Jingle Bells, guns as well, rifles all the way

64 answers Last reply
More about jingle bells guns well rifles
  1. I forget ..... why do we celebrate Christmas?
  2. Maybe its about protecting their christmas presents?

    Like I said before ... I haz no guns here ... just a sword collection.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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!"
  6. 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.
  7. 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

  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. So how long did you serve in the military then?
  11. 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!
  12. I think it says a lot about a society when this arguement is put forward ...
  13. "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
  14. 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
  15. 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?
  16. 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)
  17. 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?
  18. We need to do some work at home to restrict the number of small bore guns individuals can own.

    These shocking statistics from Victoria highlight there is stil lsome work to do in our own backyard.

    http://www.news.com.au/national/police-blitz-to-stop-illegal-firearms-hitting-our-streets/story-e6frfkvr-1226239455823
  19. 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=20101220024407AAu3tbT


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

    Seriously, this thread is going nowhere and nowhere fast.
  20. 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
  21. 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?
  22. 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?
  23. Taser, pepperspray, fake gun, umbrella etc.

    and what's so bad about learning martial arts?
  24. A knife is a very personal sort of attack.

    A gun is just point and click.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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 !!

    :)
  28. 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?

    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?

    Anonymous 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.


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


    :)
  30. 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. :)
  31. Speaking about the provided pictures, this wasnt a handgun or a Personal Protection weapon. It wasn't a tastefully done holstered handgun, or a concealed weapon.

    These were military grade .50 caliber guns, And grenade launchers. Not for self defense.


    The point about a knife vs a gun is a knife is close and personal, I cant overstab you and hit the children playing in the schoolyard.
  32. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    You asked how often 74 year old women get robbed and beaten, and you seemed to say it was not that often. A quick google search debunked that assertion.

    How many of those results are relevant?

    I made a search for "Linux kills people" and I got 4.4 million results on Google. Any of those relevant? Of course not.

    I agree that there may be true accounts on Google, perhaps on the first 5 pages or so, but how many relevant results would there be on page 20 of your results? They aren't all 74 year old women being attacked or robbed.

    Oldmangamer_73 said:
    Can you please find one story of a kid with asberger's syndrome wandering into someones house to use their computer and getting shot over it?


    There is the potential, that is all I said. Your laws would mean that the neighbours would have the legal right to kill him.

    Oldmangamer_73 said:
    "It is a proven fact that crime rates are falling but it would be difficult to link them to increasing gun ownership."

    If you go back and read your comment and my response that is not what I am saying. You basically said "more guns = more crime". I gave you an example, the United States, where that is not the case. I will give you another example. The U.K. where since the 1997 ban on handguns, all crime, especially violent crime has skyrocketed 400%.

    So, let's throw out the whole "more guns = more crime" mantra because it is a myth perpertrated by the likes of Handgun Control, Inc. and puppeted by the main stream media.

    To your bullet points.So, let's throw out the whole "more guns = more crime" mantra because it is a myth perpertrated by the likes of Handgun Control, Inc. and puppeted by the main stream media.

    To your bullet points.


    The UK is not the US, you can't make comparisons like that. It's not scientifically sound at all.

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w7967

    The argument goes both ways with this. The stats go both ways with this.

    Oldmangamer_73 said:
    -we have extensive background checks to purchase firearms in the USA. The Virgina Tech massacre was a failing of these background checks as the mental health dept. failed to notify the state police of the shooters mental health background. When the shooter went to legally purchase the handgun, the background check came back clean as a result of this failing on governments part to comply with the law.


    We can do better, it was obvious he was mentally unstable.

    Oldmangamer_73 said:
    Pepper spray doesn't work on everybody. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dcb_1183530114


    Too bad that there aren't scientific studies on this kind of stuff.
  33. Reynod said:
    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 !!

    :)



    Not on PPC, but on Tom's Guide .
    Btw, i can see your account, feel free to spread anything that doesn't concern that mexican one-leg girl.
    Only Swiss Francs? at the same address as usual?

    :)

    Oldmangamer_73 said:
    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.


    Do you mean that because i don't want to use guns, i accept to be a victim?
    Talking about giving away individual liberties in the name of security, i think we cannot find a better example than US.
  34. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    How many are relevant? If you'd like to pay me to do a complete research paper for you I can. Or you educate and inform yourself. Instead of focusing on the completely irrelevent "74 year old kick" why not try using a search string like "a person is robbed a beaten" or "a person defends themselves with a gun". You got a little ADD/HD on the whole 74 year old thing.


    Stating that you got so many results on a Google search doesn't mean all of them are relevant, that's all I said. You're great at twisting my words.

    Oldmangamer_73 said:
    74 year old woman robbed yielded 1.4 million hits, and that was just for 74 year olds.


    Oldmangamer_73 said:
    About the asberger's scenario. No it would not be legal to shoot him because there is no danger of bodily injury or death involved. The homeowner would be liable under current law.


    How about perceived threat at point of break in?

    Oldmangamer_73 said:
    The UK and the US are very close culturally so a comparison between the two works pretty well I think. Much more accurate than comparing the US to say Zimbawbe.


    Different ethnic groups and minorities, different rules regarding taxation and the distribution of wealth, different Gini co-efficient etc.

    I'm using Wikipedia to summarise, check the cite notes for evidence.

    Quote:
    The United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) has low levels of gun ownership. However, this is only in mainland Great Britain. Firearms ownership is still very high in Northern Ireland. Private ownership of firearms is far more common and largely accepted in rural areas.[26] The gun crime rate rose between 1997 and 2004 but has since slightly receded,[27] while the number of murders from gun crime has largely remained static over the past decade.[28] Over the course of the 20th century, the UK gradually implemented tighter regulation of the civilian ownership of firearms through the enactment of the 1968, 1988, 1994 and 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Acts[29] leading to the current outright ban on the ownership of all automatic, and most self-loading, firearms in the UK.


    If banning guns made such an impact, it would not begin to decline, according to your method of thinking.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#United_Kingdom

    Quote:
    The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world, and did so even before strict gun control legislation came into force. In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher, and for Germany 0.2


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

    The citation is from the United Nations.

    Oldmangamer_73 said:
    There are scientific studies on pepper spray. Here's one: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/195739.pdf

    Check page 10 under Lesson and Observations. That's just one study.


    Congrats, that's a much better argument than the previous video! Congrats!

    Oldmangamer_73 said:
    I can tell you are very passionate about this issue. However, you seem to have formed a lot of conclusions and opinions on the topic that are based in faulty information, mis-information, and outright myth.


    Not really, I couldn't care less, it affects the US (not me) for goodness sake. :P

    I only care about things in the US that affect me directly, like SOPA. If you can find a supporter of SOPA we can crash tackle him together ;).

    Or if you yanks decide to aim your nukes our way.

    It's just addictive to argue with you. Strangely addictive. We aren't even on my original points, which is all I really believe in. The rest is just us pointing our the flaws in our evidence. Reminds me of English class, haha.
  35. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    Not at all. Refuse to be a victim is a mindset. See here: http://www.emta.net/rtbav/

    On your second point, I agree 100%. Patriot Act anyone?


    Eww Patriot act. Most of the terrorism laws are crazy.

    http://articles.boston.com/2011-12-24/news/30555105_1_cupcake-tsa-airport-security
  36. This web page screams: "I ​​want to scare you as much as possible with questionable statistics and make the dough off your back" !

    Seriously, Oldman, three out of four American women? if true, the better choice you can make is emigration.
  37. Hasn't really improved much from the wild west then eh?

    Where did they go wrong?

    Too many guns?
  38. Its simply a different mindset
    Its not offensive, threatening or outdated, its the potential as a part and or way of life.

    Much responsibility comes with it, but also just shooting, as many many people dont hunt, they just go to the range, some shoot skeet (clay pidgeons) etc.

    Its also a sport, something our Olympics havnt denied, but promote, even while skiing, which comes from hunting and war.
    With as much war as we have been involved with, its no wonder, plus, we dont stand by and go cheerio when our sports teams play, thatd be unamerican.
    Were a rowdy bunch in certain ways, differing from many
  39. http://guncontrol.org.au/2011/01/the-lessons-of-arizona/

    The Lessons of Arizona
    Posted on January 17, 2011 Share this...

    The Lessons of Arizona

    One sickening message that comes out of the recent gun murders in Arizona is that if governments by-pass their responsibility and allow anyone to get a semi automatic handgun, then many of the purchasers of those handguns will use them for the purpose for which they were designed – to kill people.

    Americans are good at killing each other with guns. US politicians are good at making it easy for them to do so. The American gun industry is good at not expressing criticism of this process.

    The ability to express yourself by quickly shooting people you think you don’t like is somewhat of a flaw in the American culture. And it seems as though the American gun lobby turns a blind eye to the shocking consequences of this culture. Even a recent US president (George W Bush) felt that there was no need to say more about the 2007 murder of over 30 people at the Virginia Technical University, than ‘They were in the wrong place at the wrong time’.

    That’s the trouble about the armed citizenry philosophy of the US: it comes to pass that there so many innocent people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    And the story has no end: just tragedy after tragedy. The sheer unfairness of this life and death game is a sickening pockmark on the entire American culture.

    But readers, worse is to come; for the real lesson of Arizona to us is to be strongly aware that there are established shooter groups here who want Australia to have American gun laws.

    Of course, such groups have a tight relationship with international gun manufacturers, so you would not expect otherwise.

    Whatever criticism one may have of ex-prime minister John Howard, when over 30 people were murdered at Port Arthur in 1996 he did not just say, ‘They were in the wrong place at the wrong time’. For such reasons, Australians can be proud of their leaders and Americans can be ashamed of theirs.

    Guns Are For Killing. And We Don’t Teach Killing At This School
    Posted on December 7, 2011 Share this... The Steve Bracks/John Brumby government’s determination to off-load responsibility for proper training of gun licence applicants during the period 2006 to 2008 is a black mark on a government that in other ways faced difficult decisions with determination.

    Whether it was pro-shooter bias, carelessness or child-like incompetence by the Bracks/Brumby government is not the focus of this criticism. We hope that investigative journalists will study that deplorable episode in Victoria’s political history in due course. Such an investigation, we believe, should also include the post-2007 Rudd government contribution to the irrational and dangerous pro-shooting bias in the Commonwealth government’s present gun advisory committee.

    What Victoria has now is a childish system of awarding the right of legal gun ownership to people. We see no excuse for what the Bracks/ Brumby government did to non-shooter Victorians by transferring safety training courses to a bunch of shooters who are known as the Firearms Safety Foundation (Vic)

    It is a further disgrace to the Bracks/Brumby government that they agreed to allow the shooter group involved in gun safety training to have rights to indoctrinate school children with the irrational and dangerous gun doctrine beliefs that dominate gun club thinking. The nonsense of gun doctrine in its simplest form says that guns are good for society and should be readily available.

    The Firearms Safety Foundation (Vic) has a website that tells us:

    The Foundation is funded by both the Victorian and Federal Governments under funding deeds which outline the Foundation’s obligations. In each case the obligations outlined were developed in consultation with representatives of shooting organisations and the firearms trade.

    ….

    The Foundation is governed by a seven member board, each of whom has an extensive shooting background.

    Because of their irrational arguments, intense bias and apparent willingness to promote deceptions you could not get a more unsuitable group of people to inform children about gun culture and gun dangers than the representatives of shooting organisations and the firearms trade.

    Does the teaching profession think that a handful of long-time committed shooters are the ideal source of advice for children regarding gun ownership and desirability, gun dangers, gun law justification and gun safety?

    Will these seven shooters tell our children that projectiles fired by guns are designed to tear flesh apart and create massive bleeding?

    Will they tell our school children about the fact that in Victoria a hunter kills someone every three years, due to poor training practices?

    Will they tell the truth about how many innocent women in Victoria have been threatened, injured and murdered with legally held guns?

    Will they tell our children about the necessity for strict gun laws and how most gun clubs have tried to stop the public obtaining such laws?

    Will they tell our children about the shameful deceptions being promoted by some of our largest gun clubs. Clubs that refuse to acknowledge the wonderful success of the stricter gun laws enacted since the gun massacres of 1987 and 1996?

    Will they tell our children about the gun massacres committed by Victorian legal gun owners and what might be done to stop this in the future?

    Almost certainly, they will not.

    Good people can only hope that as the Firearms Safety Foundation (Vic), tries to inculcate our school children with their ugly nonsense about the beauty of guns and their desirability in homes; school teachers will firmly say:

    Guns are for killing. And we don’t teach killing at this school.


    Australia’s Gun Laws Save Thousands of Lives – Shooter Groups Scared to Tell the Truth
    Posted on June 13, 2011 Share this... With thousands of lives saved by reduced rates of gun homicide and gun suicide, we know how wonderfully successful the gun laws introduced after the six gun massacres in 1987 and the two gun massacres of 1996 have been. We refer to the combination of these stricter gun laws as the National Firearms Agreement (NFA).

    It is a tragedy for the Australian public that several shooter groups try to conceal the truth about the success of our improved gun laws. Such deceptions discredit our governments and those who have been killed in gun massacres. It also reduces respect for our laws, and there can be great danger in this.

    The ABS figures on rates of gun deaths from homicides and suicides per 100,000 for the period 1915 to 2006 show us that:

    * Post-Hoddle Street, Queen Street, etc Gun Massacres (1987)

    In the years following the decision by Australian governments to bring in stricter gun laws after the six gun massacres in 1987, the rate of gun homicide and gun suicide were considerably reduced.

    * Post-Port Arthur and Hillcrest Gun Massacres (1996)

    The declining rate of gun homicide and gun suicide was consolidated and became more obvious following the 1996 NFA improvements.

    * Reduction in Gun Deaths – Homicides

    The average rate of gun homicide in Australia in the decade before the start of the post 1987 stricter gun laws is approximately 0.6 persons per 100,000 population. The average rate over the five years 2002-2006 is approximately 0.16 persons per 100,000 population.

    This means that about one quarter the number of Australians now die in gun homicides compared to the days before the NFA.

    Taking Australia’s population at 22 million, it means that over the five years 2002-2006 about 90 fewer Australians have died in gun homicides each year compared with what would have been the case prior to governments introducing stricter gun laws after the 1987 gun massacres and after the 1996 gun massacres.

    * Reduction in gun Deaths – Suicides

    The average rate of gun suicide in Australia in the decade before the start of the post-1987 stricter gun laws is approximately 3.2 persons per 100,000 population. The average rate over the five years 2002-2006 is approximately 0.8 persons per 100,000 population.

    This means that approximately one quarter the number of Australians now die in gun suicides compared to the pre-1987 days (prior to Australian governments enacting stricter gun laws based on the public’s concern with gun deaths). As academics Andrew Leigh and Christine Neill said in their 2010 research, published in the American Law and Economics Review:

    “We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates.”

    Our estimation is that over 400 fewer gun suicides now take place each year because of the success of the stricter gun laws.

    Summing Up

    We therefore praise the success of the National Firearms Agreement. All Australians should be proud of the Hawke ALP and Howard Liberal/National governments that led the way in introducing the stricter controls. The State and Territory governments that supported such initiatives also deserve praise.

    It’s no surprise that several shooter groups choose to deceive the public about this success. Fewer gun deaths each year may mean little to those with vested interests in gun activities, but we see that attitude as selfish, callous and lacking integrity.
  40. http://guncontrol.org.au/2010/09/when-guns-are-easily-available-people-easily-commit-murder/

    When guns are easily available, people easily commit murder
    Posted on September 28, 2010 Share this... America has a gun homicide rate about 15 times greater than Australia. Australians have been protected from the tragic gun madness of the USA by our stricter gun laws. The stricter laws were enacted in Australia after 32 were murdered by shooters in 1987, 41 were murdered by shooters in 1996 and two were murdered by a shooter in 1992.

    The main consequence of the stricter gun controls is that now Australia’s annual gun death rate is only about one third of what it was during the previous two to three decade period when shooter groups dominated government thinking in developing gun laws.

    To us in Gun Control Australia, the evidence suggests that there are many hundreds of Australians alive now who may not have been if groups like the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA) had been listened to about gun laws. The beliefs of this pro-gun group with its associations to international gun traders, seem to us, to be directed at helping the world’s gun manufacturers make more profit, moreso than helping Australia become a safer society.

    Like some other shooter groups, the SSAA sets its sights on American style gun laws. Guns may be more freely available in America but not unexpectedly gun murders are vastly more common. The Brady Center in Washington gives us a good idea of what results from American gun laws. Their website (www.bradycenter.org) lists some of the workplace gun killings in 2010.

    Please read these details and ask yourself: Why would Australia’s largest gun club (the SSAA) want American style gun laws?

    USA Workplace Shootings in 2010

    On Wednesday night, a 26-year-old man shot three coworkers in the cafeteria of a cold-storage facility in Crete, Nebraska before killing himself. Police are still investigating the shooter’s motive. Does this sound familiar? Many workplace shootings take place every year, and certainly 2010 has been no different. Here are just a few of the major workplace shootings from this year:

    Two weeks ago, a woman shot three colleagues at a cookie factory in Philadelphia, after arguing with them and being suspended from her job. Two of the victims died. The shooter had a valid concealed carry permit and had a gun in her car that she retrieved after being suspended.

    Last month, a 35-year-old man opened fire at a Connecticut beer distribution plant after a disciplinary hearing where he resigned for stealing from the company. He killed eight people and injured two others, before killing himself. The shooter complained to family and friends about racism at work.

    In March, a disgruntled janitor in danger of losing his job shot and killed his supervisor, injured a coworker, and killed himself at Ohio State University. He had a criminal history, and obtained his guns by avoiding background checks- at least one of the guns he obtained went through a gun show, the other through private sellers.

    In February, a University of Alabama professor opened fire during a biology faculty meeting, shooting six colleagues, three fatally. She had recently been denied tenure, had a history of violent reactions, and shot her brother when she was a teenager.

    And, in January, a 51-year-old man armed with an assault rifle, shotgun and pistol opened fire at a St. Louis factory where he was a longtime employee. Neighbors report he was angry at management. He killed three coworkers and injured five others before he killed himself.

    All of these shooters turned to guns as a way to solve their problems at work, leading to an incredible amount of bloodshed and tears. In just these six incidents, 17 coworkers were killed and 15 more injured. Four of the shooters committed suicide afterward.

    It’s no wonder that an Indiana steel company decided to disregard a new state law forcing companies to allow workers to store guns in their cars at work. Instead, they have chosen to “strictly enforce its firearms ban”. While they may get sued, a lawsuit is certainly a better outcome than a shooting.



    All this horror suggests that we ask the president of the
  41. Just my 2 cents but I do not know a single person who has used a handgun (Or any gun) in self defense.

    I know plenty of people who have had guns pulled on them before.
  42. Sounds like the police took their time if the wife had time to barricade the door with a couch and spend 20 minutes on the phone with a dispatcher.

    Sad story though......Feel bad for that woman.
  43. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    Like I said before. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

    Why do you feel sorry for the woman? This story has a happy ending for her and her baby.


    Except for the fact that she is 18 and her husband died the week before..... on Christmas.
  44. Not many guns used here
    How do you kill 11 million people?
    http://michaelhyatt.com/how-do-you-kill-11-million-people.html
    Guns arent for killing folks, evil kills, without guns, or very few
  45. OMG I salute you for your unwavering steadfastness ...
  46. Remember Virginia Tech massacre by Cho Seung-Hui?

    An example of a young person who murder with firearm.

    I am pretty sure the damage will be lower if he had knife.

    Why do you need guns to defend yourself? Because there are so many guns. Just like nuclear weapon proliferation. No one feel safe until they all have the same weapon.
  47. Virginia ... that explains it.

    I watched the entire season of Coal and enjoyed it a lot.

    Do you have a pickup with a gun rack?
  48. About gun free zone. I think if it happens in a gun zone, there will be a gun fight since people will be confused. No one knows who the real shooter is and everyone with a gun will start to shoot at each other in self defence.

    Good point about weak/elderly fight off intruders. May be guns in the hands of the weak is an efficient defence and guns in the hands of the evil makes them even a more dangerous threat.

    What do you think the government can do about this? I still see no point for everyone to have a gun.
  49. But the thing is, in nature, I don't think there is an animal that kills a member of the same species in an act of self defence (or at least very rare).

    We have the intelligence to understand violence, but we are not controlling it. We human are so flawed I am not surprised alien will wipe us out on first contact.
Ask a new question

Read More

The Arts