A Firearm in Every Home.

[blue]

Part of my sig was questioned not to long ago.


There are over five hundred and fifty million firearms in worldwide circulation. Thats one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is, how do we arm the other eleven.

The USA cant arm the entire world population, but we can arm, train and make USA citizens more comfortable with firearm ownership.

Starting in the 1st grade, students get firearm safety training. Not firearms training, just safety, the hands on stuff would come in the higher grades. Safe handling and markmanship would be part of the overall GPA from 1st to high school graduation.

If you want a private business lisence you must pass a basic firearms safety and marksmanship course. If you want a home mortgage, you must pass a basic firearms safety and marksmanship course. Property management companies can require or not require the firearms safety and marksmanship training for those who rent from them. I wouldnt tie this onto a drivers lisence.

While I would like firearms to be cheaper for the general public to own, I cant see a constitutional way to make that happen, but by relaxing certain laws and regulations prices can drop. We could even add a free handgun to the purchase of every home, and a handgun included with every rented appartment, condo, and house.

Concealed carry wouldnt be madatory but it wouldnt require a lisence for any home owner, business owner, renter, college student, or anybody over the age of 18. CCW would be legal on all school grounds, unless privately owned.

[blue]

Concerning USA charitable groups overseas, if they give food, funds or housing in any way, they would be obligated to provide firearms training and firearms along with the goods, training, and services they currently provide. Ammunition would also be required with all other humanitarian goods provided.

[blue]

All current restrictions for firearm ownership would still apply in the USA. If you cant vote, you cant own a firearm. If you have been convicted of a sex crime or domestic abuse, you cant own a firearm.

[Cinder & Smoke]

Quote:
There are over five hundred and fifty million firearms in worldwide circulation.
Thats one firearm for every twelve people on the planet.
The only question is, how do we arm the other eleven.

.... we can arm, train and make USA citizens more comfortable with firearm ownership.

If you want a private business lisence ...
If you want a home mortgage ...
you must pass a basic firearms safety and marksmanship course.

We could even add a free handgun to the purchase of every home,
and a handgun included with every rented appartment, condo, and house.

Concealed carry wouldn't be mandatory,
but it wouldn't require a lisence
for any home owner, business owner, renter, college student, or anybody over the age of 18.
CCW would be legal on all school grounds, unless privately owned.

And this new program to require folks to Pack Heat will do what for
the average citizen?

What size canon are you suggesting - .22, .357, .45 cal? Full Auto?

Hey - canon - good idea ...
How about a 5" gun mounted on my front steps ... In case I feel 'threatened'.

Will I get a free Body Armor Vest with my government issued peace-keeper?

Can I just *pass* on this New Deal?







Quote:
Originally Credited to one John Adams:
Remember, democracy never lasts long.
It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.
There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

[Randi]

We could even add a free handgun to the purchase of every home, and a handgun included with every rented appartment, condo, and house.

Concealed carry wouldnt be madatory but it wouldnt require a lisence for any home owner, business owner, renter, college student, or anybody over the age of 18. CCW would be legal on all school grounds, unless privately owned.You must be joking!!! :eek: Or is this how you'd plan to bring down the population of the world?

[Edwina's Secretary]

Please guys...don't feed the trolls. It only encourages them.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Whisk_Luva]

So you think we should teach everyone in the world to use a gun? And everyone should have a gun? How about those with mental disorders? They may not of done anything yet, but if someone is developing some form of mental health issue and they get a gun....?

And we do not need any more kids thinking guns and violence is cool thank you very much. Yes you are teaching them saftey but how much are 1st graders really going to take in? The main message you are teaching them is guns are ok.

As if people don't feel vunerable enough in this day and age out in the city! Yes they would have there own gun but thats no help when you are dead. A few seconds is all it takes, how the hell is someone meant to defend themselves in that time?

It's awful even thinking of getting charities to hand out guns! Charities are meant to protect and help people, not turn them into killers, or allow more people to be hurt by these nasty guns.

I say tax on owning a gun should be increased everytime someone is shot. Enough people are killed as it is, do you really think giving more people guns is going to help that?!? End of.

[rg_girlca]

Come on people, you know that Blue KNOWS this topic is going to, well lets just say, "Hit the fan." Don't give him the satisfaction of sitting back and reading how everyone is going to get riled up over this. No matter how wrong this thread is to us all, it is his opinion and as far as I'm concerned, the only one with this opinion. As hard as it is to some, lets just leave him to his opinion and don't act on it.

[pomtzu]

Come on people, you know that Blue KNOWS this topic is going to, well lets just say, "Hit the fan." Don't give him the satisfaction of sitting back and reading how everyone is going to get riled up over this. No matter how wrong this thread is to us all, it is his opinion and as far as I'm concerned, the only one with this opinion. As hard as it is to some, lets just leave him to his opinion and don't act on it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.....
Thanks!

[lizbud]

What are we going to do with those who refuse to arm themselves?
Do we get to shoot them?:rolleyes:

[aTailOf2Kitties]

I think we should arm people with grumpy little dogs instead. You can carry them around in little holsters and everything (just in case). Start training people early on how to raise and train their own family protection. I can see it now...."you'll get your own chihuahua when you're old enough little Timmy. In the meantime, we're gonna teach you how to use it properly. First off.... never tell your yappy little dog to attack anyone unless you are sure they're a bad guy".
[/sarcasm]
honestly if eveyone had a gun, it would just come down to whoever could shoot first. Bad guy wouldn't have any reason not to shoot you on sight if they knew you were willing and able shoot back if you saw them first.

[Twisterdog]

Ooooh, I love it! Let's force everyone to own and use an item, whether they like it or not! That's true democracy at work, there.

While we're at it, let's force everyone to own and ride a motorcycle. Or own a green iguana. I personally think requiring ownership and skills in use of hand grenades and Arabian horses would be a great pre-requisite to buying prom tickets.

Brilliant!! I'm sure it's just what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution.



(Caveat: I own and know how to use firearms.)

[beeniesmom]

Ooooh, I love it! Let's force everyone to own and use an item, whether they like it or not! That's true democracy at work, there.

While we're at it, let's force everyone to own and ride a motorcycle. Or own a green iguana. I personally think requiring ownership and skills in use of hand grenades and Arabian horses would be a great pre-requisite to buying prom tickets.

Brilliant!! I'm sure it's just what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution.



(Caveat: I own and know how to use firearms.)

HHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa! Love your post!

[Catty1]

I was the person (or perhaps there were others) that PM'd blue a while back and asked how such a thing could be practical. Not everyone could carry arms - training is needed, and not all people have the aptitude or the ability. Some could not hit the broad side of a barn, and there would be others with physical, emotional or mental limitations.

Nowhere in blue's posts here did I see the word "EVERYONE". Other posters added that.

Whether I agree with the proposal or not is irrelevant - blue has plainly given this some thought and has proposed under what conditions arming citizens might be accomplished.

Okay, maybe some of this, or even all, would not work. The type of arms carried would have to be regulated - and law-abiding citizens would abide by that. (Yes, it's still the crooks that cause the trouble).

If, as blue suggests, you had been educated in firearm SAFETY (not USE) since the first grade, would you feel more at ease with this?

Is there anything here that anyone sees as workable, or has suggestions for improvement aside from calling blue a troll, and the stuff hitting the fan?

Firearm ownership is a contentious issue in Canada also - and is far too serious a subject to be derided and dismissed as I see being done here.

JMHO

[blue]

And this new program to require folks to Pack Heat will do what for
the average citizen?

No, citizens would not be required to "Pack Heat". Simply be trained in firearm safety and usage.


What size canon are you suggesting - .22, .357, .45 cal? Full Auto?

There is no one size fits all. I can handle a .45 and even the .50 BMG rifles, they arent for everybody.


Hey - canon - good idea ...
How about a 5" gun mounted on my front steps ... In case I feel 'threatened'.

Why a 5"? Why not build a bowling ball cannon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-b3W4gfJ6I&feature=related) and call it good?

"Threatened". :rolleyes:

Also depending on the ordinance used your "cannon" could be classified as a destructive device and not legal.


Will I get a free Body Armor Vest with my government issued peace-keeper?

No. You will not be issued any firearms, only trained to safely use them. To my knowledge Body Armour currently used by Police and military are not legal for civilians to own.


Can I just *pass* on this New Deal?

You could certainly "pass" on owning a fire arm, but you would still be trained to safely handle and operate a variety of firearms.



You must be joking!!! :eek: Or is this how you'd plan to bring down the population of the world?

How would this bring down the population of the world? And no Im not joking.


Please guys...don't feed the trolls. It only encourages them.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I was asked a question and I responded. You on the other hand never miss a chance to be insulting and added nothing of value to this thread.


So you think we should teach everyone in the world to use a gun? And everyone should have a gun? How about those with mental disorders? They may not of done anything yet, but if someone is developing some form of mental health issue and they get a gun....?

Yes everybody should know how to safely use a firearm, even those with mental disorders. Obviously if you have a mental disorder you should not be allowed to own or be in unsupervised posession of a firearm.


And we do not need any more kids thinking guns and violence is cool thank you very much. Yes you are teaching them saftey but how much are 1st graders really going to take in? The main message you are teaching them is guns are ok.

Part of the problem is people are teaching kids that firearms equal violence, and that firearms cause violence. We need to be teaching kids younger then 1rst graders that firearms are not toys and to respect the damage they can do. Kids are taught not to play with knives, matches, lighters, etc, etc, before the first grade and most kids take it in quite readily. The main message everybody needs to learn is guns are OK and they need to be respected and handled accordingly.


As if people don't feel vunerable enough in this day and age out in the city! Yes they would have there own gun but thats no help when you are dead. A few seconds is all it takes, how the hell is someone meant to defend themselves in that time?

So people are better off defenseless is your argument?


It's awful even thinking of getting charities to hand out guns! Charities are meant to protect and help people, not turn them into killers, or allow more people to be hurt by these nasty guns.

Yes, its better to let the people recieving aid, food, and medical supplies be able to defend it. Arming them dosent turn them into killers it lets them defend themselves against those who will kill them for the goods they recieved. Giving them food and medical supplies only to turn them around and let others kill them is not charity.


I say tax on owning a gun should be increased everytime someone is shot. Enough people are killed as it is, do you really think giving more people guns is going to help that?!? End of.

Yes I do. Legal gun owners do a small minority of unjustified killings. Making it harder for people to legaly own firearms only makes for more victims and increases crime in general.


Come on people, you know that Blue KNOWS this topic is going to, well lets just say, "Hit the fan." Don't give him the satisfaction of sitting back and reading how everyone is going to get riled up over this. No matter how wrong this thread is to us all, it is his opinion and as far as I'm concerned, the only one with this opinion. As hard as it is to some, lets just leave him to his opinion and don't act on it.


Couldn't have said it better myself.....
Thanks!

Again, I was asked a question this is my response. I was hoping for a calm, rational discussion but that may have been wishfull thinking on my part.


What are we going to do with those who refuse to arm themselves?
Do we get to shoot them?:rolleyes:

Nothing, this isnt Switzerland, or Israel. Thank you for taking this seriously, :rolleyes:.


I think we should arm people with grumpy little dogs instead. You can carry them around in little holsters and everything (just in case). Start training people early on how to raise and train their own family protection. I can see it now...."you'll get your own chihuahua when you're old enough little Timmy. In the meantime, we're gonna teach you how to use it properly. First off.... never tell your yappy little dog to attack anyone unless you are sure they're a bad guy".
[/sarcasm]

Maybe issue an Adam West cat launcher?


honestly if eveyone had a gun, it would just come down to whoever could shoot first. Bad guy wouldn't have any reason not to shoot you on sight if they knew you were willing and able shoot back if you saw them first.

Bad example. The bad guy would in turn be detained by a legal gun owner trained for such situations.


Ooooh, I love it! Let's force everyone to own and use an item, whether they like it or not! That's true democracy at work, there.

While we're at it, let's force everyone to own and ride a motorcycle. Or own a green iguana. I personally think requiring ownership and skills in use of hand grenades and Arabian horses would be a great pre-requisite to buying prom tickets.

Brilliant!! I'm sure it's just what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution.

Nowhere did I say citizens would be forced to own or use a firearm, only that they would be trained to safely handle firearms. And I believe the Founders had this very thing in mind, an armed populace.


(Caveat: I own and know how to use firearms.)

So your point is what, exactly? To take what I wrote out of context for the amusment of those who are scared of firearms?


HHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa! Love your post!

Not saying your afraid of firearms but just maybe.


I was the person (or perhaps there were others) that PM'd blue a while back and asked how such a thing could be practical. Not everyone could carry arms - training is needed, and not all people have the aptitude or the ability. Some could not hit the broad side of a barn, and there would be others with physical, emotional or mental limitations.

It was a post from you that I am responding to.


Nowhere in blue's posts here did I see the word "EVERYONE". Other posters added that.

Whether I agree with the proposal or not is irrelevant - blue has plainly given this some thought and has proposed under what conditions arming citizens might be accomplished.

Okay, maybe some of this, or even all, would not work. The type of arms carried would have to be regulated - and law-abiding citizens would abide by that. (Yes, it's still the crooks that cause the trouble).

If, as blue suggests, you had been educated in firearm SAFETY (not USE) since the first grade, would you feel more at ease with this?

Is there anything here that anyone sees as workable, or has suggestions for improvement aside from calling blue a troll, and the stuff hitting the fan?

Firearm ownership is a contentious issue in Canada also - and is far too serious a subject to be derided and dismissed as I see being done here.

JMHO

Thank you.

[sparks19]

To be honest... I think this all boils down to people reading this incorrectly. He did not say people HAD to be armed or be shot.

We own guns.... we havent SHOT anyone. and we don't plan to either.

Gun ownership does NOT equal violence. I am not a violent person. my husband is not a violent person. we aren't going to hand hannah a gun and tell her to have at it

but EDUCATION doesn't hurt ANYONE. It seems that what is being proposed here is simply EDUCATION

are you against sex ed since so many people go out and fool around and end up with STD's? likely not. do you think they should teach only abstinence? probably not for the most part.

We raise our children teaching them how to handle things properly and how to stay safe... why is it that it's only guns that we want to make totally taboo? why not teach them HOW to use one correctly?

Too many people have no problem giving their kids a water gun or some sort of toy gun to play with... but then we expect them to not learn about what REAL guns do or are capable of?

Hmmmm

Hey I know my opinion isn't popular. but it's my opinion and it isn't going to change anytime soon.

[Whisk_Luva]

Nowhere in blue's posts here did I see the word "EVERYONE".
Of course not, and I understand exactly where you are coming from, but at some time in someones life they are going to need a mortgage, a business license, or go through the school system, all of which he is saying should have gun training.


Yes everybody should know how to safely use a firearm, even those with mental disorders. Obviously if you have a mental disorder you should not be allowed to own or be in unsupervised posession of a firearm.
So, someone is schizophrenic, with the potential to commit homicides, and you think we should teach them to use a gun? It doesn't matter if they are ALLOWED to own one, someone who feels that they need to kill people is going to get a gun somehow, whether it's legal or not, and this person is going to know how to use it! Not a very good idea is it?


Part of the problem is people are teaching kids that firearms equal violence, and that firearms cause violence. We need to be teaching kids younger then 1rst graders that firearms are not toys and to respect the damage they can do. Kids are taught not to play with knives, matches, lighters, etc, etc, before the first grade and most kids take it in quite readily. The main message everybody needs to learn is guns are OK and they need to be respected and handled accordingly.

Think about it. What use is a gun besides from the purpose of violence? Whether its defense or intentional, they still kill people. Kids can be taught they are not toys, but what use is that honestly going to do? Kids don't see games with matches in or whatever but they are constantly givent toy guns, games with guns, and despite what they have been taught if they think 'oh this is fun' I doubt its going to stop them wanting to use a real gun.
The reality is most children find it hard to think about anyone but themselves until about the age of 8, so how are you meant to get them to think about how this thing will effect other people?
I honestly don't see the point in teaching such young people about guns.


So people are better off defenseless is your argument?
Well they can hardly defend themselves against a gun attack can they? The other person shoots first and BOOM they're dead. And yes people may attack in other methods, knives or whatever, but if guns are available to everyone, knife crime goes down, gun crime goes up. Also you do not need a gun to defend yourself, for example I do aikido, and there we learn how to defend ourselves against a knife attacks, and at least with martial arts most will not let you use even a wooden knife or learn techniques using it until you are at least 18. If you ask me defense martial arts are the way foward, I mean, at least you can defend yourself without killing anyone.


Yes, its better to let the people recieving aid, food, and medical supplies be able to defend it. Arming them dosent turn them into killers it lets them defend themselves against those who will kill them for the goods they recieved. Giving them food and medical supplies only to turn them around and let others kill them is not charity.
Well if you give them a gun doesn't that meant they could turn round and do the same to others once their aid runs out? And is it fair that someone who is obviously so desperate for this food or whatever is shot? They try to relieve their own suffering, perhaps not in the best way, but still? People should be able to defend whatever they have of course, but I don't think stealing food justifies murder. Maybe if the charities didn't have to train all these people to use firearms, and have to buy all these firearms they could help MORE people, so less people would have to try and steal aid off others.



Yes I do. Legal gun owners do a small minority of unjustified killings. Making it harder for people to legaly own firearms only makes for more victims and increases crime in general.
Knives are available to people and look how much knife crime has gone up! Please explain to me how making guns illegal would make crime go up?

[Puckstop31]

Knives are available to people and look how much knife crime has gone up! Please explain to me how making guns illegal would make crime go up?

According the the BBC, in the three years since the UK's 1997 nearly total ban on personal firearm ownership, gun crime ROSE by 40%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

I could go on and on and on with stories like this. Why? Because criminals don't care about laws. Ban whatever you want. Control whatever you want. Only the law abiding will follow it.

A armed person is a citizen. A disarmed person is a subject.

[Twisterdog]

So your point is what, exactly? To take what I wrote out of context for the amusment of those who are scared of firearms?

Obviously not. I said nothing at all that was "frightening". If I would have wanted to do that, I could have.

My point is that I do not agree with your idea, that I think it is silly, in fact. You are entitled to your opinion, certainly, but when you post it on a public board, you will indeed receive others' opinions, in spades. The reason I added the fact that I am a firearms owner, I thought, would be obvious. I am not afraid of firearms, I do not think they are inherently dangerous or immoral. I have been shooting for three decades. And, still, I do not agree with your idea.

[blue]

So, someone is schizophrenic, with the potential to commit homicides, and you think we should teach them to use a gun? It doesn't matter if they are ALLOWED to own one, someone who feels that they need to kill people is going to get a gun somehow, whether it's legal or not, and this person is going to know how to use it! Not a very good idea is it?

A schizophrenic should know what to do, what steps to take if they come across a firearm, so nothing bad happens. Yes it is a good idea for everybody to know firearm safety.


Think about it. What use is a gun besides from the purpose of violence? Whether its defense or intentional, they still kill people. Kids can be taught they are not toys, but what use is that honestly going to do? Kids don't see games with matches in or whatever but they are constantly givent toy guns, games with guns, and despite what they have been taught if they think 'oh this is fun' I doubt its going to stop them wanting to use a real gun.
The reality is most children find it hard to think about anyone but themselves until about the age of 8, so how are you meant to get them to think about how this thing will effect other people?
I honestly don't see the point in teaching such young people about guns.

So your argument is people are better off deffensless? Tell that to a woman being raped. Kids are taught matches arent toys, what is your point? The games, toys and videos that feture firearms and violence are exactly why kids need to learn firearm safety, so they wont want to do the forbiden and actually handle a firearm unsupervised.


Well they can hardly defend themselves against a gun attack can they? The other person shoots first and BOOM they're dead. And yes people may attack in other methods, knives or whatever, but if guns are available to everyone, knife crime goes down, gun crime goes up. Also you do not need a gun to defend yourself, for example I do aikido, and there we learn how to defend ourselves against a knife attacks, and at least with martial arts most will not let you use even a wooden knife or learn techniques using it until you are at least 18. If you ask me defense martial arts are the way foward, I mean, at least you can defend yourself without killing anyone.

Do you realy think that your average person is going to buy a gun and turn into a serial killer or mass murderer? Martial arts can kill just as easy as a firearm, so what is your point? That martial artists are going to snap and start killing willy nilly?


Well if you give them a gun doesn't that meant they could turn round and do the same to others once their aid runs out? And is it fair that someone who is obviously so desperate for this food or whatever is shot? They try to relieve their own suffering, perhaps not in the best way, but still? People should be able to defend whatever they have of course, but I don't think stealing food justifies murder. Maybe if the charities didn't have to train all these people to use firearms, and have to buy all these firearms they could help MORE people, so less people would have to try and steal aid off others.

If everybody is armed they arent very likely to pull off the scenario you just described. Keeping them unarmed and defensless against government armed militias in Siera Leon and other parts of Africa, it only makes them targets.


Knives are available to people and look how much knife crime has gone up! Please explain to me how making guns illegal would make crime go up?

DC, untill recently handguns where illegal and severe restraints on long arms, high crime rate. Chicago, severe gun laws, high crime rate. What is your reason for the high crime rates in Chicago and DC?

After firearm bans in the UK and increased firearm restrictions in Canada, crime increased. Maybe you can explain to me why?

If you come to the city I live in or my hometown, remember there is no lisence to carry concealed here, everybody could be armed. So try not to act as paranoid about firearms as you type.


Obviously not. I said nothing at all that was "frightening". If I would have wanted to do that, I could have.

My point is that I do not agree with your idea, that I think it is silly, in fact. You are entitled to your opinion, certainly, but when you post it on a public board, you will indeed receive others' opinions, in spades. The reason I added the fact that I am a firearms owner, I thought, would be obvious. I am not afraid of firearms, I do not think they are inherently dangerous or immoral. I have been shooting for three decades. And, still, I do not agree with your idea.

So with your 3 decades of experience, firearms training is a bad idea for the general public?

[blue]

Seriously, what are the downsides to this idea? People wont be forced to own or possess firearms but they will be trained in the safe handling of them. I fail to see the downside here.

[Lady's Human]

If you want a private business lisence you must pass a basic firearms safety and marksmanship course. If you want a home mortgage, you must pass a basic firearms safety and marksmanship course.

What are the downsides to this?

How's this for starters......

There are people who are perfectly good citizens who lack the physical capabilities to pass these courses.

Because of a physical disability someone would be incapable of getting a mortgage or owning a business?

Funny, I think Stephen Hawking would be an asset to ANY community, regardless of whether he can pass a basic marksmanship or firearm safety course.

[blue]

What are the downsides to this?

How's this for starters......

There are people who are perfectly good citizens who lack the physical capabilities to pass these courses.

Because of a physical disability someone would be incapable of getting a mortgage or owning a business?

Funny, I think Stephen Hawking would be an asset to ANY community, regardless of whether he can pass a basic marksmanship or firearm safety course.

You dont think exceptions wouldnt be taken into account? Obviously Mr Hawking, amputies, blind people, etc, etc would be exempt.

So are you being silly, trying to be difficult, or just trying to start an argument?

Not being able to take the course, for physical or mental reasons is not a downside to the idea in general.

[Lady's Human]

So are you being silly, trying to be difficult, or just trying to start an argument?

Entschuldigen sie bitte?

None of the above.

Just taking your absolutist statement and pointing out a flaw in it.

While I have no problem with the basic concept of everyone having basic knowledge of firearms, I have issues with the public education system being used as the place to further an agenda or teach opinions. (and yes, that would include ANY agenda, be it liberal or conservative. Just ask my daughter.) Besides, the liability issues alone would hamstring any school attempting to teach firearms. Just because it worked when my mother was in school doesn't mean it would work at the present time in the present climate.

If you want your kids to know safe firearm handling, teach them at home, or get them memberships in a gun club.

[blue]

Entschuldigen sie bitte?

I dont speak , German is it? Translation, please.


None of the above.

Just taking your absolutist statement and pointing out a flaw in it.

Countries that have mandantory conscription dont include the blind, or others with physical or mental handicaps. So if you think common sense is a flaw, my idea is flawed.


While I have no problem with the basic concept of everyone having basic knowledge of firearms, I have issues with the public education system being used as the place to further an or teach opinions. (and yes, that would include ANY agenda, be it liberal or conservative. Just ask my daughter.) Besides, the liability issues alone would hamstring any school attempting to teach firearms. Just because it worked when my mother was in school doesn't mean it would work at the present time in the present climate.

If you want your kids to know safe firearm handling, teach them at home, or get them memberships in a gun club.

I have alot of issues with the public education system. You want to make this a conservative/liberal agenda issue start a new thread.

How is teaching basic firearms safety and marksmanship an agenda, or opinion, when its about basic safety? Or is it only about the children when its anti gun? Sorry I had to go there.

If liability was an issue why do schools have any sport teams?

I dont have kids. What I would like is kids who know firearm safety, and at a young age.

[blue]

Im going to sleep.

[Lady's Human]

One, your original statement makes no allowances for disabilities. To quote....


If you want a private business lisence you must pass a basic firearms safety and marksmanship course. If you want a home mortgage, you must pass a basic firearms safety and marksmanship course.

That's pretty much an absolutist statement. I don't assume, I'm not reading your mind. I'm just going by your statements.


Safe handling and markmanship would be part of the overall GPA from 1st to high school graduation.

Subjects other than basic education should have no effect on GPA whatsoever. If a student hates gym class, it should have ZERO effect on their GPA. Same with any other non-academic course.

As to the liability issue, liability insurance is a major cost factor in school sports. Many schools are now requiring parents to pay a participation fee for sports for that reason. The probability of a severe accident would go up exponentially if you put live fire ranges in schools. Even on military ranges, where controls are tight, and the people shooting are professionals, accidents happen, and accidents on ranges are rarely minor.

As an NCO I didn't trust others to train troops for me, and I'm damned well not going to allow my children to be taught firearms safety by someone else.

[blue]

One, your original statement makes no allowances for disabilities. To quote....


If you want a private business lisence you must pass a basic firearms safety and marksmanship course. If you want a home mortgage, you must pass a basic firearms safety and marksmanship course.

That's pretty much an absolutist statement. I don't assume, I'm not reading your mind. I'm just going by your statements.

No, you are assuming that people with no motor controll function would be treated the same as people with full motor controll function. Comon sense would dictate that isnt the case.


Subjects other than basic education should have no effect on GPA whatsoever. If a student hates gym class, it should have ZERO effect on their GPA. Same with any other non-academic course.

As to the liability issue, liability insurance is a major cost factor in school sports. Many schools are now requiring parents to pay a participation fee for sports for that reason. The probability of a severe accident would go up exponentially if you put live fire ranges in schools. Even on military ranges, where controls are tight, and the people shooting are professionals, accidents happen, and accidents on ranges are rarely minor.

As an NCO I didn't trust others to train troops for me, and I'm damned well not going to allow my children to be taught firearms safety by someone else.

As things sit today physical education, and non academic courses in schools are tied to the GPA.

Public schools once had firearms teams as a sports option. Students and teachers used to bring their rifles on to school grounds during hunting season. It would seem reasonable, the younger people are taught firearm safety, accidents would be fewer and less severe.

As an NCO, your kids should have no problem passing basic firearms safety tests, after your instructions.

[Twisterdog]

So with your 3 decades of experience, firearms training is a bad idea for the general public?

Not for those who wish to be trained. I object to this because you are requiring the general public to participate a certain sport/hobby. I would object just as strongly if you were proposing that everyone be required to learn to drive a truck, take karate classes, use a chain saw or learn to use a digital camera.

Each of those things could be considered useful in self defense or crime prevention as well, couldn't they? But they are a choice, to be made by individuals, not mandated by the government.

I remember a thread not too long ago where you were vehemently objecting to the increase in cigarette taxes, stating essentially that the governement should not be able to "force" free people to quit smoking if they don't want to. Hmmmm ....

[Whisk_Luva]

A schizophrenic should know what to do, what steps to take if they come across a firearm, so nothing bad happens. Yes it is a good idea for everybody to know firearm safety.

So this person wants to kill someone. He knows how to use a gun. You work out whats going to happen next. 'Schizophrenia is the fourth leading cause of morbidity in both women and men, the second leading cause of international terrorism, and the leading cause of war. Schizophrenia is a humorous brain disorder characterized by delusional thinking and unique but unpopular perceptions.'- http://www.drleons.com/schizo/closet.htm


So your argument is people are better off deffensless? Tell that to a woman being raped. Kids are taught matches arent toys, what is your point? The games, toys and videos that feture firearms and violence are exactly why kids need to learn firearm safety, so they wont want to do the forbiden and actually handle a firearm unsupervised.

My argument is that children of that age are too young and too irresponsible to be taught how to use a gun, if they are unable to see the needs and feelings of others, they are too young to be introduced to a killing machine.
The games do not teach safety, half of them are just going around shooting everything in sight. What about the kids who rebel against the forbidden? What about the kids who think guns are cool and want to show it to their friends? What about the fact that many kids gain the perception that life is cheap from these games and that killing becomes a game in itself? Evidence points to the fact that violence has been encouraged by glamourising things in the media.


Do you realy think that your average person is going to buy a gun and turn into a serial killer or mass murderer? Martial arts can kill just as easy as a firearm, so what is your point? That martial artists are going to snap and start killing willy nilly?

No, not everyone, but by making it legal to carry a gun you are increasing the chances of a mass murderer being able to get a gun. And if everyone has a gun, accidents are bound to happen, people draw their guns for silly petty things, and if I was in a place where I knew everyone could carry a gun I would feel threatened, because I would never know who has anger issues, who has mental illnesses, and I would be scared to say anything to anybody.
No, that martial arts are better for defense. Martial arts rarely kill people (at least defense martial arts), and if someones coming at you with a knife you don't need to kill them, just snap a bone or two or throw them on the floor. No murder needed.


If everybody is armed they arent very likely to pull off the scenario you just described. Keeping them unarmed and defensless against government armed militias in Siera Leon and other parts of Africa, it only makes them targets.

Food, water and aid are more important than guns. I could say that if everyone had aid they wouldn't need guns to protect it. People need aid to live, guns just take away that life.


DC, untill recently handguns where illegal and severe restraints on long arms, high crime rate. Chicago, severe gun laws, high crime rate. What is your reason for the high crime rates in Chicago and DC?
After firearm bans in the UK and increased firearm restrictions in Canada, crime increased. Maybe you can explain to me why?

Give some thought of some of the underlying reasons for the lowering crime rates .... the "3 strikes and you are out" initiatives and the harsh penalties that exist in the US. Here in the UK our biggest problem is that we are soft on punishment and our prisons are so full that we have to free people early. Guaranteed to raise the crime rate I am sure you will agree! And as for the other places, I do not know enough about them to explain the reasons why.


If you come to the city I live in or my hometown, remember there is no lisence to carry concealed here, everybody could be armed. So try not to act as paranoid about firearms as you type.

Believe me, I am not planning to come to your town. No licence is just awful. Paranoid? Not really. I just want a world with less violence, and I don't want to promote a place which allows killing machines to be treated like everyday objects.

[moosmom]

It is my constitutional right as a U.S. citizen, to bear arms in my own home. I choose not to. Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.

With all the violence that's in the news and on tv, not to mention the economy, I'm not surprized at all the violence in the news.

When I was with the Auxiliary State Police, I owned a Rugar .357 magnum which I kept locked up at all times unless I was on duty. Did I show my 10 year old daughter the firearm? Absolutely! I educated her. She held it (unloaded) and I answered all her questions. It went back into lock up and she never asked about it again.

I went target shooting a couple times a month. I can take that gun apart, clean it and put it back together with my eyes closed, that how well they trained us at the academy.

It's the idiots who think it's the "wild west" and go around waving guns in the air to look like they're tough. THOSE are the ones ya gotta look out for.

[kitten645]

"Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people."

Actually it's those pesky little bullets :p

[moosmom]

Actually it's those pesky little bullets

Um, oh yeah!!!!:p;)

[Lady's Human]

Public schools once had firearms teams as a sports option. Students and teachers used to bring their rifles on to school grounds during hunting season. It would seem reasonable, the younger people are taught firearm safety, accidents would be fewer and less severe.

As an NCO, your kids should have no problem passing basic firearms safety tests, after your instructions.

Read what you just posted.......OPTIONS

What you are proposing would be mandatory for all, by your own words.

I'd pull my kids out of school in a hot second if this ever became law. There are things that schools are not, should not, and never will be set up to teach. Mass firearms instruction is one of them.

Again, if parents want their children taught about firearms, they can do it at home.

[blue]

Not for those who wish to be trained. I object to this because you are requiring the general public to participate a certain sport/hobby.

The Swiss have been very successful at training their citizens to use firearms and keeping gun crime down. Being trained in firearms safety is not the same as participating in the sport/hobby.


I would object just as strongly if you were proposing that everyone be required to learn to drive a truck, take karate classes, use a chain saw or learn to use a digital camera.

Each of those things could be considered useful in self defense or crime prevention as well, couldn't they? But they are a choice, to be made by individuals, not mandated by the government.

I cannot argue against that.


I remember a thread not too long ago where you were vehemently objecting to the increase in cigarette taxes, stating essentially that the governement should not be able to "force" free people to quit smoking if they don't want to. Hmmmm ....

They arent forcing people to quit smoking, they are counting on people to keep smoking to raise funds. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, indeed.


So this person wants to kill someone. He knows how to use a gun. You work out whats going to happen next. 'Schizophrenia is the fourth leading cause of morbidity in both women and men, the second leading cause of international terrorism, and the leading cause of war. Schizophrenia is a humorous brain disorder characterized by delusional thinking and unique but unpopular perceptions.'- http://www.drleons.com/schizo/closet.htm

So all schizophrenics want to kill someone?

mor⋅bid⋅i⋅ty [mawr-bid-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun 1. a morbid state or quality.
2. the proportion of sickness or of a specific disease in a geographical locality.

mor·bid·i·ty (môr-bĭd'ĭ-tē)
n. pl. mor·bid·i·ties
The quality of being morbid; morbidness.
The rate of incidence of a disease.

I didnt realize being emo (http://www.luv-emo.com/), peruse that link at your risk I didnt fully peruse it, was a disease.

Doctor Leon (http://www.healthinforum.org/Doctor-Leon-Psychology-with-Attitude-info-5714.html)="A satire including sarcastic mental health definitions, visitors' questions with answers, commentary on therapy, and funny quotations."


My argument is that children of that age are too young and too irresponsible to be taught how to use a gun, if they are unable to see the needs and feelings of others, they are too young to be introduced to a killing machine.
The games do not teach safety, half of them are just going around shooting everything in sight. What about the kids who rebel against the forbidden? What about the kids who think guns are cool and want to show it to their friends? What about the fact that many kids gain the perception that life is cheap from these games and that killing becomes a game in itself? Evidence points to the fact that violence has been encouraged by glamourising things in the media.

The parts in bold are reasons why kids should have real world experience with firearms, focusing on safety. I believe you are underestimating children.

Wouldnt


What about the kids who rebel against the forbidden?

Mean those kids would not do the forbiden? Even if I read it wrong, educating those kids so the mystery as why its forbiden is no longer a mystery for those kids to rebel against.


No, not everyone, but by making it legal to carry a gun you are increasing the chances of a mass murderer being able to get a gun. And if everyone has a gun, accidents are bound to happen, people draw their guns for silly petty things, and if I was in a place where I knew everyone could carry a gun I would feel threatened, because I would never know who has anger issues, who has mental illnesses, and I would be scared to say anything to anybody.

By this argument gun crime in AK and other states that allow concealed carry would have a massive increase in murders and other criminal acts. Guess what, that didnt happen. You feeling threatened is a personal issue. Even in states or cities that dont allow concealed carry, odds are good somebody is carrying illegally, even in England.


No, that martial arts are better for defense. Martial arts rarely kill people (at least defense martial arts), and if someones coming at you with a knife you don't need to kill them, just snap a bone or two or throw them on the floor. No murder needed.

Martial arts can and do kill. The differense is the martial artist is the weapon, and by your argument weapons should be banned.


Food, water and aid are more important than guns. I could say that if everyone had aid they wouldn't need guns to protect it. People need aid to live, guns just take away that life.

Firearms protect food, water, aid, and life. If everyone had food, water, and aid, there are still those out there who will want to take it from others. Firearms protect life.


Give some thought of some of the underlying reasons for the lowering crime rates .... the "3 strikes and you are out" initiatives and the harsh penalties that exist in the US. Here in the UK our biggest problem is that we are soft on punishment and our prisons are so full that we have to free people early. Guaranteed to raise the crime rate I am sure you will agree! And as for the other places, I do not know enough about them to explain the reasons why.

The USA has just as many problems with prisoners being released early or not prosecuted at all due to prison populations, if not more so. Ill have to look into it.


Believe me, I am not planning to come to your town. No licence is just awful. Paranoid? Not really. I just want a world with less violence, and I don't want to promote a place which allows killing machines to be treated like everyday objects.

You might want to reconsider that, Alaska is a beautiful and unique place. When the licence restriction was dropped crime did not increase. See above for martial arts being a weapon and a method of killing.


It is my constitutional right as a U.S. citizen, to bear arms in my own home. I choose not to. Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.

With all the violence that's in the news and on tv, not to mention the economy, I'm not surprized at all the violence in the news.

When I was with the Auxiliary State Police, I owned a Rugar .357 magnum which I kept locked up at all times unless I was on duty. Did I show my 10 year old daughter the firearm? Absolutely! I educated her. She held it (unloaded) and I answered all her questions. It went back into lock up and she never asked about it again.

I went target shooting a couple times a month. I can take that gun apart, clean it and put it back together with my eyes closed, that how well they trained us at the academy.

It's the idiots who think it's the "wild west" and go around waving guns in the air to look like they're tough. THOSE are the ones ya gotta look out for.

The parts in bold are the important points. I live alone with no kids and my firearms are in the safe.


"Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people."

Actually it's those pesky little bullets :p

Without the person and a firearm, bullets are harmless.


Read what you just posted.......OPTIONS

What you are proposing would be mandatory for all, by your own words.

Your posts actually got me thinking more on this subject.

Im a big fan of homeschooling. Schools dont have to do the teaching but the students would still have to pass basic firearms training, in stages. Yes, the qualifications would be mandatory but can be taught at home.


I'd pull my kids out of school in a hot second if this ever became law. There are things that schools are not, should not, and never will be set up to teach. Mass firearms instruction is one of them.

Absolutely fair. A plus however would be your kids could get extra credit for being a teachers assistant for the course.


Again, if parents want their children taught about firearms, they can do it at home.

Children get taught alot of things in public schools parents disagree with, why should expanding on safety be objectionable? Again the teaching can and could take place at home.

[blue]

I didnt start this thread to make waves or to be argumentative, I was only responding to a question .

Alot of people are uncomfortable with firearms, and I was only suggesting a way to make people more comfortable with firearms. I was hoping some of you would help destigmatise firearms.

You need training and testing in order to drive, but you arent required or mandated to drive. Im not saying anybody should be madated to own a firearm, but TMK more people die from driving accidents per year then criminal activity involving firearms.

[Red 46]

Saw your quote about the 550 million firearms in circulation, etc.. copied it down to read to my husband. I am new to all of this internet stuff and could not figure out how to reply to it. Just happened to run across YOU again tonight, and wanted to say how much I agree with your idea of making people more comfortable with firearms by starting them really young. My sister and I were given a .22 rifle at ages 7 and 10 and taught safety first and then how to fire the weapon, and then accuracy. We grew up around guns and both of us now are ex- military.

I agree with what you are saying and I hesitate to say it, but you sound a bit naive, if you think that within this current admistration, that any of what you are talking about will be possible. Maybe enough of us can convince the rest, to MAKE it possible.

Red 46

[Red 46]

I am a totally new user and just ran across this thread started by Blue and was amazed how many people there are who pretty much agree with at least some of what he is saying. I was taught firearms saftey by my dad who brought us home a deer every winter and bought my sister and I a .22 rifle when we were ages 7 (me) and 10. I agree with what you said about teaching children the correct way of handling situations... all except how to handle a real gun.. or at least to show them it is NOT a toy. One way some friends of ours did that was to shoot a shotgun into a watermelon. It makes an impression. It won't make the kid afraid unless that is what your intention is, but it does get their attention.

[Whisk_Luva]

So all schizophrenics want to kill someone?

mor⋅bid⋅i⋅ty [mawr-bid-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun 1. a morbid state or quality.
2. the proportion of sickness or of a specific disease in a geographical locality.

mor·bid·i·ty (môr-bĭd'ĭ-tē)
n. pl. mor·bid·i·ties
The quality of being morbid; morbidness.
The rate of incidence of a disease.

I didnt realize being emo, peruse that link at your risk I didnt fully peruse it, was a disease.

Doctor Leon="A satire including sarcastic mental health definitions, visitors' questions with answers, commentary on therapy, and funny quotations."

Satire or not, schizophrenics DO suffer hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction. All of these can lead to further actions and problems if untreated. Where did I say all want to kill people? I said in a previous post that a schizophrenic WITH the potential to commit homicides.

As for the whole emo thing? What the...? What have emos got to do with anything?



The parts in bold are reasons why kids should have real world experience with firearms, focusing on safety. I believe you are underestimating children.

I don't think I am underestimating children at all. They are easily influenced- end of. I honestly don't see how real experience with a gun could help them in life, because guns are for one purpose only and that is violence. Give them a gun and you are encouraging violence.


Mean those kids would not do the forbiden? Even if I read it wrong, educating those kids so the mystery as why its forbiden is no longer a mystery for those kids to rebel against.

I mean those kids who want to rebel against what a higher authority says. So someone says one thing, they do the opposite.


By this argument gun crime in AK and other states that allow concealed carry would have a massive increase in murders and other criminal acts. Guess what, that didnt happen. You feeling threatened is a personal issue. Even in states or cities that dont allow concealed carry, odds are good somebody is carrying illegally, even in England.

Like I said I don't know about other places, I don't know the reasons why because I only know enough about the UK. As for my 'own personal issue', I am sure lots of people aren't to happy that everyone is carrying a gun. Guns kill. And yes I am well aware that the odd person will be carrying a gun illegally in the UK, but that is the odd few people, that it.


Martial arts can and do kill. The differense is the martial artist is the weapon, and by your argument weapons should be banned.

Did I say martial arts couldn't kill? What I am trying to get across is that if people learn a DEFENSE martial art they can therefore protect themselves, and they can just knock the person to the floor or whatever. No killing. They kill on purpose, they get locked up.


Firearms protect food, water, aid, and life. If everyone had food, water, and aid, there are still those out there who will want to take it from others. Firearms protect life.

You try telling that to someone who has been shot. So theft justifies murder in your opinion? I can just see the charities going out now, helping orphans in places where there has been a war, and giving them a gun, a gun that they saw kill their parents.


The USA has just as many problems with prisoners being released early or not prosecuted at all due to prison populations, if not more so. Ill have to look into it.

But the USA has harsher punishments, for example some states still have the death sentence, not saying I agree with this, but it is still there threating all the criminals out there.


You might want to reconsider that, Alaska is a beautiful and unique place. When the licence restriction was dropped crime did not increase. See above for martial arts being a weapon and a method of killing.

I am not worried whether crime increased or not- Alaska is a small place. I just don't want to promote places which allows guns to be an everyday object like I stated before. With martial arts you have the control and ability to decide what move you are going to make, and people aren't about to go out and kill people with it willy nilly. Aikido = defense. The moves are based around defense. All the moves are taught to us with one person pretending to attack us and then we get out of it somehow. We do not learn any fancy attack moves. It is defense. Thats it.

'Today Aikido is extremely defense oriented but nevertheless effective. Aikido really isn't designed for a prize fighting environment for pugilists to strut their stuff in front of screaming fans, Aikido is really for self-defense in a back alley at night in the winter against hoodlums.'
'O Sensei, the founder of aikido, believed that martial training is a path to non-violence, a physical method of creating a harmonious world'

[Whisk_Luva]

Still thinking about you telling me it was my own personal issues, today I decided to ask some people whether or not they would feel threatened if everyone had a gun.

16 out of 17 replied yes, they would feel threatened. That is about 94% by the way.

Of course I didn't ask that many people, but I think that it prooves it is not just me.

[Puckstop31]

Still thinking about you telling me it was my own personal issues, today I decided to ask some people whether or not they would feel threatened if everyone had a gun.

16 out of 17 replied yes, they would feel threatened. That is about 94% by the way.

Didn't ask that many people, but I think that it prooves it is not just me.

Fair nuff... But also note that your society is much different than ours. That is not a good or bad thing, it just is.

[kokopup]

Quote by Blue

You need training and testing in order to drive, but you arent required or mandated to drive. Im not saying anybody should be madated to own a firearm, but TMK more people die from driving accidents per year then criminal activity involving firearms.

Actually in 2008 the number of deaths by Automobile and by Gun shot were almost even. Forget your term criminal activity. Accident and sucicide should be included. Statistics show as the economy goes down auto deaths go down. The reverse is true of gun related deaths. We can expect gun death to really spike this year.

I was raised on Guns. Every room of my fathers house was a gun room at one time. I owned and handled guns from an early age. I am a charter Member of at least 3 state gun associations. My father has 9 guns he made in The Smithsonian Museum of American History. I have a long long history with guns. I know both the good and the bad of gun ownership.

One truth I found is that the more people you have with guns the more deaths and accidents you will have. I know of at least 5 individual trained Gun collectors that have shot themselves with "unloaded guns". I know several hunters that have shot or have been shot by accident or fall out of a tree stand because they were holding onto a gun instead of hanging on. Adults can't be trained about the proper use of firearms, so how on earth are you going to teach children. People in general become very stupid when it comes to guns or automobiles. If you put a gun in every drivers hand it would solve some of the congestion on our highways. Road rage would take on a whole new meaning.

If you want to own a gun fine. If you want your Kids to be trained about guns fine. If you make Gun training univerally mandatory you are asking for a disaster. Gun deaths would definately go up.

[blue]

Still thinking about you telling me it was my own personal issues, today I decided to ask some people whether or not they would feel threatened if everyone had a gun.

16 out of 17 replied yes, they would feel threatened. That is about 94% by the way.

Of course I didn't ask that many people, but I think that it prooves it is not just me.

You're right, it is a cultural issue and I apologise.


Actually in 2008 the number of deaths by Automobile and by Gun shot were almost even. Forget your term criminal activity. Accident and sucicide should be included. Statistics show as the economy goes down auto deaths go down. The reverse is true of gun related deaths. We can expect gun death to really spike this year.

I was raised on Guns. Every room of my fathers house was a gun room at one time. I owned and handled guns from an early age. I am a charter Member of at least 3 state gun associations. My father has 9 guns he made in The Smithsonian Museum of American History. I have a long long history with guns. I know both the good and the bad of gun ownership.

One truth I found is that the more people you have with guns the more deaths and accidents you will have. I know of at least 5 individual trained Gun collectors that have shot themselves with "unloaded guns". I know several hunters that have shot or have been shot by accident or fall out of a tree stand because they were holding onto a gun instead of hanging on. Adults can't be trained about the proper use of firearms, so how on earth are you going to teach children. People in general become very stupid when it comes to guns or automobiles. If you put a gun in every drivers hand it would solve some of the congestion on our highways. Road rage would take on a whole new meaning.



The stats for 2008 are published? Care to share the link? Ive been looking for them on the web and havent found them. Ill see if I can find statistics for remote villages where allmost every home has a firearm.


If you want to own a gun fine. If you want your Kids to be trained about guns fine. If you make Gun training univerally mandatory you are asking for a disaster. Gun deaths would definately go up.

Im not talking more guns Im talking about safety training. Bring back the Eddie Eagle Program and it wouldnt cost the taxpayers anything. So why would firearm deaths go up with increased safety training?

Even if the safety training did bring 1 firearm to every household that wouldnt be a great increase in the USA, it would be a huge start as long as the arms are legally obtained.

Yes the thread title sucked, but it did get alot of hits and even flattered me with a spinoff thread.
_________________

10 people live and, I think, nobody got raped because someone used a firearm. So much for firearms being used only to take lives.


College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader

Posted: 4:53 pm EDT May 4, 2009
Updated: 6:41 pm EDT May 4, 2009
COLLEGE PARK, Ga. -- A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment.

Channel 2 Action News reporter Tom Jones met with one of the students to talk about the incident.

“Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.

TOM JONES: College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader

Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.

“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’” said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.

Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.

That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.

The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.

“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.

A neighbor heard the shots and heard someone running nearby.

“And I heard someone say, ‘Someone help me. Call the police. Somebody call the police,’” said a neighbor.

The neighbor said she believes it was Lavant, who was found dead near his apartment, only one building away.

Bailey said he is just thankful one student risked his life to keep others alive.

“I think all of us are really cognizant of the fact that we could have all been killed,” said Bailey.

One female student was shot several times during the crossfire. She is expected to make a full recovery.

Police said they are close to making the arrest of the second suspect.

Source (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html).

[Whisk_Luva]

You're right, it is a cultural issue and I apologise.

It has nothing to do with culture, and it is not an issue. It's common sense. Anyones opinion that is different from your own doesn't make it an 'issue' you know.

Hardly an apology, you are still insulting me, if anything it's worse, insulting a whole culture. Talk about categorizing.:rolleyes:

[kokopup]

Quote by Blue
The stats for 2008 are published? Care to share the link? Ive been looking for them on the web and havent found them. Ill see if I can find statistics for remote villages where allmost every home has a firearm.


http://www.nysun.com/national/surprising-fact-half-of-gun-deaths-are-suicides/80978/

This link points out that a 55 percent of gunshot deaths is suicide.

There are several links that point out that a good percentage of these
are teenagers. Unfortunately we are seeing a trend where those
suicidal people are taking others with them.

[blue]

It has nothing to do with culture, and it is not an issue. It's common sense. Anyones opinion that is different from your own doesn't make it an 'issue' you know.

Hardly an apology, you are still insulting me, if anything it's worse, insulting a whole culture. Talk about categorizing.:rolleyes:

Try to keep a stiff upper lip.

So the USA doesnt have common sense? Who is insulting who?


http://www.nysun.com/national/surprising-fact-half-of-gun-deaths-are-suicides/80978/

This link points out that a 55 percent of gunshot deaths is suicide.

There are several links that point out that a good percentage of these
are teenagers. Unfortunately we are seeing a trend where those
suicidal people are taking others with them.

Thanks for the link. I think the CDC has all of the 2005 numbers posted, this gives me a starting point.

I have a wierd obsesion with statistics.

[Whisk_Luva]

Try to keep a stiff upper lip.

So the USA doesnt have common sense? Who is insulting who?

Stiff upper lip? What's that got to do with anything? :confused: Unless you are just going by the stereotype of British people, which again is fairly insulting.

Did I say the USA had no common sense? No. I am only saying that it's normal for people, in the UK AND outside the UK to feel threatened, even the slightest bit, about guns and the possibility that killers could be carrying a gun legally or how accidents are likely to happen, especially with children knowing how to use them. I was in no way trying to offend the USA with my comment.

You stated directly that it was a cultural issue and that is not fair. It's categorizing and judging people.

Good point about the suicide thing kokopup, I didn't think of that.

[blue]

Stiff upper lip? What's that got to do with anything? :confused: Unless you are just going by the stereotype of British people, which again is fairly insulting.

Sorry there was no Monty Python smiley.


Did I say the USA had no common sense? No. I am only saying that it's normal for people, in the UK AND outside the UK to feel threatened, even the slightest bit, about guns and the possibility that killers could be carrying a gun legally or how accidents are likely to happen, especially with children knowing how to use them. I was in no way trying to offend the USA with my comment.

You stated directly that it was a cultural issue and that is not fair. It's categorizing and judging people.

The Swiss dont seem to have a big firearm problem, and they keep full auto firearms in their homes, so what would you call it if it isnt a cultural issue?

If you think the UK and other countries with severe restrictions on firearms are following common sense, the obvious ass/ump/tion is you think the USA doesnt have common sense.

[Whisk_Luva]

Sorry there was no Monty Python smiley.



The Swiss dont seem to have a big firearm problem, and they keep full auto firearms in their homes, so what would you call it if it isnt a cultural issue?

If you think the UK and other countries with severe restrictions on firearms are following common sense, the obvious ass/ump/tion is you think the USA doesnt have common sense.

A difference of culture. The word issue is not needed, it's implying something is wrong with that country, and the people in that country, and thats not fair.

I didn't say countries with servere restrictions followed common sense, I said feeling threatened is, it's a normal reaction. Thats all I meant by that comment.

[blue]

A difference of culture. The word issue is not needed, it's implying something is wrong with that country, and the people in that country, and thats not fair.

I didn't say countries with servere restrictions followed common sense, I said feeling threatened is, it's a normal reaction. Thats all I meant by that comment.

Semantics, another a cultural issue.

We could even break it down state by state in the USA. People in CA, and NY are going to have more issues with legal gun owners the people who live in AK or MT.

[Whisk_Luva]

Semantics, another a cultural issue.

We could even break it down state by state in the USA. People in CA, and NY are going to have more issues with legal gun owners the people who live in AK or MT.

Reading between the lines is not an issue, and again it's not something you can place to the whole culture. I write and read a lot, sometimes you have to read between the lines of things. Whats so wrong with trying to get the whole meaning behind something anyway?

Like I said, I have no idea about these states in America and the gun crime and so on, so saying something about them means nothing to me.

[blue]

Reading between the lines is not an issue, and again it's not something you can place to the whole culture. I write and read a lot, sometimes you have to read between the lines of things. Whats so wrong with trying to get the whole meaning behind something anyway?

Like I said, I have no idea about these states in America and the gun crime and so on, so saying something about them means nothing to me.

I try not to leave anything between the lines on the issue of firearms.

So lets put it this way. A majority of Californians and New Yorkers, have the same issues people from the UK have relating to firearms. I could have used the word paranoia instead of issue. I think we can both agree issue is the better choice. If you want to write between and read between the lines thats your choice.

At least the UK isnt trying to make paintball and airsoft illegal like the Germans.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Do you think they had firearms training?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gT2iq1-p7FzjJZTq2HQ1SE771KRgD982B3LG0

[blue]

Do you think they had firearms training?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gT2iq1-p7FzjJZTq2HQ1SE771KRgD982B3LG0

No.

Im actualy suprised you didnt bring up the cops who shot a 15 year old for pointing a toy gun at them.

[Puckstop31]

http://i722.photobucket.com/albums/ww223/gbhollow/gunsign.jpg



:love:

[blue]

you have to read between the lines of things.


And if you are saying that I am searching for the meaning behind your words and so on, then surely you are leaving things between the lines...

Not on this subject this serious.

[Whisk_Luva]

Not on this subject this serious.

Note the word sometimes in my post.... 'sometimes you have to read between the lines of things'

Did I say specifically this thread? No. I meant in general.

I am guessing you are ignoring my direct questions in my previous post.

[blue]

Note the word sometimes in my post.... 'sometimes you have to read between the lines of things'

Did I say specifically this thread? No. I meant in general.

I am guessing you are ignoring my direct questions in my previous post.

Reading between the lines leads to problems and writing between the lines leads to more problems but includes plausable deniability.

The emo question? Take another look at the definition for Paranoid Schizophrenia and look into the emo lifestyle, they're pretty similar.

You asked alot of rhetorical questions in your posts, so if you put all my unanswerred questions in one post I will address them.

But this one...


So theft justifies murder in your opinion?

When it means watching your family starve because someone with a machete took all of your supplies, yes I do.

I feel the term issue is very fitting, I did not mean it as an insult in anyway.

[blue]

Whisk_Luva, I would like to thank you for taking this as a serius discussion, something that cant be said for most of the anti's that participated in this thread.

[Whisk_Luva]

Reading between the lines leads to problems and writing between the lines leads to more problems but includes plausable deniability.

The emo question? Take another look at the definition for Paranoid Schizophrenia and look into the emo lifestyle, they're pretty similar.

You asked alot of rhetorical questions in your posts, so if you put all my unanswerred questions in one post I will address them.

When it means watching your family starve because someone with a machete took all of your supplies, yes I do.

I feel the term issue is very fitting, I did not mean it as an insult in anyway.
Well I look for the hidden meanings in things and I don't see the issue with it. Obvously, I don't intend to write leaving things hidden unless it is a poem or something, so obvously in this kind of topic I wouldn't. In this thread I am just trying to get the full meanings behind what is said.

Ok, I am kind of lost with the whole emo thing, but oh well.

If you watch someone starve because of a use of a weapon, I do not think they would want to use one themselves.

Anyway, the direct question I meant were:

You could of just used the word differences. That is not as insulting. The word 'issue' is implying paranioia anyway. So, are you implying that all all cultures where people are threatened by guns are inferior?
Also if you are saying everyone should carry a gun for defense and so on, doesn't that mean if every carried a nuclear weapon everyone else should? Can you imagine the problems that would cause? Where do you draw the line? Because going by one of your main arguements, that situation would be ok.

[Puckstop31]

I think Blue just doesn't do nuance. ;)



You? Think? LOL

I'm still waiting for for your defence of your mans economic policies. You belive in him. Tell me why Keynesian economics will work... You talk down to me about "facts". I am more than ready for this debate. I look forward to any responce you might have.

[Grace]

You? Think? LOL

I'm still waiting for for your defence of your mans economic policies. You belive in him. Tell me why Keynesian economics will work... You talk down to me about "facts". I am more than ready for this debate. I look forward to any responce you might have.

Why do you keep 'calling out' posters ? You've done it to me, as well as lizbud. I'm sure she doesn't like it any better than I did.

The original topic of this post is firearms. Start a new topic about economics if that is what you are interested in.

[Puckstop31]

Why do you keep 'calling out' posters ? You've done it to me, as well as lizbud. I'm sure she doesn't like it any better than I did.

The original topic of this post is firearms. Start a new topic about economics if that is what you are interested in.

Just trying to confirm what I suspect. And if I DID start another thread, would you try to provide an answer?

[Grace]

Just trying to confirm what I suspect. And if I DID start another thread, would you try to provide an answer?

Only if it interested me, and only if I felt comfortable with my knowledge of the topic. I did respond to your topic on the Constitution - remember?

In the meantime, why don't you stop playing these silly games.

[lizbud]

Why do you keep 'calling out' posters ? You've done it to me, as well as lizbud. I'm sure she doesn't like it any better than I did.

The original topic of this post is firearms. Start a new topic about economics if that is what you are interested in.


Thank you Grace for saying what needed to be said.:)

[blue]

Where in this thread did I avoid this question?


So, are you implying that all all cultures where people are threatened by guns are inferior?
Also if you are saying everyone should carry a gun for defense and so on, doesn't that mean if every carried a nuclear weapon everyone else should? Can you imagine the problems that would cause? Where do you draw the line?

If that was a question you wanted to ask directly you should not have quoted yourself but asked it outright.

Quit reading between the lines, and stop looking to be offended. Im sorry I actually thought you where taking this conversation seriously.

[blue]

I think Blue just doesn't do nuance. ;)


You? Think? LOL

Quoted for the Truth. I try not to read between the lines or nuance carp, it's absolute BS and is the same as spitting in someones face


I'm still waiting for for your defence of your mans economic policies. You belive in him. Tell me why Keynesian economics will work... You talk down to me about "facts". I am more than ready for this debate. I look forward to any responce you might have.


Why do you keep 'calling out' posters ? You've done it to me, as well as lizbud. I'm sure she doesn't like it any better than I did.

The original topic of this post is firearms. Start a new topic about economics if that is what you are interested in.


Just trying to confirm what I suspect. And if I DID start another thread, would you try to provide an answer?

No she/he wouldnt.


Only if it interested me, and only if I felt comfortable with my knowledge of the topic. I did respond to your topic on the Constitution - remember?

In the meantime, why don't you stop playing these silly games.

Way to dodge.

http://yfonline.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/dodgeball.jpg


Thank you Grace for saying what needed to be said.:)

Qrace and Liz...


Dont try and act like moderators in my threads. If I have a problem with Puck, ya'll, Jebus, or anybody else highjacking my thread/s I will PM him/them to delete his/their posts.

[Whisk_Luva]

Where in this thread did I avoid this question?

If that was a question you wanted to ask directly you should not have quoted yourself but asked it outright.

Quit reading between the lines, and stop looking to be offended. Im sorry I actually thought you where taking this conversation seriously

I am telling you I posted it. I have no idea what happened to my post but I am going to ask Karen for help because this thread keeps being really strange with me.

Do you remember when you quoted me for saying:
And if you are saying that I am searching for the meaning behind your words and so on, then surely you are leaving things between the lines... It was in that post. I don't know what happened to that post but now it's gone.

So I did ask it directly. I was quoting it because it was in a previous post.

I am not looking to be offended.

Anyway, I am sorry for my post disappearing and you getting the wrong end of the stick, but that is not my fault, and yes, I am taking the topic seriously.

I even have the thread that disappeared saved to my PC (I always save my posts on a document first because my network has issues and if the network goes off when I click post, I sometimes lose my posts).


Just because I pick out the meaning behind what you say doesn't make it a cultural issue. And if you are saying that I am searching for the meaning behind your words and so on, then surely you are leaving things between the lines...

You could of just used the word differences. That is not as insulting. The word 'issue' is implying paranioia anyway. So, are you implying that all all cultures where people are threatened by guns are inferior? Also if you are saying everyone should carry a gun for defense and so on, doesn't that mean if every carried a nuclear weapon everyone else should? Can you imagine the problems that would cause? Where do you draw the line? Because going by one of your main arguements, that situation would be ok.

So, would you like to answer my questions now?

[blue]

Face it, you have issues with people legally arming themselves to protect their rights. I have issues with people illegally arming themselves to take rights from others.

I have an issue with people being dissarmed so they cant defend their rights.

I live in, for the most part and for the immediate future, a free and open society and I like it that way and Ild like to keep it that way.

You should thank whatever belief system you have that you werent born in Switzerland or Israel, but if you where you wouldnt have the issues you currently have.

[Edwina's Secretary]

yawn!!!

[blue]

yawn!!!

So when you arent being rude or insulting you are dismissive.

Since you are incapable of being part of a discussion why dont you take your pom poms and preach to the choir in another thread instead of trolling here.

[Edwina's Secretary]

yawn!!!!

[lizbud]

yawn!!!!


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz;);)

[pomtzu]

Where's Karen when a lock would be a fitting application?? :p

[Karen]

Where's Karen when a lock would be a fitting application?? :p

I am here, what do you mean? The thread has pretty much died down, all the arguments made, no need to lock it ...

[blue]

yawn!!!!


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz;);)

Thanks for proving my point in a very petty and immature way, good trolling tactic. Dont forget to take your pom poms with you.


Seriously, I read a article today about an amendment that was inserted into
the recent Credit Card Bill that Obama signed a few days ago. It allows guns
in all National Parks. A really dumb idea.:mad:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/19/national/main5025472.shtml

Why is it a dumb idea, and why are you mad about it?

It makes perfect sense to me, other then the fact it was piggy backed on the credit card bill.


Thanks Karen.:) Except for a few lapses, the subject is still guns.:confused:

Why the confusion?

Seriously, if any of you have nothing of substance to add to this thread why bother posting in it? Are you just boosting your post count? Are you simply trying to be belittling and insulting? If you dont agree with the premise of the thread back it up with an actual argument or be an adult and not post.

Why is basic firearm safety so threatening to the anti's who have posted in this thread? Why is the idea of arming potential victims a bad idea?

I have to question Randi's sig


There are over five hundred and fifty million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's five hundred and fortynine million too many! The only question is, how do we get rid of them all?

Who gets to keep the remaining 1 million firearms? How do we get rid of them all if there are 1 million left? If all firearms are gone what is the next banned weapon?

Didnt the UK try and ban long kitchen knives a few years ago? ETA: Should there be a continent wide ban of machetes in Africa?

[pomtzu]

I am here, what do you mean? The thread has pretty much died down, all the arguments made, no need to lock it ...

See my explanation in a PM. Share it if you wish.

[pomtzu]

Why the confusion?

Seriously, if any of you have nothing of substance to add to this thread why bother posting in it? Are you just boosting your post count? Are you simply trying to be belittling and insulting? If you dont agree with the premise of the thread back it up with an actual argument or be an adult and not post.



I'm glad that someone got my point! ;)

[kokopup]

I have not seen any constructive debate in quite a while. The posturing
going on now will not change the opinion of either side. Maybe it is time
to let it die a natural death.;)

[pomtzu]

I have not seen any constructive debate in quite a while. The posturing
going on now will not change the opinion of either side. Maybe it is time
to let it die a natural death.;)

Yay - a comrade in my corner.....;)

[Randi]

I have to question Randi's sig


Who gets to keep the remaining 1 million firearms? How do we get rid of them all if there are 1 million left? If all firearms are gone what is the next banned weapon?

Didnt the UK try and ban long kitchen knives a few years ago? ETA: Should there be a continent wide ban of machetes in Africa?
I have been waiting for this question!

The remaining weapons will of course be for the poor people who live in countries where they can't go down to the shop to buy their groceries, like you and me, but have to hunt to keep them from starving to death.

Concerning knives, I'm happy to tell you that long knives are banned here. :) Living in a city, you have absolutely no use for a knife when you're walking around in the street or going to a discoteque!

[TamanduaGirl]

Doesn't everyone already know how to use a gun? I don't mean safely or accurately but doesn't everyone know how to pick a gun up and pull the trigger? Even little kids? So how would teaching safety cause more problems?

I'm not saying everyone should be forced to but I don't see why people think learning safety equals encouraging people to shoot.

[kokopup]

guote by TamanduaGirl

I'm not saying everyone should be forced to but I don't see why people think learning safety equals encouraging people to shoot.

I have said it before and will say it again. When ever people and guns get together you have accidents. I have significant experience with people and guns. I am a gun owner and collector. Most people, especially children are not safe around guns. It is like me not allowing my wife to operate my chainsaw. I put the chainsaws and guns in the same class. There are just some things that are not safe for the majority of people or children to use. "Gun safety training" is a oxymoron. There is no way to make a gun safe. When you give someone training that infers that they know what they are doing. i have seen the most experience hunters shooting each other, and collectors shooting themselves with unload guns. That is what they thought anyway. If you have a child that you want to learn safety then teach him/her yourself, but don't expect him/her to be safe because of that training, because they aren't.

[blue]

First off Ild like to thank pomtzu and kokopup for stating the obvious, if you dont bump this thread with juvenile or insulting posts it will go away.


I have been waiting for this question!

The remaining weapons will of course be for the poor people who live in countries where they can't go down to the shop to buy their groceries, like you and me, but have to hunt to keep them from starving to death.

Arming the poor people in third world countries was part of the original premise of this thread, but its to keep them from being murdered by the people who would take their food and medical supplies supplied from foreign sources. Simply arming people to hunt without teaching them how to hunt responsibly and to maintain a sustainable supply of game is also irresponsible.

If only the "hunters" had firearms what is to stop them from taking advantage of their defenseless neighbors?


Concerning knives, I'm happy to tell you that long knives are banned here. :) Living in a city, you have absolutely no use for a knife when you're walking around in the street or going to a discoteque!

Knives can be very usefull for self defense, in some cases even more usefull and effective then a firearm. The problem is only law abiding citizens have stopped carrying knives for protection where you live.


Doesn't everyone already know how to use a gun? I don't mean safely or accurately but doesn't everyone know how to pick a gun up and pull the trigger? Even little kids? So how would teaching safety cause more problems?

I'm not saying everyone should be forced to but I don't see why people think learning safety equals encouraging people to shoot.

Part of safety training to me also includes consequences and personal responsability for actually using a firearm for defense of life and property.


guote by TamanduaGirl


I'm not saying everyone should be forced to but I don't see why people think learning safety equals encouraging people to shoot.

I have said it before and will say it again. When ever people and guns get together you have accidents. I have significant experience with people and guns. I am a gun owner and collector. Most people, especially children are not safe around guns. It is like me not allowing my wife to operate my chainsaw. I put the chainsaws and guns in the same class. There are just some things that are not safe for the majority of people or children to use. "Gun safety training" is a oxymoron. There is no way to make a gun safe. When you give someone training that infers that they know what they are doing. i have seen the most experience hunters shooting each other, and collectors shooting themselves with unload guns. That is what they thought anyway. If you have a child that you want to learn safety then teach him/her yourself, but don't expect him/her to be safe because of that training, because they aren't.

When people get together with anything that can cause harm or death their are accidents, and I mean anything that can cause harm or deaths. Ive seen children use both firearms and chainsaws safer the adults because they were trained in the safe use of them.

I have a Jeep in my yard with a tree resting on its roll bar and I have a perfectly running chainsaw in my shed. Why has the tree been sitting on my Jeep for 3 years now? Because Im not comfortable with chainsaw safety, when I am Ill remove the tree.

First thing a child should be taught and drilled on if they come across a firearm, GO FIND AN ADULT!

ETA: lizbud, Ive answered your questions in other threads, please answer mine in this thread..

[lizbud]

It is like me not allowing my wife to operate my chainsaw. I put the chainsaws and guns in the same class.



You don't ALLOW your wife ?:rolleyes:

[pomtzu]

You don't ALLOW your wife ?:rolleyes:

There could be, and probably is, a very valid reason.

My son doesn't allow me to use his chain saw (nor would a husband if there was one!) - and justly so - not that I would even want to tho. I have very limited strength and feeling in my hands and arms, so obviously it would not be safe for me to do so.

If anyone doesn't know the reasoning behind kokopup's statement, then perhaps they should refrain from looking for a reason for a confrontation. :rolleyes:

[lizbud]

There could be, and probably is, a very valid reason.

My son doesn't allow me to use his chain saw (nor would a husband if there was one!) - and justly so - not that I would even want to tho. I have very limited strength and feeling in my hands and arms, so obviously it would not be safe for me to do so.



The words used implied the wife doesn't have the good sense not to
use a electrical tool that she knew she couldn't handle. A intelligent,
adult woman doesn't need supervision like a child would.

[pomtzu]

The words used implied the wife doesn't have the good sense not to
use a electrical tool that she knew she couldn't handle. A intelligent,
adult woman doesn't need supervision like a child would.

I personally didn't see that meaning in it at all, but then I suppose different people could have a different interpretation. I don't see where "intelligence" even enters in to what he said. Again - just IMHO.

Whatever - I'm sure his reasons are justified and none of our business anyway.

[lizbud]

I personally didn't see that meaning in it at all, but then I suppose different people could have a different interpretation. I don't see where "intelligence" even enters in to what he said. Again - just IMHO.

Whatever - I'm sure his reasons are justified and none of our business anyway.


Whatever.:)

[kokopup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizbud View Post
You don't ALLOW your wife ?


I have a workshop full of electric saws that I would be glad to teach my wife to use. The statement "not allow" pertains to a Gas powered saw used to cut down trees. It weighs 35 pounds and has 18" of cutting chain with little knifes on it. She has ask if she could use it and I have declined because it takes a lot of strength and knowledge to use one. My son of 46 has also been declined because of lack of training. A chainsaw will cripple you in a heart beat. Just like the gun I have seen many accidents and deaths involving chainsaws.

I went to a 3 day training class put on by the Forest Service or I would not operate one myself. It is not just the saw that is dangerous but the tree you are cutting. If you do not understand how energy is stored in a downed tree then you should not even cut the first branch.

[Puckstop31]

Care to admit you were wrong with your assumption Liz? ;)

[blue]

Care to admit you were wrong with your assumption Liz? ;)

She will never admit it now that you have called her on it.

Im not suprised that she didnt answer my question about firearms in national parks, or why she was confused about this thread, either.

Some people you cant expect even the admission they where even slightly incorrect or outright wrong.

White text here.

[lizbud]

Quote:


I have a workshop full of electric saws that I would be glad to teach my wife to use. The statement "not allow" pertains to a Gas powered saw used to cut down trees. It weighs 35 pounds and has 18" of cutting chain with little knifes on it. She has ask if she could use it and I have declined because it takes a lot of strength and knowledge to use one. My son of 46 has also been declined because of lack of training. A chainsaw will cripple you in a heart beat. Just like the gun I have seen many accidents and deaths involving chainsaws.




Question asked, question annswered. Thanks.:)


Blue, I didn't see any question directed to me. What was it?

[blue]

Question asked, question annswered. Thanks.:)

Its allways so sincere after you've been called out isnt it?



Blue, I didn't see any question directed to me. What was it?


From post 77 (http://petoftheday.com/talk/showpost.php?p=2153560&postcount=77) in this thread.


Why is it a dumb idea, and why are you mad about it?

Why the confusion?

[RICHARD]

Why guns are safer than bullets!

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_12491407?source=rss_viewed


-------------------------

I jammed a emm effing drill bit into my finger last Friday.

A corded drill with an idiot at the trigger is another dangerous tool, this I can vouch for.

Same as any ordinary item that you can pick up.

Rocks on the ground were pretty safe until someone decided it can put a dent (pun intended) in your day, skin, brain, bones....

[RICHARD]

Would-be gangster shoots off own manhood
A would-be gangster shot himself in the crutch when his gun went off half cocked in his pocket.

Lukas Neuhardt, 27, had forgotten to put the safety catch on when he stuffed the gun into his trouser pocket to impress pals in Saarbruecken, Germany.

He told paramedics that a masked mugger had blasted him in the crutch in a bungled robbery.

But police found a hole in his statement when they saw that the gunshot had miraculously left his trousers intact.

"Instead there was a charred hole in his pocket so either it was the shot of the century or he did it himself," said a police source.

Now - after surgeons stitched his manhood back together - he's facing up to three years in jail for breaching Germany's tough new anti gun laws.

------------------------
More proof that guns are not the problem, it's the idiots using them.

[blue]

RICHARD, why are you pointing out that gun laws dont work? Stop bringing logic to this thread, you'll anger the anti's.

[RICHARD]

RICHARD, why are you pointing out that gun laws dont work? Stop bringing logic to this thread, you'll anger the anti's.

Done?:D

---------------

Chicks dig scars?


NO?:eek::rolleyes:;)

[blue]

The 3 Rules,

Pain is Temporary.

Bones Heal.

And yes.

Chicks Dig Scars.

Now remind me what movie thats from?

[RICHARD]

The 3 Rules,

Pain is Temporary.

Bones Heal.

And yes.

Chicks Dig Scars.

Now remind me what movie thats from?

And I couldn't answer that in a million years, I just remember the part about the scars!:rolleyes::eek::o

[blue]

And I couldn't answer that in a million years, I just remember the part about the scars!:rolleyes::eek::o

I just googled "chicks dig scars", and "The Replacements" is what was returned, but that aint the movie I remember.

Edit!!! The 3 rules are from a Simpsons episode!

It may have been a Married With Children episode, but Im pretty sure it was from homer.

[blue]

Gun-loving pastor to his flock: Piece be with you
By DYLAN T. LOVAN, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 4, 5:50 pm ET


LOUISVILLE, Ky. – A Kentucky pastor is inviting his flock to bring guns to church to celebrate the Fourth of July and the Second Amendment.

New Bethel Church is welcoming "responsible handgun owners" to wear their firearms inside the church June 27, a Saturday. An ad says there will be a handgun raffle, patriotic music and information on gun safety.

"We're just going to celebrate the upcoming theme of the birth of our nation," said pastor Ken Pagano. "And we're not ashamed to say that there was a strong belief in God and firearms — without that this country wouldn't be here."

The guns must be unloaded and private security will check visitors at the door, Pagano said.

He said recent church shootings, including the killing Sunday of a late-term abortion provider in Kansas, which he condemned, highlight the need to promote safe gun ownership. The New Bethel Church event was planned months before Dr. George Tiller was shot to death in a Wichita church.

Kentucky allows residents to openly carry guns in public with some restrictions. Gun owners carrying concealed weapons must have state-issued permits and can't take them to schools, jails or bars, among other exceptions.

Pagano's Protestant church, which attracts up to 150 people to Sunday services, is a member of the Assemblies of God. The former Marine and handgun instructor said he expected some backlash, but has heard only a "little bit" of criticism of the gun event.

John Phillips, an Arkansas pastor who was shot twice while leading a service at his former church in 1986, said a house of worship is no place for firearms.

"A church is designated as a safe haven, it's a place of worship," said Phillips, who was shot by a church member's relative for an unknown reason and still has a bullet lodged in his spine. "It is unconscionable to me to think that a church would be a place that you would even want to bring a weapon."

Phillips spoke out against a bill before the Arkansas General Assembly that would have permitted the carrying of guns in that state's churches. The bill failed in February.

Pagano, 50, said some members of his church were concerned that President Obama's administration could restrict gun ownership, and they supported the plan for the event when Pagano asked their opinion.

Marian McClure Taylor, executive director of the Kentucky Council of Churches, an umbrella organization for 11 Christian denominations in Kentucky, said Christian churches are promoters of peace, but "most allow for arms to be taken up under certain conditions."

Taylor said Pagano assured her the event would focus on promoting responsible gun ownership and any proceeds would go to charity.

"Those two commitments are consistent with the high value the Assemblies of God churches place on human life," she said in an e-mail message.

Pagano is encouraging church members to bring a canned good and a friend to the event. He said guns must be unloaded for insurance purposes and safety reasons.

He said the point was not to mix worship with guns, though he may reference some passages from the Bible.

"Firearms can be evil and they can be useful," he said. "We're just trying to promote responsible gun ownership and gun safety."

Linky. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/ap_on_re_us/us_guns_in_church)

[kokopup]

I have been a Gun owner/collector for years and I believe that church and Guns do not mix. The intended purpose to encourage "responsible Gun ownership" is where I have the biggest problem. To be a responsible gun owner you have to be responsible. You need only to drive on our highways to know that responsible drivers are hard to find. Responsible Gun ownership would even be worst. The pastor is saying the guns must be unloaded before bringing them in the church. In my experience there is NO unloaded gun. I have seen to many accidental shootings with unloaded guns by supposed responsible gun owners. The problem with people and guns is people.

[blue]

That is why EVERY FIREARM IS TO BE TREATED AS IF IT IS LOADED, no exceptions EVER!

I watched a 6 or 7 year old refuse to take a firearm from his dad because the dad didnt clear the weapon first, training does work. That kid shot better then my friends dad that day.

[blue]

Since the House bill for HCR passed, why cant we have a bill passed that requires citizens to not only be responsible for their health but their personal safety as well?

[blue]

Gun Free Zones are Victim Only Zones.


Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones


It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Shouldn't an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped. Some behaved heroically, such as private first class Marquest Smith who repeatedly risked his life removing five soldiers and a civilian from the carnage. But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan's attack.

The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Ft. Hood understood this all too well. Mandy Foster's husband had been shot but was fortunate enough not to be seriously injured. In an interview on CNN on Monday night, Mrs. Foster was asked by anchor John Roberts how she felt about her husband "still scheduled for deployment in January" to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?" -- It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, most of CNN's listeners probably didn't understand the rules that Ms. Foster was referring to.

The law-abiding, not the criminals, are the ones who obey the ban on guns. Instead of making areas safe for victims, the bans make it safe for the criminal. Hasan not only violated the army's ban on carrying a gun, he also apparently violated the rules that require soldiers to register privately owned guns at the post.

Research shows that allowing individuals to defend themselves dramatically reduces the rates of multiple victim public shootings. Even if attacks still occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun. Ten minutes must have seemed like an eternity to those trapped in the attack at Ft. Hood. All the multiple victim public shootings in the U.S. -- in which more than three people have been killed -- have all occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.

For several days now, some in the media and various gun control groups have focused on a so-called "cop killer" gun that Hasan used. The five-seven is a conventional semi-automatic pistol. In fact, the bullets that it fires are relatively small, only being in the .22 caliber class. Unlike rifles, even higher caliber handguns don't fire publicly available ammunition at sufficient velocity to penetrate a police officer's vest. There is a special type of handgun ammunition that can penetrate some types of body armor, but under federal law it is not legal to manufacture or import that ammunition for sale to the public.

For the safety of our soldiers and citizens, we hope that this simple fact about the Ft. Hood attack and the role that gun-free zones played in allowing yet another multiple victim public shooting becomes part of the news coverage itself. The political debate about guns would be quite different if even once in a while a news story clearly explained that there has been another multiple victim public shooting in a gun-free zone.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime."

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/10/john-lott-ft-hood-end-gun-free-zone/).

[blue]

Fort Hood should not have been a gun free zone.


Israelis Baffled by News of Defenseless US Soldiers

Many Israelis want to know: why didn't the soldiers attacked by a U.S. Army major-turned-terrorist return fire?

When a Muslim goes, well, Muslim in Israel he is typically shot to death by someone--say, a reserve soldier--within seconds of screaming "Allah Akbar."

In contrast with the Israeli experience, it took 10 minutes before a civilian police officer at Fort Hood was able to shoot and stop Muslim fanatic Nidal Malik Hasan.

How could that happen? How could so many people trained in the strategies and tactics of modern warfare be so defenseless?

The answer--and this may astonish many Americans--is that the victims were unarmed. U.S. soldiers are not allowed to carry guns for personal protection, even on a 340-acre base quartering more than 50,000 troops.

So it goes in brain-dead, liberal America.

Fort Hood is a "gun free" zone, thanks to regulations adopted in one of the very first acts signed into law by anti-gun President Bill Clinton in March, 1993. Click here for the file.

Contrary to President Obama's crocodile tears, his Islamist-appeasing administration is bent on further disarming the U.S. military, and all Americans. Obama and his Communist crowd will not rest until every American is a sitting duck.


POSTSCRIPT: Israeli teachers, from kindergarten on up, are also armed; so, a Virginia Tech-type slaughter is highly unlikely at an Israeli university.

Israelis, who have had to combat terrorism all their lives, are not afraid of guns. They are an armed people, ready, willing, and able to defend themselves and their country.

Unlike indoctrinated Americans, paralyzed by fear and political correctness, Israelis understand that people, not guns, kill people.

American Jews, for the most part, are nothing like their Israeli co-religionists. American Jews--as this American Jewish journalist well knows--are disproportionately liberal and anti-gun. This is especially true of elitist, intellectual/professional Jews in Manhattan and the New York suburbs. They pride themselves in their masochistic, near-suicidal "tolerance" of Jew-haters and violent criminals.

The lessons of the Holocaust are lost on these Jews. They relish victimhood. Proud, tough Jews and proud, patriotic Americans make liberal Jews--and liberals in general--nervous.

Perfidy!

[Catty1]

OT - I don't think I could afford the money to own and maintain a firearm! :eek: