Why americans scare me

[Major Fubar 0]

(On the more serious points raised in this post) As for carrying a concealed gun for self defence, what happens if you shoot a guy coming at you, and either you miss or the slug goes straight through him and hits some poor bystander, maybe (to give an extreme example) a baby in a carriage, how would you feel? I'm all for legal firearm ownership (Im from Australia where our gun laws are all f**ked up and no one can own shit), but carrying a gun on the street is for cops, sorry. If you feel that unsafe walking the streets, invest in some martial arts training, or maybe a Taser, mace or telescoping baton.

[Guest]

Well, let's look at a related issue. In England regular cops don't have guns. Incidently England has the lowest number of cop-killings in the world.

This doesn't however say how many criminals they stop

[Joe Porta 0]

Look at Switzerland for its gun laws an you will see that its all about a countries social mindset that keep gun crime low not gun control.

http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html

"The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Indeed, armed citizens deter crime. Switzerland fits this mold. Similarly, America's lawful "gun culture" is peaceful. Sadly, some of its subcultures are not."

[Guest]

Switzerlands gun laws are restrictive. The only thing is that they have a very strong connection between the military and the national guard. The members of the the national guard have weapons (assult rifles etc) at home, but locked up and secure. The same is for Sweden, but in a smaller scale. The guns are not used for sport shooting or hunting or anything like that. They are certainly not meant to be for personal protection.

[Placebo 29]

Wobble renaming a bmp file to jpg doesn't actually make it a jpg, you have to do this magical thing called "converting" it to jpg

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ April 02 2002,20:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wobble renaming a bmp file to jpg doesn't actually make it a jpg, you have to do this magical thing called "converting" it to jpg  <span id='postcolor'>

LOL funniest thing I've read all day

[Fenna 0]

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>©1999-2002 Gulf Coast Armory, no linking or copying allowed</span>

[ralphwiggum 6]

LOL!!! Wobble!!! have you been shooting 'empty' cans, or have you been shooting AT 'empty' cans?

anyway,

for all ppl who talked about self-defense issue.

my advice is.

AVOID THOSE DANGEROUS PLACES!!

AFAIK, Wobble almost got into trouble once, and if i remember correctly(yeah right), it was 1AM. ppl, please stay at home at that time...and play OFP!!

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ April 02 2002,17:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(On the more serious points raised in this post) As for carrying a concealed gun for self defence, what happens if you shoot a guy coming at you, and either you miss or the slug goes straight through him and hits some poor bystander, maybe (to give an extreme example) a baby in a carriage, how would you feel? I'm all for legal firearm ownership (Im from Australia where our gun laws are all f**ked up and no one can own shit), but carrying a gun on the street is for cops, sorry. If you feel that unsafe walking the streets, invest in some martial arts training, or maybe a Taser, mace or telescoping baton.

<span id='postcolor'>

carry any of those things in the UK and u could face a jail sentence :/

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 02 2002,19:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, let's look at a related issue. In England regular cops don't have guns. Incidently England has the lowest number of cop-killings in the world.

This doesn't however say how many criminals they stop <span id='postcolor'>

Thats cos in the uk getting a gun is very unlikley what with stringent laws and the fact that u cant legally have a pistol due to a nasty situation,media circus and a moronic general public oops i forgot to mention that none of the above applies if ur criminally minded e.g why most unsavoury types are actually armed.

Anyway statistics like that dont really apply in the way ur implicating them as im sure the size of a country has to be taken into account when saying country xxx has the lowest number of whatever due to it only having 10 residents there.

[Renagade 0]

Also other stupid things t5hat happened in the UK was this big fuss over laser pointers.The news was going on about them like they were fucking death rays

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ April 02 2002,23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway statistics like that dont really apply in the way ur implicating them as im sure the size of a country has to be taken into account when saying country xxx has the lowest number of whatever due to it only  having 10 residents there.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, the statistics are cop killings/capita, so size of the population is taken into account.

[Placebo 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ April 02 2002,22:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thats cos in the uk getting a gun is very unlikley what with stringent laws and the fact that u cant legally have a pistol due to a nasty situation,media circus and a moronic general public<span id='postcolor'>

"Nasty situation"? I don't call a sick mother fucker walking into a school and murdering little children a "nasty situation", it's an horrific, vile, evil act that should never ever be allowed to happen again.

"moronic general public" By that do you perchance mean the general public who were right reviled and incensed by the events of Dunblaine?

Yes the situation now is basically that only criminals and police have guns, personally I'm fairly happy with that, the large majority of shootings in England are "gangster" v "gangster" if they want to go around killing each other let them.

[Mjřlner 0]

[bastard mode activated]

Some might say a gun is basically an attachement to your penis...making it's smallness less apparent.

Where "penis" would be a symbol of your selfesteem.

Noone has less selfesteem than the drugstore robber pointing his gun at the poor acne-ridden kid behind the counter.

If people generally felt better about themselves today, less penis-attachements would be waved at people.

The place wtith the largest number of penis-attachements (guns) pr.capita = the place with the highest number of miserable people pr.capita...a theory...if you take offence to this theory, please explain why in a serious and rational manner. t/y!

This post, I wager, will piss off gunhappy people.

But hey, don't be mad...we all have something we lean on to compensate for insecurities.

Apologies goes out to any incidently offended acne-ridden kid. Word: I used to be just like you but then I got better. How? <span style='color:red'>Erycin</span>!...a dangerous drug. Blindness, deafness, sterility are all possible sideeffects...but wouldn't you rather get rid of your bad skin once and for all? The name of that drug: Erycin! Say it again: Erycin!

[bastard mode deactivated]

[WKK Gimbal 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mjřlner @ April 03 2002,02:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[bastard mode activated]

Some might say a gun is basically an attachement to your penis...making it's smallness less apparent.

Where "penis" would be a symbol of your selfesteem.

Noone has less selfesteem than the drugstore robber pointing his gun at the poor acne-ridden kid behind the counter.

If people generally felt better about themselves today, less penis-attachements would be waved at people.

The place wtith the largest number of penis-attachements (guns) pr.capita = the place with the highest number of miserable people pr.capita...a theory...if you take offence to this theory, please explain why in a serious and rational manner. t/y!

This post, I wager, will piss off gunhappy people.

But hey, don't be mad...we all have something we lean on to compensate for insecurities.

Apologies goes out to any incidently offended acne-ridden kid. Word: I used to be just like you but then I got better. How? <span style='color:red'>Erycin</span>!...a dangerous drug. Blindness, deafness, sterility are all possible sideeffects...but wouldn't you rather get rid of your bad skin once and for all? The name of that drug: Erycin! Say it again: Erycin!

[bastard mode deactivated]<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sure some people feel that way... others just think it's fun blowing shit up.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes the situation now is basically that only criminals and police have guns, personally I'm fairly happy with that<span id='postcolor'>

That might be all well and good for you. What about someone who owns guns strictly for a hobby or hunting?

Not so long ago, I had a lenghty debate with Kingbeast on this very subject, he knows my views on 'gun control', as does wobble. Basically, I don't trust any government that does not trust an armed citizenry. When they can order us around on what we can and can't do simply becasue they fear that we might 'hurt' ourselves or them, who is in control? The people? or the government? Which way do you think it was intended to be? I am tired of people who see their government as some kind of parental authority to tell them right from wrong.

Honestly, I think that if George Washington saw what things were like today, his head would spin, hell, he would probably call for another revolution.

Allow me to quote one of the centuries' biggest @$$holes:

"When we got organized as a country, we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans.There's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom?s being abused, you have to move to limit it."

3 guesses on who said it!

Tyler

[Mjřlner 0]

Bill Clinton?

P.S. Related to an earlier post: I think the notion of changing the constitution is only outrageous if you have no historical perspective.

[Wobble 1]

the proble with "only criminals and cops will have guns"

is the fact that when the crime is commited.. who do you think is on the scene first??? of course the criminal.. the perpetrator.. to cop doesent come till later.. so there is a nice window of time where its just you and the criminal.. and if he has a gun and you dont then your future, yoour life or death, the life or death of your family.. etc etc.. is 100% his choice.. you have absolutley NO imfluence as to weather you will live or die, your wife get raped, your children taken.. etc etc.. the destiny of yourself and everything you love/own is 100% in than hands of someone who is obviousley NOT a good person..

sure cops have guns.. and they usually stay in their belt.. because by the time they get one the scene its either:

A: the criminal has left already.. done what he was there to do.. etc etc..

B: the smell of your dead body(S) has caught the attention of the enighbors becasue you never got to the phone.

the illusion that you can pick up the phone and have a cop at your house instantly is just that.. an illusion.. they generally take between 5 and 15 miniutes depending on too many variables to list..

and alot can happen in that time span.. assuming you even manage to call them in the first place..

so basically (averaging and assuming you actually get to call) there is a 10 minute time span between which the criminal makes his entry.. and the cops arrive.. thats a LONG time folks.. a criminal(s).. even a shitty one could get a good amout of shit out of your house in that amount of time.. have a good rape session.. kill you all.. etc etc.. whatever his whim..

in a sitiation where death can take mear seconds, the time it take the police to respond to a call is an enternity..

so the other option? have a gun in the house.. at least then you have SOME say in the turn of events that happen.. insted of totally surrendering your fate to a thug.. who could be anyone from a serial killer to a crackhead, to a rapis.. etc etc.. all of the above..

[Guest]

I agree with Bill to some extent. Total freedom = anarchy and that is not a principle that a society can work by. There is a need for government. There is a need for law.

Even in the States there are forms of Gun control. A 15-year old kid can't (as far as I know and hope) go to the supermarket and buy a gun. Don't you think that is good?

As for hobby and hunting - of course you should be allowed to do that. That doesn't mean that you should be able to buy a gun over the counter. With guns comes responsibility. You need training and you need to make sure that the gun won't be used in criminal activities.

I personally currently own two hand guns. It took me over a year of active shooting (several times a week) in my club to get the license. That kind of safeguard prevents acess to guns for the unserious people.

Don't take me wrong. I love to shoot and I love guns. I just am not too fond of the idea that guns can fall into the wrong hands.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 03 2002,02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so the other option?  have a gun in the house.. at least then you have SOME say in the turn of events that happen.. insted of totally surrendering your fate to a thug.. who could be anyone from a serial killer to a crackhead, to a rapis.. etc etc.. all of the above..<span id='postcolor'>

The better solution is that neither the criminal nor the victims have guns. You can easily verify that it works in Europe and that we have less homocides per capita then in the US.

[Wobble 1]

the better solution is that neither the criminal nor the victims have guns. You can easily verify that it works in Europe and that we have less homocides per capita then in the US.

A: crime stats in Europe are not counted the same kinda of way US ones are, a different system is used so cany comparison is more or less apples and oranges. and example would be britian.. if a criminal shoots 2 people in their stats thats 1 shooting, because it was done by the same person at the same time.. in the US thats 2 shootings because 2 people were shot.. british LAW doesent see it as 1 shooting, but in annual crime stats and whatnot thats how it is counted.. so a comparison is at best VERY VERY innacurate..

B: criminals will ALWAYS have guns..

EXAMPLE: the AK47.. its TOTALLY illegal in EVERY WAY for ANYONE in the US to even possess one(unless you ahve a class3 which few do).. yet they are the most POPULAR non-handgun weapon in gangs.. if your a criminal and have 1 shred of a connection or a friend who has one.. or a friend of a friend.. etc etc.. you can get a gun easy as cake anywhere in the world

maby the reason so few criminals abroad carry guns is more simple.. they dont need them.. they know there is no chance of the person they are about to victimize will have one.. so all they need is a big knife..

you dont need a gun to sheer a sheep.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 03 2002,02:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the better solution is that neither the criminal nor the victims have guns. You can easily verify that it works in Europe and that we have less homocides per capita then in the US.

A: crime stats in Europe are not counted the same kinda of way US ones are, a different system is used so cany comparison is more or less apples and oranges.  and example would be britian.. if a criminal shoots 2 people in their stats thats 1 shooting, because it was done by the same person at the same time.. in the US thats 2 shootings because 2 people were shot..  british LAW doesent see it as 1 shooting, but in annual crime stats and whatnot thats how it is counted.. so a comparison is at best VERY VERY innacurate..<span id='postcolor'>

What rubbish. 1 homocide = 1 homocide. 2 homcides = 2 homocides. In any country.

Example - Homocide rate per 100,000 people (1995)

USA - 8

Netherlands - 1.8

Source:

Source #1: The FBI reported that the homicide rate in 1995 was 8 per 100,000 people, for a total of 21, 597 homicides. (Uniform Crime Reports: Dept. of Justice Press Release, 10/13/96).

Source #2: In both 1995 and 1996, the Netherlands recorded 273 homicides, which is a homicide rate of 1.8 persons per 100,000 inhabitants. (Registered Murders in the Netherlands, Press Release, CBS Voorburg - Statistics Netherlands, 7/14/98).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">B: criminals will ALWAYS have guns..

EXAMPLE: the AK47.. its TOTALLY illegal in EVERY WAY for ANYONE in the US to even possess one(unless you ahve a class3 which few do).. yet they are the most POPULAR non-handgun weapon in gangs..  if your a criminal and have 1 shred of a connection or a friend who has one.. or a friend of a friend.. etc etc..  you can get a gun easy as cake anywhere in the world

<span id='postcolor'>

Also not true. Try to get a gun in England or in USA.. big big difference.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

maby the reason so few criminals abroad carry guns is more simple.. they dont need them.. they know there is no chance of the person they are about to victimize will have one.. so all they need is a big knife..

you dont need a gun to sheer a sheep.<span id='postcolor'>

Possibly true. I would however choose to be robbed anyday before getting killed. I don't know the successfull robbery statistics, but it wouldn't surprise me that USA topps that list too. Guns are great for intimidation.

Edit: For some good statistics on homocide check out UN's database: UN Statistics

Choose the countries you want to compare and choose homocide. They have the average of 1990 - 1999.

Some values (homocides/100,000 people):

USA - 9

Sweden - 1

Canada - 2

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A 15-year old kid can't (as far as I know and hope) go to the supermarket and buy a gun. Don't you think that is good?<span id='postcolor'>

Of course it is. That's just common sense. I was talking more along the lines of banning guns completely and changing the 2nd amendment.

In these debates alot of stupid hypothetical situations arise to help out someones debate. It's common sense that only criminals commit crime, most of the guns criminals own are illegally bought because they can't buy one legally. So they steal one or buy one off the streets for some cash.

It is also common sense that criminals do not obey the law, so when you go making a bunch of stupid laws to help 'end crime', only law abiding citizens will follow those laws. So in the end, it's the average law abiding guy who is getting screwed over. Laws are not good when they screw you over, all laws big or small need to have a use, 'gun control' is not one of them.

There are also alot of myths that gun grabbers throw around to make guns look bad. For any myth there is a fact to counter it. For any questions you guys may have about guns, go here.

It will answer most of your questions. A gun FAQ.

BTW, it was Bill Clinton.

Tyler

[§nake 0]

What, you guys didn't play with full automatics when you were kids??

Damn..  I was further behind then I thought

But the REALLY scary part is... disreguarding the military..  something for you to think about with the airplane insident...

How many aircraft are in your country for civilian use, that have not been engineered, designed, and created by North America?

(I had to say NA because of the great white north who created the fabulous F-18..  thank ya   )

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ April 03 2002,03:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In these debates alot of stupid hypothetical situations arise to help out someones debate. It's common sense that only criminals commit crime, most of the guns criminals own are illegally bought because they can't buy one legally. So they steal one or buy one off the streets for some cash.

It is also common sense that criminals do not obey the law, so when you go making a bunch of stupid laws to help 'end crime', only law abiding citizens will follow those laws. So in the end, it's the average law abiding guy who is getting screwed over. Laws are not good when they screw you over, all laws big or small need to have a use, 'gun control' is not one of them.<span id='postcolor'>

If there are no guns around to buy, the criminals will have a harder time to get them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are also alot of myths that gun grabbers throw around to make guns look bad. For any myth there is a fact to counter it. For any questions you guys may have about guns, go here.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh yes. From gunnery.net. I am sure that they are not biased in any way.  But ok. Let's see what they have to say:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Myth: 58% of murder victims are killd by either relatives or acquaintances.

Fact: Only one city, Chicago reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: Between 1990 and 1995 only 17% of murder victims were family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates. The rest were people with criminal records, killed by other criminals.

<span id='postcolor'>

My god - 17% !! I didn't know that it was that bad. And this is a gun propaganda FAQ, so it's probably worse. Apply that to the figures of 1995 (approx 20000 homocides) = 3400 people were murdered by gunshot in one year by somebody in the family. The majority of those people would probably be alive if their dear relatives had not had guns at home. And you are saying that it is worth those deaths - for what?

.. I feel that I am being outgunned here by the Americans since most people here in Europe are asleep.. so I'm off to bed too but I'll be glad to continue this debate tomorrow...