Again scinet, I point out that it's NOT just aesthetic value. You don't NEED g41 for target practice, no. You also dont need target practice. It's a passtime. Again, I relate it to car collecting. It's not because they're instruments of death, it's because they're great machines, and in some cases works of art. Not just in how they look, but how they move, and how they react to your movements. I don't even own a gun, but I do understand the lure of weapon collecting. Not just guns either. Swords, knives, sais, its about looks, yes, but also the feel of the weapon and how it works.
Pretty much what Zig said actually. Why own a classic car if it doesnt work? Just replace car with firearm.
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 15 2004, 07:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 15 2004, 07:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Again scinet, I point out that it's NOT just aesthetic value. You don't NEED g41 for target practice, no. You also dont need target practice. It's a passtime. Again, I relate it to car collecting. It's not because they're instruments of death, it's because they're great machines, and in some cases works of art. Not just in how they look, but how they move, and how they react to your movements. I don't even own a gun, but I do understand the lure of weapon collecting. Not just guns either. Swords, knives, sais, its about looks, yes, but also the feel of the weapon and how it works.
Pretty much what Zig said actually. Why own a classic car if it doesnt work? Just replace car with firearm. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You hit on something there.
Currently I am aquiring several firearms that represent leaps in technology. I am arranging these in an exploded format to illustrate how they are engineered.
to Scylla:
I would normally argue that only responsible people should be allowed to own firearms. However, in practice this would not work. Who would determine if a person is responsible? I am not sure that I would want the government to decide this. What is to prevent them from only providing firearms to those that support their views and causes?
Literacy tests for voting had the same problems. In the South, blacks were given much more stringent tests than whites, and were thus prevented from voting. What would prevent some racist sherriff from only granting firearm priveledges to his Klan buddies?
(despite the fact that we should never treat a Right as a Priveledge) Rights are granted by your Creator (whether you believe in God or just DNA) Priveledges are granted by your government and can be taken away on a whim.
<!--QuoteBegin-Scylla+Sep 15 2004, 03:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scylla @ Sep 15 2004, 03:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe tradition was the wrong term for it but I understand that you won’t like to give up a fundamental right. And as German knowing the historical background of the Nazi dictatorship I see the positives of armed citizens. The Nazi’s wouldn’t be able to come to power that easy if Germany had armed citizens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Seems like you missed some basic history lessons. Under the nazi-regime the majority of german people supported them. I think with armed citizens even more jews were killed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for safety, I feel safe at work. I work late shifts in a small convenience store when I have the time from my studies. On over 90% of the shifts I am alone. Most of the time when someone tries to steal something from the store, I've got no problems facing them down and taking back what isn't theirs. I don't have to be afraid since anything less than a gun I can handle. Some members of criminal organizations in this country do have guns, and a plenty of them, but that doesn't exactly bother me since the mob doesn't shoplift. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wish poeple who live in america and are working in such shops gl in future, when every criminal could wear an assault rifel for his "self-protection". (I'm probalby over-reacting here). I'm just concered about the people who go mad and can start a massacre because they have access to guns (Does anybody remember Littleton?)
But I have to say, that I learned in this thread how ineffective the old assault-weapon ban was.
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 15 2004, 07:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 15 2004, 07:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Again scinet, I point out that it's NOT just aesthetic value. You don't NEED g41 for target practice, no. You also dont need target practice. It's a passtime. Again, I relate it to car collecting. It's not because they're instruments of death, it's because they're great machines, and in some cases works of art. Not just in how they look, but how they move, and how they react to your movements. I don't even own a gun, but I do understand the lure of weapon collecting. Not just guns either. Swords, knives, sais, its about looks, yes, but also the feel of the weapon and how it works.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I must say, your almost sexual attraction to weapons designed for the purpose of killing is slightly unnerving.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not just guns either. Swords, knives, sais, its about looks, yes, but also the feel of the weapon and how it works.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Scylla+Sep 15 2004, 03:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scylla @ Sep 15 2004, 03:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Maybe tradition was the wrong term for it but I understand that you won’t like to give up a fundamental right. And as German knowing the historical background of the Nazi dictatorship I see the positives of armed citizens. The Nazi’s wouldn’t be able to come to power that easy if Germany had armed citizens. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The Nazis were voted into power, by a nation that felt desperate for a quick fix return to its once military and economic greatness. I belive they actually lost the election by a tiny amout, the got 47% or something, then got into power on some technicality. Im pretty vauge on it, because I only studied it in high school.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Sep 15 2004, 08:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Sep 15 2004, 08:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 15 2004, 07:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 15 2004, 07:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Again scinet, I point out that it's NOT just aesthetic value. You don't NEED g41 for target practice, no. You also dont need target practice. It's a passtime. Again, I relate it to car collecting. It's not because they're instruments of death, it's because they're great machines, and in some cases works of art. Not just in how they look, but how they move, and how they react to your movements. I don't even own a gun, but I do understand the lure of weapon collecting. Not just guns either. Swords, knives, sais, its about looks, yes, but also the feel of the weapon and how it works.
Pretty much what Zig said actually. Why own a classic car if it doesnt work? Just replace car with firearm. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You hit on something there.
Currently I am aquiring several firearms that represent leaps in technology. I am arranging these in an exploded format to illustrate how they are engineered.
to Scylla:
I would normally argue that only responsible people should be allowed to own firearms. However, in practice this would not work. Who would determine if a person is responsible? I am not sure that I would want the government to decide this. What is to prevent them from only providing firearms to those that support their views and causes?
Literacy tests for voting had the same problems. In the South, blacks were given much more stringent tests than whites, and were thus prevented from voting. What would prevent some racist sherriff from only granting firearm priveledges to his Klan buddies?
(despite the fact that we should never treat a Right as a Priveledge) Rights are granted by your Creator (whether you believe in God or just DNA) Priveledges are granted by your government and can be taken away on a whim. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, Wiz, you hit the nail on the head with the rights / privilages argument.
It is a "right" for a person to own property. It is a "right" for a person to express themselves. It is a "right" for a person to defend themselves.
Now, what is a gun? A gun is a machine. It is a tool. It can be a weapon. In order to deny someone the "right" to use a gun, you must first give the gun properties that it doesn't normally have. You must make an ascociation between guns and fear, guns and death, guns and violence.
Guns do not have those properties - people have those properties. Being that people are intellegent, they will grab for the best machine/tool in order to be more fearful, more deadly, and more violent.
So what about gun control? Well, as soon as you assume that having a gun is a "privilage" then you also create a group of "privilaged people". As soon as you do that, then there is likewise a group of "non-privilaged" - and the method for discerning who should be "privilaged" immediatly comes into question.
So how should one discern? Gun ownership is a "right" as it should be. However, people should loose their right to ownership based on what they do. The same goes for driving a car - you loose your right (liscence) when you drive drunk.
There is the jist of it. Regardless of all the good reasons why people shouldn't have guns, taking away rights trumps all of them. You can't simply take away a right because of fear, death, and violence. Apply this to other legislation - banning violent video games because kids imitate them, banning religious apparel in classrooms because a school is "secular"... the list can go on and on.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
edited September 2004
let me reiterate.. in a state where <b>so many people are armed, disarming the lawful leaves only the unlawful armed.</b> in our nation, safe civilian armament decreases crime, because criminals have weapons too. if your nation is pretty much without firearms, then of course you don't need them, but we most definitely <i>do</i>.
my grandmother lives about one town over.. it's a much more suburbial town, and the police there are fewer (because it's not a full-on city like where i live). there has been a string of daylight armed robberies, where the perpetrators knock on doors and, if the door opens, they barge in and steal things at gunpoint.
now this really infuriates me.. because i know that these criminals are taking advantage of the limited police activity in this area, and the people who live there are of the very heavily sheltered-liberal variety. this town might as well be in a Brady Bunch style sitcom: nothing bad is ever supposed to happen there.
but it does, because people just aren't armed, and because the police can't fix everything.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wish poeple who live in america and are working in such shops gl in future, when every criminal could wear an assault rifel for his "self-protection". (I'm probalby over-reacting here). I'm just concered about the people who go mad and can start a massacre because they have access to guns (Does anybody remember Littleton?)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt that criminals will suddenly go out and pick up a bunch of assault rifles that they couldn't get before. Most criminals prefer pistols or machine pistols like the Mac-10 because they're easy to conceal. Fully automatic weapons are already restricted.
Remember that Littleton and the string of shootings happened while the AWB was in effect, not before it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I must admit I have a very limited view on the handling of firearms of citizens of the USA. Sometimes it looks for me that the handling of firearms is a little to careless.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because you never hear about the responsible gun owners who keep their weapons secure and don't blow their office away. The vast majority of gun owners don't saddle up their horses and ride around town looking for a gunfight. I'm sorry to say that many of the conceptions non-Americans have about America are woefully inaccurate. In high school, I hosted a German exchange student and she was shocked at how much the students here actually did. She was under the impression that teenagers just sat around and mooched off their parents. So when she saw that a lot of teens had after school and summer jobs in addition to school work and sports.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for safety, I feel safe at work. I work late shifts in a small convenience store when I have the time from my studies. On over 90% of the shifts I am alone. Most of the time when someone tries to steal something from the store, I've got no problems facing them down and taking back what isn't theirs. I don't have to be afraid since anything less than a gun I can handle. Some members of criminal organizations in this country do have guns, and a plenty of them, but that doesn't exactly bother me since the mob doesn't shoplift. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wish poeple who live in america and are working in such shops gl in future, when every criminal could wear an assault rifel for his "self-protection". (I'm probalby over-reacting here). I'm just concered about the people who go mad and can start a massacre because they have access to guns (Does anybody remember Littleton?)
But I have to say, that I learned in this thread how ineffective the old assault-weapon ban was. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I remember Littleton. I used to live there. Somehow 1/70,000,000 of the population does not cause me to jump out of my skin in fear or call for radical changes to our laws.
Changes that would do little to stop any sort of killings. Remember that the AWB was in place for 5 years when Columbine happened.
<!--QuoteBegin-Scylla+Sep 15 2004, 03:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scylla @ Sep 15 2004, 03:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I must admit I have a very limited view on the handling of firearms of citizens of the USA. Sometimes it looks for me that the handling of firearms is a little to careless. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I will make you and everyone else on these forums a deal then. At any time, any of you who fear firearms or wish to see them more regulated may request of me a lesson in firearms safety.
I will provide you with all the materials necessary for study and I will cover all of the costs (minus your transportation) associated with the training. So, the offer stands. Free firearms safety lesson to anyone with an opposing viewpoint.
I think a lot of the fear of firearms comes from a lack of understanding of how they work and what they actually are.
<!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 15 2004, 08:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 15 2004, 08:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I must say, your almost sexual attraction to weapons designed for the purpose of killing is slightly unnerving. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> wth? I was explaining how people who like guns dont just like them for aesthetic value. I don't own a gun and probably never will, but much like a car its how the machine looks, but also how it reacts to you.
Reasons to own firearms BESIDES for defense and 'killing people <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> '
1. History: Many of my rifles are historic value, being in a war, or important date in that nation, maybe being one of the best you can simply own.
2. Past time and hobbie. You can relax, take deep breathes in the great out doors (I love my FL weather). It's very relaxing to have to take your time and ease yourself.
3. Rewarding. Getting that bullzeye at 100 yards is quite an accomplishment, but you can set your goals furthur, TRY 400 YARS! <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> . Maybe just have a bad day, go to target practice and relax and chit-chat with others.
4. Social events. Gunshows and ranges are sometimes where you meet the nicest people. Usually (in my area) good old boys who enjoy what they were brought up on, hunting and sporting.
5. MANY sporting events. Clay pideons, sharp-shooting, chasing down a moving target (like those bunny-clay ones). There are hundreds a year to attend and learn new things about a hobby and sport you like.
6. Hunting trips. Great out door time, family time, teach the son (or even daughter, girls are better shots then boys) about a sport in the family. Reep the benefits of doing your best in this skill by getting a good turkey or duck. Duck is great for Thanksgiving than Turkey, GET ONE YOURSELF! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
7. Mechanics. Owning a firearm is somethimes like a car. You have to fine-tweek it, get parts, fix things yourself, customize it, or you could buy them then to fix it up and resale like what some do to make a living. It can lead you to make a change that could be revolutionary for others and get a good penny from doing it too. Gunsmithing is going to be a lost art soon, and being ablew to machine a part or have the mechanical ability can REALLY help others, your wallet, and yourself from the great career you could have.
See it's political cartoonists and comedians like this that actually kinda make me mad. Especially about this whole assault weapons ban. It's easier for them to leap on the bandwagon then actually do some of their own research. Even the Daily Show is slipping in that respect.
The interesting thing about any satire is the element of truth <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Which is absent in the cartoon about the ban completely, which, incidentally, is why it isnt funny <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 17 2004, 03:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 17 2004, 03:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Which is absent in the cartoon about the ban completely, which, incidentally, is why it isnt funny <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And I'm sure all the families victimized by the Columbine tradegy would agree with you. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You DO know that the assault weapons ban didnt actually ban any weapons right? Only certain (mostly cosmetic) attachments to them? And I'm sure families victimized in Columbine don't find the cartoon funny either, albeit for completely different reasons.
It was most definitely a step in the right direction and it did deter people from buying weapons so in that sense it was effective, even if far from perfect. If it actually did ban weapons you guys would probably be even more mad about it and overjoyed that the ban is over.
And for the record, I never said the satire was funny. You used the term funny, not I. I think the satire keys in on the problems with gun control in America today.
I really fail to see how it deterred anyone from buying a weapon. If someone were to only buy a gun because they could attach a bayonet lug to it, then yeah I guess it would deter them, but that never happened.
What I think is really wrong with gun control today (and the rest of politics) is people dont look things up for themselves. Politicians see people up in arms (pun unintended) about so called assault weapons, so they make up something that really doesnt so anything useful, slap the name "assault weapons ban" on it and boom they have the backing of a large part of the country. Meanwhile they think since it doesnt really ban weapons they'll get backing of the pro gun group, but it all backfires because someone noticed that they got played.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It was most definitely a step in the right direction and it did deter people from buying weapons so in that sense it was effective, even if far from perfect. If it actually did ban weapons you guys would probably be even more mad about it and overjoyed that the ban is over. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
a) It didn't deter people from buying weapons. People WANTED to buy them, they just couldn't because they were responsible gun owners. Deterrence implies it discouraged them. It didn't.... It **** them off because it limited the features responsible gun owners could have while not doing anything to significantly reduce crime. A criminal doesn't give a crap about a bayonet lug. He'll just go buy a legal, post-ban rifle and go on his spree regardless.
b) The ban was a FAILURE. It failed. It failed to reduce crime significantly, and it failed to ban the weapons used in the crimes in the first place. Therefore, it wasn't re-newed.
Democrats are getting mad, saying "The ban didn't do what it was supposed to do, and instead of it being OUR fault for our vague wording, it's the gun manufacturers fault. They sold weapons with the features removed."
If that is the case, then why are they angry that it expired?
Because to them, ANY gun legislation is a step in the right direction. Even a failed one. As long as it restricts gun owners SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, it's a "step in the right direction" for them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Burncycle+Sep 17 2004, 03:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Sep 17 2004, 03:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It was most definitely a step in the right direction and it did deter people from buying weapons so in that sense it was effective, even if far from perfect. If it actually did ban weapons you guys would probably be even more mad about it and overjoyed that the ban is over. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
a) It didn't deter people from buying weapons. People WANTED to buy them, they just couldn't because they were responsible gun owners. Deterrence implies it discouraged them. It didn't.... It **** them off because it limited the features responsible gun owners could have while not doing anything to significantly reduce crime. A criminal doesn't give a crap about a bayonet lug. He'll just go buy a legal, post-ban rifle and go on his spree regardless.
b) The ban was a FAILURE. It failed. It failed to reduce crime significantly, and it failed to ban the weapons used in the crimes in the first place. Therefore, it wasn't re-newed.
Democrats are getting mad, saying "The ban didn't do what it was supposed to do, and instead of it being OUR fault for our vague wording, it's the gun manufacturers fault. They sold weapons with the features removed."
If that is the case, then why are they angry that it expired?
Because to them, ANY gun legislation is a step in the right direction. Even a failed one. As long as it restricts gun owners SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, it's a "step in the right direction" for them.
That irritates me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> a) Yeah it did. There's even people on this very thread that admitted that they were finally able to buy guns now because it was less of a hassle. It also reduced the effectiveness of guns which was significant statistically. Every life counts, does it not?
b) Yeah it failed because the ban criteria was massaged by NRA members in Congress. They aren't going to pass a ban that was actually effective so they gimped it.
So of course democrats are complaining that it didn't do what it was supposed to do; they know it was gimped from the start. But it was a start, and now instead of moving forward to exact more changes, the ban gets killed before theres a chance to make it even more effective.
So is it directly the fault of gun owners, of course not. But if gun owners and the NRA hadn't made such a big stink about it in the first place and instead tried to show some restraint and responsibility, we would have a safer America.
But now the ban is over and gun owners are free to protect thier property from the shadow warriors coming to get them. Hooray for homeland security.
<!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Sep 16 2004, 10:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Sep 16 2004, 10:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> a) Yeah it did. There's even people on this very thread that admitted that they were finally able to buy guns now because it was less of a hassle. It also reduced the effectiveness of guns which was significant statistically. Every life counts, does it not? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If anything, by reducing pointless features on guns, it just made them more efficient.
The guns I own which are legal <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> are only for protection of the family and for a good father - son go out and shoot some paper.
Plus these video's seem to be so anti-gun. OMG if someone buys a gun they will have fully automatic weapons and will kill thousand of people!!!!! I get that impression from the first one. I have with my dad's collection about... 35-45 guns. Give or take dont know the exact amount of pistol's we have. I dont see me or him going "LOL 50 round clips lets go shoot up the town".
Its a no brainer. I don't even need to cite statistics. If there are less guns purchased then there are less people shooting guns, which means less deaths. That's all ANY gun ban could do or promise. Unfortunately this gun ban was not as effective as it could or should have been, but it most definitely had an effect on the amount of deaths.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its a no brainer. I don't even need to cite statistics. If there are less guns purchased then there are less people shooting guns, which means less deaths. That's all ANY gun ban could do or promise. Unfortunately this gun ban was not as effective as it could or should have been, but it most definitely had an effect on the amount of deaths. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What world do you live in? If you make guns illegal to own, then people who own guns legitimately cannot buy them <b><u><span style='font-family:Geneva'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><i>BUT CRIMINALS STILL CAN!</span></span></u></i></b>
Criminals do not buy weapons legally! I swear, liberals are purposefully ignoring reality here. Think man, think! Criminals buy weapons through illegal arms dealers. They rarely purchase through legitimate gun dealers of any sort, because those weapons are easily tracked. Criminals buy guns that don't have serial numbers, that are bought and sold overseas and brought here.
Guy, you really really really really really really really really REALLY need to think about what you are saying. More guns in more houses means less crime. A criminal is not going to go to a house where someone has a high probablity of owning a gun, particularly a pistol.
Think about a bank robbery for a minute: bank robberies occur because a robber has a gun, and the victims do not. Therefore, the robbers have little risk of not getting out of the bank, because they have a significant advantage. It is only when the police arrive that the threat goes up. However, if 1/5 Americans carry a concealed weapon, the threat is far higher. The robbers might not make it past the first "everyone get..." before three guys and an old lady pull out their gats. Now they're outgunned, and the police are on their way.
<!--QuoteBegin-crypt+Sep 15 2004, 08:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (crypt @ Sep 15 2004, 08:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seems like you missed some basic history lessons. Under the nazi-regime the majority of german people supported them. I think with armed citizens even more jews were killed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And it seems that you got served with a simplified version of history. Even as you statement is generally correct because many of Germans voted for the NSDAP (nearly 50%) and many others accepted them as temporary solution to bring security and steadiness into the Weimarer Republic. What a big fault.
Also the majority of Germans were not anti-Semitic (but all know what happened).
The main resistance in the Nazi dictatorship comes ironically mainly by parts of the German Wehrmacht. Ironically because of the support of military and former military was a big share that the NSDAP got to power. It’s not that kind that the NSDAP got to power over night. It was a way to power and a backbone of it was the SA build up as security force of the party. The SA was well armed because of the support of the militaries, the socialists and communist weren’t.
The lack of armed citizens is a reason there was no appreciable resistance of citizens in the Nazi dictatorship. I suggest you read the story of Georg Elser and what he had to do to get enough explosives for an assassination attempt.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Sep 17 2004, 05:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Sep 17 2004, 05:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Relsan, due to forum rules, I cannot point out the painfully obvious.
However, I will have some fun with you. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its a no brainer. I don't even need to cite statistics. If there are less guns purchased then there are less people shooting guns, which means less deaths. That's all ANY gun ban could do or promise. Unfortunately this gun ban was not as effective as it could or should have been, but it most definitely had an effect on the amount of deaths. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What world do you live in? If you make guns illegal to own, then people who own guns legitimately cannot buy them <b><u><span style='font-family:Geneva'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><i>BUT CRIMINALS STILL CAN!</span></span></u></i></b>
I find your thought pattern so disturbing, it's hard to put to words. Criminals do not buy weapons legally! I swear, liberals are purposefully ignoring reality here. Think man, think! Criminals buy weapons through illegal arms dealers. They rarely purchase through legitimate gun dealers of any sort, because those weapons are easily tracked. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hardened criminals are not the only culprits killing people with guns. A lot of these kids got their guns out of their daddy's den closet, they didn't buy them from illegal arms dealers, all they needed was the hidden key under the hallway mat.
All of these school massacres were the result of kids who got dealt a bad hand and made the wrong decision, they weren't hardened criminals. But the weapons ban at least made gun access to the typical gun owner more difficult and thus prevented such a scenario from occuring as often. It wasn't a perfect ban but at least it saved lives and was a step in the right direction.
And you say more guns in more houses mean less crime? I do not agree with that because I think theres more of a chance of something going wrong, and if the school massacres proved anything its not only that things WILL go wrong but that the death ratio is exponential when things DO go wrong.
But I guess you are talking more about hardened criminals breaking and entering your home. However, if they were crafty enough to get a gun illegally it stands to reason they are crafty enough to break into your house when you are not home.
And thats the other thing, most criminals that are infiltrating a property would rather NOT kill people; they just want all your stuff. These disgruntled kids that went to school with their daddy's gun had something entirely different on their mind: MURDER! DEATH! KILL!
And by the way, do you see how I was able to make that arguement without insulting you personally? Would be nice if I was extended the same courtesy.
Comments
Pretty much what Zig said actually. Why own a classic car if it doesnt work? Just replace car with firearm.
Pretty much what Zig said actually. Why own a classic car if it doesnt work? Just replace car with firearm. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You hit on something there.
Currently I am aquiring several firearms that represent leaps in technology. I am arranging these in an exploded format to illustrate how they are engineered.
to Scylla:
I would normally argue that only responsible people should be allowed to own firearms. However, in practice this would not work. Who would determine if a person is responsible? I am not sure that I would want the government to decide this. What is to prevent them from only providing firearms to those that support their views and causes?
Literacy tests for voting had the same problems. In the South, blacks were given much more stringent tests than whites, and were thus prevented from voting. What would prevent some racist sherriff from only granting firearm priveledges to his Klan buddies?
(despite the fact that we should never treat a Right as a Priveledge)
Rights are granted by your Creator (whether you believe in God or just DNA)
Priveledges are granted by your government and can be taken away on a whim.
Seems like you missed some basic history lessons. Under the nazi-regime the majority of german people supported them. I think with armed citizens even more jews were killed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for safety, I feel safe at work. I work late shifts in a small convenience store when I have the time from my studies. On over 90% of the shifts I am alone. Most of the time when someone tries to steal something from the store, I've got no problems facing them down and taking back what isn't theirs. I don't have to be afraid since anything less than a gun I can handle. Some members of criminal organizations in this country do have guns, and a plenty of them, but that doesn't exactly bother me since the mob doesn't shoplift.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish poeple who live in america and are working in such shops gl in future, when every criminal could wear an assault rifel for his "self-protection". (I'm probalby over-reacting here).
I'm just concered about the people who go mad and can start a massacre because they have access to guns (Does anybody remember Littleton?)
But I have to say, that I learned in this thread how ineffective the old assault-weapon ban was.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I must say, your almost sexual attraction to weapons designed for the purpose of killing is slightly unnerving.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not just guns either. Swords, knives, sais, its about looks, yes, but also the feel of the weapon and how it works.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Maybe tradition was the wrong term for it but I understand that you won’t like to give up a fundamental right. And as German knowing the historical background of the Nazi dictatorship I see the positives of armed citizens. The Nazi’s wouldn’t be able to come to power that easy if Germany had armed citizens. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Nazis were voted into power, by a nation that felt desperate for a quick fix return to its once military and economic greatness. I belive they actually lost the election by a tiny amout, the got 47% or something, then got into power on some technicality. Im pretty vauge on it, because I only studied it in high school.
Pretty much what Zig said actually. Why own a classic car if it doesnt work? Just replace car with firearm. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You hit on something there.
Currently I am aquiring several firearms that represent leaps in technology. I am arranging these in an exploded format to illustrate how they are engineered.
to Scylla:
I would normally argue that only responsible people should be allowed to own firearms. However, in practice this would not work. Who would determine if a person is responsible? I am not sure that I would want the government to decide this. What is to prevent them from only providing firearms to those that support their views and causes?
Literacy tests for voting had the same problems. In the South, blacks were given much more stringent tests than whites, and were thus prevented from voting. What would prevent some racist sherriff from only granting firearm priveledges to his Klan buddies?
(despite the fact that we should never treat a Right as a Priveledge)
Rights are granted by your Creator (whether you believe in God or just DNA)
Priveledges are granted by your government and can be taken away on a whim. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, Wiz, you hit the nail on the head with the rights / privilages argument.
It is a "right" for a person to own property.
It is a "right" for a person to express themselves.
It is a "right" for a person to defend themselves.
Now, what is a gun? A gun is a machine. It is a tool. It can be a weapon. In order to deny someone the "right" to use a gun, you must first give the gun properties that it doesn't normally have. You must make an ascociation between guns and fear, guns and death, guns and violence.
Guns do not have those properties - people have those properties. Being that people are intellegent, they will grab for the best machine/tool in order to be more fearful, more deadly, and more violent.
So what about gun control? Well, as soon as you assume that having a gun is a "privilage" then you also create a group of "privilaged people". As soon as you do that, then there is likewise a group of "non-privilaged" - and the method for discerning who should be "privilaged" immediatly comes into question.
So how should one discern? Gun ownership is a "right" as it should be. However, people should loose their right to ownership based on what they do. The same goes for driving a car - you loose your right (liscence) when you drive drunk.
There is the jist of it. Regardless of all the good reasons why people shouldn't have guns, taking away rights trumps all of them. You can't simply take away a right because of fear, death, and violence. Apply this to other legislation - banning violent video games because kids imitate them, banning religious apparel in classrooms because a school is "secular"... the list can go on and on.
my grandmother lives about one town over.. it's a much more suburbial town, and the police there are fewer (because it's not a full-on city like where i live). there has been a string of daylight armed robberies, where the perpetrators knock on doors and, if the door opens, they barge in and steal things at gunpoint.
now this really infuriates me.. because i know that these criminals are taking advantage of the limited police activity in this area, and the people who live there are of the very heavily sheltered-liberal variety. this town might as well be in a Brady Bunch style sitcom: nothing bad is ever supposed to happen there.
but it does, because people just aren't armed, and because the police can't fix everything.
I'm just concered about the people who go mad and can start a massacre because they have access to guns (Does anybody remember Littleton?)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt that criminals will suddenly go out and pick up a bunch of assault rifles that they couldn't get before. Most criminals prefer pistols or machine pistols like the Mac-10 because they're easy to conceal. Fully automatic weapons are already restricted.
Remember that Littleton and the string of shootings happened while the AWB was in effect, not before it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I must admit I have a very limited view on the handling of firearms of citizens of the USA. Sometimes it looks for me that the handling of firearms is a little to careless.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because you never hear about the responsible gun owners who keep their weapons secure and don't blow their office away. The vast majority of gun owners don't saddle up their horses and ride around town looking for a gunfight. I'm sorry to say that many of the conceptions non-Americans have about America are woefully inaccurate. In high school, I hosted a German exchange student and she was shocked at how much the students here actually did. She was under the impression that teenagers just sat around and mooched off their parents. So when she saw that a lot of teens had after school and summer jobs in addition to school work and sports.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for safety, I feel safe at work. I work late shifts in a small convenience store when I have the time from my studies. On over 90% of the shifts I am alone. Most of the time when someone tries to steal something from the store, I've got no problems facing them down and taking back what isn't theirs. I don't have to be afraid since anything less than a gun I can handle. Some members of criminal organizations in this country do have guns, and a plenty of them, but that doesn't exactly bother me since the mob doesn't shoplift.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish poeple who live in america and are working in such shops gl in future, when every criminal could wear an assault rifel for his "self-protection". (I'm probalby over-reacting here).
I'm just concered about the people who go mad and can start a massacre because they have access to guns (Does anybody remember Littleton?)
But I have to say, that I learned in this thread how ineffective the old assault-weapon ban was. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I remember Littleton. I used to live there. Somehow 1/70,000,000 of the population does not cause me to jump out of my skin in fear or call for radical changes to our laws.
Changes that would do little to stop any sort of killings. Remember that the AWB was in place for 5 years when Columbine happened.
I must admit I have a very limited view on the handling of firearms of citizens of the USA. Sometimes it looks for me that the handling of firearms is a little to careless. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will make you and everyone else on these forums a deal then. At any time, any of you who fear firearms or wish to see them more regulated may request of me a lesson in firearms safety.
I will provide you with all the materials necessary for study and I will cover all of the costs (minus your transportation) associated with the training. So, the offer stands. Free firearms safety lesson to anyone with an opposing viewpoint.
I think a lot of the fear of firearms comes from a lack of understanding of how they work and what they actually are.
wth? I was explaining how people who like guns dont just like them for aesthetic value. I don't own a gun and probably never will, but much like a car its how the machine looks, but also how it reacts to you.
1. History: Many of my rifles are historic value, being in a war, or important date in that nation, maybe being one of the best you can simply own.
2. Past time and hobbie. You can relax, take deep breathes in the great out doors (I love my FL weather). It's very relaxing to have to take your time and ease yourself.
3. Rewarding. Getting that bullzeye at 100 yards is quite an accomplishment, but you can set your goals furthur, TRY 400 YARS! <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> . Maybe just have a bad day, go to target practice and relax and chit-chat with others.
4. Social events. Gunshows and ranges are sometimes where you meet the nicest people. Usually (in my area) good old boys who enjoy what they were brought up on, hunting and sporting.
5. MANY sporting events. Clay pideons, sharp-shooting, chasing down a moving target (like those bunny-clay ones). There are hundreds a year to attend and learn new things about a hobby and sport you like.
6. Hunting trips. Great out door time, family time, teach the son (or even daughter, girls are better shots then boys) about a sport in the family. Reep the benefits of doing your best in this skill by getting a good turkey or duck. Duck is great for Thanksgiving than Turkey, GET ONE YOURSELF! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
7. Mechanics. Owning a firearm is somethimes like a car. You have to fine-tweek it, get parts, fix things yourself, customize it, or you could buy them then to fix it up and resale like what some do to make a living. It can lead you to make a change that could be revolutionary for others and get a good penny from doing it too. Gunsmithing is going to be a lost art soon, and being ablew to machine a part or have the mechanical ability can REALLY help others, your wallet, and yourself from the great career you could have.
I could think of more, I'll get some later.
<a href='http://www.markfiore.com/animation/extravaganza.html' target='_blank'>http://www.markfiore.com/animation/extravaganza.html</a>
NO PAYMENTS TILL NOVEMBER, GUYS!!!
Well... if you didn't like that one, how about this one!
<a href='http://www.markfiore.com/animation/violence.html' target='_blank'>http://www.markfiore.com/animation/violence.html</a>
It's a little more relevant!
And I'm sure all the families victimized by the Columbine tradegy would agree with you. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And for the record, I never said the satire was funny. You used the term funny, not I. I think the satire keys in on the problems with gun control in America today.
What I think is really wrong with gun control today (and the rest of politics) is people dont look things up for themselves. Politicians see people up in arms (pun unintended) about so called assault weapons, so they make up something that really doesnt so anything useful, slap the name "assault weapons ban" on it and boom they have the backing of a large part of the country. Meanwhile they think since it doesnt really ban weapons they'll get backing of the pro gun group, but it all backfires because someone noticed that they got played.
a) It didn't deter people from buying weapons. People WANTED to buy them, they just couldn't because they were responsible gun owners. Deterrence implies it discouraged them. It didn't.... It **** them off because it limited the features responsible gun owners could have while not doing anything to significantly reduce crime. A criminal doesn't give a crap about a bayonet lug. He'll just go buy a legal, post-ban rifle and go on his spree regardless.
b) The ban was a FAILURE. It failed. It failed to reduce crime significantly, and it failed to ban the weapons used in the crimes in the first place. Therefore, it wasn't re-newed.
Democrats are getting mad, saying "The ban didn't do what it was supposed to do, and instead of it being OUR fault for our vague wording, it's the gun manufacturers fault. They sold weapons with the features removed."
If that is the case, then why are they angry that it expired?
Because to them, ANY gun legislation is a step in the right direction. Even a failed one. As long as it restricts gun owners SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, it's a "step in the right direction" for them.
That irritates me.
a) It didn't deter people from buying weapons. People WANTED to buy them, they just couldn't because they were responsible gun owners. Deterrence implies it discouraged them. It didn't.... It **** them off because it limited the features responsible gun owners could have while not doing anything to significantly reduce crime. A criminal doesn't give a crap about a bayonet lug. He'll just go buy a legal, post-ban rifle and go on his spree regardless.
b) The ban was a FAILURE. It failed. It failed to reduce crime significantly, and it failed to ban the weapons used in the crimes in the first place. Therefore, it wasn't re-newed.
Democrats are getting mad, saying "The ban didn't do what it was supposed to do, and instead of it being OUR fault for our vague wording, it's the gun manufacturers fault. They sold weapons with the features removed."
If that is the case, then why are they angry that it expired?
Because to them, ANY gun legislation is a step in the right direction. Even a failed one. As long as it restricts gun owners SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, it's a "step in the right direction" for them.
That irritates me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
a) Yeah it did. There's even people on this very thread that admitted that they were finally able to buy guns now because it was less of a hassle. It also reduced the effectiveness of guns which was significant statistically. Every life counts, does it not?
b) Yeah it failed because the ban criteria was massaged by NRA members in Congress. They aren't going to pass a ban that was actually effective so they gimped it.
So of course democrats are complaining that it didn't do what it was supposed to do; they know it was gimped from the start. But it was a start, and now instead of moving forward to exact more changes, the ban gets killed before theres a chance to make it even more effective.
So is it directly the fault of gun owners, of course not. But if gun owners and the NRA hadn't made such a big stink about it in the first place and instead tried to show some restraint and responsibility, we would have a safer America.
But now the ban is over and gun owners are free to protect thier property from the shadow warriors coming to get them. Hooray for homeland security.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If anything, by reducing pointless features on guns, it just made them more efficient.
The guns I own which are legal <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> are only for protection of the family and for a good father - son go out and shoot some paper.
Plus these video's seem to be so anti-gun. OMG if someone buys a gun they will have fully automatic weapons and will kill thousand of people!!!!! I get that impression from the first one. I have with my dad's collection about... 35-45 guns. Give or take dont know the exact amount of pistol's we have. I dont see me or him going "LOL 50 round clips lets go shoot up the town".
These video's as I see them are just pure idiocy.
the amount of deaths. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What world do you live in? If you make guns illegal to own, then people who own guns legitimately cannot buy them <b><u><span style='font-family:Geneva'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><i>BUT CRIMINALS STILL CAN!</span></span></u></i></b>
Criminals do not buy weapons legally! I swear, liberals are purposefully ignoring reality here. Think man, think! Criminals buy weapons through illegal arms dealers. They rarely purchase through legitimate gun dealers of any sort, because those weapons are easily tracked. Criminals buy guns that don't have serial numbers, that are bought and sold overseas and brought here.
Guy, you really really really really really really really really REALLY need to think about what you are saying. More guns in more houses means less crime. A criminal is not going to go to a house where someone has a high probablity of owning a gun, particularly a pistol.
Think about a bank robbery for a minute: bank robberies occur because a robber has a gun, and the victims do not. Therefore, the robbers have little risk of not getting out of the bank, because they have a significant advantage. It is only when the police arrive that the threat goes up. However, if 1/5 Americans carry a concealed weapon, the threat is far higher. The robbers might not make it past the first "everyone get..." before three guys and an old lady pull out their gats. Now they're outgunned, and the police are on their way.
How many ways can you spell "deterrent?"
*Edit: Removed the two almost insults.*
And it seems that you got served with a simplified version of history. Even as you statement is generally correct because many of Germans voted for the NSDAP (nearly 50%) and many others accepted them as temporary solution to bring security and steadiness into the Weimarer Republic. What a big fault.
Also the majority of Germans were not anti-Semitic (but all know what happened).
The main resistance in the Nazi dictatorship comes ironically mainly by parts of the German Wehrmacht. Ironically because of the support of military and former military was a big share that the NSDAP got to power. It’s not that kind that the NSDAP got to power over night. It was a way to power and a backbone of it was the SA build up as security force of the party. The SA was well armed because of the support of the militaries, the socialists and communist weren’t.
The lack of armed citizens is a reason there was no appreciable resistance of citizens in the Nazi dictatorship. I suggest you read the story of Georg Elser and what he had to do to get enough explosives for an assassination attempt.
However, I will have some fun with you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its a no brainer. I don't even need to cite statistics. If there are less guns purchased then there are less people shooting guns, which means less deaths. That's all ANY gun ban could do or promise. Unfortunately this gun ban was not as effective as it could or should have been, but it most definitely had an effect on
the amount of deaths. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What world do you live in? If you make guns illegal to own, then people who own guns legitimately cannot buy them <b><u><span style='font-family:Geneva'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><i>BUT CRIMINALS STILL CAN!</span></span></u></i></b>
I find your thought pattern so disturbing, it's hard to put to words. Criminals do not buy weapons legally! I swear, liberals are purposefully ignoring reality here. Think man, think! Criminals buy weapons through illegal arms dealers. They rarely purchase through legitimate gun dealers of any sort, because those weapons are easily tracked. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hardened criminals are not the only culprits killing people with guns. A lot of these kids got their guns out of their daddy's den closet, they didn't buy them from illegal arms dealers, all they needed was the hidden key under the hallway mat.
All of these school massacres were the result of kids who got dealt a bad hand and made the wrong decision, they weren't hardened criminals. But the weapons ban at least made gun access to the typical gun owner more difficult and thus prevented such a scenario from occuring as often. It wasn't a perfect ban but at least it saved lives and was a step in the right direction.
And you say more guns in more houses mean less crime? I do not agree with that because I think theres more of a chance of something going wrong, and if the school massacres proved anything its not only that things WILL go wrong but that the death ratio is exponential when things DO go wrong.
But I guess you are talking more about hardened criminals breaking and entering your home. However, if they were crafty enough to get a gun illegally it stands to reason they are crafty enough to break into your house when you are not home.
And thats the other thing, most criminals that are infiltrating a property would rather NOT kill people; they just want all your stuff. These disgruntled kids that went to school with their daddy's gun had something entirely different on their mind: MURDER! DEATH! KILL!
And by the way, do you see how I was able to make that arguement without insulting you personally? Would be nice if I was extended the same courtesy.