Anybody know about Nunchucks?
like a good site to get tutorial info, and a reliable online dealer?
Printable View
Anybody know about Nunchucks?
like a good site to get tutorial info, and a reliable online dealer?
AFAIK, they are illegal in the states. They may not be, though. Best place to get them is join karate, i believe.
Actually, they are illegal to wear on yourself. Many outfits have such items, although I doubt that a Border-Check would allow it through without a legitimate reason. In any case, somebody behind my house across the alley was playing with these 9 foot nunchucks and he was super fast at it, it was wonderful. Personally if you're purchasing it for defense, the best things to get are: Pepper Spray, 21 Inch Baton(Steel Shaft); Total Cost: Approx $200 CDN. So when the voilent, evil (and stupid) bastard approaches you, you take out your pepper spray, and when he starts to scream and tear at his face, you pull out your 21 Inch baton, shut the bastard up, put your baton away, and run away.
You don't want a baton too long, such as 24 or 26 Inch as they restrict movement. If you get caught with one, even if its not cocealed, you will be charged, and your baton will be removed from your possession.
However, if you purchase a dual-locking knife, and keep it slightly visible in your pocket you cannot be charged. Remember: Everything is a tool, until you use it in an unwarranted, illegal manner.
Like most weapons, they aren't illegal in private. I don't believe you could walk down a street legally with nunchucks, unless you have a permit and it's a demonstration.
A karate school is a good place to get them. They can order the stuff from catalogs if they don't have it. I'd give the name of a dealer if I could remember the company's name... century, maybe? I dunno...
Don't attempt to learn nunchucks from a tutorial. It will result in a very painful experience. Take lessons if you wish, but before you do that, a general karate/martial arts background is advisable.
The central concept behind this weapon is that you must always trust your weapon to go where you want it to. Do not shortcut your moves; doing so will result in some form of pain. A complete motion will ensure that the rod follows the path your arm gives it.
And, for God's sake, buy plastic, padded ones!
I used to own an wooden one.. But yours is a crazy country.. you can walk with a gun in your pocket but not a Nunchucks on the street...
Do they charge you if you carry a cigar lighter on the streets too...
>>like a good site to get tutorial info, and a reliable online dealer?
LOL!
Learn savate (and you just need a walking stick).
http://www.bridgemansavate.com/html/quotes5.htm
Yes, ours is. California has even banned assault rifles.
I think that if everyone could carry whatever weapon they wanted, crime would be cut down.
I just like nunchuks, and think they are cool, and want something other than computers and sports to do. Besides, there are other people in know who want to learn how to use them.
They've banned assault rifles?! They must be crazy!
I hope you're joking.Quote:
Originally posted by windoze victim
I think that if everyone could carry whatever weapon they wanted, crime would be cut down.
in 48(im pretty sure) states its still legal to have an assault rifle....iff(like that math notation :D)it is fitted to be a semi automatic rifle ONLY. the military uses m16a2 which has semi auto and burst fire, the civilian model only has semi auto.
if you go to google and look up gunlaws.com (or something like that) you can find all the laws in your state
Quote:
AFAIK, they are illegal in the states. They may not be, though. Best place to get them is join karate, i believe.
What does AFAIK mean?
Yawgmoth, I can't figure out what the 1st word and 2nd-last words are in your sig.
As far as I know.Quote:
Originally posted by Yawgmoth
What does AFAIK mean?
Sean, the 2nd to last word is "pweenz" (owns) and the 1st on is "leet"
>>You don't want a baton too long, such as 24 or 26 Inch as they restrict movement. If you get caught with one, even if its not cocealed, you will be charged, and your baton will be removed from your possession. <<
Or, you could get a friction baton which is obviously concealed. They are steel etc etc. Some 'popular' holiday resorts have them on open sale (in UK).
Now, I would not know if they have super strength,nice grips,reliable action etc etc.
:rolleyes: :cool:
Have any of you ever heard of a class A license? These allow you to carry any gun (including automatics) concealed or not concealed (that's how it works in my state at least). However, to be able to get one, you have to be 21 and in some sort of armed forces/police.Quote:
Originally posted by windoze victim
Yes, ours is. California has even banned assault rifles.
The second amendment says that, being necessary for a well-regulated militia, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's unclear whether this allows non-militia weapons or not.
you can use a gun to kill a deer, but imagine killing a deer with nunchucks :l
beating, choking, bleh..
if you are a criminal, rapist, robber, etc., if you knew that when you assaulted, robbed, etc., that there was a good chance that someone would have a gun/other weapon and use it to stop you, would you be more inclined or less inclined to perform those illegal acts.
Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.
Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
A few selections from firearms demystified
Amen. Gun control worked great for Hitler...just think what would have happened if all those Jews had guns...Gun control works great in Australia, where criminals now enter homes while the owners are there. Gun control works great in the UK, where there are cameras watching everyone at all times, and they still have a high crime rate. Gun control works great in Canada, where it has cost far more than estimated and compliance is under 50%, and the crime rate still went up.Quote:
Originally posted by windoze victim
Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.
Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
From http://www.independent.org/tii/conte...riefTEMBA.html
It's too bad that Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, Locke, and the authors of our Bill of Rights were all so wrong...Quote:
In the 4th century B.C., for example, Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, despite their profound differences, shared the belief that an armed populace was essential for preventing the imposition of tyranny. A few centuries later, Roman lawyer Cicero warned that replacing the private ownership of weapons with standing armies was contributing to the fall of the Roman Empire. In Renaissance Italy, Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527) argued that an armed public promotes civic virtue, which in turn promotes responsible arms use. In 16th century France, political philosopher Jean Bodin (1530–1596) argued that disarming the citizenry helped create an absolute monarchy. Across the English Channel, philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704) also shared the view that an armed populace deters tyranny.
"Amen. Gun control worked great for Hitler...just think what would have happened if all those Jews had guns"
You're an idiot.
"...Gun control works great in Australia, where criminals now enter homes while the owners are there."
You're an idiot.
"Gun control works great in the UK, where there are cameras watching everyone at all times, and they still have a high crime rate."
You're an idiot.
"Gun control works great in Canada, where it has cost far more than estimated and compliance is under 50%, and the crime rate still went up."
Oh and..... you're an idiot.
Clyde your stealing my tactics, and then using them wrong.
"Clyde your stealing my tactics, and then using them wrong"
What?
Yeah, I noticed that, too... it should be:Quote:
"Clyde your stealing my tactics, and then using them wrong"
What?
Quote:
"Clyde, you're stealing my tactics, and you're using them wrongly."
Quoted for posterity. I wanted to do this, but you beat me to it.Quote:
Originally posted by Clyde
"Amen. Gun control worked great for Hitler...just think what would have happened if all those Jews had guns"
You're an idiot.
"...Gun control works great in Australia, where criminals now enter homes while the owners are there."
You're an idiot.
"Gun control works great in the UK, where there are cameras watching everyone at all times, and they still have a high crime rate."
You're an idiot.
"Gun control works great in Canada, where it has cost far more than estimated and compliance is under 50%, and the crime rate still went up."
Oh and..... you're an idiot.
Sometimes, guys, the truth hurts. In this case, it's the disarmed populaces being hurt.
You're right. The holocaust probably never would have happened if the Jews had had guns. Another victory for logic!
:rolleyes:
>> it's the disarmed populaces being hurt.<<
Do you mean countries that don't allow their citizens to own guns? If so then you are wrong, simple as that. I have grown up in a country where all but a few guns are illegal (farmers can have shotguns, that's about it) and it has certainly done me no harm. I don't wish to own a gun and don't actually feel the need to. You said earlier that we have high rates of crime (I'm British). Well in some parts of the country this is true, but only a very small amount of it involves firearms. My brother has been a policeman here for some 12 years and even he (being on the front line of the fight against crime) doesn't wish to be armed.
Believe what you may, one of the first steps, if you studied history closely, of Hitler's rise to power, was the disarmament of the population.Quote:
Originally posted by Govtcheez
You're right. The holocaust probably never would have happened if the Jews had had guns. Another victory for logic!
:rolleyes:
Yeah, you're probably right. The fact that the Jews didn't have guns probably was the major cause of the Holocaust. I'm sure it didn't have anything to do with "peace in our time" and letting Hitler just take a little bit of land and hoping he's happy. It probably didn't have anything to do w/ America's isolationist attitude after WWI, either. I'm sure it didn't have anything to do with the fact that Hitler had a huge army; that'd be just silly. It's probably just because Joe Jew didn't have a rifle. Thanks for clearing that up, and I'll try to read up on more history.Quote:
Originally posted by blackrat364
Believe what you may, one of the first steps, if you studied history closely, of Hitler's rise to power, was the disarmament of the population.
"Believe what you may, one of the first steps, if you studied history closely, of Hitler's rise to power, was the disarmament of the population"
Did i mention..... You're an idiot.
LOL, man that link had some of the best examples of bad logic that I've seen in a long time!Quote:
A few selections from firearms demystified
To name a few of the many:
Faulty Cause and Effect/Inability to understand things can have multiple causes! How in the world did having guns at hardware stores keep people from shooting at schools? How does fingerprinting/etc allow shooting at schools now??Quote:
The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.
Taking things to their illogical conclusion! No explanation needed here.Quote:
Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
Bad analogy! Maybe we should just disallow EVERYTHING the majority wants! Besides, without a statistic to back that claim up, I don't believe that the majority of the people DID support owning slaves.Quote:
A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves
Just a few, theres more but I'm out of time and I've made my point :)
1: I did not say i liked or agreed with all of the reasons there, and to be truthful, dont get some of them, but have there been more shootings and murders when most people had guns, as opposed to now?
2: As i said earlier,
3: A crimminal with a weapon is most effectivly stopped by another weapon, like, A GUN. NOT pepper spray and kind words.Quote:
if you are a criminal, rapist, robber, etc., if you knew that when you assaulted, robbed, etc., that there was a good chance that someone would have a gun/other weapon and use it to stop you, would you be more inclined or less inclined to perform those illegal acts.
"if you are a criminal, rapist, robber, etc., if you knew that when you assaulted, robbed, etc., that there was a good chance that someone would have a gun/other weapon and use it to stop you, would you be more inclined or less inclined to perform those illegal acts."
Ok so your saying there is less crime because the populace is armed, ok, should be easily verifiable by comparing crime rates to countries with stricter gun laws..... oh wait....
"A crimminal with a weapon is most effectivly stopped by another weapon, like, A GUN. NOT pepper spray and kind words."
Yes yes yes, BUT a criminal is FAR MORE LIKELY to be wielding a gun IF
A: They are so common they may as well be growing on trees
and
B: If he knows that the people he's trying to rob are all going to have weapons.
How many thieves in the US do you think are armed compared to thieves in countries with strict gun laws like the UK?
Do you disagree that a crimminal will get a gun regardless of any gun control laws?
And personaly, I would be more reluctant to pursue crimminal activities if I knew that people might have guns at home or on their person.
EDIT::
That thing about Hitler's rise to power? He would have had a more difficult time if the people had had guns to defend themselves.
Also, by going after small groups of people at a time, he did not bite off more than he could chew, but thats OT.
"Do you disagree that a crimminal will get a gun regardless of any gun control laws?"
A criminal that desperately wants a gun will get one regardless of gun laws. But then most robbers in countries with strict gun laws don't desperately want a gun.
It's the same situation with terrorists. If they're willing to die, there's not a lot you can do, since the biggest punishment (and it's just an expression - don't argue with me over whether or not life sentences are worse) we have is exactly that - death. But again, there's a psychology there. If you can tell someone they can't do it, a lot of people want to do it even more. Stupid humans...
I bring to attention the prohibition, which whas supposed to stop the drinking of alchohol. But with hindsight, guess what?
Budweiser!
All those commercials!
A lot of good the prohibition did, it fed an underworld of defying the law, and an entryway into crime.
That argument doesn't have any bearing on this, unless you're saying that by passing stricter gun control laws gun ownership'll actually go up...Quote:
Originally posted by Sean
It's the same situation with terrorists. If they're willing to die, there's not a lot you can do, since the biggest punishment (and it's just an expression - don't argue with me over whether or not life sentences are worse) we have is exactly that - death. But again, there's a psychology there. If you can tell someone they can't do it, a lot of people want to do it even more. Stupid humans...
So, gun barons, then? Truckloads of rifles, smuggled in from Canada? You guys really need to rethink your arguments.Quote:
Originally posted by windoze victim
A lot of good the prohibition did, it fed an underworld of defying the law, and an entryway into crime.
I'm not even that pro-gun control, but your guys' arguments really suck.
Actually yes, it's almost as if it came natural to me, I used to be pretty dam good with them. When used effictively they can cripple an opponent, or even kill. I'd go as far as saying a well trained Nunchaku master can defeat any opponent, even one with a gun.Quote:
Anybody know about Nunchucks?
Just wanted to add that if you are just starting out, get plastic nunchucks or very light-weight wooden ones. Do not get steel nunchucks, you can and probably will hurt yourself, I did several times when I was training.
A person who wants to commit a crime will most likely commit the crime regardless of whether or not he is allowed to have a gun (actually probably less likely if he doesn't have a gun). The question is, do you or do you not want him to have a gun when he does it?
And for all those arguments that guns protect people, how many times do you hear somebody saying that their life was saved because they had a gun? Almost never! How many times do you hear about people getting shot accidentally or somebody just waltzing in to a school or workplace with an easily obtained gun and killing people or just random shootings on the street? Every frickin' day! Even the Los Angeles Police Department issued a statistic that if you pull a weapon on an attacker, your chances of being killed or hurt by that exact weapon skyrocket. Chances are the person attacking is much more proficient with the weapon as well as calm under the circumstances.
Just compare the unbelievably high murder rates of the US with any country that has strict gun laws. Or is that just a random statistic? I have traveled to over 20 countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa and I guarantee you that by far and away the most dangerous country that I've been to is the one that I live in, the US! Everywhere else the worse you have to worry about is getting pickpocketed, here people are dying.
>>in 48(im pretty sure) states its still legal to have an assault rifle.
And in how many US States do you need to pass a test proving your understanding of the BASIC levels of gun safety or use?
FOUR (You need a to pass a test to drive a car but not to use a gun?)
>>Gun control works great in Australia, where criminals now enter homes while the owners are there.
More of this incorrect NRA propaganda. Shame on you for falling for this rubbish. Look carefully at the stats they use. Do they all include only gun related crime or all crime?
More people are killed with guns in an average DAY in the US than are killed in a YEAR in [Australia + New Zealand + Japan] combined.
In fact, since guns were recalled and banned in Australia following the Port Arthur attack, the number of murders has fallen and number of gun related crimes has fallen. The only crime related to guns that rose was attempted murder as more victims survived the lower caliber non auto firarm attacks. If you need a link, ask.
>>Do you disagree that a crimminal will get a gun regardless of any gun control laws?
Yes.
Try getting one here in Australia (where it is next to impossible to get a gun legally and then it is law that guns have to be locked in a safe). Any rare or illegal item will become more expensive and harder to find.
This stops the crimes of passion or revenge. Ones committed on the spur of the moment while angry or intoxicated.
Remember, there is a 90% chance the person shooting you is known to you.
>>How many thieves in the US do you think are armed compared to thieves in countries with strict gun laws like the UK?
just because guns are a problem here, and our police wear bullet proof vests, doesnt mean that other weapons arent a problem in the UK...
there was a body armor thing on the discovery channel the other night and it said you were 12 times more likely to be stabbed in England than in the US.... guns arent the problem, its the psychos
>>So, gun barons, then? Truckloads of rifles, smuggled in from Canada? You guys really need to rethink your arguments.
worked for alcohol
Clyde, It's logical to be armed to the teeth, why don't you see it? It's only good for society.Quote:
Originally posted by Clyde
Ok so your saying there is less crime because the populace is armed, ok, should be easily verifiable by comparing crime rates to countries with stricter gun laws..... oh wait....
Ya know, that little thing called WWI, same idea but on a bigger scale.
In reality people will use whatever weapons they need to. However, owning a firearm will increase the psychos chance success. Actually, right here in Calgary, a business manufactures alot of the Kevlar vests that the U.S. is using in Iraq; and only 1 person has been killed with a firearm within I think that last 1.5 months. The kind of $$$$ we hear on the news is: "19 year old so and so was punched from behind, taking a fatal blow to the head when hitting the ground when exiting some pub...". It only makes sense that removing public access to harmful weapons will decrease crime... its population increase which increases crime... Including inflation etc..(cause then they cannot eat, then they steal, then they get punched in the face, then they burn down the bakery) (just a poor example). But, when all factors are considered, we will realize that the removal of weapons will ofcourse create a black market, but crime actually is lowered even if it is rising... if you know what I mean.
i heard somewhere that actuall crime has dropped by like 18% in the last 10 years but coverage of crime, in the news, increased by like 6000% ??? wtf is that all about?
i think it was on bowling for columbine...that michael moore flick
>>And in how many US States do you need to pass a test proving your understanding of the BASIC levels of gun safety or use?
FOUR (You need a to pass a test to drive a car but not to use a gun?)<<
could you cite that?? im pretty sure to own an assault rifle you need a FEDERAL permit, as well as, a state license, to get a federal permit you must take a 6 week class in firearm safety.
As an outsider in a country where guns are illegal, I don't actually see any use in having guns for personal protection. I mean think about it. If guns are legal then it's pretty fair to say that burglars are going to carry them right? Is it usual in the US for burglars to carry guns? I expect so if they know the house occupants will have them. But put yourself into the situation for a second. You get woken up at 2am by the sound of your house being broken into. Your wife is next to you, the kids are sleeping next door, you panic. You grab your gun from the bedside drawer and go to tackle the burglars. Is this really the best thing to do? What if there are 3 or 4 of them? How many of you honestly think you could shoot and kill 4 people before 1 of them killed you? I know I couldn't. I don't think most people could unless they were a Police marksman and even that's doubtful. But the fact that you are tackling them with a gun is going to dramatically increase the chances of them shooting you. Don't forget, most burglars would rather not have to resort to violence. There is a big difference between getting a few years for burglary and getting life (or death) for murder. Why not just let them take what they came for, save the lives of yourself and your family and claim everything you lost off of the insurance? We are only talking about material posessions after all.
Put it like this, if Tony Blair legalised guns tomorrow, I still wouldn't want one.
It just seems to me that legalising fireams does little to protect the law-abiding citizens at home but much to augment the fear, violence and danger that we read about on those drug-ridden, gang controlled estates in places like Los Angeles.
>>Novacain And in how many US States do you need to pass a test proving your understanding of the BASIC levels of gun safety or use?
FOUR (You need a to pass a test to drive a car but not to use a gun?)<<
dP Munkey>>could you cite that?? im pretty sure to own an assault rifle you need a FEDERAL permit, as well as, a state license, to get a federal permit you must take a 6 week class in firearm safety.<<
Note the source, will post a better link if needed.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/
"just because guns are a problem here, and our police wear bullet proof vests, doesnt mean that other weapons arent a problem in the UK...
there was a body armor thing on the discovery channel the other night and it said you were 12 times more likely to be stabbed in England than in the US.... guns arent the problem, its the psychos"
12 times more likely to get stabbed, but 33 times less likely to get shot.
Given the choice i'd rather have criminals armed with knives than guns.
I completely agree. If a criminal/crazy person enters a building/school/workplace/whatever with a gun, what is the possible death count? Now give the person a knife and what is the realistic possible death count?Quote:
Given the choice i'd rather have criminals armed with knives than guns
When even the handgun control book says when facing a violent criminal "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run", how can one argue that guns protect people? It says in the gun safety book to not use them to protect yourself!
Here in India it is verry tuff to get a liscence. . we have got one since we stay in a farm house.. And we are onlly allowed to own one shot gun.. and we do not have the permit to take it out of out city...
We never use it.. but it is good we have it because.. theives here do not roam around with guns.. Advantage of only few people having guns..
to novacain: In California you have to pass a safety test prior to buying a handgun. The problem with that is that driving a car (a far deadlier weapon) is a privilege. Owning a weapon is a Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT! Licencing a right?! Do you need a license to practice free speech? How about your rights to due process? Should that be licenced?
>>12 times more likely to get stabbed, but 33 times less likely to get shot.
i didnt know that, i dont know, any psycho wealding a weapon is bad...
"Owning a weapon is a Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT"
Which is why your constitution needs changing.
"i didnt know that, i dont know, any psycho wealding a weapon is bad..."
True, but i'll take a psycho armed with his fists over a psycho armed with a stick, a psycho armed with a stick over a psycho armed with a knife, and a psycho armed with a knife over a psycho armed with a gun.
I have a question, and perhaps this will help prove the point of: Allowing guns to be legally owned by anyone is stupid.
Remember the washington shootings, the guy who was sniping people off through a hole in his car? He killed what? 12 People? I forget. Anyways, I live in Canada and I didn't have to worry about walking across the street as millions of americans had to. Then think about how many 'Copy Cats' you will see doing the same thing? I'm sure they're yet to show up, but they will that is for sure. Then there are gangs and such that everyone has problems with, Canada has problems with gangs but not so much with guns but with swords, bats, and knives (yes there are lots with guns, I could get one if I wanted, but the fact remains that gangs are made out of mostly-teenagers who mostly have access to swords, bats, knives, chains, etc..), than the U.S. where your racial disputes / gang fights probably end up with murder by hand-gun(Yes, there have been kids at our schools within the past couple of years who had their throats slit because of racial disputes). But anyways, for my question: Was the gun that the Washington Sniper was using legal to own by himself since he was through all of the army training? Or was it one of those 'mysterious firearm thefts...'? I also heard that the U.S. army ends up accounting for around 200+ Million dollars in missing firearms at the end of each year, is this true?
> but they will that is for sure.
CProg members, I give you: XEI! He's from the Future!
You can't be sure, and you don't have anything to base your claim on.
True, I do not have evidence to base the claim that a copy cat(s) will do the same type of thing. The way I see it is: Since there are millions of little psychos all around the world who would love to see their murders all over the papers then, given time, someone will probably think "Hey, remember that sniper dude! He was cool... If I was like him I could be famous. Wheres my gun?". I don't know, but to me it seems very likely that during our lifetime we will see a copycat of those sniper shootings, especially if a film based on it is produced(Maybe a thriller will be). Actually, if I remember correctly, there were some victims whose murderer were unaccounted for once they found the sniper because they were killed with a different weapon.Quote:
Originally posted by Govtcheez
> but they will that is for sure.
CProg members, I give you: XEI! He's from the Future!
You can't be sure, and you don't have anything to base your claim on.
In Aus recently a schoolboy decided to get revenge on his former girlfriend.
He bought, mail order a crossbow (paying nearly $1100).
Concealed it and ambushed his ex in the playground. He shot her in the chest and the bolt passed thru her and into a bystander. He then tried to use a petrol bomb, which failed to explode. He was tackled before he could get the second petrol bomb lit.
From this we can draw the following;
He was very determined and had planned the event well in advance.
He had sought weapons and payed considerable sums for them.
My point;
So where was his illegal gun? He obviously would have tried to get one if he spent $1100 on a crossbow.
He had the money and the motivation.
This is where the 'criminals will get illegal guns' argument falls down.
You can't walk up to someone in the street here and try to buy a gun, it tends to telegraph that you are up to something bad.
If this had happened in the US? I'm sure she and others would not have survived a gun attack (if he had a multiple shots with a high powered gun)
>>In California you have to pass a safety test prior to buying a handgun.
OK, one of the four states requiring a safety test.
>>The problem with that is that driving a car (a far deadlier weapon) is a privilege.
Last time I checked cars were not specifically designed to kill (as guns are).
>>Owning a weapon is a Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT!
When was the last time your milita group met? (read your constitution)
>>Licencing a right?! Do you need a license to practice free speech? How about your rights to due process? Should that be licenced?
WTF? Idoitic refrence, free speech and due process do not require physical interaction with a device that has potential to cause physical damage to teh user and others.
When did you last get _physically_ hurt by an word, drunk driven or not?
>>read your constitution
i have, i even had it in my sig for a while...i agree w/you there should be required firearm safety tests, it should be a requirement to own any firearm....
i think youre missing the point
as long as the constitution reads the way it does people will still be able to easliy get weapons....how is that idiotic? it directly corilates, you DONT need a license to speak your mind but you DO need one for a gun...its not like i can walk into a store and go hey jimbo, gimmie that 9mm over there......i'll be paying w/my visa...the screening process in most states takes anywhere from 2-8 weeks, not saying it doesnt have flaws, but there are measures being taken
The second amendment.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution
"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)
Arms includes grenade launchers, SCUDs, tanks and nukes.
Are you saying that the consitution guarantees your right to have a nuke?
Obviously not. Therefore there is a limit to the 2nd amendment. This limit is decided upon by congress.
http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html
>>he screening process in most states takes anywhere from 2-8 weeks
This is not correct.
How many have a waiting period?
Do you know Californias gun laws? Prahaps you could post a link to them.
There is also no waiting period in gun shows.
US and Australia has about the same non firearm related homicides (US 2 , Aus 1.44 per 100,000)
US and Australia has about the same suicide rate (US 12.06 , Aus 12.65 per 100,000)
So we would assume a similar firearm related homicide rate?
No way.........
US 3.72, Aus 0.44 per 100,000. A difference of 8.5 times!
What do you think the difference is due too?
A big reason must be availability of guns.
look it up yourself here
well thank god the 6th circut doesnt decide how i can defend myself
>>well thank god the 6th circut doesnt decide how i can defend myself
You know it is a court don't you......so it does. It interprets the laws congess makes ie gun laws in the case I mentioned.
I checked for gun saftey under your link. Strange, all states gun safety laws were under construction -> no data. Obviously very important.
Is it just you could not find a link to back up your claim?
>>the screening process in most states takes anywhere from 2-8 weeks<<
The information I have posted says this is incorrect.
In Bowling for Columbine Michael Moore appears to get a free gun merely by walking in and opening up a bank account, that seems to contradict the 2-8 week waiting period.
"So where was his illegal gun? He obviously would have tried to get one if he spent $1100 on a crossbow.
He had the money and the motivation.
This is where the 'criminals will get illegal guns' argument falls down. "
I'm not sure i agree entirely with this, a random teenager will find it extremely difficult to get hold of a gun in a country with strict gun laws, but someone who has been in and around crime for years, i don't really think you are going to be able to stop them getting a gun if they set their heart on it. Even in countries like the UK and Autralia there is still 'some' gun crime (I know, i was held up at gun point). This doesn't validate their arguments of-course because it's patently obvious that the percentage of criminals carrying fire arms is vastly smaller in countries with stricter gun laws.
>>that seems to contradict the 2-8 week waiting period.
yeah, i dont know about this one, the only thing i can think of is maybe he owned a few guns already?
>>You know it is a court don't you......so it does.
keep reading that constitution, the supreme court interprets what the constitution means
>> I checked for gun saftey under your link. Strange, all states gun safety laws were under construction -> no data. Obviously very important.
thats interesting, i just pulled up gun laws in like 4 states(just to test) so um......yeah, if you need help navigating the page, give me a PM i'll point ya around
he'res another one that isnt mysteriously broken....well, shouldnt be
http://www.packing.org/
>> I not sure i agree entirely with this, a random teenager will find it extremely difficult to get hold of a gun in a country with strict gun laws,
True. I was trying to point out that any person can't go out and get an illegal gun (which is a major argument for gun laws).
In short it stops the 'crime of passion' not the recidivists.
>>i just pulled up gun laws in like 4 states(just to test) so um
No.......read my post
>>states gun safety laws <<
http://www.gunlaws.com/links/trainlk.htm
Try any states SAFETY laws link and you see this page.
Want me to point you to an optometrists page?
Or is it the semantics you are having trouble with?
anyway how can you take a site seriously that hosts 'the Cartridge family'
California -> 10 waiting period unless a gun dealer to purchase a concealable gun. No waiting period otherwise.
$500 fine for possessing an unregistered assualt weapon.
New York No waiting period.
sorry im not a loser and dont have time to go to every states congressional site and check out laws you'll never change
....just get over it
define gun safety....sounds like one of those um....whatchamacallits, oxymorons
And this is why I sleep with a sword next to my bed. It is not illegal for me to carry and can be used to great effect in my capable hands. I've had cops drive by without a word while I'm out practicing in my front yard. And I live in a small town with very bored cops.
So hell is a small town? Excellent, no room for me. I wonder where I'll end up. :)Quote:
Originally posted by deathstryke
And this is why I sleep with a sword next to my bed. It is not illegal for me to carry and can be used to great effect in my capable hands. I've had cops drive by without a word while I'm out practicing in my front yard. And I live in a small town with very bored cops.