Young Gun slingers kill an Aussie

[Steve]

Always, but you cannot save people from themselves - and to order them, organise them and legislate for them to limit 'needless deaths by decree' is to seek to deprive them of the very liberty you set out to value, applaud and defend.

Your alternative would seem to infer a Society where no one dies - but no-one lives either.

I know which Society I would vote for, and it wouldn't be yours my friend. Sorry.

EXACTLY.

Freedom does have a price. I'm not saying a needless death is a necessary price. Far from it. It is a tragedy pure and simple. Still, for a government to legislate and remove rights heads down an Orwellian path.'

Jim, as usual, has posted lots of stats to further his left agenda. By God, he's so righteous and so good, how can you argue?

Of course he did fail to point out there's no constitutional right to driving drunk (and it's, in fact, against the law), there's no constitutional right to smoke, ride a motorcycle, or even drive a car. So, the analogies are completely irrelevant.

Oh, by the way, 2/3 of all US gun deaths are suicides, not homicides. The homicide rate was 7 per 100,000 in the early nineties, it's half that now and continues to drop. A conveniently overlooked.

Haven't we been down this thread before?

:dead:

 

[roaldin]

Then, net, net, net...wouldn't you be right back where you were before you turned in your original gun to be destroyed, sir? That is, you'll again have a gun in your house...a gun some crook can steal and do with whatever he pleases (just like the scumbags involved in the subject drive by/murder, I'd wager). The only diff is you would then be in violation of your own new-found stance re: guns as well.

'Just curious; when you declare your new gun will only be used, "for occasional pest reduction and nothing more"...how do you really know that? IOW, what if your new gun is stolen?

As I said, I am not totally against guns. The gun I handed in was a semi auto, I had it for the wrong reasons. My post was about my attitude - that changed.
I realise how difficult it is to understand a middle of the road position in a country so polarised on every subject.

Tim.

 

[Jeff Young]

EXACTLY.

Freedom does have a price. I'm not saying a needless death is a necessary price. Far from it. It is a tragedy pure and simple. Still, for a government to legislate and remove rights heads down an Orwellian path.'

Jim, as usual, has posted lots of stats to further his left agenda. By God, he's so righteous and so good, how can you argue?

Of course he did fail to point out there's no constitutional right to driving drunk (and it's, in fact, against the law), there's no constitutional right to smoke, ride a motorcycle, or even drive a car. So, the analogies are completely irrelevant.

Oh, by the way, 2/3 of all US gun deaths are suicides, not homicides. The homicide rate was 7 per 100,000 in the early nineties, it's half that now and continues to drop. A conveniently overlooked.

Haven't we been down this thread before?

:dead:

Honest question: do you think you are "less free" in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Sweden, etc. simply because your ability to own a gun are much more limited? And yes, I get in a hypertechnical sense, you are, but in a true day to day, this is how I live my life, speak, talk, act, write, etc. way? Are you?

I don't think so.

Yes, we have the 2nd and it's a part of the Constitution and it's the law of the land. But it seems to me over the 225 some years since we passed the Constitution, the true guarantors of our freedom have been politicians and citizens with the courage to stand up for individual liberties (i.e. the Civil Rights movement), our freedom of speech and of assembly (same, anti-Vietnam War movement, others), and our courts who have been willing to place limits on the executive and the legislative when necessary (we can debate the point if you want, but the single strongest bulwark against an oppressive government has not been the rifle under your bed, but the federal court willing to tell the executive or the legislative branches that what they are doing is unconstitutional).

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Geeez who the fuck erected the damn gun pulpit again?

 

[Larry L.]

As I said, I am not totally against guns. The gun I handed in was a semi auto, I had it for the wrong reasons. My post was about my attitude - that changed.
I realise how difficult it is to understand a middle of the road position in a country so polarised on every subject.

Tim.

Yes, I am having a problem "understanding" your position, but it has nothing to do with the country in which I reside, sir. The problem is: On the one hand you've decided to give up a gun for the reasons you stated...on the other, you've now decided to replace the gun you gave up. As I mentioned before - you'll be right back where you started.

I'm not 'ragging' on you here, but, a gun is a gun. They all do what they do. There is no difference in the degree of 'dead' between someone (or some THING) killed with a semi auto, multi round capacity weapon and someone killed with a bolt action single shot. Therefore, your position on guns only seems to have changed with regard to the number of rounds your weapon of choice can hold...not on the full reality surrounding what a gun actually does.

I had it for the wrong reasons.

???You mean you had more in mind back then than killing varmints??? (Just a little 'jab!)
Incidentally, there's no situation I can think of wherein the semi auto you had couldn't have dispatched the varmints and such to which you now wish to limit your new gun's use.

 

[Jim Craik]

Geeez who the fuck erected the damn gun pulpit again?

It was the needless gun death of another innocent person.

The difference is, this time he came from a country that still is shocked by a needless gun death.

Unfortunatly in our country it needs to be closer to 10 to draw a crowd.

 

[roaldin]

Yes, I am having a problem "understanding" your position, but it has nothing to do with the country in which I reside, sir. The problem is: On the one hand you've decided to give up a gun for the reasons you stated...on the other, you've now decided to replace the gun you gave up. As I mentioned before - you'll be right back where you started.

I'm not 'ragging' on you here, but, a gun is a gun. They all do what they do. There is no difference in the degree of 'dead' between someone (or some THING) killed with a semi auto, multi round capacity weapon and someone killed with a bolt action single shot. Therefore, your position on guns only seems to have changed with regard to the number of rounds your weapon of choice can hold...not on the full reality surrounding what a gun actually does.




???You mean you had more in mind back then than killing varmints??? (Just a little 'jab!)
Incidentally, there's no situation I can think of wherein the semi auto you had couldn't have dispatched the varmints and such to which you now wish to limit your new gun's use.

Ok a list of my wrong reasons:
I felt that a gun empowered me in some way.
I thought it was fun - I guess a toy if you like.
The militariness of that particular rifle was strangely attractive to some base instinct in me.

There are a million wrong reasons probably, but those were mine. I was 16 when I got it.
When it comes down to it, those reasons seem to be at the bottom of most of the collections of people I know with them.
They get excited by things like machine guns.
I just think of the suffering those things have caused throughout modern history.

I am talking about attitudes not rights and wrongs. There are valid reasons to own guns in my opinion, but also (in my opinion) most people have no need of them. The paranoia that surrounds many of the people I know with them worries me intensely. That does not mean everybody, but when I looked at and understood my own reasons at the time I decided I really didn't need one.
Now I have a farm and a rabbit plague - you can help me if you like.

Tim.

 

[roaldin]

I guess I now think of a gun as I think of a wood plane - if you don't work wood you probably don't need one.

The paranoia of the whole everybody should be armed so everyone can intervene argument frankly scares me - as does the vision of a society that works like that.

Tim.

 

[Jim Craik]

Honesty like that is rare, thanks Tim.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

It was the needless gun death of another innocent person.

The difference is, this time he came from a country that still is shocked by a needless gun death.

Unfortunatly in our country it needs to be closer to 10 to draw a crowd.

Nine deaths every day in Chicago with strict gun laws.

 

[Jack]

My right reasons for gun ownership are very simple. Home defense against burgulars, period. Had enough of the silly stuff in the military. I do keep a 12Ga pump shotgun and a .45 caliber 1911 semi-auto handgun. All have been assembled with the best components available and routine practice is carried out frequently because when the heart starts pounding and the adrenaline kicks in, most training gets lost. Muscle memory is all that is left and decisions are slowed. Just ask your combat vet pals!
I also have a concealed carry permit of which I seldom use, but practice drills at home to maintain proficiency and muscle memory. I'm not some paranoid fanatic and wish no one harm, but I will protect my family to the best of my ability. There are no guns lurking about the house for anyone to play with. The shotgun because with the correct loads it is deadly at the closer ranges. The layout of my home provides for a "death corridor" that is backlit during darkness. Anyone wishing to venture into my liar would be very foolish indeed.
This hallway would provide a very visible and identifyable target. No mistaken identity is possible. Why the .45, well they don't make a .46. It was invented for a single reason, and that's good enough for me with 50+ years experience using and carrying one. Shoot in anger, never! If I were carrying concealed, it would be my responsibility to retreat in most confrontations and the "bad guy" would never even know that I had the firearm. Ownership REQUIRES responsibility. You cannot legislate guns away from the criminals, it simply never happens. Now for Jim, he and I frequently disagree, but he really is a great guy with firm convictions, and I hope to meet in a few months time and imibe in a beer or ten. Should be fun. Enough of this silly rant.

 

[Jim Craik]

You are on Jack

 

[John]

I for one think this whole shamosle can be summed up in the one sentence Pete posted

The problem is us, those of us who have allowed the decay of values, discipline and respect for your fellow men. Those of us who have stood by and allowed it to happen.

unfortunately its so very true.

John
__________________

 

[Larry L.]

Ok a list of my wrong reasons:
I felt that a gun empowered me in some way.
I thought it was fun - I guess a toy if you like.
The militariness of that particular rifle was strangely attractive to some base instinct in me.

There are a million wrong reasons probably, but those were mine. .

Aaaaaaaah! Now I understand - and applaud - your decision, sir! :thumbsup:

Now I have a farm and a rabbit plague - you can help me if you like.

lol! Just one problem there, Tim...well, TWO actually:

(1) You 'be' a wee bit farther away from my place than is 'convenient', not to mention 'doable' at my age and in my condition, and,

(2) I can't shoot any breathing thing that isn't threatening me or 'mine'. Heck, I won't even go fishing.

Yep - I'm a pansy.

 

[craig]

It was the needless gun death of another innocent person.

The difference is, this time he came from a country that still is shocked by a needless gun death.

Unfortunatly in our country it needs to be closer to 10 to draw a crowd.

Exactly Jim, no guns = no death. in fact these kids that committed this cowardly murder stated that "if they couldn't find a gun they were gonna forget the whole crazy idea go home eat popcorn and watch TV".

 

[Keith]

Keith you have cosistantly defended the gun rights folks here on this fourm.

You have consistantly attacked me every time I point out the horrific effects that guns have in my country.

Yet when I asked if you would want these same rediculusly lax gun laws in your country, you say this........



So you are all for defending unlimited gun laws in my country, but supporting those same laws in the UK, that would be "promoting mass murder".

Really?

I promised myself I wouldn't.

Once more as quietly as I can.

I do not attack your message.

I do not attack the messenger.

I simply do not understand the dialect.

I have never ever ever anywhere on this planet in any media by any means advocated or promoted unlimited gun control or any other kind of control for that matter.

I do NOT however (and this is important - don't skip this bit) support or advocate "the homogenisation of the human race by decree and the creation of a quasi Huxley style existence to "protect people from themselves". The People have to work it out - this is a Work in Progress. Capiche?

When I leave my house on my scooter today - I will not see a single gun I will not hear a single gunshot and that will be the same hear/see scenario daily in my town until I pop my clogs. I susect it will be the same for many many people in the United States, so unless you suffer from geography you and your mates on Skyline will have the same sense of peace and security as I do. Well done.

In fact, wherever I could travel in the United Kingdom the same scenario would likely be repeated for 99% of the population. But that is where the comparison ceases.

I do not have to argue with you my friend. We are not the ones that are broken - you are arguing with the wrong people.

The People here voted NOT to be armed - and we're not because we don't want to be and never will be. That is my position. It's a good moral position and the one I prefer to be in.

Your own country spreads it's "Gun Message" world wide on a daily basis. We know about it as we have body bags arriving in air military airports daily, and like it or not, probably with some US sourced ordinance inside them.

And I think you should help sort it out.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Exactly Jim, no guns = no death. in fact these kids that committed this cowardly murder stated that "if they couldn't find a gun they were gonna forget the whole crazy idea go home eat popcorn and watch TV".

Craig, you are kidding, no guns = no death. Total rubbish, I learnt in the Military how to kill with my bare hands, a knife and a gun. A rock, a baseball bat, a glass can all kill. And America is awash with guns, banning them will not stop gun crime.

 

[Keith]

Exactly Jim, no guns = no death. in fact these kids that committed this cowardly murder stated that "if they couldn't find a gun they were gonna forget the whole crazy idea go home eat popcorn and watch TV".

Whilst I do not believe in an armed citizenry in the Western World (why arm if you don't need to?) I will state here and now that I would arm myself to protect my family - as would every man jack of us on this forum including Jim Craic who WOULD pick up a gun and SHOOT another person in the FACE if his nearest and dearest were threatened with deadly force. Of that I have no doubt.

But Craig man, sorry, that is the most delusional statement I have ever heard and somewhat ridiculously refocuses the greatest problem facing our World - that of growing sense of entitlement without graft and a total lack of respect for culture creed, religion and the individual, onto a few man-made pounds of plastic and metal.

You don't REALLY believe that do you?

Perhaps we should simply ban Americans.

 

[Mark]

Always, but you cannot save people from themselves - and to order them, organise them and legislate for them to limit 'needless deaths by decree' is to seek to deprive them of the very liberty you set out to value, applaud and defend.

Your alternative would seem to infer a Society where no one dies - but no-one lives either.

Very well said Keith.

@Jim C. You are correct earlier, when you suggested that I would be shcoked to see gun death numbers adjusted for populace. I was shocked.

Having said that, I still agree more with the statement Keith makes above, than I do with the ban guns lobby and argument you put forward.

You see, I tend to think of myself as a realist. Some surley thinki I am a defeatest by this attitude, but there is a big difference. Simply droling on about banning guns, will never, ever get rid of the guns in America. So they managed it (apparently) in Australia. Far fewer people/far fewer guns and frankly, an entirely different social makeup, compared to America.

If folks like Jim, who are passionate about change, actually thought about it and came across a little less smuggly, perhaps over time, like MADD, they would eventually make their mark? Lobby for changes that can and do stand some chance of success. That's the challenge Jim.

 

[Keith]

Aye, there's the Rub, right there.