Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]

Translation: it's OK to shoot people I don't like.

[/ QUOTE ]
Translation: it's OK to shoot people if they are shooting at cops who are trying to arrest them.

Even if it was for false charges he should have allowed himself to be detained and then trusted the messed up US legal system to set himself free. This would have given his family a higher chance of freedom and survival.

[iron81]

Settle down everybody.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Since no court currently agrees with me I am not allowed to try to get that changed?

How am I ever to know if the court will agree with me when pvn says "I don't think the arbitrator will agree with you so I am ignoring your demand to take me to the arbitrator"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting the law changed is a political process and I have advised you that that is your best bet, to establish a nonUS system of government.

Maybe you don't know, but you don't need someones permission to file a lawsuit against them, or to call the police and file a report. If you tell someone you are going to take them to court, they are free to ignore you, and you are free to file against them.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Weaver has said, "I'm not a white supremacist. I'm a white separatist. I was born white. I can't help that. If I was black I'd probably be affiliated with Louis Farrakhan's group, but as it is, I don't belong to anything. I don't believe I'm superior to anyone, but I do believe I have the right to be with my own kind of people if I choose to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well here in america we have this thing called freedom of association. I don't see the problem here. If he chooses not to associate with nonwhites then so what?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, if this is what actually happened then I was wrong about Weaver. A 5 minute scan of wikipedia suggested otherwise to me (that his son initiated the conflict by shooting an agent). Regardless, he sounds like a creep and I don't want to read about him because his beliefs are depressing

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I really do not care what the US courts determined in this case. ...

I'd rather trust my own judgement of this guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, your 5 minute judgement means more to you than the US legal system and all its due process and stuff. Don't expect others to value your judgement though. But I agree with you you have the right to be ignorant.

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're implying everyone having a gun leads to less verbal abuse/conflict in a society, you just don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]
switzerland disagrees with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, you sure love responding to my posts. It's not the guns that make them polite, it's the culture.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read every post in this thread so pardon me if this has been discusssed. I did a search and the words "gun control" this thread had quite a few references so I thought I'd put my post here. Anyway the criticism of gun laws in the U.S. in light of the of the VT massacre this week seems to be stating more or less that if guns were removed from the civillian population in the U.S. then we'd see a lot less violent acts perpetrated especially massacre's like the VT one this week. FWIW this seems to be an issue that divides alot of left wing and right wing oriented people with the left wing oriented types wanting guns removed from U.S. civilians. What I don't understand is how the people that support this notion would go about implementing it. I saw a reference somewhere this week that there are over 200,000,000 guns in the U.S. and another one that stated there were over 300,000,000 guns. Let's just stipulate that there are easily over 100,000,000 guns in the U.S. that are owned by civilians. If this threshold number is disputed then maybe the number of guns that are in the possession of U.S. civilians should be discussed to see how big of a problem confiscating the guns is. Anyway with this many guns let's say the U.S. repealed the Second Amendment and/or the Courts came down and stated that guns could be confiscated by the governments in the U.S. Thus an order to turn in all guns came down and criminal penalties for not doing so would be implemented. I think it's fair to say that there are many gun owners that would refuse to comply with such a law. If you doubt this then I think you're naive or being disingenuous. I can't tell you the number of people I have known in my life that own guns that would refuse to do such a thing. If you don't believe this to be the case then we'll just have to agree to disagree about gun owners in the U.S. turning in their guns to the governments of the U.S. willingly. If you do agree with this but believe that the government needs to confiscate all guns from civilians then how do you believe the government should go about doing this? Make strict laws with lots of prison time for owning a gun? Give the police broader powers to search for weapons that exist? Are we saying that people on the left that want guns removed from U.S. civilians want to have strict laws, put more people in prison, grant police more power in conducting searches in order to confiscate guns, etc.? Honestly for those on the left that support removing guns from U.S. civilians, I don't understand how you propose doing this from a logistical point of view? Enlighten me please.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a very good question. I hope we will see some attempts to answer it in this thread.

[slickss]

He loves quoting 300 line posts with an attempt to invalidate what was said with some extreme example - gotta love it.

I think this discussion more or less has lost its track. It has simply gotten too long. Some of us - such as me and pvn - have very fundamental differences. Combined with very different techniques of debate, I find it impossible that me and pvn will ever agree on this.

That said, I have two questions. Short answers would be appreciated.

1. Are there any Americans involved in this debate that believe the American people are better off turning in all non-hunting-purpose firearms? This is only hypothetical, and if you don't agree, there's no need to criticize the question.

2. For everyone: What gun experience and/or training do you have? Furthermore, what weapons have you used, what weapons do you own, and what is their purpose (to you)?

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
07 WorldNetDaily.com


Kennesaw, Ga., City Hall

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I read this, I can say with a great deal of certainty that it will be ignored by Slick and the others on his side. In the serveral threads I have been involved in I have cited Kennesaw, UK crime rates, Switzerland, and dozens of other cites to studies regarding guns and crime. Slick and the others have simply ignored these facts and continue to argue what they "feel" and what "seems" like commonsense to them. Unitended consequences of their positions have been pointed out, and they have failed to address the issue.

I'd love to debate the issues, but it is hard to debate about someone's "feelings" when they won't address facts. When someone keeps saying, "doesn't it make sense that ..." when there is ample evidence cited to the contrary, it makes little sense to go on and on.

NCAces

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
He loves quoting 300 line posts with an attempt to invalidate what was said with some extreme example - gotta love it.

I think this discussion more or less has lost its track. It has simply gotten too long. Some of us - such as me and pvn - have very fundamental differences. Combined with very different techniques of debate, I find it impossible that me and pvn will ever agree on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only see this as a problem insofar as you're advocating that your opinion be imposed upon me. Under what I'm advocating, you're allowed all the gun controll you want - for yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
That said, I have two questions. Short answers would be appreciated.

1. Are there any Americans involved in this debate that believe the American people are better off turning in all non-hunting-purpose firearms? This is only hypothetical, and if you don't agree, there's no need to criticize the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes a firearm "hunting-purpose"?

[ QUOTE ]
2. For everyone: What gun experience and/or training do you have? Furthermore, what weapons have you used, what weapons do you own, and what is their purpose (to you)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no formal training.

By the age of 16, I had earned the NRA Distinguished Expert qualification for Light Rifles (.22 caliber) in prone, standing, and 3-position.

I haven't bothered with any other marksman qualification regimes, though I doubt I would have much trouble with the handgun or shotgun series.

What I own and what I do with it is NOYB.