Re: Guns!! Are you For them or Against them.

[Blue Frost]

You all know my views, I own the so called assault rifles, and all that.
I have stopped crimes with them, and likely against my family, so they serve more than one purpose don't they.
The government uses them to hold you down under their thumb, another one, I don't hear people calling for them to disarm. They kill people daily.
Yes, hunting, I know people that that was the only way to feed their family.
There are other reasons like sport shooting also, it's a lot of fun.

[cc la femme]

Dark Side, lol .. .too true actually

I also replied to the typically close minded know it all thread

Thread Title = A gun serves one purpose and one purpose only.

Title speaks for the intent very clearly. it does not even imply defensive in any way.

On the other hand, the advantage of a blunt weapon used defensively is that you can ask questions first.

Like for example "and so what is the name of my about to be killer"? ... would you like a cup of tea first?

[Shen Li]

Dark Side, lol .. .too true actually

I also replied to the typically close minded know it all thread

Thread Title = A gun serves one purpose and one purpose only.

Title speaks for the intent very clearly. it does not even imply defensive in any way.

On the other hand, the advantage of a blunt weapon used defensively is that you can ask questions first.

Like for example "and so what is the name of my about to be killer"? ... would you like a cup of tea first?

Gawd that forum is awful. Trolls and extremists are all that post there.

Here is another example:

Post by annie, commenting on NK excesses.....Followed by (see below)

Unread postby Annie

[JOE]

I don't like guns, and ideally I wish they didn't exist.

However, they are a reality, so like crime or terrorism, we have to acknowledge rather than deny their existence.

At the same time, if we are to have guns, then they need to be highly regulated & ownership conferred only upon those who are responsible and sane enough to use them.

An example of an ideal gun culture is Switzerland - where last year there were less than 70 gun related homicides in that nation.

An poor example of a gun culture is the United States - were last year there were over 13,000 fatalities due to gun violence.

If we're gonna have guns, then a person should have to undergo a close psychiatric and medical check along with strict licensing guidelines. so if a person is unfit to own a gun, they don't get a license. And, anyone illegally in possession of a gun would be treated like anyone trafficking heroin - they'd get thrown in the pen and do hard time. Unlike the USA, Switzerland does have mental fitness requirement. Those who do not meet it, don't get a gun license. Such measures might have prevented the Newton Conneticut massacre in which a deranged Adam Lanza gunned down his mother and several school children. Also, police forces should be decentralized somewhat, where at least one police officer is stationed at every public school in America.

Electronic tracking devices built right into the gun might help too. Made such that they are embedded into the gun itself, so that if anyone tried to remove them, they'd have to destroy the gun first, rendering it useless. If they can build gps devices into phones, they can surely do this for guns too.

And an apprenticeship - ideally like Military Service or government regulated training - should be mandatory before anyone is even allowed to pick up a gun. For example, In Switzerland, all able bodied males have to spend several years in the military. But in the United States, some ghetto blasting illiterate fool can get a gun without any training, criminal or background checks. Cripes no wonder they have so much gun violence there as opposed to a place like Switzerland, where the rate of gun ownership is also very high.

[Tribrid Vampire]

Man, 3,000+ people died from guns since the newton incident. Why are guns not protecting people from getting killed from guns?

[Shen Li]

Man, 3,000+ people died from guns since the newton incident. Why are guns not protecting people from getting killed from guns?

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the USA, but one of the highest rates of homocide. Why aren't restrictive gun laws saving lives?

[Tribrid Vampire]

If restrictive gun laws are not saving Iives and guns are not saving lives, then what saves lives? Jesus? How many homicides in your city?

[Tribrid Vampire]

Funny comments from Romero.

Owning a car and driving a car is a privilege (which btw takes far more lives and injures more people than guns each year.)

Not for long. Gun deaths are expected to exceed traffic fatalities by 2015.

Traffic fatalities are declining. Why? Common sense safety measures and laws.

Canada doesn't have the same population the same demographic issues and the same cultural problems that the US faces and has been facing for decades either.

Canada has 2.13 gun deaths per 100,000 people. The US has 10.20 per 100,000.

No kidding we don't have the same gun culture problem.

BTW, if so-called "civilized countries" are so civilized then why do they need such restrictive gun control laws?

Uh, because guns are dangerous? Our gun control isn't that restrictive. Canadians can buy guns, go hunting, whatever... you don't see anybody here getting all crazy and paranoid about hordes of armed intruders and the government/One World Government taking away guns.

[Shen Li]

If restrictive gun laws are not saving Iives and guns are not saving lives, then what saves lives? Jesus? How many homicides in your city?

We have one of the higher rates of murder among Canadian cities.

[JOE]

If lawmakers in the United States decided to adopt Swiss-style gun laws, pandemonium and shootings'd break out in the streets I'm quite sure.

Switzerland, with its abundance of firearms, is an example of a nation with responsible citizenry which regulates guns.

Somehow I don't think such laws would go over well with the NRA and many of the gun-toting idiots who are running around down in the United States.

Nevertheless, the USA could benefit by examining gun cultures elsewhere, and then ask themselves why gun cultures in places like Switzerland work and don't in the United States.

[Blue Frost]

I have guns, and am about as responsible as it gets, but the criminals don't care about gun laws, and actually many police don't either.
I here all the garbage from the liberal left, and ignorant people on TV, and online with no idea .
I do agree there needs to be tighter restrictions, and most legal gun owners do also, but to much is to much.
No law would have stopped that shooting in that school, he wasn't suppose to have access to a gun.

[JOE]

I do agree there needs to be tighter restrictions, and most legal gun owners do also, but to much is to much.

No law would have stopped that shooting in that school, he wasn't suppose to have access to a gun.

...I don't think the problem is with responsible gun owners.

People have lots of guns in places like Switzerland, more per person than most places in the world (including Canada), yet the murder rate there is a fraction of what it is in the USA and even Canada.

So, it's the criminal and irresponsible ones who have to be targeted for increased surveillance.

And I do believe that one policeman stationed at that school in Conneticut could have acted as a deterrent to the murder of those children simply by being there. If Adam Lanza knew that he'd be met with at least some resistance, he might not have gone in. Nor the maniac who went on a rampage at Virginia Tech.

Even if an armed policeman alone might not do the trick, he/she could have a greater likelihoold of quickly radioing in to a main policestation/base to call in reinforcements - which goes back to what I said earlier, that the police forces in the US should decentralize somewhat and scatter their personnel around rather than in one cop shop in the central party of a city.

[Blue Frost]

I agree, and like the Batman shooting in the theater, that guy passes up several closer ones for the one that said no weapons aloud.
An armed guard, or just a guard would have helped prevented some of them.

The background debate is what gets me, yes there should be checks for all gun sales.
Almost all my guns I had been checked on unless from a private person.
I can see where that needs work though, people should need to file.

[Blue Frost]

Man, 3,000+ people died from guns since the newton incident. Why are guns not protecting people from getting killed from guns?

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the USA, but one of the highest rates of homicide. Why aren't restrictive gun laws saving lives?

California also, and both places mentioned have the highest amount of Liberals.
Isn't that proof something is wrong with the mentality, or theology .

[Blue Frost]

Man, 3,000+ people died from guns since the newton incident. Why are guns not protecting people from getting killed from guns?

Because guns , and people with guns are constantly under attack is why.
Also look at who, and where people are getting killed, gun free zones, and usually trashy places like the hood, and gun free cities.
I know people go nuts, but a lot is to do with parenting also, and jobs, get these people a job, and quit holding their hands so much giving them everything.

[cc la femme]

Dark Side, lol .. .too true actually

I also replied to the typically close minded know it all thread

Thread Title = A gun serves one purpose and one purpose only.

Title speaks for the intent very clearly. it does not even imply defensive in any way.

On the other hand, the advantage of a blunt weapon used defensively is that you can ask questions first.

Like for example "and so what is the name of my about to be killer"? ... would you like a cup of tea first?

Gawd that forum is awful. Trolls and extremists are all that post there.

Here is another example:

Post by annie, commenting on NK excesses.....Followed by (see below)

Unread postby Annie

[JOE]

Man, 3,000+ people died from guns since the newton incident. Why are guns not protecting people from getting killed from guns?

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the USA, but one of the highest rates of homicide. Why aren't restrictive gun laws saving lives?

California also, and both places mentioned have the highest amount of Liberals.
Isn't that proof something is wrong with the mentality, or theology .

But the irony is, most of the worst gun shooting incidents occur in other regions of the United States.

For the number of people who live there, the amount of gun violence in California should be much much higher than it is. But there are other less populated states which are ahead of them in this regard.



I think a lot of violence stems from how happy or dissatisfied people are with their lives or their surroundings.

For example, in Canada, the most violent provinces are the most bleak, desolate and ugly s#%^holes in the country, like Manitoba and Saskatchewan. So if a person is shivering in -40 winters, loaded with alcohol and cocaine, it's not gonna make them the most emotionally stable nor the happiest in outlook either:

[Blue Frost]

Not sure how they rank on that map, but with the most strict gun laws they rank up there, and the highest prison rates in the country.
Now like I mentioned, and you mentioned how happy people are relates, they need jobs, and a reason to contribute instead of taking .
I think punishment, or the lack of is part also, the criminals have more rites than the victims

[Blue Frost]

My state says conservative, but I'm in one of the largest cities in America, and it's Liberal.
Kentucky is where I live.
Arizona seems Liberal to me, even that clown that ran from there last election.
Florida seems more conservative in business..

[Blue Frost]

Get this

Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.

Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and
progressive liberals.

Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff.

Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street
participant; progressive liberal.

Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat;
hated Christians.

Not sure how accurate it is, but sounds about right, so need some checking.