Valhalla Legends Archive

http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBPCES018E.html

This is a huge victory for those of us! What a great step forward in the legal process for Florida! I applaud this decision.

I so read that!  YES!  I would buy a gun just because of that.

I just like that the law is on my side if some stupid son of a bitch comes after me.

Quote from: Hazard on April 27, 2005, 07:59 PM
I just like that the law is on my side if some stupid son of a bitch comes after me.

Heck yeah!  I think all self defense should be like that.

I think it is workd a bit to ambigouslly, but in general it is a good thing.

Arizona has a similar law.  You may have heard recently of Sgt. Patrick Habb, who was arrested after he held 7 illegal immigrants at gunpoint at a rest stop while waiting for Border Patrol to arrive.  While I'm glad that he (himself) had his charges dropped, I believe that, in the purpose of the law, he broke the law.

You can use force to the extent to which it is being used in a criminal activity when conducting a citizen's arrest.  For example, if someone is using deadly force (example: a vehicle), you are entitled to use deadly force (example: a firearm) to prevent or stop a crime from being committed.

Arizona is a right-to-carry state.  :)

I think democrats are gonna absolutely slander Jeb (and the Bush family in general) for this.

I think it's great, though. ;)

Quote from: MyndFyre on April 27, 2005, 10:40 PM

You can use force to the extent to which it is being used in a criminal activity when conducting a citizen's arrest.  For example, if someone is using deadly force (example: a vehicle), you are entitled to use deadly force (example: a firearm) to prevent or stop a crime from being committed.

Pardon me, but that is worded incorrectly. The law states that you are allowed to use a proportional response to a threat. In laymans terms, you can only draw and fire your firearm when you feel that your life or the life of someone else is in imminent danger. If somebody is loading your big screen into their lowrider you can't shoot them. Now if they break into your house, you can drop them then and there. The point is you can't kill somebody for jaywalking, it must be with the intent to save lives ONLY.

Unless they're in your house, in which case, you can murder them with confidence.

This law doesn't seem like such a bad thing. That said, I can see the logic in requiring people to run away, if they can. I think it's good that people have the option of running or not though, so they can decide what is the most safe thing to do.

Quote from: Hazard on April 28, 2005, 06:22 AM
Now if they break into your house, you can drop them then and there.

Them just breaking into your house isn't in itself a reason to shoot them by that law - you have to be in danger.

Also, you realize this now gives me the right to shoot you on sight if I ever see you: Your continued existence is a threat to my afterlife according to my newly-invented religion :P

Quote from: Hazard on April 27, 2005, 07:59 PM
I just like that the law is on my side if some stupid son of a bitch comes after me.

I just like to kill people.

Quote from: Adron on April 28, 2005, 08:43 AM
Them just breaking into your house isn't in itself a reason to shoot them by that law - you have to be in danger.

Oh gee Adron, no. Thats actually not correct. The wouldn't be in your house to send you flowers. Forcefully entering somebody else's residence without their authorization means that the owner inside can consider his life/lives of others at risk. If somebody kicks down my door and comes inside, he'll be dead before he hits the floor.

Quote from: Adron on April 28, 2005, 08:43 AM
Also, you realize this now gives me the right to shoot you on sight if I ever see you: Your continued existence is a threat to my afterlife according to my newly-invented religion :P

Gee, again, not the law. What a great socialist mis-interpretation. This new law says that if you are reasonably assured that I intend to kill you or somebody else that you could draw, warn, then fire. You can't just shoot somebody for no reason. Its a typical anti-gun misconception that in the United States you can pretty much shoot somebody for no reason, and its illogical, to use your own words against you. Your assertion that your religion permits it is the same argument that the Nazis used at Nuremburg, the Klan used in their trials, and the Black Panthers used before Congress. As we say around here "That dog just ain't gonna hunt."

Quote from: Hazard on April 28, 2005, 06:22 AM
Pardon me, but that is worded incorrectly. The law states that you are allowed to use a proportional response to a threat. In laymans terms, you can only draw and fire your firearm when you feel that your life or the life of someone else is in imminent danger. If somebody is loading your big screen into their lowrider you can't shoot them. Now if they break into your house, you can drop them then and there. The point is you can't kill somebody for jaywalking, it must be with the intent to save lives ONLY.

No, that is not worded incorrectly, you read incorrectly.  By use of a vehicle as a means of threatening or applying deadly force, it means that they are threatening or attempting to kill you or someone else with a car.  That's why the Chandler police officer who was almost run over by someone, and as a result shot her square in the head killing her and her baby, was acquitted.  You can meet threat or use of deadly force with deadly force.

Opposingly, if someone breaks into your house but is not threatening you with deadly force, you cannot shoot them.  If a robber is running out of your house, but still in your house -- even carrying your possessions -- you cannot shoot him.

Although the original topic was about a new Florida law, I specifically said that it was a similar situation in Arizona.  See: Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13, Sec. 405, Justification, use of deadly physical force (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00405.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS).

Quote from: Hazard on April 28, 2005, 05:01 PM

Quote from: Adron on April 28, 2005, 08:43 AM
Them just breaking into your house isn't in itself a reason to shoot them by that law - you have to be in danger.

Oh gee Adron, no. Thats actually not correct. The wouldn't be in your house to send you flowers. Forcefully entering somebody else's residence without their authorization means that the owner inside can consider his life/lives of others at risk. If somebody kicks down my door and comes inside, he'll be dead before he hits the floor.

At least in Arizona, Adron's interpretation is correct.  See: ARS Title 13 Sec. 404, Justification, self defense (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00404.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS), and ARS Title 13 Sec. 407, Justification, use of physical force in defense of premesis (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00407.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS).  (Interestingly, Sec. 407 permits the use of physical or deadly physical force, but only deadly when Sec. 405 applies).

Quote from: Hazard on April 28, 2005, 05:01 PM
What a great socialist mis-interpretation.

Leave your sarcasm out of this forum.  If you want to post something worthwhile and logical, by all means, this is the place to do it.  Get off your high horse, though.

Quote from: MyndFyre on April 28, 2005, 07:17 PM

No, that is not worded incorrectly, you read incorrectly.

No, your closing was the part that was incorrect. You cannot use deadly force to prevent a crime, only to save lives.

Quote from: MyndFyre on April 28, 2005, 07:17 PM
Opposingly, if someone breaks into your house but is not threatening you with deadly force, you cannot shoot them.

My best friends father is the Deputy Cheif of Police for the Tampa Police Department, and he disagrees. I'll take his word over yours.

Quote from: MyndFyre on April 28, 2005, 07:17 PMIf a robber is running out of your house, but still in your house -- even carrying your possessions -- you cannot shoot him.

I repeat, you can only use deadly force to save your own life or the life of somebody else. Somebody entering your home, under Florida law, in an unlawful manner, can be seen as a direct threat to your safety.

Quote from: Hazard on April 28, 2005, 05:01 PM
This new law says that if you are reasonably assured that I intend to kill you or somebody else that you could draw, warn, then fire.

The new law said something about great bodily harm or death. If you rob me of my reincarnation, you're absolutely causing my death. And I need to be reasonably assured that that's the case. Are you reasonably assured that your Christian God exists, and that there is a heaven that you may come to?

Quote from: Hazard on April 28, 2005, 08:20 PM

Quote from: MyndFyre on April 28, 2005, 07:17 PM

No, that is not worded incorrectly, you read incorrectly.

No, your closing was the part that was incorrect. You cannot use deadly force to prevent a crime, only to save lives.

No, my entire point was that you can use the same level of physical force as the crime being committed.  Obviously you can't shoot someone who stole a candy bar from the Circle-K.

Quote from: Hazard on April 28, 2005, 08:20 PM

Quote from: MyndFyre on April 28, 2005, 07:17 PM
Opposingly, if someone breaks into your house but is not threatening you with deadly force, you cannot shoot them.

My best friends father is the Deputy Cheif of Police for the Tampa Police Department, and he disagrees. I'll take his word over yours.

My uncle is the Lieutenant of the Paradise Valley PD (the highest rank at that particular department below Chief).  And as I said, my debate with you was under Arizona law.

Quote from: Hazard on April 28, 2005, 08:20 PM

Quote from: MyndFyre on April 28, 2005, 07:17 PMIf a robber is running out of your house, but still in your house -- even carrying your possessions -- you cannot shoot him.

I repeat, you can only use deadly force to save your own life or the life of somebody else. Somebody entering your home, under Florida law, in an unlawful manner, can be seen as a direct threat to your safety.

(emphasis added to both quotes)
Correct!  However, if he is exiting the premises, even with your posessions, is he threatening you with physical harm?

QuoteOpposingly, if someone breaks into your house but is not threatening you with deadly force, you cannot shoot them.  If a robber is running out of your house, but still in your house -- even carrying your possessions -- you cannot shoot him.

I know in Texas you can shoot anyone on your property if you feel threatend in any way.  You might want to shoot them before they turn to run away though, because shooting someone in the back looks a little bad on your part when you are trying to claim self defense.

Quote from: MyndFyre on April 28, 2005, 10:05 PM
Correct!  However, if he is exiting the premises, even with your posessions, is he threatening you with physical harm?

Florida law does not make that distinction. He is either in forcively (sp?) in your house or he isn't.

Quote from: Hazard on April 29, 2005, 06:16 AM
Florida law does not make that distinction. He is either in forcively (sp?) in your house or he isn't.

However, at the time he's leaving your house, you don't know whether he's forcibly in your house or not. Perhaps he's a guy who managed to hit a baseball through your window, and asked your kid on the front side if it was OK that he went in to pick up the ball...

A kid picking up a baseball doesn't look like someone planning to rob you (unless that is just an ingenious ploy!)

Quote from: Adron on April 29, 2005, 06:39 AM

Quote from: Hazard on April 29, 2005, 06:16 AM
Florida law does not make that distinction. He is either in forcively (sp?) in your house or he isn't.

However, at the time he's leaving your house, you don't know whether he's forcibly in your house or not. Perhaps he's a guy who managed to hit a baseball through your window, and asked your kid on the front side if it was OK that he went in to pick up the ball...

Thats the most retarded thing I ever heard. "What if a bully went and grabbed a little girls Girl Scout cookies and threw them inside the house and the girl said to your neighbor 'Golly gee Mister, I sure need those cookies!" so he goes inside and you shoot..." Give me a fucking break.

Quote from: Hazard on April 29, 2005, 02:15 PM

Quote from: Adron on April 29, 2005, 06:39 AM
However, at the time he's leaving your house, you don't know whether he's forcibly in your house or not. Perhaps he's a guy who managed to hit a baseball through your window, and asked your kid on the front side if it was OK that he went in to pick up the ball...

Thats the most retarded thing I ever heard. "What if a bully went and grabbed a little girls Girl Scout cookies and threw them inside the house and the girl said to your neighbor 'Golly gee Mister, I sure need those cookies!" so he goes inside and you shoot..." Give me a fucking break.

The one with the baseball is insanely more likely than the girl scout cookie idea you have. You'll hear crushed glass, and then a man walking around near/in/around your house. You can replace the baseball with football or R/C model or any of those things that might go through a window.

So, I'm in my house waiting? Why, exactly, did this gentleman decide not to ring the doorball and ask for the ball back maybe with an apology? Why did he take it upon himself to sneak inside my house?

I'd THINK most baseball type incidents would happen during the day while most robberies at night.  Most people looking for a baseball look like they might be looking for a baseball while most people looking to rob you would look a little suspicious.

Generally when I play baseball I have a hat, and either a bat or a baseball glove on.  If I intended to rob a house I would probablly have on a ski mask and a pair of bolt cutters. 

Quote from: Forged on April 29, 2005, 04:41 PM
Generally when I play baseball I have a hat, and either a bat or a baseball glove on.  If I intended to rob a house I would probablly have on a ski mask and a pair of bolt cutters. 

Exactly!  You're not threatening the homeowner with deadly physical force with a pair of bolt cutters!  In fact, I would have to say that you wouldn't be much of a threat at all.  :P

Quote from: MyndFyre on April 29, 2005, 05:27 PM

Quote from: Forged on April 29, 2005, 04:41 PM
Generally when I play baseball I have a hat, and either a bat or a baseball glove on.  If I intended to rob a house I would probablly have on a ski mask and a pair of bolt cutters. 

Exactly!  You're not threatening the homeowner with deadly physical force with a pair of bolt cutters!  In fact, I would have to say that you wouldn't be much of a threat at all.  :P

He could hit the homeowner with them.  Bolt cutters could REALLY hurt & REALLY cause alot of head injury

Someone should acknowledge that I agree with you right wing loons that this law is probably ok.

That said, I have a serious problem with the presumption that any uninvited person in your home must present a deadly threat. That's just silly and paranoid. I suspect that most robbers, when caught in the act, would simply try to run away.

Quote from: Arta[vL] on April 29, 2005, 06:14 PM
Someone should acknowledge that I agree with you right wing loons that this law is probably ok.

That said, I have a serious problem with the presumption that any uninvited person in your home must present a deadly threat. That's just silly and paranoid. I suspect that most robbers, when caught in the act, would simply try to run away.

Perhaps 80%. But what protects the masses from those 20% who want to harm you?

Quote from: Hazard on April 29, 2005, 09:10 PM

Quote from: Arta[vL] on April 29, 2005, 06:14 PM
Someone should acknowledge that I agree with you right wing loons that this law is probably ok.

That said, I have a serious problem with the presumption that any uninvited person in your home must present a deadly threat. That's just silly and paranoid. I suspect that most robbers, when caught in the act, would simply try to run away.

Perhaps 80%. But what protects the masses from those 20% who want to harm you?

If they want to harm you, shoot them.  I imagine if you approached the 20% of robbers that *would* harm you with a weapon drawn, then 90% of them would run away, unless they already had their guns drawn.  The other 10% is why you have a gun at all.

You don't need to shoot them, though, unless they try to shoot you, or gesture as if they're going to.

Quote from: Arta[vL] on April 29, 2005, 06:14 PM
Someone should acknowledge that I agree with you right wing loons that this law is probably ok.

That said, I have a serious problem with the presumption that any uninvited person in your home must present a deadly threat. That's just silly and paranoid. I suspect that most robbers, when caught in the act, would simply try to run away.

Correct, and I assume that if you were to shoot them in the back (which you would if they ran)  Then you would still go to jail. 

Quote from: MyndFyre on April 29, 2005, 10:45 PM

Quote from: Hazard on April 29, 2005, 09:10 PM

Quote from: Arta[vL] on April 29, 2005, 06:14 PM
Someone should acknowledge that I agree with you right wing loons that this law is probably ok.

That said, I have a serious problem with the presumption that any uninvited person in your home must present a deadly threat. That's just silly and paranoid. I suspect that most robbers, when caught in the act, would simply try to run away.

Perhaps 80%. But what protects the masses from those 20% who want to harm you?

If they want to harm you, shoot them.  I imagine if you approached the 20% of robbers that *would* harm you with a weapon drawn, then 90% of them would run away, unless they already had their guns drawn.  The other 10% is why you have a gun at all.

You don't need to shoot them, though, unless they try to shoot you, or gesture as if they're going to.

Then that would be in the wrong. Under US law, and further under Florida law, you are only allowed to draw your weapon when your life is in imminent danger. So lets take it the way that you all would want us to. We'd have to approach our would-be-attacker and find out what their intentions are and find out if they are armed. Then we'd have to run away before they could get to you and get your weapon, then you'd have to hunt them down and then you could shoot them? Might that take a little too long? You aren't even allowed to draw unless you're threatened.

Quote from: Hazard on April 30, 2005, 09:08 AM
You aren't even allowed to draw unless you're threatened.

Some people will feel threatened even when they're not really in danger. And when they draw, the other person will definitely feel his life is in danger.

Quote from: Adron on April 30, 2005, 09:15 AM

Quote from: Hazard on April 30, 2005, 09:08 AM
You aren't even allowed to draw unless you're threatened.

Some people will feel threatened even when they're not really in danger. And when they draw, the other person will definitely feel his life is in danger.

Thats why, in order to get a concealed weapons permit, you have to go through a series of training courses to know when force is appropriate and when it is not. People aren't as stupid with weapons as you make them sound Adron.

Quote from: Hazard on April 30, 2005, 09:20 AM
People aren't as stupid with weapons as you make them sound Adron.

Some are, some are not. Stupid people are abundant.

Quote from: Hazard on April 30, 2005, 09:08 AM
Then that would be in the wrong. Under US law, and further under Florida law, you are only allowed to draw your weapon when your life is in imminent danger. So lets take it the way that you all would want us to. We'd have to approach our would-be-attacker and find out what their intentions are and find out if they are armed. Then we'd have to run away before they could get to you and get your weapon, then you'd have to hunt them down and then you could shoot them? Might that take a little too long? You aren't even allowed to draw unless you're threatened.

First of all, what would be in the wrong?  I am not quite sure what you mean.

Show me the US statutory law.  Statutory law overrides common law, and the United States does not have federal statutory law regarding permitted uses of physical or deadly physical force -- that's why states have statutory laws about it.  Don't quote US laws that don't exist.

You might be right about Florida law, though; I'm not familiar with the Florida state statutes.  A blog from a group called Concealed Carry, Inc. (http://concealcarry.org/2005/04/viewpoint-florida-senator-proud-to.html), says this:

Quote
The 'castle doctrine' creates an exception to the common law duty to retreat. The doctrine states that an individual has a right to defend his or her home in the face of danger, even to the extent of using deadly force.

This bill improves the castle doctrine in Florida by expanding the concept of what is a 'castle' and by expanding the group of persons entitled to its protection. In other words, if a person illegally enters your home you can use deadly force without the fear of criminal prosecution or civil action.

Furthermore, regarding your statement about having to run away *after* determining intentions and capabilities, you're way off.  You can attack a thief on your property who is in your house if he's not trying to shoot you, but you can't use deadly force.  You can match the amount of force used in the crime to prevent or stop a crime.  At least in Arizona.

Quote from: MyndFyre on April 30, 2005, 05:52 PM

First of all, what would be in the wrong?  I am not quite sure what you mean.

It would be unlawful.

Quote from: MyndFyre on April 30, 2005, 05:52 PMShow me the US statutory law.  Statutory law overrides common law, and the United States does not have federal statutory law regarding permitted uses of physical or deadly physical force -- that's why states have statutory laws about it.  Don't quote US laws that don't exist.

Consult the ATF (http://www.atf.treas.gov/) for your answers.

Quote from: MyndFyre on April 30, 2005, 05:52 PMYou might be right about Florida law

I am.

Quote from: MyndFyre on April 30, 2005, 05:52 PMthough; I'm not familiar with the Florida state statutes.  A blog from a group called Concealed Carry, Inc. (http://concealcarry.org/2005/04/viewpoint-florida-senator-proud-to.html), says this:

Quote
The 'castle doctrine' creates an exception to the common law duty to retreat. The doctrine states that an individual has a right to defend his or her home in the face of danger, even to the extent of using deadly force.

As you said yourself, laws vary from state to state.

Quote from: MyndFyre on April 30, 2005, 05:52 PM
Furthermore, regarding your statement about having to run away *after* determining intentions and capabilities, you're way off.  You can attack a thief on your property who is in your house if he's not trying to shoot you, but you can't use deadly force.  You can match the amount of force used in the crime to prevent or stop a crime.  At least in Arizona.

I'm glad its not that way in this state. It would be ridiculous to first be REQUIRED to ascertain the level of the threatening force before reacting.

Nonsense. Police officers are required to do that all the time.

But you'll notice when police approach a dangerous suspect, they have their weapons drawn already. Why shouldn't it be the same case with home owners?

I thought they only did that when they believe that the suspect has a gun? Or some other deadly weapon?

Quote from: Arta[vL] on May 01, 2005, 08:22 AM
I thought they only did that when they believe that the suspect has a gun? Or some other deadly weapon?

When police enter a house with a suspect in it they always have their weapons drawn, regardless if they know whether or not the suspect has a gun. You think they'd kick the door in only holding their mace?

Quote from: Arta[vL] on May 01, 2005, 08:22 AM
I thought they only did that when they believe that the suspect has a gun? Or some other deadly weapon?

They do in America. America is the country where all the bad guys have guns. They have laws that each bad guy shall have a gun to defend himself from the police..... :P

At least the criminals have rights though ;)

Quote from: Adron on May 01, 2005, 08:55 AM

Quote from: Arta[vL] on May 01, 2005, 08:22 AM
I thought they only did that when they believe that the suspect has a gun? Or some other deadly weapon?

They do in America. America is the country where all the bad guys have guns. They have laws that each bad guy shall have a gun to defend himself from the police..... :P

So let's outlaw guns, and the bad guys (who are breaking the law anyway) will still have them, only people can't defend themselves from the bad guys!

Quote from: Hazard on April 30, 2005, 09:20 AM
Thats why, in order to get a concealed weapons permit, you have to go through a series of training courses to know when force is appropriate and when it is not. People aren't as stupid with weapons as you make them sound Adron.

I don't particularly have a problem with people who are trained and licensed in the use of guns having guns. I am American, after all.

What I'm curious about is your opinion on how ridiculously easy it currently is to obtain a gun without having to provide evidence of said licensing and training.

What gets me is that the legitimate gun owners are always pushing for greater rights to use their guns (and there is nothing inherently wrong with this), but at the same time, steadfastly resist regulating the gun-acquisition process in a sane manner.

Quote from: MyndFyre on May 01, 2005, 03:40 PM
So let's outlaw guns, and the bad guys (who are breaking the law anyway) will still have them, only people can't defend themselves from the bad guys!

Well, we come from the part of the world where guns are outlawed. And that means criminals don't have guns here, which was the source of the initial confusion ;)

[MyndFyre edit: changed the quote to reflect what Adron was referring to, because I'm splitting off irrelevant crap]

Quote from: Adron on May 01, 2005, 09:27 PM

Quote from: Hazard on May 01, 2005, 06:43 PM
That is exactly what Adron and Arta continually propose.

Well, we come from the part of the world where guns are outlawed. And that means criminals don't have guns here, which was the source of the initial confusion ;)

? (http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/International/EuropeShootingsIncrease.htm)

Quote from: Zakath on May 01, 2005, 08:35 PM
What I'm curious about is your opinion on how ridiculously easy it currently is to obtain a gun without having to provide evidence of said licensing and training.

Indeed, it is too easy to obtain a gun. The problem however is obtaining guns the LEGAL way. You do in fact have to provide evidence of licensing and training to buy certain firearms or for a specific purpose, and I agree with that. It is easier to obtain rifles and shotguns, I'll grant you. I do think that there should be stringent background checks on owning firearms, sure. The problem is, the VAST majority of crimes committed with a firearm was with a firearm that has been illegally obtained in the first place, as in bought on the street or stolen for example. Now how are more background checks going to solve THAT problem? They won't.

Quote from: Zakath on May 01, 2005, 08:35 PMWhat gets me is that the legitimate gun owners are always pushing for greater rights to use their guns (and there is nothing inherently wrong with this), but at the same time, steadfastly resist regulating the gun-acquisition process in a sane manner.

I think that gun owners deserve the rights to use their weapons. They resist making acquiring guns more difficult because, as I said, how many crimes are committed with legally obtained weapons? I had a debate on this in Social Problems last semester, and I'm trying to dig up my hard copy of the source, but my writings here document that some 86% of crimes committed with a firearm were with illegally obtained weapons. Making a waiting period longer won't stop some thug on the street from buying a ripped gun off some crack dealer on the street, you know.

Quote from: Hazard on May 01, 2005, 09:35 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 01, 2005, 09:27 PM

Quote from: Hazard on May 01, 2005, 06:43 PM
That is exactly what Adron and Arta continually propose.

Well, we come from the part of the world where guns are outlawed. And that means criminals don't have guns here, which was the source of the initial confusion ;)

? (http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/International/EuropeShootingsIncrease.htm)

Hmmyes? A european country such as France has one eighth the homocide rate of the USA thanks to the strict gun control laws? European countries are enforcing gun control laws better in response to a few violent shootings, because we like to push our homocide rate even further down than 87.5% lower than the USA? Sounds good to me...

What the article does point out is that the big evil USA is exporting its murderous ways and criminality into Europe which is a problem. I agree. The USA needs to introduce similar strict gun control laws as European countries already have.

The intial confusion I referred to was:

Quote from: Arta[vL] on May 01, 2005, 08:22 AM
I thought they only did that when they believe that the suspect has a gun? Or some other deadly weapon?

One of big rights is that we can have weapons to protect ourselves.  Our constitutional framers OBVIOUSLY thought Americans should be able to defend themselves so they decided to include that in our lovely Bill of Rights.  I agree with Justice Scalia?, I think that's which one it is, that the Constitution is a constant & does not change in meaning.  It was written 1 way & shouldn't change with the times as it is not supposed to be reinterpretted every new Court.

Quote from: CrAz3D on May 02, 2005, 10:05 AM
Our constitutional framers OBVIOUSLY thought Americans should be able to defend themselves so they decided to include that in our lovely Bill of Rights.

Your constitutional framers OBVIOUSLY thought individual American states needed to be guaranteed the right to have armed forces, to protect them from the president of the USA... :P

Third time might be a charm...I don't usually put forth this much effort into anything

*King of England
Our 'fore fathers' saw the need for expressed freedoms.  They knew if everything was left to be interpretted one group could control the entire force of America.  Luckily, since we can elect our own leader & not everything is government controled, we can have our own freedoms & exercise our right to live freely unlike many other countries

Quote from: CrAz3D on May 02, 2005, 11:44 PM
*King of England
Our 'fore fathers' saw the need for expressed freedoms.  They knew if everything was left to be interpretted one group could control the entire force of America.  Luckily, since we can elect our own leader & not everything is government controled, we can have our own freedoms & exercise our right to live freely unlike many other countries

Your 'fore fathers' thought that giving American states the right to have an armed militia would be good in case the central government tried to step on their toes? In practise, the central government controls the armed forces enough that state militias serve no useful purpose.

The British government controled their forces...Americans fought & one, grant it that the Brits didn't have figher jets & the such.  You don't have to be in a militia to need a gun.  You can defend yourself without an entire army, so long as you're not up against an entire army.

Quote from: CrAz3D on May 03, 2005, 10:56 AM
The British government controled their forces...Americans fought & one, grant it that the Brits didn't have figher jets & the such.  You don't have to be in a militia to need a gun.  You can defend yourself without an entire army, so long as you're not up against an entire army.

Yeah, that's true. It was necessary for the states to have a militia to protect themselves from the Brits at the time the now badly aged constitution was written.

It is old but all of it is still relevant.

Quote from: CrAz3D on May 03, 2005, 01:11 PM
It is old but all of it is still relevant.

I suddenly see the connection. The USA is full of people who think the bible is the word of God, and by just interpreting enough they can find answers to everything. Relevant answers. Of course such people would have a tendency to give the constitution similar weight, being unwilling to adapt.

The Bible isn't the Constitution.  Also, there are people in places besides the US of A that read/believe in the Bible.

& if we should change, then why isn't it ok for us to force change upon Iraq?  I mean they've only been living without our democracy since what, the begining of the human race?

Name a few somethings in the Constitution that should be changed & provided good reasoning for your opinions.

Quote from: CrAz3D on May 03, 2005, 01:23 PM
Name a few somethings in the Constitution that should be changed & provided good reasoning for your opinions.

One example is that the constitution mentions monetary amounts, given in dollars. Over time, the meaning will necessarily diverge from the value at the time it was written. This is a strong indication that the writer didn't intend the text to be valid for hundreds of years.


Actually, the second amendment, if interpreted the way I would, indicates that states have the right to have a militia. I suppose that's fine.


And in regards to guns, I thought about an idea I read somewhere. Hazard claims that gun owners are responsible and that the guns used in crime aren't a result of flooding the market with guns. A pretty simple (though resource intensive) solution would be to mark all guns and ammunition with a persistent label, that can be read out digitally and checked against a register. Then all you need is punishment for anyone found carrying an unmarked gun or a gun marked as belonging to someone else, as well as registered owner of gun/bullets getting responsibility for any shootings with the weapon in question. That would make things there almost as good as here in Europe.

Are you sure that would fix the problem Adron? You know for a fact that would make things "Almost as good as Europe?" What a crock.

Europeans accuse us of being arrogant. I assert the Europeans are just as guilty. You Europeans treat Americans like second class citizens. Whether you confirm it or not, your demeanor seems to tell me that you view Americans as uncivilized and unintelligent. Thats pretty arrogant if you ask me.

Our guns are already registered to the owner, not digitally though.  A barcode can be easily removed, easier than a Serial Number that is engraved into the gun itself (which I believe is how our registration works now).

Quote from: CrAz3D on May 03, 2005, 04:20 PM
Our guns are already registered to the owner, not digitally though.  A barcode can be easily removed, easier than a Serial Number that is engraved into the gun itself (which I believe is how our registration works now).

That is in fact our system.

Quote from: Hazard on May 03, 2005, 02:39 PM
Are you sure that would fix the problem Adron? You know for a fact that would make things "Almost as good as Europe?" What a crock.

No, not sure. One can never be sure about anything. What would eventually end up making it as good as Europe is applying the principle of every gun owner being responsible for his/her gun. Then every time someone is shot, there'll be one more gun owner in the electric chair, and since all guns eventually get stolen, given enough time there'll be no more gun owners. Perfect!

Quote from: Hazard on May 03, 2005, 02:39 PM
Europeans accuse us of being arrogant. I assert the Europeans are just as guilty. You Europeans treat Americans like second class citizens. Whether you confirm it or not, your demeanor seems to tell me that you view Americans as uncivilized and unintelligent. Thats pretty arrogant if you ask me.

Well, I have been looking at you, and that's probably where I got the idea that Americans are uncivilized and unintelligent. At the same time, I know that there are at least several Americans that are actually very intelligent. Many of them are in vL.

Quote from: Adron on May 03, 2005, 08:52 PM

Quote from: Hazard on May 03, 2005, 02:39 PM
Are you sure that would fix the problem Adron? You know for a fact that would make things "Almost as good as Europe?" What a crock.

No, not sure. One can never be sure about anything. What would eventually end up making it as good as Europe is applying the principle of every gun owner being responsible for his/her gun. Then every time someone is shot, there'll be one more gun owner in the electric chair, and since all guns eventually get stolen, given enough time there'll be no more gun owners. Perfect!

That is hands down the most ridiculous thing that I've heard yet, keep it coming Adron. In Europe you don't have to be responsible for your guns, the government makes all your decisions for you. DANCE PUPPETS DANCE!

Quote from: Adron on May 03, 2005, 08:52 PM

Quote from: Hazard on May 03, 2005, 02:39 PM
Europeans accuse us of being arrogant. I assert the Europeans are just as guilty. You Europeans treat Americans like second class citizens. Whether you confirm it or not, your demeanor seems to tell me that you view Americans as uncivilized and unintelligent. Thats pretty arrogant if you ask me.

Well, I have been looking at you, and that's probably where I got the idea that Americans are uncivilized and unintelligent. At the same time, I know that there are at least several Americans that are actually very intelligent. Many of them are in vL.

Since your opinion is obviously so meaningful. Fortunately for me, the weight of your opinions is, well, zero. Since you seem to know so much about me, that is. The arrogance again, with your clan OBVIOUSLY having the monopoly on intelligent Americans, and seemingly intelligent people altogether. Very impressive.

Quote from: Hazard on May 03, 2005, 09:07 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 03, 2005, 08:52 PM
No, not sure. One can never be sure about anything. What would eventually end up making it as good as Europe is applying the principle of every gun owner being responsible for his/her gun. Then every time someone is shot, there'll be one more gun owner in the electric chair, and since all guns eventually get stolen, given enough time there'll be no more gun owners. Perfect!

That is hands down the most ridiculous thing that I've heard yet, keep it coming Adron. In Europe you don't have to be responsible for your guns, the government makes all your decisions for you. DANCE PUPPETS DANCE!

Oh, but doesn't it sound like a good idea? In your mind, gun owners are responsible. You won't have a problem with the setup I described. In my mind, gun owners are irresponsible, and will become extinct. Perfect!

Quote from: Hazard on May 03, 2005, 09:07 PM
Since your opinion is obviously so meaningful. Fortunately for me, the weight of your opinions is, well, zero. Since you seem to know so much about me, that is. The arrogance again, with your clan OBVIOUSLY having the monopoly on intelligent Americans, and seemingly intelligent people altogether. Very impressive.

I know only as much about you as you've shown on this forum. Maybe you should reread what I wrote?

How is it that you come to the conclusion that all gun owners are irresponsible and therefore guns should be removed from the equation?

Lets follow some more Adron logic. Some people are irresponsible with their automobiles. To fix this problem, all automobiles should be seized by the government and destroyed.

Some more for you: Some people use butcher's knives to murder their spouses and cut them into little pieces. To fix this problem, all knives should be immediately seized by the proper authorities and melted down.

And yes, even more: This one time, I saw an episode of Law and Order where a guy beat a child to death with a baseball bat. Better fix that problem, lets shut down the Louisville Slugger Corporation to make sure that there are no more baseball bats available for such a terrible crime.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Are guns really the problem, or are people the problem? Logically its the people.

To respond, I only know as much about you as you've presented. What do I see? A condescending arrogant socialist jackass who is convinced of a) his superiority in his own way of thinking and b) the infoulability of that superiority.

I think you're just ignorant as to just what the 2nd Amendment gurantees. You don't think it applies to private ownership of weapons, fine. Luckily for all of us who love our freedom, nobody put you in charge, and GOD willing, nobody ever will. Since you suffer from this ignorance, I spent a few moments and found the following website I wish you would consult at some length so you can finally understand what those with authority think about the 2nd Amendment as opposed to what YOU think about it. http://www.logicsouth.com/~lcoble/password/18.html

So, you agree with the death penalty?  That isn't cruel & unusal?  ESPECIALLY the electric chair?...I don't think that the electric chair is used here much if at all anymore...crazy liberal people think someone that is about to have their life ended as punishment should die without pain.

By the logic that all gun owners should be executed if their gun is stolen, wouldn't the same apply to car owners?  People that steal cars get involved in other such illegal activity & there is quite often a police chase involved.  Police chases can end up in the deaths of innocent bystandards.  The only way to hault the gun/car problem would be to cease the making of these items.  & since that would be very uneconomical no one would ever agree to it.  (It also just doesn't make sense)

Quote from: Hazard on May 03, 2005, 02:39 PM
Europeans accuse us of being arrogant. I assert the Europeans are just as guilty. You Europeans treat Americans like second class citizens. Whether you confirm it or not, your demeanor seems to tell me that you view Americans as uncivilized and unintelligent. Thats pretty arrogant if you ask me.

I'm an American, and I think a vast majority of us are uncivilized and unintelligent... not to mention greedy, selfish, litigious, and other adjectives that escape me at the moment.

Quote from: Hazard on May 03, 2005, 09:18 PM
How is it that you come to the conclusion that all gun owners are irresponsible and therefore guns should be removed from the equation?

Oh, not all, but some. There are little hints, such as you saying illegal, stolen, guns were used in many crimes. You have also claimed that the number of guns circulating in the USA and them getting stolen was not a factor increasing gun usage by criminals.

Either way, if you're correct, and gun owners are responsible, then doing away with gun owners who are irresponsible would mean doing away with noone.

Quote from: Hazard on May 03, 2005, 09:18 PM
Lets follow some more Adron logic. Some people are irresponsible with their automobiles. To fix this problem, all automobiles should be seized by the government and destroyed.

We already had that discussion on another forum.

Quote from: Hazard on May 03, 2005, 09:18 PM
Do you see where I'm going with this? Are guns really the problem, or are people the problem? Logically its the people.

OK, so we round up and kill all people? :P

Either that, or we do our best to reduce the damage capacity of people. I.e. remove guns :P

Quote from: Hazard on May 03, 2005, 09:18 PM
To respond, I only know as much about you as you've presented. What do I see? A condescending arrogant socialist jackass who is convinced of a) his superiority in his own way of thinking and b) the infoulability of that superiority.

Well, certain other people have managed to show me errors in my conclusions. I don't think you've ever managed that though?

Quote from: Hazard on May 03, 2005, 09:18 PM
I think you're just ignorant as to just what the 2nd Amendment gurantees. You don't think it applies to private ownership of weapons, fine. Luckily for all of us who love our freedom, nobody put you in charge, and GOD willing, nobody ever will.

God doesn't want you to have guns. You're going to hell for having guns, they're tools of the devil. And yes, some gun-crazy fanatics (which there are all too many of in America) will read the 2nd Amendment a different way than I do. It's just like reading the bible...

Quote from: CrAz3D on May 03, 2005, 11:43 PM
So, you agree with the death penalty?  That isn't cruel & unusal?  ESPECIALLY the electric chair?...I don't think that the electric chair is used here much if at all anymore...crazy liberal people think someone that is about to have their life ended as punishment should die without pain.

That thing about cruel and unusual punishment is something American only. And actually, I don't think the electric chair is particularly cruel. It's currently unusual, but in a near future it might become usual.

Quote from: Hazard on May 03, 2005, 09:18 PM
The only way to hault the gun/car problem would be to cease the making of these items.  & since that would be very uneconomical no one would ever agree to it.  (It also just doesn't make sense)

Halting the car problem would be uneconomical. Halting the gun problem wouldn't.


Edit: I do think decapitation would be a better punishment.

ooh, I like your view on the electric chair! ;)  People that are being punished SHOULD have to suffer.

Haulting a gun problem would involve collecting ALL guns.  Just about EVERY government has guns.  There is the whole gun black market.  There are the gangs/terrorist groups/guerrillas that are connected to their guns.   Would attempting something like this REALLY be economical?  Sure the US companies could stop making them, but the factories in other countries would just increase production & then it would cost more for regular people to buy.

Quote from: Adron on May 04, 2005, 06:33 AM

Quote from: Hazard on May 03, 2005, 09:18 PM
The only way to hault the gun/car problem would be to cease the making of these items.  & since that would be very uneconomical no one would ever agree to it.  (It also just doesn't make sense)

Halting the car problem would be uneconomical. Halting the gun problem wouldn't.

That wasn't my quote, get your facts straight.

Quote from: Adron on May 04, 2005, 06:31 AM

Oh, not all, but some. There are little hints, such as you saying illegal, stolen, guns were used in many crimes. You have also claimed that the number of guns circulating in the USA and them getting stolen was not a factor increasing gun usage by criminals.

I never said that when people steal weapons that it isn't a factor in increasing the usage. I said that most weapons are not acquired legally, there is a difference. My weapons are locked in a large gun safe in my home, if they are stolen, how does that make me irresponsible? You're basically saying that because some people are careless, all should be punished. I like your logic.

Quote from: Adron on May 04, 2005, 06:31 AM

We already had that discussion on another forum.

And the argument still applies.

Quote from: Adron on May 04, 2005, 06:31 AM

OK, so we round up and kill all people? :P

Thats been the socialist solution in the past.

Quote from: Adron on May 04, 2005, 06:31 AM

Either that, or we do our best to reduce the damage capacity of people. I.e. remove guns :P

And cars, and stabbing weapons, and blunt objects, and hair dryers, and combustible materials, lets just put foam on all sharp corners so nobody pokes themselves in the thigh anymore.

Quote from: Adron on May 04, 2005, 06:31 AM


Well, certain other people have managed to show me errors in my conclusions. I don't think you've ever managed that though?

No, its the fact that you have a biased and extremely low opinion of myself due to my views being the polar opposite of yours. You refuse to accept any of my facts as meaningful and feel that anything you say has to be fact.

Quote from: Adron on May 04, 2005, 06:31 AM

God doesn't want you to have guns. You're going to hell for having guns, they're tools of the devil. And yes, some gun-crazy fanatics (which there are all too many of in America) will read the 2nd Amendment a different way than I do. It's just like reading the bible...

.

And there aren't gun crazy fanatics in Europe? There's a load of shit. You're basically saying that every Supreme Court panel has been made up of gun nuts, and thats just ignorant. You obviously know nothing of the American system, why won't you admit your ignorance Adron?

Quote from: Hazard on May 04, 2005, 03:02 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 04, 2005, 06:31 AM
God doesn't want you to have guns. You're going to hell for having guns, they're tools of the devil. And yes, some gun-crazy fanatics (which there are all too many of in America) will read the 2nd Amendment a different way than I do. It's just like reading the bible...

.

And there aren't gun crazy fanatics in Europe? There's a load of shit. You're basically saying that every Supreme Court panel has been made up of gun nuts, and thats just ignorant. You obviously know nothing of the American system, why won't you admit your ignorance Adron?

I must have missed the part where Adron mentioned that Europe is 100% free of gun crazy fanatics.  He said there's an over abundance of them in America, not that they're ALL over here.  Seems to me you're ignorant of what his post actually said?

Quote from: Hazard on May 04, 2005, 03:02 PM
I never said that when people steal weapons that it isn't a factor in increasing the usage. I said that most weapons are not acquired legally, there is a difference. My weapons are locked in a large gun safe in my home, if they are stolen, how does that make me irresponsible? You're basically saying that because some people are careless, all should be punished. I like your logic.

I have suggested two possibilities. One is that since guns aren't really needed, and since they do get stolen and used in violent crimes, removing them would make sure they weren't stolen and used in violent crimes. And no, that doesn't punish anyone. Removing guns isn't punishment, it's prevention. The other alternative was punishment, and in that case only those who are careless would be punished.

Quote from: Hazard on May 04, 2005, 03:02 PM
And the argument still applies.

It's a different argument, since cars are good and guns are bad.

Quote from: Hazard on May 04, 2005, 03:02 PM
Thats been the socialist solution in the past.

It's actually happened under many different regimes. It's an American way.

Quote from: Hazard on May 04, 2005, 03:02 PM
And cars, and stabbing weapons, and blunt objects, and hair dryers, and combustible materials, lets just put foam on all sharp corners so nobody pokes themselves in the thigh anymore.

Actually, putting foam on sharp corners makes sense. I see people do that now and then. Stabbing weapons, yes, absolutely. Blunt objects is a problem though, since virtually everything is a blunt object. Combustible materials, yes, and particularly explosives.

Quote from: Hazard on May 04, 2005, 03:02 PM
No, its the fact that you have a biased and extremely low opinion of myself due to my views being the polar opposite of yours. You refuse to accept any of my facts as meaningful and feel that anything you say has to be fact.

I accept some of your facts as meaningful. Especially when they don't come from NRA sites.

Quote from: Hazard on May 04, 2005, 03:02 PM
And there aren't gun crazy fanatics in Europe? There's a load of shit. You're basically saying that every Supreme Court panel has been made up of gun nuts, and thats just ignorant. You obviously know nothing of the American system, why won't you admit your ignorance Adron?

I don't see the connections from that to knowing nothing of the American system? And no, I don't know nothing of the American system. And yes, there are gun crazy fanatics in Europe. We just keep them on a tight leash, as they should be kept.

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 10:04 AM

It's a different argument, since cars are good and guns are bad.

Any good thing used for the wrong reasons is bad. Thats the stupidest comment you've made so far.

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 10:04 AM
Actually, putting foam on sharp corners makes sense. I see people do that now and then. Stabbing weapons, yes, absolutely. Blunt objects is a problem though, since virtually everything is a blunt object. Combustible materials, yes, and particularly explosives.

You've basically argued for a sterilized world. What would chefs do without knives and cutting instruments? Use superhuman powers to split the meat? You are so far away from reality that you should be shot.

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 10:04 AM
I accept some of your facts as meaningful. Especially when they don't come from NRA sites.

Beacuse any site that has lots of information supporting my argument has to be wrong right?

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 10:04 AM
And no, I don't know nothing of the American system.

Thank you for admitting your total ignorance. I commend you for it. Now, for the future stay out of any argument that deals with American politics or justice since you admittedly know nothing about it.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 10:25 AM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 10:04 AM
It's a different argument, since cars are good and guns are bad.

Any good thing used for the wrong reasons is bad. Thats the stupidest comment you've made so far.

It's only as stupid as the reader. That comment condenses a central part of the comparison between guns and cars into a single sentence.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 10:25 AM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 10:04 AM
Actually, putting foam on sharp corners makes sense. I see people do that now and then. Stabbing weapons, yes, absolutely. Blunt objects is a problem though, since virtually everything is a blunt object. Combustible materials, yes, and particularly explosives.

You've basically argued for a sterilized world. What would chefs do without knives and cutting instruments? Use superhuman powers to split the meat? You are so far away from reality that you should be shot.

Something designed as a stabbing weapon, used as a stabbing weapon, or carried with the intent of being used as a stabbing weapon can be forbidden. That doesn't mean you need to live without cutting instruments. They're regulated here in just that way: You're prohibited from carrying a knife when you're walking down the street, unless you can show that you have a good reason for doing so. Such a reason could be that you just bought the knife and are taking it home, etc.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 10:25 AM
Beacuse any site that has lots of information supporting my argument has to be wrong right?

Because any site funded by people who want guns at all costs is unreliable.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 10:25 AM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 10:04 AM
And no, I don't know nothing of the American system.

Thank you for admitting your total ignorance. I commend you for it. Now, for the future stay out of any argument that deals with American politics or justice since you admittedly know nothing about it.

I just said that I don't know nothing of the American system. That's a double negation, meaning that I do know something. Thanks for your gratitude though. However, how about you admit that you don't know everything about the American system? Then we might be getting somewhere...

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 10:55 AM

It's only as stupid as the reader. That comment condenses a central part of the comparison between guns and cars into a single sentence.

No, its as stupid as yourself. You refuse to see the positive side to the firearms debate, because you have been brainwashed by whomever it may have been into being completely blind to belief systems juxtaposed to yours.

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 10:55 AM
Something designed as a stabbing weapon, used as a stabbing weapon, or carried with the intent of being used as a stabbing weapon can be forbidden. That doesn't mean you need to live without cutting instruments. They're regulated here in just that way: You're prohibited from carrying a knife when you're walking down the street, unless you can show that you have a good reason for doing so. Such a reason could be that you just bought the knife and are taking it home, etc.

You do realize that the exact same thing is done with guns, right? If people do it with guns, why wouldn't they do it with knives? You're too blind to see the argument aren't you?

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 10:55 AM

Because any site funded by people who want guns at all costs is unreliable.

Thats ignorance. You know nothing about the NRA, you shouldn't speak about things you obviously don't understand.

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 10:55 AM
I just said that I don't know nothing of the American system. That's a double negation, meaning that I do know something. Thanks for your gratitude though. However, how about you admit that you don't know everything about the American system? Then we might be getting somewhere...

I am by far more qualified than yourself, and thats enough for me.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 11:30 AM
No, its as stupid as yourself. You refuse to see the positive side to the firearms debate, because you have been brainwashed by whomever it may have been into being completely blind to belief systems juxtaposed to yours.

There is no positive side to the firearms debate. If there were no firearms, violent crimes committed with guns would be no more, and you would need no firearms to defend your home from armed criminals. The best long term solution would therefore be to make there be no firearms.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 11:30 AM
You do realize that the exact same thing is done with guns, right? If people do it with guns, why wouldn't they do it with knives? You're too blind to see the argument aren't you?

No, I see your argument, and I've responded to it before. Some responses: Here, you cannot legally carry a knife to defend yourself. A knife doesn't have as much destructive power as a gun. A gun doesn't have as big a non-violent use as a knife.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 11:30 AM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 10:55 AM
Because any site funded by people who want guns at all costs is unreliable.

Thats ignorance. You know nothing about the NRA, you shouldn't speak about things you obviously don't understand.

That's not ignorance. Any site funded by people who want guns at all costs (including the cost of lying or showing biased facts) is unreliable. You can't trust people who want guns at all costs to produce unbiased raw facts. And if the "facts" are in fact real facts, you'll be able to find them elsewhere - so no problem.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 11:30 AM
I am by far more qualified than yourself, and thats enough for me.

But you do admit that you don't know everything about the American system?

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 02:36 PM

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 11:30 AM
No, its as stupid as yourself. You refuse to see the positive side to the firearms debate, because you have been brainwashed by whomever it may have been into being completely blind to belief systems juxtaposed to yours.

There is no positive side to the firearms debate. If there were no firearms, violent crimes committed with guns would be no more, and you would need no firearms to defend your home from armed criminals. The best long term solution would therefore be to make there be no firearms.

So what you're telling me is, your socialism solution is the perfect one? All violent crimes would stop? People wouldn't still create firearms? If nobody else had them, wouldn't the production of them become very lucrative? Thats so stupid that you say there is NO upside to firearms, it just shows how biased and prejudice you are to other ways of thinking. I can think of a dozen reasons why firearms are excellent tools right now, but the most convincing thing is I can think of a dozen people whom I know personally who have owned firearms and never committed crims with them, and two in particular who have used them to save their own lives and the lives of others, and that is the most convincing reason.

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 02:36 PM

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 11:30 AM
You do realize that the exact same thing is done with guns, right? If people do it with guns, why wouldn't they do it with knives? You're too blind to see the argument aren't you?

No, I see your argument, and I've responded to it before. Some responses: Here, you cannot legally carry a knife to defend yourself. A knife doesn't have as much destructive power as a gun. A gun doesn't have as big a non-violent use as a knife.

And everyone in your little slice of socialist paradise is an easy target for those who want to hurt you. I could rob you with a knife, I wouldn't even have to bother with a gun!

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 02:36 PM

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 11:30 AM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 10:55 AM
Because any site funded by people who want guns at all costs is unreliable.

Thats ignorance. You know nothing about the NRA, you shouldn't speak about things you obviously don't understand.

That's not ignorance. Any site funded by people who want guns at all costs (including the cost of lying or showing biased facts) is unreliable. You can't trust people who want guns at all costs to produce unbiased raw facts. And if the "facts" are in fact real facts, you'll be able to find them elsewhere - so no problem.

And you know that they are lying and showing biased facts? The facts censored by your socialist government aren't biased though? Prove to be that their facts are fabricated or just not correct why don't you? You can't can you? Of course not, because you know nothing of the subject. They do not want guns at all costs, thats just more ignorance. You know nothing about the subject and you are not qualified to speak on them. Even your opinion is worthless because its based on things that your mommy and daddy, or even worse your government, have undoubtly brainwashed you into thinking and believing.

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 02:36 PM

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 11:30 AM
I am by far more qualified than yourself, and thats enough for me.

But you do admit that you don't know everything about the American system?

Absoulutely, but my knowledge is exponentially larger than yours.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 03:15 PM
So what you're telling me is, your socialism solution is the perfect one? All violent crimes would stop? People wouldn't still create firearms? If nobody else had them, wouldn't the production of them become very lucrative?

No, not all violent crimes would stop, only the ones involving firearms would stop if there were no firearms. If nobody else had them, well, production of them might be extremely lucrative, as you might be able to sell a few for an extremely high price. Still, even then, firearms are less of a problem the fewer people have them.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 03:15 PM
Thats so stupid that you say there is NO upside to firearms, it just shows how biased and prejudice you are to other ways of thinking. I can think of a dozen reasons why firearms are excellent tools right now, but the most convincing thing is I can think of a dozen people whom I know personally who have owned firearms and never committed crims with them, and two in particular who have used them to save their own lives and the lives of others, and that is the most convincing reason.

That's nice. I can think of a dozen people whom I know personally who haven't owned firearms, and who haven't needed firearms to save their own lives or the lives of others.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 03:15 PM
And everyone in your little slice of socialist paradise is an easy target for those who want to hurt you. I could rob you with a knife, I wouldn't even have to bother with a gun!

And I could rob you with a knife. You're still an easy target for those who want to hurt you. A gun isn't the solution to every problem in the world. So?

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 03:15 PM
And you know that they are lying and showing biased facts? The facts censored by your socialist government aren't biased though? Prove to be that their facts are fabricated or just not correct why don't you? You can't can you? Of course not, because you know nothing of the subject. They do not want guns at all costs, thats just more ignorance. You know nothing about the subject and you are not qualified to speak on them. Even your opinion is worthless because its based on things that your mommy and daddy, or even worse your government, have undoubtly brainwashed you into thinking
and believing.

My socialist government doesn't censor facts. Your capitalist society censors facts. "Unpatriotic" is a concept used in dictatorships and in the USA. Numbers from gun lobbyist sites have been shown to be misleading before. Bring some new ones up and we'll talk about those. You are bordering on "brainwashed by the church and the NRA". And perhaps we should just say that you don't have sufficient experience living in a country where guns aren't free to speak on the disadvantages of that?

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 03:15 PM
Absoulutely, but my knowledge is exponentially larger than yours.

Exponentially larger is a vague term. I'll admit that you have more knowledge of American society than I do. You're also home blind. It's better to observe a system from a viewpoint outside the system.

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PM

only the ones involving firearms would stop if there were no firearms.

So there is no such thing as gun violence in countries with total gun control... hrm... no?

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PM
That's nice. I can think of a dozen people whom I know personally who haven't owned firearms, and who haven't needed firearms to save their own lives or the lives of others.

I can think of a dozen of those as well. Those who have saved lives with their guns are the ones I was pointing to.

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PM
And I could rob you with a knife. You're still an easy target for those who want to hurt you. A gun isn't the solution to every problem in the world. So?

With just a knife, no you couldn't. One, I've spent way too many years in martial arts to get robbed by a punk like you. Second, I'm packing. I'd shoot you without thinking twice.

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PM
My socialist government doesn't censor facts. Your capitalist society censors facts.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who told you that? Your government?

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PM"Unpatriotic" is a concept used in dictatorships and in the USA.

The first amendment gives people the right to say whatever they want in my country. The second amendment protects the first. Never question my patriotism. There are plenty of people that are just as ardent patriots as myself and have opinions completely opposed to mine. What rights do you have in your country? I've seen how socialism in Europe works, and it isn't pretty.

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PMNumbers from gun lobbyist sites have been shown to be misleading before.

So without looking, you know mine are wrong? Numbers coming out of a country full of socialist weasels have been misleading before, and yes I'm talking about Sweden.

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PMYou are bordering on "brainwashed by the church and the NRA".

The church doesn't preach gun ownership?

I'd rather be a member of a group that fights for my rights than one that tries to strip them away from me for bogus reasons.

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PMAnd perhaps we should just say that you don't have sufficient experience living in a country where guns aren't free to speak on the disadvantages of that?

You've never lived in a country where you have the privilige of defending yourself to the best of your abilites. What is your experience level with firearms? Have you ever fired one? Do you have instruction in the care and mantainance of them? Have you taken non-biased courses on the pros and cons of firearm ownership? Face it, you're completely ignorant.

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PMExponentially larger is a vague term. I'll admit that you have more knowledge of American society than I do. You're also home blind. It's better to observe a system from a viewpoint outside the system.

By that definition, I'm better to critique your socialist hell hole than you are.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 06:22 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PM
My socialist government doesn't censor facts. Your capitalist society censors facts.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I hope you don't really think that the US doesn't censor anything.  Whatever news source you prefer to get your news from, at the end of the day it's still a business that needs money to survive.  Newspapers need subscribers, TV news needs viewers, internet news needs page hits, etc... or else the advertisers move their money somewhere else.  The result of this is that instead of reporting the news, they report the news that the general public wants to hear.

Wrong. Big news makes headlines. I make it a point to get my news from many various sources. I read Yahoo! News usually first and foremost, and if you honestly believe that the AP and Reuters are blatantly biased, then you're very uneducated. As far as television news, FOX News and CNN News are my two personal favorites, with NBC Nightly News closely following, with the Communist Broatcasting System in a distant last place. I read two different news papers and the occasional New York Times. What does the US government censor? Classified information and that is all that they are allowed to keep newspapers from printing. The only thing there has been a tussel over is war correspondence, as news agencies are not allowed to publish troop movements and classified actions for reasons of national security and to protect those troops. If you honestly view that as horrifying censorship, you have never been nor know anybody who has been in the combat zone. Thats my piece.

Adron, I'm going to encourage you to read and seriously consider this piece (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/guncontrol.html) and thoughtfully and carefully reply to it. I want you to use some sort of evidence without biased evidence from blatant anti-gun lobbies as you claim that biased lobbies are "unreliable" or something to that effect. Give it a try, and be serious and rational for a change.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 08:51 PM
Wrong. Big news makes headlines. I make it a point to get my news from many various sources. I read Yahoo! News usually first and foremost, and if you honestly believe that the AP and Reuters are blatantly biased, then you're very uneducated. As far as television news, FOX News and CNN News are my two personal favorites, with NBC Nightly News closely following, with the Communist Broatcasting System in a distant last place. I read two different news papers and the occasional New York Times. What does the US government censor? Classified information and that is all that they are allowed to keep newspapers from printing. The only thing there has been a tussel over is war correspondence, as news agencies are not allowed to publish troop movements and classified actions for reasons of national security and to protect those troops. If you honestly view that as horrifying censorship, you have never been nor know anybody who has been in the combat zone. Thats my piece.

How could you know they don't censor information if that information never gets out?

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 06:22 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PM
only the ones involving firearms would stop if there were no firearms.

So there is no such thing as gun violence in countries with total gun control... hrm... no?

That is correct.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 06:22 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PM
That's nice. I can think of a dozen people whom I know personally who haven't owned firearms, and who haven't needed firearms to save their own lives or the lives of others.

I can think of a dozen of those as well. Those who have saved lives with their guns are the ones I was pointing to.

Ah, but now it comes down to whether you need to have guns to save lives or not. I say not, unless you live in a gun-crazy society where law and order depends on yourself upholding it.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 06:22 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PM
And I could rob you with a knife. You're still an easy target for those who want to hurt you. A gun isn't the solution to every problem in the world. So?

With just a knife, no you couldn't. One, I've spent way too many years in martial arts to get robbed by a punk like you. Second, I'm packing. I'd shoot you without thinking twice.

For the one, an element of surprise will get anyone, and for the two, an element of surprise with get anyone. As well as, given that comment, you're a murderer who don't deserve to have a gun. If you consider shooting someone without thinking twice a good course of action, you'll end up shooting the wrong person some time, and you're a prime example of why guns need to be regulated.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 06:22 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PM
My socialist government doesn't censor facts. Your capitalist society censors facts.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who told you that? Your government?

No, talking with you did.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 06:22 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PM"Unpatriotic" is a concept used in dictatorships and in the USA.

The first amendment gives people the right to say whatever they want in my country. The second amendment protects the first. Never question my patriotism. There are plenty of people that are just as ardent patriots as myself and have opinions completely opposed to mine. What rights do you have in your country? I've seen how socialism in Europe works, and it isn't pretty.

I've seen how capitalism works in the USA and it isn't pretty. If you publish the truth, or your opinions that don't match the president's, you'll be fired or ruined depending on who you are.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 06:22 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PMNumbers from gun lobbyist sites have been shown to be misleading before.

So without looking, you know mine are wrong? Numbers coming out of a country full of socialist weasels have been misleading before, and yes I'm talking about Sweden.

No, I asked for the numbers so that I'd be able to look. I still suggest you pick numbers from a non-pro-rifle site though, as that'll make the road a whole lot easier to travel. If the numbers are accurate, they should exist in other places.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 06:22 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PMYou are bordering on "brainwashed by the church and the NRA".

The church doesn't preach gun ownership?

I'd rather be a member of a group that fights for my rights than one that tries to strip them away from me for bogus reasons.

The church brainwashes you in other ways. You're in a group fighting for your rights to get people killed.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 06:22 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PMAnd perhaps we should just say that you don't have sufficient experience living in a country where guns aren't free to speak on the disadvantages of that?

You've never lived in a country where you have the privilige of defending yourself to the best of your abilites. What is your experience level with firearms? Have you ever fired one? Do you have instruction in the care and mantainance of them? Have you taken non-biased courses on the pros and cons of firearm ownership? Face it, you're completely ignorant.

My experience level with firearms is low, although I have fired one, and had instructions in care and maintenance of them. I don't need a course on the pros and cons of firearm ownership, courses on matters such as those are just another way of presenting biased facts. I've given you plenty of opportunity to present pros and cons of firearm ownership. You still haven't convinced me. Maybe that's a sign that you're just all emotional and no fact?

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 06:22 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PMExponentially larger is a vague term. I'll admit that you have more knowledge of American society than I do. You're also home blind. It's better to observe a system from a viewpoint outside the system.

By that definition, I'm better to critique your socialist hell hole than you are.

Absolutely. You could start a new thread for doing just that, and I'll bring up any information I've gleaned on the inside while you present your observations.

Observation: Socialism is a mere bump from being neo-fascism in a really shitty society whose spending policies i.e. universal health care are bankrupting what you believe to be a "perfect society."

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 06:34 AM
Observation: Socialism is a mere bump from being neo-fascism in a really shitty society whose spending policies i.e. universal health care are bankrupting what you believe to be a "perfect society."

Could you rewrite that in a way that makes more sense and uses less of terms like "shitty"?

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AM

That is correct.

Cuba, Colombia, the former Soviet Union, China, Great Britain, Australia...

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AM

Ah, but now it comes down to whether you need to have guns to save lives or not. I say not, unless you live in a gun-crazy society where law and order depends on yourself upholding it.

What, exactly, are you basing your accusation of the United States being a gun crazy society on? How much time have you spent in this country to make such an observation? Or is it what your government tells you happens here?

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AM

For the one, an element of surprise will get anyone

Not true. I could be suprised and still take you down. It just requires the proper reflexes.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AM
As well as, given that comment, you're a murderer who don't deserve to have a gun.

I don't deserve to have me no gun? In that case, it would actually be called justifiable homicide, because you attacked/threatened me with a knife. Thats the empitomy of why I should have a gun.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AMIf you consider shooting someone without thinking twice a good course of action, you'll end up shooting the wrong person some time

I wouldn't think twice about shooting somebody who was attempting to kill me. As Sun Tzu says, "The God of War hates those who hesitate."

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AMand you're a prime example of why guns need to be regulated.

You're a prime example of somebody who is clearly uneducated on the subject.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AM
No, talking with you did.

Prove it.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AM

I've seen how capitalism works in the USA and it isn't pretty. If you publish the truth, or your opinions that don't match the president's, you'll be fired or ruined depending on who you are.

Michael Moore... Dan Rather... Jane Fonda... the Screen Actors Guild... the New York Times... the Democratic party? Yea, shut up.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 06:22 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PMNumbers from gun lobbyist sites have been shown to be misleading before.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AM

The church brainwashes you in other ways. You're in a group fighting for your rights to get people killed.

I'm fighting for my right to protect myself from those who want to harm me. The Swedish "military" does the same thing for you. Unfortunately, you are too naive to realize that these people can't be there for you all the time and are too stupid to understand the concept of defending yourself. Your solution to crime is more vaseline.

Quote from: Hazard on May 08, 2005, 06:22 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 08, 2005, 06:10 PMAnd perhaps we should just say that you don't have sufficient experience living in a country where guns aren't free to speak on the disadvantages of that?

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AM
My experience level with firearms is low

So you really lack hands on experience?

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AM
I don't need a course on the pros and cons of firearm ownership, courses on matters such as those are just another way of presenting biased facts.

You're so sure? Golly gee whiz how DO you know so much mister?

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AMI've given you plenty of opportunity to present pros and cons of firearm ownership. You still haven't convinced me. Maybe that's a sign that you're just all emotional and no fact?

I've challanged you, I've called you out dozens of times on the same premise. At least I offer facts and references at all. You say things to the effect of "it is a fact" but don't offer numbers or references or sources. You've never offered up reading material, even biased ones. You tell me how all my facts can't be right, but have nothing to back up that statment. Why don't you stop hiding behind your assertions that I have bogus facts and give me some that you are SO SURE are accurate Adron? Its because you can't. I'm calling you out AGAIN to prove me wrong, I know full well you can't.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 01:39 PM
Cuba, Colombia, the former Soviet Union, China, Great Britain, Australia...

Yes?

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 01:39 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AM
Ah, but now it comes down to whether you need to have guns to save lives or not. I say not, unless you live in a gun-crazy society where law and order depends on yourself upholding it.

What, exactly, are you basing your accusation of the United States being a gun crazy society on? How much time have you spent in this country to make such an observation? Or is it what your government tells you happens here?

Well, maybe you don't need guns to save lives in the United States?

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 01:39 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AM

For the one, an element of surprise will get anyone

Not true. I could be suprised and still take you down. It just requires the proper reflexes.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AM
As well as, given that comment, you're a murderer who don't deserve to have a gun.

I don't deserve to have me no gun? In that case, it would actually be called justifiable homicide, because you attacked/threatened me with a knife. Thats the empitomy of why I should have a gun.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AMIf you consider shooting someone without thinking twice a good course of action, you'll end up shooting the wrong person some time

I wouldn't think twice about shooting somebody who was attempting to kill me. As Sun Tzu says, "The God of War hates those who hesitate."

Well, the argument goes like this: Reflexes are actions that are initiated "automatically", before a nerve impulse has actually been processed by the brain. Your claim is that your reflexes will make you shoot and kill someone who surprises you. Someone who surprises you may not necessarily be there to hurt you in any way, but the level of nerve-interaction involved in a reflex is insufficient to determine that (think tap on knee = kicking leg). If that is the case, you will have committed homicide - conclusion: Good example of why people should not have guns.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 01:39 PM
Prove it.

I'll try to remember to point you to it the next time someone posts a link to some journalist that was fired for writing something "unpatriotic".

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 01:39 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:39 AM
I've seen how capitalism works in the USA and it isn't pretty. If you publish the truth, or your opinions that don't match the president's, you'll be fired or ruined depending on who you are.

Michael Moore... Dan Rather... Jane Fonda... the Screen Actors Guild... the New York Times... the Democratic party? Yea, shut up.

Michael Moore is rich enough I guess. Hmm. I suppose I need to rethink that statement. In a capitalist country like the USA, only those who are rich and wealthy can publish all truths?

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 01:39 PM
I'm fighting for my right to protect myself from those who want to harm me. The Swedish "military" does the same thing for you. Unfortunately, you are too naive to realize that these people can't be there for you all the time and are too stupid to understand the concept of defending yourself. Your solution to crime is more vaseline.

Actually, I'd rather have no crime. You're seeking the society where you have to be on your edge all the time to defend yourself. I'm seeking the one where you don't have to.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 01:39 PM
So you really lack hands on experience?

No. I just never took a big interest in guns.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 01:39 PM
You're so sure? Golly gee whiz how DO you know so much mister?

Because I'm older than you.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 01:39 PM
I've challanged you, I've called you out dozens of times on the same premise. At least I offer facts and references at all. You say things to the effect of "it is a fact" but don't offer numbers or references or sources. You've never offered up reading material, even biased ones. You tell me how all my facts can't be right, but have nothing to back up that statment. Why don't you stop hiding behind your assertions that I have bogus facts and give me some that you are SO SURE are accurate Adron? Its because you can't. I'm calling you out AGAIN to prove me wrong, I know full well you can't.

I prefer not producing biased reading material. I don't like biased reading material much at all. I have given numbers at times. I'm not sure what numbers you'd like though. There obviously aren't any numbers from a USA without guns, since there is none yet. Besides, most of the claims I make are just simple ones, such as: If there are no guns, there will be no gun-related crimes. Basic logic. Or like the claim made in this post: Reflexes are a low level mechanism, suffer from lack of conscious control, and are therefore risky and prone to being triggered for the wrong reasons.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM

Yes?

Those are all countries with total gun control that STILL have a problem with gun violence. Explain?

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM

Well, maybe you don't need guns to save lives in the United States?

So what you're saying is there is a better tool for the job? What might that be? Super powers?

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM

Well, the argument goes like this: Reflexes are actions that are initiated "automatically", before a nerve impulse has actually been processed by the brain. Your claim is that your reflexes will make you shoot and kill someone who surprises you. Someone who surprises you may not necessarily be there to hurt you in any way, but the level of nerve-interaction involved in a reflex is insufficient to determine that (think tap on knee = kicking leg). If that is the case, you will have committed homicide - conclusion: Good example of why people should not have guns.

Drawing is a reflex. Firing is a decision, one that must be made in a split second. My claim is that if you attacked me with a knife I'd have you down before I knew what I was doing. Someone who suprises me may certainly not be armed, and in an average situation I would not draw on them. Now if I'm walking him through Centro Ybor, a popular party spot in Tampa Bay, and I'm suddenly suprised by somebody I don't know in a not-so-well-light area I might draw and, given the appropriate circumstances, fire. I can use your same ridiculous criteria to take any useful tool and make it seem like the root of all evil.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM

I'll try to remember to point you to it the next time someone posts a link to some journalist that was fired for writing something "unpatriotic".

A decision made of who to hire and who to fire, in my country, is not made by the government. I don't know how things work behind the new iron curtain that is socialist Sweden, but in this country those decisions belong to the owners of the journals. There are thousands of columnists in this country who are always speaking out against the current government and its leaders (i.e Repblicans [they're sore losers]) and nothing becomes of them.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM

Michael Moore is rich enough I guess. Hmm. I suppose I need to rethink that statement. In a capitalist country like the USA, only those who are rich and wealthy can publish all truths?

What is it that you're getting at? You've changed your argument because you see that you were wrong. At first you said that we slay those who don't agree, then they get fired, then they can say whatever if they are rich. You obviously know nothing, so why do you keep talking?

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM

Actually, I'd rather have no crime. You're seeking the society where you have to be on your edge all the time to defend yourself. I'm seeking the one where you don't have to.

I'm in reality. In this world, Adron, rights have to be protected. There are some twisted and evil people, many of them were European as a matter of fact, who want nothing more than to strip the rights of others. Now we have two options. We can do it your way and just roll over and let them fuck us in the ass, or we can fight back. What would happen if we were all like you? For one thing, you'd be speaking only German and giving your salutations to the furher.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM

No. I just never took a big interest in guns.

Good, so we are agreed that you have no basis for your opinion on weapons due to the fact that you are admittedly ignorant as to their purposes and their function.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM
Because I'm older than you.

Clever, but not.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM
I prefer not producing biased reading material.

So basically, you have no evidence to back up anything that you say?

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PMI don't like biased reading material much at all.

So how did you get your facts and come to your conclusions?

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PMI have given numbers at times.

I can't see any. Cite some sources? Remember, non-biased sources only.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PMI'm not sure what numbers you'd like though.

By your own standards, numbers that originated from a completely non-biased source and documented on a non-biased website with a non-biased slant.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PMThere obviously aren't any numbers from a USA without guns, since there is none yet.

And there never will be!

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PMBesides, most of the claims I make are just simple ones, such as: If there are no guns, there will be no gun-related crimes.

But you have no evidence to back up what you are saying. We've been down this road before. Its your opinion. In my opinion, the Bible is accurate and you will be damned for blasphemy, but you don't accept that as true. Why should I accept what you say is true?

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PMBasic logic.

Basic logic once dictated that the Earth was a) flat and b) the center of the universe.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 06:27 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM
Yes?

Those are all countries with total gun control that STILL have a problem with gun violence. Explain?

Those are countries striving for total gun control, but not yet having reached perfection, partly due to other imports from countries that don't have much gun control at all.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 06:27 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM
Well, maybe you don't need guns to save lives in the United States?

So what you're saying is there is a better tool for the job? What might that be? Super powers?

Have discussed that before, in other threads. If you want to discuss it, dedicate a thread to it.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 06:27 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM
Well, the argument goes like this: Reflexes are actions that are initiated "automatically", before a nerve impulse has actually been processed by the brain. Your claim is that your reflexes will make you shoot and kill someone who surprises you. Someone who surprises you may not necessarily be there to hurt you in any way, but the level of nerve-interaction involved in a reflex is insufficient to determine that (think tap on knee = kicking leg). If that is the case, you will have committed homicide - conclusion: Good example of why people should not have guns.

Drawing is a reflex. Firing is a decision, one that must be made in a split second. My claim is that if you attacked me with a knife I'd have you down before I knew what I was doing. Someone who suprises me may certainly not be armed, and in an average situation I would not draw on them. Now if I'm walking him through Centro Ybor, a popular party spot in Tampa Bay, and I'm suddenly suprised by somebody I don't know in a not-so-well-light area I might draw and, given the appropriate circumstances, fire. I can use your same ridiculous criteria to take any useful tool and make it seem like the root of all evil.

Well, considering the "have you down before I knew what I was doing", I'd say you're not making a conscious decision, and so you're prone to making mistakes. Was that a knife blade you saw, or was it a reflex from some jewellry? By the time you know, you may be a murderer. Or you may be dead.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 06:27 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM
I'll try to remember to point you to it the next time someone posts a link to some journalist that was fired for writing something "unpatriotic".

A decision made of who to hire and who to fire, in my country, is not made by the government. I don't know how things work behind the new iron curtain that is socialist Sweden, but in this country those decisions belong to the owners of the journals. There are thousands of columnists in this country who are always speaking out against the current government and its leaders (i.e Repblicans [they're sore losers]) and nothing becomes of them.

I wasn't saying the censorship was done by the American government. I said it was done by the American society.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 06:27 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM
Michael Moore is rich enough I guess. Hmm. I suppose I need to rethink that statement. In a capitalist country like the USA, only those who are rich and wealthy can publish all truths?

What is it that you're getting at? You've changed your argument because you see that you were wrong. At first you said that we slay those who don't agree, then they get fired, then they can say whatever if they are rich. You obviously know nothing, so why do you keep talking?

You're obviously not thinking, so why do I bother trying to shine a light into your world? I don't know... Well, I guess what I'm getting at is how censorship permeates the American society. The ridiculous beeps in TV shows is a really basic example of it. People being deemed unpatriotic another. And then the glazing of the cake is how if you have enough money, you can get away with anything, even being unpatriotic!

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 06:27 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM
Actually, I'd rather have no crime. You're seeking the society where you have to be on your edge all the time to defend yourself. I'm seeking the one where you don't have to.

I'm in reality. In this world, Adron, rights have to be protected. There are some twisted and evil people, many of them were European as a matter of fact, who want nothing more than to strip the rights of others. Now we have two options. We can do it your way and just roll over and let them fuck us in the ass, or we can fight back. What would happen if we were all like you? For one thing, you'd be speaking only German and giving your salutations to the furher.

Actually, if we were all like me, you'd be speaking Swedish and making sense. But apart from that, yes, rights have to be protected. The debated issue is whether protecting rights should be handled by trained professionals or by amateurs.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 06:27 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM
No. I just never took a big interest in guns.

Good, so we are agreed that you have no basis for your opinion on weapons due to the fact that you are admittedly ignorant as to their purposes and their function.

No. I am knowledgeable as to their purposes and their function. Further, I'd say knowledge of the function of weapons is irrelevant to having an opinion on weapons. Feel free to make a thread about why that would be required.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 06:27 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PM
I prefer not producing biased reading material.

So basically, you have no evidence to back up anything that you say?

I have evidence to back up that which can be backed up by evidence. I have logically sound reasonings for that which neither you nor I can prove or disprove with the available facts.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 06:27 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PMI don't like biased reading material much at all.

So how did you get your facts and come to your conclusions?

Conclusions, I mostly come to myself. Facts, I gleaned from all over the place. Including some biased reading materials. Have you ever tried just looking at facts and drawing your own conclusions instead of listening to someone else's propaganda?

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 06:27 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PMI have given numbers at times.

I can't see any. Cite some sources? Remember, non-biased sources only.

I'm not finding the old gun control threads now. Here's a source I'd consider unbiased for things like number of gun-related homicides: site (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/offreported.html)

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 06:27 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PMI'm not sure what numbers you'd like though.

By your own standards, numbers that originated from a completely non-biased source and documented on a non-biased website with a non-biased slant.

OK. Handgun murders over random arguments, occurring in the USA in 2002: 1726. Justifiable homicides by people carrying a handgun in the USA in 2002: 154. Point: People get upset over some argument and kill someone using their handgun more than ten times as often as they kill a criminal with their handgun.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 06:27 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PMThere obviously aren't any numbers from a USA without guns, since there is none yet.

And there never will be!

That, you don't know.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 06:27 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PMBesides, most of the claims I make are just simple ones, such as: If there are no guns, there will be no gun-related crimes.

But you have no evidence to back up what you are saying. We've been down this road before. Its your opinion. In my opinion, the Bible is accurate and you will be damned for blasphemy, but you don't accept that as true. Why should I accept what you say is true?

Because it's obviously true. Even you should be able to realize that if there are no guns, there is no way guns can be used in crimes?

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 06:27 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 05:07 PMBasic logic.

Basic logic once dictated that the Earth was a) flat and b) the center of the universe.

Yup. Then people looked further, and revised their premises. The argument against the earth being flat wasn't: "It's round. It IS round. It is round too!". To argue against the earth being flat, find a case where the earth being flat doesn't fit observations. Then you'll be getting somewhere.

So what you're saying is, it is a definite possibility that you are completely wrong and guns really are the answer, since you obviously don't have enough information for your ignorant judgments?

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 08:07 PM
So what you're saying is, it is a definite possibility that you are completely wrong and guns really are the answer, since you obviously don't have enough information for your ignorant judgments?

For my ignorant judgments, I don't have enough information. Luckily, the judgments in this thread typically aren't ignorant, and so my judgements are very accurate while yours are wrong.

Of course, a few conclusions depend upon numerical facts and interpretation of those facts. One example is the conclusion about how a gun is ten times more likely to be used wrong than right. It's possible that guns are actually used wrong much more often than that. I didn't sum up all the possibilities, I just did a rough estimate. Still, it's good enough to form a base for discussions.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 07:56 PM

Those are countries striving for total gun control, but not yet having reached perfection, partly due to other imports from countries that don't have much gun control at all.

You should do your research. The US does not export weapons to any of those countries.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 07:56 PM
Well, considering the "have you down before I knew what I was doing", I'd say you're not making a conscious decision, and so you're prone to making mistakes.

In a situation where I'd be forced to do it, there would be little chance of a mistake. I'm referring to martial arts. If you ask for my wallet and my watch in a dark alley, what exactly are the odds that its just a misunderstanding?

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 07:56 PM

I wasn't saying the censorship was done by the American government. I said it was done by the American society.

Oh, so what you're saying is that its wrong for companies to have opinions?

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 07:56 PM

Actually, if we were all like me, you'd be speaking Swedish and making sense. But apart from that, yes, rights have to be protected. The debated issue is whether protecting rights should be handled by trained professionals or by amateurs.

Volunteer firefighters are a good example of amateurs doing the job that professionals can't get to. Why should I rely on the police to do a job that I can do myself? If there is a guy in my house trying to get to my family, should I dial 911 and sit around for 8-10 minutes before help can arrive, leaving the definite possibility the armed assailant could end up inside my home and kill my family? Do you know how stupid you sound?

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 07:56 PM

No. I am knowledgeable as to their purposes and their function.

Obviously not, because you believe that there is no practical use for firearms and any assertion that there is would be "illogical" because note verybody thinks like a Vulcan.

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 07:56 PM
I have evidence to back up that which can be backed up by evidence. I have logically sound reasonings for that which neither you nor I can prove or disprove with the available facts.

Logic is based on facts. Show me your facts!

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 07:56 PM
Conclusions, I mostly come to myself. Facts, I gleaned from all over the place. Including some biased reading materials. Have you ever tried just looking at facts and drawing your own conclusions instead of listening to someone else's propaganda?

So you HAVE just made them up! Even you admit that your facts are anti-gun biased!

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 07:56 PM
OK. Handgun murders over random arguments, occurring in the USA in 2002: 1726. Justifiable homicides by people carrying a handgun in the USA in 2002: 154. Point: People get upset over some argument and kill someone using their handgun more than ten times as often as they kill a criminal with their handgun.

We've been here before. How many of those weapons were legally obtained? Another question, does your research have the number of lives that were saved by a civillian carrying a firearm? Of course not! Because that would show the positive side wouldn't it?

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 07:56 PM

That, you don't know.

Yes I do. As Leonidas said "Come and get them."

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 07:56 PM
Because it's obviously true. Even you should be able to realize that if there are no guns, there is no way guns can be used in crimes?

And another horrifying thing would rise up in its place. You think people are going to give up being evil because they don't have their gun?

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 08:31 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 09, 2005, 07:56 PM
OK. Handgun murders over random arguments, occurring in the USA in 2002: 1726. Justifiable homicides by people carrying a handgun in the USA in 2002: 154. Point: People get upset over some argument and kill someone using their handgun more than ten times as often as they kill a criminal with their handgun.

We've been here before. How many of those weapons were legally obtained? Another question, does your research have the number of lives that were saved by a civillian carrying a firearm? Of course not! Because that would show the positive side wouldn't it?

Fortunately for all of us who enjoy the truth, I've done my own research, unless of course you intend to once again try to impeach my sources as "biased."

According to research done by Senator Larry Craig (Republican, Idaho) on the date of June 12, 2000, in the previous year 40,000 Americans credited the use of firearms had saved their own lives or the lives of others. The source is cited as the United States Department of Justice. Is the Justice Department censoring my facts in a big conspiracy Adron, or is that okay for you?

Quote from: HazardVolunteer firefighters are a good example of amateurs doing the job that professionals can't get to. Why should I rely on the police to do a job that I can do myself? If there is a guy in my house trying to get to my family, should I dial 911 and sit around for 8-10 minutes before help can arrive, leaving the definite possibility the armed assailant could end up inside my home and kill my family? Do you know how stupid you sound?

You're just proposing to treat the symptoms, not the cause.  If we really want to rid ourselves of armed crime altogether, we would get rid of the arms...  Fight fire with fire and everything burns down.

GaiDaL that is in fact not true. How do you put out a fire on an oil derrick for example? Thats okay if you don't know, I'll enlighten you.

Its a tricky and dangerous process for starters. I'll start by posing a quesiton, what does a fire need to survive? Fuel and oxygen. Obviously on an oil field you can't take away the fuel, but you sure as hell can remove the oxygen. What is the solution I wonder? Well, a large boom arm will swing over the fire and stay in place. Then, somebody trained in the usage of explosives will plant a large quantity of C4 or dynamite or the appropriate charge directly over the fire. You set off an explosion, remove all of the oxygen in the ensuing fireball, the fire in the oil derrick is starved, and presto, fire is out. You certainly can fight fire and fire.

Quote from: Hazard on May 09, 2005, 08:38 PM
According to research done by Senator Larry Craig (Republican, Idaho) on the date of June 12, 2000, in the previous year 40,000 Americans credited the use of firearms had saved their own lives or the lives of others. The source is cited as the United States Department of Justice. Is the Justice Department censoring my facts in a big conspiracy Adron, or is that okay for you?

That's not a reliable statistic. How many of those people were right? How many of them were lying, or exaggerating to support a point they already believe in? Who are those 40,000 people? Do they constitute a representative sample?

And, if you're going to bring statistics into it, why not comment on the ones Adron posted:

Quote
OK. Handgun murders over random arguments, occurring in the USA in 2002: 1726. Justifiable homicides by people carrying a handgun in the USA in 2002: 154.

What do you say to the argument that this shows that although gun possession is sometimes good, it is bad in the majority of cases? And thus, gun posession does more harm than good?

I also feel I should call you on your incorrect assertion that the UK has 'total gun control'. It does not. I can't comment for the other countries you mention, but I doubt they do either.

Quote from: Arta[vL] on May 10, 2005, 11:17 AM

That's not a reliable statistic. How many of those people were right? How many of them were lying, or exaggerating to support a point they already believe in? Who are those 40,000 people? Do they constitute a representative sample?

Do you have evidence to the contrary? I trust the US DJ when it comes to that sort of research.

If you've got a link to the original study, i'd be interested to see what it says about how the data was collected. This situation is exactly the reason why people should cite their sources if they want to appear credible: a blind quote is not useful. Such things are apocryphal more often than not, and often just made up, or at least misconstrued. Just look at that nonsense Quasi posted about Australian gun laws.

Quote from: GaiDaL on May 10, 2005, 12:46 AM
You're just proposing to treat the symptoms, not the cause.  If we really want to rid ourselves of armed crime altogether, we would get rid of the arms...  Fight fire with fire and everything burns down.

So....  You're saying that if the US bans guns, that there would be no guns in the US?

We wouldn't need to have law enforcement if everyone followed the laws.  That's why the root word of "enforcement" is "force."

Check out the Library of Congress if you want all the information on his proposal before the Senate. I gave you all of his information as well as the date, you should be able to do basic research Arta.

Nonsense. It's your responsibility to reference the sources you cite.

The fact still remains that nobody has even come anywhere in the neighborhood of convincing me that there is a better way to defend myself and my family than with a firearm.

Quote from: Hazard on May 11, 2005, 09:11 AM
The fact still remains that nobody has even come anywhere in the neighborhood of convincing me that there is a better way to defend myself and my family than with a firearm.

I can readily agree that in some situations, a firearm will be your best defense.


That said, what I am arguing is that the negative consequences of firearms spread throughout the society outweigh the benefits in the rare situations where having a firearm produces a significantly better outcome than not having one.

That's exactly what I've been saying, too. A firearm is a great way to defend yourself. There's a principle here whose name I can't remember: the "would it be good if everybody did it" argument. When you consider everybody owning firearms, the net result is not beneficial: more people die accidentally, or misuse their firearm, than use their firearm to defend themselves.

Therefore, global firearm ownership is not good.

So lives saved doesn't matter at all? How do you weigh human life Adron? Saving the innocent against the deaths of the evil is better than the alternative.

Quote from: Arta[vL] on May 11, 2005, 11:31 AM
That's exactly what I've been saying, too. A firearm is a great way to defend yourself. There's a principle here whose name I can't remember: the "would it be good if everybody did it" argument. When you consider everybody owning firearms, the net result is not beneficial: more people die accidentally, or misuse their firearm, than use their firearm to defend themselves.

Therefore, global firearm ownership is not good.

"Tragedy of the commons"?

Quote from: Hazard on May 11, 2005, 02:15 PM
So lives saved doesn't matter at all? How do you weigh human life Adron? Saving the innocent against the deaths of the evil is better than the alternative.

Not if the life-saving mechanism costs more lives than it saves.

Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on May 11, 2005, 07:34 PM
"Tragedy of the commons"?

Explain?

Quote from: Hazard on May 11, 2005, 02:15 PM
So lives saved doesn't matter at all? How do you weigh human life Adron? Saving the innocent against the deaths of the evil is better than the alternative.

Lives and pain saved is what matters. Guns take the lives of innocents as well as evils. More innocents than evils too. Specifically 1726 innocents and 154 evil, in one specific statistic. That's means the cost of your playing around with guns was a net of 1572 innocent lives?

Perhaps you want to weigh innocent lives heavier than evil lives? Count 10 innocent lives for each evil life. Then it's 17260 - 154 = 17106 on the "guns are bad" side.

Quote from: Adron on May 11, 2005, 11:31 PM
More innocents than evils too. Specifically 1726 innocents and 154 evil, in one specific statistic.

Please cite your source so I can check your biased statistics.