gun control

[beebs111]

people change, and are corrupted incredibly easily and i awnsered alot in the 2nd link if you read them all, the 1st link gives alot of important information about human nature and the nature of a government. im not sure, but me being willing to shoot someone who is about to stab, shoot, or bash the back of my skull in, does not make me trigger happy; it makes me concious of my physical well being. have you ever been kicked so hard in the ribs, that one of them broke and punctured your lung, requiring a chest tube and surgery to repair your punctured lung? well i have, and it was the definition of hell, breathing blood bubbles. if you think that i am trigger happy becasue i would kill to protect myself from something like that, getting stabbed or shot, then your definition of trigger happy is fucked up.

[Hotwired]

Ok I'll say it again:

I think you're trigger happy and the fact you feel it's fine to kill someone because they are threatening to assault you is exactly where we seem to be differing in opinion.

I don't give a dam if someone is threatening me, I'd still rather incapacitate or painfully injure them and run. Dignity comes second to life whoever the other person is in my book.

If you think it's better to stand your ground and kill someone through massive blood loss or brain tissue damage rather than avoiding that altogether then you find life too cheap.

Yes I will be graphic about it because thats exactly what it's about. You're saying you're fine with doing that to someone else to avoid problems if you injured them to escape instead.

If the law in on your side then injure them, If you think you can prove you were doing it in self defence if you killed someone then you can prove you were injuring someone in self defence too.

You come across as wanting to go straight to the option of killing someone who threatens you.

If you're worried about people you elect so that has to be a reason to be armed then the big fat question is how DID they get elected?

[beebs111]

You come across as wanting to go straight to the option of killing someone who threatens you.
If you're worried about people you elect so that has to be a reason to be armed then the big fat question is how DID they get elected?

If by threaten you mean charging at me with a knife, then yes. if by threat you mean someone saying im gonna kill you, and then walking away, then no. i dont see why anyone wouldn't be willing to kill if they felt that they were in immanent danger.

read a little deeper into those links i posted, the first step to complete control over a people is to remove their rights. the right to bear arms is a fundamental right. how would the people protect ourself if the government all of a sudden imposed martial law during peace time, or levied taxes, tried to take away our proprety, who would stop them? the police? or are the police government funded? the army? nope government funded as well. national gaurd? strike three. ordinary citizens! we are the kind of people who will survive if that ever happens. instead of just bending over and taking it up the @ss, ordinary people can stand up for their rights if they are properly armed.

[Kenny_McCormic]

for all of you guys that think you are at more riskusing a gun for self defense in a robbery or something your wrong your suposed to wait until he starts to walk away then put his brains on the sidewalk or hope somebody nearby is carrying

[Hotwired]

You come across as wanting to go straight to the option of killing someone who threatens you.
If you're worried about people you elect so that has to be a reason to be armed then the big fat question is how DID they get elected?

If by threaten you mean charging at me with a knife, then yes. if by threat you mean someone saying im gonna kill you, and then walking away, then no. i dont see why anyone wouldn't be willing to kill if they felt that they were in immanent danger.

Howabout they DON'T want to kill someone whatever some other bugger wants to do. You're not talking about injuring someone to prevent them harming you, you're specifically saying killing and thats our of the window in my book.

read a little deeper into those links i posted, the first step to complete control over a people is to remove their rights. the right to bear arms is a fundamental right. how would the people protect ourself if the government all of a sudden imposed martial law during peace time, or levied taxes, tried to take away our proprety, who would stop them? the police? or are the police government funded? the army? nope government funded as well. national gaurd? strike three. ordinary citizens! we are the kind of people who will survive if that ever happens. instead of just bending over and taking it up the @ss, ordinary people can stand up for their rights if they are properly armed.

Gunpoint argument eh?

"No I won't pay these taxes, 'cos I've got a gun and I'll shoot that bill the moment it comes through the door"

Give me a REALISTIC (not a paranoid) scenario in which having a gun would help against the government you just ELECTED if they started doing something you didn't like.

Armed demonstrations? You'll get far. Anywhere that happens you'll get a heavy military mob dumped on you.

[goathunter]

Hotwired, You're a Brit unfortunetly that template does not follow the American design. My personal belief is that if someone has the audacity and stupidity to hold me up they deserve what they are getting.I don't carry a gun.I carry a knife.Not because I wouldn't carry a gun I just haven't gone through with the license application.
And the write to protect ourselves against a Government is fundamental to our existence.We did it to you when we gained our independence. Corruption is a very real thing and abuses of power even more so.A firearm equalizes unequal situations. The elected government thing isn't always true.We have a supreme court that can create law.We have no say in what they do.We don't elect them they are appointed for life. Don't get me wrong I am not unpatriotic,but when things do go wrong I want to be able to defend myself.
America is not the UK.Our laws are different and our freedom the most precious right of all.We will defend it at all costs and guns facilitate that.

[beebs111]

thank you, someone finally gets it!

[Hotwired]

Yep, there was the war of independance where it was pretty much essential for american civilians to be armed for that to happen.

That was about 200 years ago.

When, since the civil war ended in 1865, has it been neccessary for a civilian milita to exist in america?

I have a personal sense of disbelief how involved 'patriotism' is in american life but maybe thats just cultural differences.

What freedom can the government take away from the people that you could stop by being armed? A ban on cars for example...?

[beebs111]

Hotwired, have you ever heard of ruby ridge?

also, i cant even believe that you are advocating for strict gun laws, due to the politicians in the U.K. you are committing a felony by just owning the gun that you are golding in your sig.

[origin unknown]

The criminals will still find a way to get guns if there is a gun ban. Only law abiding citizens will turn their guns in, or let the government tax the hell out of em' for owning a firearm.

[Hotwired]

Yes, read up about it a few times in the past.

Tell me how you think that was made better by being armed. Particularly taking into account the number of people that died and why.

Right now my cannon is within legal energy limits in the UK because it's equipped with a 4mm bore barrel and is firing projectiles that weigh about 0.5g. So until I change the barrels back I'm arguing from within the law where I am.

[goathunter]

To bring up Ruby Ridge.Tell me how exactly you are supposed to deal with a crazy guy who has holed himself up on a mountain?You sure as heck don't trespass on his property and then provoke a firefight.You leave him be and let the situation dissolve.Those that died were federal marshals ILLEGALY trespassing w/o a warrant.They had no right to be there and it was meant to provoke.One was a kid firing(yes okay to kill,he was shooting) the other an unarmed mother with a baby(sniper screw up,not supposed to die).At the end of the day the police screwed up.The standard for a non hostage and non life threatening situation is to let it be.Ruby Ridge was supposed to be a feel good for the Clinton administration to show that he was doing something to "protect" America.Same with Waco.Let it be and survey.Never rush to action. Guns laws made no difference.If you want guns you can get them anywhere.Even in the UK.

[beebs111]

not that being armed helped that at all, just pointing out that the FBI had a shoot on sight policy on randy weaver, even though he acted in self defense against a the U.S. martials tresspassing on his proprety. i mean, jesus christ, an FBI sharpshooter killed his wife and baby, if that is not a good enough reason to try AS HARD AS YOU CAN, to protect yourself, that the FBI, a lead government agency, killed a mans wife and child, becasue he had the nerve to defend himself against tresspassers on his own proprety, then i dont know what is. every experience in history shows that a government will supress their people. 200 years ago we waged a war with your country, and won. if the time comes in the future that citizens have to defend themselves from the U.S. government, i hope to god that they are able to. "a gun is like a condom, better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it" survival of the fittest, and if you are not prepared to be among the people who would rather be ready for the worst, then so be it. but if the worst comes and you're not ready for it, you'll wish that you had been better prepared. imagine china invading the U.S.A. the war would be fought among our homes, with each and every person called into the defense of their own homes and family, if china invaded tommorrow, you would feel pretty stupid for preaching anti-gunness, becasue you would be kneeling on the pavement next to your dead family while a foreign army pillaged your house and raped your sister. im pretty sure that they would not spare you if "gave them what they wanted and didn't fight back" in either scenario, being prepared never hurts, its when what you never expected comes to haunt you that you wish you had listened to me


***i am not old enough to get my ccw permit, i carry a knife where ever i go, except to school, better safe than sorry***
EDIT: just to bring up the point of the ease of getting guns, i actually know a juinor at my school that imports guns and sells them out of the back of his car, he is 23 lol, just saying, if i wanted to, i could go to boston and find the corner where this guy is setup, and buy a 9mm for around $500, kind of scary, but thats the truth

[goathunter]

I'm pretty sure that knives with blades under 2" are allowed in school.At least in my old highschool(in SC) they were and still are.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

Right now my cannon is within legal energy limits in the UK because it's equipped with a 4mm bore barrel and is firing projectiles that weigh about 0.5g. So until I change the barrels back I'm arguing from within the law where I am.

I hate to be a pedant (who am I kidding, I love it! ) but the law does specify devices capable of exceeding 12 ft/lbs are illegal without an FAC. For example, if your shop bought pneumatic is doing 11.99 ft/lbs with average weight pellets then if the police confiscate it and test it with heavier pellets it will do more than 12, and saying "ah, but I wasn't using the heavier pellets" isn't an excuse.

I'm not in the UK but I frequent British airgun forums and the law is a much discussed topic - I don't want to sound self-righteous or anything as my devices are in a bit of a grey area on my side of the globe too so I'm not exactly on any moral high horse either

and a gun somehow protects him against the evils of the elected government.

Adolf Hitler was elected to power. Democracy doesn't remove the possibility of a dictatorship, and a government that fears an armed revolution is going to be less likely to take liberties with its citizens.

The criminals will still find a way to get guns if there is a gun ban.

That is exactly the point - a criminal doesn't respect the law, so why should banning guns from civillian ownership have any effect on those who intend to misuse them?

How about they DON'T want to kill someone whatever some other bugger wants to do.

What if said bugger was in fact not interested in your wallet but out to kill you, specifically. Would you not find comfort in a '45 tucked into your belt?