be able to take me out easy.

People in GB and Oz can own a gun yet most choose not to own one in their house for protection. People in Germany can own a gun (for sporting purposes) yet most choose not to use one for protection. Why?? Why are Americans so obsessed with the gun?? These are all questions which MM set out to answer in his documentary.

Miscue. Maybe the female had no means of protection around her. You assume that if she would of had a gun with her then everything would have been fine. But chances are the woman wouldn't even use the gun, and be in more trouble with it then without it.

I have no idea where you get this reality and me being far from it bit. Why don't you try and answer the question before you go spouting of.

[CasingBill]

If you check the stats. All other crimes in GB and Australia have increased. Why? Because good citizens have lost there means of protection. crime stats (http://www.truepatriot.com/australia_crime_page.html)

[Skreemer]

For all the folks that point out how great gun control is take a look at a few places on the map:
Northern Ireland,
That little pre-school in england that got shot up buy a guy that bought and illegal handgun,
Beirut,
France sometime last year where an Armored car was attacked with RPG's and then the remainder of the guards were gunned down,
The british MI6 building where some dissedent launched an RPG at it,
The prison in France where there was an RPG attack on it and prisoners were freed.

What's up with this? When will these countries get around to banning RPGs? Why is the RPG a weapon of choice for these acts?

Isn't it amazing how gun control works?
Oh and for those that keep bringing up the same question over and over again that has been answered with many opinions. How do you describe that you "want" something? How do you personally describe you "need" to have one thing over another when there are many alternatives?

[aaron_mag]

I actually partially agree with CB on the whole self defense issue. If the primary reason for owning a gun is self defense why not allow one type and bann assualt rifles like the AR-15. Lets allow people to have one good brand of American pistol and ban everything else. This should take care of people who are worried about self defense.

Now I don't really believe that we should follow a policy like the one above. This is because I don't think the primary reason gun owners want guns is for self defense. The real truth is that they are sportsman and enjoy shooting for its own sake. They enjoy several varieties of firearms because the are aficianados of fire arm engineering. The self defense argument is very limited. The argument for me is that hunting/sports shooting is a recreation that 99.5% of the participants practice in a safe manner (much like paintball). To punish legitimate users for the actions of those that usually purchased the fire arms illegally doesn't make much sense.

EDIT: Of greater interest is what do you do with people who are irresponsible for guns. How about the guy who illegally gave the guns to the Columbine shooters? How about the guy who loaned his AR-15 to the DC sniper. Is it okay to casually loan these weapons? What do people think about these issues?

[Russ]

aaron-mag,

If I loan you my car, then you get drunk and crash into a schoolbus killing 9 children...should that be MY fault?

[Smegma]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
...chances are the woman wouldn't even use the gun, and be in more trouble with it then without it. [/B]

"Chances are", how the heck do you know the chances. You're saying that the woman would rather go defenseless and risk death than using a gun, I doubt that.

[Smegma]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
I actually partially agree with CB on the whole self defense issue. If the primary reason for owning a gun is self defense why not allow one type and bann assualt rifles like the AR-15. Lets allow people to have one good brand of American pistol and ban everything else. This should take care of people who are worried about self defense.

True dat, but for your information, nearly all of the modern AR-15 rifles that you speak of have fixed magazines and cannot be used as an assualt rifle (not many rounds to spray). Other such "assualt rifles" are nearly impossible to get LEGALLY (class III liscense exlcuded) and almost all of these types of weapons are banned, or modified to a certain extent to where they would make impractical assualt rifles (capacity restricitions). If your gonna ban everything else, at least ban everything but shotguns. Those are truely the best home defense weapons.

** I live in Califorina, im only telling you what I know here.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Smegma


"Chances are", how the heck do you know the chances. You're saying that the woman would rather go defenseless and risk death than using a gun, I doubt that.

There is a difference between defenseless and not having a gun. If you have a gun you better use it, if not you have just committed suicide, or just given the criminal a weapon and a purpose to kill you.

I wonder how those IRA members get their guns. :rolleyes: I have a personal hatred of the IRA if you can't tell.

And no beside Army no one has answered the complete question.

[aaron_mag]

Russ-

I think that guns are different than cars. I am not saying that those that loan guns should be punished but bringing it up as a discussion point. Most gun owners I know are very respectable and have had training in safety. They have also had to register the gun. Should they then turn around and loan it to someone else? Of particular interest is when they loan someone a gun and they take disappear (as with the Washington Sniper)? Should the gun owner report the disappearance to the authorities? Again I don't know the answer just bringing up a point.

Smegma- My point is that people who enjoy guns don't really buy them purely for self defense. Otherwise one would be good enough but instead they typically buy several different types (much like paintball players). I think self defense is a limited argument for not having gun control. I don't believe in banning guns but it is not because of self defense.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

Miscue. Maybe the female had no means of protection around her. You assume that if she would of had a gun with her then everything would have been fine. But chances are the woman wouldn't even use the gun, and be in more trouble with it then without it.



That's the whole point! She has no means to protect herself. And it's not just 'she' but anyone who is unarmed and confronted by an attacker.

I am NOT assuming that having a gun would make things fine. Your words, not mine. This is like assuming a safety belt will keep you from getting killed in an accident. It is a protective measure intended to help you to preserve your life... but it is not and end-all solution.

Chances are she wouldn't use the gun? Why, because she is a woman? I won't entertain a comment on this.

Now, I agree that guns do not belong in the hands of people ill-equipped to use them... this includes men and women... and, this is OBVIOUS.

.
.
.

You get into a "severe" head-on collision:

You have no seatbelt - You are DEAD!
You have a seatbelt - Chances of survival increased. Failure is possible.

You are skydiving:

You have no parachute - You are DEAD!
You have a parachute - Chances of survival increased. Failure is possible.

Someone is intent on killing you and your family in your home:

You have no gun - You are DEAD! Your wife is DEAD! Your kids are DEAD! The investigators get to scrape parts of your son's scattered pinkish-grey brain off the wall, collect the pieces of your dripping entrails in plastic baggies, and photograph a trail of blood across the kitchen floor that ends in a pool with your wife laying in it... a phone lays next to her but the 911 operator has only the sounds of rustling on her tape because your wife had too much blood in her lungs to even audibly gasp.

You have a gun - You and your family's chances of survival increase. Closed-casket funeral is still possible.

[aaron_mag]

Miscue-

As usual you give us a very strange but brilliant post. Don't know whether to be admire the precise logic of your posts or be disturbed by the gritty way you push your point home!:D

[Collegeboy]

If you have someone intent on killing you and your family then you fall into the vast vast vast minority of cases where this happens.

Ok but throwing out percentages on the slim chance that this happens what will happen because of this. If the guy is intent on killing you then he will, he will be prepared, and nothing you can do can stop him. You might get a shot off, but by the time you see him, he would have seen you and that is it.

Now on the off chance that a burglar enters your house with a gun what is going to happen if you pull out your gun. A gun fight will take place. Either you kill him or he kills you and your family. But if you don't bring a gun into the equation, you can call 911 and hide, then he will take your possessions, and leave. Now on the off chance that he finds you, you can be ready with a bat.

Are you willing to put your families life in danger for your need to have a gun for protection.

My comment was designated to the majority of people IMO. In the 2 seconds it takes for a criminal to reach you, how many people do you think can accurately shoot a gun and hit the criminal in the right area, and can even bring themselves to fire the gun. What happens if in the heat of the moment the finger switches the safety on (Or if you keep the safety on, what happens if you don't take it off).

There are too many factors involved in using a gun for me to trust the protection of my family with it. I know I can swing a bat at someone, I know there is no safety to mess with; I know I can hit them.


But again this is not the question I asked.

[Rooster]

"People in GB and Oz can own a gun yet most choose not to own one in their house for protection. People in Germany can own a gun (for sporting purposes) yet most choose not to use one for protection. Why?? Why are Americans so obsessed with the gun?? These are all questions which MM set out to answer in his documentary."


So becuase these people are dumb enough to bring a ball-bat to a gun fight, we should be a dumb? Why do we feel the need to own handguns? Becuase its the most powerful tool of self-defence we can legally get our hands on. Why settle for crap when you can have the best? Why do I have a gun? Becuase the law says a gun is the most powerful weapon I can legally own. So I'm not going to waste my time with a stick.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Rooster
"People in GB and Oz can own a gun yet most choose not to own one in their house for protection. People in Germany can own a gun (for sporting purposes) yet most choose not to use one for protection. Why?? Why are Americans so obsessed with the gun?? These are all questions which MM set out to answer in his documentary."


So becuase these people are dumb enough to bring a ball-bat to a gun fight, we should be a dumb? Why do we feel the need to own handguns? Becuase its the most powerful tool of self-defence we can legally get our hands on. Why settle for crap when you can have the best? Why do I have a gun? Becuase the law says a gun is the most powerful weapon I can legally own. So I'm not going to waste my time with a stick.

Read my above statement. What will the introduction of another gun do. It will create a gun fight. But without it, you might survive.

[Miscue]

I'm beginning to like your frequent mentioning of baseball bats. Although I disagree with your idea that baseball bats are a suitable substitute for firearms in self-defense, I have given it great consideration and now have pictures in my mind of people toting around Louisville Sluggers everywhere they go... with one in every room.

The example I gave is one situation, but it is sufficient to make my point clear because I've provided enough for any sensible person to follow my line of reasoning. The flag you are waving about is a banner for the fallacy of unnecessary precision. I cannot entertain you with every last possible way you could be killed and make use of a gun.

I will regardless provide a few more examples for giggles... all it does is remake the same point I've already made.

Let's adjust my originally proposed situation. You are not in a house, but instead in a tent on a camping trip. Even easier prey... in a dark campground with nylon walls instead of brick... or stucco as is my situation... and zippers instead of door knobs and dead bolts. Now... I suppose that they should get a 6-person tent, such that they have room to hide while the armed criminal does his thing. Better yet, maybe everyone should jump into the zippered pocket that hangs on the back wall. He won't think to look in there.

Or how about, you are parked at a Wendy's drive through, and you are stuck between cars. Thugs try to rob the drive thru window. Realizing that the security glass poses an obstacle, they decide to rob the people waiting in their cars instead. Now, these people are high on something... or maybe they are just unhappy about their last Happy Meal and have confused restaurants. Anyway... they decide to kill you because they think it gets rid of witnesses. What if you had a gun? Perhaps a different end to the story. BTW, if you'd like more examples so as to satisfy your complaint on low odds on particulars... there are many more fast food restaurants with drive-thrus that you can use to add to your list of numerous possibilites... although individually improbable.

Let's go for a change of pace... with an example where you were armed. You are pumping gas. A homeless man walks up to you with a knife and threatens to kill you if you do not give him your money. (Now, this is a real example that involves my dad... and no, he's not the guy with the knife). Instead you pull out a gun and tell him to get on the ground, spread his feet, and put his hands over his head, or you will shoot him - quite the reversal of roles. Note that he pulled out his gun, and not his baseball bat... although we have some nice $200 softball bats at home. Cops come, nobody gets hurt... guy goes to jail. My dad doesn't get carted off to the hospital in a bloody mess, and he still has his $20 for lunch money.

A similar one... real story involving a cousin and some crazy person on the road. You are driving to a funeral. You are at a red light and surrounded by cars... front and back. Your side mirror is shot, and shots are still coming from the car beside and behind you... You pull out your gun, and shoot the guy dead... who wasn't done shooting and had rounds left in his magazine... and additional magazines ready for reload. Unfortunately, you miss the funeral. Note that... my cousin did not bring his baseball bat with him... although I suppose he could have waved one around like Luke Skywalker until all rounds were spent... and then thrown it through the windshield and through the attackers heart... thus further demonstrating the lack of need for defensive firearms.

The point is... there is NO way for you to predict when, where, or if you will be in a situation where your life is in danger. There are times when, a firearm is THE ONLY WAY to defend yourself... and the alternative is to DIE having had no chance.

[Army]

My formal training with a baseball bat, was Little League in 1972.

My formal traing with a handgun, was Gunsite Training Center in 1984 (civilian defensive street combat training); US Army in 1988 (rifle, pistol, machine gun) I have scored expert with every weapon I have ever fired since joining the Army; All Army Championship Machine Gun Team '89-'90-'91; US Army Marksmanship Training Unit in 1991; and nearly 20 years af shooting Practical Pistol (speed draw, speed targets, scored against number of center mass hits, and number of steel plate targets downed, all against the clock). I regularly place in the top ten shooters in competition (out of 50-70 shooters), yet have never announced my intention of being "classed", nor of joining the international association of Practical competitors. This keeps me at amateur status in every competition I have ever been in.

That being said...WHY THE HELL WOULD I TRY TO RUN ACROSS MY BEDROOM WITH A BAT, TO STOP SOMEONE FROM SHOOTING ME?

That is the most assinine statement you have said YET! Or is that your OPINION?

Bah, I'm done with you. Go back to your fantasy world and play ball with yourself, I'm going shooting.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Miscue
I'm beginning to like your frequent mentioning of baseball bats. Although I disagree with your idea that baseball bats are a suitable substitute for firearms in self-defense, I have given it great consideration and now have pictures in my mind of people toting around Louisville Sluggers everywhere they go... with one in every room.


You like that image huh? Do you have Louisville Slugger stock? Should I buy some as well?:D

Actually that is a good idea. If ever we get close to gun control in this nation I'll have to buy baseball bat stock!

[Miscue]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


You like that image huh? Do you have Louisville Slugger stock? Should I buy some as well?:D

Actually that is a good idea. If ever we get close to gun control in this nation I'll have to buy baseball bat stock!

[Russ]

CB,

From you posts (ramblings) it's become apparent that YOU have a problem with the use of a firearm for self-defence. You can't understand or rationalize it. Keep that bat handy, like "the rest of the world"

Just one more time, let's hear the "question"

[shartley]

I get up, grab a cup of coffee and start reading… oh my.

I am glad I don’t have to answer the pure and unadulterated ignorance that was posted here because others have.

TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My God… why do folks even try explaining ANYTHING to CB? I am seriously beginning to think he is insane… that does not mean stupid, or uneducated, but in his own world that is MUCH different than the one everyone else lives in.

If all it takes to stop crime is a baseball bat, I am sure the government would LOVE to know that. Can you imagine the money saved by simply issuing everyone a bat? And if a bat is all a small woman needs to stop crime, think about what a big man can do with one! He would be SUPERMAN!!!! :D (Note: One of my favorite weapons around the house is an aluminum T-Ball Bat. It is shorter and can be more easily swung in tight places. But I would not bet my LIFE on that T-Ball Bat… I have OTHER things for that. ;) )

I have personal knowledge of situations that to this day make my blood boil. I have had those close to me hurt by crime. I have had to respond to crime as a police officer and see first hand what REALLY happens.

CB…… You can choose to use that bat for protection if you like… but I would prefer that you shove it up your……………… well, closet.

[Collegeboy]

Why in the world would you in danger your family by pulling out a gun and starting a fire fight between you and the criminal? Why in the world would you risk your life and your families’ life by attempting to try and stop a robbery? That is just plain stupid.

Miscue, talk about living in fear. I would hate to live like you if you fear that happening every time you walk out.

You guys are plain crazy, I just hope it doesn't get you killed one day if the odd chances come that you get robbed, or the even odder chance come that the robber is armed, and even the minuscule chances are that the robber has a gun.

So anyone wants to answer my question with their opinion.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Why in the world would you in danger your family by pulling out a gun and starting a fire fight between you and the criminal? Why in the world would you risk your life and your families’ life by attempting to try and stop a robbery? That is just plain stupid. That is exactly like anti-gun crap. Everyone who owns a gun will get into a wild west shootout! Every time they hear a bump in the night they will shoot up their homes… heaven help any pets they have, or a child getting up for a drink of water.

Why on earth “risk” our lives and those of our families’ by attempting to stop a robbery? Anyone have CB’s address? It is OPEN HOUSE! WooHoo!!!!!

CB is under the misimpression that people who get killed in botched robberies are done so because they got into a shootout with the “bad guys”. How ignorant is that? Pretty darn ignorant.

Our homes are NOT banks that should have the policy of “if they want it, let them take it”. We work damn hard for everything we have. Yes, material things can be replaced, but that does not mean you just LET someone take it. THAT is what is just plain stupid.

And what is the difference between trying to stop a robbery with a ball bat or a gun? You are still trying to STOP it. So NOW your argument is about trying to stop a robbery, and not just about the choice of weapon.

Want to change your argument again? What will you change it to next?

Originally posted by Collegeboy
You guys are plain crazy, I just hope it doesn't get you killed one day if the odd chances come that you get robbed, or the even odder chance come that the robber is armed, and even the minuscule chances are that the robber has a gun.
If I am in a situation that my life is threatened, I would rather die attempting to protect myself and my family than to roll over and take it in the head… and die anyways. And heaven help anyone who tries to rob MY house, they will be visiting the hospital or the morgue. And that is how it SHOULD be. THEY are the criminals, not the home owner.

You act like people who choose to defend themselves in a manner that gives them the same level of weaponry as the CRIMINALS or better than, that THEY are somehow wrong, crazy, stupid, or whatever. Criminals SHOULD be afraid to rob people. Criminals SHOULD be faced with a potentially instant judgment and punishment for trying to take away the rights of others.

I am completely baffled by your attitude on almost every subject you choose to TROLL in. Your logic borders on insanity.

(NOTE: I do not advocate Vigilantism. I don’t advocate people taking the law into their own hands. But I DO advocate a person’s right to defend themselves, their families, and their property with the force afforded them by THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. This is an action that takes place AS the crime is being committed, not AFTER it. But obviously some people don’t believe others should have that right, or that that right is “smart”. Only criminals who are already breaking the law should have the ability to choose whatever means they want to affect their actions on others… in an offensive manner.)

[Collegeboy]

I am not changing my argument. If you read I said you should get away from the robber and only if he/she finds you and poses a threat should you unleash the bat.

It is your attitude that I can stop this that gets people killed, for the sake of your family I hope you don't try and stop an armed robber.

I am not saying it will result from a Wild West type shoot out. But if you look at the possibilities of what will happen when you introduce a gun to another guy with a gun, it is not good.

Don't worry your position baffles me just as much.

Anyone what to attempt to answer the question I posed.

Also if I am trolling then you are too along with everyone else.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am not changing my argument. If you read I said you should get away from the robber and only if he/she finds you and poses a threat should you unleash the bat.

It is your attitude that I can stop this that gets people killed, for the sake of your family I hope you don't try and stop an armed robber.

I am not saying it will result from a Wild West type shoot out. But if you look at the possibilities of what will happen when you introduce a gun to another guy with a gun, it is not good.

Don't worry your position baffles me just as much.

Anyone what to attempt to answer the question I posed.

Also if I am trolling then you are too along with everyone else.
You hope for the sake of MY family that I don’t try to stop an armed robber? LOLROF

First of all, as I have said before… I would make my intent WELL known. I would give the ROBBER the chance to leave. I would not however try to “get away from the robber” IN MY OWN HOUSE! LOL You are a total coward if you hide from a robber when you have the means to protect your property and family. And even more so if you are TRAINED to use that weapon.

Remember? I was not only a soldier, but a COP as well. LOL I also trained others to shoot both handguns and longarms.

You are advocating that even those TRAINED in any weapon type (to include hand to hand) to NOT use what they know and their skills to defend themselves and their property. Run away! Let the robber take whatever he/she wants! Only if they “find” you cowering in a closet someplace should you use any force to defend yourself. Of course, how can you use a bad in a closet? How can you use a bat if hiding?

A robber poses a threat the second they invade your house. By doing so, they have just taken away your rights. You don’t have the time to ask them if they are armed, what their intentions are, or anything else. However, if you make loud noises, turn on lights as you go around, ARE ARMED with the weapon of YOUR choice, and are cautions yet aggressive, do not try to corner the intruder but give them ample room to EXIT your home, you will more times than not save yourself from both being robbed and hurt by the intruder.

(NOTE: Chances are my DOG would take care of any intruder before I even got on my bathrobe. Maybe I should not have a dog either?)

You act like the gun is the FIRST thing people should use when they know they are being robbed. WRONG! It is the LAST thing they should use, but they should be allowed to choose that as their last choice. And currently they HAVE that choice and it is protected by the Constitution.

But what do I know, right?

[-=Squid=-]

Originally posted by Rooster
"Why dont you actually read the whole thing before you pass judgement? Im not going to even remotely consider thinking over this reply which merely was written on a pick and choose basis, reading, remember, what you want to. The dumbest thing? Why dont you actually back up your immature comments by telling me WHY its the dumbest thing, rather than some off topic meaningless crowbar story? You never even said why it was "teh dumbest thing ever!!!1!1!" Why dont you be a little more thorough in your useless replies next time eh?"

Your ignorant post didn't deserve a more meaningful responce. This one doesn't either.

Again with this! You have no reasoning behind your judgment. Do you even have a reason to have the crappy oppinnion that you have? Why dont you just turn your back to this one if you cant even come up with good posting...Are you to stupid? Look up ignorant my friend and tell me whats "ignorant" about my post? My ignorant post didnt deserve a response and this one doesnt either? HELLO bad usage and mechanics! :rolleyes:

[Skreemer]

http://www.flash.net/~skreemer/WhyMe.gif

[luke]

quote:Originally posted by Army
Uh-Uh CB, I answered your original question a while ago, now I answered your edited question...just like everyone else has.

quote:Originally posted by CB: Do not call that my "opinion" either, what I wrote is fact. See? You did twist my words.
My question has been the same since the begining I do believe.

Actually the VERY first question was "Why does the average citizen feel like they need to own a mini gun?" The question was rephrased as the thread grew.

quote:Originally posted by CB:
I do not think that it is the right of "US people" to own a mini gun, or an automatic weapon or any other mass destruction weapons.

I found this statement somewhat troubling. If I remember correctly you were/are against war with Saddam. So I must assume what you are really saying here, is that what you would like to see is only crazy people armed with weapons of mass destruction.

quote:Originally posted by CB: The sad fact is people are trying to discredit him, instead of answering his basic questions. Why is it that we feel the need of a gun to remain safe? Why is it that we feel we have to have a gun? Why is it that we are so gun crazy? Why is it that you can get a gun at a bank for opening up an account? Why is it that in the same store I can buy toilet paper, and food, I can also buy a gun and ammunition?

The answers are in the original post, like many people you really don't what the answer, you would just rather argue and complain, which is sadly typical of people with you political views. Even if YOU know your wrong, pride prevents you from admitting it.

quote:Originally posted by CB:
Like I said I agree that we need to address the gun issue, but I don't agree with the stretching of the truth.
(funny and odd statement coming from a liberal )

quote:Originally posted by CB:
Why do you need a gun to make yourself feel safe at home?
Very simple, because governments of the world use them, police use them, criminals use them, and wackos out to take what doesn't belong to them use them. Lets not forget, it's my constitutional right to bear arms. To pass judgment on responsible people bearing arms is misplaced concern.

PART 1) quote:Originally posted by CB:
it was farmers with their shotguns that defeated the Brits (over exaggeration but ok).

Where would we be today if "these everyday people" didn't have the right back then to own firearms?

PART 2) quote:Originally posted by CB:
While in other countries the gun is looked at as an evil incarnation that shouldn't be in the hands of the general populace.

The answer is starring you in the face, you really don't see it?


quote:Originally posted by CB
And that is your opinion. A 6'5" intruder can be handled very easy by a 5'6" woman without the needs of a gun. How do all the woman in other countries do it?
You mean like the women in Afghanistan before 9/11?


quote:Originally posted by CB
I have no idea where you get this reality and me being far from it bit.

VERY interesting point! (I know it was taken out of context, but I couldn't resist.....

quote:Originally posted by CB
And no beside Army no one has answered the complete question.

Will you ever enlighten us with an with a point your trying to make? I'm getting a little anxious.....

quote:Originally posted by CB
Ok but throwing out percentages on the slim chance that this happens what will happen because of this. If the guy is intent on killing you then he will, he will be prepared, and nothing you can do can stop him.

Thanks but no thanks, I'll play the odds.

quote:Originally posted by CB
you can call 911 and hide

"Cough" typical.
For some reason this don't surprise me, keeping your political views in mind.


By the way it's not fair to constantly change your question then complain that no one has answered it. It's been answered over and over again. If your ACTUALLY trying to make a point, I wish you would get to it. That's the biggest problem with view points such as yours, is that there is never a solution to what your arguing about, or at least not one that will work in the real world.



(JUST FOR FUN)
quote:Originally posted by shartly: By making guns "illegal" you don't remove the problem.

Come on now you know better than that, you remember how they cleaned up the drinking problem. Prohibition. (Not to mention marijuana, and how nobody has smoked it since it was outlawed!);)

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am not changing my argument. If you read I said you should get away from the robber and only if he/she finds you and poses a threat should you unleash the bat.

You are a fool. A bat cannot guarantee you stop an intruder. A gun can! Further you assume that we want to kill that robber. If someone break's into my home, while they deserve to die, I will try not to kill them. Do you know what kind of mess they would leave? ;) You have no duty to retreat in your own home. Someone breaks in, I am expelling them by any means necessary! I will never hide and hope that the criminal's goodwill will safeguard my family. I have received quite a bit of firearms training and have no qualms about killing an intruder IF NEED BE!

You said a women could stop you with a bat? Then you must be a wimp. I could walk through a swing from a bat from my wife or sister in law.

It is your attitude that I can stop this that gets people killed, for the sake of your family I hope you don't try and stop an armed robber.

An armed robber is armed for a reason. They don't carry weapons for self defense. I do! I bet I am a better shot then that robber! Further, he will never reach the second story of my home alive! When my wife and kids are involved, I'll kill any SOB that threatens them and not lose a minute of sleep over it.

I travel for work quite a bit. Knowing my wife is armed and can defend herself and the kids gives me quite a bit of peace of mind. Maybe you will understand this CB when you get married and have kids. I have to worry about more then myself. My brother was vehemently anti-gun until my neice was born. He bought a shotgun one month later. He taught my sister in law how to use it. Resposibilities will alter your perceptions!

I am not saying it will result from a Wild West type shoot out. But if you look at the possibilities of what will happen when you introduce a gun to another guy with a gun, it is not good.

Odds are it won't. If I rack a shotgun, odds are I'll be cleaning up a pile of crap from wherever the robber was when he heard me chamber it. I may also need to clean up some broken glass from the window he dove out of!

Don't worry your position baffles me just as much.

Anyone what to attempt to answer the question I posed.

Also if I am trolling then you are too along with everyone else.

You are Rain Man. Definitely, definitely!

Aarron Mag-
WHy can't I use outrageous examples? CB does!;) :p

[shartley]

Originally posted by luke
(JUST FOR FUN)
quote:Originally posted by shartly: By making guns "illegal" you don't remove the problem?.

Come on now you know better than that, you remember how they cleaned up the drinking problem. Prohibition. (Not to mention marijuana, and how nobody has smoked it since it was outlawed!);)
Just for fun…. When you quote me, do so in FULL context of what I was saying. I don’t recall where and in what context I said that, but I can assure you that knowing myself, it HAD to be sarcastic (or you put a ? in there when I didn’t have one… I will try to find where I posted that). And even more so since I am a HUGE supporter of the right to own guns, and am a former police officer.

As for your comments on Prohibition, illegal drug use, etc…… apples and oranges there my friend, and I will not get into it aside from saying that none of those things have EVER been protected by the Constitution… and for good reason. ;)

(Added: I just skimmed through my posts in this thread.... I could not find where I said that. Please point it out to me and show it in fill context. Thanks.)

[Miscue]

This is the issue: What CB defends is his religion, and there is no sense in trying to kill his god. There is no sense in reasoning with him with logic, because he is completely oblivious to it - he does not know how to use it, and does not know how to recognize it... only what is "pleasing" to him he believes makes sense. The truth is not what is "pleasing," although it can be. He says he has an argument... he does not. He has an opinion. A stupid opinion.

What disturbs me is that he's not the only one. But luckily for us, our governmental philosophy is that of mob rule - Democracy. And with this, we can group together and democratically take control over these psychologically impaired groups who should have no power, and force them under a policy that best suits us.

I can own a gun. I can own a concealed weapon with a permit. I can defend myself with a gun if I need to, even if you do not like it... and you can't do a damn thing about it... and you never will be able to... because you should not be able to.

I don't live in fear... that's something you made up, but I get a little nervous when Congress is in session.

I retire from this thread...

[Rebel46_99]

I have a question for CB.....

If you are a paintball player..... Do you play with a paintball marker(gun) OR a baseball bat???

Sam, Army, Miscue.... the answer to this one ought to be really interesting. LOL

DW

[Miscue]

He throws bingo dabber tipped spears. :p

Ok, I'm done now.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Miscue
He throws bingo dabber tipped spears. :p

Ok, I'm done now.

LOL!

I just thought CB hid behind a bunker in the back waiting for the other team to go away and leave him in peace!;)

[shartley]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
LOL!

I just thought CB hid behind a bunker in the back waiting for the other team to go away and leave him in peace!;)
Now THAT is funny! :D

(I had much to post on that idea, but think it is best to just let it rest. ;))

[Collegeboy]

We are talking about life and death situations here and you all bring in paintball. How immature can you be.

Let’s think about this. You have a criminal in your house with a gun (the chances of this are next to none but that isn't the point). You don't have a gun. What will happen? More then likely the robber will not bring harm to you or your family for you do not pose a threat to him or he doesn't see you. If he does see you then you can hit him up top the head with a bat. There is no safety to mess with, there is no aiming, there is no locking up (not as much with a gun). You just swing and hit the guy. If you bring a gun into the situation you now pose a threat to him and if you don't get the first shot off you are DEAD, your family is DEAD. All because you wanted to play mister tough guy and "protect" your family. It is your choice if you want to have a gun in your house for the "protection" of your family. But when that time comes I sure hope you don't freeze up, I sure hope your family doesn't freeze up, I hope that safety isn't on, and I hope you get the first shot and actually hit a vital area, for if you don't you are DEAD, your family are DEAD, all because you wanted to play mister tough guy.

My question to you all has been this from the beginning (the others were rhetorical questions, which should have been easy to catch) Why do Americans feel the need to protect their family with a gun, when most of the world feels that they need to protect their family by not owning a gun.

And no I am not making a point with this question, I am trying to get you all to think about the difference and different ways to think, which is getting impossible.

[Rebel46_99]

C B... Whether you think it's immature or not doesn't mean..... a hill of beans one way or the other. The principle is the same. (Something that you have used on numerous occasions in this thread and others.)

Answer the question! (This seems to be your favorite refrain.)

DW

P.S. WHY do you constantly use the words "Chances Are", "Suppose", "IF", etc.... etc..... And yet not accept them from anyone else, ALWAYS demanding FACTS?

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Let’s think about this. You have a criminal in your house with a gun (the chances of this are next to none but that isn't the point). You don't have a gun. What will happen? More then likely the robber will not bring harm to you or your family for you do not pose a threat to him or he doesn't see you. If he does see you then you can hit him up top the head with a bat. There is no safety to mess with, there is no aiming, there is no locking up (not as much with a gun). You just swing and hit the guy. If you bring a gun into the situation you now pose a threat to him and if you don't get the first shot off you are DEAD, your family is DEAD. All because you wanted to play mister tough guy and "protect" your family. It is your choice if you want to have a gun in your house for the "protection" of your family. But when that time comes I sure hope you don't freeze up, I sure hope your family doesn't freeze up, I hope that safety isn't on, and I hope you get the first shot and actually hit a vital area, for if you don't you are DEAD, your family are DEAD, all because you wanted to play mister tough guy.

My question to you all has been this from the beginning (the others were rhetorical questions, which should have been easy to catch) Why do Americans feel the need to protect their family with a gun, when most of the world feels that they need to protect their family by not owning a gun.

And no I am not making a point with this question, I am trying to get you all to think about the difference and different ways to think, which is getting impossible.
Interesting! So you don’t need to AIM a bat? WOW!

You act like those who own a gun will not know how to USE it. When you take out your shotgun, do you know how to use it? Oh, but the rest of the world is filled with ignorant people… all but you. I forgot.

News Flash smart guy, anyone who can identify the thief is a THREAT to him/her. And whether you have a bat, or a gun, or a knife, or whatever, you ARE a threat to the thief. And think about it, if you can sneak up on him with a BAT, why can’t you do so with a GUN? Do guns people buy now make some strange noise I am not familiar with?

Also you should NEVER sneak up on a criminal, or corner them, or anything like it. That can cause them to react out of desperation. Why do you think police always LOUDLY announce their presence? I could go on and on, but I feel that you would not trust my words because I am not some TV Show with a bias toward personal freedom, law enforcement, the government, etc. No matter how knowledgeable I am on this issue it will just not matter to you….

And you mean to tell me that using a BAT is not being “mister tough guy”, while a gun is? I know that my wife could do a heck of a lot more damage to someone with a Lady Smith than she could EVER think of doing with a ball bat. Oh, but she would only be playing “Mrs. Tough Gal”, right?

And you ignore that I list a whole bunch of things people should do BEFORE even using a weapon, no matter WHAT that weapon is. And NONE of them include hiding from an intruder. Not to mention that if I am hiding, who is protecting my kids? If you acted like you tell folks THEY should act, I would call you a coward, and a fool.

And NOW you changed your question AGAIN. Now it is that the rest of the world feels they are protecting their families by NOT owning a gun. That is even MORE of a stretch than what you have been trying to claim in the past.

You don’t need to “get us to think about different ways to think”. Some of us have already done that, and still choose to own guns. But somehow we are wrong, right? We are not as enlightened as the rest of the world because we CHOOSE to take advantage of our RIGHTS protected by our Constitution.

Your arguments are flawed to say the least. Give the rest of the world OUR Constitutional Rights and see what they do. Don’t expect me to make a decision based on THEIR rights (or lack of), their police departments and correctional systems, their criminals, etc. That is just idiotic.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
We are talking about life and death situations here and you all bring in paintball. How immature can you be.

Not as much as you Rain Man! ;)

Let’s think about this. You have a criminal in your house with a gun (the chances of this are next to none but that isn't the point). You don't have a gun. What will happen? More then likely the robber will not bring harm to you or your family for you do not pose a threat to him or he doesn't see you. If he does see you then you can hit him up top the head with a bat. There is no safety to mess with, there is no aiming, there is no locking up (not as much with a gun). You just swing and hit the guy. If you bring a gun into the situation you now pose a threat to him and if you don't get the first shot off you are DEAD, your family is DEAD. All because you wanted to play mister tough guy and "protect" your family. It is your choice if you want to have a gun in your house for the "protection" of your family. But when that time comes I sure hope you don't freeze up, I sure hope your family doesn't freeze up, I hope that safety isn't on, and I hope you get the first shot and actually hit a vital area, for if you don't you are DEAD, your family are DEAD, all because you wanted to play mister tough guy.

And if he gets that close to you while holding a gun, do you think you will get off a swing of that bat? It is all about being prepared fool. My wife uses a shotgun, because the sound is comforting to her. She feels that sound alone will send them running, which it should. I use a Glock 17 loaded with Federal Hyrdoshock rounds. That has no external safety. It is built into the trigger. It is an extremely reliable gun. Also, I have two different alarms. An alarm system and a dog. If anyone is in my house, we will know! Thus if anyone is in our house after the noise and dog, they probably mean us no good, eh?

I am so glad that YOU are so fast that YOU could close the distance between yourself and an armed intruder and hit him with a bat before he gets a shot off into YOU.

My question to you all has been this from the beginning (the others were rhetorical questions, which should have been easy to catch) Why do Americans feel the need to protect their family with a gun, when most of the world feels that they need to protect their family by not owning a gun.

And no I am not making a point with this question, I am trying to get you all to think about the difference and different ways to think, which is getting impossible.

And your question has been answered many times over. You just aren't listening!

[bornl33t]

if I wanted to kill you, and I invaded your house, not you or anyone else for that matter will be able to close the distance. Trust me, an abit gamer I have a split second reaction to my trigger finger.

[1stdeadeye]

MEMO TO SELF

1) Catch flight to Alabama
2) Find out where CB lives
3) Wait til dark
4) Home Invasion Time baby!!!;)
5) Clean out the home
6) Shoot at any baseball bat I see:p
7) Go to pawnshop
8) Use proceeds to buy another gun!;) :p

You make it too easy CB.:p

[luke]

Originally posted by shartley

Just for fun?. When you quote me, do so in FULL context of what I was saying. I don?t recall where and in what context I said that, but I can assure you that knowing myself, it HAD to be sarcastic (or you put a ? in there when I didn?t have one? I will try to find where I posted that). And even more so since I am a HUGE supporter of the right to own guns, and am a former police officer.

As for your comments on Prohibition, illegal drug use, etc?? apples and oranges there my friend, and I will not get into it aside from saying that none of those things have EVER been protected by the Constitution? and for good reason. ;)

(Added: I just skimmed through my posts in this thread.... I could not find where I said that. Please point it out to me and show it in fill context. Thanks.) Shartly,

OOPS!You took it wrong, I was making a joke. I get the impression that CB thinks the answer to crime is to do away with guns. My point was, making booze and pot illegal did absolutely nothing to curb use or to stop the sales of the stuff, if anything it helps criminals that break the law to make a living.

Actually I AGREE with your point of view here. ;)

[shartley]

No problem.... I knew you were not being malicious. ;) You just caught me off gaurd.... LOL

Added: But I don’t think CB was making that leap… he was talking about legally owned firearms being used as protection. And THAT is worse than the banning of all guns issues because it deals exclusively with those who are not the criminals. It does not deal with the reduction of crime, but the right of Americans to protect themselves from crime with the Rights that are afforded them by the Constitution.

[luke]

BTW, The quote came from the top of page 3.

[shartley]

Originally posted by luke
BTW, The quote came from the top of page 3.
LOL Yup, there it is! Well, sort of. ;)

[1stdeadeye]

Hey CB,

I want to send you ah.....an NRA magazine, yeah that's the ticket. I just uh nead your address yeah that's it!

See you soon!;)

Bwahahahahaha

[Collegeboy]

Well if you can somehow manage your way through the cop stationed at the door, somehow manage to make it up the 15 flights of stairs, and still have the energy to kick my door down and get to me, then you can have my college furniture. I think it all cost me 25 dollars or so. So please come steal it all, it saves me from having to throw it in the dumpster.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Aarron Mag-
WHy can't I use outrageous examples? CB does!;) :p

You can but I am going to call you on such things. I don't like the argument that if we it wasn't that we were all afraid of armed resistance we would be invading each others homes etc. Society is made from adherence to certain laws and for the most part Americans subscribe to these rules/ideals. Our society and way of life is not held together by fear.

Since someone brought it up a related question is has paintball given you more respect for the power of a gun? Many of us grew up watching Arnold movies, GI Joe cartoons, etc where having a gun was not a real advantage. I mean the bad guys could never hit anyone anyway. After playing paintball I just can't watch action heros running through a room while several bad guys are all opening up on him full auto. Almost everyone I have introduced to paintball thought that they were going to be able to pull off Matrix moves and instead found themselves huddled behind a bunker in fear.

My point is that we live in a society where many people have no education on fire arms (and Europe even more so). We watch movies and get very unrealistic expectations of them. I'm not saying we ban action movies but saying that a healthy education on guns (including recreational shooting) actually takes away some of the romantic notions about what fire arms are and what they aren't. Just an observation.

[bornl33t]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Well if you can somehow manage your way through the cop stationed at the door, somehow manage to make it up the 15 flights of stairs, and still have the energy to kick my door down and get to me, then you can have my college furniture. I think it all cost me 25 dollars or so. So please come steal it all, it saves me from having to throw it in the dumpster.
rent a pig? just push then over they are unarmed :D

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Well if you can somehow manage your way through the cop stationed at the door, somehow manage to make it up the 15 flights of stairs, and still have the energy to kick my door down and get to me, then you can have my college furniture. I think it all cost me 25 dollars or so. So please come steal it all, it saves me from having to throw it in the dumpster.
And things become crystal clear. ;)

Oh this words on SO many levels. :D

College…. LOL

(And don’t get me started on Campus Security… LOL)

[shartley]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
You can but I am going to call you on such things. I don't like the argument that if we it wasn't that we were all afraid of armed resistance we would be invading each others homes etc. Society is made from adherence to certain laws and for the most part Americans subscribe to these rules/ideals. Our society and way of life is not held together by fear.

Since someone brought it up a related question is has paintball given you more respect for the power of a gun? Many of us grew up watching Arnold movies, GI Joe cartoons, etc where having a gun was not a real advantage. I mean the bad guys could never hit anyone anyway. After playing paintball I just can't watch action heros running through a room while several bad guys are all opening up on him full auto. Almost everyone I have introduced to paintball thought that they were going to be able to pull off Matrix moves and instead found themselves huddled behind a bunker in fear.

My point is that we live in a society where many people have no education on fire arms (and Europe even more so). We watch movies and get very unrealistic expectations of them. I'm not saying we ban action movies but saying that a healthy education on guns (including recreational shooting) actually takes away some of the romantic notions about what fire arms are and what they aren't. Just an observation.
Good post… but from what I see, those who DON’T own guns and are not trained to use them feel that way. None of the people I know who own guns have that “idea” of what guns can and can’t do for them, or that having a gun makes them some kind of super hero/Rambo.

I agree, people need to be educated. But it is mostly those who don’t HAVE guns that have the biggest misconceptions, not those who DO. And the problem with this is that the ones who don’t have them are pushing for not allowing ANYONE to have them. And then we look and see that some of these people turn back around and have armed body guards, suddenly feel threatened and go and buy a gun, etc. Funny how once people are put IN a position where they feel their lives are threatened, they turn to the very thing that they were condemning so loudly. (NOTE: Please folks, don’t come back and say that not EVERYBODY does this. I KNOW that, and we know exactly who I am talking about.)

But heck, personally I wish we lived in a society that didn’t need to even use locks on our doors, let alone contemplate the issues of personal safety. I remember growing up hardly ever locking our house doors. Basically only when we were going to be gone the whole day, or on a road trip, etc. did we lock them. Now? Heck, it is the last thing we do before running down to get a gallon of milk. And what about locking our car doors?

Folks, CRIME is the problem, not what people choose to protect themselves with, if anything at all. But the fact is, it is EASIER to attack law abiding citizens and take away more of THEIR rights than it is to control criminals. Criminals already could care less WHAT the laws are. But I am one man who will FIGHT for my rights and for the protection of my family, and THAT is American. :)

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by shartley
Good post… but from what I see, those who DON’T own guns and are not trained to use them feel that way. None of the people I know who own guns have that “idea” of what guns can and can’t do for them, or that having a gun makes them some kind of super hero/Rambo.


That is exactly my point! I think that people who are rabidly anti-gun are usually people who have never even held one. My brother and father are gun collectors while I was never really attracted to them. After actually going target shooting with them (in my adult years) it really blew me away how many myths I had built up about guns. The first being that you point the thing at a target and you hit it. In the movies the female lead picks up a pistol for the first time and suddenly she is hitting people at 100 yards. Within 5 minutes she knows how to switch clips like a pro etc. This, of course, is not the case as it takes expertise to shoot a gun well. My point is I was probably more anti-gun until I actually started seeing them for what they are and what they aren't.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Well if you can somehow manage your way through the cop stationed at the door, somehow manage to make it up the 15 flights of stairs, and still have the energy to kick my door down and get to me, then you can have my college furniture. I think it all cost me 25 dollars or so. So please come steal it all, it saves me from having to throw it in the dumpster.

Uhm, I was asking for your home address, not your dorm address. Don't worry, your family can hide with you! I figured your family might have a few nice things. ;)

You can trust my good will. I won't hurt anyone!:rolleyes:

Get my point!:p

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Uhm, I was asking for your home address, not your dorm address. Don't worry, your family can hide with you! I figured your family might have a few nice things. ;)

You can trust my good will. I won't hurt anyone!:rolleyes:

Get my point!:p

I doubt you could even find it, if th Pizza man can't find my house, then I doubt you can.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I doubt you could even find it, if th Pizza man can't find my house, then I doubt you can.

I am a bit more motivated then the pizza delivery man. I'll find it.;)

If it is that tough to find, I guess the police response will be pretty slow too! Woot! Woot!;) :p

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


I am a bit more motivated then the pizza delivery man. I'll find it.;)

If it is that tough to find, I guess the police response will be pretty slow too! Woot! Woot!;) :p

Nope believe me they know where it is at. :p

[ShooterJM]

The reason I have a handgun in my house is safety. A .45 shell is safer for my neighbors and other people in the house then a 7.62 round.

FYI, I have been in the house when someone broke in when I didn't have a firearm. I have been in the house when someone tried to break in and I did have a gun. Oh and I've been hit by a bat...

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


I am a bit more motivated then the pizza delivery man. I'll find it.;)

If it is that tough to find, I guess the police response will be pretty slow too! Woot! Woot!;) :p

Okay 1de I know you are just joking but you are getting to the point where it is in poor taste:p

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Nope believe me they know where it is at. :p

Okay, hide in the same place you did las time you were robbed. It worked then!;) :p

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


Okay 1de I know you are just joking but you are getting to the point where it is in poor taste:p

Please wait. I can get worse!;) :p

I usually like to go ten steps or so past poor taste!;)

Besides CB is playing back. If it upset him, he could PM me and I would stop. As it is I think we are just goofing!:D

[shartley]

Plus it is not in any more poor taste than asking the same question time and time again and although it is answered time and time again claiming it hasn’t been. ;) :p

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by shartley
Plus it is not in any more poor taste than asking the same question time and time again and although it is answered time and time again claiming it hasn’t been. ;) :p

Yeah if it was answered time and time it would have been in poor taste, but since it was answered once, no it wasn't.

I could care less what 1de does, I just consider the source ;) :p ;)

[CasingBill]

About 3 years ago I was driving by my place of business around 10:00 P.M. The building was supposed to be closed. Since I work just oustide Newark, NJ. I decided to go inside. Noticing the front door unlocked and lights on inside I decided to go in and investigate. Not really thinking much of it first. The people I depend on to lock up are not always dependable. I went inside with my handgun drawn. I did not know for sure anyone was inside but I wasn't sure. False alarms also cost money. To my surprise I found 2 employees inside. They were not supposed to be there. When I yelled to them and they saw my 9mm they were quite scared. Needless to say things were easily resolved in conversation. But things could have been much worse. If they saw that I had no protection I probably could not have protected myself from the both of them. I am extremely glad I own a handgun. Every good responsible citizen should.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by CasingBill
Every good responsible citizen should.

That kind of statement scares me.

Why didn't you call the cops like you was suppose to, it doesn't (or shouldn't) cost anything for cops to come investigate a call you make, now a false security alarm is something else. Why did you take it one yourself to find out what is going on. That is the job of the cops. If you would have done what you was suppose to do then you wouldn't have needed a gun. The gun means you now feel "safe" or all mighty, to the point were you can take actions which you shouldn't do all the while putting your life on the line.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


That kind of statement scares me.



Any action that takes the responsibility away from the Government, and puts it in the hands of the PEOPLE where it belongs, would scare you.

God forbid people don't want to be victims all their lives, depending on someone else for their own safety.

Know what cops are really good at?

Cleaning up crime scenes.

Know what cops are really bad at?

Actually preventing crimes.

[CasingBill]

There have been 2 robbery homicides in a 1 block vicinity to my business in the last year and half. There are alot of false alarms in industrial areas. After 5 security alarms in a year its $75 each alarm. Maybe it doesn't cost if I call. But this was a non-emergency. I'm not sure I would call just because I saw lights on inside the building. Faster and easier to take care of something like this myself. Like I said I really wasn't thinking there was anyone inside. I just assumed my guys left the lights on. I felt that in the remote possibility there was someone inside, I would be prepared. There is also no difference if this was my home. I have no local police. The police station is at least 15 minutes away. I live in an exremely rural area. If I call for police I am on my own for quite enough time that virtually anything can happen.

[Rooster]

"Why didn't you call the cops like you was suppose to, it doesn't (or shouldn't) cost anything for cops to come investigate a call you make, now a false security alarm is something else. Why did you take it one yourself to find out what is going on. That is the job of the cops. If you would have done what you was suppose to do then you wouldn't have needed a gun. The gun means you now feel "safe" or all mighty, to the point were you can take actions which you shouldn't do all the while putting your life on the line."

So if three men were raping a woman, you would go call the cops? I feel sorry for you. You have a long time to live in the screwed up little reality you've created for yourself. I couldn't live with myself if I thought like you. If I can stop peopl from doing harm to other s I will. And I will protect my family and friends with deadly force. That is my responsibility as a man. A child does not have those responsibilities. A child should run away to go call the police, and then wait thirty minutes for them to arive to clean up the crime scene and take photographs of the bodies.

[CasingBill]

I don't disagree that I probably should have called the police. It was just a last minute thought as I was entering the building and I opted to not turn back around. Rooster you are definately right though. We need to take action when we see wrong being done to someone. As a responsible gun owner it should be me who steps up to the plate. Not to be hero or something but stop pain inflicted on someone else....definately. I wouldn't think twice in that situation.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Rooster
"Why didn't you call the cops like you was suppose to, it doesn't (or shouldn't) cost anything for cops to come investigate a call you make, now a false security alarm is something else. Why did you take it one yourself to find out what is going on. That is the job of the cops. If you would have done what you was suppose to do then you wouldn't have needed a gun. The gun means you now feel "safe" or all mighty, to the point were you can take actions which you shouldn't do all the while putting your life on the line."

So if three men were raping a woman, you would go call the cops? I feel sorry for you. You have a long time to live in the screwed up little reality you've created for yourself. I couldn't live with myself if I thought like you. If I can stop peopl from doing harm to other s I will. And I will protect my family and friends with deadly force. That is my responsibility as a man. A child does not have those responsibilities. A child should run away to go call the police, and then wait thirty minutes for them to arive to clean up the crime scene and take photographs of the bodies.

There is a difference from a breaking in of your business and a rape. If I saw a rape happening I would call the cops and then go beat the living crap out of the guys.

Your responsibility as a man is to protect your family and make sure they are safe. If you think pulling a gun on an armed man is protecting your family that is your choice. I find it putting them at danger.

Casingbill, what do you mean as a gun owner it is your responsibilities to step forward. What does having a gun mean your should step forward?

[Xerces]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


There is a difference from a breaking in of your business and a rape. If I saw a rape happening I would call the cops and then go beat the living crap out of the guys.

Your responsibility as a man is to protect your family and make sure they are safe. If you think pulling a gun on an armed man is protecting your family that is your choice. I find it putting them at danger.

Casingbill, what do you mean as a gun owner it is your responsibilities to step forward. What does having a gun mean your should step forward?

ok, so waht youre saying is, letting her be raped is a more attractive alternative than preventing the rape from ever happening?

and how is pulling a gun on an armed man making it unsafe? because you ahve a gun means he is more likely to shoot at them? hardly.

i say we follow sweden's lead, thier violent crime rates aren't very high, and the main reason is just about everyone over 18 has a fully loaded assault rifle under thier bed. i would venture to say that is pretty effective.

[CasingBill]

xerces...that sig is awesome!!!!

now...back to the thread

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I could care less what 1de does, I just consider the source ;) :p ;)

Oh look, I am officially one of CollegeBoy's sources now!:D Hmmm what devious right wing conspiracy can I sell to him now....;) :p

Casing Bill,
How the hell did you get a concealed carry permit in Jersey? They are impossible to get unless you are a retired police officer. Don't tell me that you are using a New York permit. Jersey doesn't respect or acknowledge New York or PA permits.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Xerces


ok, so waht youre saying is, letting her be raped is a more attractive alternative than preventing the rape from ever happening?

and how is pulling a gun on an armed man making it unsafe? because you ahve a gun means he is more likely to shoot at them? hardly.

i say we follow sweden's lead, thier violent crime rates aren't very high, and the main reason is just about everyone over 18 has a fully loaded assault rifle under thier bed. i would venture to say that is pretty effective.

Where did I say the first thing, I remember saying I will go beat their butts.

If you pull a gun on an armed man you have just made it where one of you will be killed, and if it is you then your family is dead more then likely. Not protecting them in my book.

[CasingBill]

I don't have a carry permit in NJ..just NY. After much research, speaking with local police, county police, and the firearms bureau in trenton the overall conclusion was that with my ny permit I could transport in my vehicle as long as it was locked in a case ammo seperate and in the trunk. Once to my place of business as long as it was a legally owned gun I could then carry on my person since I was on private property. Specifically the trooper at fireams bureau said i could cut my grass with a shotgun over my shoulder and my pistol on my side and it would be legal.
Now...it took a lot of investigating to get that answer. That was about 5 years ago. Several of the local police(one who is my security guard) have said that they did not see any problem with that as long as the gun checked out. If you know something different I would be very interested in finding out. I did not try to get a carry permit because everyone said it was impossible. If someone knows of someone else I should talk to please let me know. I know it is something that shouldn't be taken lightly and like I said I did a lot of investigating before making a decision.

[1stdeadeye]

I think their advice to you was pretty close. I have a Firearms card in NJ which allows me to purchase or transport a firearm the same way you must. In a seperate locked portion of the car, unloaded of course. As for taking them inside you business, I don't know. Cutting you grass with them will bring a SWAT team to your home REAL fast in NJ!

[CasingBill]

I appreciate the advice. The mowing lawn was the scenario used by the trooper at the firearms bureau. Obviously I took that with a grain of salt. I am going to research it again. I kept all of my contacts and phone records from the first time. Although I'm not that organized and hopefully I will be able to find them. I thought that originally I would at the very least need a premises permit but since I was not a NJ resident I could not recieve one. This is why it was told to me that my NY carry permit would be honored as long as I was on my privately owned property...Thanks again. I am going to research it again. I'll be in S.Jersey on Monday. Look for me....I'll wave:D

[Army]

{grrr..I hate myself for posting again.)


If I saw a rape happening I would call the cops and then go beat the living crap out of the guys.
That's the difference between you and most of us. We would stop the crime, as an obligation to a helpless fellow human being, THEN call the Cops to clean up the bloody mess of two or three dead rapists. In all states, deadly force is allowed to stop rape, arson, sodomy(!), mortal injury to a person, or when YOU feel your life is threatened.

Since you live in Berkley, I'll give you a couple of truth teasers:

California Civil Code, section 50 provides:
Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the person or property of oneself, or of a wife, husband, child, parent, or other relative, or member of one's family, or of a ward, servant, master, or guest.

California Penal Code, section 694 provides:
Any other person, in aid or defense of the person about to be injured, may make resistance sufficient to prevent that offense.

Got the "Any" parts? Here's the reason why:

Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of California clearly states that you have that right:
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing safety, happiness, and privacy.

To wrap up this LAST POST OF MINE ON THE SUBJECT...

Warren v. District of Columbia: D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police from criminal and civil resposibility, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.

This ruling is referrenced by the US Supreme Court every time the subject comes to their bench.

THAT is why I keep loaded guns in my house. THAT is why I will kill any unwelcome intruder in my house. THAT is why I will FIRST stop the crime, and THEN call the Police. THAT is why I have trained my daughter and wife to shoot accurately, with no remorse. THAT is why I live in the USA, because I have the right, the ability, the responsibility, and the freedom to be my own force protection.

...and since you will never "get that", I won't respond to anymore of this thread.....BTW, Michael Moore is still an idiot, and a liar.

[CasingBill]

zip,zip,zip...cb..you can't compete with that....zip,zzzzziiiippppppppp it:D

[Collegeboy]

I think you are reading more into what I am saying, where do you get that I am a liberal. I think liberally (notice an adjective not a noun, it means I like change). But I am dead center on the political scale. So please get things right.

Why is it best to call the cops before you take action?

Well let’s see you have a gun and there are three guys with guns. You pull out your gun and you will get at most two before the third turns around and shoots you, the guy that shoots you run away, the three of you are dead, and the woman is left alone with no one calling the cops. Call me thinking ahead, but no matter what you do calling the cops first is the best thing to do.

And no matter what you teach them, a paper target is ALOT different then a real person. I wouldn't trust anyone with a gun to shoot a person unless they already have done so.

[aaron_mag]

I don't know why anyone would get a concealed weapons permit. Even the president of the NRA Mr. Heston said that packing a firearm is a pain in the butt and just plain boring.

My dad had a concealed weapons permit for awhile (must be easier to get in Oregon than NJ and I never did understand it. I don't know if he still carries one in his car but I believe he still has one in his office (and my brother might as well). While I am not in favor of banning guns like CB the idea of all of us packing firearms in their cars and on our persons is a little disturbing. Feeling the need for a firearm in your car or on your person when you are not a police officer seems a little on the paranoid side.

[shartley]

It is not mandatory to call the police for everything. We have the right to handle things on our own if we CHOOSE. It may not always be the best choice, but it is OURS to make.

You know what I call people who rely on the police for everything? Cowards.

If you are not willing to defend yourself, your family, and your possessions, you don’t deserve to have any of it. Not to mention defending your community if need be as well.

As for packing a gun on our persons or in our vehicles…. Why is that wrong? Why would that bother anyone? There are some JOBS that make it a good idea to do so.. such as a manager that does bank drops, and other things. But even if you don’t have a job that would make having a gun an added safety measure, what harm does it do anyone that you DO carry? Not everyone who CHOOSES to carry is paranoid and I think that is where I take offense.

Why bother having a jack and spare tire in your car? That seems a bit paranoid doesn’t it? Do you think your car will have a blowout every time you drive it?

Also, our country is so big and has so many different types of communities in it, that no ONE statement on personal security can possibly fit every location and every person. What is perfectly logical behavior in one area can be overboard in another. I don’t think that every person in every community has the need to carry a gun. But I don’t deny that in SOME places it may be a good idea if the person CHOOSES.

The thing that does bother me though is passing judgment of a negative nature on people who are choosing to do something that is currently LEGAL, to protect themselves from others who are doing things that are NOT. And even more so when their LEGAL actions don’t affect anyone but the bad guys. People who carry are subject to the laws just like anyone else. And if THEY do something stupid or endanger the lives of others they are held accountable… same as if they were a black belt.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by aaron_mag

While I am not in favor of banning guns like CB

WHERE IN THE WORLD DID YOU GET THAT??

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by shartley
It is not mandatory to call the police for everything. We have the right to handle things on our own if we CHOOSE. It may not always be the best choice, but it is OURS to make.

You know what I call people who rely on the police for everything? Cowards.

If you are not willing to defend yourself, your family, and your possessions, you don’t deserve to have any of it. Not to mention defending your community if need be as well.

As for packing a gun on our persons or in our vehicles…. Why is that wrong? Why would that bother anyone? There are some JOBS that make it a good idea to do so.. such as a manager that does bank drops, and other things. But even if you don’t have a job that would make having a gun an added safety measure, what harm does it do anyone that you DO carry? Not everyone who CHOOSES to carry is paranoid and I think that is where I take offense.

Why bother having a jack and spare tire in your car? That seems a bit paranoid doesn’t it? Do you think your car will have a blowout every time you drive it?

Also, our country is so big and has so many different types of communities in it, that no ONE statement on personal security can possibly fit every location and every person. What is perfectly logical behavior in one area can be overboard in another. I don’t think that every person in every community has the need to carry a gun. But I don’t deny that in SOME places it may be a good idea if the person CHOOSES.

The thing that does bother me though is passing judgment of a negative nature on people who are choosing to do something that is currently LEGAL, to protect themselves from others who are doing things that are NOT. And even more so when their LEGAL actions don’t affect anyone but the bad guys. People who carry are subject to the laws just like anyone else. And if THEY do something stupid or endanger the lives of others they are held accountable… same as if they were a black belt.

No one is saying you should rely on the police for everything. All I am saying is that a gun for the "protection" of your family is not the best weapon IMO to use. For its risk outweigh its benefits.

I am not passing judgments, but by the replies I get towards me, a lot of people are passing judgments on me.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


No one is saying you should rely on the police for everything. All I am saying is that a gun for the "protection" of your family is not the best weapon IMO to use. For its risk outweigh its benefits.

I am not passing judgments, but by the replies I get towards me, a lot of people are passing judgments on me.
In your opinion… you hit the nail on the head. There are many times we can list “tools” people use that would not be the best choice for the PERSON, but may be for someone else.

I like to use my circular saw, but for my son I would suggest a hand saw. Does that mean that my circular saw is not a good tool? Does it mean it should not be used by anyone? Does it mean I should not be able to CHOOSE to use it?

As for passing judgment… we ALL pass judgment on people. And you are passing judgment on guns without taking everything into account. And no matter how many of us who are actually trained in their use, trained others in their use, had them as part of our jobs and daily lives tell you something, you fall back on your “opinions”, which are not much of an arguing point compared to actual knowledge on the subject matter.

What I am saying is that the CHOICE is up to the individual, and it is protected by the Constitution. If you have a problem with that, or think it is wrong, try to change the Constitution… and good luck. But you can’t seem to understand that, and seem to want to make those taking advantage of their continually protected rights seem like they are doing something WRONG, or stupid.

What is next? We ask you what you think is the best lock for our homes? We ask you what you think is the best car for us to drive? We ask you what TV shows we should watch? How about what paintball marker we should all use? Or how about what kind of dog/cat/ or any pet, we should own?

The simple truth to the matter is, that you are not paying our bills. You are not feeding our families. You are not buying our homes. And you are not protecting us from anything. And to think you can sit there and determine what is “best” for everyone is without a doubt on the pretentious side. It is one thing stating what YOU choose to do and why, but to act like your standards and opinions are the “correct” ones is more than a bit off base. And to try to use the rest of the world to support your opinions is silly to say the least.

You make it seem like a gun WILL cause more problems than they solve. You make it seem like by even owning one for protection you are putting the lives of your family in jeopardy. And each alternative you list can end in similar if not exactly the same “negative” scenarios. But you would propose to take away a person’s RIGHT to choose what they do.

As for your comments about the Police… you are correct, you didn’t say to call them for everything. But you did say that someone was “suppose” to call them when they thought their building was broken into. And this is wrong. It is a good idea to call the police in this instance, but it is not a “like you are suppose to” issue.

So.. I think it comes down to this….

- The right to own firearms is protected by the Constitution.

- The right to NOT own firearms is also a right of each citizen.

- Each person must determine FOR THEMSELVES what is best for them, their families, and their exact situation.

And I for one am glad I live in a country where we are allowed to follow the above 3 things and not have people who don’t know every persons exact training, situations, etc. make the determination for what we should own, or use to protect ourselves, our families, and our possessions.

Okay, we get it CB.. you think owning a gun for protection is unwise. Fair enough. I don’t agree with that as long as the individual is TRAINED to use it, but whatever. On the other hand, I don’t’ think choosing to NOT own one is unwise either. What I DO think is unwise is taking away a persons CHOICE to do what they think is best for THEM. And acting like people are doing something wrong by taking advantage of their constitutionally protected RIGHTS is bordering on UnAmerican….. yet you stand up and preach another constitutionally protected right, Freedom of Speech…. So one right it fine, but another is not? It is okay to stand up and talk crap about your government but not to choose the manner in which you protect yourself and your family…. Interesting.

My point is that you may come back and claim you are not advocating banning guns, but your words and insinuations say otherwise. Unless you are saying that guns should only be used for entertainment, such as target shooting. And THAT is in my opinion dangerous. When people start thinking of guns as things other than the tools they were designed to be, and as “entertainment” devices (akin to a toy) used only to shoot clay pigeons, paper targets, etc. we are headed for a world of hurt……….. because it is easy to ban a toy, and I can assure you that criminals know full well the uses of this tool.

[Xerces]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


WHERE IN THE WORLD DID YOU GET THAT??

ok, so you're not liberal, you don't want guns banned, yet you argue furiously over it for no reason(claiming you want everyone to see both sides of the story doesn't cut it, find a new excuse).

by reading what you post i see a picture in my head of someone knifing another guy in the stomach and saying murder is wrong at the same time. when people are trying to sort out the grey area, adding your nebulous views doesn't help.

[aaron_mag]

Shartley-

I'm not disagreeing that having a problem with other people packing guns in their cars may be a personal problem. Even a personal paranoia that I may be the victim of road rage etc (heck with the way I drive I of course I'm afraid):) .

When my father told me he carried a gun in his car and had taken the classes for a concealed weapons permit it made me MORE afraid rather than less afraid. I partially wondered at his complete sanity even though he is an intelligent individual and a capable business man. I couldn't help but wonder why a man who had never been mugged felt the need to protect himself from some unseen enemy. This was all before a incident that I will relate below.

On the reverse side my father and brother are constantly trying to give me a gun for my house because they think that not having one in the home is foolish.

Now I will tell a story that totally supports your side. My father had rental properties and he rented to a young man who turned out to be a problem. Eventually he had to get him evicted and predictably the guy called him and threatened him. My father informed the former renter that he was welcome to try whatever he wanted but that he should know that he (my father) was a gun collecter and had plenty of protection. Soon after that same former renter shot and killed someone over an altercation in a park, broke into a daycare and kidnapped a little girl, and after a high speed chase was taken out by police snipers (little girl was saved). My dad always uses that example at how the deterrent of a guns can prevent a situation from ever developing (since the former renter was afraid of my father's gun arsenal).

Totally true story and supports exactly what 1de, Shartley, and Army are saying. Still doesn't make me any less paranoid about people packing heat but is an interesting case study.

[shartley]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Shartley-

I'm not disagreeing that having a problem with other people packing guns in their cars may be a personal problem. Even a personal paranoia that I may be the victim of road rage etc (heck with the way I drive I of course I'm afraid):) .

When my father told me he carried a gun in his car and had taken the classes for a concealed weapons permit it made me MORE afraid rather than less afraid. I partially wondered at his complete sanity even though he is an intelligent individual and a capable business man. I couldn't help but wonder why a man who had never been mugged felt the need to protect himself from some unseen enemy. This was all before a incident that I will relate below.

On the reverse side my father and brother are constantly trying to give me a gun for my house because they think that not having one in the home is foolish.

Now I will tell a story that totally supports your side. My father had rental properties and he rented to a young man who turned out to be a problem. Eventually he had to get him evicted and predictably the guy called him and threatened him. My father informed the former renter that he was welcome to try whatever he wanted but that he should know that he (my father) was a gun collecter and had plenty of protection. Soon after that same former renter shot and killed someone over an altercation in a park, broke into a daycare and kidnapped a little girl, and after a high speed chase was taken out by police snipers (little girl was saved). My dad always uses that example at how the deterrent of a guns can prevent a situation from ever developing (since the former renter was afraid of my father's gun arsenal).

Totally true story and supports exactly what 1de, Shartley, and Army are saying. Still doesn't make me any less paranoid about people packing heat but is an interesting case study.
You bring up good examples.

The fact is, that if people want, it is easy to bring up “good” examples for both sides of the issue. It is easy to find supporting stories of both problems avoided by having guns, and horror stories caused by the improper use of guns.

What is most important is that we all have the right to choose for ourselves. And a fear of misuse is just as bad, if not worse than the fear of not having a gun. But I will also point out that far too much “fear” is being assigned to gun owners. Far too much “feeling of need” is being assigned to gun owners. Most of the time is it someplace in the middle. And the “fear” people have is about the same no matter how they choose to protect themselves, or choose NOT to protect themselves.

Again, it comes down to the right to choose… not whether it is the most effective tool for EVERY situation we find ourselves in. Because honestly, any weapon, or lack of weapon, can be shown to be the wrong tool for every possible situation. And gun owners don’t break out their arsenal whenever they hear a bump in the night.

And add to that that most of the problems caused by handguns are done with illegally purchased and carried ones. The person who takes the time to do it right, buying, getting a carry permit, etc. is less likely to misuse his firearm.

Also, road rage is not restricted to gun play. How many times have we seen the VEHICLE used as the weapon, or a crowbar, tire iron, or ball bat? The risk is no higher for misuse with a gun, bat, crowbar, tire iron, or even the vehicle itself…. Let alone for those who are legally carrying the gun.

So, the question is not why people choose to own guns, but why someone would be so adamant about them NOT doing so. And when CB claims he is not for banning guns, but then continually questions a person’s reasons for owning them and states that he thinks they cause more harm than good, it sends out a contradicting signal. He is putting all gun owners in a large group not taking into account any of the varying situations.

Gun owners don’t need to justify their ownership to anyone, and in fact CB would probably be surprised how many people he sees each day that ARE legally carrying a gun, or use them to protect their homes/families. And I don’t think gun owners look forward to the chance to USE them, or even WANT to use them. Most of us would be more than happy to be left alone…. like the majority of people (gun owners or not). And the ownership of a gun for defensive purposes does not affect anyone but those trying to take offensive measures against them.

And as I have stated time and again, in my years of being a police officer, I have never had a problem involving a gun by a person who legally purchased it, and had a carry permit. So wanting to penalize those who are following the rules, because of those who are NOT, is more than a bit wrong (I am not saying that is what you are doing however).

[Collegeboy]

I actually think we are sort of arguing on the same side a little bit Shartley we just don't know it. I have said that I would not trust anyone with protecting me with a gun unless they have training in and have actually shot someone. Now you think that shooting paper targets and learning about a gun teaches you to be able to not freeze up when the target is a living breathing person trying to kill you, I don't think that training will prepare you for that.

Since the majority if not most the people in the country has never shot anyone, I find it not wise for them to use a gun for protection.

But if you are trained in it and have shot a person I find it wise for you to use a gun.

Now there are situations where a gun even if trained is not the best decision to use. Sometimes it is best just to run for attacking the guy you are in essence putting your families life at risk. Every situation deserves a separate look into it.

As for the breaking in of a business. I find it stupid to go into a building that something looks like it has been broken into thinking it is your job to find out. Chances are the robbers are going to be there when the police arrive, if not, they are going to go out the door they already broke down or whatever. So the best policy IMO is to call the police and let them handle it. At least that is what the experts, the police, say to do.


Xerces, where I have I argued for the banning of guns. Please show me. Where have I argued that I am a liberal, please show me.

And me comparing the US to the world, it is a good tool to see something. By my asking, why do most Americans feel they need a gun for protection and most of the world doesn’t feel so, it was an attempt to get people to look deeper then personal feelings to see something differently then you have. But since you all didn’t, it didn’t happen. I was not using that to prove my point, as some of you like to think.

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
At least that is what the experts, the police, say to do.


With all due respect to the GOOD members of the law enforcement community, I don't trust them to do anything other then give traffic tickets

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I think you are reading more into what I am saying, where do you get that I am a liberal.

The fact that YOU refuse to admit you're liberal is immaterial.

Criminals don't admit they're criminals either.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, there's a damned good chance it's a duck.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


The fact that YOU refuse to admit you're liberal is immaterial.

Criminals don't admit they're criminals either.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, there's a damned good chance it's a duck.

Alrighty then, what makes me a liberal. Post my beliefs that make me a liberal.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


The fact that YOU refuse to admit you're liberal is immaterial.

Criminals don't admit they're criminals either.


Using criminals to explain liberals? I resent that comparison...:D By the way any decent liberal would call myself and probably CB middle americans/liberal posers who have betrayed the cause. So CB is right that he is not a leftist. Pun intended...:)

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Alrighty then, what makes me a liberal. Post my beliefs that make me a liberal.

Don't be an idiot.

I'm smart enough to comprehend what you've posted here on AO.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


Using criminals to explain liberals? I resent that comparison...:D By the way any decent liberal would call myself and probably CB middle americans/liberal posers who have betrayed the cause. So CB is right that he is not a leftist. Pun intended...:)


Nope, not buyin that one.

The fact that most liberals think THEY are the middle of the roaders is a joke.

The fact that they think conservatives are all extremeists is also a joke.

What cBoy fails to understand is that the majority of this country is conservative to a large degree.

That crackfest known as the 60's is long since over and the dope smoking, fm radio listening types that thought they were dictating policy for the so called mainstream of this country are about as far out of reality as they can get.

The fact that they refuse to grow up and take responsibility for their own lives, i.e. let the cops handle everything, and the government owes me, is a serious shortcoming and breeds the exact kind of mentality towards life that cBoy shows.

[aaron_mag]

I don't want to hijack this thread but to say people refuse to grow up because of their political beliefs is ridiculous. Despite the fact that they have jobs, pay taxes, raise children, etc the fact that they have different political beliefs than others means they haven't grown up? Is the entire city of San Francisco, which is known to be a liberal place, full of immature people despite the fact that it is the west coast financial center?

There I am done now.

[Rebel46_99]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Alrighty then, what makes me a liberal. Post my beliefs that make me a liberal.

Once again you insult us by "demanding" that we give you proof on something. The typical childish, "I know you are, but what am I?" response. Yet... almost every post of yours in this thread is riddled with hypotheticals, conjecture and what ifs.... as in, "Chances are..." "More than likely..." and so on.

Your question has been answered in more ways and by better MEN than you could ever hope to be. IF and WHEN you step out into the real world, instead of your sheltered college life, and get your eyes opened by the cold realities that alot of us deal with on a daily basis, MAYBE THEN you will begin to understand. Personally.... I seriously doubt it.

DW

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I actually think we are sort of arguing on the same side a little bit Shartley we just don't know it. I have said that I would not trust anyone with protecting me with a gun unless they have training in and have actually shot someone. Now you think that shooting paper targets and learning about a gun teaches you to be able to not freeze up when the target is a living breathing person trying to kill you, I don't think that training will prepare you for that.

Since the majority if not most the people in the country has never shot anyone, I find it not wise for them to use a gun for protection.

But if you are trained in it and have shot a person I find it wise for you to use a gun.

Well I have been trained very well by some extremely qualified teachers. Heck one of my clients does training for the CIA and the State Department. He let me attend a whole series of classes on firearms and self defense. Only thing is, I have never shot anyone. Hey CB you volunteering? :p ;)

You know that this post makes abosolutely NO SENSE! My uncle, my cousin and one of my best friends are all police officers. They are well trained. My uncle has been decorated many times. None of them however has ever shot someone. I guess that makes them unqualified in your eyes!:rolleyes:

Please think about how stupid this post makes you look.

Hey Sam, you were a cop. How many people did you shoot?;) None, well I guess you too are unqualified!

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Well I have been trained very well by some extremely qualified teachers. Heck one of my clients does training for the CIA and the State Department. He let me atten a whole series of classes on firearms and sel defense. Only thing is, I have never shot anyone. Hey CB you volunteering? :p ;)


More bad taste comments:) . You yourself admit that you usually go ten steps beyond bad taste then you have the gall to come onto this board and ask us why your wife is so sensitive? You never did tell us EXACTLY what you said that got her miffed. We probably would have felt she was justified.:D

Just kidding around with you. Most people probably don't remember the post I am referring to....:rolleyes:

[shartley]

How many people did I shoot as a cop? Or how about as a soldier too? ;)

I agree however, that actually shooting someone is irrelevant.

Now with that said… I seem to remember CB saying he felt sorry for my family if I ever had to face an armed intruder. Didn’t he say that? But now says that I am in fact qualified to have a gun for that purpose? Not only qualified but “wise” to use a gun.

(Note: When I was a cop we used to say, “Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.”…. and that is VERY true.)

I know my background has never been a mystery here on AO, nor to CB. Yet he flip flops on whether I personally should use a gun for protection. Interesting.

I would also like to point out that CB states that there are times when it is not best to use a gun…. And I AGREE! That has never been the argument. And to insinuate that just because you HAVE a gun you will run right into a situation that may require you to use it is far from being a fair assessment of gun owners.

Heck, I gave a step by step explanation as to what would be a good thing to do if you thought your home was broken into and the intruder was still in your house…. And it was clear that using the gun would be the LAST resort, not your first action. But if you have it, that is one step that you are prepared for.

And it is the INTRUDER that determines the level of force needed for each situation, and if they get shot it was their fault, not the home owner’s.

Sorry… got going again….. a lot of this was already covered. ;)

[1stdeadeye]

Aaron-

I stated that with my twisted sense of humor, I usually go a few seps past the point of poor taste. With my wife that time, I did mention weight! In hindsight, BIG MISTAKE! My wife really let me have it for that! But it was an honest mistake, we were playing around and I went too far!

As for CB, well I really want to be qualified, so I need to shot someone (:rolleyes: ). I figure since he is setting up the qualifications, maybe he would volunteer. I wouldn't kill him, maybe wing his arm or something!;) :p

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by shartley
(Note: When I was a cop we used to say, “Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.”…. and that is VERY true.)


Pretty good saying!!!:D

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Rebel46_99


Once again you insult us by "demanding" that we give you proof on something. The typical childish, "I know you are, but what am I?" response. Yet... almost every post of yours in this thread is riddled with hypotheticals, conjecture and what ifs.... as in, "Chances are..." "More than likely..." and so on.

Your question has been answered in more ways and by better MEN than you could ever hope to be. IF and WHEN you step out into the real world, instead of your sheltered college life, and get your eyes opened by the cold realities that alot of us deal with on a daily basis, MAYBE THEN you will begin to understand. Personally.... I seriously doubt it.

DW

He made the comment that I am a liberal, I am asking for proof to back his accusation. Just simple wishes and what should be done.

My question had been answered one time. Only one person attempted to explain why many of the world doesn't feel the same way about protection as the US.

I will not even touch your "real" world thesis.


Have you shot someone Shartly. If no then I do not think you are qualified to the extent of being certain that you have the mental capacity to shot someone without a split second notice. Maybe you don’t I don’t know, and I don’t put faith into things I don’t know.

As for the situation I said about you and your family. I do not think pulling a gun on an armed person is the best time to use a gun. For it will result in a shoot out. 50/50 chances at best. The best time IMO opinion to use a gun is when the chances are in your favor drastically that you will come out of it alive and mainly your family comes out alive. Each case deserves a special evaluation given your background, your experience and so forth.

No amount of training can prepare a person for what it takes to shoot someone in a split second without ever thinking about it.

FOL since you say you are smart enough to comprehend my post, then answer my question. You made the accusation now provide proof. Why are you shying away from the question?

1de, na but I have a roommate that you can. :p :p ;) :p

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Have you shot someone Shartly. If no then I do not think you are qualified to the extent of being certain that you have the mental capacity to shot someone without a split second notice. Maybe you don’t I don’t know, and I don’t put faith into things I don’t know.

As for the situation I said about you and your family. I do not think pulling a gun on an armed person is the best time to use a gun. For it will result in a shoot out. 50/50 chances at best. The best time IMO opinion to use a gun is when the chances are in your favor drastically that you will come out of it alive and mainly your family comes out alive. Each case deserves a special evaluation given your background, your experience and so forth.

No amount of training can prepare a person for what it takes to shoot someone in a split second without ever thinking about it.

Actually YES. Want to know the psychological crap you have to go through after shooting someone? Want to know the investigation that follows a shooting?

As for the mental capacity to shoot someone without a split second notice… do you think anyone is advocating “Quick Draw McGraw”? Do you even think facing a split second decision that even SEASONED officers don’t hesitate at times? And do you think that depends on whether they have actually SHOT someone before? WRONG. And officers also go through “Shoot / don’t shoot” training to help them in those situations.

Now, as for what you said THIS time about me and my family…. I think you are the LAST person to put any faith in their opinions on this matter since you have clearly shown that you don’t know what you are talking about, nor have any first hand experience. Who said anything about pulling a gun on an armed person?

Again, are we all “Quick Draw McGraws”? EVERY time this has been brought up it was CLEARLY stated that the gun owner is prepared. The gun is already out and in a ready to use posture. And it has been clearly stated to let your intentions be WELL KNOWN in an attempt to let the intruder GET OUT. You WANT them to GET OUT. You also don’t want to surprise them or corner them, for that is the most dangerous time in a confrontation.

And in the case of home protection, it is not a “split second” thing. If you have your gun you had better be prepared to USE it. You can hope that you don’t have to (as all responsible gun owners do) but it is not a “bluff” weapon. From the time you notice you have an intruder YOU should be in control of the situation and guide the intruder to do what YOU want, via the steps I have laid out time and again. But you act like none of it was said.

50/50 chance in a “shoot out”? LOL Not likely. I know my house. I know my abilities. And I would never sit back and wonder what the “odds” are that me and my family “make it out alive” and base my actions on that. I would let the intruder do the “figuring”, and hope he/she gets out alive….. And as I have said time and again, I would give them every opportunity to leave without a direct confrontation.

Not to bring it up again, but to say that only AFTER you shoot someone are you qualified to use a gun for protection is STUPID. I will not even try to soften it any. IT IS STUPID. Cops would not be issued guns. Soldiers would not be issued guns. Heck, and how can you ever get the CHANCE to shoot someone unless you HAVE a gun? LOL

Nuff said………..

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by shartley

Actually YES. Want to know the psychological crap you have to go through after shooting someone? Want to know the investigation that follows a shooting?



Sorry Sam, I did not know that. I would not have made a joke about this had I known!:(

[CasingBill]

Are you actually trying to infer that you are not a liberal? Every post you are on the same side of the issue. The LEFT side. It always seems to be the same like-minded people basically against you.

BTW how do you qualify to shoot someone by shooting someone? Do you mean our military personnel are not qualified until they shoot someone? Then what is all the training for? You are supposed to train,train,train and train again in hopes that when the time comes you will be able to fall back on your training. What you said makes no sense.
If the intruder has a gun and I have a gun you are right its a 50/50 chance. IF he has a gun and I don't, I have no chance. If I have a gun and he doesn't, well then......

In the words of Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf...It's God's job to forgive...it's our job to arrange the meeting!

[MagMan5446]

Originally posted by CasingBill
Are you actually trying to infer that you are not a liberal? Every post you are on the same side of the issue. The LEFT side. It always seems to be the same like-minded people basically against you.



Do you have a problem with people of different opinions?

[CasingBill]

Originally posted by MagMan5446



Do you have a problem with people of different opinions?

Not at all. I do have a problem when people try to force their belief system on me in the name of "tolerance".

But thats not what I said. I said that CB was trying to say he was not a liberal. Nothing else. You read what you wanted into what I said.
It seems that he is not proud to be called what he is.
I know what I am. A total right-wing conservative with attitude.

[shartley]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Sorry Sam, I did not know that. I would not have made a joke about this had I known!:(
Don’t worry about it. It is not something people tend to stroll down memory lane about, but neither is scraping up people off the road after they were driving while drunk either… along with a whole lot more things. It is a part of our lives and it is normal people like you and me, and Joe Smith that have to do some of the worse things in society.

I have done a lot of things in my life, and I would not trade a single one of them for anything. The road I have traveled has lead me to having a wonderful wife and 4 fantastic kids. I don’t mean to get all “sappy”, but everything happens for a reason….

Hey! And my car should be ready next week!!!!! WooHoo! ;)