Banning assault weapons again.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   


What does this have to do with anything? NOTHING.

It has everything to do with the topic will a gun protect you from a hit & run?





you mean besides trying to derail the debate by asking a lot of questions that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

Amuk you think I havnt noticed you have been sending this debate in circles in order to avoid aspects of the topic.




explain to me where we claim they will? We DONT. All we say is that in our country you have a right to bear arms and to protect yourself, no matter whither new Zealand likes it or not....LOL


Americans seem to think that guns prevent crime by themselvs.
Dose a gun phone the police when your neighbors house is being robbed ?
On the one hand you are saying that guns prevent crime and in the next instance you are saying they dont.
Just because a study is done it dont mean it is right or has flaws.




posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
It has everything to do with the topic will a gun protect you from a hit & run?


what does it have to do with the topic? Will being unarmed protect you from being hit and run?


Amuk you think I havnt noticed you have been sending this debate in circles in order to avoid aspects of the topic.


You are the one avoiding the topic which is BANNING ASSUALT RIFLES not do guns cause crime or will a gun stop you from being hit by a car, etc



Americans seem to think that guns prevent crime by themselvs.


NO. We are saying being ARMED can keep you from being robbed. I have supported links proving my side you backed yours with a letter to the editor and some kids homepage.



Dose a gun phone the police when your neighbors house is being robbed ?


no but I can stop the crimanals and hold them at guin point till the cops arrive. This happened to our neighbors about a year ago.



On the one hand you are saying that guns prevent crime and in the next instance you are saying they dont


I am saying being armed will help prevent YOU from being assualted or robbed, and provided links to prove my claim


Just because a study is done it dont mean it is right or has flaws.


I see lets ignore the studies and go with a letter to the editor and a kids homepage, heck that proof right?


This has been fun but I can see that nothing I can say will change your mind after all you read it in a letter to the editor so it must be true.....LOL

The facts are there for those that wish to look them up, for those that refuse to even read the links but claim a letter to the editor is proof enough for them....well there aint much I can do to convince them right?

So why waste my Sunday trying.

Later



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Amuk would you look at studys look this ? or dose it come to close to destorying the gun myth.

Quote from article.
But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.)

Guns cant protect you in every situation example being a hit & run.

What benfit was a gun in this situation?
A 14-year-old honor student from Briggs High School may be paralyzed for life after being shot in the face Monday night by a close friend.

As Billy George lay in a hospital bed, unable to move, his friend he has know since the age of four was sitting behind bars. Raymond Sims, 16, is charged with shooting Billy George. Friends say Sims had been flashing a gun all Monday, and then pulled the trigger just before 10 p.m
source



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Here is a little info for you.



The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
Full article

Even though America has far more firearms then most of the rest of the world we still have one of the lowest crime rates. Could it be because criminals know that Americans are armed?



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Americans seem to think that guns prevent crime by themselvs.
Dose a gun phone the police when your neighbors house is being robbed ?


Good point,

guns don't kill people, people kill people



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   


You are the one avoiding the topic which is BANNING ASSUALT RIFLES not do guns cause crime or will a gun stop you from being hit by a car, etc

You finaly get my point a gun cant always protect you.




NO. We are saying being ARMED can keep you from being robbed. I have supported links proving my side you backed yours with a letter to the editor and some kids homepage.

That shows how many flaws your argument has.




This has been fun but I can see that nothing I can say will change your mind after all you read it in a letter to the editor so it must be true.....LOL

The facts are there for those that wish to look them up, for those that refuse to even read the links but claim a letter to the editor is proof enough for them....well there aint much I can do to convince them right?

So why waste my Sunday trying.

To right it been fun no matter how the facts are layed out Americans wont admit the flaws in the gun myth. Still I can understand I wouldnt want to admit flaws in my culture either.
Later



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   
.



The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
Full article


I have already posted a link on this thread that points out that the murder rate went down in Aust with tighter gun laws. Crime on the whole didnt go up just burglary’s that is one type of crime.

Instead of arming people why not get to the heart of the problem and prevent crime.
Info
Note there is a typo on this page Im sure it should say decrease instead of increase crime lol



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Lesson for non U.S. people................NEVER tell any American they shouldnt have guns!

Its like telling a small child they cant have icecream.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
instar, just because you are sore that your countymen have no balls and let your Government take your right to own firearms away does not mean you need to take it out on someone else as a child would.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Last time I checked the USA isnt a thrid world countrie. What do you mean by goes bad? Is that when common sense infiltrates (that is when guns are left at the firing range.)


I mean, if the government is overrun by totalitarians and voting fails to oust them. It could happen. The idea of the government taking care of you is very tempting, and framed the right way, personal freedom might seem like a worthy sacrifice.



If the Government isnt responsible for the safety of its citzens then what do your tax dollars pay for?
How is an AK going to protect your family ?
By all means fight the invaders but I think you would draw the enemys attention to your family.

The government is responsible for the defense of the People as a collective, not my individual safety, because it is impossible to adequately protect every individual.



So you admit that guns wouldnt have prevented the 9-11 hijackings. So what use is there in carrying a gun on an airplane?

I admit that guns would not necessarilly be a perfect solution. However, imagine for a moment an alternate-universe 9/11 situation:
Guns are allowed on airplanes. Supposing even that some protection is in place, like requiring a concealed carry permit to do so, odds are the terrorists would find a way to get guns on board in this case. Even so, in a plane with 50 passengers, I think at least four would be armed. While it is possible under this scenario that the terrorists succeed anyway, it is much less probable. Just because there is still a possibility that the bad guys will win anyway doesn't mean all attempts to protect what is good are pointless.



It seems to me that guns are the quick fix solution arm the population rather then taking on the harder task of improving the police force.

In a single minute, a criminal can be in your house and already collecting loot. In another minute, he will have collected what he wants and be on his way out.
If he were willing to kill you, it would take no more than thirty seconds. For the police to respond to that in time to save your life is impossible. If you want a fast response time, look to yourself. It takes ten minutes for the police to come to your aid, but it only takes half a second to do it yourself. That makes you 1,200 times better than the police in terms of protecting you. It's not a matter of improving the police force, it's a matter of restoring to the people a sense of responsibility for their own safety. Arming the population is hardly a quick fix, it requires restoring a forgotten mindset.



If the problem is gangs, then shooting gangsters hardly adds to the problem.

You dont suppose that innocent people get caught in the cross fire.

In a home-invasion situation that's unlikely, especially if the homeowner has been practicing.

If Joe has a decent job, he can afford health insurance.


I sure hope joe dosnt have a min wage job.

I sure hope joe isn't subscribing to any cable TV or internet services when he should be saving for classes to get him a better job.




Why do you yanks even bother with a government ? You carry a gun to defend yourself. You pay huge amounts for healthcare get the monkey off your back completely after all you seem to think government services suppress your rights and are unable to deliver adequate service.



Health care is not supposed to be a government service. National defense, law enforcement only to the extent of maintaining peace, and infrastructure are the only things a government needs to provide. Everything else is icing on the cake, every drop of which has to be paid for by taking money away from the people.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   


I mean, if the government is overrun by totalitarians and voting fails to oust them. It could happen. The idea of the government taking care of you is very tempting, and framed the right way, personal freedom might seem like a worthy sacrifice.

Hate to breake this you but any totalitarian regime wont taker over by providing affordable health & education.




I admit that guns would not necessarilly be a perfect solution. However, imagine for a moment an alternate-universe 9/11 situation:
Guns are allowed on airplanes. Supposing even that some protection is in place, like requiring a concealed carry permit to do so, odds are the terrorists would find a way to get guns on board in this case. Even so, in a plane with 50 passengers, I think at least four would be armed. While it is possible under this scenario that the terrorists succeed anyway, it is much less probable. Just because there is still a possibility that the bad guys will win anyway doesn't mean all attempts to protect what is good are pointless.


Its pointless going any future with what 9-11 what ifs I think we have both made our points clear.






In a home-invasion situation that's unlikely, especially if the homeowner has been practicing.

Sorry If I wasnt clear on this point I was refering to gangs not home-invasions. Note I have already provided a link with info concerning the fact more people around the home are injured by guns then crims.







Health care is not supposed to be a government service. National defense, law enforcement only to the extent of maintaining peace, and infrastructure are the only things a government needs to provide. Everything else is icing on the cake, every drop of which has to be paid for by taking money away from the people.


Hang a sec dosnt defense and law enforcement take away from your earnings? Why bother having those?

I hate big government even if you have a free market health system isnt it still a government service or is the US health system 100% privatized?



[edit on 7-2-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Hate to breake this you but any totalitarian regime wont taker over by providing affordable health & education.


It's how the people are lured into permitting a totalitarian regime. Ever read anything about Cuba? Soviet Russia? China? Apparently not.

The people accepted these regimes because they thought they'd get something out of them.



Its pointless going any future with what 9-11 what ifs I think we have both made our points clear.
Of course, but there are still terrorists out there who would repeat 9/11 if they had the chance. In order to prevent the next 9/11, is it better to give all airline passengers an anal probe or to trust law-abiding citizens to do the right thing in an emergency?






Sorry If I wasnt clear on this point I was refering to gangs not home-invasions. Note I have already provided a link with info concerning the fact more people around the home are injured by guns then crims.


The odds are extremely high that any particular gang vs. decent joe scenario is going to be a home invasion situation.




Hang a sec dosnt defense and law enforcement take away from your earnings? Why bother having those?

All government services come from taxes. I'm not averse to paying taxes, just 40% of my income in taxes. There are too many government services in the United States at this time. Law enforcement and military are not among those excessive services, unless you count extraneous enforcement agencies like the BATFE.


I hate big government even if you have a free market health system isnt it still a government service or is the US health system 100% privatized?
Hospitals in the USA are private institutions.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Friday night a good friend of mine was shot in the head and chest. He was dead before he hit the ground. He was shot by a revolver that could've been purchased legally.

That being said I still support our rights to carry guns.

I don't understand how someone can support only parts of the bill of rights.

Banning assault rifles or handguns is the same to me as banning free speech.

Terrible gun crimes seem to have become part of living in the US. This wasn't always true.

There was a time in America where the boy scouts had shooting merit badges.

It is true that people kill each other, so what. Our forefathers knew what they were doing, and they knew that a populace that can't fight and protect itself is open and defenseless to tyranny.
And even if our government never turns despotic, there are many things that could happen to make you wish you had those weapons.

It's been said that civilisation is just two meals away from barbarism.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Sorry to hear about your friend
.
To our N.Z. friend:
I'm obviously here to stand with my countrymen on this one.
First, I have to question your NZ knowledge of the USA. You seem to only read negative press about us. I wish you could come to visit a few of us and REALLY understand what life is like here. We're reasonable people as a whole but there is an underlying distrust of authority within the society.

My fellow Americans have tried to explain to you how personal firearms have saved lives. I'll not bore you with my stories. Suffice it to say your argument is falling on wisened deaf ears.

You ask about "firearms staying at the range". What about MY range at my family property in the mountains? Should I have "government approval" to target practice there as my family has done for 117 years?
If you think so you don't know us or anything about us as a society.
We may come off as arrogant but we mostly just don't want to be messed with.
My favorite is you asking about "snipers" and "drive by's".
If you are being targeted by either of these tactics you deserve to die in most cases.
Why?, you ask?
These are gang killings. If you choose to live that life than you deserve the death that comes with it.
Come to America. I'll show you around the east coast for a bit and maybe, just maybe, you'll be inclined to join me at the shooting range when we're done.



[edit on 7-2-2005 by Fry2]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

It's how the people are lured into permitting a totalitarian regime. Ever read anything about Cuba? Soviet Russia? China? Apparently not.

The people accepted these regimes because they thought they'd get something out of them.


You are overlooking the fact that in China and Russia the regimes took advantage of extremly poor peasants who lived amongst corruption.




privatized?
Hospitals in the USA are private institutions.
Thanks for clearing that up.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
]To our N.Z. friend:[/font]

I'm obviously here to stand with my countrymen on this one.
First, I have to question your NZ knowledge of the USA. You seem to only read negative press about us. I wish you could come to visit a few of us and REALLY understand what life is like here. We're reasonable people as a whole but there is an underlying distrust of authority within the society.


Just because I dont argee with aspects of American culture dosnt mean I dislike Americans. Mums ex brother in law is a yank who settled in NZ and is a real nice bloke once you get use to his southern ascent.


My fellow Americans have tried to explain to you how personal firearms have saved lives. I'll not bore you with my stories. Suffice it to say your argument is falling on wisened deaf ears.


I could say the same about my arguments that guns dont solve the cause of crimes.


You ask about "firearms staying at the range". What about MY range at my family property in the mountains? Should I have "government approval" to target practice there as my family has done for 117 years?
If you think so you don't know us or anything about us as a society.


Before I amswer I need to ask some questions.
Do you have the likes of livestock on your property?
What exacty do you mean by government approval ?
In other words what other uses do you have for your gun?



Why?, you ask?
These are gang killings. If you choose to live that life than you deserve the death that comes with it.
Come to America. I'll show you around the east coast for a bit and maybe, just maybe, you'll be inclined to join me at the shooting range when we're done.


I wouldnt feel sorry for gang members either are there never any innocent bystands?
I would love to come to the USA for a holiday but sadly I dont have the financial means at the moment and yes I would join on the shooting range. Its just that I dont have a need for a gun outside of the shooting range.
A similar offer is extened should you vist the South Island of NZ minus the shooting range.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   


Banning assault rifles or handguns is the same to me as banning free speech.

You dont need guns to have free speech. This thread proves that fact.



There was a time in America where the boy scouts had shooting merit badges.

Nothing wrong with that.


It is true that people kill each other, so what. Our forefathers knew what they were doing, and they knew that a populace that can't fight and protect itself is open and defenseless to tyranny.
And even if our government never turns despotic, there are many things that could happen to make you wish you had those weapons.


If a dictatorship takes over the USA I think they would disarm the population it would be a case of hand over your gun or you and your family go to a concentration camp. I hope you have a good hide out somewhere.

Sorry about your friend.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Being in Australia, guns in general are banned.... specially over here in Western Aus, the most isolated city in the world, the only weapon most people can use is a syringe or knife..

I cant believe president Bush allowed that automatic gun pact to slide, after so many presidents worked to get it in place..

Why even argue the point?
WHAT GOOD Do automatic guns have in the hands of common people in society?
Let alone a revolver?
Personal protection, I see..
Why shoot at the robber once, why shoot ONE warning shot to scare him off, when u can fire atleast 20 .......

IF one bullet doesnt stop him, or make him run off, 20 is just going to do more harm than good.

Dont even give idiots the chance, ban the bloody weapons.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   


Well your Dad did the right thing teaching you about guns from an early age because even if guns arent kept in the top draw its still important to educate kids about the dangers.


I probably wasn’t clear in my previous post but I keep my pistol in an easily accessible drawer because we have no children yet. In the years to come I will have to make changes. I’ll have to admit though, I don’t know if I will introduce my future children to guns quite as early as I was. All people are different so I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.


Are your views really that differnt? A lot of Americans seem to have the flawed view that guns prevent crime and keep you safe.


Unless you intend to walk around brandishing your weapon, no gun will prevent a crime. The uncertainty of whether or not a victim may be armed just might though.

I don’t consider my AK home protection, obviously. Like I said though I do keep my pistol close to the bed. I don’t get any great satisfaction out of owing a gun, 99% of the time I don’t even think about it. I’m not an avid hunter and where I live is not known for its rampant crime rate. I do live in a city now though and I like knowing that if for what ever reason I need to protect my wife and my self I have the option of taking a gun to a gun fight. If need be of course.
If there were no guns there would be no gun crime, just like if there were no knives no one would get stabbed. Not trying to single anyone out, it's just my humble opinion.








[edit on 7-2-2005 by Ruins]

[edit on 7-2-2005 by Ruins]



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
I cant believe president Bush allowed that automatic gun pact to slide, after so many presidents worked to get it in place..

Why even argue the point?
WHAT GOOD Do automatic guns have in the hands of common people in society?


Let me clear some things up. President Bush did not let any sort of automatic weapons into the hands of citizens. The National Firearms Act of 1934 regulated the sale of fully automatic weapons. What expired in September was the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which had a ten-year expiration clause. The AWB placed restrictions at the federal level on weapons that could be sold, based primarily on cosmetic features. Contrary to popular belief, it is still legal in 30~40 of the states to posses fully automatic weapons and silencers. However, there is a mandatory federal background check, fingerprinting, and registration of the weapon with the ATF along with about a six month waiting period before the transfer is approved.

xpert: I think what it comes down to is that you place much more trust in your government/police to take care of you than most Americans. There is nothing wrong with that; however you have to understand that a lot of us don’t feel the same way as you do in that regard. As fry2 said, a lot of us have an inherent distrust for authority, and try as you might there isn’t much you are going to do to change that.

cryptorsa: Sorry to hear about the AWB you might be getting. Is it at the city or state level? I have an AR and the new legislation is doing their best to pass a state-wide AWB that is much stricter than the federal one that just expired. I would have to register the weapons with the local sheriff and consent to an annual search of my home if I want to keep them. What’s worse, there is still a significant amount of controversy surrounding our new governor (guess which state…) and the acting governor is attempting to pass the bill with an “emergency clause” so that it will passed as soon as possible should she be removed from office. If things go the way they want, It will be effective June of this year. Oregon and Florida also have similar legislation coming up I believe, though I’m not sure about the details for them.


[edit on 2/8/05 by para]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join