------------------

They only mentioned accidental deaths (as Kat mentioned).

I could only imagine how astronomical the numbers would be if they counted the number of non-accidental deaths from guns.

Stats can only be used to fool the ignorant (or those that want to believe them blindly).

------------------

Because those crimes are commited by CRIMINALS. Criminals DO NOT care about gun laws!

What will taking guns away accomplish? It will accomplish rendering a law-abiding citizen helpless against a criminal who got a gun despite the gun laws because he is a criminal who doesn't care about the law.

Can we say: "Duh?"

-Warik

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warik:
The fact of the matter is that guns are for the self-defense of law-abiding citizens. Those guns that are used to commit crimes are used by CRIMINALS. Gun restrictions DO NOT stop these crimes from being commited. Do you know why?

Because those crimes are commited by CRIMINALS. Criminals DO NOT care about gun laws!

What will taking guns away accomplish? It will accomplish rendering a law-abiding citizen helpless against a criminal who got a gun despite the gun laws because he is a criminal who doesn't care about the law.

Can we say: "Duh?"

-Warik

---

Did you get that from a NRA pamphlet?

The definition of propaganda is 1). reducing something to the simplest level and 2). constantly repeating it.

With that said, I will tell you I have heard your simple reasoning hundreds of times.

Hand guns are not needed in this society and where do you think criminals get the guns? They come from legitimate citizens (if they are not that citizen already)...duh!!

Overall, 30,708 people died of firearms in 1998, a
5-percent drop from 1997 and a 22-percent drop from
the high of 39,595 in 1993. The age-adjusted death
rate from firearms was 11.3 deaths per 100,000
population in 1998, a 7.4-percent drop from 12.2 in
1997 and down sharply from the high of 15.6 in
1993.

How many of those firearms deaths are attributed to suicide?

physicians make a living off of keeping people healthy and often they are dealing with people who are dying. human life can be fragile at times. they go to work everyday and deal with human life.

some gun owners keep their guns locked in a safe and maybe break it out once a year or so. if they were like a physician and a physician's work, they would be taking the gun out everyday and running around shooting at things throughout the day, then we'll see how the statistics match up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
Did you get that from a NRA pamphlet?

---

No.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
The definition of propaganda is 1). reducing something to the simplest level and 2). constantly repeating it.

---

Your point?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
With that said, I will tell you I have heard your simple reasoning hundreds of times.

---

And you still don't understand it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
Hand guns are not needed in this society and where do you think criminals get the guns? They come from legitimate citizens (if they are not that citizen already)...duh!!

---

This is not a question of need. This is a question of right. The U.S. Constitution clearly gives its citizens the right to bear arms. Handguns are a form of arms.

And what do you mean "they come from legitimate citizens?" Legitimate citizens don't sell guns illegally to criminals. Even if tomorrow the government would barge into everyone's home and take away their handguns, there will still be a great deal of handguns out there which would be easily obtained by criminals and used against the now defenseless law-abiding citizens.

I don't own any guns, nor does my family, but I'll be damned if one day I go out to buy one and I am told that I'm "not allowed" because the U.S. Constitution is suddenly just a worthless piece of paper.

There is no gun problem in the United States.

Give up your own rights, but leave mine alone.

-Warik

------------------

That was wrong and that is why the Constitution was changed.

BTW- Where do you think all of those guns that "criminals" have come from? The gun fairy? Nope, they come from regular citizens that sell them or that use the guns themselves.

does anyone know how gun laws would work without that period of tinme where only criminals have guns?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
The US Constitution also said that women were not allowed to vote, that black people were not full citizens, that only white upper class males were allowed to vote and own land, and that slavery was allowed.

That was wrong and that is why the Constitution was changed.

---

You hit the nail right on the head. The Constitution was CHANGED. The Constitution is not being changed, it's being ignored. If you want to fool around with gun laws and/or take guns away, then change the Constitution.

Please answer me - are you saying that it should be illegal for a law-abiding citizens to possess firearms to protect themselves from those who threaten the safety of their families?

What other blatantly illogical beliefs do liberals have?

-Warik

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by danielson:
ok, just from a foreign point of view, if you guys did stick up gun laws, and all the law abiding citizens gave in their guns, wouldn't the criminals still have theirs. i know some will say let the police sort em out but there ain't wnough of them.

---

That's exactly what I'm saying. 2Thick seems to think that the criminals are going to turn in their guns and be nice boys. 2Thick seems to think that they won't continue trying to illegally obtain guns now that there are stricter gun laws.

-Warik

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by MP5:
2thick, guns also prevent crime, and I guarantee if some crazy fucker was trying to rape a woman in your family you would not scold her for using a gun to prevent it. All of our rights can lead to less that favorable results as side-effects. It is the price of freedom. Think of your right to drink beer, how many millions die from drinking and driving or cigarettes? And that is legal? Explain that to me.

---

I agree, MP5, but maybe we're wrong. Yes, I think we're wrong. 2Thick is right.

True, cigarettes and alcohol cause millions of deaths a year, but that is the fault of the smokers and the drinkers. They can control it, but choose not to, but it's different for guns.

Guns are bad! They get up and run around shooting people. Why, just this morning I was on my way to class and this gun pulled up beside me and started shooting. We must put a stop to these evil guns! Let's start arresting any guns that are walking around without a license.

See my point, 2Thick? Some people can handle weapons as responsible as they handle alcohol. Punish those who can't, not those who can. The gun does not have a mind of its own.

-Warik

------------------

BY THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL!!!

If you take away the guns from the average citizen, suddenly the criminal has the upper hand as they don't fear retaliation.

�FUCK OFF!�

BTW- As for self-defense...More gun owners kill/injure themselves (or a loved one) than defend themselves with their guns.

As for Switzerland:

"Swiss citizens are generally_very_law abiding, and the Swiss have not seen the need for the sorts of harsh justice and broad police powers seen elsewhere. There is no death penalty, and sentences in Switzerland are usually short for all crimes except murder. All prisoners must serve at least two-thirds of their nominal sentences. Judges are popularly elected in some cantons. Violent movies can be banned, and racist and anti- Semitic acts, speech or publications are strictly prohibited. Arrests can only be made with warrant, and suspects must be charged within 24 hours after arrest. Foreigners who have been denied political asylum, however, can be held in administrative detention for up to a year if they are considered a risk to escape deportation. Foreigners can also be stopped by police on the street and asked for their identity papers. Police permits are required for public meetings, but are generally issued unless there is the likelihood of violence. Some cantons have official state-sponsored churches, but taxes to fund them are optional. Though narcotics are illegal, the laws have only recently been enforced with any severity" To read more go to: http://www.guncite.com/tpgswiss.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by TxCollegeguy:
...I'm wrong but wasn't the constitutional segment reguarding guns put in to allow the citizens to protect and arm themselves against the govt. Not so they could just hunt or stop someone from breaking into their home.

---

Okay I hate to say this (since I hate to spread propaganda-like information) but that was in 1776 when there was a war fought for independence. The right to bear arms was to fight off foreign armies and natives. It was also only a right for white, male, landowners. Or did you guys forget that part in history class?

Well well well. Does the hypocracy ever cease?!?

I was comparing the citizens and their nature when given different rights. You obviously failed to make that distinction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
The idea that "only criminals will have guns" if they are outlawed is used by the gun lobby to stir emotional responses from people (instead of thinking rationally).

---

So, are you saying that criminals will NOT have guns if they are outlawed?

Fact is, if guns are outlawed, two kinds of people wil have them: 1) Criminals, 2) Law-enforcement officials.

Law-enforcement officials arrive AFTER the crime has been commited. Do you dispute that? What's a man supposed to do if his home is invaded? Call 911 and wait for the police? Lol. Can you say "shotgun?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
BTW- As for self-defense...More gun owners kill/injure themselves (or a loved one) than defend themselves with their guns.

---

That is their problem, not mine. If they are not responsible enough to handle weapons then they should be intelligent enough to keep their hands off of them. I do not own a gun, but if I did I would use it in exactly two places: 1) The shooting range, 2) My house at 3 in the morning against an unwelcomed guest.

Have you ever been in a car accident, 2Thick? Cut yourself with a knife in the kitchen? Fell down the stairs? Slipped on a wet floor, etc, etc. Should we outlaw cars, knives, stairs, wet floors, etc?

If you heard: "People have accidentally injured themselves with cars. Cars are now being outlawed." on the news, I'm sure you would think: "What a bone-headed idea."

That's what I think of your opinion on guns.

-Warik

------------------

Thick I am suprised that you are not anti steroid since they can harm a person too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myo-genetic:
For someone who jumps and down screaming that people are people, everyone is equal and the same, and to think otherwise is racist....and then say something like THAT above me.....

Well well well. Does the hypocracy ever

cease?!?

---

What are you talking about?

Easiest way to impose martial law:

1. Disarm the citizenry.
2. Impose anything you want.

But that can't happen here, right? That day will never come, right? People aren't self-interested right? Those in power don't act in the interest of increasing that power, do they?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MP5:
Not all white males owned slaves back then!

---

When did I say anything about slaves?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
What are you talking about?

---

That's exactly my point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
The US is nothing like Switzerland and trying to compare the two is ignorant.

---

People are people remember? Or did someone hack your password again?

True "white" men wrote the const. but Those rights were also given to "freedmen" in the south before the Civil war. Those same freedmen who owned slaves. Those rights weren't always protected by the courts, but it wasn't denied to all non white people. At the time it was written it was almost a forbiden thought that women might be involved in the fighting, but contrary to what popular history says women did fight during the Revolutionary war, as well as other wars our country has been in. They were very remote situations and weren't the norm.

I believe the reasoning behind the clause was to prevent the posibility that the people would not be able to rise up against the govt. It was written with the specific concept that in case of tyrany or opression from the govt it was the right and expected of the people to bear arms against that govt.

Was the interpration I was given wrong?Without the right to bear arms does anyone really believe that we would not slowly and physically be tested by the govt as to what our rights are? Since we wouldn't be able to protect ourselves how could we stop them?

I also believe that though govts including ours has chemical, biological, nuclear weapons that could easily wipe us out that it is also a deterent for an invasion by foreign enemies....Though some armies have good guns and weapons, do you think the thought of invading a country with 80million americans having some sort of protection doesn't help us? I mean think about it. Would a person care what type of gun it was killed by?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myo-genetic:
People are people remember? Or did someone hack your password again?

---

Okay here is the definition of ignorant.

ig�no�rant (gnr-nt)

Lacking education or knowledge.

You can be equally human but don't try to put words into my mouth and assume that I ever said all people are the same intellect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattTheSkywalker:
2Thick,

Easiest way to impose martial law:

1. Disarm the citizenry.
2. Impose anything you want.

But that can't happen here, right? That day will never come, right? People aren't self-interested right? Those in power don't act in the interest of increasing that power, do they?

Come on.

---

You are just poking at me to get your shits and giggles.

You know that gun laws work in stages over many decades. They are not going to take your guns one day after the bill passes. Also, gun control is actually handgun control. There is no need to hand guns in a civil society (even for policemen). If gun control legislation takes place it will takes close to a generation to phase out most handguns. Also the fewer handguns that are produced, the less there will be to buy.

You are saying that people in the United States are of far less inteligence as a whole vs. Switzerland? That sounds pretty prejudiced coming even from a liberal.

I mean if you wanted to conceal a gun I'm sure someone has already built weapons that can be concealled as a pistol. I think riffles and shotguns are more dangerous then a pistol anyway, not to mention certain clips are out their to allow you to shoot more.

I would rather take my chances shooting someone with a shotgun vs a pistol

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myo-genetic:

I was comparing the citizens and their nature when given different rights. You obviously failed to make that distinction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myo-genetic:
You are saying that people in the United States are of far less inteligence as a whole vs. Switzerland? That sounds pretty prejudiced coming even from a liberal.

---

1. Swiss citizens are generally_very_law abiding.

2. The Swiss have not seen the need for the sorts of harsh justice and broad police powers seen elsewhere. This is not the case in the US

3. There is no death penalty, and sentences in Switzerland are usually short for all crimes except murder. This is definitely not the case in the US

4. Violent movies can be banned, and racist and anti- Semitic acts, speech or publications are strictly prohibited. This is against the Bill of Rights in the US

5. Arrests can only be made with warrant, and suspects must be charged within 24 hours after arrest. This is not the case in the US

6. Foreigners can also be stopped by police on the street and asked for their identity papers. This is against the Constitution in the US

7. Police permits are required for public meetings, but are generally issued unless there is the likelihood of violence.
This is not the case in most of the US

8. Some cantons have official state-sponsored churches, but taxes to fund them are optional. This is against the Constitution in the US

9. Though narcotics are illegal, the laws have only recently been enforced with any severity. This is definitely not the case in the US

10. some drug abusers are instead now being given their drugs under medical supervision, as a public health measure. This is not the case in the US

11. Violent crime is still rare, despite the widespread availability of weapons. Violent crime is considered a big problem in the US

12. The front line troops of the_Auszug_must keep their fully-automatic military assault rifle and seventy-two rounds of sealed ammunition at home during their term of service from age 21-32. This is why they are the most armed people in the world. Most of the population has weapons in their home because they are in the military.

If you think that the US compares to Switzerland then you need to go to a library and do some serious research!!

And enough with the little pot shots at everyones intelligence. Of all people, I expect you to be more civil and mature.

So ez... this was easier than the Reps vs. Dems thread.

Will someone please be so kind as to point me in the direction of the next liberal BS thread?

-Warik

------------------

My wife is an avowed gun-hater. I belong to the NRA and have for many years. Needless to say, we have had our share of discussions like these and I respect all opinions.

8 years ago, while she was watching t.v., some young punk threw a rock, breaking our plate glass window. They said "lets bust these crackers" The first words screamed out of her mouth were "Get your gun!" I did and ended up pointing it at these miscreants entering through our window. Seeing a weapon pointed at them from behind cover (the wife retreated to the bedroom), they had second thoughts about whatever they were going to do.

They left rapidly and were never caught. The police said I would have been justified in firing the pistol at them, but i did not.

Bottom line: I respect all opinions on this matter, but I shudder to think what would have happened had a pistol not been available to me.

BTW, the wife hates me bringing this incident up when we debate this issue...lol!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warik:
I like how I post stuff and 2Thick doesn't respond. I guess that means that I won.

So ez... this was easier than the Reps vs. Dems thread.

Will someone please be so kind as to point me in the direction of the next liberal BS thread?

-Warik

---

I do not reply to you because you do not follow a count/counter-point type of discussion.

I am laying down nuggets of logic and you trample over them with the hooves of emotion and false dilemma.

There is no point in replying to you because you do not listen. You just say what you want over and over again...kind of like Joseph Geobbles did 50+ years ago.

Actually I'm not poking fun at you. I take your opinions seriously, for I know you hold them strongly and are well educated.

I often disagree.....and try to express it maturely.

That said, disarming the citizenry is opening a can that should stay shut. The threat of armed revolution, no matter how remote, must remain. Remove the threat, and the governement can treat us like most third world governments treat their people.

I do think u guys need to do something about guns, because too many tragedies happen over there. i just think your country is unique as its so big and so many people have guns that its gonna be impossible to stop a gang of AK-47 totin' maniacs to shoot the crap out of a hell of a lot of people. the police can't respond quick enough to stop the damage.

there isn;t an answer to that as i don;t think theres a workable solution. which is a pity because while enjoy firing guns, i personally believe the only place for them is in the armed forces or a range.

given the right hunting riffle and someone who can shoot a moving target, yeah you could take out a group of Ak-47 totin maniacs

I bet given the right urban or country surroundings for cover that I could lay out a good ambush with homemade explosives and with my father and his younger brother we could do ok. I'm not saying we would be able extremely leathal but I think given a decent rifle with a decent scope and a persons ability to shoot and to shoot moving targets that they would be able to hold their own for awhile anyway...Especially if they were in area they are more familiar with.

Didn't you hear thats why the hill billies are leathal....I guess you could say the same thing for the crazy ex military coon asses in my faimly

You can distort statistics to either defend or attack any argument. However, your comparison of deaths caused by doctors versus deaths caused by hand guns is ridiculous.

How about the rate of deaths caused by knives and beatings versus handguns?

May1010

Then instead of people using guns to harm people, we'd have people using bow and arrows. Guess we should ban them. Blowguns. Ban em'. Also ban slingshots, knives, automobiles, forks, bats, etc etc, and while you're at it cut off everyone's hands and feet too.