namelesstavern.net

You are in need of anger management.

As for cowardly I am point out that those refusing to protect and defend their homes, their families and their lives are cowards. If you believe for one iota. that Gun control has had the actual response it meant to think again.
Gun related crimes up 85 percent in the last 20 years.

Shouldnt we be seeing results?

Tell me again please what your plan for removing guns from criminals is?

We know what your plan is for taking them from law abiding citizens are.

My blood pressure is fine. My anger levels are fine. Hell, I am content in life. Are you?

On internet, anything is possible.

lol Zanchief's brain is broken beyond repair. I suggest you seek out psychological counseling, Zan.

You're in good company, Kahar.

kaharthemad wrote:Tell me again please what your plan for removing guns from criminals is?

We know what your plan is for taking them from law abiding citizens are.

they are one and the same, you remove hand guns everywhere, make them all illegal and where do you think those criminals will be getting their guns from. Somewhere down the line the guns were stolen or bought, if you remove that from the equation, you don't have guns for them to buy.

There is also a HUGE difference between wanting gun control, and wanting somebody else to protect you. You can't exactly call somebody a coward and then pretend you have the moral high ground if the discussion degenerates from there

I say again: On this issue I differ from others of my liberal brethren. I am not interested in taking people's legally owned guns away. I do feel there should be more stringent restrictions on OBTAINING them, especially when such methods would have prevented people like Cho getting his hands on one. I also, as mentioned before, feel that handguns are silly weapons for home defense, and that shotguns are far superior, but that's part of a different discussion.

What I do NOT agree with, and never will, is the concept that we should have more of our citizenry wandering around in public armed. Yes, I am aware that the illegal firearms incidents with current concealed carry persons is rather low. But how much of that is the fact that getting the permit is such a bitch that only those least likely to cause problems have goten one?

There are too many people out there (hell, I know some of them personally) that can be just fine sober, but lose most of their judgement and gain a hair temper while drunk for me ever to be sanguine about arming more of the populace. There WILL be far more frequent incidents of people shooting each other, whether it be in bar fights, boyfriend/girlfriend disputes, road rage, whatever.

No, if you want to own guns, fine, feel free, it is your right. But they need to be kept at home, at the range, or be used for hunting game. Having every yutz out there with the $$ to afford one packing a pistol in their waistband or wherever is a recipe for disaster.

-Arlos

arlos wrote:I say again: On this issue I differ from others of my liberal brethren. I am not interested in taking people's legally owned guns away. I do feel there should be more stringent restrictions on OBTAINING them, especially when such methods would have prevented people like Cho getting his hands on one. I also, as mentioned before, feel that handguns are silly weapons for home defense, and that shotguns are far superior, but that's part of a different discussion.

What I do NOT agree with, and never will, is the concept that we should have more of our citizenry wandering around in public armed. Yes, I am aware that the illegal firearms incidents with current concealed carry persons is rather low. But how much of that is the fact that getting the permit is such a bitch that only those least likely to cause problems have goten one?

There are too many people out there (hell, I know some of them personally) that can be just fine sober, but lose most of their judgement and gain a hair temper while drunk for me ever to be sanguine about arming more of the populace. There WILL be far more frequent incidents of people shooting each other, whether it be in bar fights, boyfriend/girlfriend disputes, road rage, whatever.

No, if you want to own guns, fine, feel free, it is your right. But they need to be kept at home, at the range, or be used for hunting game. Having every yutz out there with the $$ to afford one packing a pistol in their waistband or wherever is a recipe for disaster.

-Arlos

i would like to take task on this arlos, First off not all states have a concealed weapons restriction. Take Georgia., Honorable discharge with combat training or handgun training at the police department.


Texas, I believe you only need a pulse.

Both of these states and areas in said states the are armed areas Kennesaw comes to mind, has almost 0 muggings and or attacks. Those that do happen almost always end in the fatality in the perp (no great loss imho).

NO we look at Virginia. I am not talking concealed carry but actual carry permits. same restrictions but yet those kids would be alive today if just a few of the teachers were armed. Criminals and military strategists agree if at all possible go for the softest targets possible. A soft target is someone not carrying a 9MM.



As for snero's comment, I dont see how kicking in the doors of law abiding citizens and taking their guns will effectively keep say, a felon with a rap for 5 to 10 for armed robbery in getting one. Maybe my logic is skewed but I dont see it. And frankly it worked so damn well in Victoria, AU. Whats the crime rate upto? 360 percent since the great kick in and grab of 2001? Thats just great work snero. I see taking those guns away made the populace so much safer.

kaharthemad wrote:As for snero's comment, I dont see how kicking in the doors of law abiding citizens and taking their guns will effectively keep say, a felon with a rap for 5 to 10 for armed robbery in getting one. Maybe my logic is skewed but I dont see it. And frankly it worked so damn well in Victoria, AU. Whats the crime rate upto? 360 percent since the great kick in and grab of 2001? Thats just great work snero. I see taking those guns away made the populace so much safer.

there is a difference between making something illegal and kicking down the door of every citizen. If you remove guns from the circulation, if nobody anywhere can get one, then you would be making it harder for criminals to get it too.

I've been reading about autralia, they enacted tough gun control starting in 1996 after a shooting, which was then restricted further after another incident in 2001. Here is a quote from wikipedia

between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm related deaths in Australia has declined 47%.

I don't see anywhere mentioned about massive increases in crime at all, although the local NRA in australian disputes that gun control had any effect on this number.

In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered.

here is your problem with gun control, and where are those unregistered guns coming from?

The number of unregistered or uncontrolled firearms continues to increase, with an average of over 4,000 firearms stolen per year, primarily from residences (although one gun-dealer had approximately 600 firearms stolen sometime between 1999 and 2000).

The problem is they've done a half ass job of gun control, they still have a lot out there. If you remove guns from the general population, then you remove the major source of guns that criminals have access to. There is always smuggling but that would still make fire arms a hell of a lot scarcer and harder to get

Clearly the answer isn't banning guns. It's banning Asians.

well I am getting conflicting data. But lets say I disagree with you on this fact.

If you remove guns from the general population, then you remove the major source of guns that criminals have access to. There is always smuggling but that would still make fire arms a hell of a lot scarcer and harder to get

They did that before. Germany 1942.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

George Mason wrote:George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Samuel Adams wrote:The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Richard Lee wrote:To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

In 1996 Australia banned 60% of all firearms and required registration of all guns and the licensing of gun owners. Police confiscated 640,381 firearms, going door to door without search warrants. Two years later, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that all crime had risen and armed robberies were up 44%.

-World Net Daily

i got my info from wikipedia so it could be way off, I'll see if i can find another source to find out one way or the other

those quotes are also pretty meaningless, and so is the comparison to nazi germany. This isnt the mid 1900s and certainly not before that

Maybe they should make all gun-buying applicants go through a psychological evaluation (not just a criminal background check) before being allowed to purchase firearms.

I'd be for that, sure. But Mindia, the NRA is violently opposed to even requiring firearms safety training being a requirement for buying a gun. (Me, I'd think you'd want people to be sure they were safe, but hey). You honestly think they wouldn't have a raging apoplectic fit over the idea of requiring a psych evaluation?

-Arlos

I like the NRA, and fully appreciate what they stand for, but if they're going to throw a tizzy-fit for something so important like this... then I would admit they need to make an adjustment to their stance.

You honestly think they wouldn't have a raging apoplectic fit over the idea of requiring a psych evaluation?

Considering a psych evaluation would cut their membership number in half, probably.

Kahar, why is that you refuse to be open minded though? You are of the opinion that guns are the ONLY reason and/or way one can protect themselves.

Not one of you pro-hand gun folks even responded to my question of, show me that having a hand gun has actually, via statistics, stopped a crime from taking place or even slowed the ascent of violent gun crimes?

As I said, you all are fighting for something that does not occur more than an infintile level.

Perhaps you should have better locks or a security system to protect your family.

If you are so insecure that you feel required to have a hand gun to protect yourself, that is a level of delusion as well. If you feel safer by having a gun vs not having a gun then you are insecure by defenition (this is in the context of living in the US in a middle class type environment).

You have better odds to have your gun stolen vs you actually using it to stop a crime.

You also realize that in many states, if you shoot an unarmed home invader you are very likely going to be sued and you will lose as the means didn't justify the ends, this includes the potential of life regarding manslaughter and such.

Owning a hand gun doesn't omit you from being a victim yet it appears many here think this is true. If that isn't delusional I don't know what is.

kaharthemad wrote:NO we look at Virginia. I am not talking concealed carry but actual carry permits. same restrictions but yet those kids would be alive today if just a few of the teachers were armed. Criminals and military strategists agree if at all possible go for the softest targets possible. A soft target is someone not carrying a 9MM.

If the existing laws worked he wouldn't have had a gun in the first place so your point is moot and only further proves that existing laws are poor at best and that more strict laws are required.

I'm somewhat shocked to think "parents" are actually posting and backing the idea that students and/or teachers should be armed as long as they pass a 15min test once a year. The test is a joke and could be passed by a 10 year old. Should we arm 10year olds so when Johnny gets his milk spilt he can shoot Jack or if Teach comes down to hard on poor Johnny he can just put a cap in her ass.

You seem to think that ethics and morals are on an increase. Perhaps you should pull your heads out of your asses and realize folks today kill other folks for looking at them funny. The value of a life today is less than tomorrow and this will continue until who knows when.

Having a gun permit doesn't preclude you from being a retard and they aren't difficult to get.

Here is a link to a pro-hand gun thread of sorts
http://www.packing.org/news/articleview/180/

Read some of that shit and you tell me we are more safe with idiots like this.

Narrock wrote:Maybe they should make all gun-buying applicants go through a psychological evaluation (not just a criminal background check) before being allowed to purchase firearms.

Agreed.

There should be a more selective process to obtain a firearm of any sort. There should NEVER be a removal of firearms from the populace.

I think almost all of us can agree there.

Even I agree with that harri, I have issues with hand guns is all.

Ginzburgh wrote:

You honestly think they wouldn't have a raging apoplectic fit over the idea of requiring a psych evaluation?

Considering a psych evaluation would cut their membership number in half, probably.

I LOL'd

Harrison wrote:

Narrock wrote:Maybe they should make all gun-buying applicants go through a psychological evaluation (not just a criminal background check) before being allowed to purchase firearms.

Agreed.

There should be a more selective process to obtain a firearm of any sort. There should NEVER be a removal of firearms from the populace.

I think almost all of us can agree there.

i agree also. this just makes sense.

ME AM DIPLOMAT

Why stop there, lets make a psych eval required for voting rights as well. Or how about a psych eval before an abortion? Are those Kosher too?

You're required to take a test (and to be medically fit - aka you're not blind) before you can your driver's license, why not when buying a gun?