Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Jingle Bells, guns as well, rifles all the way

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
January 3, 2012 4:56:00 PM

While you poor unarmed bastards (oh wait you can have .22s at least?) are now subjects. Enjoy!
January 3, 2012 5:22:31 PM

I forget ..... why do we celebrate Christmas?
January 3, 2012 10:35:34 PM

wanamingo said:
I forget ..... why do we celebrate Christmas?


It's a coming together of Christians and pagans celebrating in the rebirth of God's Sun/Son which brings ever lasting life to planet Earth.
January 3, 2012 11:15:44 PM

Maybe its about protecting their christmas presents?

Like I said before ... I haz no guns here ... just a sword collection.

January 4, 2012 3:53:05 PM

It's only in a messed up backwards socialistic mindset where posing with a firearm and exercising a natural, Constitutional right is considered bad family values.

No surprise that an Aussie paper (no insult to any THG Aussie friends) would include this on the "weird but true" section. It's not weird at all, it's part of being American.

Took my brother in law shooting as his Christmas present, he loved it, made a convert of him, he's already got the paperwork to buy his own.
January 6, 2012 10:49:24 AM

No ... I think most of the WORLD (perhaps with the exception of the jihaddists ... but they would have a hostage instead of Santa in the picture) would consider posing with Santa and a heap of guns with kids is in fact ... modelling extremely poor family values.

Our "messed up socialist country" is doing pretty well though thanks.

Only a few paranoid Americans seem to think that they need to "exercise their constitutional right to bear arms" by engaging in this sort of behaviour.

Jesus probably wouldn't be impressed ... neither would the pope.

If you have a photo like this on your wall you probably have a mullet too eh?

January 6, 2012 12:02:55 PM

I think the confusion comes from Charlton Heston being in too many religious movies (He is not actually Moses).

I know Jesus would say "Its not a party till you break out the assault rifles!"
January 6, 2012 12:28:26 PM

Reynod said:
No ... I think most of the WORLD (perhaps with the exception of the jihaddists ... but they would have a hostage instead of Santa in the picture) would consider posing with Santa and a heap of guns with kids is in fact ... modelling extremely poor family values.

Our "messed up socialist country" is doing pretty well though thanks.

Only a few paranoid Americans seem to think that they need to "exercise their constitutional right to bear arms" by engaging in this sort of behaviour.

Jesus probably wouldn't be impressed ... neither would the pope.

If you have a photo like this on your wall you probably have a mullet too eh?



Can you be any more insulting?! Sheesh! Wait, oh yeah, you can. :sarcastic: 
January 6, 2012 1:15:10 PM

Reynod said:
Only a few paranoid Americans seem to think that they need to "exercise their constitutional right to bear arms" by engaging in this sort of behaviour.
There are far more than a "few paranoid Americans" exercising their Constitutional rights.

Prior to the rise of anti-gun rhetoric of at least 1965, having a gun in the house was a way of life and absolutely no big deal. When I was a teenager, 20+ years ago, walking through my rural neighborhood with my shotgun to go hit some clay pigeons on my grandfather's farm was seen as a regular Saturday morning activity. Today...fuhgitabowdit...I'd have the cops swarmed around me with guns drawn demanding I succumb or be killed...let alone the aftermath of trips to a fro the police station and county courthouse.

It is only the fearful, the uninformed, the uneducated, and/or the politically motivated who maintain that removing all firearms from a society will reduce violent crime and murder.
January 6, 2012 1:28:16 PM

"It is only the fearful, the uninformed, the uneducated, and/or the politically motivated who maintain that removing all firearms from a society will reduce violent crime and murder."


Just ask the U.K. Gun-related violent crime has skyrocketed 400% since the handgun ban in 1997. Also ask the U.K. shop owners who could do nothing but stand and watch as their stores were looted and burned during the last round of riots.
January 6, 2012 1:30:09 PM

Did you have a fully automatic assault rifles in your home when you were a kid? Because thats whats in those pictures, not some dude with a holstered handgun. They have fracking MINIGUNS in those "Holiday" pics. Also that looks like a 10 year old kid with an assault rifle and optional Grenade launcher for home protection (Can steal my stuff IF I BLOW IT ALL UP!). And take a breather no one is going to take your guns, but this is weird and American.

And how come no one has asked "Why is it necessary for people to celebrate Jesus H Christs birthday with guns?"



Does not equal

January 6, 2012 7:11:54 PM

wanamingo said:
Did you have a fully automatic assault rifles in your home when you were a kid? Because thats whats in those pictures, not some dude with a holstered handgun. They have fracking MINIGUNS in those "Holiday" pics. Also that looks like a 10 year old kid with an assault rifle and optional Grenade launcher for home protection (Can steal my stuff IF I BLOW IT ALL UP!). And take a breather no one is going to take your guns, but this is weird and American.
You ASSUME they are fully automatic, but much like other anti-gunners, the reality of a firearms functionality is far removed from how mean and evil the firearm looks. The minigun and other "fully automatic assault weapons" in that picture are most likely demilitarized props. Fully auto firearms, grenade launchers, etc can only be owned by a Class 3 FFL obtained through the FBI. Fully auto firearms are severely restricted, regulated, and must be registered with the address of where they are kept. The FBI must be notified when they are moved, even for gun shows and holiday pictures. Given the 2nd Amendment has been subverted and severe restrictions have been placed on the American people regarding what weapons they can own, it is a novelty to take a photo with a prop gun that looks like a fully auto firearm.

wanamingo said:
And how come no one has asked "Why is it necessary for people to celebrate Jesus H Christs birthday with guns?"
Keep in mind that Christmas in is as much a secular family holiday as it is a Christian observance. There are no overt Christian symbols or iconography in those photos. Santa Claus is a secular (created by the Coca-Cola Company mind you), not Christian, symbol of Christmas. The Yule Tree was adopted in the mid-1800's England and is hold over from the druids and pagan practices of the Middle East. The only remotely Christian symbol in those photos would be the wrapped gifts, and even that has been co-opted by commercialism and secular society. So, given the secular nature of the pictures and the secular nature that Christmas has evolved into, so what if they like to take a Christmas picture with guns.

And, so what if they are fully auto firearms? It's just a gun after all. Would there be this much discussion if the people in those holiday picts were holding swords, maces, and spears while wearing chain mail and plate mail armor? I highly doubt it! Where's your sense of tolerance and diversity? Or are guns just too evil that it can't be overlooked and must be demonized?
January 6, 2012 7:33:00 PM

I would like to point out as an addendum to your post monster, that the 2nd amendment absolutley protects the posession of swords, maces, spears, axes, etc. as "arms". There is supreme court precident to support this. State vs. Delgado (1984)
January 6, 2012 7:34:26 PM

chunkymonster said:
It's only in a messed up backwards socialistic mindset where posing with a firearm and exercising a natural, Constitutional right is considered bad family values.




I think we are arguing two different points here I dont have any trouble with gun ownership. In fact Im in the market for my first handgun. Guns are useful. Period.

You bring up the constitutional rights issue right off the bat. I was laughing at the absurdity of the photos. Not trying to restrict gun ownership.

The point about the minigun and grenade launcher is that is in no way shape or form a home protection weapon. Can I buy a nuke? No. What if a sovereign country tries to invade my home? Can i Nuke them then?

Can I buy a tomahawk missile (I would want the tac version). No.

How about ordinance for my F-15? No.

And those guns are totally real (at least in the original report.)

I swear the guy up the street is a North Korean spy.







.
Seriously I think its weird. Not unconstitutional not immoral just kind of an odd thing to do.
January 6, 2012 7:44:29 PM

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with home protection.

It has much more to do with defending the United States against enemies foreign and domestic. So, in that regard, a rocket launcher would come in damn handy!! :) 
January 7, 2012 5:44:20 AM

So how long did you serve in the military then?
January 7, 2012 7:50:20 AM

Reynod said:
No ... I think most of the WORLD (perhaps with the exception of the jihaddists ... but they would have a hostage instead of Santa in the picture) would consider posing with Santa and a heap of guns with kids is in fact ... modelling extremely poor family values.

Our "messed up socialist country" is doing pretty well though thanks.

Only a few paranoid Americans seem to think that they need to "exercise their constitutional right to bear arms" by engaging in this sort of behaviour.

Jesus probably wouldn't be impressed ... neither would the pope.

If you have a photo like this on your wall you probably have a mullet too eh?



Agreed with that. And sorry if this is insulting.
There are many things that looks insane side by side with Santa Claus; including guns, girls of little virtue, Stormtrooper etc...
BTW, i definitely can't understand how a handgun can be useful at home. But i think this is a cultural question.

Oh!Oh!Oh!
January 7, 2012 2:39:55 PM

I think it says a lot about a society when this arguement is put forward ...


January 7, 2012 4:24:52 PM

Reynod said:
I think it says a lot about a society when this arguement is put forward ...


Yes, there are bad people, and they will try to hurt you and take your stuff. You have a right as one of God's creatures to defend yourself in anyway possible.

Hell, just imagine what we could do if dogs had thumbs?!
January 7, 2012 5:18:32 PM

"Civilised" men give away their guns, find them - illegal, uncomfortable, disgusting ,pointless (as in just go to the grocery store) etc

I might remind everyone, go back 150 years ago, and before that til the beginning, and these attitudes would be found foolish.
So, keeping somewhat with those traditions, from the very beginning, some people obviously have the exact opposite POV, and not only should be respected, they also have the guns heheh
January 7, 2012 5:25:43 PM

So, we were uncivil back then?
Might I also remind everyone, that those who wrote did so in a much more elegant way, was closer to nature, and actually knew how to handle nature, something thats often forgotten about as well.
Back then, where guns were wore on the hip, society boomed, and certainly didnt destroy itself.
Theres been many a OP on this forum, and many arent truly being looked at, and shows the disruption this unarmed society today has, where its going, whos leading it, and whether its seen as being better than before these ideas about such things as arms etc or not.
The rising voice is, it isnt getting better, and plays into the fact, guns dont kill people, people do.
Now, if those of us who truly thinks things are better, now that were "civilised", please explain, from that POV, and why having guns or traditional things are no longer needed, but be prepared to defend todays society in full, and no cherry picking
January 7, 2012 6:04:29 PM

Reynod said:
I think it says a lot about a society when this arguement is put forward ...



Would you have allowed this woman to be raped, murdered, and robbed then? How very "civilized" of you.
January 7, 2012 6:05:28 PM

Reynod said:
So how long did you serve in the military then?



Sorry, how is that relevant?
January 7, 2012 6:54:23 PM

I would add, some think things like the death penalty is forbidden and woefully wrong.
However, its much more civilised to make someone stay in a prison for the rest of their lives.
Whos guilt is being assuaged here?
January 8, 2012 8:49:37 AM

You are going a bit far, but never mind.



If you are not able to see what's damn wrong with that, so yes, the moral values ​​of your society are inadequate. (on MY point of view... remember, here, even local police officers don't handle gun)
January 8, 2012 9:30:01 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Would you have allowed this woman to be raped, murdered, and robbed then? How very "civilized" of you.


But on the flip-side, guns would give any person/s a significant amount of power.

What happens when people get very angry? Or very drunk? Or if they want revenge? Or sex?

Knife attacks are much easier to defend against than gun attacks. Higher chance of survival.

We have tons of guns in Africa. People still get raped, murdered and robbed. Mostly because of a guns, and a hell lot of poverty and did I mention guns?
January 8, 2012 2:00:10 PM

amdfangirl said:
But on the flip-side, guns would give any person/s a significant amount of power.

What happens when people get very angry? Or very drunk? Or if they want revenge? Or sex?

Knife attacks are much easier to defend against than gun attacks. Higher chance of survival.

We have tons of guns in Africa. People still get raped, murdered and robbed. Mostly because of a guns, and a hell lot of poverty and did I mention guns?



Yes, guns. The lack of them. Who is getting raped, murdered, and robbed in Africa? The people WITHOUT guns to defend their families and villages. Ahem, Darfur, Sudan ahem!!

Also if someone comes at you with a knife or a machete and you have a gun, guess who wins that fight?

"Knife attacks are much easier to defend against than gun attacks. Higher chance of survival. "

This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever read. Are you kidding me? Have you ever tried to take a knife away from someone? Even a plastic practice knife? Are you pushing for everyone to be trained in hand to hand knife combat then? Sheesh Fangirl! I'm not trying to be mean here fangirl, but that just blew me away.

No. The 64 year old grandmother out with her 2 grand-children for ice cream won't have to defend against a man twice her size wielding a knife. Grandma can reach into her purse pull out Mr. Smith&Wesson .38 special loaded with +P hollow points and kill the SOB. Then she gets to go home with her grandchildren rather then bury them or someone have bury them all.

The crazy SOB dies, grandma and grandchildren live. How is this not a win and a bad thing instead?

Over 1 million crimes a year are thwarted in the USA due to a good person legally carrying, and that doesn't include the unreported events. The majority of those instances only required the firearm to be brandished and no shots were fired.

I did a real quick google search and one of the first hits was this and I found it perfect!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101220024...
January 8, 2012 2:54:30 PM

Read and consider before you attack please. ;) 

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Yes, guns. The lack of them. Who is getting raped, murdered, and robbed in Africa? The people WITHOUT guns to defend their families and villages. Ahem, Darfur, Sudan ahem!!


My point is there, guns don't solve problems. More guns doesn't solve anything. Give a villager a gun, he now has power, both to defend himself and to exploit it for his own purposes. In a poor African community, you have gun? You get more food etc. then you become the same thing you wanted to stop. What do you want to do? Give every village a gun like the CIA in Cold War Afghanistan so that after they get rid of Soviet occupation they become a terrorist organisation?

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Also if someone comes at you with a knife or a machete and you have a gun, guess who wins that fight?

"Knife attacks are much easier to defend against than gun attacks. Higher chance of survival. "

This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever read. Are you kidding me? Have you ever tried to take a knife away from someone? Even a plastic practice knife? Are you pushing for everyone to be trained in hand to hand knife combat then? Sheesh Fangirl! I'm not trying to be mean here fangirl, but that just blew me away.


Please, I urge you to read, but read again because I don't know what you're going on about!

"Knife attacks are much easier to defend against than gun attacks. Higher chance of survival. "

Knife attacks (assailant with a knife) are much easier to defend against than gun attacks (assailant with gun). Higher chance of survival. (Links to previous statement)

If you still have trouble understanding the point we both agree with, let me rephrase it: if you get attacked by someone you would be much better off facing a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun.

Less guns = less gun attacks replaced by more knife attacks, more knife attacks = less people dead

Legal guns = more guns, more legal guns = more guns lost, more guns lost = bigger black market of guns

Oldmangamer_73 said:
No. The 64 year old grandmother out with her 2 grand-children for ice cream won't have to defend against a man twice her size wielding a knife. Grandma can reach into her purse pull out Mr. Smith&Wesson .38 special loaded with +P hollow points and kill the SOB. Then she gets to go home with her grandchildren rather then bury them or someone have bury them all.

The crazy SOB dies, grandma and grandchildren live. How is this not a win and a bad thing instead?

Over 1 million crimes a year are thwarted in the USA due to a good person legally carrying, and that doesn't include the unreported events. The majority of those instances only required the firearm to be brandished and no shots were fired.


Even if grandma has a gun, the assailant would more than likely have a loaded one. If you're robbing a person or etc. you know you are robbing them, the victim doesn't, you can prepare, they can't. By the time grandma can actually take the safety off and shoot, the assailant who legally (at some point in the food-chain) obtained a gun already has bullet through grandma's brain.

If you say brandishing the gun is good enough, why not just have fake guns? We really don't need to equip each and every person with the capacity to kill another person.

You might be able to rob a bank with a fake gun, but you're not going to be able to directly able to kill someone with a fake gun.

Material goods can be replaced, the lives of others cannot.

Realise crime has reason, people are still people. Given the current economic climate, it wouldn't be hard to imagine an average lower-middle class person who has just gotten evicted from their home, already has a legal gun. Desperate to support his own family after the dole runs out. What does he do?

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I did a real quick google search and one of the first hits was this and I found it perfect!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101220024...


Ah, yahoo answers, the epitome of non-biased opinion.

Seriously, this thread is going nowhere and nowhere fast.
January 8, 2012 4:12:05 PM

Seriously, this thread is going nowhere and nowhere fast.


Yeah, your right. You're trying to argue why a person should not defend themselves, even with a firearm. Our disagreement is fundamental. I doubt there is a middle ground.
January 8, 2012 4:44:48 PM

People should defend themselves, just not with guns.

Power should be given to those who will do good with it.

Having a lax attitude on gun control is not going to achieve that.

Perhaps we do have a middle ground.

Guns are awesome in video games. :p 
January 8, 2012 6:44:12 PM

Understanding, since the very beginning, people carried weapons, always did, always have, and to claim that this current society is so much more superior in the last 100 years of humanities existence is either folly or pride.
Only select people demand this at this level, total abandonement of the right to carry, or own or both.
If laws arent either inacted of followed thru regarding the illegal or careless use of firearms, then blame our current society, and its lack of ability.
Next time you see a cop waiting for a speeder, and youve just passed a few hookers, a few hoods, a druggy, a dealer etc, ask yourself why?
January 8, 2012 11:50:10 PM

At the very beginning I argue our culture was certainly not advanced ... selecting a mate with a club and dragging her back to the cave?

Is the removal / reduction in violence not a mark of advancement of a given civilisation ... thats the point I am trying to make?
January 9, 2012 3:18:45 AM

amdfangirl said:
People should defend themselves, just not with guns.

Power should be given to those who will do good with it.

Having a lax attitude on gun control is not going to achieve that.

Perhaps we do have a middle ground.

Guns are awesome in video games. :p 



How is my 5'4" 135 lbs. daughter going to defend herself against a 6'4" 240 lbs. man even if he doesn't have a knife, just his bare hands?

I would really like to know this secret so I could teach her and if you say karate i'm calling you a troll.
January 9, 2012 3:28:16 AM

Taser, pepperspray, fake gun, umbrella etc.

and what's so bad about learning martial arts?
January 9, 2012 11:31:33 AM

A knife is a very personal sort of attack.

A gun is just point and click.
January 9, 2012 11:53:50 AM

amdfangirl said:
Taser, pepperspray, fake gun, umbrella etc.

and what's so bad about learning martial arts?



Ok, how a bout a wheelchair bound double amputee? Or a 74 year old elderly woman living alone. Or that petite single mom of three? Or a teenager home alone while the parent are at a movie?

Do you really expect these people to engage in hand to hand combat using an umbrella :sarcastic:  or a 'fake' gun with someone twice their size? Do you really think that will end well for the victim?

Seriously, are you just trolling me or are you being serious fangirl? Do you mind if I ask how old you are?
January 9, 2012 12:11:43 PM

Well genius, her title is "Junior Community Reporter" ... and you already know roughly how old she is as you had access to the Community Reporter forum area some time ago.

Seriously ... your advocating giving minors a handgun to protect themselves at home wjem the folks are out?

Is no place safe in the US?

WTF ???

No wonder your country is completely in the toilet.
January 9, 2012 12:19:01 PM

Yes, my daughter has access to my handguns at home, and she is well trained in how to use them accurately and effectively.

I have no worries when she is home alone; none at all. Hell, she's a better shot than I am and I've been shooting for decades. Probably has more to do with my eyesight.

It is illegal in the US for anyone under 21 to own a handgun. That's doesn't stop a teenager from grabbing daddy's gun out of the night stand and stopping someone trying to kick the door down though. They just aren't allowed to own one. Long guns are a different matter, and yes, she has her own shotgun too. :) 
January 9, 2012 1:27:35 PM

When i was young, my father used to lend me his screwdrivers... and i had to ask permission for using the soldering iron.

it's definitely cultural.
January 9, 2012 1:45:20 PM

gropouce I heard from Yama you made mod at PCP ... well done.

My account over there doesn't work ... I'll try to fix it and then spread some more rumours about your prowess with the ladies.

In the meantime keep sending me Swiss Francs ... those Euros are worthless !!

:) 
January 9, 2012 3:11:24 PM

gropouce said:
When i was young, my father used to lend me his screwdrivers... and i had to ask permission for using the soldering iron.

it's definitely cultural.



Not really cultural, perhaps a bit.

It's more a mentality of "refuse to be a victim" and to be prepared that i've taught my daughter. Rather than indoctrinating her with an irrational fear of firearms I educated her in the safe, accurate, and effective use of firearms.

Such irrational fear of firearms eventually leads to whole populations freely giving away their individual liberties in the name of "security". In the end there is a lack of both security and liberty. History is on my side on this one.

January 9, 2012 3:47:00 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Ok, how a bout a wheelchair bound double amputee? Or a 74 year old elderly woman living alone. Or that petite single mom of three? Or a teenager home alone while the parent are at a movie?


Firstly, how often would someone attack a wheelchair double amputee or a 74 year old elderly woman? For what reason?

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Do you really expect these people to engage in hand to hand combat using an umbrella :sarcastic:  or a 'fake' gun with someone twice their size? Do you really think that will end well for the victim?

22803,32,725121 said:

Over 1 million crimes a year are thwarted in the USA due to a good person legally carrying, and that doesn't include the unreported events. The majority of those instances only required the firearm to be brandished and no shots were fired.
said:


Hmm... What was that you said again?

Honestly, if you can fire a gun, you can use a mobile phone and pepper spray. Pepper spray the assilant and call the police. Nobody dies. If they are delayed, spray the person again or whack them with an improvised weapon. That simple.

More importantly, you don't need to go to sleep knowing that the death of a criminal could invoke revenge attacks or the law in some countries such as Australia etc.

Quote:
The effects of pepper spray are far more severe, including temporary blindness which lasts from 15–30 minutes, a burning sensation of the skin which lasts from 45 to 60 minutes, upper body spasms which force a person to bend forward and uncontrollable coughing making it difficult to breathe or speak for between 3 to 15 minutes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray#Effects

The more guns we have out there, the more chance we have of encountering gun wielding assilants.

Besides, an umbrella is a very effective weapon against an opponent, armed or unarmed. I listed it in suggestions because if you are going to use an umbrella , you aren't the type of person who is paranoid enough to walk around with a gun.


Oldmangamer_73 said:
Seriously, are you just trolling me or are you being serious fangirl? Do you mind if I ask how old you are?


This almost reminds me about the time I tried to convince people that eating dogs is no more savage than eating cows or chickens.

You can never convince people that death is death and the killing of a "bad" person doesn't make you a "good" person.
January 9, 2012 4:03:28 PM

Like gropouce I'll use my sonic screwdriver ...


:) 
January 9, 2012 4:09:28 PM

"Firstly, how often would someone attack a wheelchair double amputee or a 74 year old elderly woman? For what reason?"

Well, a quick google search of man in wheelchair robbed yielded 1.5 million hits. 74 year old woman robbed yielded 1.4 million hits, and that was just for 74 year olds. One of the first hits being this one: http://campbellcounty.fox19.com/news/crime/83014-elderl...

A cell phone and pepper are very useful tools and I strongly advocate their use. But, if you are asserting that they are just as effective as a firearm in stopping a would be attacker you are very mistaken. There is a reason why firing the gun is not required the majority of the time because people tend to do what they are told when they have a loaded gun pointed at them. Can't really say the same for pepper spray, cell phones, and umbrellas.

You know what they say about the police. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

In my state and most states, we have the whats called the castle doctrine. If you lawfully shoot and kill and intruder in your home no criminal charges can be filed against you. You are also not required to retreat; basically saying you are allowed to stand and fight if attacked and not be criminally liable.

I've been pepper sprayed. It sucks but its not going to stop someone intent on doing you bodily harm. It may slow them down a bit. But, like I said, if you are not a very spry granny, you're still going to be in trouble.

"The more guns we have out there, the more chance we have of encountering gun wielding assilants. "

Every bit of evidence out their completely debunks this statement. Gun ownership has skyrocketed over the past two decades in the United States yet violent crimes involving guns have been steadily declining. In fact all violent crimes, not just with guns, have been steadily declining. In particular, we've had 4 years in a row of declining violent crime rates and crimes with guns.

I would try dog if you put the right kind of sauce on it. :D 
January 9, 2012 4:47:12 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:

In my state and most states, we have the whats called the castle doctrine. If you lawfully shoot and kill and intruder in your home no criminal charges can be filed against you. You are also not required to retreat; basically saying you are allowed to stand and fight if attacked and not be criminally liable.


What I'm more worried about is on the street or in other countries. Or people with mental differences if you will, In Tony Attwood's book, Asperger's Sydrome he mentions a patient who was very interested in computers and broke into his neighbour's house to use their new computer. People like him don't understand the social consquences like that and it would be a shame for someone like him to die.

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Every bit of evidence out their completely debunks this statement. Gun ownership has skyrocketed over the past two decades in the United States yet violent crimes involving guns have been steadily declining. In fact all violent crimes, not just with guns, have been steadily declining. In particular, we've had 4 years in a row of declining violent crime rates and crimes with guns.


It is a proven fact that crime rates are falling but it would be difficult to link them to increasing gun ownership. Much has changed over the past few years to be honest, too many damn variables to make it a scientific measure. Things like declining racism, changing beliefs and attitudes, less criminals etc.

So yes, to my orginal points, which I think I have gotten very carried away from, is that:
-guns are not toys, shown in the article, they are weapons that kill, they must be treated and regulated as such (no giving guns to every man and his dog) with tighter gun laws and background checks etc. (to avoid another Virgina Tech)
-we must explore every non-lethal method of defence (The majority of us are able to defend ourselves with just pepper spray and an improvised melee weapon)
-death is still death (however you sell it, killing someone is still killing someone)

Don't get me wrong, I want a gun, I just don't want another would-be Port Arthur gunman with a gun. :) 
!