I read this on CNN

[mordrene]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commen ... index.html

I knew it was a matter of time before some liberal nut would use the horrific tragedy a Virginia Tech to push politics but this one in particular fired me up. I'm ready to get on a soapbox, so forewarned.

Gun laws keep guns out of the hands of people who obey the law. Criminals and nut jobs who think it is a good idea to kill 30 some people one afternoon dont follow the law. Thus we have kept guns away from civil minded people who now cant defend themselves from the nut jobs.

Also, anti gun advocates believe murders would go down once guns were illegal. Well I didnt know guns invented murder. After all, there were never anyone killed before gunpowder came along.( note, that was sarcasm, if you still dont get it look up world history) Following this same logic we should outlaw cars in order to prevent drunk driving.

I own a gun. If someone breaks into my house and tries to hurt my family, I will shoot them. I will shoot them to kill. Afterwards I will feel remorse for killing but will be comforted by the fact my family is sleeping I their beds and not in a funeral home.

[Zudrak]

mordrene wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commen ... index.html

I knew it was a matter of time before some liberal nut would use the horrific tragedy a Virginia Tech to push politics but this one in particular fired me up. I'm ready to get on a soapbox, so forewarned.

Gun laws keep guns out of the hands of people who obey the law. Criminals and nut jobs who think it is a good idea to kill 30 some people one afternoon dont follow the law. Thus we have kept guns away from civil minded people who now cant defend themselves from the nut jobs.

Also, anti gun advocates believe murders would go down once guns were illegal. Well I didnt know guns invented murder. After all, there were never anyone killed before gunpowder came along.( note, that was sarcasm, if you still dont get it look up world history) Following this same logic we should outlaw cars in order to prevent drunk driving.

I own a gun. If someone breaks into my house and tries to hurt my family, I will shoot them. I will shoot them to kill. Afterwards I will feel remorse for killing but will be comforted by the fact my family is sleeping I their beds and not in a funeral home.

I agree with you except that Cain actually shot Abel. He hid the gun in the same place that OJ Simpson hid his carving gun that killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. Even poison is really a revolver that "goes off" in your body and kills a vital organ. Cleopatra was writing an anti-gun law when that viper shot her.

Now that I got my sarcasm out of my system, I can say I concur. This is another way of making crime safer for the criminals who already own or can already get illegal firearms.
_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.

"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"

"I shun him."

-----

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

-- E. Gary Gygax

[Omote]

mordrene wrote:
I own a gun. If someone breaks into my house and tries to hurt my family, I will shoot them. I will shoot them to kill. Afterwards I will feel remorse for killing but will be comforted by the fact my family is sleeping I their beds and not in a funeral home.

I agree with you nearly 100%. For, if anybody should break into my home, I will also shoot to kill. I shall feel NO remorse, whatsoever.

...........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[jman5000]

Hey - you fought for your "right" to bear arms - enjoy the consequences.

it's true. Guns don't kill people - People kill people - guns just allow them to kill more people.

A baseball bat or a Knife would have resulted in drastically fewer deaths that sad day. period!

Other countries who have gun control, show a drastically reduced level of homicide. there is a correlation.
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCas ... ntrol.html

(yes, not biased at all, but was the first hit in a google search and I'm not feeling up to finding more "fair and balanced" material )

you want to "protect" your family from robbers, so you keep a gun on hand to go all dirty harry on them and blow them away - good for you, but how about making a decent society, odds are, you wouldn't need to defend yourself in the first place then.

cheers,

J.

[Omote]

Yeah, ask the people in Darfur who kill each other with machete's, not guns.

...........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[jman5000]

[quote="Omote"]Yeah, ask the people in Darfur who kill each other with machete's, not guns.

...........................................Omote

FPQ[/quote]

so totally different, it boggles the mind that you'd even invoke it. for shame!

Darfur is organized (if if loosely organized through tribal associations) - like rowanda, like the former yugoslavia, like chechnia, like Aushwitz. Comparing a random act of violence of a single deranged individual through a systemic and endemic genocidal act of one 'people' vs another, does Darfur a great disservice, and blows the import of this most recent shooting way out of proportion to what it really is - a lone deranged individual who had on him a weapon of mass destruction (I use that term quite deliberately)

Here's a counter example. Had the Hijackers on flight 93 managed to smuggle guns onto the plane instead of knives - you think the plane would have still been brought down before it hit its real target? You want proof of the effectiveness of gun control - there it is.

Cheers,

J.

[Breakdaddy]

Ok, Im NOT going to get fired up about this here, I (semi) promise! This is a VERY important right to me. Our country exists ONLY because good people rose up in revolution against tyranny with firearms. This is why it is a CONSITUTIONAL RIGHT. How many times has history repeated itself when we fail to see the folly of past ways? If you don't like it, then do not exercise your right to bear arms. This is America after all, and I am damned proud of it, despite our shortcomings. If you create a law that disallows the ownership of firearms all you have done is taken them from the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals, BY DEFINITION, are lawbreakers. If they would ignore the laws against murder and theft, why the HELL would they care if a law was passed telling them to lay down their arms. All that would accomplish is to tell the bad guys that the U.S. is a weapons-free fire zone, and her citizens are disarmed so take what you want from them. No thank you. You wanna fix the crazy ppl, be my guest. We need to change some things here in America, I can agree. Taking the rights away from free men and women in the United States is a no-go, and I'll not allow it while I still call this great country home.

[Omote]

I'm NOT comparing Va. Tech to Darfur in anyway, shape or form. Period. You assume that.

I was merely commenting on this statement from you:

jman5000 wrote:
it's true. Guns don't kill people - People kill people - guns just allow them to kill more people.

A baseball bat or a Knife would have resulted in drastically fewer deaths that sad day. period!

You've made it into more then it seems.

........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[dcs]

The right to keep and bear arms is a corollary of the right to self-defense. The right to self-defense flows from the obligation to protect oneself and one's family from harm. Q.E.D.

It is unfortunate that none of the students or teachers killed at Virginia Tech was armed.

jman5000 wrote:
but how about making a decent society

How about doing both? I.e., both making a decent society and protecting your family.

I don't keep guns myself but I have nothing against my neighbors (or anyone else, for that matter) keeping them.
_________________
Pied Piper Publishing - Rob Kuntz's Pathways to Enchantment
Castle Zagyg - Yggsburgh Expansions

[Orpheus]

Well the whole issue is what one means when they say "gun control." Do you mean a complete abolition of gun ownership or simply a better "control environment" for the legal sale of firearms? I'm all for the latter to an extent, but definitely not the former. Plus the data that you cite doesn't say "a decrease in homicide." It says that there's a decrease in murders "with guns." I would imagine that any data showing the correlation between number of guns and gun-related accidents/deaths would show a direct correlation. Much like there's a direct correlation between births and deaths. A requirement that that jerk's mental health info get tied into his criminal information for a firearm background check has more to do with the state of bureaucracy than gun ownership per se. Bringing up Flight 93 after griping about the Darfur parallel wasn't any better. Shame on you. Seriously though, the hijackers on Flight 93 WEREN'T able to smuggle guns on the plane so THERE is the effectiveness of our gun control. Also, to bring up a hypothetical "what if" doesn't really prove anything. Please, let's try and keep any heated discussion contained to Antiono and Grey Elf's "Math Debate" in another thread.

[Jason Vey]

Here's the other side of the argument presenting an interesting statistic all the liberal gun control nutjobs love to deliberately overlook:

Almost every massacre in the last 30 years has happened in a gun-free zone, an area where firearms are not allowed.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commen ... index.html

Why, oh, why do liberals insist that criminals are going to stop being criminals because it's illegal? There's absolutely no logic in it.

Here's an example for the ladies among us.

Here in Pittsburgh a few years back, we had a serial rapist running around, who gained the moniker "The East End Rapist." If I recall correctly, he got somewhere in the neighborhood of a dozen women over the course of a couple months. You know when his reign of terror stopped?

WHEN ONE OF HIS VICTIMS PULLED OUT A GUN AND SHOT HIM THREE TIMES IN THE ABDOMEN.

[mordrene]

The Grey Elf wrote:
Here's the other side of the argument presenting an interesting statistic all the liberal gun control nutjobs love to deliberately overlook:

Almost every massacre in the last 30 years has happened in a gun-free zone, an area where firearms are not allowed.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commen ... index.html

What have I begun..... I agree this was a great article. How scary is that the voice of reason is Ted Nugent.

[jman5000]

I think you'll find, in many countries around the world the enshrined right to self-defense - even though the "right" to bear firearms is restricted (or outlawed outright).

So, I do not believe the 1 must follow the other. World history proves that - not just United States history

BreakDaddy: its so sad to live in such a world of fear (though I expect you don't see it), where behind every shadow, under every bush, stalking every loved one is a deranged maniac bent on the violation of your personal rights. I tend not to think that is the norm. Actually, (and I believe statistically) the vast majority of violent crimes are irrational, emotive and conducted in the 'heat of passion'. They are NOT premeditated!

- the husband comes home and finds his wife in bed with the plumber - fly's off in a fit of rage, grabs his gun and kills the both of them

- the drunks in a bar, get into a tussle, one draws his bling bling glock, and pops a couple caps in the others chest

- the lunitic, spurned by everyone, vows to get them all back, and goes on a rampage

This is a far more likely scenario than the images you see in the news every day (if it bleeds it leads) or in your movies (hannibal lecter, dirty harry, or Death wish anyone?)

ok. Quick survey here

Who do you think has a higher death rate, the convenience store owner who does everything that the robber says, or the convenience store ownere who try's to draw his gun to 'exercise his right to self defense'? Ask any cop what you should do in those circumstances.

See - I really don't care one whit about the 'rights' of united states citizens to bear arm's, that's frankly your problem, and you reap what you sow. but to think that there are no other alternatives only demonstrates ignorance of the world. I, not being from the United states has the advantage of being able to observe from the outside looking in - to not be caught up in the mass fear which permeates your society, and to have lived in a environment where violent crime is the exception instead of the norm. the only thing that I can say with any certainty is there is a dysfunction so ingrained, so entrenched that I'm sure you don't even know it exists.

a 300 million person society with collective stalkhom syndrome.

Cheers,

J

[Breakdaddy]

jman5000 wrote:
BreakDaddy: its so sad to live in such a world of fear (though I expect you don't see it), where behind every shadow, under every bush, stalking every loved one is a deranged maniac bent on the violation of your personal rights. I tend not to think that is the norm. Actually, (and I believe statistically) the vast majority of violent crimes are irrational, emotive and conducted in the 'heat of passion'. They are NOT premeditated!

I'm guessing the world of denial is a much better home?

Crime exists, and criminals LOVE guaranteed disarmed citizens to commit crimes against. If you do not see this or refuse to see it, then ok. No problem. I hope it doesn't happen to you or someone you care about. Open your eyes, man, or they may be closed when the bad guys come looking for you.

[Breakdaddy]

jman, youre from Canada right? Last time I checked, Canadians were allowed to bear arms as well. Is your culture also in denial and collectively afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome?

[jman5000]

Ted Nugent - LOL

ya, my thoughts exactly.

I remember going to a concert in which Ted Nugent was an opening act. this was during Desert shield - I'm pretty sure desert storm hadn't started yet. it was up here in 'liberal gun control nutjob Canada' - you know, the country with all the massacres - yearly

so, here he is. during about the midway part. out comes his hunting bow, and a target. he begins his great diatribe about living off the land, self defense et. al. then comes a nice picture of Saddam which he places over the target. He proceeded to go all rah rah rah jingoistic crazy while shooting arrow after arrow into the face of Saddam. I don't think he had a clue that he was in a different country, with a different culture, a culture where indiscriminate violence is abhorred.

With a spokesman like him - who needs research?

Cheers,

J.

[serleran]

One cannot simply make a better society without first destroying it. Guns are that weapon. Hand them out to everyone. Those who want to shoot others will in turn be shot. This was the way of the Wild West, and it was a lot more peaceful than people wish to credit it for. Anarchy, in a sense.... and retributive justice.

[Omote]

jman5000 wrote:
With a spokesman like him - who needs research?

Ted Nugent might be an American, but he is not a spokesman for us?! Don't confuse one "extremist" entertainer with everyone else in the USA.

.....................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Breakdaddy]

The Grey Elf wrote:
Here's the other side of the argument presenting an interesting statistic all the liberal gun control nutjobs love to deliberately overlook:

Almost every massacre in the last 30 years has happened in a gun-free zone, an area where firearms are not allowed.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commen ... index.html

Why, oh, why do liberals insist that criminals are going to stop being criminals because it's illegal? There's absolutely no logic in it.

Here's an example for the ladies among us.

Here in Pittsburgh a few years back, we had a serial rapist running around, who gained the moniker "The East End Rapist." If I recall correctly, he got somewhere in the neighborhood of a dozen women over the course of a couple months. You know when his reign of terror stopped?

WHEN ONE OF HIS VICTIMS PULLED OUT A GUN AND SHOT HIM THREE TIMES IN THE ABDOMEN.

It's very telling that Nugent actually posts hard facts to present his argument while the professor in the other article merely uses baseless fearmongering as a tool.

[Breakdaddy]

jman5000 wrote:
Ted Nugent - LOL

ya, my thoughts exactly.

I remember going to a concert in which Ted Nugent was an opening act. this was during Desert shield - I'm pretty sure desert storm hadn't started yet. it was up here in 'liberal gun control nutjob Canada' - you know, the country with all the massacres - yearly

so, here he is. during about the midway part. out comes his hunting bow, and a target. he begins his great diatribe about living off the land, self defense et. al. then comes a nice picture of Saddam which he places over the target. He proceeded to go all rah rah rah jingoistic crazy while shooting arrow after arrow into the face of Saddam. I don't think he had a clue that he was in a different country, with a different culture, a culture where indiscriminate violence is abhorred.

With a spokesman like him - who needs research?

Cheers,

J.

My Canadian friend, you have insulted America and Ted Nugent in this thread, but have yet to lay down one iota of factual information to represent why you feel society should be disarmed. This is more smear than debate, and I for one am growing weary of it, so put up some facts or move along please

[Jason Vey]

Here's something else a lot of people tend to ignore.

The philosophy behind the right to bear arms comes from the revolutionary spirit upon which the United States was founded. The principles that defined the rationale behind our founding revolution dictate that it is not only a citizen's right, but his responsibility and duty to rise up and destroy a corrupt government.

Guns aren't just to defend citizens from criminals in the streets. They're supposed to be for defense against the government. Over the years, that idea has been bent, broken, reshaped, and quite frankly, bastardized.

This is incontestible. It's written in so many words by our founding fathers. You may not like this philosophy, but there you have it. I daresay that the citizen of any country who doesn't agree with the very founding principles of that country...should probably seek citizenship in a country where they agree with the principles behind it. But that's just my opinion.

But to answer your survey...statistically speaking the death rate is lower for clerks who keep guns than for those who don't. Like it or not, there it is. As for asking a cop what he thinks, I don't have to...my cousin is a cop and he's all for legal guns in the hands of citizens, as are most of his colleagues.

Gun crimes are committed because the wielder of the gun feels powerful, and believes his victim to be defenseless. When the gun wielder is not so certain of his power, fewer crimes result.

For the record, something a lot of folks don't get, in the vast majority of the states a license to carry does not equate to a license to use...use of a firearm is only permissible in "back to the wall" situations or in the case of a home invasion. If there's an escape route or a possible escape route, you are required by law to attempt it before resorting to gun play.

That being said, here's another statistic: Florida, a year or two ago (iirc) passed a law popularly known as the "stand your ground" law, which states that a gun carrying citizen is no longer obligated to attempt to retreat from a life-threatening situation as in most states, but is now allowed to shoot any time he feels his life threatened. Since the passing of that law, there has not been a single citation of it that has been deemed unjustified, and gun-related crimes have dropped dramatically. Why do you think this is? Because criminals are now afraid to try and victimize people, because they might just get killed.

Most of my friends carry concealed firearms. If I could afford the purchase price of a handgun, I would as well. Every single person I know who carries has told me that since they started carrying, they are more likely to avoid potentially confrontational situations.

[Breakdaddy]

DELETED

[Orpheus]

WOW!!!! I hate to break it to you Jman, but I can hear the sound of fingers pounding on keyboards right now and I don't think the sentences produced are going to be that nice to you. How could you possibly infer that our society is a place where violence isn't abhorred? Especially after the reactions surrounding this whole thing. I'll admit that my first reaction after everything you said would be to say really mean things to you, but I just can't bring myself to do it since none of this shit ever produces anything. Of course, I should take your Canadian "civility" as an example. No matter how you feel about gun control, trying to make a point by saying that our country is how you described it is not only rude, but it does a serious disservice to your fellow countrymen. If our country sucked so bad then we wouldn't have people flocking here. You certainly didn't help your cause at all.

[Jason Vey]

jman5000 wrote:
a 300 million person society with collective stalkhom syndrome.

Cheers,

J

MEH!?

Sorry, jman...but I don't know anyone personally who's fallen in love with a terrorist who kidnapped them....

And it's Stockholm.

[jman5000]

yes, I'm Canadian, and I'm not advocating total disarmament - but rather gun control. I believe that you do not have the intrinsic right to bear arms, but rather, this is a privilege granted to you, by being a good citizen.

we are a society which is very frontier in outlook. Vast swaths of our society is still wild, natural and largely uninhabited. those who live out there rely on their firearms - and i'm all for that.

we are not allowed to have concealed weapons - but rather, they must be transported in proper encasements. all firearms within a home must be locked, unloaded and the ammo must be in an area separate from the weapon.

you are not allowed to have certain weapons (yes the bad guys do have them - though again, statistically, more violent crime is committed which isn't premeditated than it is).

here's another stat. Toronto is one of the largest urban area in north America (both Canada and the US). Chicago and Houston have close approximate populations in their metro cores (city limits, not including environs)

toronto homicides 2006 = 78 deaths

2005 = 68 (includes all homicides, not just guns)

chicago = 448 for 2005

Houston = 334 for 2005

If I gave the impression that I was for a total ban on gun ownership, I appologize - I do not, but rather control.

control who can have guns

control what kinds of guns you may have

control how guns are transported, stored and used

control over how they should be lawfully used

Based on the statistics given above, us liberal nutjobs are not besieged by the criminal underclass - actually - as a society as a whole, it's pretty safe

Cheers,

J.

[jman5000]

Ok, I wave the white flag and will let this drop. it's always great when given the chance to poke a few hard beliefs and see what comes of it.

if I insulted anyone, I sincerely appologize

honestly.

If I personally attacked anyone, I also apologize. I did not want this to get personal (but how can one say that, when one's personal beliefs are questioned - on both sides of the debate).

While I don't share your feelings towards this matter - I respect your beliefs that it is the correct policy for you as a nation. Though, honestly, being given concealed atom bombs might go a long way in deterring violent crime against my family, as the criminal would never know if I'm about to nuke him (ok, sarcasm.....)

What happened the other day was the utmost tragedy - I send my sincerest condolences, and I hope no one who frequents this board knows of anyone affected by it - a tragedy and a true waste.

Sorry everyone - I must have woken up today looking to pick a fight .

Cheers,

J.

[jman5000]

per the above - I particularly wish to apologize to breakdaddy, omote and Orpheus - as I seemed to wish to quarrel with there replies the most.

sorry!

now back to our regularly gaming conversations

knowing full well that it'll take a couple of hours for some of the late comers to trash me before this thread truly dies the death it deserves.

Cheers,

J.

[gideon_thorne]

I think that anyone trying to use a tragedy like this one as a soap box for any cause is incredibly tacky and entirely classles.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Breakdaddy]

jman5000 wrote:
per the above - I particularly wish to apologize to breakdaddy, omote and Orpheus - as I seemed to wish to quarrel with there replies the most.

sorry!

now back to our regularly gaming conversations

knowing full well that it'll take a couple of hours for some of the late comers to trash me before this thread truly dies the death it deserves.

Cheers,

J.

No harm done here, chief. I'm all for intelligent debate.

[Nifelhein]

I think Jason covered an important aspect of this discussion, it is something ingrained inside the very core of the United States, it goes along with every core belief governing the constitution, in many regards it is an american thing.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.