ForumGarden

rjwould;901842 wrote: So you give your voice to a lobbying group. You're right, it is more effective. But the question is whether or not winning this game is worth the lives spent and money donated. After all, Hoppy, you're only making a bunch of lawyers rich and powerful. If those are your values, then I hope I don't hear you complaining about lawyers in other discussions.


It's about FREEDOM RJ. Sometimes you have to pay dearly for freedom. Our colonists did under General Washington and others.

Lives spent? Why is it tyrants all through history have first disarmed the population under some pretext, then the real killing began, but you people only see the few "innocents" killed by accident or stupidity? Why do you people wave pages of questionable statistics and numbers as evidence, but can't get enough support for your cause?

There are sides RJ, and it's not a game. It's freedom. It's my right to defend myself the most effective way. If your afraid your kids will find my gun and shoot each other, then get someone skilled to teach the little snotballs. It's training RJ. When I was 6 dad gave me a pocket knife. I haven't been without one since. Every schoolboy I knew, and some of the girls, carried pocket knives. I saw many a schoolyard fight but never was a knife involved. It's training. Modern kids are trained to be wimps by liberal teachers who are wimps.

I knew my sage words would get lost.Accountable;901810 wrote: I chased that link to ground for ya, RJ. Here's the report it came from.



It screams for more discipline, more education & training, and wider publicity when a child gets killed. It justifies adding gun safety to our school curriculum. It does not justify taking away one of the basic freedoms our country was founded on.



I chuckle at the irony when I imagine such an argument being used replacing gunfire and death for teen sex & pregnancy.

K.Snyder;901788 wrote: If parents were effective in teaching their children, their children would know not to play with guns...

But on that note the guns should be in a locked mechanism somewhere...Like a very small safe...A safe that will probably only take about 20 seconds to open from those in which knows the combination...And spitting out the garb that 20 seconds is too long because the intruder will over take you by then, then it would be a good thing because if an intruder is on to you within 20 seconds then the gun wouldn't make any difference what so ever and in fact will probably spell your demise...

Very simple really...If you have the money to buy a gun you have the money to buy a safe...


I happened to listen to an interview with an LA police chief. He noted about as often as not, the intruder wrestles the gun away and uses it on the home owner:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... t=1&f=1012

yaaarrrgg;901936 wrote: I happened to listen to an interview with an LA police chief. He noted about as often as not, the intruder wrestles the gun away and uses it on the home owner:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... t=1&f=1012


Yes well I would encourage those who feel they need to have a gun to be schooled in it's proper use to the utmost extent...

rjwould;901821 wrote: Communication is the best way to solve problems, not marketing techniques, which is what you're bragging about.

When people pay money for someone else to do their talking for them, other than in the case of legal representation, thats not unity, its puppetry.


sounds like a cop out to me RJ.

Jester;901953 wrote: ahahahaha Hoppy you go dude! I do like the M1... however, I like the BAR better than the garand form that era.

so far the greatest all aroudn war rifle I have ever used is the A4. That rifle in combination with dual 1911 45's and my knife... is about the best combination of weaponry I'd prefer to deploy anywhere in the world with, except under certain deployments where I may need more distance, then I prefer the remington 700 with my own tooling and upgrades.


Damn deer don't stand a chance!!!...(No I'm just joking)...

Jester;901958 wrote: well KS them er war weapons!:wah:

For deer I use a henry lever action 30-30, no scope.


I had a 30-30...

Have no idea why I bought it...

Well I was buying it to hunt but I knew full well that I couldn't use a rifle in the state of Ohio but I just wanted a rifle more than I wanted a shotgun...A friend of mine always hunted in Kentucky but you know how those things go we never ended up going...

To be honest I think I'm just going to buy a compound bow and a cross bow considering you get to hunt a significant amount more with the bows...Not like it's harder than with a shotgun...

Jester;901962 wrote: I am glad to see that a section of our great US cannot infringe on the right to bare arms, in this case stop law abiding citizens form owning handguns.

This is but one of the issues regarding guns in the US.

The constitution states that US citizens have rights, when they commit crimes against the state those rights are temporarily taken away while they serve out thier punishment, one of those rights is the right to own a firearm. The only way in my opinon to limit firearms under the constituional ammendment is to take away citizenship froma person, whcih we do when he enters prison as a felon.

Felons cannot own firearms.

Thats is the only reasonable argument for limiting that freedom in my opinon.

No other argument comes into play...

We've done every concievable thing to stop the illegal use of firearms in the commision of a crime except punish those who use a gun to commit a crime.

If we'd actually hang anyone who uses a firearm in the commisson of a crime, we'd eliminate the illegal use of guns in about 15 years.

Instead of taking my freedom from me, why dont you guys actually figure out a way to keep the freedom of law abiding citizens and punish the guilty.

This kills me about americans, instead of actually dealing with the people who cause the problems we are so quick to come up with some government wide 'fix' and limit ALL of us instead of actually punishing the ones who are GUILTY.

Its simple, illegally use a gun and you die.

Nobodys got the gonads to do it, but if some lawmaker got up and proposed it, heck we'd have a run on thier office to shake his or her hand!

Oh and by the way hang the pedophiles too.


While I really don't have any argument against the pedophiles (And being someone who is against the death penalty as a course of punishment) I would have to say that a pedophile is better off dead than in prison...

But I think the whole killing part is a bit more complex in that one may feel very strongly on the matter but when it comes time to flip the switch I'm quite sure it's truly hard to know that you're about to kill someone whom is incarcerated and is no threat to anyone during that fact...

Jester, do you think we should add firearm awareness and safety to the school curriculum as we have sex awareness and safety?

Right on jester. Do you find it as amusing as I do, to argue about guns with a bunch of liberals who have no clue about guns?

Exactly what clue about guns would that be Hoppy. Once again your wrong I don't love guns like you do, doesn't make me a liberal or someone who doesn't know how to use one. I know my way around a gun I just choose to never pick one up again for any reason.

[QUOTE]Right on jester. Do you find it as amusing as I do, to argue about guns with a bunch of liberals who have [QUOTE]no clue about guns.?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

rjwould;902162 wrote: They weren't lost, I didn't see the need to respond to it. Its a good post. You and I simply disagree with what is needed, you say discipline, and I say ban guns. Both would work, but I don't think your approach is possible, as I believe history bares out. Gun violence will never reach acceptable levels, if it could have, it would have long before assault weapons ever came on the scene.
Banning guns won't work. It would simply fuel a black market.



Education hasn't been tried, so how can you say it's not possible?

ACC I think education is a possibility but what exactly would you teach them about guns?

[QUOTE]Banning guns won't work. It would simply fuel a black market.

Education hasn't been tried, so how can you say it's not possible?[/QUOTE]

rjwould;902303 wrote: Educating many people especially children to use a weapon is like teaching them to use an automobile. The machine is too sophisticated and many especially children are way too excitable and curious, IMO. Besides, I believe there is too much adversity to guns for most people to be educated on them.



I don't think a black market would thrive very long with the sophistication of surveillance technology. Guns and booze are drastically different items in terms of manufacturing. But it isn't going to happen because it would cost jobs. Your argument is really similar to what some people say in opposition to sex ed in school.



It wouldn't be just drunks & profiteers in a firearms black market, though they'd certainly be there as well. Patriots, cops, baby boomers, etc etc ... many people who wouldn't otherwise participate would still support it.

CARLA;902307 wrote: ACC I think education is a possibility but what exactly would you teach them about guns?
Awareness of the real destructive capacity rather than the hollywood glamorization, handling with caution, and ways to alert authorities.

Is it not blatantly obvious that most of the guns in the United States that are used illegally are used by inner city street gangs that more often than not kill each other?...

I see no significance in banning guns and to further up what Accountable has said it will do nothing but spur a black market for them at the same time making them less traceable...

I don't know about anyone else but it looks a bit obvious to me that prohibiting them will do nothing...Absolutely nothing...

For a bit of a perspective it's evident how far people are willing to go to kill someone when you see that two houses down from the house in which you grew up someone was set on fire while he was still alive just because someone didn't want to sell their crack for $40 when all they had to do was kill them...Perhaps the gun would have been too much noise...

Jester;902830 wrote: Education has been tried and is an ongoing requirment of gun use... except for private land almost every shooting range I have ever been on requires a hunter safety course prior to firing on that range.

Hunter safety is basic gun law, gun requirements and gun safety while handling the weapon.


Is that the same as the basic hunting license?...

If so I would strenuously suggest that the gun safety course be a bit tougher...

CARLA;902307 wrote: ACC I think education is a possibility but what exactly would you teach them about guns?


I agree with the amendment but to be honest this idea of incorporating anymore curriculum into the school system is a far cry and is far too optimistic...Let alone gun safety...We can't even teach basic math...

Jester;902830 wrote: Education has been tried and is an ongoing requirment of gun use... except for private land almost every shooting range I have ever been on requires a hunter safety course prior to firing on that range.



Hunter safety is basic gun law, gun requirements and gun safety while handling the weapon.
That training's for gun users. I'm talking about educating the general public. Perhaps public service spots by the NRA on general awareness & safety. Maybe promotional commercials on gun sports, olympic competition, etc.

K.Snyder;902760 wrote: Is it not blatantly obvious that most of the guns in the United States that are used illegally are used by inner city street gangs that more often than not kill each other?...

I see no significance in banning guns and to further up what Accountable has said it will do nothing but spur a black market for them at the same time making them less traceable...

I don't know about anyone else but it looks a bit obvious to me that prohibiting them will do nothing...Absolutely nothing...

For a bit of a perspective it's evident how far people are willing to go to kill someone when you see that two houses down from the house in which you grew up someone was set on fire while he was still alive just because someone didn't want to sell their crack for $40 when all they had to do was kill them...Perhaps the gun would have been too much noise...


exactly. People in other countries always seem to "forget" :rolleyes: that even though guns are banned in their country there are still gun crimes.

sunny104;903383 wrote: exactly. People in other countries always seem to "forget" :rolleyes: that even though guns are banned in their country there are still gun crimes.


Yes, but far fewer. The U.S. has the highest rate of gun violence, of "developed" countries.

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

yaaarrrgg;903413 wrote: Yes, but far fewer. The U.S. has the highest rate of gun violence, of "developed" countries.

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


yep, I know because we have 300 million people living here, of course our numbers would be higher than anywhere else.

The point was that banning them doesn't stop gun crimes.

sunny104;903418 wrote: yep, I know because we have 300 million people living here, of course our numbers would be higher than anywhere else.

The point was that banning them doesn't stop gun crimes.


those stats are based on homicide rate per 100,000 population..

if you outlaw guns, fewer outlaws have guns.

yaaarrrgg;903425 wrote: those stats are based on homicide rate per 100,000 population..

if you outlaw guns, fewer outlaws have guns.


Wrong. Fewer law abiding citizens will be armed, becoming potential victims of outlaws, who will always be armed in one way or another.

rjwould;903578 wrote: Why is it wrong? Because the NRA told you so, or have you done the research?


So, what's to research, RJ? Should I research that law abiding folk will give up their arms if forced to do so? Should I research that unarmed people are frequently victims of crime? What? Or are you just spoiling for a fight?

rjwould;903618 wrote: *said in John Wayne tone* I don't go lookin' for fights, pilgrim, but I sure don't back away from 'em, either.'

The research of other societies that have already passed gun control laws. Or even looking into what yaaarrrgg has posted?


Yarg is right about the stats based on 100,000 pop. I don't give a rat's butt about other societies. I wouldn't live in most of them. I think you are just following me around this site, nit picking. that's my last response to you.

rjwould;903685 wrote: I'm not following you around, Hoppy. I've been participating in this thread for a while now. I don't understand why you seem to become angry when engaged.

You already know I like you, and I do pay attention to what you post. Isn't that what goes on in forums? I promise I won't try and kiss you.


Sorry I went off on you. I should stay off the 'puter when I'm stressed out about other things. But, I'm feeling better as of an hour ago. X wife said her doc said she should be ok now. That's a relief.

hoppy;903730 wrote: Sorry I went off on you. I should stay off the 'puter when I'm stressed out about other things. But, I'm feeling better as of an hour ago. X wife said her doc said she should be ok now. That's a relief.
Great news, Hop. :-6

yaaarrrgg;903413 wrote: Yes, but far fewer. The U.S. has the highest rate of gun violence, of "developed" countries.

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


The US also has more prisons...

If you're willing to suggest that the majority of those incarcerated are the result of gun crimes we can go from there...

Jester;904139 wrote: 'gun violence'... there it is again... not all gun violence is bad, some gun violence occurs when a criminal is killed... that's 'good gun violence'.


Well, how are they used the most?

I saw an interesting article on cnn the other day, that most gun violence involves suicide ... not exactly what I'd expect. A person is more likely to use their gun on inner demons than an external menace.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.s ... index.html

AFAIK, justified homicide is not even as common as kids being killed accidentally.

IMO a gun is a drug that people (particularly males) get a high off of. It's phallic, violent, and stimulates a type of male fantasy. That alone isn't a problem in itself.

The problem is peddlers like the NRA sell the drug as having the powers of "extending longevity" and "warding off evil." For all intents and purposes it's a quack medicine and people are just wasting money on it. If this actually had to go through FDA trials, it would get yanked faster than you could say "Viox."

There's just no real-world backing to the claims that guns make you safer ... if anything there's a negative correlation between gun ownership and longevity. Last week, a person near my city went into work and shot five co-workers, then himself. Did this person have a right to own a firearm? How did the gun save lives?

Of course, I'm a realist ... the U.S. tried to ban alcohol in the 1920's and that ended in disaster.

yaaarrrgg;905330 wrote: IMO a gun is a drug that people (particularly males) get a high off of. It's phallic, violent, and stimulates a type of male fantasy.
:yh_rotfl



You sound like those old guys in the 50s & 60s talking about the dangers of marijuana.

rjwould;905464 wrote: But hose guys in the 50's and 60's were wrong, Yaaarrrgg isn't..:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

STOP IT! YER KILLIN' ME!!

Accountable;905460 wrote: :yh_rotfl



You sound like those old guys in the 50s & 60s talking about the dangers of marijuana.


Marijuana was feared because it was an unknown. Gun owners fear losing their metal penises, I mean guns, because it is also an unknown. How on Earth does one resolve a conflict without resorting to violence?

rjwould;901552 wrote: You prove the point, BTS (as you always do). You've never needed your gun for safety reasons.



*said in my best Elvis voice* "UH, Thank you, thank you very much!"



Your childish put downs is your worse enemy, BTS.




rj

you little spin-meister.



how do you get:

"You've never needed your gun for safety reasons"



from:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTS

Buh Humbug..............



Ted Kenneydy's car has killed more people than my guns ever have..........

So let's outlaw cars then?

Or should we have outlawed Teddy Kennedy, then?





Thank god and greyhound I have never had to use my gun other than show it to protect myself and family..... but as far as not needing my gun(s) for self protection has NEVER not been an option since I was old enough to carry a gun..



Like I told you before............

(whispered) In my best Dirty Harry voice

"Do you feel lucky PUNK?"

"Well do ya?" PUNK