GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS

[angelofdeath]

i know, i know, im a loonball survivalist gun nut, but i think your opinion might change is say...if you walk in to your house and some guy has jack the rippered your kid, is raping your wife with a hand gun in her mouth, and says "your next honey."then some other dude jumps out and says "on your knees, let me hear you squeal like a pig boy..." just dial 911 right?

 

but i know i know, whats the chance of it happening right? big brother is here to protect you.

 

[Guest Sparoism]

Originally posted by Stereotype V.001@Dec 28 2005, 03:50 PM

Shai, you are alot better off with a high quality dead bolt lock, a good alarm system, and a baseball bat. It is very difficult to take another person's life, even if it means protecting yourself or your family. Its an unnatural act. The possibility of a misfire, forgetting the safety is off, mistaking a neighbor or loved one, bad ammunition going off in the heat, missing an 'intruder', ect ect should be enough to make someone realize its not that great of an idea for home protection.

Quoted post

Locks and security gates- check.

 

Baseball bats, knives, pepper spray, handcuffs, zip ties, bathtub full of water with a radio tossed in- covered.

 

Alarm system- in the hood? I think I'd sleep better, but no, we don't have one. Our landlord hasn't got the money, I'd imagine. We don't have the money, either.

 

I don't want to kill anyone. We very seldom have people showing up without caling first, and we have a doorbell that works. That covers all of our unannounced guests.

 

Of course, if I pulled a gun on someone, I'd ID them first. I don't know any robbers..."Hey Jim, what the fuck, man...you know me, get the fuck outta here!" Ain't gonna happen.

 

As far as ideas go, if you look past the idea and go to the CAUSE- economics of neccessity/desperation- the idea being bad is trumped by the cause.

 

I DON'T LIKE GUNS. They're tools, and tools of death. Your karma does not go up 50 points by owning one, I'd imagine.

 

But, the idea that guns are evil is easliy applied to other areas...cars driven by drunk drivers are evil. Child porn on the internet is evil. ANYTHING that can be used has a certain repository of evil potential. I have to leave the house to live my life, and if I was concerned about the potential evil of EVERY SINGLE THING that existed, I believe I would go crazy.

 

It's just one of those things that I elect to not think about. I don't plan on having kids until I live somewhere else. Your level of risk is tied to your enviroment, and as long as I have to live in a place (my lease is up in May) where being armed was a prerequisite for peace of mind, kids aren't going to lower my stress level, they would RAISE it.

[John Birch]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Dec 28 2005, 09:32 PM

you can commit suicide with a pencil. ganstas "capping" people are losers. you have a better chance of getting killed in a car accident than with a gun. should be ban all cars too?

 

you cant get rid of guns, so why not let citizens keep the right to defend themselves?

Quoted post

 

 

 

but my contention is, is that cars are registerd and have insurance, so should guns... and in terms of robbers in my home. first I have nothing worth stealing, but I also pay $200 a year for apt insurance, so people can steal all they want, insurance will pay...

[Guest Sparoism]

I don't think gun registration is the issue, more than the morals attached to gun ownership.

 

Renters' insurance? That's not gonna replace everything...my girlfriend, for example.

[dumy]

what about, instead of banning firearms altogether...that we institute tougher gun laws and require education on proper gun use and self protection as a prereq for all RESPONSIBLE (ie: those who purchase guns legally) gun users..I think that may cut down on the number of accidental deaths...meh, just a thought.

[CACashRefund]

the gun lobby wouldnt stand for that shit

 

and they have alot of clout where they make laws.

[angelofdeath]

so called gun control is unconstitutional. what part of "infringed" dont you understand?

gun control and registration is the first step to confiscation. ask the jews in germany. or the russians under stalin. they will tell you. all gun control does is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to own a gun. of all the gun crime, what part of it is done with legally registered handguns by thier lawful owner? now think real hard on this one.

 

gun control is anti liberty. period.

[Guest Sparoism]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Dec 28 2005, 08:14 PM

so called gun control is unconstitutional. what part of "infringed" dont you understand?

gun control and registration is the first step to confiscation. ask the jews in germany. or the russians under stalin. they will tell you. all gun control does is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to own a gun. of all the gun crime, what part of it is done with legally registered handguns by thier lawful owner? now think real hard on this one.

 

gun control is anti liberty. period.

Quoted post

 

Well, this is where you and I have diverging opinions.

 

I'm a lot closer to dumy on this point, although I wonder what more legislation would accomplish.

 

The existing system is a good compromise for all parties except for those in the "no government involvment in gun ownership" camp.

 

It's either no guns as in Japan (really low crime rates), everybody has guns and can either go the route of Somalia (total anarchy) or Switzerland (the populace IS the militia, and all households are required to have a firearm in working order...the violent crime rate there makes the US look like a crying shame, too) or what is in place now...far from perfect, but it works well enough.

 

It's all about checks and balances.

[SF1]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Dec 29 2005, 04:14 AM

so called gun control is unconstitutional. what part of "infringed" dont you understand?

gun control and registration is the first step to confiscation. ask the jews in germany. or the russians under stalin. they will tell you. all gun control does is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to own a gun. of all the gun crime, what part of it is done with legally registered handguns by thier lawful owner? now think real hard on this one.

 

gun control is anti liberty. period.

Quoted post

 

 

I'm with this guy 100% on this issue.

[SF1]

Also when my pops was a kid, there was far fewer kids running around blasting eachother. But every household had guns. The difference was that it was part of the culture to train kids AT AN EARLY AGE to respect guns. A 10 year old kid was learning how to properly clean and use guns and also taught to respect guns and how to properly handle them so's to avoid accidentally shooting oneself or someone else. Guns were embraced as part of American culture and thus everyone was educated in the importance of respecting the power of the gun... therefore they were abused and misshandled far less.

[Guest Sparoism]

Originally posted by SF1@Dec 28 2005, 09:30 PM

Also when my pops was a kid, there was far fewer kids running around blasting eachother. But every household had guns. The difference was that it was part of the culture to train kids AT AN EARLY AGE to respect guns. A 10 year old kid was learning how to properly clean and use guns and also taught to respect guns and how to properly handle them so's to avoid accidentally shooting oneself or someone else. Guns were embraced as part of American culture and thus everyone was educated in the importance of respecting the power of the gun... therefore they were abused and misshandled far less.

Quoted post

Yeah, I agree with the idea of education being one of the best forms of preventing stupid people from doing stupid things. There were a lot of stupid gun owners back in the day, I'm sure...and you didn't hear about as many "accidental deaths" in the fifties, probably. Now, it's sensationalized in the media, along with every single instance of what stupid people with guns do.

 

I think some regulation IS neccessary. I just have a more moderate view as far as the issue of gun control is concerned, however.

 

"Bowling For Columbine" more or less summed all of this up.

[Guest Sparoism]

This may be the first time in 12 oz. history where Kabar and SF1 actually AGREE on something.

 

Maybe I did the impossible...or maybe there isn't a whole lot of difference in what they think, just where the two of them are coming from.

 

Either way, it's remarkable.

[SF1]

If you tell me that AngelofDeath is Kabar I might puke. :haha:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:yuck:

[John Birch]

I think sf1 and kabar are one and the same...

[Guest Sparoism]

No, I doubt that. Angel is more of an anarchist, Kabar is more of a "when the shit goes down, I'm gonna be ready" kind of guy.

 

I respect Angel's views, and understand where he's coming from. The thing is, Americans are simply unable to be responsible for their actions 100% of the time. I'm no law and order type, but you have to see the logic behind protecting people from themselves.

 

Angel may be able to do it. I doubt his neighbors could.

[SF1]

Originally posted by John Birch@Dec 29 2005, 07:43 AM

I think sf1 and kabar are one and the same...

Quoted post

 

And I sapose that includes you too. :haha:

[Guest Sparoism]

Originally posted by John Birch@Dec 28 2005, 11:43 PM

I think sf1 and kabar are one and the same...

Quoted post

Here's a scary thought...the 12 oz. board is sort of like the Borg.

 

We're all plugged into it via a cybernetic system, and it's slowly starting to create a uniform behavior/thought process in all of us through subliminal messages and corrective measures by our overseers (AKA "the mods").

 

Hmmmm.....

[Guest Sparoism]

And let's keep it clean here, guys. Or at least funny. No grabass.

[SF1]

Originally posted by Sparoism@Dec 29 2005, 07:46 AM

No, I doubt that. Angel is more of an anarchist, Kabar is more of a "when the shit goes down, I'm gonna be ready" kind of guy.

 

I respect Angel's views, and understand where he's coming from. The thing is, Americans are simply unable to be responsible for their actions 100% of the time. I'm no law and order type, but you have to see the logic behind protecting people from themselves.

 

Angel may be able to do it. I doubt his neighbors could.

Quoted post

 

 

Yes but what ALOT of people forget is that nobody can possibly be held accountable for their actions 100% of the time. Why do you think our Forefathers decided that criminals would receive the right to a trial by a jury of their peirs? (I.E. if somebody breaks into your house and commences raping your wife or daughter or whatever... and you bust in and kill that person (usually with a gun, by the way) ... you are not supposed to be subjected to some mandatory sentence, rather the "jury" takes factors into consideration and decides whether you are even guilty or not.

 

And another thing ALOT of people forget is the fact that our forefathers fought and died for the belief that we as a people are born to be free to live a life of liberty in pursuit of hapiness, free from the restricting confines of enslavement that an overbareing government by nature imposes. And there is a reason why they drew up a Constitution that limits government from opressing the people of this nation. And a reason why they made it known that the PEOPLE shall have the right to keep and bare arms in order to hold enough power as to prevent this nation from the tyrany in which we are currantly witnessing.

 

 

 

(I probably misspelled a word or two. so what. fuck you.)

[KaBar2]

Originally posted by Sparoism@Dec 29 2005, 07:32 AM

This may be the first time in 12 oz. history where Kabar and SF1 actually AGREE on something.

 

Maybe I did the impossible...or maybe there isn't a whole lot of difference in what they think, just where the two of them are coming from.

 

Either way, it's remarkable.

Quoted post

 

I'm a little shocked myself, but not disappointed.

 

I taught my daughter to shoot a .22 rifle at age six, a .22 revolver at age seven, and a .38 revolver at age eight. When she was fourteen, she was accompanying me on night ops training in the militia.

 

She will admit today that her real interest was the 15 and 16 year old militia boys that were there with their fathers. What she doesn't know is that all of us Dads agreed beforehand to bring the kids, so the boys were participating so they could see the girls and the girls were participating in the hopes of seeing the boys, and they all learned how to shoot, patrol at night, set up and conduct ambushes and field-strip/clean an AR15 rifle, LOL. We watched them like hawks.

 

My kid was exposed to firearms her entire life, growing up. I have always kept them locked up, except for my carry pistol. She knew that ANY TIME, day or night, she could say "Dad, let's look at some guns," and I would drag them all out (unloaded, of course) and we'd talk about guns till she was sick of it. And when she was ready to stop, I always dragged out one more. Guns hold no fascination for my kid. She has fired every gun I own numerous times. She checks every gun she picks up instantly to see if it is loaded. She NEVER points the muzzle anywhere but in a safe direction. When she was four, she could recite the NRA Gun Safety rules for kids who find a firearm: 1.) STOP! 2.) DON'T TOUCH! 3.) TELL AN ADULT! At age 13 she fired a 236/250 on the Texas State Concealed Handgun License course (too young to actually be licensed, of course.)

 

I have seen gun owners do so pretty stupid things with guns, but most of them were yahoos to start with. A friend of mine in college suffered a terrible facial disfigurement from a hunting accident at age 14. He was shot in the face with a .410 gauge shotgun. (This is a very small bore shotgun.) He and a another boy were out hunting rabbits, and they decided to cross a fence. They both knew better than to cross a fence with loaded guns, but they were kids and thought it was a stupid rule to have to unload them. My acquaintance handed his .410 to his buddy, and climbed through the strands of barbed wire. Once on the other side, his friend handed him the shotgun muzzle first. As he passed the shotgun through the barbed-wire fence, the trigger caught on the wire. The shotgun was cocked and the safety was off--my friend was shot in the face.

He was knocked unconcious by the blast. His hunting buddy was so shocked and terrified that he ran home, but couldn't talk once he got there. The neighbors followed him back to the field and brought the injured boy out to a highway where he could be picked up by an ambulance.

I asked him if he still owned guns, and he said "Yes, but they aren't fun anymore like before I got shot. I don't hunt for fun. I just own guns for self-defense."

[Guest Sparoism]

Misspell away. As long as you get the point across, that's all I really care about.

 

I work in the judicial system, and sometimes wonder about the efficacy of jury trials over a panel system at the civil and District level. This would be similar to the Circuit and Supreme courts, where a panel of judges hears the case, and has to reach a majority vote on the disposition of the case based on the merits. I've seen too many slam-dunk cases get thrown out over jury tampering or bias...juries are supposed to be impartial members of the community deciding on what could amount to life-or-death situations, and the decisions of the panel are not to be colored by personal opinion or belief, ESPECIALLY in cases where the matter tends to be heavily polarized.

 

Yeah, right.

 

Well, it's just one of my many opinions.

 

I am a constitutionalist, until people use it as a defense for their behavior. You can use it as a basis for your opinion, and I'll never say a word about it. When it's interpreted as a "get out of jail free card", or "this is what Thomas Jefferson really meant for me as a free American citizen to do" defense, then I have to wonder if it's being abused or not.

 

I'm not disagreeing or calling anyone out, but personal responsibility plays into the issue a lot more than anything else does. I believe the architects of this country had NO IDEA of the abuses that would occur to the system/society in the centuries to come. Not that it would have changed much about the way they set things up, but still...

 

Besides, people were usually hung for heinous crimes within a week of being tried back when the Constitution was being written, and that was with a jury. The sense of right and wrong was a lot more black and white then. You couldn't fuck around, and get some famous lawyer to get you off.

 

Things have changed.

[Guest Sparoism]

In case you were wondering, two things-

 

The panel system I described above is in place in Sweden, and it works just fine. Trial delay is unheard of unless the case is so complex that it raises too many questions of law to be decided in a short amount of time.

 

Also, a lot of the judges I have met don't tend to make their decisions based on their personal opinions, they judge cases they hear on the facts presented to them.

 

That's how they stay on the bench.

[SF1]

Originally posted by Sparoism@Dec 29 2005, 08:48 AM

Also, a lot of the judges I have met don't tend to make their decisions based on their personal opinions, they judge cases they hear on the facts presented to them.

 

That's how they stay on the bench.

Quoted post

 

Not where I'm from! That's for damn sure!

the judge almost always kisses the prosecutors ass. and then uses that fact to keep themslves on the bench.

 

Maybe I SHOULD move. :yuck:

[Guest Sparoism]

I could see that happening there. It's probably the old boy's network in action.

 

Well, it's expensive here, and the graff laws are shitty. Funny how those two tend to go hand in hand.

 

Once I get used to the idea of cold weather, Sweden is the place to be. I could teach English, I guess.

[angelofdeath]

"Besides, people were usually hung for heinous crimes within a week of being tried back when the Constitution was being written, and that was with a jury. The sense of right and wrong was a lot more black and white then. You couldn't fuck around, and get some famous lawyer to get you off. "

 

this is a very very very good point.

[!@#$%]

i guess i'm confortable with guns being a major part of makind's eventual destruction

i can admit that.

i really don't know how i feel about them, except that they've been used against me enough times to know that they hurt me more than help me.

 

even when confronted with someone shooting at me and being armed myself, i didn't want to shoot them. i'd much rather shoot myself.

 

i guess it's a personality thing.

 

the last gun i fired was an AK. they are fun, but hell, anything that can pump out rounds like that does not need to exist.

but it does. and i'm not sure that the guys who founded our country had any idea what they were giving to the average person..who doesn't appear to have the mental capability to understand the destructive power of firearms.

 

i may like to argue viewpoints, but i do not hold steadfast to many of them.

i don't have a position on this issue, as i stated before.

and being a scientist, i know that statistics at least give a window on a issue.

if you would like to deny their validity, i guess my part here is done.

[angelofdeath]

"and being a scientist, i know that statistics at least give a window on a issue.

if you would like to deny their validity, i guess my part here is done. "

 

im definately not discounting them. im just saying that i could pull out my copy of called "the bias against guns" and could literally blow any "anti gun" statistics out of the water.

[!@#$%]

POW POW POW!!

 

blow em outta the water!!

 

i think some of those statistics are kinda obvious,

of the few people i know that have killed people, it's been people they knew.

 

whatever shoots up your boat.

[Guest Sparoism]

I'm sorry to hear that, Symbols, no bullshit. That's a shitty place to be. A lot of how I feel about cars gas to do with having messengered and A) seen close friends get killed by them and B) coming close to death because someone couldn't talk on the phone, drink a latte, and DRIVE A CAR simultaneously....but, I have no quarrel with ambulance drivers, for instance. Personally, I think the world would be a safer place if less people drove, but that's just not gonna happen...it starts with me making a decision to not drive, and realizing that's about all i can do.

 

I wasn't trying to use statistics to invalidate where you're coming from, but as a way to illustrate my point.

 

Personal responsibility is still a major part of this. That includes your right to choose whether or not to own a gun, or use it, should the need arise.

 

I'm not selling anything here. I just wanted to know where some people stood.

[!@#$%]

indeed

 

personal responsibility is ESSENTIAL for gun ownership, in my opinion

 

and it seems that a minority of people in our society are willing to take a good hard look at themselves and their families, and take responsibility for who they are and what they do.

 

there's a gun in my possession, as there has been for some time.

it isn't mine and i'm not connected to it, but i've got one

and believe, if i ever have to use it outside of my home, i will not be taking responsibility for what happens if i can help it.

 

i'm not too shy to look at the nasty side of human nature, i've got plenty of it in myself.

maybe that's why i don't really like them, i know exactly what i can do with them

 

just the other day i was waiting for this fat ass bitch of a dumb cashier to ring my shit up at the grovery store, and as she was taking her sweet old time i was fantasizing about blowing her brains all over the register.