Nunchucks

**minesweeper** · 04-09-2003

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** · 04-09-2003

>>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/

**Clyde** · 04-09-2003

"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.

**PJYelton** · 04-09-2003

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?

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!

**vasanth** · 04-09-2003

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..

**dP munky** · 04-09-2003

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...

**Clyde** · 04-09-2003

"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.

**Xei** · 04-09-2003

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?

**Govtcheez** · 04-09-2003

> 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.

**Xei** · 04-09-2003

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.

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.

**novacain** · 04-09-2003

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?

**dP munky** · 04-09-2003

>>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

**novacain** · 04-10-2003

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.

**dP munky** · 04-10-2003

look it up yourself here

well thank god the 6th circut doesnt decide how i can defend myself

**novacain** · 04-10-2003

>>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.

Thread: Nunchucks

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display