samurai swords

Worst Poster Ever · Post by **Worst Poster Ever** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:28 pm

the best defense is a good offense. No lives would be saved in a 5 day waiting period, when you get it in your head that you wish to kill somebody, 5 days is not going to make you cool down, especially if it was something serious.?

Also, the "gun-grabbers" all say they want registration to know who buys Uzis, M60s, and whatever other Automatic firearm there is, but guess what? to legally purchase those you need a class 3 license, which is registered with the ATF.

Again, 5 days is useless and inefficient, instant check is the way to go.

PiP · Post by **PiP** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:29 pm

hat_man99 wrote: i wouldnt feel as fearful walking the streets at night if i have a .38 attached to my belt. People have a right to feel safe

The point is, I wouldn't feel safe if you were carying a gun.

I guess if people (non-criminals) are to allowed to have guns, they must be VERY carefully selected - only people who actually ARE responsible and could stop some crime etc unlike those who would panic in a dangerous situation, or shoot sb accidently when fooling around, or fuck sth up when drunk etc. some smart psychological tests + target practice experience + maybe age 25+ should do.

Worst Poster Ever · Post by **Worst Poster Ever** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:30 pm

PiP youre forgettings its my RIGHT to arm bears! Trigger locks are fine for trying to protect children, and i guess they work, but i believe the better method is to teach kids practical gun safety and keep them around guns...I've been around them all my life, and i have never done anything stupid with them.

As for the assault rifles, pretty much the only way to get one today is to convert them from regular rifles. Considering people have to go through background checks and such for them, the system isn't too bad. Most people today, if planning to kill people, with either get the gun closest to them or steal a handgun.

hat_man99 · Post by **hat_man99** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:33 pm

I do carry a gun and im proud its a last resort not a first and what do you mean by I wouldnt feel safe if you where walking around with a gun
You make it sound like im a Luke Perry obsessed, gun nut

Im not im a normal person who has a weapon as a last resort, before that i kick there ass the old fashion way

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:47 pm

I'm back, if you hadn't noticed already.

hat_man99 · Post by **hat_man99** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:50 pm

I noticed welcome back, one question where did you go?

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD · Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:24 pm

I love this Canadian gun law thing that always gets brought up.

No one who owns guns for the purpose of hunting owns a pistol. Its a given.
If you are going hunting, you don't take a 9mm to hunt a deer or a bear. You wouldn't even take it to hunt small game.

None of the gun owners I know have handguns because they are a pain in the ass to get and if you do get one, its useless and everyone will know why you have it.
We have no concealed carry laws because if you do it and get caught, you get thrown in jail for a very long time.
Thats why you are 6 times more likely to get shanked than shot and that gives you much better odds for living.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:34 pm

Wolfman Walt wrote:Where did anyone say "Everyone"? There's alot of people who shouldn't even be NEAR a sidearm, much less trained to use one. However, responsible individuals should be allowed to be trained in them. Firearms save lives when used in the proper hands. And when I say responsible, I'm apperently talking about no one where you live.

If you're going to live in a "Land with no guns" you better take away the firearms of all criminals first. The only thing your solution does is deprive individuals of their rights while the REAL problem remains just as ever present. Criminals generally do not buy their firearms legally, so cutting off legal fire arms would not suddenly stop them.

According to my knowledge, there isn't an effective way to find out the 'responsible individuals' from the masses. I'm also skeptical about how taking away handguns deprives individuals from their basic rights. Using that principle, everyone, including thugs, would be allowed to carry a weapon. The US law derives from the time when shooting indians was legal. But today we happen to live in a different society. A society which has certain laws that must be obeyed to ensure public safety. Banning objects that are designed to kill serves this cause.

I can understand the right to protect yourself, but a sad fact is that guns are seldom used for that purpose. Using guns for self-protection is a noble thought, but it has several flaws in reality.

Finland also has a much lower population rate, smaller urban centers, etc so simply comparing Finlands crime rate to the US is like trying to compare overall income between the US and Taiwan, it's an inaccurate comparison.

Not only Finland, but a large part of Europe and other countries have lower crime(and death) rates than in the USA.

Worst Poster Ever · Post by **Worst Poster Ever** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:36 pm

listen yu dickwads i know the most abojut guns here the first time i picked up a gun i had a grouping of 1mm that means i am so damn good that

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:52 pm

Yay, Vasikka puts it in a way more coherent form than I

And about the principle... PRO-RIGHTS, when talking about personal freedom, liberty yadi yadi, is about "freedom to do anything and everything BUT things that violate other people's freedom". So in which category does free handgun ownership belong to? If guns are spread everywhere, does it not step onto other people's lives? Freedom to live in a gun-free enviroment also exists, including not having to buy a gun to protect myself just because this angry guy in the metro carries a gun and propably isn't afraid to use it in case I 'violate his liberties'".

And about the "tightening borders" thing... No, Finland is no "eutopia", but we're pretty high ranked in guarding our borders. For quite some years we were European Union's northern- and easternmost border line and we have a long tradition in that line of work. Apparently we've excelled in it as well, the newly appointed head honcho of EU's border guarding is a Finnish military man of that specific expertise in question. As for what Lasse said... He's just teasing me, yo

Blah. Let's talk about firearms

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:12 pm

hat_man99 wrote:I noticed welcome back, one question where did you go?

NY

PiP · Post by **PiP** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:00 pm

just think that all this started from a lil funny gif I posted

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:22 am

the risk of a number of these people turning out actually IRresponsible and causing some serious trouble/wounds/deaths is quite disturbing.

Oh really, do you have some sort of number for that or are you just speaking out of an irrational fear? Also, whats with this use of the word "Everyone." Where did I once say "Everyone" aside from responding to YOU suddenly saying "Everyone"?

PiP wrote:The point is, I wouldn't feel safe if you were carying a gun.

No that's not the point, because I don't care how you feel. And why don't you feel safe actually? You realize that the number of gun crimes has actually gone DOWN dramatically, right? You have a higher chance of dying in an airplane then being shot.

there isn't an effective way to find out the 'responsible individuals' from the masses.

Background checks, firearms training classes, firearms safety classes, NRA, gun clubs, are pretty much proven to make a more responsible firearms owner. The thing that's wrong entirely about your argument is your automatically grouping criminals and armed citizens together; they're not the same thing.

Also, perhaps you went daft for a moment. When you're a criminal - you don't get some of the basic rights. You can't vote, you can't hold anumber of positions, etc, so you shouldn't be allowed a sidearm.

The US law derives from the time when shooting indians was legal.

So was the rest of the constitution; does that automatically make that passe as well? Are we only gonna phase out certain laws at this point simply because you don't deem them as personally effective; EVEN THOUGH numbers beg to differ.

Oh yea, speaking of numbers, your idea that carrying firearms is ineffective and often leads to crime is wrong. According to a survey conducted by the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency ; 17 million people in the use carry a handgun each day, the numbers have since risen. However, out of that, only 4.12 out of every 100,000 gun carriers have committed any sort of gun crime and THOSE people are either dead or do not have a gun anymore, and these aren't even the number of people LEGALLY registered. These are just the folks who CARRY A GUN wether it's legal or not. The chances of you being shot by a licensed carrier is nil so long as you're not being a jack ass whose trying to assault them with a deadly weapon. There are MORE cases of victims using sidearms in defense then violent gun crimes.

Additionally - states that allowed right to carry laws for adults that have no previous crime record have shown a dramatic DECREASE in crime which means that those numbers are actually LOWER for every 100,000.

Since that study, the number of guns own has gone UP but gun crime has gone DOWN. You do the math buddy.

Using guns for self-protection is a noble thought, but it has several flaws in reality.

Just like your argument which is based solely on heresay and clever diction.

You're just as likely if not MORE to be killed by someone whose drunk with a car then being shot, so before you suggest civilian disarmament, you should probably take away things that cause more or a similar ammount of deaths a year. Cars, cigerattes, alchohol, knives, etc before your argument has ANY merit.

If guns are spread everywhere, does it not step onto other people's lives?

No one said you'd ever be forced to own a gun, so no, it doesn't. As for your metro example, stop being a pussy and refer to my previous argument.

Also, you read nothing I said about the fact that guns come from a VARIETY of sources; not just importing. You also have to consider that Finlands border is MUCH smaller then the US's.

Blargh · Post by **Blargh** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:04 am

PiP wrote:just think that all this started from a lil funny gif I posted

Be proud ?

hat_man99 · Post by **hat_man99** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:59 am

S4ur0n27 wrote:
hat_man99 wrote:I noticed welcome back, one question where did you go?
NY

NY, have you been cleansed, but a shame you infect the rest of the world, with it

PiP · Post by **PiP** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:55 am

Blargh wrote:Be proud ?

PiP · Post by **PiP** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:26 am

Wolfman Walt wrote:Oh really, do you have some sort of number for that or are you just speaking out of an irrational fear? Also, whats with this use of the word "Everyone." Where did I once say "Everyone" aside from responding to YOU suddenly saying "Everyone"?

I don't have a number and yeah, I fear some people are actually too irresponsible to carry guns. call it irrational. I didn't say you said "everyone", I was referring to this:

airsoft guy wrote: (8) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area;

Wolfman Walt wrote:
PiP wrote:The point is, I wouldn't feel safe if you were carying a gun.
No that's not the point, because I don't care how you feel. And why don't you feel safe actually? You realize that the number of gun crimes has actually gone DOWN dramatically, right? You have a higher chance of dying in an airplane then being shot.

the "I" was actually meant to mean "some people" (which you were to infer from the overall tone) and why not feel safe? 'cos I found hat man a nice example of a person "I" wouldn't trust as far as guns go; even if he isn't, this can only be an ironic indication that some people actually are.

Wolfman Walt wrote:Background checks, firearms training classes, firearms safety classes, NRA, gun clubs, are pretty much proven to make a more responsible firearms owner.

I don't know what NRA is, but I think the most important thing is missing from your list: smart psychological tests. If you just train sb well in gun handling, he may a well turn out a psycho (in an extreme case).

Wolfman Walt wrote:and these aren't even the number of people LEGALLY registered. These are just the folks who CARRY A GUN wether it's legal or not. The chances of you being shot by a licensed carrier is nil so long as you're not being a jack ass whose trying to assault them with a deadly weapon.

OK, that's kinda comforting.

Wolfman Walt wrote:Additionally - states that allowed right to carry laws for adults that have no previous crime record have shown a dramatic DECREASE in crime which means that those numbers are actually LOWER for every 100,000.

such things sometimes happen to be coincidents, I mean the "effect" sometimes has a different "cause" than the expected; but this thing here looks pretty convincing.

Wolfman Walt wrote:You're just as likely if not MORE to be killed by someone whose drunk with a car then being shot

I don't care if the risk of being shot is lower or higher than other types of death, I care about people allowed to carry guns being really carefully selected. Criminals will get their toys anyway, so no need to give more guns to people who will do nothing good with them. So like you said: allow guns for the trained and responsible, I say we just make sure they really are.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 10:02 am

didn't say you said "everyone"....

Damn you airsoft guy for including the word "Everyone" and throwing me for a loop!

If it makes you feel better about Hatman, he lives in Australia so chances are a rouge kangaroo or Steve Irwin will get him.

The NRA stands for the National Rifle Association; although the high ups are real fire arms fanatics (They believe in no restrictions and that sort; I'm a member, but I don't share all the same views) but even so, they give good training classes on things like this and people who are members of the NRA are less likely to commit gun crime; think of it as joining a club for shooters that's nationwide. If we're going with the paranoid psychological test, those aren't exactly hard to fake, and even so, psychology is a individual to individual level, how would you even begin to apply it to EVERY gun owner. If we start applying it to gun owners, then what about other things? Are you psychologically stable enough to drive a car? Use a boat? Operate power tools?

I don't believe in coincidences by the way, but I hardly consider it a "coincidence" when it's been happening for the past 13 years. Gun crime rates have been dropping since around 92 where as gun ownership rates have been going up, especially thanks to 911.

I care about people allowed to carry guns being really carefully selected, etc ,etc till end

Actually, I agree with you on this (Although I don't think we really ever dissagreed?), but rest assurred, most people who get carry permits are fairly responsible individuals. Generally you have to show a certain degree of responsibility to get a permit; and in some states you have to have a very legitimate reason to be carrying a gun. The other numbers are there to give you an idea of risk management; IE if you're worried about some crazy with guns, then you should be MORE worried about ensuring things that are MORE likely to kill you.

airsoft guy · Post by **airsoft guy** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 10:03 am

VasikkA wrote:I can understand the right to protect yourself, but a sad fact is that guns are seldom used for that purpose. Using guns for self-protection is a noble thought, but it has several flaws in reality.

You know why you don't hear about it? Because, not always do you have to actually shoot anyone to get the desired results. Most of the time simply producing the weapon stops the crime, very rarely do you have an actual legal shootout. Plus most of the time these failed crimes aren't officially reported to the police and of course the media isn't going to report it unless it's a slow news day. The news isn't about the news anymore, it's about moving product and bad news is far more entertaining than good news.

PiP wrote:splendid, so basically everyone going hiking or camping can carry a gun. the risk of a number of these people turning out actually IRresponsible and causing some serious trouble/wounds/deaths is quite disturbing.

You fear guns in the hands of normal people, afraid they're going to lose it and go on some shooting spree? Then why aren't you cowering in the corner at the thought of all the people driving cars around? In this country at least, cars kill far more people than guns, in all situations, this includes murders, legal shootings, police shootings, suicides and accidents. Hell, cars kill more children than the total number of people killed by guns every year.

As much as people from other countries like to think that everybody here in America owns and carries a gun we donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t. But carrying a gun in the woods makes sense, maybe where you live you don't have angry animals that will eat you, but around here we have bears and cougars and maybe a 9mm isn't the best weapon for taking those animals, but something like a .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .357 SIG and other such higher powered pistol cartridges are. In fact that's the kind of thing most people who carry in Canada use, because open carry in the wilderness is allowed because they have grizzlies and mutant Eskimos with laser beam shooting eyes or something. Besides, I'd rather have a .22 than nothing at all.

For more on Canadian carry laws go here

Now maybe where you live you don't have to worry about criminals or wild animals eating your smelly children and goats (both smelly), and I guess where I live I don't much have to worry about it either, but the fact that I still have the guns, just in case anything from some jackass trying to break in here to the apocalypse comes along I'm prepared.

Another thing a lot of people from other countries, and actually quite a few from here, don't understand is "the right to own guns." In this country (that's the United States) we have a right to keep and bear arms, but why? I don't think people understand the WHY part of it. They talk about hunting or to kill indians or what have you, but the real reason is for the overthrow of the government. Quite simply, the guys that created the United States figured that one of these days we might just have to take it apart, by force. Can't very well do that without weapons now can you?

Many don't know why Paul Revere, Samuel Prescott, and William Dawes rode around to alert the colonists of approaching British troops. It wasn't that they were just invading, but they were coming to take the colonist's muskets. Take away the revolution's arms and you take away the revolution.

You must always remember that politicians are self-serving assholes. Sure in the beginning they might be all about their constituents, they really believe they're going to change the world and help people, but eventually, all career politicians become corrupt and they know that they can only push us so far before the citizens rise up and overthrow them.

So little by little they erode the Second Amendment in the interest of "public safety" or "for the children" because, "hey, can't hunt a deer with an Uzi" and then they turn around and start talking about banning "expanding ammunition for all centerfire rifles and handguns" which is essentially hollow point bullets, the only thing you can use to hunt with because a full metal jacketed bullet will simply pass through the animal, so those bullets should also be banned because they're potential "vest busting" or "cop killing" bullets, and now all you have left are blank ammunition and shouldn't have that because you could put a bullet on it and make it fire. So now there are no bullets to use in your gun, so what do you need it for?

Banning guns might work for you, but it's not going to work here. One of these days the people are going to get tired of all the bullshit and then rise up, and when that day comes you're probably going to wish you stockpiled some ammo as well.

Blargh · Post by **Blargh** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 10:07 am

'Tis somewhat funny, really, as you appear to have little to say unless the subject is firearms. Ehue.