Pissed off almost an entire class today

[drg]

How?
Violent crime in Austraila went up after they went gun ban crazy.

Or not.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Always be suspicious of overtly partisan information.

[HoppysMag]

Or not.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Always be suspicious of overtly partisan information.

ether way, thats australia and shouldnt be used as an example for america.

the facts remain, if im gunna commit a crime, im already breaking the law what does it matter to me if i use a legal gun?

now if im an innocent civilian who owns legal guns and said criminal breaks into my home. what do you want me to do, call the police and hope for the best? screw that, im gunna protect my family.

now what if guns were outlawed. the outlaws still have guns, cause if u couldnt stop them then how are u gunna stop them now. so now he breaks into my house. now my only option is call the police and hope for the best. congrats though, you dislike of guns, has now endangered me, and my family.

tell me how you are gunna magicly make all the illegal guns dissapear off the streets, if they are already illegal, unregistered? you gunna go house to house and search like the british did? im sure that will work right?

[SlartyBartFast]

ether way, thats australia and shouldnt be used as an example for america.

Yea, well I gues that's the view the rest of the world expects from Americans, and the reason we're often so tired with you all generally. You think you've got nothing to learn from others, but won't hesitate to loudly point out what we should learn from you.

America has absolutely nothing to be proud of when it comes to crime statistics or percentages of the population that are incarcerated.

And Pyro, what argument in favor of bans would you accept? Do you agree that the current American laws against automatics and conversions are legitimate? If they aren't, in your view, how do you not justify your view without either treating guns more leniently than other crimes or being against numerous other laws on the same basis? If you shouldn't legislate against certain guns because it's difficult to enforce, you shouldn't legislate against shoplifting because it's difficult to enforce.

Certainly the desire not to have a neighbour with auomatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades may be an arbitrary fear. But the desire to own and play with such weaponry (even in a responsible manner) is just as arbitrary.

[SlartyBartFast]

Why do you think conservative churches will not accept others?

Because THEY know what's good for ME?

So, if you conservatives feel so strongly that it's your God given right to impose your will on others by force of number and weaponry, how do you separate the good isolationist, closed-minded, exclusionist, bigots from the good ones?

One of the funny conundrums about the gun debate is that one of the principle reasons the gun lobby uses is the defense against legitimate government. Yet, when a large segment of the population rises up against the government and is repressed by armed government force, the conservatives and gun supporters are invariably on the side of the repressive government?

Early days of police breaking up peaceful unionisation, the army enforcing segregation, the government to forcibly enlist the population (Vietnam, the spectre of a draft for Iraq, or even the Iraqi deserters or those that refuse Iraq postings), etc.

Would the anti Vietnam war "hippies" have been right and acceptable to all you gun supporters if they had instead risen up against the government in armed violence and civil war to protest against what they saw as illigitimate government action?

Funny how the expected answer amounts to the ultimate selfishness of believing only your point of view could ever be valid.

[FragTek]

I hate hearing stories like this... Some people are amazing.

The NRA's sole purpose is to promote gun safety and protect our 2nd amendment that lets us LAW ABIDING gun owners keep our firearms. Not to mention all of the grants that the NRA gives to shooting clubs all over the country for range improvements year long.

I dont know, I can't possibly understand anyone with half a brain could call the NRA evil. The NRA in no way endorses the illegal use of firearms (the sort of things you hear in the news).

I've been a life member of the NRA since the day I was born (birth gift from my father who's the Deputy Director of Competitive Shooting for the NRA).

Ok I had to make this rant shorter than I'd like to, because when it comes to "the family business" I could go on for hours and hours and pages and pages, but I'm showing extreme self control here.

[SlartyBartFast]

I dont know, I can't possibly understand anyone with half a brain could call the NRA evil. The NRA in no way endorses the illegal use of firearms (the sort of things you hear in the news).

Unfortuantely, the majority of Liberals who would support even the NRA and most gun owners and dont' look at the NRA as evil are dismissed and insulted by the conservatives in this thread.

The left has its Stalins, the right has its Hitlers. The fundamental error in American politics (and this discussion) is that no matter how much conciliation is done by the left, the conservatives are lumping everyone that has an even slightly divergent view as completely wrong.

Read the labelling and stereotyping in this thread and try to tell me that's not the truth.

[HoppysMag]

Yea, well I gues that's the view the rest of the world expects from Americans, and the reason we're often so tired with you all generally. You think you've got nothing to learn from others, but won't hesitate to loudly point out what we should learn from you.

America has absolutely nothing to be proud of when it comes to crime statistics or percentages of the population that are incarcerated.

straight from the ausi gov website



from the looks of it to me all they sucedeed in doing was keep gun suicide down. murder is down a little , but the question is, is the total number of murders affected. i bet the total number of suicides isnt.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/40/RPP40_02_findings.pdf

as you can see below, total homocides have barely changed

and even then people are still killed by other means of weapons ( guns dont kill people. people kill people.) so lets ban knives, sharp objects, blunt objects, and hands/feet right? those can kill people too.
in 98 there was 57 gun realated homocides in all of australia, we have more than that in newyork in a week probibly.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti161.pdf

please. think before you talk. australia is NO WHERE NEAR the us in crime or population. those numbers are a joke to us. and even if they were relevant they still show no great visable change in total number in corrospondence to gun bans.

[epterry]

At the moment, I do not care what political view you have. As you said Hitler to the right Stalin to the left, do you think they would have rounded up all of those folks if they were armed?

[ScatterPlot]

Because THEY know what's good for ME?

So, if you conservatives feel so strongly that it's your God given right to impose your will on others by force of number and weaponry, how do you separate the good isolationist, closed-minded, exclusionist, bigots from the good ones?

If you'll reread my post you will understand my reasoning. I never said anywhere that I wanted to use "weapons and force" to impose my will on others. I don't know where you got that. My point is this:
Conservatives believe that only their way is right. So they try to teach others about it. There are the idiots who want to go on a big ole crusade to kill all people who don't think like them, then there are the Amish types who don't tell others at all. Both extremes are wrong. The basic "conservative view" is that there is only one right way. Now imagine this situation:

You are sitting there one day watching TV when all of a sudden you get a phone call from aliens who are about to invade earth. They tell you that the only way that anyone will live through this invasion is to cut off all their hair and get a tatoo on their chin of a smiley face. Now the conservtive view in this situation (the one that I follow and the one that I believe is right) is to go around and tell others of this so that they will live through the impending invasion. Conservatives, when they have the right reasons for doing what they are doing, try to get others to agree with them because they think it's the only way, and they want them to survive the attack (i.e., go to heaven). The general "liberal view" would be to say, "Ya know, this smiley face thing might work for me, but not for everyone. Who am I to say that someone can't survive by getting a frowny face tattoo, or not even do anything at all?" Conservatives, well at least the ones that are justified in what they do, don't do it because they are "isolationist bigots" but because they CARE about what happens to the other people. Now I'm not saying that all of the people out there that claim to be conservatives and who tell others what to do are doing it for the right reasons. Not by a long shot. What I'm saying is that if you KNEW that there was only one way to do something, why would you let others go about doing it the wrong way? Hence the "isolationist" name that we always get when we try to HELP others learn what is right. There are a ton of conservative nazis out there who just do it cause they like to feel better than others, then there is that small amount of people who do it because they want to help other people. Back to the alien analogy- the conservative nazis would usually go out and beat people unconsious and cut off their hair and give them the smiley face while they're unconscious. The "good" conservatives would try to tell people why they should do this. The people who are out there converting people with "weapons and force" are not doing it right. It's like the Muslim belief of "kill all non-believers" as opposed to the conservative view of "convert all non-believers". If you truly believed that there was only ONE WAY to get saved from the aliens and there was any shred of decency in you, would you not tell others about it? It's not selfishness. It's the complete opposite of that. Now remember, I'm not saying this about everyone, but TRUE "conservative" beliefs come from LOVE of the other person, not bigotry and hatred of them. Yes we feel we know what's best for everyone. That's why we do what we do. We want them to be happy. Don't you think that it would be a ton easier for us to just let whatever happens happen (like the standard "liberal" viewpoint)? We don't do it to feel good, we do it to help other people.

[ScatterPlot]

Funny how the expected answer amounts to the ultimate selfishness of believing only your point of view could ever be valid.

I don't know how that's selfish. The point is that if it's your view, it has to be valid. Why would anyone hold a view they did not think to be valid?

I think it's funny that your statement applies to yourself as well. You have a view. It is that everyone can be right, just let it flow. It is completely impossible to be able to 100% truthfully say that. Go read your above posts in this thread. You have been oppressing your views just like we have been representing ours, except you felt the need to at ours. The point is, people don't keep guns for selfish reasons. Is defending your family "selfish"? No. Only when you know that your view is good for only you is it selfish.

[Chris42050]

Here is my view and it is quite simple. If you make owning guns criminal, than only criminals will own guns. You can agree or disagree doesn't matter to me.

On a lighter note. Here is a joke. Now I know that not all democrates are against guns and vice versa but I just got this joke in the email today and I thot I would share.

> How do you tell the difference between Democrats, Republicans and
> Southern?
>
> The answer can be found by posing the following question:
>
> You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small
> children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes
> around the corner. He locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises
> the knife and charges. You are carrying a Glock 40, and you are an
> expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your
> family. What do you do?
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>
> Democrat's Answer:


> Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
>
> Does the man look poor or oppressed?
>
> Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
>
> Could we run away?
>
> What does my wife think?
>
> What about the kids?
>
> Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of
>his hand?
>
> What does the law say about this situation?
>
> Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
>
> Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway and what kind of message does
> this send to society and to my children?
>
> Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
>
> Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to
> wound me?
>
> If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away
> while he was stabbing me?
>
> Should I call 9-1-1?
>
> Why is the street so deserted?
>
> We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a
> happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
>
> This is all so confusing!
>
> I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to
> come to a consensus.
>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>


> Republican's Answer:
>
>
>
> BANG!
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
> Southern Answer:
>
>
>
> BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click...(sounds
> of reloading)
>
> BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click
>
> Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy: Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"
>
>
>

[ScatterPlot]

:rofl:

[SlartyBartFast]

I don't know how that's selfish. The point is that if it's your view, it has to be valid. Why would anyone hold a view they did not think to be valid?

You didn't understand my post.

My question was wrt if as a conservative you would have been for or against protesters taking up arms against the government over the vietnam war. Or how about if the Black Panthers had been the majority force behind the civil rights movement and Martin Luther was the minority? The expected answer from a conservative would be that anyone who took up armed conflict with the government should have been treated as criminal and anti-american. Yet, they want to be able to have guns should the government enforce laws they don't agree with. Selfish hypocricy. The fact that such radical changes were possible without armed conflict also deflates the crap about defending against some government conspiracy were all of a sudden a democratically elected government including the house, senate, executive branch, and military all suddenly turned into communist agents or aliens from mars.

Look, if you want to "defend" your family be my guest. Have a non-restricted gun in your home. However, statistics I've seen continuously show that it's a bigger risk to your family's safety to have a gun in your home and more likely to provoke an intruder into firing first. I figure I don't mind collecting from my homeowners insurance policy. My family life insurance policies I'd rather NEVER see payment from.

As for the dumbass joke (if you're an expert, if it's a crazed man, if you shoot him in time... blah, blah, blah.), if it's a crazed man, well hell won't the crazed man have a gun? Seems in the world of the "I need a gun paranoids" the criminals are all carrying fullautos now anyways. You'll be dead before you draw your weapon if he's just out to kill. IMO, if he's out to rob you, the safest thing you could do is strip yourself and your family of all valuables and hand them over. Hell, if it was a crazed man out to kill you think he wouldn't walk past you calmly and have you kids throat under his knife before screaming obscenities?

Hmm. I see the 'joke' is really just another pathetic attempt by a republican to belittle a democratic view point with exagerated claims and ridicule because they're too inept to discuss the issue intelligently.

As far as defending one's self, still seems to me in driveby shootings the car occupants aren't usually the ones to suffer. Whether the targets are armed or not.

But, typical of the simple minded crap in these debates. Nowhere did anyone support a complete and total ban but that's the only issue the gun obssesed latch onto. Seeing as you can only see in black and white only underscores the limited understanding and unwillingness to comprehend other points of view.

On the otherhand, I've shot an acquaintence's Glock (was a better shot my first time than he was after owning it for 5yrs), his Uzi (semi only), and a 22cal semi pistol. I also shot regularly with rifles in Scouts. I support his owning those weapons. But, when it comes to the lunatic way the gun lobby starts foaming at the mouth whenever there are questions or concerns, or the fact that they turn into raving looneys incapable of logically arguing their way out of a paper bag when trying to counter even flawed gun legislation, they're their own worst enemies and I'll have no pity if the government does one day end up seizing his weapons.

[SlartyBartFast]

You have been oppressing your views just like we have been representing ours, except you felt the need to at ours.

Another asside:

I'm "oppressing" my views? Hope that's a typo or it sounds pretty stupid.

And yea, I used a rolleyes. The insults, lables, misrepresentation, exageration, and dehumanisation of opposing views shown by the other side deserves such lack of respect.

[HoppysMag]

You didn't understand my post.



Look, if you want to "defend" your family be my guest. Have a non-restricted gun in your home. However, statistics I've seen continuously show that it's a bigger risk to your family's safety to have a gun in your home and more likely to provoke an intruder into firing first. I figure I don't mind collecting from my homeowners insurance policy. My family life insurance policies I'd rather NEVER see payment from.
.

i grew up in a house with guns, my father did, his father did, all the way back to when my family came to america ( 1700's)

as of yet we have lost ZERO family members to firearm accidents. if you dont store your guns properly then yes there can be accidents, and people can die. but if you dont pipe your natural gas line properly, accidents can happen and people can die.dont tighten the lugnuts on your car properly and people can die. if you dont do almost anything properly people can die. and to me, kids who shoot themselfs are thier parents fault, not the gun, not the NRA, and most certainly not mine. i agree that there is noreason to have an M60 in everyones safe. BUT theres no reason for someone else to tell me i cant have it. and honestly, i wouldnt give a criminal the chance to shoot first. call me ignorant or a red neck or what ever but my family saftey comes a long time before some criminal scum. and im only 18, just wait till i have a wife and kids.


oh and by the way, From 1916 until 1996 the US government promoted, and sold rifles and ammunition because it feels a armed public is good. in 1996 The National Defense Authorization Act was to include a Non Profit organization to sell off these government surplus weapons. no they arnt M16's but M1's and 1903's. the M1 has been targeted by anti gun lobbyist for ban, this is the weapon that MILLIONS of men died by and died with, all over the globe.