Here's a wee poll on the above subject...
It's a little drawn out, but I need to seperate the US folk from the others, as their obvious differences in constitutional rights creates huge differences of opinion. The question is easy, and the answer really depends partly on your basic belief and your origin. Please don't [-peep-] about with it, as it's worth seeing what's what here.
Here goes:
<b>Should firearms be banned?</b>
Cheers folks!!!
<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>
Voted
| Quote : I am American, I've used a firearm and No they shouldn't. |
Hell yeah.
<A HREF="http://www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
<font color=blue>War</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Eagle</font color=orange>
A clear distinction should have been made between "firearm" and "rifle and handgun."
I think handguns should go, but rifles should stay.
-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>
Whatever, dude. I've got a rifle. I don't have a handgun yet, but I will. And nobody's taking em from me.
<A HREF="http://www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
<font color=blue>War</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Eagle</font color=orange>
The options could have been endless there. This way you vote with your basic feelings on the subject. For or against. Easy!
<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>
Banning firearms (in my America at least) would be such a horrible idea. It's not like criminals would care, they would still have guns. You would have to make it extremely difficult for people to get guns illegally (read: worldwide ban/production halt). Banning firearms is as unrealistic as banning alcahol was.
Bill of Rights!
While I can see the principal in the right to bear arms (being a UK resident), I disagree with members of the public being able to possess handguns. Rifles are a slightly different issue, as they are used by people who hunt, so they have a purpose.
There is nothing cool or sexy or whatever about owning a handgun. Most people who own handguns wouldn't know what the hell to do with it, maintain or rectify problems with, and I can be damn certain that when push comes to shove, wouldn't be able to pull the trigger and shoot someone. That in itself demeans the very principal. When I was in the army, you were taught to only draw your rifle to firing position (Butt into shoulder, sight lined on target) <b>if you intended to shoot</b>. Otherwise it becomes a useless piece of equipment. Everytime I drew my rifle, I damn well intended to use it, to protect myself and to protect my colleagues. I can't see you're average soccer mom drawing down on someone, and going through with it.
This is an incredibly complex and emotional subject, that could be debated for months on end. Break it down and you have the issue of handguns, rifles (by that I mean hunting rifles), smg's shotguns, assault rifles etc. Each demanding seperate discussion.
<font color=blue>"Ah, its you. Thought I could smell cabbage" - Nigel Powers</font color=blue>
| Quote : Rifles are a slightly different issue, as they are used by people who hunt, so they have a purpose. |
I don't hunt (it seems cruel and I'm a nice guy
but if I did I can assure you it would not be with a rifle (no fun in that). I would try (and fail horribly) to use a handgun (x2) or even sub-machine gun / assault rifle.
You're saying guns only have a purpose for hunting (animals?). No where does the 2nd amendment say anything about hunting (keep in mind im no lawyer). We (Americans) have the right to bear arms because it's "necessary to the security of a free State".
| Quote : Most people who own handguns wouldn't know what the hell to do with it, maintain or rectify problems with, and I can be damn certain that when push comes to shove, wouldn't be able to pull the trigger and shoot someone. |
Thats why there are gun saftey courses. You could say the same thing about automobiles or even computers. Maybe I just don't hang around "most people" (read:Europeans) but everyone I know with a gun knows exactly how to maintain it, what it's for, etc. When push comes to shove your probably right, I wouldn't want to shoot anyone, but if some [-peep-] broke into my home and tried robbing me I don't think I'd have a problem shooting him in the leg (I'd miss probably miss anyway
).
| Quote : This is an incredibly complex and emotional subject, that could be debated for months on end. Break it down and you have the issue of handguns, rifles (by that I mean hunting rifles), smg's shotguns, assault rifles etc. Each demanding seperate discussion. |
Now this I can agree with.
This is the big issue isn't it. In the US, like you say, you have the right to bear arms etc. Over here in the UK, where we have some of the most stringent gun rules in the world, no chance, well, not now anyway.
We used to be able to, but under certain conditions. I'm not going to list them, 'cos Camie has done it in his post under Scammy's thread. All it took was one fuckked up individual (Dunblane incident) to screw things for the vast majority of responsible people.
| Quote : I wouldn't want to shoot anyone, but if some [-peep-] broke into my home and tried robbing me I don't think I'd have a problem shooting him in the leg (I'd miss probably miss anyway ). |
I admire that. Just wounding him is all that is required to halt the situation. Very commendable. A sign of a responsible person.
I don't suppose I'll truly be able to comprehend the why's and hows etc of the the reasonings behind gun ownership, but that's because in the US, you have the right to bear arms guaranteed under your constitution. Over here, we have the opposite, so I come from a culture where gun ownership is a no-no, you come from a culture of yes-yes. So we have differing mindsets on this. And that's not a bad thing, it's just the way our countries are. This is why we could debate this for months.
<font color=blue>"Ah, its you. Thought I could smell cabbage" - Nigel Powers</font color=blue>
i'm an american and i've shot a gun (my dad is a card carrying member of the NRA who thought it would be a great father son afternoon to go to the shooting range). i wouldnt own one or even want one in my house, but i dont think they should be banned. stain's point about banning guns was probably right on. the people who shouldnt have them (criminals) would be the only ones with the guns.
robD or anybody else from the uk, how long have firearms been banned from the public, and do you think it makes a difference in the crime rate, etc? i could never see that working in the us, but i'm curious about how it works out in the uk.
See the "Kill em all" thread in the other section. Handguns and semi-auto rifles were banned in the UK in 1996.
Read this <A HREF="http://www.holsters-for-handguns.com/dunblane.htm" target="_new">article</A>, but read completely to understand how things happened in the UK. Grab a coke and get comfy, as it's worth reading, and you need to read it all to gain <b>all</b> the facts.
<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>
wow...that kill em all thread was really long....didnt realize how relatively recent the ban on guns in the uk was. i was in england in 1997 visiting my girlfriend who was doing a semester abroad, and i never heard a word about it.
i read the article you had linked from the other section, but since the media can skew any statistic to say what they wanted, i did a quick yahoo search....basically most of the other articles said the same things. gun related crime, while being only a small part of all crimes committed was definately on the rise in the uk.
i still wouldnt oppose seeing guns banned in the us, since i have no desire to have one around...but much of the data from the uk seems to reinforce some of the posts made earlier in this thread, banning firearms wouldnt solve much.
| Quote : i still wouldnt oppose seeing guns banned in the us, since i have no desire to have one around |
Do you realize how selfish this statement is? That's like someone saying we'll I don't use a computer so I wouldn't care if they banned them. Or TV. Or Cars. Or how about your first amendment right, "Well I agree with everything the government does, so I don't care if they take away everyone else's right to dissagre with how we run this country." Sadly I think many Americans are thinking this way, before I pass I expect that smoking will be illegal. This "free" country is becoming less and less free.
stain, i think you slightly misintrpeted what i was trying to say. i probably should have been more clear and said that i wouldnt take an active stand for or against them, i dont have enough passion for either side to take a side. just because i dont have any use for guns, and i wouldnt want one around, doesnt mean i believe there are enough good consequences to banning firearms to deny those people the right to have them.
i certainly dont agree with everything the government does, and there are certain freedoms i would be more vocal about if somebody tried to take them away. thats what elections are for, we choose the people who best represent our views, and send them to make the laws. if you dont agree with them, vote them out or even support an interest group that lobbies for what you believe in. these are all a bit of a simplistic view of how things work, but most of america doesnt even turn out to vote, in a way they are forfieting their right to complain if a freedom is taken away.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by boilermaker on 06/13/03 11:21 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
You Sir are a shining example of good sense. If you don't like something you opt out, rather than prevent others from having fun.
Pity there's not more folk around with the same attitude.
<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>
Right on, Camie.
<font color=blue>"Ah, its you. Thought I could smell cabbage" - Nigel Powers</font color=blue>
Thats all well and good. I obviously misread what you were saying. I thought you ment, "If I don't have a need for firearms then others don't."
Sometimes I just get in the zone
But think of this, everything that is done to remove a freedom from anybody in this country, at some poit will effect you, because once on freedom is taken, it is easier to take another and so on and so forth. So in my way of thinking, even if you are not sided on the situation, you should then be pro-gun, as to be sure no more freedoms are taken away from us.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
The same thing we do every night Pinky; <b>Try to take over the world!</b>
3DMark score <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6607283" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6607283</A>
Do paintball and BB guns count???
That's what happened over here too.
Handguns were banned, then they wanted other guns and are still at it. Fox hunting in Scotland etc etc.
They want fishing banned too. Anything which involves the hunting or catching of animals. Bottom line is, they have nothing better to do with their time than attack other peoples' interests, and they obviously have little non-political interests of their own.
Pity they couldn't throw themselves into neighbour hood watch schemes so efficiently, but then "that's not their job" etc etc. No one wants to burgle their bedsits.
<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>
They're trying to enact some new legislation last I heard to ban fishing/ make u need some extra stuff to do it cause some new study showed fish feel pain. I'm seriously gonna slap someone. In terms of a handgun, come to NYC. One of my dad's professors when he was in Columbia U came in really freaked out one morning. As she was pulling in some guy had whipped out a handgun and pointed it her (she was in her car) and threatened to shoot her if she didn't give him her money. Sh!t like that happens quite a bit there, so maybe a handgun would add some security, but then the issue is if the guy sees you pull out something, he could easily shoot u before u even reached your pocket (guys, don't say you're James Bond and it takes you .0000001 miliseconds to pull out, take safety off or load a handgun and shoot a guy dead straight between the eyes thru ur pocket, it ain't happeneing). Rifles for hunting r a good thing, but then we can always jump dear w/ knives
j/k. I do agree with the not having balls to pull trigger, but obviously accidents happen and people do occasionally get too pissed off to think right so they do something and then say o sh!t. Certainly a better focus would be on lowering illegal gun sales cause those r the ones that often go into the wrong hands.
All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by flamethrower205 on 06/13/03 07:08 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
I can't vote. All guns? What about hunting weapons? Assault weapons sure, but the rest?
<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=389&s=1fee5dab901bebe29da7aa1c2658fc6f" target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>
<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue>
Yes or No.
No grey areas in this poll. If you can't vote, don't. If the options available mean that you would vote Yes or No due to a lack of other options, then vote with you heart.
That's half the point. If you think that the banning of one type leads to the banning of another type, you're halfway to realising how legislation in the UK works.
First it's the handguns, then the foxes then the etc. etc.
It's divide and conquer. What I wanna see is who believes what on the whole.
<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>
Did you know that not ONE crime has EVER been committed with a registered U.S. fully automatic weapon?
Did you also know that pretty mcuh all gun laws are unconstitutional?
Did you know I'm gonna buy a Ruger Bisley in 45 colt and have the barrel cut to 5 inches for easier packing? (Oh, and I'm also under 21......til August 5th)
I too once had money, then I got into computers...
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6607283" target="_new"> 3DMark </A>
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=24383" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
I am American, I've used a firearm and No they shouldn't.
<font color=red>HOSED = Horrific operating system error detected</font color=red>
umm ok cool whatever.
(illegal to have fully auto so registering it... not happening)
this is another subject im kind biased on.
<A HREF="http://www.thegunworks.net" target="_new">My dads store</A>
I think every one should have a gun.
Also stain it is illegal to hunt with submachine guns yeah.
again though about my view, im from the south, dad owns gunstore...
yeah I like guns.
-=[ Addicted, Finally. ]=-
The "guns" issue, in regards to the US, can only be responsibly debated when all parties understand and agree the reason for the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Recall that the United States was born entirely from open, armed rebellion against the legitimate ruling power at that time: the British government. Owing to that fact, the writers of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights hypothesized the possibility that a government of men could become increasingly a disservice to the governed, and that it would become necessary for the governed to overthrow the government yet again.
In other words, the second Amendment affords U.S. citizens the right to own guns to protect themselves from a would-be a tyrannical government. Liberals would have one believe that the phrase “well-regulated militia” refers to the National Guard, some other armed service, or the police force. It did not and it does not. It refers to all citizens. It is no coincidence that during the communist revolution in Russia, the first things to go were firearms and religion.
It is difficult to think that Americans would ever need to take up arms against their own government. It is even more difficult to fathom how they could succeed.
Anyway, this is a hardware forum.
Regards,
Dave
Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
I'm a Canadian. I was raised on a Dairy Farm so weapons were always readily availible. They were used as tools like you would use a shovel. I joined the military and have been surrounded by weapons ever since. Banning weapons would not get them out of the hands of your common criminal. What we need is education and training. Why not teach kids about guns in school? Not that they are bad and that they kill people..... But how to safely handle (unload, make safe) a weapon.
The aim of military training is not just to prepare men for battle, but to make them long for it. <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=327&s" target="_new"><b>MY SYSTEM</b></A>
Well said.
Education is half the battle.
<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>
TX,
I honestly feel that education IS the key. I hate reading about little kids killing each other when they find a loaded gun in their Uncle's house. First off why was that gun loaded? Secondly if kids were taught to handle weapons safely (not touching a weapon when adults aren't present, not pointing a gun at another person, unloading it if they are old enough....)disasters would not happen. Let's face it, kids are very curious. You can shelter your child from weapons all you want but someday they will come in contact with one. I'd rather my son had the experience and knowledge to handle that situation when it occurs. I don't have any firearms in my house (and if I did they would not be loaded) but I can't control what is in your house.
Education works, when was the last time an 8 year old accidently stabbed another child? It just doesn't happen because we taught them that knives are dangerous!
The aim of military training is not just to prepare men for battle, but to make them long for it. <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=327&s" target="_new"><b>MY SYSTEM</b></A>
I am Canadian. I've never used a firearm before because the only way to get one is through a hunting license up here. I truly think they should be banned in favour of development and production of better stun weapons.
Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.
Isn't it rather hard to stun a deer at 300 yards?
Or stun a target at 100 yards perhaps?
<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>
| Quote :
|
Current stun guns shock their targets but their reach is limited because the fired shocker has to be physically tethered to the gun. Why can't we have little electric shocker darts in the future? Perhaps each dart might have a small battery whereby a shock is initiated on contact.
Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.
I think we need more [-peep-] like this: <A HREF="http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,46570,00.html" target="_new">Metal Storm</A>
<A HREF="http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/2002091437/www.wired.com/news/images/full/metal_storm1b_f.jpg" target="_new">Pic</A>
<A HREF="http://www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
<font color=blue>War</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Eagle</font color=orange>
LoL!!!
You're serious.
I was being sarcastic.
<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>
| Quote :
|
What's wrong with that? I don't see anything wrong with people having stun weapons but I do see problems with lethal weapons. We, as a society, should focus on having more people with improved distance, and less lethal ballastic weapons.
Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.
No. We should be teachin gthose who want to use how to use em properly, responsibly and carefully. What's more they should be taught about proper ways of storing and transporting the weapons.
It's like being told that PCs are lethal, so from now on you'll have to use a gameboy. Sure it's fun, but it's not what you want is it?
<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>
Problem is PCs are not lethal and guns are very very lethal. It doesn't matter if you learned to handle or gun or not, you can still kill someone with it if you want.
My CPU fan spins so fast that it creates a wormhole
Of course PCs are lethal. Cam knows that. He's just making a point. One that I agree with.
As far as:
| Quote : It doesn't matter if you learned to handle or gun or not, you can still kill someone with it if you want. |
goes, we've been over this before. You can kill someone with a baseball bat if you want. Or a car. Or a knife. Or a lead pipe. Or a pair of scissors. Or a glass bottle. Or a piece of rope. Or a nailgun. Or a hammer. Etc, etc, etc.
What's your point?
<A HREF="http://www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
<font color=blue>War</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Eagle</font color=orange>
Hell, to be honest, a PC could even be lethal, too.
If somebody took a PC and beat someone on the head with it til their brains spilled out, they would be dead and the PC would have been the lethal weapon, would it not?
Cam's point is, it's gun education we need more of, not gun banning. Just like more driver education would lower traffic deaths and make more sense than just banning cars altogether.
Face it, you're never going to get all the guns off the street. Banning firearms or limiting them to stun weapons will only keep the honest citizens from obtaining them for self defense and hunting. Like he alluded to above, what are ya gonna do, <b>stun</b> a deer at 300 yards?
<A HREF="http://www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
<font color=blue>War</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Eagle</font color=orange><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Auburn9698 on 07/03/03 11:06 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Yes... but most of those things have many non-lethal applications while guns have not. You can only use it to practice shootings or to kill something.
And maybe this sounds strange, but I don't see how anyone owning a gun or carrying a gun can make a cosiety safer.
My CPU fan spins so fast that it creates a wormhole
Do you not think people should be able to hunt? Providing food is a pretty good application of firearms.
<A HREF="http://www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
<font color=blue>War</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Eagle</font color=orange>
I have nothing against hunting FOR FOOD (I hate hunting as pure recreation). But do you need a fully autmatic uzy to hunt... and do people in cities hunt? I don't think most people that own a gun use it for hunting purposes.
My CPU fan spins so fast that it creates a wormhole
Yes, people who live in cities hunt. Plenty of them. They just drive to the country to do it. People in cities need ways to defend themselves, too. Most good cops will tell you there’s 2 big things that will change a person’s mind if they break into your house to rob and kill or rape somebody.
1. A big damn dog
2. The sound of a shell being chambered into a pump-action shotgun.
Now, some people can’t have a dog because of working out of town, allergies, etc. But having a shotgun doesn’t take any babysitting.
What if somebody with a gun broke into your house to kneecap you, kill your family, and steal Heavy Blue (threw that in there just for you
) and yall had no way to defend yourselves. Now, imagine you could just chamber that shell into a shotgun where he could hear it, and make him crap his pants and run? On the other hand, if all you could legally have was a stun-gun, what would you do? Threaten him with your Tazer versus him and his snubnose .38 he bought from a crack dealer last week?
There’s more to hunting than the people who actually do the hunting for food, too. Take my father-in-law, for example. He trains bird-dogs (English pointers) as a means of secondary income, for people who like to hunt pheasant and other game birds. He’s the best in the state and has a room full of trophies and plaques to prove it. If people couldn’t have guns and hunt (for food or sport), they’d have no reason to pay him to train their bird dogs, and he wouldn’t have that secondary income. Then they might not be able to buy us the $1,000US refrigerator they’re going to buy us when we move into our house in 6 months, and that would affect me.
<A HREF="http://www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
<font color=blue>War</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Eagle</font color=orange>
Also, and you probably have no way of knowing this part, either, but the deer population in our state is getting out of hand. Deer numbers have been on the rise for years, and with them has been the number of traffic accidents and injuries that occur when they jump in front of people’s cars. There doesn’t need to be LESS people with guns shooting deer, there needs to be MORE. Whether they’re after venison steaks to eat, or just something to stuff and mount on their wall, deer hunters are needed in our state. Badly. Whether they live in a city or out in the country.
<A HREF="http://www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
<font color=blue>War</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Eagle</font color=orange>
Don't start that one Svol!
Guns are lethal. Knives are lethal. <b>People are lethal</b>
Guns are used in non-lethal sports. Knives are used for non-lethal purposes. <b>People with proper training, education and responsibility can be trusted</b>
Don't make out that their original purpose is arguement enough. If that's the case, ban explosives, ban horse riding and ban computers.
Explosives are used in many aspects of civil engineering, oil exploration etc. They just don't look like a bag of powder or a stick of dynamite anymore.
Horses were used by humans to fight with other tribes, be it for speed or simple muscle. Then later they were used as formations, and eventually for dragging heavy weapons.
Computers...
The first computer was Colossus. It was built to crack the Lorenz cypher used by Hitler and his generals. Therefore, it should be banned as it was originally designed, and is still used today for reasons of attack or defence.
Lets use common sense. Any fool can fire a loaded gun. It's up to those with sense to make sure fewer fools get their hands on em, by preventing illegal gun movements, access to guns and doing a few simple character checks on those who wish to possess them legally.
<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>
If the thief is armed himselve and knows how to handle a gun I wonder if he really would run.
Maybe it is just me, but I don't like the idea to live in a country every idiot can get a gun without problems or even buy them in the grosery store. I prefer the strict laws we got here where you have to go through a lot of rules before you get your hand on your 'precious' gun.
I love my Delta 60HP 7000 RPM fan that puts out more dB then CFM
I completely agree with you svol in this case. There's simply no need for guns except hunting. And you should only get a hunting license after the police make sure you have no criminal record and that you have a stable psychological profile (might need to go to a psychologist for evaluation before getting the hunting rifle).
Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.
A typical thief's second-rate pistol is no match for a shotgun in a dark hallway. Even a dumbass thief would know that. Laws only stop the honest citizens from getting guns, not the fvckups. They're going to get them if they really want them. In my country, in your country, in any country. Believe it or disbelieve it, that's the way it is.
<A HREF="http://www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
<font color=blue>War</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Eagle</font color=orange>
| Quote : Laws only stop the honest citizens from getting guns, not the fvckups. They're going to get them if they really want them. In my country, in your country, in any country. Believe it or disbelieve it, that's the way it is. |
Absolutely goddamn right. We had a gun amnesty recently, where you could hand in illegally owned firearms, and thousands were handed in. The government proclaimed it a real coup, citing how many violent gun crimes would be averted. The truth is, it won't alter jack s h i t. All they've done is put the frighteners on decent people who've had a gun lying around in their garage or shed, that's all rusted up and of no use, that in all probability they'd totally forgotten about.
Criminals will still have theirs and will still use them. It'll always be the same.
<font color=blue>"When you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose: it's how drunk you get." - Homer Simpson.</font color=blue>
There are 1339 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.
