Fatass may lose his Oscar

[Beowulf]

Violent crimes can be commited with items other than a firearm. For example, baseball bats, chains, bows/crossbows, knives, a fist. And you have all the right equipment to be a potential rapist/prostitutite/serial killer(ignore the rapist part if you're female). So now you are. Also, handguns can be used to protect my rights to life and liberty. Oh, and since when is property an essential right?

As for smuggling... Gee... it can't be that hard to put in a shipment of other metallic objects, could it? Like, for example, cars, electronic equipment, hair spray...

And I don't suppose that I might find it enjoyable to put holes in a paper target, or go hunting with a handgun, eh? You seem to be spewing pure left wing bullshit... Now let's see what a baseball bat is useful for: beating people up. Now, they also have another purpose, playing a sport, just like handguns.

And spewing inflametory rehetoric is one mark of a troll.

Oh, and stop playing a Darkstar...

[CaptainChewbacca]

Fun fact: In Switzerland it is required by law that all adult males have a rifle in their home and be proficient in its use. Pistols are also provided, because its a national militia.

They get limited ammo and guns provided by the government. Also a fun fact, is that while almost every adult male in Switzerland owns a gun, there's very little violent crime.

Wait... guns DON'T correlate to violence??? I'm shocked.

And you thought all they had was those little knives.

[Sriad]

Violent crimes can be commited with items other than a firearm. For example, baseball bats, chains, bows/crossbows, knives, a fist. And you have all the right equipment to be a potential rapist/prostitutite/serial killer(ignore the rapist part if you're female). So now you are. Also, handguns can be used to protect my rights to life and liberty. Oh, and since when is property an essential right?

Since when can't women be rapists?

[Beowulf]

Violent crimes can be commited with items other than a firearm. For example, baseball bats, chains, bows/crossbows, knives, a fist. And you have all the right equipment to be a potential rapist/prostitutite/serial killer(ignore the rapist part if you're female). So now you are. Also, handguns can be used to protect my rights to life and liberty. Oh, and since when is property an essential right?

Since when can't women be rapists?

It's significantly harder, and they usually don't have the right equipment...

[Darth Wong]

Wait... guns DON'T correlate to violence??? I'm shocked.

Guns in the hands of angry or stupid people DO correlate to violence. Switzerland has massive cradle-to-grave social programs and heavily funded public education in order to reduce the number of angry and stupid people.

However, correlating crime to America's decaying public infrastructure and social programs attacks an even bigger right-wing sacred cow than correlating it to guns, so it's easier to go after guns

[NapoleonGH]

No i am not spewing left wing bullshit any more than you are spewing right wing bullshit (most of what comes out of the mouths of both sides is just that, bullshit)

Violent crimes can be comitted with weapons other than a firearm and never did I state otherwise. I did however state that firearms have a status as one of several of the weapons you listed that serves no real purpose OTHER than violence. Fists/hands have non-violent uses, as do knifes, chains, baseball bats. crossbows/bows can be used for hunting. I havent seen much hunting done with a pistol lately, have you?

And i have never heard of ANYONE going hunting with a handgun, nor any handgun being advertised as a hunting implement, please give me a link to any handgun advertisement claiming that it should be used for hunting. and Protecting your rights of life and liberty WHILE restricting someone else's right to life makes it in violation of that little clause i put in there we have the rights to life, liberty, and property so long as we dont use said rights to try to abridge other people's rights in the process. Killing someone qualifies as abridging their right to life. Furhtermore the property was the 3rd essential right before "pursuit of happiness" was and it is the one included in the only mention of these rights in the US constitution, the 14th ammendment, "pursuit of happiness" was never a legal right granted to any american, the declaration is not a legal document. Thus property has been an essential right since about 1865 according to US law (that isnt the exact date of the 14th ammendment but it did happen during reconstruction i just dont recall the exact year), and 1690 according to political science.

Yes spewing inflamatory rehetoric is ONE mark of a troll but one mark of a troll a troll does not make. I also state things that can be seen as ONE mark of a communist, but I am not a communist. I also engage in activities that can be seen as one mark of a smoker (i buy lighters), but that doesnt make me a smoker, likewise i can share a common activity/method of posting with a troll without being a troll.

And who is darkstar and why should I care?

[Howedar]

Does anybody know if this board has an ignore feature?

[Beowulf]

So this Hammerli SP20 target pistol is designed to shoot somebody else? Bullshit. As to handgun hunting: http://www.leverguns.com/store/hampton.htm oh, look, a book about hunting with a handgun. Maybe you haven't heard about people hunting with a handgun, because you have your fingers stuck in your ears.

I still don't see property being an essential right.

And defending myself against a swordwielding lunatic, (oh, add swords to my list above) with a handgun is wrong?

[NapoleonGH]

The Beowulf READ THE 14th ammendment, it is right there after life and liberty plain as day. Or you can read John Locke's "2nd Treatise on civil government" for the other side of when it became an essential right.

Beowulf now ok you give an ad/book supporting it. Is the number of people who have handguns and only own them for either hunting or target shooting as their primary goal in handgun ownership statistically significant in relation to those who own them with the primary goal being to "defend themselves" as they would phrase it?

And howedar, once again at least I would appreciate a lack of spam and a more content based approach to posting from you, and I would hope others would agree that it is better to not spam and fill threads with pointless comments.

[Coyote]

Fucking hell, that was all one big long sentence. Learning Hebrew was as easy as Lego compared to that.

Okay, hoser Napoleon, let's take your crap to its logical conclusion--

You say a murderer is anyone with a gun. What about people who murder with knives, chainsaw, bat, poison, cars, explosives, fire, using viscious animals, lead pipes, and so on? Are their victims 'less dead'? Is a person killed by a bopmb or poison insignificant to you? Only people killed by guns are important, because it supports your political agenda? What humanitrian.

You also implied that 2 million legal defensive uses of guns would not be necessary if there were no guns. WTF are you smoking? You mean that if a man starts to attack someone, and the victim pulls a gun and the criminal backs off, that is a crime? Do you honestly think that the crimnal intended to attack ONLY because the person had a gun?

THIS is why I think you are coming from a pov of indoctrination instead of thought. There are people out there that think there mere presecence of a weapon, lying on a table, is enogh to create a psychological aura of violence and nger and hate. You seem to be one of these people, hence my comment.

Odd, too-- you take that one comment, somethign damn near impossible for anyone to prove, and challenge me on it. Fine. Since it is the type of thing that cannot truly be proven one way or another (since it means I would have to psychoanlyze you through this contact only) I will just have to do my best-- since obviously if I laugh at your silly 'chllenge' then you will cackle and crow about having 'bested' me. As if anyone here would believe you, anyway.

Okay, let's try a simple challenge. Answer these questions:

A gun in the home is...

An "assault weapon" is...

A "Saturday NIght Special" is...

What is "semi-automatic"; "self-loading"; "auto"; and "repeating"?

What do you think of this statement: "We should pass a law that forbids the sale of machine guns."

What is the weapon of choice for criminals?

Who supported the National Instant Background Check system?

What are the top three causes of death in the US today?

Who supports the following advice for children if they ever find a firearm:
"Stop-- Don't touch-- Leave the area-- Tell an adult"?

Metro-Dade police-- the police force for the greater Miami area (an area rife with crime, especially drug and gang crime), confiscated how many 'assault weapons' in 1993 in relation to criminal activity? How about Orange County, California?

What is the penalty for a convicted felon to be in posession of an 'assault weapon'? How about any other type of gun?



Depening on the answers we get to this, perhps it wil be possible to determine if you really do examine evidence and look for information, or if you just parrot someone else' squawk. It wil be interesting to hear your answers.

[Coyote]

Wait... guns DON'T correlate to violence??? I'm shocked.

Guns in the hands of angry or stupid people DO correlate to violence. Switzerland has massive cradle-to-grave social programs and heavily funded public education in order to reduce the number of angry and stupid people.

However, correlating crime to America's decaying public infrastructure and social programs attacks an even bigger right-wing sacred cow than correlating it to guns, so it's easier to go after guns

Agreed, this tends to be where I split from the ususal Conservative viewpoint and agree that better social support programs and educational assistance for the poor would be a great reduction in crime of any sort.

[MKSheppard]

Umm you notice the change in terms dont you sheppard, i said Legitimate, not legal.

Listen you drooling fucknut, it may be hard to understand this, but people
are still MAIMED by wild animals each year in the United States.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I think the worst part of the film was how they painted Heston as a racist. I'd sort of read about his actions in school once upon a time, but reading the website reminded me about what he did. He marched WITH Martin Luther King and supported actors of color in Hollywood.

He doesn't deserve that.

[The Yosemite Bear]

No one hunts with Hand guns eh?

I guess the State of Alaska doesn't exist?

You know where you need a .357 to deal with the local fauna, and seal hunting with pistols is how you keep food on the table.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Makes sense to me, I've just never heard of it before.

Don't shoot a bear, though, you'll only make him mad.

[SPOOFE]

Because gun control is an ineffective REACTION to rising violent crime rates. Violent crime rises in an area, people react by passing gun laws, the crime rate continues to rise, and the NRA concludes that therefore, gun laws produce crime. False cause fallacies are very popular in politics.

As are False Assessment fallacies. The NRA doesn't claim that gun laws cause crime - aside from pointing out that banning guns simply turns law-abiding gun owners into criminals by definition - the NRA points out that gun laws DON'T do any GOOD. There's a difference.

It is the State's responsibility to justify taking away the guns, NOT the owner's responsibility to justify having them.

Guns in the hands of angry or stupid people DO correlate to violence. Switzerland has massive cradle-to-grave social programs and heavily funded public education in order to reduce the number of angry and stupid people.

True. So with this in mind, I ask you... does it make more sense to take the toys from the stupid people, or rather to strive to make the people not stupid? The former results in a population that's still stupid.

Now, NapoleanGH...

ohh and btw, maybe gun death rates are rising in england, are they still pretty much 2 orders of magnitude lower than our own?

Irrelevent. The gun control of England didn't cause the lower crime rate. Pointing to rising crime rates proves quite conclusively that gun control does not necessarily bring about any good. Claiming that a country has both strong gun control AND low crime rate doesn't prove anything... the "false cause fallacy" that Mr. Wong was kind enough to point out.

So my comments lead you to believe that i dont understand that statistics of school shootings? No my comments stated that those who have bothered to kill people in these mass shootings are of a certain group in a certain type of area, something very different from claiming that the number of students killed is statistically significant, nice attempt to place words in my mouth, too bad you gun totin murderers in waiting arent going to get away with it

That has got to be the most irrational sentence I've ever read.

I mentioned your misunderstanding of the school shooting situation because you put so much emphasis on what is, essentially, barely a blip on the statistical radar. They are meaningless. They almost never happen. They are not a significant problem.

As for your ad hominem... I suggest you learn up a bit, child. Less than one-hundredth of one percent of all guns are used for the commission of a crime. Calling gun owners "murders in waiting" simply indicates your lack of rationality on the issue. Quite frankly, it was irrationality - such as yours - that led to the school tragedies that you seem to lament so much. I would reflect on that before speaking again on this issue, child.

Ohh so "guns prevented violent crimes" what you forgot to mention was how many of those crimes that were prevented involved the criminal having a gun. That would be a statistic that would make your break your little factoid.

Utterly irrelevent. The statistics prove quite conclusively not only that guns do a net good for society, their availability is a necessity in a society that cannot guarantee 100% safety. If the other criminals had guns - which, as already shown, are most often illegally-owned anyway, so no new laws would make it any more illegal - that simply shows that the average citizen needs to be able to have the same level of a playing field. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the police are not responsible if you get hurt before they can intervene... saying that citizens are responsible for their own safety, first and foremost. By saying that citizens should not have access to guns would be punishing them for acts they did not commit.

Furthermore, those guns that are possessed illegally, lets see, I go around carrying an illegal gun, but other people can own them legally, meaning that the sheer fact i have one in my possession doesnt instantly tip people off that it is illegal and should be reported/confiscated.

True. The reverse side of that, however, is that if you, a criminal, know that there are enough people in the area carrying guns to make everyone comfortable with it... are you going to try to shoot someone, knowing that potentially anyone may be able to shoot back?

No, my dim-witted friend, criminals are not morons. They're in the criminal business because it's EASY, not for the sport. If they know that any victim in an area may quite likely be armed, they'll do one of two things: Go to a different area, or commit a non-confrontational crime. Frankly, I'd much rather have someone steal the radio out of my car than rob me at gunpoint.

It is like drugs compared to alcohol. someone is underage and drinking since they look close enough to 21 that people arent sure if they are doing so illegally or legally you have a much larger margin for missing the illegal activity, but when you are dealing with say heroin, anyone with it is automatically known to be violating the law.

What a lousy analogy. The way one differentiates the law-abiding gun owner with the law-breaking gun owner is that one of them breaks laws... the other doesn't. Wanna know how to pick out the criminal, in a crowd? He's the one committing the crimes. He's the one that's, oh, shoving a gun in your face and demanding your wallet. Wouldn't it be a delicious irony pulling out your own pocket rocket and firing a .38 into his gut? The criminal is aware of this potential irony, even if you, basking in your rose-colored-glasses, are not. As such, if he's in an area where people can carry guns... he's not gonna start any shit, I guarantee. He doesn't wanna be shot.

[Perinquus]

Guys, by now it ought to be obvious that responding to NapoleonComplex is a complete waste of time. He's a hoplophobe. And like any phobia, his is an irrational fear, impervious to reasoned argument. You've seen how he pontificates on a subject about which he obviously knows almost nothing (witness his complete ignorance of the law concerning handguns and CCWs, or of the sport of hangun hunting). But he's not about to let either his ignorance or inconvenient facts get in his way. Nor is he about to stop characterizing those who disagree with him as moral defectives, no matter how much evidence you present that his "timb bomb murderers" nonsense is a hoplophobic fantasy, absolutely unsupported by the record.

I won't bandy words with him further. As Wm. Shakespeare said: "For I mine own gain'd knowledge should profane, if I would time expend with such a snipe..."

[SirNitram]

I'll just add something.

According to the revised policy against weaponry on state and federal grounds, Nunchaku are a lethal weapon.

You have to wonder who brought a set to a state or federal facility with intent to do harm to get this added.

[Sea Skimmer]

Umm you notice the change in terms dont you sheppard, i said Legitimate, not legal. yes handguns have currently legal uses, but i claim not legitimate uses. Their sole purpose is to restrict other people of their right to life, and yes they can be used to restrict someone else's right to life while protecting yours, but i dont claim that to be a legitimate use, you can disagree with that all you'd like, but that doesnt mean that I am claiming guns to be lacking in a currently legal use however much you wish I was that poor in my knowledge base.

We don't need to wish the truth

[The Yosemite Bear]

Actually it's Seal hunting (by the native americans) where pistols are a big improvement over clubs and harpoons. Oh and since polar bears will throw rocks and chunks of ice to kill people/seals/birds before eating them, I would definatly say there's a need to be armed here.

-Welcome to Glacier National Park, You are no longer at the top of the food chain.

[SPOOFE]

You have to wonder who brought a set to a state or federal facility with intent to do harm to get this added.

The Ignorance of the Masses. They see Chuck Norris or Steven Seagal or some other hotshot martial artist from the '80s beat up a couple guys with a weapon, and everyone automatically assumes that anyone can use the weapon as effectively and easily to cause serious harm as the fictional character did in the fictional movie.

I bet if you got a couple of Hollywood Summer Blockbusters to show the Hero (or the Villain) killing a crowd of people with a rubber chicken, people will start demanding that they be banned, too.

[Typhonis 1]

Nunchuka are as dangerous to the untrained user as they are to the guys they are being used on plus they can be improvised. IMO if ahem Fat Albert did lie bout this being a documentary he should loose the Oscar for best documentary.

[SPOOFE]

IMO if ahem Fat Albert did lie bout this being a documentary he should loose the Oscar for best documentary.

I guess it depends on what you consider a "lie". In my opinion, re-editing someone's words to alter the context is a "lie". Some disagree.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Re editing someones words to completely change their meaning, and presenting it as fact IS lying.
In your previous post, if I quoted you as saying "I guess you lie." Would I be lying? Of coarse. I left out a few words. But you DID say what I quoted you on. You just said a few more words here and there.
Since you already agree, that reediting in your opinion, is lying, it begs the question. If DELIBERALY and KNOWINGLY you change both the words and meaning of what was said, and call it a quote, how can it NOT be a lie. You are INTENTIONALY mistating the truth.
He's not simpley wrong, or ignorant, he's LYING!

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Those that claim MM is not lying are ignorant, or redefining lying to suit their arguement.