I can’t believe how many red necks there are on here.
You are all crazy! The only reason there are so many criminals with guns is because anyone can buy them. You’ve created a mess for yourself with your gun toting ways and now when someone tries to fix it they can’t because everyone feels they need to protect themselves.
I wonder if that coward in Texas who got off a murder charge for shooting a robber posts on here.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
I can’t believe how many red necks there are on here.
You are all crazy! The only reason there are so many criminals with guns is because anyone can buy them. You’ve created a mess for yourself with your gun toting ways and now when someone tries to fix it they can’t because everyone feels they need to protect themselves.
I wonder if that coward in Texas who got off a murder charge for shooting a robber posts on here.[/quote]
I hope you are trolling.
Here in Canada we have this wonderful gun registration thing going on. It is illegal to own a gun without having the proper licenses + registration. Many types of guns are also banned in canada. The only guns we can really have are hunting rifles and the like.
You know what the difference between me and a criminal is?
A criminal breaks the law.
Do you think someone who breaks the law will give a flying fuck about ANOTHER LAW?
You think he’s gonna say “aw man i cant legally acquire a gun, i better give up”.
So this guy can get a nice automatic weapon and not register it (he’s a criminal) and i can only register my bird shooter, if that.
Yes, thank God for politicians who come up with this shit.
Thank you for protecting me against criminals by forcing me to follow retarded laws that an actual criminal won’t.
If i could carry concealed and i could carry assault rifles and such in my house then i think criminals would think twice about busting in and raping my wife and stealing everything.
The common man having a gun is like the cold war.
The usa and soviet union both had WMD, and they kept making more and more and more. However they never used them, because they knew the consequences.
If you know that breaking the law or trying to start shit (assault, murder, etc) will get you shot, then you won’t do it.
It’s that simple.
The point is when anyone can go into a shop and buy a gun there are a shitload more of criminals with them.
In Australia there are bugger all shootings largely because we don’t have guns on sale at K-Mart.
You don’t need a gun to protect yourself because the other loonies don’t have guns either.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
The point is when anyone can go into a shop and buy a gun there are a shitload more of criminals with them.
[/quote]
Actually over here there are criminal background checks that take about a week if you want to buy one. Otherwise you have to buy one off of the street illegally without a bsckground check.
[quote]
In Australia there are bugger all shootings largely because we don’t have guns on sale at K-Mart. [/quote]
And what about other violent crime? In Britiain where they have similar gun control laws to Australia there were over 25,000 stabbings that required hospitalisation last year.
[quote]
You don’t need a gun to protect yourself because the other loonies don’t have guns either.[/quote]
Really? What about women or the elderly? What about the weak and infirm? What about someone who is attacked by multiple opponents?
I think you should get your facts straight before you talk shit about the US and compare it to Australia. Here is an interesting article that compares Australia and the US.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html
Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures
Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America’s former master – Great Britain – has much higher levels of crime.
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.
Twenty-six percent of English citizens – roughly one-quarter of the population – have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.
The United States didn’t even make the “top 10” list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that “levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime.”
Highlights of the study indicated that:
The percentage of the population that suffered “contact crime” in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.
Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;
“After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate,” the London Telegraph said.
England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the “top 10” nations.
The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.
Interestingly, the study found that one of the lowest victimization rates – just 15 percent overall – occurred in Northern Ireland, home of the Irish Republican Army and scene of years of terrorist violence.
Analysts in the U.S. were quick to point out that all of the other industrialized nations included in the survey had stringent gun-control laws, but were overall much more violent than the U.S.
Indeed, information on Handgun Control’s Center to Prevent Handgun Violence website actually praises Australia and attempts to portray Australia as a much safer country following strict gun-control measures passed by lawmakers in 1996.
“The next time a credulous friend or acquaintance tells you that Australia actually suffered more crime when they got tougher on guns … offer him a Foster’s, and tell him the facts,” the CPHV site says.
“In 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years,” says CPHV.
However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999.
Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase. Also, they note that Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories – burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent).
Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent).
In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia’s widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country.
WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation’s crime statistics tell a different story:
Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
There has been a reported “dramatic increase” in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
I can’t believe how many red necks there are on here.
You are all crazy! The only reason there are so many criminals with guns is because anyone can buy them. You’ve created a mess for yourself with your gun toting ways and now when someone tries to fix it they can’t because everyone feels they need to protect themselves.
I wonder if that coward in Texas who got off a murder charge for shooting a robber posts on here.[/quote]
So you admit that most gun criminals get their guns through illegal means. That must be what that second sentence means, because certainly NOT EVERYONE can buy them legally.
How does making more guns illegal address this issue if they are already illegal arms? Does illegality really make something less available, certainly hasn’t worked for drugs - why would it work here?
Vigorous prosecution of gun crime, NOT reducing availability of guns to law abiding citizens reduces gun crime. Who’d of thunk it? From todays WSJ:
Going After Crimes – and Guns
Richmond, Va., Cleans Up Its Streets
By Severely Punishing Any Firearms Offense
By GARY FIELDS
August 5, 2008
RICHMOND, Va. – The National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence rarely agree on anything related to gun laws. But both support a law-enforcement program in Richmond that targets gun crimes.
The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decision in June that struck down restrictions on individual gun ownership caused city officials nationwide to worry that they could see an increase in gun violence. It also renewed interest in Richmond’s efforts to combat it. The city has already reduced firearm-related violence dramatically. It has done so not by making gun purchases more difficult – Virginia is one of the easiest places to legally buy a handgun – but by severely punishing all gun crimes, including those as minor as illegal possession.
The decade-old program is credited with reducing the number of guns on the streets by 31% in its first year, 1997. By 2007, the city registered 56 murders, down from 112 in 1996, the last full year before the program was implemented. Armed robberies dropped nearly a third.
“What they’re doing in Richmond isn’t brain surgery,” says Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spokesman Mike Campbell. “They are sitting down and working for a common goal: put the mopes with the guns in jail. Word spreads when you do that.”
Dubbed Project Exile, the program forms the foundation of a series of local, state and federal law-enforcement partnerships. It focuses on the city’s most violent areas and hands out harsh sentences for any crime involving a firearm, a move that runs counter to traditional city tactics of barring gun stores and crafting onerous licensing requirements.
With concern over crime rising amid budget cuts to local law enforcement, a small but growing number of law-enforcement officials view Project Exile and the cooperative efforts in Richmond as a way to further accelerate the decline. Other cities, including Springfield and Peoria in Illinois have visited to see what Richmond is doing.
Although the NRA is challenging gun laws in various cities such as San Francisco and Chicago, it supports Richmond’s efforts.
“By prosecuting them they prevent the drug dealer, the gang member and the felon from committing the next crime,” says NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “Leave the good people alone and lock up the bad people and dramatically cut crime.”
Although it wants more done to tamp down the supply of guns, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence also supports Richmond’s efforts, says Peter Hamm, Brady spokesman. The organization supports any measure that reduces violent crime, which the Richmond effort is doing, he says.
Before Project Exile began in 1997, Richmond had the third-highest murder rate in the nation, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics. Guns were the weapons of choice. That year, then Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney James Comey and Assistant Federal Prosecutor David Schiller promised 100% prosecution of gun crimes. They ran television and radio ads. A 40-foot city bus was emblazoned with the message: “An Illegal Gun Gets You 5 Years in Federal Prison.” Bail was unlikely, parole nonexistent, and inmates facing federal time were more likely to be sent to prisons out of state.
As Project Exile has matured, the marketing campaign has toned down and it has become the basis for a larger cooperative effort. The tough penalties are still in place, but the state has added gun-related penalties of its own, some more severe than federal punishment. At a bimonthly meeting, a team of police, agents and state and federal prosecutors determine in which venue they will bring a case to ensure the maximum possible penalty.
“Whether you take a person state or federal, that person’s gone,” says David McCoy, the interim Richmond police chief. “The goal is to address violent crime and get violent criminals off the street.”
In the 1990s other jurisdictions created similar programs to Exile and like Richmond had initial reductions in gun violence. They experienced a similar rise in that violence in the early 2000s. Violent crime dropped nationally in 2007 after a two-year rise – even as violent crime continued to go up in smaller cities.
Richmond, however, seems to have overcome at least one obstacle that has endured elsewhere. Although state and federal agencies talk cooperation, there are turf wars – and agencies aren’t always as collegial as they are in Richmond.
But Richmond doubled down on the cooperation among state and federal agencies. The eight federal, state and local law-enforcement agencies and federal and state prosecutors meet regularly almost like one super police force determining where to deploy personnel.
In one example of cooperation, agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the FBI took a case to ease the workload on local authorities, says Brian Swann, who heads the ATF office here. The defendant killed a man who was trying to steal his crack cocaine. Although murder cases aren’t usually federal, this one involved a firearm and drugs, and so could be moved to federal court. The defendant got life plus 40 years.
North of downtown, Mr. Swann and fellow ATF agent James Panos cruise in an unmarked car. While the agents conduct investigations, they also patrol like city police, engaging citizens and talking to potential suspects, “just to let them know we’re here and keeping an eye on them,” Mr. Swann says.
The agents respond to all murders in their sectors, as well as all shootings. The other local, state and federal agencies conduct similar operations.
“If we get called out” and someone identifies a suspect as Peanut, “I expect my guys to know who ‘Peanut’ is, who his grandmother is, who he hung out with last night,” Mr. Swann says.
Residents have become accustomed to the agents and wave from porches as they drive by. One house is pockmarked from an old shooting. Nearby, Mr. Panos identifies several people familiar to authorities. One was the subject of a 2006 raid at his home where three guns and 10 grams of crack cocaine were seized. “We couldn’t tie him to the guns,” Mr. Panos says.
Further along, another young man eyes the car warily. He is known around the neighborhood as a low-grade drug dealer, but one who refuses to carry a gun, Mr. Panos says.
It is quiet for the moment, even in the Providence Park area where there were six shootings earlier this year. State, local and federal officials descended on the area and things have calmed down. “Maybe we’ll be out of a job one day,” says Mr. Panos.
Connecticut Police confiscating firearms (1700+)before a crime has been committed.
[i]State: Just in case, we’ll take your gun
Cops allowed to seize firearms even before crime is committed
Posted: August 04, 2008
A new report to the Connecticut state legislature shows police have used the state’s unique gun seizure law to confiscate more than 1,700 firearms from citizens based on suspicion that the gun owners might harm themselves or others.
The state’s law permits police to seek a warrant for seizing a citizen’s guns based on suspicion of the gun owner’s intentions, before any act of violence or lawbreaking is actually committed.[/i]
More in the link.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< That is practically all the 2nd is really about. Sorry, but it, the 2nd, has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with recreational target shooting. It has practically nothing to do with “home protection” from common criminals.
It has everything to do with home protection from government criminals. When are people including the four imbeciles who voted against this decision ever going to get this through their heads? >>>[/quote]
I came here to find a post from Vroom to add him to the T-Cell, but I had to comment on this.
That is EXACTLY what the 2nd amendment is about. EXACTLY. The right to keep and bear arms is innate and God given for the purpose of preventing tyranny and as such is not subject to the whims of societal or political change. The founders of this country made that unavoidably clear for all who care to peruse the historical writings of the time. A disarmed citizenry is by definition an oppressed one.
The whole point of starting this country at all was to stand as an example of the security, prosperity and virtue that would grow out of an empowered public. Until recent decades we have lived up to those ideals in an albeit imperfect manner as is inevitable wherever mortal humans are involved.
However, all those who hate us for being everything you never could should have no fear. We are in the process of serving up our own sovereignty, power, prosperity and liberty to our enemies on a silver platter.
Crikey, I’m glad you cowboys don’t live here.
The fact is making guns available to everyone makes it a hell of a lot easier for crims to get hold of them illegally.
The cold war analogy is terrible. No-one has used nukes since WW2. People use guns every day.
A disarmed citizenry is by definition an oppressed one? Who defined that? I’d feel rather oppressed if I couldn’t walk around certain areas of a city for fear of being shot.
Sorry boys, no god given right to bear arms. The “right” was given by people, and people make stupid decisions all the time. Look at your last presidential election.
Sifu, I’m sure you enjoyed spouting those stats, but does the fact that they were provided by gun toting loonies make you wonder if they were picked from many others(or even made up) to portray their point of view.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
The cold war analogy is terrible. No-one has used nukes since WW2. People use guns every day.[/quote]
Your comments are pointing towards “i cannot use and comprehend logic”.
There were no direct conflicts during the cold war.
NONE at all. The soviets and the Americans never crossed swords. Not even once. The cold war was an ideological war. Influence and such. Democracy versus capitalism. Both sides had nukes. Regardless neither of them used them. Why? Because they were scared the other would use it too. They were just penis waving basically.
“I have big boomies, be careful”.
Nothing happened. Same thing.
Now actually try to understand this. Put you opinion aside and look at this objectively.
I am a thief.
You are some aussie in your backyard, a dingo just ate your baby and you have a shrimp on the barbie. Also, Steve Irwing is wrestling a croc somewhere.
I know you have no gun on you. I really want the shrimps. No problem. I have a gun, and you don’t. I win.
Scenario two is we both have guns.
I’m not sure if you have a gun or not. Because the laws allows you to carry at any time and concealed too, i have to be careful or ill get shot. Maybe ill move on to another target.
You win.
Did you know in the early 20s alcohol was banned. You might be surprised to know that alcohol is actually the most used drug in the world. It’s the drug that causes the most problems and deaths in the world.
When something is already easily accessible and people know how to make it, making it illegal won’t change anything.
The weapons which are not registered that criminals have will be kept by those same criminals because no one knows about them.
Yet the upstanding civilian who does have it registered and whatnot will have it taken away.
You do not promote safety by banning something. You do promote safety by education the masses.
I have been playing violent video games since the age of 4. I was already swearing and talking about sex and stuff at the age of 7. No joke. According to many “specialists” and “experts”, i should be a huge serial killing rapist.
It doesn’t work that way. I was taught “right from wrong”, which is also very subjective. I understood the limits. Hiding sex and violence from me wouldn’t have made me more or less violent. What did matter was my education towards those subjects. I understood what i was saying and what i was seeing. Duke nukem, doom, turok, goldeneye, etc…they were just games. Shit like that in real life isn’t fun. Be careful what you say and around who. Words can be more deadly than actions in certain scenarios, etc.
Teach people respect for others and for weapons and things will change. That’s my opinion though.
I suggest you put your bias aside and objectively look at the situation and the facts.
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
Banning something and hiding it under the carpet doesn’t solve problems, it creates them.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Sorry boys, no god given right to bear arms. The “right” was given by people, and people make stupid decisions all the time. Look at your last presidential election.[/quote]
You’re right. No god, so no god given right.
Self defense is a human right available to everyone. Without the right to bear arms, how do the weak, or even the strong defend themselves against a disparity of force?
Here we go Daveo.
Scenario one: You have a gun, I don’t. You want the shrimps, I let you take them. No biggie.
Scenario two: You don’t know if I have a gun, you shoot me first then take the shrimps.
Scenario three: No-one has a gun because we don’t have ridiculous gun laws and a silly jacked up gun culture.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Here we go Daveo.
Scenario one: You have a gun, I don’t. You want the shrimps, I let you take them. No biggie.
[/quote]
And then you get shot anyway.
Yup.
[quote]
Scenario three: No-one has a gun because we don’t have ridiculous gun laws and a silly jacked up gun culture.[/quote]
You get stabbed instead.
Scenario four: You shoot the criminal and go home to your family. Criminal harms no more people.
Why would you put your life in the criminals hands and hope he does not harm you?
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Here we go Daveo.
Scenario one: You have a gun, I don’t. You want the shrimps, I let you take them. No biggie.[/quote]
What if those shrimp were an analogy for a piece of your wife or daughter’s ass? You going to let me take that?[quote]
Scenario two: You don’t know if I have a gun, you shoot me first then take the shrimps.
Scenario three: No-one has a gun because we don’t have ridiculous gun laws and a silly jacked up gun culture.[/quote]
Play #3 out. It doesn’t end there. If it’s you I might move on to a smaller target…such as your 15 year old daughter.
All of this is moot anyhow. For me, give me 10,000 gun deaths a year if it prevents 10 million deaths every 50 years and slavish submission to the government in the middle years. Liberty or death means something here. And apparently it also means something to Paul Hogan. Perhaps spending all that time in America helped him grow a set of balls.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message570314/pg1
By the way, how’s your queen?
mike
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Crikey, I’m glad you cowboys don’t live here.
The fact is making guns available to everyone makes it a hell of a lot easier for crims to get hold of them illegally. [/quote]
You are missing a really important concept. The difference between the US and Australia is when criminals get ahold of guns here they can’t go use them with impunity because they could get shot. That is why the areas with some of the lowest murder rates also have some of the ighest rates of gun ownership. In Ausralia when a criminal gets ahold of a gun you are fucked. [quote]
The cold war analogy is terrible. No-one has used nukes since WW2. People use guns every day. [/quote]
Actually the cold war is a very good example of how people being armed can keep the peace. Not only has the destructive power of nuclear weapons prevented them being used, they have served another important purpose. Nukes have prevented other weapons from being used. Nukes are why we haven’t seen the mass use of other types of WMD like biological weapons. [quote]
A disarmed citizenry is by definition an oppressed one? Who defined that? I’d feel rather oppressed if I couldn’t walk around certain areas of a city for fear of being shot.
[/quote]
There are so many historical examples of tyranical governments extending their tyranny by disarming the people that it’s not even debatable.
It amazes me who much in denial people like you are. You are surrounded by deadly weapons wherever you go in any city. Fist, feet, sticks, stones, sharp objects, a car driving down the street, any any of those could be used to kill you at any time.
You gun control nuts are so brainwashed and unthinking.
[quote]
Sorry boys, no god given right to bear arms. The “right” was given by people, and people make stupid decisions all the time. Look at your last presidential election. [/quote]
No the right was not god given. It was hard won. It was wrestled from a tyrnaical government that violently refused to respect the rights of the people. For all of human history authoritarian tyranny has been the governmental norm. It is only when the people have been able to throw off the yoke of tyranny that they have been able to enjoy freedom.
The choice the american people made at the last presidential election was nowhere as bad as the chancellor the germans elected in 1933. President Bush supports the right to keep and bear arms. Hitler (like all tyrants) supported gun control.
[quote]
Sifu, I’m sure you enjoyed spouting those stats, but does the fact that they were provided by gun toting loonies make you wonder if they were picked from many others(or even made up) to portray their point of view.[/quote]
Those stats represent a trend that has been repeated in other countries. If anyone is a loonie it is people like you who refuse to accept the consequences of disrming people so thugs have free reign.
Look at what has happened in Britain since 1997, the country has become a free for all. Last month they had five people stabbed to death in one day. Almost everyday someone is stabbed to death and every few days someone is ganged up on and repeatedly kicked to death.
American statistics are misrepresented all the time. You gun control nuts act like the US is one giant Detroit or Harlem, when it isn’t. There are lots of areas in the US that have low crime. Honalulu Hawiai has 1 murder per 100,000, so does Plano Texas, Australia isn’t any safer. In Texas they have more guns than anywhere else, yet they have some of the safest cities.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Here we go Daveo.
Scenario one: You have a gun, I don’t. You want the shrimps, I let you take them. No biggie.
Scenario two: You don’t know if I have a gun, you shoot me first then take the shrimps.
Scenario three: No-one has a gun because we don’t have ridiculous gun laws and a silly jacked up gun culture.[/quote]
I love that an Aussie went to shrimps. That is fantastic in so many ways.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Here we go Daveo.
Scenario one: You have a gun, I don’t. You want the shrimps, I let you take them. No biggie.
Scenario two: You don’t know if I have a gun, you shoot me first then take the shrimps.
Scenario three: No-one has a gun because we don’t have ridiculous gun laws and a silly jacked up gun culture.[/quote]
As makiyeli posted, it was pretty much an analogy.
We’ll continue with scenario 1, because for you it’s the ideal scenario.
This is where the “do as they say and no one will get hurt” mentality gets you.
I know of a news story (read it but don’t have the article on hand) where two armed (read= guns) robbers broke into a house.
The house contained one father, one mother and 2 daughters.
The robbers killed the father infront of the women’s eyes while raping them. They then killed the women.
The point is that it is not difficult to acquire a gun. And i don’t acquire = buy. I mean acquire = make.
A gun is a surprisingly simple thing to make. If that, i can make a crossbow by hand too. I am still unsure if you are as “uneducated” as you seem to be, or just a troll.
The point is not to use the gun, but to know the risks. I won’t kill someone, because i know the risks. However if there were no consequences i could do as i please.
Remember it’s only the upstanding civilian who won’t carry the gun, but a criminal will do his best to acquire something that allows him to do what he does more easily.
If you don’t get this then i am done here and i have no hope for you.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
The point is not to use the gun, but to know the risks. I won’t kill someone, because i know the risks. However if there were no consequences i could do as i please.
[/quote]
Dark. I hope you have more reason than fear of punishment to not murder.
[quote]Magnate wrote:
blazindave wrote:
The point is not to use the gun, but to know the risks. I won’t kill someone, because i know the risks. However if there were no consequences i could do as i please.
Dark. I hope you have more reason than fear of punishment to not murder.[/quote]
You’re the first on my list.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
Magnate wrote:
blazindave wrote:
The point is not to use the gun, but to know the risks. I won’t kill someone, because i know the risks. However if there were no consequences i could do as i please.
Dark. I hope you have more reason than fear of punishment to not murder.
You’re the first on my list.[/quote]
