Gun Control

[Daremo]

Here in the U.S. gun control is a recurring topic. Here we have the right to "keep and bear arms". However slowly those rights are being eroded. Just recently California passed a law banning .50 caliber rifles of any type. The perception from some countries is that Americans are obsessed with their guns. Perhaps that's so. I hold a valid FFL (Federal Firearms License), this allows me to buy certain weapons without a waiting period and to buy and sell weapons in a regulation-relaxed manner. These licenses are available to all law-abiding Americans. I don't mean to say that regulations don't exist, just that holders of FFL's are able to circumvent some of them to make our hobby or business easier.

There's an old saying that "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. To some extent this is true. While fully automatic weapons are illegal for a private citizen to own (except under certain licenses and circumstances) criminals seem to have no trouble acquiring MAC-10's, UZI's and AK-47's. Since the criminals have them already, why can't I have one to fight back with? Why are the 'good guys' penalized? It's getting so bad that some countries have outlawed swords. This has resulted in rare antiques, that would never be used in combat, being destroyed.

I contend that the bad guys will always be able to get any weapon they want. So what's the point of gun control? Is it to stop some dumbshit from blowing away his wife? Well if he couldn't get a gun, wouldn't he just stab her or bludgeon her to death? After all, steak knives have not yet been outlawed?

Ahhhh -- I see it's to protect children from accidently shooting themselves or someone else. Well what about education and madatory locks for weapons in homes with small children? What about little johnny accidently drinking bleach? Should we outlaw laundry?

Finally how about home-made mayhem? It's really, really easy to make a zip gun or bombs. Hell a bomb is nothing but a really fast fire with nowhere to go fast enough. Any kid can make nitro-cellulose out of a cotton t-shirt and simple chemicals that are readily available. A simple trip to the drug store and you can make nitro-glycerin. The grocery store has more potential mayhem than a military arsenal. Should we outlaw the Quik-E-Mart? Did you know that any cheap disposable camera with a flash can be turned into a cheap-o stun gun in 5 minutes or less? Damn, now photography has to be banned. Think I'm joking? The law in the U.S. District of Columbia:
District of Columbia Law. DC Code Ann. Title 6, Chapter 23. Firearms Control. Subchapter I. General Provisions 6-2302.

(D) Any device designed or redesigned, made or remade, or readily converted or restored, and intended to stun or disable a person by means of electric shock.

This means that all cameras with built-in or attached flash units are banned because they can be "readily converted" into stun guns.

Well you get the idea....What do you think?

[Rikku]

There definatley needs to be a line somewhere or there would be mayhem, although i think its gone too far I myself own a few decorative swords and knives, a large 2.2 air rifle and a couple of pretty nasty BB guns. There was an article in the local paper today about a woman calling the cops because she had seen a man with a gun, 2 armed response units arrived on scene to find that it was a kids toy pirate flintlock, the guy was in the local pirates club and bought it to go with his outfit, but still the toy was taken off him and he didn't get it back!

[Kitz E Kat]

I really don't know why i am even gonna try have a go at this one , i am gonna have my furry ass flamed :-(

Quote D : There's an old saying that "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns....................

I agree!

Infact that is the way in pretty much all countries in the world, including Ireland.
With the exception of sporting gun's which we will exclude , only criminals have guns here , oh and the cops !

Cops and robbers , they each have gun's , cops go after robbers, so clearly they need gun's, that said *ordinary* cops don't carry gun's here either.

Now why should i *need* a gun ?
I ain't a cop, or a robber, so why should i be allowed to have a gun?

To protect myself? Well i don't feel i need a gun to protect myself, ask anyone in Ireland do ya need a gun to protect yourself, i'd guess most would say no.

As things stand robbers use guns for bank raids, and such *high profile* jobs, not house breakin's etc.
Now if you say OK , let staff in banks carry guns then what , a fuckin shoot out everytime a bank get's robbed!

If gun's were made legal , and i could have one, then all criminals would then need one to rob a house, on the off chance the owner has one, you just up the ante, that's all.
It's unheard off for a house to be robbed at gun point , the reason is gun's are hard to comeby , expensive , and only used for *big jobs*.

The gun's that are used for *big jobs* are normally rented out, as they are so hard to get.

Like drugs , you can't keep them out of the country, but if they are banned then the amount of them is smaller, the incidence of shooting's is bound to be smaller.
This is supported by statistics.

The police have many time held vote's amongst themselves to see if they wan't to carry gun's , they have always voted no, the police don't want to carry arm's either, they feel if they carry arms as standard , then criminals will do the same , it just up's the ante !!

Taking the criminal element aside , the amount of accidental shooting's and killing's by gun would far outweigh the amount of accidental deaths by misuse of a steak knife !!

There are many common day items that you could use to kill, but that's the point , they are common items , required for everyday living , gun's are not something you *require* for everyday living .

Good luck i'm out of here :-)

[relik]

I am personally against gun control. I do agree with Daremo that its pretty easy to get automatic weapons fairly easy on the black market. I can understand the point of protecting the "kids" but that should fall under the parents responsibility. I don't own a gun..yet... Since I'm in the Marines and I have my own M-16A2 and a 9MM Bereta I can go fire freely whenever needed. When I get out though I am going to get one, thats for sure. I think a gun is not only used a defensive weapon but its also fun to go hunting, or go to a shooting range with buddies.

In saying that, there are a ton of stupid people that keep loaded guns in top of their closet fully loaded. To me thats insane and just asking for their kid to shoot themselves.

So how do we fix this? More restrictive gun laws for the parents oblivion to safety? No, you have better gun awareness, possibly an hour long class before they buy the pistol or rifle showing them safety features and how to properly hide and lock your gun away from children.

There is also built in thumb print identifcation or lock key codes that the weapon won't fire without it. Thats also a giant leap of security.

Gun control laws are completely insane IMHO due to the fact it is our right to bear arms, it always has been. Putting more and more restrictive laws on this is only going to make things worse.

I'm not even a huge gun fan in all honesty, its still something I believe should never be taken away. We still need it for when the damn Soviets try invading! I'll be in the hills of ohio with a sniper rifle waiting!

ReL

[Kitz E Kat]

I would hate to live in a society , where i felt the need to own a gun.

Your gonna hate me for this but that's what we ( in Europe) think of American's , a bunch of people hiding in the hills with big fuck off rifles waiting on the "commies" , totally mad !

That's the image ( perhaps wrong , just like the "drunken Irish image, also wrong) , but that's the image we have , mad American's loading up on arms , just in case the commies invade , totally fucking mad :-)

Quick joke for ya:

An Irish generall calls up his Russian counterpart.
He tells him "we are goin to invade you next week, surrender".

The Russian generall , say's "What , we have 20 submarines off your coast , how many have you? ".

"Eh, none" say's the Irish Generall.

"We have 200 war planes ready to take off right now, how many have you" , asks the Russsin Generall.

"Eh, one navy plane" say's the Irish Generall.

"We have 20,000 troops, ready to go , how many have you asks the Russian Generall.

"Holy fuck" say's the Irish generall "we'd never have room for that many POWs, forget it " :-)

[waxdog]

Dude where do u live

[Daremo]

Depends on which dude you're talking about.

[relik]

Thats funny you mention that Kitz. I would be lying if I said there wern't groups of people out there making plans for militas for when we get invaded. I have friends from the country type area, and guns are just a fun thing for them to play with.

I think its a bit steriotypical to think most Americans do this. Most Americans don't have a gun nor know how to fire one. You can't really blame us though, we have had more revolutions, civil wars, wars then any other standing nation today. I personally am not serious about any kind of invasion, its pretty ludicrious to think that we would be invaded. It could happen, but in all honesty I don't see it happening.

I do however think its our right as Americans to have guns.

As for the reverse perception of Europeans to the American eyes, we view Europe (minus the brits) as France lovers who would surrender at the sound of a firecracker and are pale white guys. In fact my background is a jpeg of a "Soldiers of Surrender Magazine, the offical Magazine for the French"..Its just a joke, but the mentality is just as bad here for you guys. I'm not sure what side I would be wanting to sit on.

ReL

[Rikku]

I wanna play with an RPG launcher!! :D

[ph0t0k]

Gun control laws are completely insane IMHO due to the fact it is our right to bear arms, it always has been.
ReL

I'm curious if you know why you have the right to bear arms....do you know what the Second Amendmant is for?

[relik]

Well, it originally came from the English "Right to Bear Arms", typically for militias and defense. True that there are really no longer a need for militias and a "ready force of civilians" to bear arms, but in all actuality it may in the future.


I would like to quote St Louis University Public Law Review

"Remember, the right to bear arms in England and America was derived from the need to defend against external aggression, internal strife, religious and government persecution, and personal assault.[49] An organized militia certainly would be useful in dealing with external aggression and internal strife less so for persecution, and it is almost useless against personal assault. Thus, participation in an organized militia is only one source of the right to be armed. Equally valid are the needs to defend against civil strife, despotism, and persecution. Personal protection, the right to defend oneself and others, is another source of the right to be armed.[50] I see this as the most fundamental right. Any creature, from insect to human, has the natural drive for self preservation. No individual should ever be denied the ability to defend his or herself against unwarranted harm. Yes, criminals can be dragged from their homes, held against their will, and punished by the courts. Unwarranted harm, however, is what criminals inflict upon their victims. Safeguarding citizens against such transgressions is an elemental responsibility of societies and the governments they establish. Societies and governments must not deny an individual the means for self defense."


Personal protection, the right to defend oneself and others, is another source of the right to be armed.


That statement sums it up. If I want to keep a gun in my house for some low life who has come to either kill me or harm my family/rob them, I have every right to defend against that.


I could probably do it bear handed, but what if hes armed? Ide rather not take the chance.


ReL

[SyntaxHeir]

...was derived from the need to defend against external aggression, internal strife, religious and government persecution, and personal assault.

"When the pigs knock on your door,
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head,
or the trigger of your gun?

When the law breaks in,
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
or waiting on death row?"

-- The Clash

[Netwokr-7]

Quite ironic isn't it that we (the Europeans) came over to America with the guns, you used them to chase us out and now we aren't even allowed them.

In the UK it is soon to be the case that replica guns will be illegal also. This means that carrying a replica gun would have the same legal implicatons as if it were real. Which in my view, is just as the threat to other humans is the same. Maybe other countries think of us Brits as shitting ourselves everytime we see a gun? Well to some degree that's true. It's the old Island mentality, guns point outwards not inwards.

Daremo- You bring up some good points, and I respect your opinion. But I think it's worth noting that you have been trained to use firearms and you have been trained to use them with respect. (correct me if I'm wrong)

However this is not a pre-requisite to getting a firearm in the States.
Shame./

N-7

[Daremo]

Absolutely correct, and that's a problem. You need a license to drive a car or get married, why not a firearms safety course as a prerequisite for owning firearms.

Nothing that would impede the right to bear arms, but just a safety couse on handling and storage.

[Netwokr-7]

... why not a firearms safety course as a prerequisite for owning firearms.
So wait there is no test involved in the license? As long as you're old enough and without mental health? Say it isn't so!!!


Excuse my ignorance here Daremo, but as I understand things as the right to bear arms is in the constitution it becomes much harder to change. How does your country go about changing the constitution? Would you have a referendum? Or would your elected representatives make the decision on your behalf?

Christ lets hope it's the former!

N-7

[Daremo]

In order to purchase a firearm you must:

1) Be an adult
2) Have no felony crime
3) Have no misdemeanor crime involving violence
4) Have no 'documented' mental health issues.
5) Be a citizen and produce valid ID
6) A waiting period of 14 days while a background check is performed to insure the above requirements are met.

Depending upon the State and local laws

7) Have no Drug related arrests
8) Purchase or own a gunsafe or other trigger-safety-locking device

But, no, you do not have to take any safety courses whatsoever and there is really no license required.

If you intend to carry a concealed firearm there is a license required for that and yet more stringent requirements. Some states do require a safety and gun law class in order to get a concealed carry permit.

In order to transport a weapon, it must be in a locked container and not accessable to the driver or passengers of the motor vehicle it is being transported in. Additionally any ammunition carried must be in a seperate locked container and not with the weapon.

[SyntaxHeir]

How does your country go about changing the constitution? Would you have a referendum? Or would your elected representatives make the decision on your behalf?


You'd have to get it amended.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5) in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am27), Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am21) and 22nd (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am22)).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_acon.html) for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am21), specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification.

[Kitz E Kat]

My understanding is that you need a valid driving license, and that in the US you can get one at age 16 , therefore in theory you could at age 16 get a gun .
Is this correct ?

[relik]

No, you need to be a legal adult (18) to go through the process of owning a gun. If your 18 you need to go through a long process that requires even more scruitany and harder to get approved.


ReL

[Rikku]

Should I have a license for a 2.2 Air Rifle in the UK?

[Netwokr-7]

Syn and Daremo thanks for the response that makes things clearer from a legal point of view.

But the essential question is why can you as a US citizen buy an automatic weapon?
I have travelled the world several times and never found an animal worth hunting that requires this level of firepower.

I can't see any hunter in their right mind using an Uzi 9mm can you?

Qk Question: Are the laws different for explosive rounds?

N-7

[SyntaxHeir]

Automatic weapons aren't for deer, they're for pigs.

[SyntaxHeir]

Should I have a license for a 2.2 Air Rifle in the UK?

Would that be two point two METER barrel diameter? I think you'll need a license for that… and a truck. ;)

[Daremo]

Americans cannot legally purchase fully automatic weapons (machine guns). This seems to be a common belief in Europe that Americans can all have fully automatic weapons.

Only the military and police may have automatic weapons. In order for a private citizen to have automatic weapons he must hold a valid Federal Firearms License (FFL) and have the weapons registered with the government. Mostly these are curios and museum pieces from past wars or valid gun dealers who sell to police and military. This license does *NOT* give the right to build an arsenal.

While some criminals do have automatic weapons they have purchased illegally, the penalties are stiff and the weapons hard to get. Illegal arms dealers face life imprisonment. Still it does happen. Probably similar to certain criminals in Britain having handguns.

There is a ban on 'assault' weapons in the U.S. -- while there are a number of collectors and citizens who owned these weapons before the ban took effect, their weapons must be rendered incapable of automatic fire. Therefore, except for a large magazine size, they are the same as any other rifle/handgun in rate of fire.

California has also banned large-bore rifles, those being .50 cal or above, except as museum pieces and relics. Other states have not.

[duder]

California has also banned large-bore rifles, those being .50 cal or above, except as museum pieces and relics. Other states have not.

so if i lived in California, I wouldn't be allowed to keep my .50 caliber black powder rifle? i honestly do have one.. they're the funnest thing to shoot (besides maybe a M-19 auto-gernade launcher).

peace,

duder

[SyntaxHeir]

Yeah!! The M-19! Everytime I got behind one of those on a fam fire all I could envision was being perched on top of some hill with an enemy battalion marching through a draw, then opening up on them spreading from front to back to see what was left after the dust settled.

You could mow down five thousand people in 60 seconds with that thing AND it's team portable!

...

Not that'd I'd actually DO that but hey, the targets on the range were so boring I had to make stuff up.

[Daremo]

I've found (from personal experience) that a quad-50 is a sweet thing for busting up a concerted assault on a firebase.

[ph0t0k]

I don't think we (Canadians) have any provisions for firearm possession in our Charter of Rights, I do believe they fall under the auspices of our convoluted property law. (Fellow Canucks, please feel free to correct me.)

It was my understanding the 2nd Amendment was intended to be insurance that the population could never be disarmed and thereby oppressed by the government. I think that by banning "assault" weapons, Congress is taking the first steps at disarming the American people; and from what I've read in the press, the country has definitely taken a turn toward oppression the last decade or so.

I recall having to change my online alias while Tim McVae was on trial. I suggested he should be acquited under his 2nd Amendment rights. Do you guys feel he was really an enemy of the American people, or was he a patriot willing to sacrifice his life protecting freedom? Also, do you believe that it was the militia movement in the early 90's that sparked Congress into action regarding gun control, that they felt so threatened by these groups they felt it necessary to begin disarmament of the general population? I'd also like to know how the members of your military view oppression. I know they're to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic......does that include Washington?

[relik]

I think you have a huge misconception on what we believe ph0t0k. I don't hardly see myself being oppressed by any means. I see our nation as one of the more balanced and free nation in the world.

There will always be new laws to replace old laws, and old laws to replace new laws. There is never a deciding factor on anything because, unforatantely, we cannot be perfect. Our government is perfect for a imperfect world.

I do not see gun control laws as a oppressive behavior. There are certain measures that should be taken into consideration when people do purchase a gun. I'm a firm believer that a background check should be done, you should have to qualify with it, and you should have a license and have it registered to your name.

Do I see Timothy McVay a patriot? Are you kidding me? The guy blew up a shit load of innocent people. Thats not someone to be commemorated, that is someone who needs some serious help, if not death.

How do the military view oppression from Washington? I am in the military, have been for 5 years. I don't feel oppressed one bit. I agree with the war on terrorism, although I think some things could be dealt with differently but again, we are imperfect. Not everything is going to be.

How does the majority of the military feel about the war? I would say 95 percent if not more agree with Washingtons decisions and how things are being run, not only with the war on terrorism but with how the country is being run overall.

Oppressed? Hardly, you need to take a harder look at our country.

ReL

[relik]

One last thing..Theres still a Canada? I thought a huge earthquake ate up that country like a year ago... Canada...Not ringing a bell.

ReL

[Rikku]

.22 then, I dunno, I just shoot teddies with it! I've used some bigger guns on Battlefield 2 =p

[Kitz E Kat]

Well don't let PETA know your shotting teddies :-)
They have a protest around at your place first thing in the morning!

[Rikku]

Dont worry, it's only Teletubbies =p and anything else I can find in my sisters room...:p

[=BB=]

In a peaceful society guns are anathema, in a violent, disturbed society guns are everywhere. In Canada I have never owned or carried a gun, in the Southern U.S., when I worked as a journalist during the civil rights era, I kept a 38 revolver in my glove box.

Then there is this:

The Americans value their constitution and the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment deals with the right to bear arms. Here is the price that ordinary Americans are paying for the privilege

- 8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns

- since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century

- Osama bin Laden would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.

- Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late 20th century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)

If Osama bin Laden had had more sense, instead of launching a terrorist attack, he would simply have provided financial backing to the NRA.


http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000473.html


:icon_massBloody Cheers:rolleyes:!

[SyntaxHeir]

This sounds similar to the initiative to ban DiHydrogen Monoxide for all the potential terror it can cause.

Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are: http://www.dhmo.org/images/poisonbottle.gif




Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere.
Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
Oh noes!!111!
Ban Guns!
Ban DHMO!
Ban Paper, Rock, Scissors!!
How irresponsible can people be to encourage kids to play with scissors!!?


OMGWTFBBQ1!!11oneoneone!eleventyone!!1

[Daremo]

I love that last post

[SyntaxHeir]

I watched Run Away Jury on HBO last night. Has anyone else seen that movie? Care to discuss the particulars of that case and your opinion of the verdict?

[Daremo]

The problem does not seem to be guns themselves. I would say the problem may be education.

Right now autos cause a large number of yearly deaths. For whatever root cause; drunk driving; recklessness; drugs or cell phones, it is still an automobile accident that kills. You are required to get a license to drive an auto. Can you imagine the chaos that would insue if there was no mandatory education and licensing? The deaths by auto would skyrocket.

You are not required to get education or a license to own a gun in the U.S.. You require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but to just own a gun, no education or specific license, just a waiting time and a clear police record.

What would the result be if one had to take mandatory gun-safety education and pass a test before a gun-ownership license was granted? Just like autos, a different endorsement on your license for different classes of firearms; Rifles; handguns; big-bore or small-bore; shotguns and so forth. I think we'd see the deaths from handguns plummet.

This would not stop criminals just as a driver's license does not stop criminals from using a car unsafely. I feel this would go a long way without unduly restricting existing 'rights' to own weapons in the U.S..

[SyntaxHeir]

I think most people, by now, know it would be highly uncharacteristic of me to suggest restricting liberties of any kind, but allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment.

The problem isn't "reasonable" people owning guns for whatever purpose. The problem is the mentally distraught, disgruntled, homicidal and suicidal people have relatively easy access to guns. That being said, I understand anyone who has an agenda, the motivation to kill and the mental acumen to plan it out will not be stopped by all the laws in the world. I'm sure people still die from guns in China or did in Soviet Russia so I'm not advocating more laws.

What needs to be addressed is crazy people gunning down school yards or as in the case of the movie Run Away Jury, whackjobs showing up to work with automatic weapons.

I don't think anything short of martial law would've stopped Columbine from happening and it may sound ugly to say, but I would not find a military state an acceptable trade for the assurance we'll never have another Columbine ever again.

The biggest hurdle, as I see it, is the facility guns provide to "spontaneous mass murder". Some chemically imbalanced fucktard doesn't get his Whopper "his way" and he comes back with an MP5 and levels the place.
This would be very hard to do without an automatic weapon. It's not easy to get your hands on things that could cause as much damage as easily. This same whackjob cannot quickly and easily get a grenade. [Which could cause comparable damage]. He's also unlikely to go home and meticulously fashion a pipe bomb, come back and lob it into the dinning room. Knives can kill but it's very hard to commit "mass murder" with a butcher knife.

So while I'm not pro gun control, I am pro mass murder prevention. If anyone has any ideas on how we could stop people from using guns irrationally I'd love to hear them.

[Daremo]

Of course you make valid and excellent points here, Syntax. However, as in my example, there is no way to prevent the unstable white supremist Nazi from trying to run down a group of Jewish school children with his car.

Mandatory education, licenses and safety equipment would tend to make accidental deaths from firearms go down and, I feel, go down significantly.

Just like you I would like a way to prevent the whack-jobs from being able to do harm. Unfortunately in the history of the planet there has been no way to do this. I don't think the number of wack-o's is increasing per-capita, it's just as the population as a whole grows so does the invetable percentage of nuts. Also with mass media sensationalism, we now hear about every nutcase that goes completely looney-tunes, this may cause copy-cat nutcases. However we can't censor the press no matter how appaling their taste is, ratings are their life-blood.

With bombs being so damn easy to make, I wonder why we don't get more bombings? Face it a bomb is merely a massive pressure equalization usually caused by a very fast fire having nowhere to go fast enough. Nitro-cellulose and Nitro-glycerin are dead easy to make and the ingredients are readily available. If one wanted to be stealthy you could even make the major acidic ingredients yourself as well. In fact a readily available ingredient for mayhem is available to anyone -- ever see a gas station? Ever see one blow up? Even thermite can be created by anyone who has access to power tools to prepare the ingredients - and the ingredients are available in any junk yard for pennies.

Hell, a number of years ago a death-row inmate cheated the executioner by blowing himself up with a deck of playing cards, the leg of his bed and a candle.

This is why terrorists like bombs -- no intelligence required and the ingredients are available within your target country - you don't even have to pack them in.

[SyntaxHeir]

When it comes to purely accidental deaths I think putting the damn things where kids can't reach them or fools can't find them would go a long way to preventing accidents.

We can't very well prevent accidents from happening or banning things that may cause accidents. As you said earlier Daremo, education is the key there.

I was re-reading your post about automatic weapons and the FFL. If that's the case then I can't really see too big a differenece in the level of difficulty between getting an AK-47 and building a pipe bomb. Both require a little bit of planning and both require pre-meditated murder.

So for those people without a license or without "grandfathered" weapons, what is the penalty for simply being in posession of an automatic rifle? If you don't have a legal reason to be carrying it I can't see how the intent is any different from having home-made napalm or pipebombs in the trunk of their car.

Hell, I was nearly ticketed for carrying a sledge hammer in my truck once. The only reason I got off is I told the cop I was moving and also had boxes and boxes of "other stuff". The cop said the hammer by itself was illegal but since I was moving he wasn't going to write me up.

[Kitz E Kat]

I heard on the radio this evening an interview with the author of a new book, sadly i can't remember his name or the name of the book :-(
I was driving at the time..

However, it's an odd collection of statistics, one was that in a house where they had both a swimming pool and a gun , there was a far greater risk of a child being killed in the swimming pool!

Also since abortion was introduced , the crime rate went down !

This applies to the US.

I'll hunt down the book title , sounded like an interesting read .

[MrsMo]

Also since abortion was introduced , the crime rate went down ! .
I am really hoping it's because at the same time as abortion being legalized, better crime fighting techniques were adopted.
It would be a truely sad commentary on our society if the two were more than coincedentally connected.

[Kitz E Kat]

I am really hoping it's because at the same time as abortion being legalized, better crime fighting techniques were adopted.
It would be a truely sad commentary on our society if the two were more than coincedentally connected.
I'm with you on that one , and that was mentioned as a rather scary thought, which it is indeed !

[TreeFrog]

I'm coming in late on this one so excuse me for not reading all the posts.. there are a lot at this stage..

Guns are dangerous boys and girls.. they shoot bullets very fast and those bullets do amazing things.. they go right through things and even people.
They kill.
I think it is a shame to kill things.. food is an exception as that is a function of life. But in general I think it is a wast of something quite amazing when something or someone is killed. That thing that is wasted is life.
When there are guns around it is wasted more than when there are less or even no guns around.

I like living. I even like doing it in Ireland and for a few reasons. One of them is that when I get stooped on the road by a Garda (Irish police) I do not feel in any way threatened. Well except for the feeling I should behave a little politely or they might look less kindly on the fact that I just ran a red light or something. They do not carry guns. A discreet few do but not openly.

If I was going to steel a car the last thing I would think of bringing with me is a gun.. why would I need it.. no one else has one to defend myself against. If they do use one they are in more shit than I am for trying to steel the car.

I was in the US about 10 years ago for 3 months. During that time I was in two situations where a cop pulled over the car I was in.
It scared the shit out of me at the time to think that all I, or any other fool in the car had to do was sneeze and catch the cop off guard... out would come that pistol as quick as he could pull it. and I'm sure they have plenty of training on being quick too.

I see the position the US is in and I respect the concept of being able to defend oneself. Do you think of the political history and manipulation that got you there.. It was, if I'm not mistaken a ploy by a group of people who wanted an army to be available but did not want, or have the means to pay for it. It was also a good way to rally the people together and make them all feel they were all a needed part of the movement. I'm sure was or seemed very much needed at the time but... Logic is a dangerous thing.

There is not much choice now.. the streets are full of them. there are so many poorer countries in America willing to supply the gun trade in the US.
Before guns can be removed (if that is what is wanted) the difference in economy with the surrounding countries would have to be changed.
That is not going to happen so easily as this very difference helps the US economy stay strong.

Good Luck and may your children learn self respect and tolerance that they may not feel the need to use the guns you probably need to give them.

[Daremo]

TreeFrog -- I think you may have a common misconception about guns in America. Most people in America do NOT even own a gun. Only about 20% own a handgun. About 45% total own any type of gun. Many of those are either inheirited and/or antiques that probably won't shoot.

The gun on the hip of a policeman or military serviceperson is not frightening to a law-abiding citizens. In fact they are a means of protection of citizens, not used indiscriminantly against them. My wife and daughter are no more concerned about a policeman's weapon than his pants. None of my daughter's friends are concerned that policemen have guns. Children are generally taught that policemen are good and that they should go to one if they get lost or scared.

America is not full of car chases with guns blazing and citizen's ducking and running for cover. Now I admit that I was a combat Marine, but during all my civilian time I have NEVER EVER been threatened by a weapon, by a criminal, by a policeman, nobody, never -- no guns, no knoves, not even a sharp pencil. I passed a half-century of life quite a long while ago and have never been mugged, robbed, raped, pillaged or hardly even annoyed.

America is nowhere near as dangerous as people make out. My neigborhood is quiet and peaceful, and I live in southern California, about a 30 minute drive from downtown Los Angeles. I often leave my door unlocked at night. There have been no robberies in my neighborhood and no stolen cars. About the biggest crime available is buying a little weed from one of the local college students.

The news stories that you see are not happening all the time. Most U.S. citizens lead quiet lives, just as you do. Out of 300 million people, there are, percentage wise, a few nuts. Most are harmless, but occasionally there are some violent ones. The media blows them up out of proportion and splashes them all over everywhere. It's good ratings. Good news is boring

[TreeFrog]

That puts it into perspective.. thanks.

So if the majority of the US said "no more guns " or "less guns". it is not out of sight to see it happening.

I still dont like someone.. and I mean anyone.. standing near me with a gun.. Always have been like that..
I just dont trust anyone enough to be totally comfortable.. It is better when I have it and no one else but I prefer no gun at all. Lets call it a healthy respect for the things.
I grew up in the hills. Farms and fields and all that .. the odd Christmas venison and rabbit all year round. Pheasant too and salmon( Shotgun fired at the surface of the water can be enough to stun the fish so it can be pulled out). Quite an amazing thing to breath slow and focus the sights on a rabbit... then there is the cleaning and cooking. Smelly but not so bad.

I have never seen an accident with a gun and I dont know anyone who has had an accident with one. Heard of a close call or two but no blood.
Once I pulled a shotgun up and just over the head of a good friend.. once.. never again..
Man what the fuck was he doing just there on my right..
What the fuck was I doing out with gun and a fool like that.. And he was the expert.. Really I have lots of respect for the guy and he is probably one of the only people I might trust..
What the fuck was I doing with a gun. I did not need it.. I did not need to accidentally blow the head off my sisters boyfriend..
Na not worth it.. even at one in a million chance, not worth it..

I'm the guy that gets really annoyed when someone is talking with me for example in a kitchen and they are casually waving a knife around.. It only has to be a butter knife and I'll give them a little talk on how it freaks me out. The best bit is I'm usually very relaxed so it really shocks them.

Would it be fair to say that there are probably more deaths caused by car accidents than with guns?
Could that be a place of focus rather than guns..? Despite the fact that I and many others really dont like them..

[Kitz E Kat]

Did a search on Amazon , found that book with the weird statistics!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006073132X/ref=pd_ts_c_th_3/104-7083811-9147907?v=glance&s=books&n=53,
for anyone interested :-)

[Daremo]

Here's some statistics you might find interesting...

Firearm accident deaths have been decreasing for decades. Since 1930, their annual number has decreased 76%, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of firearms has quintupled. Among children, such deaths have decreased 89% since 1975.
Firearm accident deaths are at an all-time annual low, nationally and among children, while the U.S. population is at an all-time high. In 2002, there were 762 such deaths nationally, including 60 among children. Today, the odds are more than a million to one against a child in the U.S. dying from a firearm accident.
The firearm accident death rate is at an all-time annual low, 0.26 per 100,000 population, down 92% since the all-time high in 1904.
Firearms are involved in 1% of all deaths, and 1% of all deaths among children. Deaths involving firearms have decreased 19% since 1993.
Firearms are involved in 0.7% of accidental deaths nationally, and in 1% among children. Most accidental deaths involve, or are due to, motor vehicles (41%), poisoning (16%), falls (15%), suffocation (5%), drowning (3%), fires (3%), medical mistakes (2%), environmental factors (1%), and bicycles (1%). Among children: motor vehicles (44%), suffocation (16%), drowning (16%), fires (9%), bicycles (2%), poisoning (2%), falls (2%), environmental factors (1%), and medical mistakes (1%).
So as you can see bicycles cause about as many deaths as guns in the U.S. Why aren't people trying to ban these awful death-dealing machines. Even children have free and unrestricted access to bycicles. Bicycles are just loaded with sharp hard bits of metal. You can cut yourself and die from infections from the filthy beasts.

As you suspected, TreeFrog, autos clam 4400% more children than guns. Almost half the children killed in accidents die in an auto accident.

Guns are an emotional issue and the minority who opposes them are very vocal and hope to sway the issue using emotion and harsh rhetoric. At this time about 2/3 of Americans approve of the existing gun laws.

[TreeFrog]

So it may be said that the trends in dropping gun incidences could be due to anti gun groups.. it may well be that the awareness that such groups have created about guns helps keep that healthy respect up and the figures down.

Now what about the Auto problem.. We have the same here in Europe.. I love the fact that we do not have smoking in our public places.. this has even created a new thing in Ireland.. outside seating.. Ireland is now feeling very European because of it.
However we probably have more deaths from cars than cigarettes..
How can such a problem be approached..
Sell more cigarettes to even out the figuers!! it is only statistics right lol
... New thread for that perhaps. :-)

[SyntaxHeir]

I am increasingly divided on this subject. Recently my cousin Jonathan was shot and killed by a police officer. He was unarmed and the officer, in my opinion, over-reacted and shot a man who did not pose a threat to anyone's personal safety. Deadly force certainly should not have been used in Jonathan's case.

Granted, Jonathan was behaving badly and certainly needed to be detained. After reading TreeFrog's post, I realize that if we were in Ireland or Australia or England or a number of other places Jonathan would be still be alive.

Yes he had a history of mental illness and rowdy behavior, yes it was a small town and the cops probably knew his reputation as a troublemaker, but he was UNARMED and obviously not in his right mind. Even as a Marine where our primary function was combat we were trained that deadly force is NOT to be used on civilians and even in the case where it is necessary the rules of engagement state “aim to disable if unsure you can aim to disable fire regardless.” The first shot was directly to his chest from about 15 feet. This guy didn’t even give him a chance.

Still, I’m not for restricting the liberty of people to own guns as protected by the Constitution, but something has to be done.


http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=5&id=24106


Police said Tuesday night that 49-year-old Jonathan McCourt, of Des Moines, died of a gunshot wound to the abdomen.

Police confirmed that they had an arrest warrant for McCourt in connection with a mental health case.

Witnesses told NewsChannel 8 that McCourt was spray painting a pickup truck that was parked outside the courthouse and had no license plate.

Several deputies, who also provide security at the courthouse, came out to confront him.

Witnesses say that McCourt briefly ran away, then turned around and jumped on top of the pickup truck. Witnesses say he tried to spray a deputy in the face with the black spray paint.

Police said he reached in his back pocket when he was confronted, prompting the deputy to fire one shot at the man.

[TreeFrog]

Sorry about your cousin. You are a brave man to cite liberty after that.
Hope he had some fun while he was around.

Man I would hate to be that cop.

Yes Liberty and Freedom and all that good stuff we dont seem to be able to trust others with.

Didn't that bell the Liberty Bell crack the first time it was struck.

I'm glad guns are not such a strong part of Irish life. At least not in the way they are in other parts of the world.
However I very much appreciate it is very healthy for there to be verity in the way we all live. So perhaps it is good that in some places police forces carry guns and in others they dont.
They have been talking about it on and off here for a while. Not really sure why as I really dont see it being necessary.

But we do some strange things here. e.g. build a mad silver spike in the middle of the capital costing 6milion Euro. It was our milenium experssion! It wont last 80 years. perhaps 60. Stranger still.. I have grown to like the bloody thing.

Later

[Daremo]

First off, Syntax, I am sorry for your loss.

As a combat Marine, you are the consumate professional. Your discipline and training are second to none. Your training also allowed you some 'pre-experience' knowledge from men who have served in combat. The key here is your training.

Now let's examine, real-world, a DesMoines police officer. Most police who have no military experience are usually at a severe disadvantage. The training of police officers in confrontational situations for many smaller metropolitan areas is lacking.

What I'm saying here, as sad as the situation is, the police officer panicked when your cousin reached into a pocket. The officer felt he was about to be attacked with a weapon from a 'dangerous' mental patient and overreacted.

From our perspectives as Marines we see this, we know this. I don't know about you but when I served in VietNam I saw FNG's get trigger-happy. I saw FNG's that just snapped and would stand up in a firefight and promptly get wasted. An unseasoned, inexperienced man is prone to panic.

Fortunately most metro police have been adequately trained and have ridden 'shotgun' to get enough real-world experience. In this case, and please try to see it from a FNG's or civilian perspective, we have an officer that responds to a call. Perhaps he has no information or perhaps he was told this involved a person with a history of mental problems - we just don't know. In any event he sees a man spray-painting a truck, obviously an odd thing to do. He tries to run away, but returns and leaps onto the truck and tries to spray paint in the officer's eyes. Now the officer is excited too. Perhaps people are watching - we don't know. In any event this person, who's been acting at least odd or maybe as if intoxicated or on drugs reaches suddenly into a back pocket. The officer panics, reacts emotionally, pulls his weapon and fires. By sheer instinct he aims center of mass. Since he's basically point blank his aim is true.

Only someone with intense experience would not fire without verifying the person actually had a weapon. Only someone with intense experience would not aim center of mass and instead aim to disable. Only someone like you.

I am not in any way justifying the officer's actions, he was absolutely wrong. I am just examining his behaviour based on evidence at hand and my own knowledge of combat type situations.

Again, my condolences on your loss.

[SyntaxHeir]

Thanks for you posts TreeFrog and Daremo. I don't intend to turn this into a discussion about Jonathan, rather I just want to point out there is something clearly wrong with the current state of affairs. Jonathan died due to an escalation of force and poor judgement. In my narrow minded view the escalation of force following a can of spray paint does not directly lead to a firearm. I'm thinking maybe something less than lethal.

Can of spray paint -> Fists -> Clubs -> Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.

Let's examine this escalation of force from a different angle. What about Waco Texas or Ruby Ridge? The Feds came armed with tanks and incendiary devices, rockets, grenades and who knows what else. The did this because they knew the people with which they were dealing were also heavily armed.

So what if we outlawed everything including "sharp tableware"? Would the ATF show up with stern looks and give the citizens a "good talking to"?

If we banned citizens from arming themselves would criminals lower their escalation of force when commiting crimes? Would muggers stop using guns and knives and just make a mean face and threaten victims with bodly harm? Would the punishment for mugging be reduced since it's no longer assualt with a deadly weapon but now, just aggravated assualt? Would we have *more* crime since crime is technically easier? Think about it for a minute. If was was planning to mug somebody for some money to buy crack I wouldn't stake out the local TKD studio and mug the people coming out of there. I'd pick an area with "softer" targets.

If we're all disarmed and pose no threat to anyone would we have more incident where the ATF and other Feds blow people up or fewer?

I think we'd have more. I think that if the ATF knew we are all docile and we harmless they would extend their activties and their tyranny. If someone has to "choose their battles" they can choose to do much more battle if the opponents are unarmed. What I'm getting at is, if we make ourselves easy targets we'll be easily targeted and more frequently targeted.

Is gun control simply our mini arms race. Is there an unspoken cold war between citizens and goverment or law-abiding citizens and thugs?

[Daremo]

A good point, Syntax, In example I'd like to post a quote from TreeFrog:Do you think of the political history and manipulation that got you there.. It was, if I'm not mistaken a ploy by a group of people who wanted an army to be available but did not want, or have the means to pay for it. It was also a good way to rally the people together and make them all feel they were all a needed part of the movement. I'm sure was or seemed very much needed at the time but... Logic is a dangerous thing.I think, rather that the founding fathers wanted a government that understood that its citizenry was armed and would stay armed. A government that remembered that it was born in revolution from an oppressive government itself. A government with a healthy respect of its own citizens is a good thing.

The first thing that a fascist or communist state tends to do is to remove the weapons from the hands of the citizens. An unarmed citizen is *much* easier to intimidate and control.

[TreeFrog]

So do we come down to education education education?

It would seem that if people had the self respect and tolerance I keep yapping about it would matter little what the policy was about guns. In fact I would expect the auto death rate would go down too.

I'm not sure what sort or how but education non the less.
We see the classic system of education for the general public has little going for it.. Is there another way that would encourage the self respect and tolerance I keep yapping about?

Would it make sence to send all gun carrying lawinforcers on some sort of exterme training?

[relik]

Send them to Iraq, I learned more there in an hour of driving into Iraq with our convoy getting ambushed then I did in any kind of "extreme" training...Live situations are the only extreme training imho. Although I still get spooked when I hear fireworks or an exhaust backfiring...Anyone still have that problem?

ReL

[SyntaxHeir]

Well when it comes to self respect and tolerance, it is become increasingly difficult to *teach* children these ideals in public schools. There is always some wingnut parent who protests when a teacher has the termerity to tell their precious baby not to use racial slurs or steal from their classmates.

Speaking about law enforcement requiring training, I thought that was already in place? I sincerely hope police officers receive adequate training on the weapons they employ against citizens. Perhaps that's just crazy talk.

[TreeFrog]

How about an independent school group. not for exclusive rich kids but just independent. The *nix of education lol

Would have a separate code of conduct.
All parents and children shall be strung up by the left leg once a month. Teachers by the right leg twice a month.
It could draw on all the lessons learned by many groups who have looked at education.
The Jews had some interesting things going for them.. one was you could not teach until you had children of your own.. interesting point.
The Steiner school system is very interesting.. I have a few friends who are still in such a school and it is wonderful how they carry themselves. they tend to be so much more successfully in a rounded way too.

Just food for thought.

Later.

[Kitz E Kat]

Sorry to hear about your cousin Syntax , had that happened over here , he would still be alive , regular cops don't have guns.

I think i like it over here!

[SyntaxHeir]

I'm all for the idea of independent education TreeFrog. The public school system is a mess and keeping with my opinion on most things, everything the federal goverment touches gets corrupted and rots from within.

I mean really can you think of anything the goverment doesn't foul up? The notable exceptions are the things they are actually *supposed* to do. i.e. a national defense, a common currency, providing courts and infrastructure, trying felons. Everything else they like to muck with gets b0rked beyond belief.

Retirement?
Education?
Assistance to the poor?
The Postal Service?
The bloody friggin IRS?

I'll give them one passing grade and that's the invention of teh intarweb but that was created by DARPA which is a largely unmolested group.

[TreeFrog]

No snakes here either KK.. Very few places you can walk around not thinking at all about snakes.
Good old Saint Patrick.

As for how the US is structured.. I cant really comment.. Dont have enough exposure to it.. That should change soon as we will have to look at what is going on in the EU..
It is already facing the same bureaucratic problems you seem to have.

[Radical Ed]

Gunz can't kill people, only people that have guns and fire tehm can killz.
So dont blame tha gun, gunz are OK to have.
Thanks.

[Rikku]

"Gunz dont kill people, robbers do! Callin tha police, woo woo woooooo"

[suicidal angel]

look, i like to hunt so i own many rifles. as long as guns are used in a responsible way there should be very few limits to what we own. i mean know matter what the laws their will continue to be guns and gun related deaths and accidents.

[martenrune]

Hi everybody

Geography, Im Swedish so I live in Sweden/Stockholm

Now If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns. Hmm a good point, but can we agree there HAS to be a line drawn, I understand it's when the guns are automatic, right? Well the criminals have automatic guns, why cant I?!?

Well lets skip the line, everything is legal. Hmm Im buying a Atomic bomb, the criminals gets nuclear bombs and so on.

Come on, if you outlawed guns, eventually the criminals would have non automatic guns and in most cases no ammo. Ammo should also be prohibited to citizens.
This works in most european countrys, and I think we can agree you have to have a line drawn, like when it comes to driving, you have to learn stuff, take a test and if you abuse the driving rules, you can loose your license.

So maybe you (mostly americans no offence intenden) should ask your self, if we lower the line to prohibit handguns and worse, given enough time, weapons will be a lot more scarce to get by. And bearing Colombine in mind this can ONLY be a good thing.

In sweden anybody not in the criminal records can join a shooting club and start to practice and compete with guns (target competitions), but the guns you buy is locked in safes, and the parts are always divided.

The criminals do have guns, but some statistics from my life...
My experience, Im 40 yrs, I havent always been lawabidient, a good number of my former friends (some are still my friends) have choosen a criminal path. Now I have seen 1 illegal gun and only once. Me and my friends dont personally know anybody who has been shot. The shootouts in Sweden are almost always between criminal groups or within criminals. If not it's against the cops (very uncommon, but it happens. 95% of our swedish cops doesn't ever have to draw their guns, 99% don't ever have to fire their guns)

Now thats my 20 cents
this is my first posting ever (in this forum) and I apologuise for any misspellings, but this isn't my native language.
/martenrune

[Rikku]

Welcome to the forum dude! Your english is a million times better than other members that arnt native English! <cough> Ed </cough>

Good points made by the way...I think laws here need to be a little lighter, so I can at least own my own semi-auto .22 rifle for use at the club...but after say 6 months at the club I can apply for my own FAC, so its not all bad...

[Kitz E Kat]

Now thats my 20 cents
this is my first posting ever (in this forum) and I apologuise for any misspellings, but this isn't my native language.
/martenrune

Welcome dude, good post :-)

[matt138]

I hate people who always slag off guns its the people who own the guns that are the problem!

i personaly own alot of weapons but have not used any on people yet :p

i also love blowing things up but have not tried killing anybody i always make sure things are safe (well apart from the time me n rikku tried to make a bomb down his woods but it didnt work so he kicked the petrol across the woods and we had to run around putting out bushes):p

[MrsMo]

Welcome martenrune.

Guns really aren't the problem. Americans have always had guns but a large part of the increase in violence is tied to prohibition. If the American govenment would get off it's soap box about drugs; legalize, control and TAX them the same way they control alcohol much of the violence would stop just like it did when the prohibition on alcohol ended. Making drug use illegal gives addicts nowhere to go and forces them to deal with criminals.

The other part of the violence is tied to a lack of parental involvement and control. Very few kids are disciplined these days. Parents find it easier to lay the blame on TV and schools or claim that little Johnny has ADHD, when what little Johnny really needs is for Mom and Dad to tell him, "You get in trouble at school, and you get in trouble at home." They need to realize he doesn't have ADHD, he has a need of someone sitting at the table with him helping him study - and occasionally telling him to sit down, shut up and read the damn book. TV violence isn't the cause either - the cause is kids are bored because parents use the TV as a babysitter (who hasn't seen the ads for programs designed for babys just old enough to sit up?) instead of spending time with their children. Instead of making sure their kids are keeping up with their school work, not causing trouble in classes, parents are insisting the school lower their standards, slow down the classes and take no action to stop little Johnny from interrupting class.

Hmmm, can you tell someone touched one of my nerves?

[matt138]

Welcome martenrune.

Guns really aren't the problem. Americans have always had guns but a large part of the increase in violence is tied to prohibition. If the American govenment would get off it's soap box about drugs; legalize, control and TAX them the same way they control alcohol much of the violence would stop just like it did when the prohibition on alcohol ended. Making drug use illegal gives addicts nowhere to go and forces them to deal with criminals.

The other part of the violence is tied to a lack of parental involvement and control. Very few kids are disciplined these days. Parents find it easier to lay the blame on TV and schools or claim that little Johnny has ADHD, when what little Johnny really needs is for Mom and Dad to tell him, "You get in trouble at school, and you get in trouble at home." They need to realize he doesn't have ADHD, he has a need of someone sitting at the table with him helping him study - and occasionally telling him to sit down, shut up and read the damn book. TV violence isn't the cause either - the cause is kids are bored because parents use the TV as a babysitter (who hasn't seen the ads for programs designed for babys just old enough to sit up?) instead of spending time with their children. Instead of making sure their kids are keeping up with their school work, not causing trouble in classes, parents are insisting the school lower their standards, slow down the classes and take no action to stop little Johnny from interrupting class.

Hmmm, can you tell someone touched one of my nerves?

probably me lol i tend to do that alot without realizing :p

[jeacyfarf]

<GARBAGE GARBAGE>

[Kitz E Kat]

Guns really aren't the problem.

Hmmm, can you tell someone touched one of my nerves?

Tell that to the dead children, who would be alive and well if you could not access guns as easy as you access candy!

How many more school / college kids before someone puts one and one together and finds the magic number = 2 !!!

How may students in this country ( Ireland) where killed by gun tooting kids, say in the last one hundred years ????
Answer = none ......
How many students where killed in the US in the last week by gun tooting kids ?


I rest my case .

[pukn]

Why is it that for a country with so much, we also seem to have the most problems?

I think a lot of problems can be attributed to the lack of intervention of parents or such figures. Last time I watched Maury Povich's daytime talk show(trash TV), some women had children that threatened to kill them. One thing I noticed was that there were no father figures in those families. When did it become a crime to "discipline" your child when they did something bad or when their actions could cause harm to themselves or others?

For those of you who live in a place where guns aren't legal and the criminal element doesn't use them except for "big jobs", I envy you. However, the cat has been let out of the bag since the inception of our country and we have to deal with what has been dealt.

Someone mentioned oppression. We as a nation are not currently oppressed, however, with the advent of Homeland Security and the "threat of terrorism," we have seen many freedoms and priveleges eroded, and to make things even more beautiful, I still don't feel any safer than before. It seems to me that the governemnt now has a Gestapo which people are willing to stick their heads in the sand for, all in the name of protection. Honestly, I think we as Americans have become complacent in how we deal with issues. It used to be that the mindset was, "how can I get it done?" Now it seems that we look to the government to have it done for us...

By no means am I an anarchist. Government is a good thing when, and I stress when it is "of the people, by the people and for the people". It seems to me now that you need to replace "people" in the aforementioned line with Money...

Sorry, I've turned this into a rambling session, but heres my 1 cent...

[Kitz E Kat]

For those of you who live in a place where guns aren't legal and the criminal element doesn't use them except for "big jobs", I envy you.

That would include here!
You don't go firing off a gun, unless it's well worth it!
Sure the criminal's get them if they want them, but the borderline nutcase will not. Hence no school shoot out's , like ever, sure some idiot may try it on with a kitchen knife, but he/ she ain't gonna do anything like the damage you can do with a gun.

Horses for courses I guess !

[Daremo]

The name Canada comes from a Wendat (Huron-Iroquoian) word, kanata, meaning "village" or "settlement". In 1535, inhabitants of the area near present-day Quebec City used the word to direct the French explorer Jacques Cartier towards the village of Stadacona, a important settlement on the site of present-day Quebec City. Another contemporary translation of kanata was "land". Cartier used the word 'Canada' to refer to not only that village, but the entire area subject to Donnacona, Chief at Stadacona. By 1547, maps made by early European explorers show that the name rivière de Canada was given to the nearby St. Lawrence River; the river was called Kaniatarowanenneh ("big waterway") in Mohawk, coincidentally and reinforcingly similar to kanata.

While the First Nations origin for the name Canada is now generally accepted, other possible explanations have been put forward in the past. One theory suggested that the name originated when Spanish explorers, not having explored the northern part of the continent, wrote acá nada ("nothing here") on that part of their maps. A similar tale credits Portuguese explorers who, upon seeing the eastern coastline, declared a similar sentiment (cá nada há). However, the Spanish word for the country, Canadá, has an accent over the last letter, and sounds very little like acá nada. (The word canada without the accent does exist in the Spanish language and means "greyed" as in hair.)

--I'm really a royal pain in the rear, ain't I....

[NuhNupThose]

<garbage garbage>

[Kitz E Kat]

The name Canada comes from a Wendat (Huron-Iroquoian) word, kanata, meaning "village" or "settlement". In 1535, inhabitants of the area near present-day Quebec City used the word to direct the French explorer Jacques Cartier towards the village of Stadacona, a important settlement on the site of present-day Quebec City. Another contemporary translation of kanata was "land". Cartier used the word 'Canada' to refer to not only that village, but the entire area subject to Donnacona, Chief at Stadacona. By 1547, maps made by early European explorers show that the name rivière de Canada was given to the nearby St. Lawrence River; the river was called Kaniatarowanenneh ("big waterway") in Mohawk, coincidentally and reinforcingly similar to kanata.

While the First Nations origin for the name Canada is now generally accepted, other possible explanations have been put forward in the past. One theory suggested that the name originated when Spanish explorers, not having explored the northern part of the continent, wrote acá nada ("nothing here") on that part of their maps. A similar tale credits Portuguese explorers who, upon seeing the eastern coastline, declared a similar sentiment (cá nada há). However, the Spanish word for the country, Canadá, has an accent over the last letter, and sounds very little like acá nada. (The word canada without the accent does exist in the Spanish language and means "greyed" as in hair.)

--I'm really a royal pain in the rear, ain't I....
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story!
I'm sticking with the Portuguese version of things :-)

[KispnonoVoina]

Íà íàøåì ñàéòå, Âàì ïðåäîñòàâëÿåò âîçìîæíîñòü ñêà÷àòü èíòåðåñíûå è íîâûå ôèëüìû çà 2007-2008 ãîäû. Âñå ôèëüìû â õîðîøåì êà÷åñòâå è ÷àñòî îáíîâëÿþòñÿ ïî ìåðå ïîñòóïëåíèÿ óëó÷øåíèÿ êà÷åñòâà ôèëüìà ( 5-7 ôèëüìîâ åæåäíåâíî). Êðîìå òîãî âñå, ÷òî èìååòñÿ íà ñàéòå, Âû ìîæåòå ñêà÷àòü àáñîëþòíî áåñïëàòíî!!! Ññûëêà íà ñàéò " Íàø ïîðòàë ôèëüìîâ"

[Smurnardimeni]

Çíàêîìñòâà íà áåñïëàòíîì ñàéòå çàíêîìñòâ. Àíêåòû äåâóøåê è ïàðíåé. Ïîèñê ëþáâè è ïðîñòî äðóçåé. Çàõîäèòå è çíàêîìüòåñü.

[Kitz E Kat]

Íà íàøåì ñàéòå, Âàì ïðåäîñòàâëÿåò âîçìîæíîñòü ñêà÷àòü èíòåðåñíûå è íîâûå ôèëüìû çà 2007-2008 ãîäû. Âñå ôèëüìû â õîðîøåì êà÷åñòâå è ÷àñòî îáíîâëÿþòñÿ ïî ìåðå ïîñòóïëåíèÿ óëó÷øåíèÿ êà÷åñòâà ôèëüìà ( 5-7 ôèëüìîâ åæåäíåâíî). Êðîìå òîãî âñå, ÷òî èìååòñÿ íà ñàéòå, Âû ìîæåòå ñêà÷àòü àáñîëþòíî áåñïëàòíî!!! Ññûëêà íà ñàéò " Íàø ïîðòàë ôèëüìîâ"

You do make some valid arguments.
Gonna have to rethink my position !