Handguns

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » April 18, 2007, 11:34 am

Honestly, the best reason I can think of to own one is sport shooting.

Personal protection - Stargi brought a scenario where you hear a noise after you've gone to bed and get up dark and groggy and an assailant jumps you as you emerge from your bedroom... like you'd hit the broad side of a barn in that instance. And if the guy is on top of you, who says you get a shot off before he wrestles the gun away or turns the barrel back at you? You'd be better off with a knife where the fucker would cut himself if he tried to grab it. In other situations, as Kyou said, a shotgun has a better chance to hit something and more stopping power than anything this side of Dirty Harry.

2nd Ammendment - Handguns to repel a hostile military force (be it foreign or domestic in origin) is a bad joke; the ammendment itself may have been valid up to 60-70 years ago but its now obsolete. Range and rate of fire would mean the "pistoleros" would be massacred. Think of "Blackhawk Down" only the mob would by Americans instead of Somali. They estimated around 3000 Somali casualties vs the 2 dozen or so US dead on that mission... now not everyone will have that level of training or air support etc so the ratio of civvies to soldiers might not be quite that lopsided but trained troops vs a mob is still a recipe for disaster.

I grew up in a rural environment with rifles and shotguns in the house. I started hunting as soon as I could legally get a licence (I stopped about 10 years ago). I don't see any issues with owning hunting weapons, esp in rural areas but I just don't see the reason for this handgun craze that is so staunchly defended across so much of the US. For the most part its a fantasy with potentially deadly side effects.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » April 18, 2007, 12:28 pm

The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right of the people to bear any arms they wish, just the right to bear arms. If it can be construed to apply to pistols it can be construed to imply to RPGs, Howitzers, home SAM batteries...so removing one species of arm clearly doesn't violate the Amendment.

I like pistols. I love to plink at targets with them and have owned a number of them in the past. I think it most logical to tax guns and ammo in proportion to the damage they cause in our society. Law abiding citizens could still own them but it would become impractical to buy them at the rates they are bought currently, throttling the market, reducing production. I wonder what % of the market for pistols is US domestic? I would wager a huge percentage. Make them terribly expensive and production would decline reducing their general availability.

No you can't put the genie back in the bottle but you can make the bottle cost prohibitive to produce and own in the numbers they are currently produced.

Prohibition would actually work pretty well on guns but I'm opposed to it in general. Limiting rate of fire/capacity of legal weapons might also be effective make only single shot weapons legal.

Maybe requiring all guns & ammunition produced to be available only by special order by licensed owners ie no over the counter sales? Reducing the general availability is a big part of the solution. There is no constitutional guarantee of convenience.

I also think if a gun registered to a licensed owner is used in the comission of a crime that licensed owner should be held contributorialy negligent (even if that gun has been reported stolen). You want em...be responsible for them...

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 18, 2007, 1:20 pm

You liberals were going nuts about phone taps and you want the government ot march into every house and seize handguns? Is this what I am hearing?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 18, 2007, 1:38 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You liberals were going nuts about phone taps and you want the government ot march into every house and seize handguns? Is this what I am hearing?

HAHA Very good point. Unfortunately, our rights being taken away are only a bad thing when a republican is doing it.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » April 18, 2007, 2:00 pm

Having a gun in the home greatly increases your risk of being shot by one.

I love hearing this one. Because I mean really, it's so blatantly obvious that a criminal is less likely to shoot me if I don't have a firearm and am using my fists or a knife to try to stop him from harming my family.

An abortion is something a woman chooses to have done on themselves.

And legally owning guns is a choice that I as an American citizen have made for myself. Like abortions, just because YOU may not believe in it doesn't give you the right to force me to your standards. One can argue that my legally having a gun makes them unsafe or that allowing abortions is the same as murder, whatever. Get out of my face.

Post by **Xouqoa** » April 18, 2007, 2:40 pm

I thought this was relevant to the discussion.

Penn and Teller on Gun Control: http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/60509/

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » April 18, 2007, 3:05 pm

Seriously. I'm not a fan of gun control. But God damn, if it's ever even OCCURRED to you that a crack head might break into your house to kill your family, PLEASE tell me where you live so i can stay the fuck away from there.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 18, 2007, 3:07 pm

Niffoni wrote:Seriously. I'm not a fan of gun control. But God damn, if it's ever even OCCURRED to you that a crack head might break into your house to kill your family, PLEASE tell me where you live so i can stay the fuck away from there.

The crackhead moved here from New Orleans after Katrina.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 18, 2007, 3:10 pm

Siji wrote:
An abortion is something a woman chooses to have done on themselves.
And legally owning guns is a choice that I as an American citizen have made for myself. Like abortions, just because YOU may not believe in it doesn't give you the right to force me to your standards. One can argue that my legally having a gun makes them unsafe or that allowing abortions is the same as murder, whatever. Get out of my face.

Nice try on sidestepping my point.

An irresponsible person getting an abortion hurts noone but themselves.
An irresponsible person owning a handgun results in shit like 32 innocent people getting murdered.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 18, 2007, 3:12 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You liberals were going nuts about phone taps and you want the government ot march into every house and seize handguns? Is this what I am hearing?

No, you are obviously a retard who cannot fucking read because nobody has made any such suggestion.

Stop making shit up.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 18, 2007, 3:17 pm

Siji wrote:
Having a gun in the home greatly increases your risk of being shot by one.
I love hearing this one. Because I mean really, it's so blatantly obvious that a criminal is less likely to shoot me if I don't have a firearm and am using my fists or a knife to try to stop him from harming my family.

An abortion is something a woman chooses to have done on themselves.

Haha, because people breaking into homes and killing random families is such a serious problem. You are willing to defend guns, and all the deaths they are responsible for, based on a 1 in a million, freakish scenerio you invented in your head?

You watch too many movies.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 18, 2007, 3:23 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Siji wrote:
Having a gun in the home greatly increases your risk of being shot by one.
I love hearing this one. Because I mean really, it's so blatantly obvious that a criminal is less likely to shoot me if I don't have a firearm and am using my fists or a knife to try to stop him from harming my family.

An abortion is something a woman chooses to have done on themselves.
Haha, because people breaking into homes and killing random families is such a serious problem. You are willing to defend guns, and all the deaths they are responsible for, based on a 1 in a million, freakish scenerio you invented in your head?

You watch too many movies.

What is the 1 in a million scenario he invented?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » April 18, 2007, 3:24 pm

Xouqoa wrote:I thought this was relevant to the discussion.

Penn and Teller on Gun Control: http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/60509/

1. I love that show.

2. That clip expresses the argument that gun control is completely ineffective for situations such as this one much better than I could.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 18, 2007, 3:24 pm

miir wrote:An irresponsible person getting an abortion hurts noone but themselves.
An irresponsible person owning a handgun results in shit like 32 innocent people getting murdered.

I think the point was that abortion is argued to be murdering the unborn child before it can defend itself.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 18, 2007, 3:32 pm

Boogahz wrote:I think the point was that abortion is argued to be murdering the unborn child before it can defend itself.

If handguns were only used to perform abortions, I might be able to understand the correlation.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 18, 2007, 3:34 pm

miir wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You liberals were going nuts about phone taps and you want the government ot march into every house and seize handguns? Is this what I am hearing?
No, you are obviously a retard who cannot fucking read because nobody has made any such suggestion.

Stop making shit up.

I didn't realize the gun control fairy was going to remove them all. Thanks for clarifying.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 18, 2007, 3:36 pm

His argument is a personal rights argument....not how many people die because of it. You wanting to control what other people do and do not do kind of issue. But then I don't expect a liberal to understand reason these days.....you contradict yourselves every time you talk about personal liberties.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 18, 2007, 3:39 pm

Boogahz wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:
Siji wrote:
Having a gun in the home greatly increases your risk of being shot by one.
I love hearing this one. Because I mean really, it's so blatantly obvious that a criminal is less likely to shoot me if I don't have a firearm and am using my fists or a knife to try to stop him from harming my family.

An abortion is something a woman chooses to have done on themselves.
Haha, because people breaking into homes and killing random families is such a serious problem. You are willing to defend guns, and all the deaths they are responsible for, based on a 1 in a million, freakish scenerio you invented in your head?

You watch too many movies.
What is the 1 in a million scenario he invented?

Someone breaking in to harm his family.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 18, 2007, 4:11 pm

Off topic, but any of those bottled/canned teas contain so little tea it's almost criminal to call them tea!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 18, 2007, 4:13 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Boogahz wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:
Siji wrote:
Having a gun in the home greatly increases your risk of being shot by one.
I love hearing this one. Because I mean really, it's so blatantly obvious that a criminal is less likely to shoot me if I don't have a firearm and am using my fists or a knife to try to stop him from harming my family.

An abortion is something a woman chooses to have done on themselves.
Haha, because people breaking into homes and killing random families is such a serious problem. You are willing to defend guns, and all the deaths they are responsible for, based on a 1 in a million, freakish scenerio you invented in your head?

You watch too many movies.
What is the 1 in a million scenario he invented?
Someone breaking in to harm his family.

This happened twice in the last 2 weeks in this area. Once was directly across the street from a friend of mine in a quiet neighborhood. Guy broke the door in with a sledgehammer....assaulted the owner of the house with said hammer.....found out sledgehammer vs .357 is a mismatch....died in the kitchen.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 18, 2007, 4:27 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Boogahz wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:
Siji wrote:
Having a gun in the home greatly increases your risk of being shot by one.
I love hearing this one. Because I mean really, it's so blatantly obvious that a criminal is less likely to shoot me if I don't have a firearm and am using my fists or a knife to try to stop him from harming my family.

An abortion is something a woman chooses to have done on themselves.
Haha, because people breaking into homes and killing random families is such a serious problem. You are willing to defend guns, and all the deaths they are responsible for, based on a 1 in a million, freakish scenerio you invented in your head?

You watch too many movies.
What is the 1 in a million scenario he invented?
Someone breaking in to harm his family.

You do realize that he wasn't the one to bring up the break-in, don't you?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 18, 2007, 4:34 pm

miir wrote:
Boogahz wrote:I think the point was that abortion is argued to be murdering the unborn child before it can defend itself.
If handguns were only used to perform abortions, I might be able to understand the correlation.

Way to miss the point. You specifically said a person getting an abortion hurts nobody but themselves. Many people feel that an abortion is killing an unborn child. That means that (in the eyes of some) an abortion hurts more than just the person getting the abortion. Abortion was originally brought up due to the stance some people take when imposing their values on others. Those who see abortion as murdering unborn children attempt to impose that personal belief on people who do not feel that way. Imposing your belief that a gun in the hand of any person is wrong due to the number of people it can potentially kill is the same thing. There are people who are responsible weapon owners, and there are people who are irresponsible. When you come in and try to tell all of those people that they are 'teh debil' because they own a gun, you are doing the same as the pro-lifers outside of an abortion clinic.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 18, 2007, 5:51 pm

Boogahz wrote:Way to miss the point. You specifically said a person getting an abortion hurts nobody but themselves. Many people feel that an abortion is killing an unborn child. That means that (in the eyes of some) an abortion hurts more than just the person getting the abortion. Abortion was originally brought up due to the stance some people take when imposing their values on others. Those who see abortion as murdering unborn children attempt to impose that personal belief on people who do not feel that way.

Comparing an ethical issue with a safety issue is a bit of a reach, dont you think?

Imposing your belief that a gun in the hand of any person is wrong due to the number of people it can potentially kill is the same thing. There are people who are responsible weapon owners, and there are people who are irresponsible. When you come in and try to tell all of those people that they are 'teh debil' because they own a gun, you are doing the same as the pro-lifers outside of an abortion clinic.

You're putting an awful lot of words into my mouth there.
Why do gun freaks always seem to have to make shit up to support their cause?

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » April 18, 2007, 6:21 pm

I am liberal on a lot of issues, but not this one. That episode of Bullshit perfectly outlines the reasons why gun control is not only a waste of time, but against the core principles of out founding fathers. If you are to insular or lazy to watch it, here is a quick summation:

1) The government needs to be scared of the general populace for the other constitutional freedoms to be taken seriously. A lot of our current issues with the government are entirely because they just plain do not feel like they have nothing to fear from the citizenry, no matter how far out of line things get. Violence is not the answer to the worlds problems, but the threat of violence certainly is, in as far as it means getting unreasonable people to behave more reasonably. This applies to criminals, presidents, and nations alike.

2) No amount of gun control laws would have prevented the WV killings. This asshole spent at least a couple months planning this and would have found another way to kill people, if guns were not available (legally or othewise) to him. The same is true of every other major nutjob shooting people dating back well before Columbine.

3) Deward is dead on about how relaxed gun control actually deters crime. No one breaks into farmer Bob's place in Wisconsin because everyone knows that Farmer Bob probably has several rifles and a lot of ammunition. Gun crime in Wisconsin is confined to the larger cities, where people are not legally allowed to have guns. On a similar note, there is a reason that these whackos choose schools and similar locations; its because no one is going to be armed to retaliate. No one has ever tried a mass murder at a gun show.

4) The next time some teenager goes around running over people en masse with their car, we will wind up discussing legal access to cars, the bad pop culture influence of Nascar, and Jack Thomson will be on TV railing against the evils of Grand Turismo and Mario Kart. No one will address the real root of the issue, which is that (ironically) we are now a culture of no personal responsibility/accountability. When some asshole crazian kills some people in a dorm and map hacks his way halfway across campus to do it again, we blame guns, the local law enforcement, and even the victim's inability to defend themselves against a single armed assailant. No one addresses the fact that we let this asshole walk around, when people clearly knew he was fucked in the head, without maybe trying to get the guy some mental help. We ignored the fucker because it was too much effort and we didn't care about some crazy fucker walking around and writing violent things. That is, until he actually did it. Then we cared enough to blame someone other than our own myopic selfishness that let us ignore this asswipe until it was too late. We, as a society, were stupid and lazy, so we chose to ignore the obvious.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 18, 2007, 7:04 pm

miir wrote:
Boogahz wrote:Way to miss the point. You specifically said a person getting an abortion hurts nobody but themselves. Many people feel that an abortion is killing an unborn child. That means that (in the eyes of some) an abortion hurts more than just the person getting the abortion. Abortion was originally brought up due to the stance some people take when imposing their values on others. Those who see abortion as murdering unborn children attempt to impose that personal belief on people who do not feel that way.
Comparing an ethical issue with a safety issue is a bit of a reach, dont you think?

Imposing your belief that a gun in the hand of any person is wrong due to the number of people it can potentially kill is the same thing. There are people who are responsible weapon owners, and there are people who are irresponsible. When you come in and try to tell all of those people that they are 'teh debil' because they own a gun, you are doing the same as the pro-lifers outside of an abortion clinic.
You're putting an awful lot of words into my mouth there.
Why do gun freaks always seem to have to make shit up to support their cause?

I have put no words into your mouth. I just elaborated on the original message in order to perhaps clarify the point which was being made in reference to your attempt to force your beliefs regarding gun control on others. Also, I am not a gun freak. The only guns I have used have been on my mom's farm for shooting things like snakes or coyotes. I have no wish to own my own gun(s) either.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 18, 2007, 7:06 pm

Jice Virago wrote:2) No amount of gun control laws would have prevented the WV killings.

Them's fightin' words! It was in Virginia, not West "by-God" Virginia!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 18, 2007, 9:34 pm

Pro gun people (ie. guys with small penises) always manage to sway the argument away from the original debate, which is almost always handguns. You don't need a handgun to defend your family. You don't need a handgun to defend your home. You only need a handgun if you require one to perform your job. Anyone else with a handgun is either a criminal, a murderer or a guy with a small penis.

However every handgun debate always turns into a bunch of shrill rednecks (with small penises) screeching at the top of their lungs about how liberals want to take away their ability to defend their families from the hordes of crack addicted black people lining up outside their daughter's bedroom window with I LOVE RAPE T-shirts on.

It should be virtually impossible to get your hands on something that can fit into your jeans pocket and also kill 32 people in less than a few minutes. If the kid had to walk across campus with a 12 gauge over his shoulder, he probably wouldn't have made it to his destination.

So stick to the fucking argument because you aren't really fooling anyone with these lame diversionary tactics.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » April 18, 2007, 9:40 pm

Usually I think you're a twat, but that was beautiful.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 18, 2007, 9:54 pm

kyoukan wrote:Anyone else with a handgun is either a criminal, a murderer or a guy with a small penis.

Which category did you fall into?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 18, 2007, 9:55 pm

kyoukan wrote:Pro gun people (ie. guys with small penises) always manage to sway the argument away from the original debate, which is almost always handguns. You don't need a handgun to defend your family. You don't need a handgun to defend your home. You only need a handgun if you require one to perform your job. Anyone else with a handgun is either a criminal, a murderer or a guy with a small penis.
.

You don't need a car. You don't need a car to get to work. You don't need a car to perform daily frivilous activites. You can get anywhere via buses. Tens of thousands die every year to automobile related accidents. We need to ban cars and implement a government supported public transportation system, because we don't need cars.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » April 18, 2007, 10:02 pm

Stop using the fucking retarded car!=gun argument, it makes you look stupider than you are.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 18, 2007, 10:06 pm

Boogahz wrote:Which category did you fall into?

Criminal, obviously. I was carrying a weapon illegally on my person.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 18, 2007, 10:09 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:You don't need a car. You don't need a car to get to work. You don't need a car to perform daily frivilous activites. You can get anywhere via buses. Tens of thousands die every year to automobile related accidents. We need to ban cars and implement a government supported public transportation system, because we don't need cars.

I don't own a car.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 18, 2007, 10:10 pm

3) Deward is dead on about how relaxed gun control actually deters crime. No one breaks into farmer Bob's place in Wisconsin because everyone knows that Farmer Bob probably has several rifles and a lot of ammunition. Gun crime in Wisconsin is confined to the larger cities, where people are not legally allowed to have guns. On a similar note, there is a reason that these whackos choose schools and similar locations; its because no one is going to be armed to retaliate. No one has ever tried a mass murder at a gun show.

The murder and violent crime rate per capita for wisconsin is actually higher than Toronto.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 18, 2007, 10:17 pm

It always comes down to sexual references with kyoukan.

Kwon could kill more than 30 people with his bare hands in less time than this killer took. Are we supposed to lock him up too?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 18, 2007, 11:10 pm

Nick wrote:Stop using the fucking retarded car!=gun argument, it makes you look stupider than you are.

Oh really? Why? Please enlighten all.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » April 18, 2007, 11:16 pm

Cars were not primarily designed as killing machines. Guns are.

You are doing the equivalent of comparing a train to an atomic bomb, on a slighly lesser incorrectly percieved degree of rationality.

Seriously, you, and all of us can do better than this sort of basic crappy strawman argument that falls apart with even a single ounce of inspection.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 18, 2007, 11:22 pm

Nick wrote:Cars were not primarily designed as killing machines. Guns are.

You are doing the equivalent of comparing a train to an atomic bomb, on a slighly lesser incorrectly percieved degree of rationality.

Seriously, you, and all of us can do better than this sort of basic crappy strawman argument that falls apart with even a single ounce of inspection.

Nope. Sorry. You cannot go banning all handguns to prevent 1 mass murder every 5 years or more, when cars kill hundreds a week. It's initial design purpose plays no fuckign role in a rational argument for or against a ban. In fact, it is pathetic and laughable.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » April 18, 2007, 11:28 pm

Pathetic and laughable? Are you actually mentally retarded?

Any "rational argument"?: - you can damn well guarantee that trying to compare a mode of transport and a weapon designed solely for killing other human beings won't fly in a "rational argument".

Jesus christ Mid I'll be the first to have a discussion with you about this Virginia Tech incident if you want, but concentrating on and defending such a dumb analogy is just wasting both our time.

Ultimately, a man has the right to have a gun, but is it really necessary? (Arguably not, crime is not as bad as the extremist pro gun crowd will hysterically claim in poor defense of their desire to feel like REAL MEN).

This is not like stating that a man has the right to privacy, a drink, or a smoke, it's ultimately "does a man have the right to own a weapon designed exclusively to murder another man".

Is it really that "liberal" to wonder whether that question is morally dubious in its virtuosity?

Stop comparing guns to cars, SERIOUSLY, it's fucking dumb.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 18, 2007, 11:41 pm

No Nick. You're wrong. You have no right to decide what is acceptable and necessary. It's not the product that kills people, it's the people.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » April 18, 2007, 11:44 pm

......

Did I claim I had the right to decide what was acceptable or necessary? Why would your claim on such a thing weigh more than mine?

I am talking about the car analogy, which is fucking dumb, can you just accept that it's silly and not applicable (because it is) so I don't have to bother typing anymore?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 18, 2007, 11:55 pm

No, I'm sorry I will not. You are claiming handguns are horrible and should not be available to the public. I have stated cars kills 100 times more. So, you really should start banning cars before handguns. That is if your intent is to save lives. Maybe, I'm just not understanding your intent.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 18, 2007, 11:57 pm

Obviously the reason that this is all an issue is the fact that the United States has so much more violent (and gun) crime than the nations we view as our peers; specifically Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.

One difference between the United States and the other countries on that list is that we have a lot more guns floating around in our population than they do. There must be some relationship between these two facts.

Some have interpreted that relationship to be explanatory and causal-- the reason we have more violent (and gun) crime is because there are more guns in our society. The explanation sounds reasonable on its face and fits in with the international comparative analysis that has been mentioned previously.

Those who believe this explanation have pushed for gun control measures in response, reasoning that if more guns = more crime, then any measure which results in less guns must = less crime. Gun control has been a political issue for awhile, enough time for gun control measures to be passed and repealed in a variety of different locations. I don't think it's appropriate to make a blanket statement like "and gun control obviously doesn't work," but the gun control = less gun crime hypothesis has emphatically not been borne out by on the ground experience. The intranational comparisons tell us something much different than the international comparisons. This does not mean that the availability of guns and the implementation or lack thereof of gun control has nothing to do with the problem of violent crime in the United States, but it seems indisputable that it is not the whole story, and seems likely that it is also not the fundamental issue.

The number of guns floating about is not the only difference between the United States and the aforementioned countries. Another difference, for instance, is that our wealth distribution is much more skewed than theirs, meaning that we have a larger lower class and a richer upper class, while they are much closer to distributional equality. As a result, we have larger and more troubled slum areas than they do. Much of the violent (and gun) crime in the United States either occurs in these slum areas or is exported from these slum areas. Doesn't it seem reasonable that the slums have more to do with the violence than the guns do?

lala wrote:lol Thats not really green tea.

dreg wrote:Off topic, but any of those bottled/canned teas contain so little tea it's almost criminal to call them tea!

Great contributions guys. If we're going to have assholes following individual posters around threads posting shit that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, can we just unban Cartalas?

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » April 19, 2007, 12:35 am

miir wrote:
3) Deward is dead on about how relaxed gun control actually deters crime. No one breaks into farmer Bob's place in Wisconsin because everyone knows that Farmer Bob probably has several rifles and a lot of ammunition. Gun crime in Wisconsin is confined to the larger cities, where people are not legally allowed to have guns. On a similar note, there is a reason that these whackos choose schools and similar locations; its because no one is going to be armed to retaliate. No one has ever tried a mass murder at a gun show.
The murder and violent crime rate per capita for wisconsin is actually higher than Toronto.

Not if you exclude Milwaukee and Madison, where the average joe on the street is not packing. I already mentioned that in the section you quoted.

Post by **Sylvus** » April 19, 2007, 12:46 am

The difference between a handgun and a car is that the only use for a handgun is to kill people.

The government limits access in part or entirely to any number of products that can be harmful to people but that still provide other features besides being harmful. That's all a handgun is useful for. It's small so that people can't see it as easily. Not animals, they aren't that smart. Not criminals who are breaking into your house, you want a large gun that the criminal can see and that has the best chance of disabling said criminal in order to discourage him from staying at your house and harming you or your family (I hope). It isn't the best choice for arming a militia to repel foreign invaders or to overthrow the government, that would be a rifle of some sort.

I am not against guns. I'm all for responsible people being able to own guns for hunting and other sports and for personal protection. I just don't think they should be handguns. It baffles my mind that they are still allowed to be sold. Nowhere in this thread was anyone suggesting that the government go into homes and seize weapons. If the companies that made them were to cease or slow production of them, over time the number of handguns would decline. While I can't see handguns actually no longer being produced, I think that would be ideal.

Saying that if murderers didn't have handguns they'd use something else is wrong. I'm not saying it would completely eliminate murder, but at least some of those people who have murdered others with handguns would be discouraged by not having an easily concealable weapon.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 19, 2007, 3:22 am

Sueven wrote: Great contributions guys. If we're going to have assholes following individual posters around threads posting shit that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, can we just unban Cartalas?

Cart does need to be unbanned. It's still retarded that he was banned for more than a week or two in the first place.

Lets get this unbanning done before the NBA playoffs kick off on Sunday. Nothing around here changed with him gone except for a few people getting giddy with themselves over it and making asstastic one liner remarks ....hmmm...just like Cart.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » April 19, 2007, 3:38 am

Sueven wrote:
lala wrote:lol Thats not really green tea.

dreg wrote:Off topic, but any of those bottled/canned teas contain so little tea it's almost criminal to call them tea!
Great contributions guys. If we're going to have assholes following individual posters around threads posting shit that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, can we just unban Cartalas?

It looks like someone sprinkled some self-righteousness on his poser-intellectual cereal this morning.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 19, 2007, 3:57 am

Sueven wrote:Great contributions guys. If we're going to have assholes following individual posters around threads posting shit that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, can we just unban Cartalas?

I'm sorry if the gun control topic has been beaten to death in my mind already on this forum that I fixated on the one topic in the thread that caught my attention. We never attacked Midnyte in any way, just commented on the "green tea", something I'd recently done some reading on. If we'd responded to his comment with "Green tea? More like green Cunt shit dickwad! HAHAHAHAHAFAT" then you'd have some fucking leg to stand on. Don't even try to equate one with the fucking other you wretch.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 19, 2007, 4:12 am

The sad part is that Cart was more entertaining and then some insecure people had to make a crusade over his banning.

Booting a long time member off this board is lame. As Sueven said, who's probably the most balanced poster here, or at least takes the time to respond calmly to hostile flames almost always...is someone really hurt by Cart's comments? If so, you need to go to one of those Japanese self confidence schools or learn to blow things off about 2-3 seconds after reading them and move on.

I put more personal time into this board than most responding to tech questions or contributing in other ways, whether people care or not what I do doesn't affect my daily life, and I could care less if Cart ever contributes more than a few "fuck you cunt" responses his entire career on VV.

Weak sauce.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 19, 2007, 4:42 am

Why don't you fucking whine about it more you fucking loser? Like would fart sideways to a dime about your opinion.

If you don't like it, LEAVE

VeeshanVault

Handguns

What is the most compelling reason to allow the sale of handguns in the United States?