Anti-Gun? The Assault Gun Ban is Baack

[Captain Rooster]

Are you an anti-gun person or a pro-gun person.

Be honest.

[reeshy]

Although I believe in the private ownership of firearms ( I own several legally and can carry them concealed in the State of New York), I also believe in gun control. I firmly believe that firearms should be licensed/registered in the state that you live in and that you should be tested as to your competency in owning such weapons (prior convictions etc). I do not believe in enacting more laws on gun control since our law books are full of perfectly good laws that are not being enforced. Enacting more laws will not keep the weapons out of the hands of the criminals- they will always know where to obtain them!!
Yes, I carry mine almost everytime I venture into NYC and when I go to work. It's my right as a law abiding citizen that I have earned through many years in law enforcement.

<IMG SRC=http://www.themodernword.com/joyce/music/reed.gif>

This message was edited by reeshy on 8-22-03 @ 8:04 PM

[DarkHippie]

so wait, is this about the rights of farmer and people living in the boondocks where police would never get to them in time to defend their homes, or is it about city-dwellers carrying urban assault killing machines? This is a bigger issue than a "pro-gun anti-gun" answer will suffice.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"Last night I went running through the screen door of discression, for I woke up from a nightmare that I could not stand to see. You were a-wandering out on the hills of Iowa and you were not thinking of me." Dar Williams "Traveling III (Iowa)"</marquee>

[canofsoup15]

Damn, i thought this was gonna be about Anti Tank guns or something. Those fuckers RULLEEE!!!!!!!

How I'd love to kill some nazis with a 44 millimeter anti tank gun. In WWII of course.

But since its not im pro-gun, as long as we check who were giving this shit too.

<img src=http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=Canofsoup15>

<marquee behavior=alternate><Font size="1" Color="blue">
Stuck in believe there is a lie, Promises promise an eye for an eye.
We've got something to reveal, No one can know how we feel.</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

Pass.

This isn't nearly as black & white as that.

Personally, I don't give a damn if people want to have all the handguns and hunting rifles they want. Go nuts. Well, not literally. But why the fuck would anyone less than the millitary or police need shit like combat shotguns and uzis and machine guns or those little machine gun-pistol thingies?

I also support waiting periods, background checks, getting rid of traveling gun shows, not allowing guns to anyone with suspect criminal and/or psychiactric history (No, I can't be more specific. I'm not enough of an expert in those fields), anyone currently on psychiatric medications, history of alcohol abuse, yadda-yadda-yadda....

And YES, I DO think it's way too fucking easy for just ANYONE to get cars and licenses in this country, so don't give me that "cars kill more people and are just as dangerous" horseshit.

And can someone explain how THIS means that anyone can own guns however and whenever they want?

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 8-23-03 @ 3:39 AM

[Bergalad]

Pro gun, anti assualt weapon.

[TheMojoPin]

Yeah, what he said.

I talk too much.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[high fly]

RPGs--- highly overrated

" and they ask me why I drink"

[NewYorkDragons80]

I lean pro-gun, but I am pretty supportive of any legislation that prevents felons and the mentally handicapped from obtaining weapons.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[high fly]

C'mon!!
Where are the Liddiotic strict constitutionalists out there?
I'm just laying for ya.



be forewarned.

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 8-23-03 @ 5:01 PM

[gypsy]

Most people have the ability to take a life, whether you use your hands, gun, or a knife. And On the inverse most people can give life. Ulitmatley, the individual has the CHOICE, and a fire arm is only one of many ways to kill. It might sound trite, but "Guns don't kill people, people Kill people." We have free will.

with that said, I do not see why a civilian would need a military style weapon. And of course nut jobs, and criminals should not have any type of weapons.

Plus, people with the intent of causing harm aren't going to abide by the laws, and banning guns will only make criminals out of good citizens.

"They think they have me by the balls, but their hands aren't big enough!" Bernie Eccelstone

[reeshy]

And can someone explain how THIS means that anyone can own guns however and whenever they want?


Mojo,
The way that I interpret it is that it also states the PEOPLE have a right to own guns- it states right in there!!! I can't see any other way that that can be read differently!!!

<IMG SRC=http://www.themodernword.com/joyce/music/reed.gif>

[TheMojoPin]

"Being necessary to the security of a free state?"

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[high fly]

I'd like an M-60 to fend off a home invasion.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Aggie]

They'll have to pry my gun from my cold, dead hands.



[center]<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=Aggie">[center]

[Bill From Yorktown]

besides, guns dont kill people, bullets kill people :-)

slightly pro gun, but
1 - let's not be silly no one needs an assault rifle in his house
2 - yes the laws/limits arent being enforced - thats the real problem...

<IMG SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/billb914/sigpic.gif">

[Grand Master B]

Anti Gun = Unamerican
Pro Gun during a Dave Mathews Concert = Happy Americans

Just a bit of silliness for a monday morning. :)

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/cue2see/puffyvstoe.jpg" >
Which do you prefer?

This message was edited by Grand Master B on 8-25-03 @ 11:32 AM

[high fly]

"...please don't shoot...I'm allergic to lead...my doctor said I can't have bullets in my body..."
---Woody Allen, Casino Royale

" and they ask me why I drink"

[NewYorkDragons80]

"...please don't shoot...I'm allergic to lead...my doctor said I can't have bullets in my body..."

"I like his movies except for that nervous fella that's always in them"
-Ned Flanders

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[furie]

I've carried a gun for several years. I went through the federal academy in Glynco, GA, and I do not think everyone should be armed. I'm against the 2nd amendment. WHy? Because there are alot of stupid people out there who are a danger to themselves and others with a gun. I think if someone can prove they are trustworthy enough and competant enough to own a gun, they should beable to own a gun.

We all know someone who shouldn't own a gun. Too crazy, too stupid, not trustworthy. If you can show one person who shouldn't own a gun, then that invalidates the concept of everyone being armed.


http://tseery.homestead.com/files/rom.jpg


This message was edited by furie on 8-26-03 @ 11:12 AM

[DarkHippie]

We all know someone who shouldn't own a gun. Too crazy, too stupid, not trustworthy. If you can show one person who shouldn't own a gun, then that invalidates the concept of everyone being armed
Very good point. Another problem i have with guns is that bullets inevitably richochet. even if you are competent with a gun, using it still puts innocents at risk.

Guns in rural areas i can understand, but in crowded cities are just asking for trouble.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"Last night I went running through the screen door of discression, for I woke up from a nightmare that I could not stand to see. You were a-wandering out on the hills of Iowa and you were not thinking of me." Dar Williams "Traveling III (Iowa)"</marquee>

[CaptClown]

Very good point. Another problem i have with guns is that bullets inevitably richochet.

Maybe in the movie and cartoon universe but not in this one.
even if you are competent with a gun, using it still puts innocents at risk.
Malvo and Muhammed were competent and didn't hit anyone that they weren't aiming at. Pools are more dangerous than guns.
Guns in rural areas i can understand, but in crowded cities are just asking for trouble.
Trouble is where you find it. YOu are more likely to find it in a city than in a rural area. It's like having too many rats in a cage, eventually they are going to start biting each other. Even if over something trivial.



Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

http://www.nudeafrica.com/discus/messages/45722/3068438.gif

This message was edited by CaptClown on 8-31-03 @ 12:50 PM

[TheMojoPin]

Pools are more dangerous than guns.

I'll never get this.

Comparing pools and cars to guns, and because something ELSE has a higher death rate, it makes guns "OK".

Pools and cars aren't made to SPECIFICALLY to kill things. Yes, there ARE plenty of sport gun owners who are VERY responsible...they're not the problem. The represent such a miniscule amount of the people who own guns and who ARE the problem. It's mostly people who automatically assume that having a gun makes them and those around them "safe". Unlike even the knife, this is a device that is 9 times out 10 made with the intention of doing the most harm and destruction to whoever it is fired at, and that's IT.

Now at the same time, I DON'T support getting rid of guns. But I DO think it should be damn hard to get them (Same goes for getting a driver's license, but that's neither here nor there), much harder than it is now, and I think FAR too many people who shouldn't can get them these days. These are things made expressly to kill people as their PRIMARY purpose, whether people like it or not. When a person is killed by a car or a pool, it was an accident. When a gun kills a person, that's what it was supposed to do.

Responsible gun owners are NOT the problem. But you'd think they'd support measures that would still ultimately allow them to get their guns and keep the guns out of the hands of IRRESPONSIBLE gun owners. The vast majority of gun deaths are NOT caused by roving gangs of gun-toting criminals...but by inexperienced, unprepared, irresponsible people who brought a gun into their house. Guns do kill people...but only foolish people who make mistakes because it was too easy for them to get the thing that killed them. THAT'S who needs to be kept from owning a gun, and you CAN do that without punishing responsible gun owners.

*EDIT* Just to clarify, I am NOT "anti-gun" in the typical sense. I've grown up with them. There have always been guns in my household growing up. I've been to dozens of ranges and fired hundreds of guns. I love shooting them (Though hate hunting, go figure), I admire and respect what guns are, hell, I even love movies more if they're packed with guns. I just think too many assholes end up with them, and that can ruin it for the rest of us.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-1-03 @ 12:18 AM

[high fly]

C'mon MOJO!
I mean rilly!
Just imagine what would happenn if someone was to shoot one of your family with a pool; or maybe whack them over the head with one?
Happens all the time....



Hey CAPTCLOWN, do you favor any restrictions on firearms, or are you for allowing what the founding fathers allowed, y'know, what's in the Constitution and all?

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 9-4-03 @ 9:53 AM

[CaptClown]

I'll never get this.

You hit on it in your post, being responsible.

Comparing pools and cars to guns, and because something ELSE has a higher death rate, it makes guns "OK".

Dead is dead no matter how you die. Are thinking about accidental deaths or just homicides? Please clarify.

Pools and cars aren't made to SPECIFICALLY to kill things. Yes, there ARE plenty of sport gun owners who are VERY responsible...they're not the problem. The represent such a miniscule amount of the people who own guns and who ARE the problem. It's mostly people who automatically assume that having a gun makes them and those around them "safe". Unlike even the knife, this is a device that is 9 times out 10 made with the intention of doing the most harm and destruction to whoever it is fired at, and that's IT.

I agree with this up to a point. IF someone is determined to get you anything can be lethal.

Now at the same time, I DON'T support getting rid of guns. But I DO think it should be damn hard to get them (Same goes for getting a driver's license, but that's neither here nor there), much harder than it is now, and I think FAR too many people who shouldn't can get them these days.

I agree with you on both points.

These are things made expressly to kill people as their PRIMARY purpose, whether people like it or not. When a person is killed by a car or a pool, it was an accident. When a gun kills a person, that's what it was supposed to do..
Are you lumping accidental gun deaths in with the homicides?

Responsible gun owners are NOT the problem. But you'd think they'd support measures that would still ultimately allow them to get their guns and keep the guns out of the hands of IRRESPONSIBLE gun owners.

Not if another gun-control law is passed that will not never be properly enforced and just restricts responsible gun owners. It will just be another waste of time.

The vast majority of gun deaths are NOT caused by roving gangs of gun-toting criminals...but by inexperienced, unprepared, irresponsible people who brought a gun into their house. Guns do kill people...but only foolish people who make mistakes because it was too easy for them to get the thing that killed them. THAT'S who needs to be kept from owning a gun, and you CAN do that without punishing responsible gun owners.

How do propose to do this? How do you find out who is actually responsible enough to actually own a gun? What are you going to do about people who will eventually game that system to their own benefit?

Hey CAPTCLOWN, do you favor any restrictions on firearms, or are you for allowing what the founding fathers allowed, y'know, what's in the Constitution and all?


Some of the gun-control laws I don't have a problem with, like a ban on fully automatic weapon. I do have a problem with some of the recent reactionary laws the bans on semi-automatic "Assault-Style" weapons and the limits on the size of the magazine your gun can have.


Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army



This message was edited by CaptClown on 9-6-03 @ 6:10 PM

[TheMojoPin]

Are you lumping accidental gun deaths in with the homicides?

Yes. The point is that guns are made primarily to kill someone quickly and easily, and whether it's on accident or not, it's done what it was supposed to do. If you electrify yourself with a toaster, it's an accident, yes, but it's purpose isn't to electrify. The majority of the time, a gun is made with the very clear intention of doing as much harm to somebody as possible, preferably killing them. Accident or not, it's done what it's supposed to do. I can see a CLEAR difference between that and other fatal accidents. Of course other things can kill you. But they're no designed to kill you as purposely and effictively as a gun does.

Again, I'm not coming down on them because I'm against them. I enjoy guns, but I just think it's too damn easy for anyone to get one. I don't know how to fix these. We have literally thousands of gun laws across the country that just gunk up the system. This is a case where I think very broad, sweeping FEDERAL rulings need to be made that override any previous or state-initiatives. I'm a huge champion of states' rights, but this is something country-wide that unfortunately needs to be dealt with in a universal manner. And yes, at some point the level needs to be cut off, technology-wise. People simply can't have any gun they want.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-7-03 @ 2:21 AM

[blakjeezis]

And can someone explain how THIS means that anyone can own guns however and whenever they want?

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Ordinarily I don't involve myself in any of the political discussions here for a number of reasons, but I just gotta add something to this. Mojo, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you're using a weak argument. The second amendment no more states the average guy can carry an assault rifle than this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

means a courthouse in Alabama can't have a statue of The Ten Commandments in front of it.

<IMG SRC =http://www.blakjeezis.homestead.com/files/bloodjeez.gif>
If I were any better, I'd have to be twins!!
<marquee><font color=red>2%</font> White people are so scared of blakjeezis <font color=red>2%</font></marquee>

[high fly]

At times there is confusion over the 4th Amendment, clarity comes when we see how the founding fathers put it into practice.
Originally, all the healthy men were expected to participate in the common defense. Local militias were established everywhere and many thought this would be enough to defend against Indian attacks or foreign invasion.
Their record in combat was rather spotty.
These militias, unlike the current "militias", reported to and were controlled by the governor or a commander appointed by the Federal government.
Arms were kept in armories as well as in private residences.
Citizens had the most up to date weaponry of the day, not just in rifles, but also artillery.
Yeah, that's right, artillery!
They had cannons on their private property along the Chesapeake Bay, for example, for protection against pirates. Merchant ships were occasionally armed as well.
There were no restrictions on artillery or any other weaponry.
I've been hoping some Liddiot would pop up so I could ask him if he minded citizens owning artillery.
I tried to "smoke-em out", Bush-style, to no avail.
(sigh)



" and they ask me why I drink"

[Yerdaddy]

a statue of The Ten Commandments in front of it.

in it

<IMG SRC="http://www.mrbill.com/spbill7.jpg">

[furie]

a statue of The Ten Commandments in front of it.

in it

<IMG SRC="http://www.mrbill.com/spbill7.jpg">

http://www.miketheteacher.com/images/nitpick.gif


http://tseery.homestead.com/files/moya.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

http://www.miketheteacher.com/images/nitpick.gif

there's no link

<IMG SRC="http://www.mrbill.com/spbill7.jpg">

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 9-7-03 @ 7:46 PM

[furie]

http://www.miketheteacher.com/images/nitpick.gif

there's no link

<IMG SRC="http://www.mrbill.com/spbill7.jpg">

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 9-7-03 @ 7:46 PM

just using the image to get the nitpicking idea accross


http://tseery.homestead.com/files/moya.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

just using the image to get the nitpicking idea accross

Could you please use captalization and punctuation?

<IMG SRC="http://www.mrbill.com/spbill7.jpg">

[CaptClown]

Yes. The point is that guns are made primarily to kill someone quickly and easily, and whether it's on accident or not, it's done what it was supposed to do. If you electrify yourself with a toaster, it's an accident, yes, but it's purpose isn't to electrify. The majority of the time, a gun is made with the very clear intention of doing as much harm to somebody as possible, preferably killing them. Accident or not, it's done what it's supposed to do. I can see a CLEAR difference between that and other fatal accidents. Of course other things can kill you. But they're no designed to kill you as purposely and effictively as a gun does.
It really doesn't invalidate my rather poorly expressed point about being responsible. Besides you can also make the same argument about knives, which are easier to obtain and take even less training to use, and you really don't see the rabid arguments calling for a ban on them.

Again, I'm not coming down on them because I'm against them. I enjoy guns, but I just think it's too damn easy for anyone to get one. I don't know how to fix these. We have literally thousands of gun laws across the country that just gunk up the system. This is a case where I think very broad, sweeping FEDERAL rulings need to be made that override any previous or state-initiatives. I'm a huge champion of states' rights, but this is something country-wide that unfortunately needs to be dealt with in a universal manner. And yes, at some point the level needs to be cut off, technology-wise. People simply can't have any gun they want.
If they can't enforce the current federal regulations effectively, how in the hell are they going to enforce something like that?

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

http://www.nudeafrica.com/discus/messages/45722/3068438.gif

[TheMojoPin]

Besides you can also make the same argument about knives, which are easier to obtain and take even less training to use, and you really don't see the rabid arguments calling for a ban on them.

You simply cannot make the same arugment because the numbers don't even come close, and the mentality isn't even the same. Guns make killing detached and easy. With a knife, you're still right up in it and essentially killing someone with your hands. That requires a COMPLETELY different frame of mind than what it takes to just pull a trigger without a second thought. A knife-killing and gun-killing are usually so far apart on the psychological/emotional spectrum...

You simply can't compare ANYTHING to a gun in terms of death-delaing capability and the ease with which it makes killing someone happen. It's what they're built to do. And you can be as responsible as you want...what about the people in your family who AREN'T trained or responsible? The gun that was designed to kill things is going to have no problem doing it to them. I just can't argue it any more because it seems so much more obvious...a gun if the most efficent personal, handheld killing machine we have. It's what it's ultimately made for. Yes, of course, other things are dangerous and can kill you, but it's usually degrees of accidents before you end up dead. With a gun, it's pretty goddamn likely you'll jump RIGHT to dead because that's EXACTLY WHAT IT'S MADE FOR. It doesn't matter how responsible SOME people can be...the gun doesn't change. It's still a brilliantly efficient and effective killing machine. That never changes. It's what it does.

And like I said, I don't know how they should be federally regulated. Maybe it IS a state issue. But I can't in good faith just shrug and give up and just assume any schmuck with a wad of cash can get a gun. The things are just too damn dangerous.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Yerdaddy]

It really doesn't invalidate my rather poorly expressed point about being responsible. Besides you can also make the same argument about knives, which are easier to obtain and take even less training to use, and you really don't see the rabid arguments calling for a ban on them.
That's an over-used, but weak argument. 1) Question: You know some freak wants to kill you. Which would you rather he had: a gun or a knife? 2) Children can't accidentally find a knife and stab each other to death in a split second in a game of make-believe. 3) Crimes involving knives don't easily kill bystanders. These points are to make the important point that there is a big distinction between guns and every other readily available weapon - that a gun is the only one that can kill from a distance and with only the pull of a trigger. That's what sets them apart as a particular danger to the public safety, and gives the general public an interest in legistlating their manufacture, sale, ownership and use of guns. Cars are dangerous, and that's why the public interest requires government regulation of their use. Guns pose a similar threat, so a smart society would want to put restrictions on them. That doesn't mean abolishing guns, or rabid arguments against them.

As for enforcement, every law requires enforcement in order to have meaning. The same people who are opposing gun laws are the ones working just as hard to prevent allocating the resources to enforce the ones on the books. The really dishonest part is that they are also the ones who complain about enforcement in order to undermine the case for creating new laws, (and to scare up donations from scared gun-owners). Yes, I am talking about the NRA, by the way. Nobody is better at distorting issues than the NRA. The truth is it's not a matter of "can't" enforce the laws, it's don't enforce the laws. The real question is why?

<IMG SRC="http://www.mrbill.com/spbill7.jpg">

[TheMojoPin]

Mojo, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you're using a weak argument. The second amendment no more states the average guy can carry an assault rifle than this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

means a courthouse in Alabama can't have a statue of The Ten Commandments in front of it.

Actually, I wasn't arguing it. I was honestly asking.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[CaptClown]

That's an over-used, but weak argument. 1) Question: You know some freak wants to kill you. Which would you rather he had: a gun or a knife?
Both, I might miss with a gun. I can always use the knife as back up. Or I may want to kill quietly.

2) Children can't accidentally find a knife and stab each other to death in a split second in a game of make-believe.
Kids get into everything. If a kid can get a gun, then he can surely get a knife. Have you never had a pretend swordfight as a child?
3) Crimes involving knives don't easily kill bystanders.
Have you ever been to any of the "Urban Contemporary" concerts in NE D.C. during the 80's when kids were taping razorblades to their collars. It's kind of hard not to stab/slash an innocent bystander in some of those cramped clubs.
These points are to make the important point that there is a big distinction between guns and every other readily available weapon - that a gun is the only one that can kill from a distance and with only the pull of a trigger. That's what sets them apart as a particular danger to the public safety, and gives the general public an interest in legistlating their manufacture, sale, ownership and use of guns.
Are you going to make me bring up a laundry list of things that you actually can get without regulation.

Cars are dangerous, and that's why the public interest requires government regulation of their use. Guns pose a similar threat, so a smart society would want to put restrictions on them. That doesn't mean abolishing guns, or rabid arguments against them.

But you don't here the same knee-jerk reaction to them everytime some operator has an accident.



Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

http://www.nudeafrica.com/discus/messages/45722/3068438.gif

This message was edited by CaptClown on 9-8-03 @ 10:07 PM

[furie]

just using the image to get the nitpicking idea accross

Could you please use captalization and punctuation?

<IMG SRC="http://www.mrbill.com/spbill7.jpg">

furie no write good.


http://tseery.homestead.com/files/skull.gif

[TheMojoPin]

But you don't here the same knee-jerk reaction to them everytime some operator has an accident.

Because cars aren't made with the specific intention of killing/wounding people.

The population of the U.S. is almost 300 million people as of July of this year. And let's guess how many people have cars. Let's say 100 million to 150 million cars. A large number of accidents is to be expected, which is in actuality approx. 40,000 a year. The ratio makes sense. Look how comparitively few people own guns (Compared to how many own cars and how many cars each), just around 70 million, yet the guns still kill approx. 30,000 people each and every year. The fatalities are almost comparable. Yes, I'm not differentiating the various circumstances, but clearly the gun is a tool designed to do a very specific thing and to do it very well and the numbers reflect that, accident or not.

I mean, you just canNOT compare guns as a fatality-maker compared to other everyday items we encounter, even knives and cars. There's less than a million physicians in the country, yet the amount of accidental or malicious deaths that can be attributed to or linked to physician's behavior and/or actions hovers around 100,000, more than both cars AND guns. But physicians and cars are net set out to hurt or kill people. Guns are, responsible owners or not, that's SIMPLY WHAT THEY EXIST TO DO. They belong in a seperate, higher class of control and protection and restriction because of that, regardless of the numbers.

Yes, knives ARE capable of being VERY effective weapons...but nowhere near in the scope or capability of guns. Give some a revolver and another guy a a meat cleaver and set 'em both loose into a crowded store. Who's more likely to kill more people? Guns just make killing too easy for too many people, period.

Like in a hand-to-hand fight, all you have to with a gun is make a fist.

The only difference is with a gun a bullet does all the hitting for you, and it usally just takes only one.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-9-03 @ 11:45 AM

[A.J.]

Have you never had a pretend swordfight as a child?

Hey, that was just an "experimentation phase", OK?

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation