N0.7 In accidental deaths in USA

I agree, Fry, I mean, if ship and plane loads of Americans were swarming into Europe and shotting people in the parks and trains of Paris, London, wherever, then year, that would be thier concern. But, as far as them living there, i find it odd such a thing would be such an itch to them. What do they care if we blast each other to oblivion? They should just be thankful Americans are so Insular and dont immigrate to other coutnries, lol! We keep are gun happy asses within our own borders, well, so long as you dont join the military.

But as far as what civilians do to each other here, i dont see how that would be a problem for them. Ab amusing read, if they like, or a point to ponder, but nothing they need get worked up over. Guins aint commin to thier country, so what civilians here do with em is our problem, not thiers!

when the day comes when nazi comes to take away my gun he'll have a hard time trying, cause he'll be fulla lead. If ya remember your history, yes, history that stuff that happened before now. You'd know that one of the first things Hitler did was ban civilians from having firearms. I donno bout you but screw that, i aint going to let them bastards even try to register the thing.

No response from the anti gun lobby? Hmmmmmm, guess everyone likes thier penises too much!

Hey, to put it into litte kiddy terms for everyone,
If we abolishd the 2nd ammednment like the liberals want (wonder why Bush is President.. hmmm???), only the bad guys would have guns. The good guys would't have guns...

With the 2nd ammendment, everyone has gun

I hope the Dems understood,
Tassadar

[Edited on 13-8-2003 by Tassadar]

Why is it that whenever anybody mentions some facts to do with guns then you all come out telling us how you need your guns.

Well just as Skadi stated men do not need penises nobody needs a gun. Agreed if you go hunting they are handy but then i find the shooting of wild animals for'sport' a strange pastime anyway, i think you should hunt each other if you feel the need to kill things. If you are hunting to eat that's fine.

You state you need your guns just in case someone or the government come after you - not very likely really is it?

And then even if the government does come for you, all you can do is die in a shootout - remember Waco? or run away and hide.

Finally i will say again 'I do not think guns should be banned' and I don't think I have.

if you could remove all the guns and WMD simultaneously from the planet then that would be cool though.




[Edited on 13-8-2003 by johnb]

Are just a very refined way of throwing rocks,as are most weapons.

Its not the govornment itself will come after us, though they have. Its when the govornment becomes too tyranical, armed insurrection is alot easier when the population is armed to the teeth. Thus, one need.

Safety is another. I am not about to trust my safety to the state. No one cares about my safety but me. The cops will simply arrive to late after Ive been mugged, raped, stabbed to death, ect.

So we agree men do not need thier penises, are you volonteering to have youres removed first?

Ban guns, ban penises, then the world will be a safer place. Except, you seem to forget, if safety is the price of self sufficency and independance, then forget it.

Independance and self sufficency, are high ideals. Never should you trust your safety to the state. I am a very small female. A gun gives me an advatage in this world where women are pretty much prey animals. Taking my gun would be like taking the horns off a wild buffalo, the tusks from an elephant, the claws from the tiger. Humans have no built in defenses, thus, we use tools.

Again, i ask, what is it a concern of yours? You have your gun free state in the UK, so, then, why is what we do with guns a concern for you? Were not immigrating over there armed and dangerous. Were busy shooting wildlife and ourselves over here, our guns pose no threat to you.

You say you dont want to ban all guns, yet you like gun control. Gun control is the first step to banning them. Thus, they go hand in hand.

But, if you wanna ban guns here, then, well.....lol. Lets start with world wide penis removal for men. Then well ban cookies, meat, sweets, booze, power tools, wood (splinters and infections cause death.) Well ban wild animals, because in a primitve society, they are deadly. Well also ban personal hygiene products, processed grain, ect.

And the facts you presented were well distorted, to the point they hardly are any case for gun control. People will always killthemselves on accident or on purpose, one way or another. Gun deaths dont nearly reach death levels for knives, obesity, car accidents, doctor malpractice, heart problems, drugs use, alcohol, stress, suicide, ect. Thus, gun deatsh are PUNY.

Now, go get your hacksaw and get to whacking that evil penis of yours off, so you no longer posses the potential to harm people!

It's no concern of mine just exercising my right to free speech.

No not volunteering to be emasculated - although John Bobbit did allright.

Just expressing an opinion that I do not understand the killing of defenceless animals for sport.

When did I say I am for gun control?

As to the right of self defence - whats wrong with non lethal means? Tazers etc but now you'll think I'm anti guns again.

Fiorst off, non lethal means are foolish and ineffective. The lack something guns give you: range. As I have stated, I am very small. (5 feet, 105lbs) Thus, when dealing with an assailant, 99% of the time male, and much larger than me, I need RANGE. If he gets too close, Im screwed. A large man can easily overpower me, because men are built stronger and bigger, and, while somewhat strong for my size, lack the strength and skill to hurt or break free from an attacker. My short legs cannot outrun one in a sprint, though Im a good distance runner, and if i had a huge head start, I could outrun him over a long distance. Thus, nonlethal means require me to give up the only real advantage I have: keeping a huge distance between me and a potential attacker. Pepper spray is not good either, especially in Seattle, with its windy conditions easily whipping the stream right back in my face. Tazer, because I have to make contact with the attacker, means he can easily wrest the object from ym hand and use it on me to immobilize me. Same problem with brass knuckles, black jacks, ect.

Thuis, the gun. I know how to handle, target, and fire with most weapons. I do not have to get close, i do not need strength or speed to protect me, I simply pull the weapon out, aim, and fire, or, simply, pull the gun out. Most men who prey one women seldom do it with guns, as the majority of rapes and muggings with women are done with knives, or no weapons at all. Rapists bank on womens tendancy to panic combined with the males superior size and strength to subdue and harm thier victims. Thus, simply pulling out a gun will turn the tables, and give me a better atvamtage at taking out my attacker.

The fact that you would suggest non lethal means is disturbing. I am supposed to worry about killing a man who plans to do horrible things to me that could dosfigure me for life, if not kill me? Sorry, buddy, but if some lowlife son of a bitch decides hes gonna try and make me a piece of meat, or his next muder victim, his life and safety mean moot to me: he surrendered any compassion or concern I might hold about hurting him the moment he began to stalk me.

I have no qualms about killing a scumbag who wants to rape or kill me. And well, if the piece of # wants to rob me, Im poor. I dont have anything to take. the fact that he would attamept to rob me of my money and belomngings means he needs to be taught a lesson.

Shoot to kill, because shooting to wound only pisses em off. And by the way, most attackers in this country that prey on females dont hide in bushes and dark alleys. Thast a myth. Most men that have harassed or tried to hurt me have been in cars, or approached me in parking lots. So, theres plenty of time to decide, and i can tell by the way they walk and move what thier intentions are.

You can feel all the pity and compassion for the criminals you want. I simply have no intention on being a victim. Thats for the weak of mind and spirit.

I feel no compassion for the majority of criminals I think most of them should be dumped on an island like Ascension in the middle of the Atlantic where they can go nowhere. No guards required, no food, no shelter so cost is minimal apart from ensuring the odd sub/plane picks off any escapees.

Basically if they could not survive without help they would die but then no doubt you will all start bleating about how fascist I am now rather than calling me a liberal.

No, youre still being too liberal. The cost of shipping them anywhere is simply too much.

Cost of one 357 mag: 600 bucks
exocutioners daily salary:200 bucks
cost of one round:75 cents

one slimebag rapist/childmolester/killer dead and removed permanently from the genepool? priceless

now Ill get called fascist, but I could care less. As far as Im concerned, they simply need to be removed. I support the death penalty. I have no desire to rehabilitate a criminal. Criminal activity is a choice. Like everything else. My mom was a druggie, i was negelcted as a kid, I grew up poor, and now im poorer and unemployed, and I have been homeless as well. Yet I have never stooped to robbery, murder, mugging, theft, I always figured out a non agressive way to survive. Thus, I have no sympathy for anyone who attacks and brutalizes other people, for any reason. Your mommy didnt give you attention? Boo Hoo. Your daddy beat you? Boo Hoo. Kids were mean? Boo Hoo.

Grease em. Its not meant to deter crime, as nothing reall can to that, but a matter of removing a worthless turd from the existance and genepool of humanity.

Only problem with your solution, johnB, is that the criminal would have already raped or murdered Skadi in order to be sent to said island.
Get it yet?

Right on, Fry.

Exactly the point. The point of guns is to prevent victims, as far as guns for personal security. It doesnt matter what kind of penalties you inflict on the criminal. For the victim its already too late.

Thus, by shooting the son of a bitch trying to wreak harm and havoc on me before he commits his evil acts, I am preventing myself from becoming a victim and perhaps, preventing another from becoming a victim, since criminals rarely stop at one.

Better a dead rapist at my feet then to be a dead corpse strangled with my own underwear.