well im waiting for mr joshua, cuz it seems hooksaw avoided answering my points like we have, luckily, been avoiding a major invasion in the last 24hrs.

note:i at least understand your point about the sheehan nonsense, but i still think your choice of comparison is lame. i think it is plenty possible to care about the soldiers AND politicize the issue, but this isnt really worth arguing about (i couldnt care less about sheehan).

[Edited on August 25, 2006 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2006 10:48:27 PM

Quote :

"yea what about those liberal scandanavian countries. those are fighting off invading armies left and right."

must be the same countries that issue automatic weapons to the citizens and all the ammo they ask for

8/28/2006 5:36:26 PM

You all are SO full of shit. If you don't accept even the possibility of an invasion, did you ever consider guns as protection during times of anarchy--like in New Orleans during Katrina?

At any rate, I don't have as much time to play anymore. After all, this isn't summer. You boys mind your elder and hit the books. You obviously need it.

8/31/2006 2:26:38 AM

Quote :

"The second amendment talks about a well-regulated militia. Not a redneck with his peacemaker under his pillow praying that tonight's the night the commies try to come after him. "

Then I would suggest not breaking into said redneck's house. I think that if someone wants to sleep with any type of gun under thier pillow, in thier nightstand, between the matress, under the bed, on the table beside the bed, ANYWHERE, they have a perfect right to do so. I, personally, have at least three firearms within arms' reach when I sleep. If everyone kept a firearm close at hand and knew how to use it effectively, we wouldnt have these people doing these home invasions all the time.

A well regulated militia does not mean "to be regulated by congress or the president". During the early days of WWII, when this country was taking quite seriously the threat of a west coast invasion by Japan, private citizens bought up almost all of the firearms and ammunition in the western states and began getting together in armed groups at community centers (this is, in fact, a militia), practicing shooting, and making plans on how they would defend thier homes and communities. The second amendment is not AT ALL about hunting. It's about being able to defend youself and your individual freedoms from any enemy, foreign or domestic.

8/31/2006 9:02:28 AM

Quote :

"You all are SO full of shit. If you don't accept even the possibility of an invasion"

Quote :

" do i think it is impossible? no, but it ranks so low in the threat level "

times of anarchy are relatively few and far between as well, especially if you live in certain areas of the country.

8/31/2006 9:57:41 AM

looked like it happened a year ago in N.O.

cause it damn sure looked like the govt going door to door confiscating personal property and m aking people leave their homes

8/31/2006 9:58:50 AM

In all cases where guns have been banned in the last few decades, one of two things happened: increased crime or government sanctioned genocide. In London, where handguns have been cosas non grata since 1997, violent crimes and home invasions involving firearms are up 300%. In Washington, DC, where handguns are also completely forbidden, we have the highest murder rate in the country, and most of those murders are comitted with, yep, handguns. Australia made almost all types of guns illegal and had a mass confiscation back in the late 1990's. Violent crime has increased several-fold there since then, too. Germany, 1938, the Nazi party makes owning almost all types of guns completely illegal, I guess I dont need to say what happened after that victim-disarmament measure. Joseph Goebells was quoted as saying 'if our citizens want to use firearms, they should join the military...'
Rawanda, 1977. Bans guns entirely. What happened to a defenseless population less than 20 years later? Cambodia, early 1970's. Pol Pot grabs all guns and weapons, only his Khmer Rouge thugs can have them. He then murders millions without having to worry about them defending themselves.
EVERY modern genocide has one thing in common: the implication of strict gun control laws before it was actually excecuted. Just try to prove me wrong on this fact, I dare someone.
Hell, many state-level gun control laws that preceded the first federal one in 1934 were in the south, and aimed at keeping blacks from getting guns so that the KKK and police had virtually nothing to fear when they beat them half to death, burned thier churches, etc.

Vermont is the only state in the union that completely recognizes your right to be peacably armed. Any citizen of the US (not just Vermont) who is not a felon, and is of legal age, may carry a firearm anywhere in the state, concealed or otherwise, without a permit. Vermont is in fact one of the safest states in the country, and has one of the lowest violent crime rates.
There is a small Town in Georgia (cant remember the name at the moment) that has an old law on the books requiring that every citizen own a gun. Burglaries and home invasions, as well as murders and rapes, are nonexistent.

8/31/2006 10:19:35 AM

Yes, criminals have guns. And they kill many people each year with them. But guns in the hands of law abiding citizens save many times the number of lives snuffed out by criminals each year.

If you are a law abiding citizen, and choose to acquire a gun and become proficient and responsible with it, there is an excellent chance that it will save your life at some point or another. When someone confronts you and threatens your life or liberty, it isnt going to do any good to squeal for an (armed) cop at that moment. He won't be there for you.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 10:32 AM. Reason : .]

8/31/2006 10:31:56 AM

Quote :

"But guns in the hands of law abiding citizens save many times the number of lives snuffed out by criminals each year. "

do you have proof of that? or are you just making it up?

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 10:34 AM. Reason : df]

8/31/2006 10:33:29 AM

you don't always hear about Joe Citizen that saves his or someone elses life because he owns a firearm

8/31/2006 10:37:27 AM

i agree, which makes it almost impossible to quantify it against the number of gun related killings. his comment just sounded like he was trying to prove his point with a completely made up statistic that in reality, is impossible to accurately guage.

8/31/2006 10:39:53 AM

here's your proof
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

8/31/2006 10:40:43 AM

excellent...thanks!

8/31/2006 10:41:55 AM

I copied and pasted the literature in that link, just in case some might not open it:


A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7
* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime

* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9
* Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and
* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11
* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12
* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14
* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.
1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.
2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15
C. Criminals avoid armed citizens

* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.16
* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.17
* Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:
* Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and,
* Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.18
Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection
* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.19
* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20
Justice Department study:
* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."21
* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."22
* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."23

8/31/2006 10:43:28 AM

no one answered my question about said usage. first of all it was done in 95, but i wont disregard it for that fact.

what i want to know is, of those 2.5 million:

1) how many times was the gun actually needed
2) how many times was it used by someone such as a store owner, private detective, bodyguard, etc who might argue their need for such an item at work?
3) others, lemme think about what i said, it is probably in one of the other 9 pages, cuz i asked before.

8/31/2006 4:20:10 PM

what was the question?

8/31/2006 4:24:35 PM

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/guic.pr
^^ What I want to know is, of those 1.1 million times every year someone uses a gun to commit a crime:

1) how many times was the gun actually needed
2) how many times was it used by someone such as a store owner, private detective, bodyguard, etc who might argue their need for such an item at work?
3) others, lemme think about what i said, it is probably in one of the other 9 pages, cuz i asked before.

8/31/2006 4:56:19 PM

To cyrion: The following post shows your total fucking lack of understanding on this issue: "times [sic] of anarchy are relatively few and far between as well, especially if you live in certain areas of the country." Bullshit! All one has to do is Google US riots to see that the list of such incidents is extensive--racially motivated and otherwise. In any event, if you're unprepared, it only takes one bad one to end you.

The next time News Orleans-type anarchy breaks out around you, go ahead and call the police--and good luck with that. I hope that you don't end up a bloated sack, floating face down in the nasty water--and clutching a dead cell phone.

To sober46an3: One has to look no further than this very thread for the evidence that you claim to be seeking. I've copied and pasted the earlier post for you:

"A guy was just driving to work one day. Suddenly, he saw two police officers fall into the middle of the street along with another man. The guy rushed to the scene, which was about a block ahead, to see if he could help.

The guy was shocked to discover that the man the cops were trying to arrest--on involuntary commitment orders--had taken one of their guns. BAM! As the guy was running toward the officers to help, a shot went off--one officer's hand was charred and cut from the recoil and muzzle blast.

After helping the police struggle with the gunman, the guy returned to his car a few feet away to retrieve his personal weapon--a .357 Magnum. The guy put the tip of the gun barrel on the back of the gunman's head and told him not to move and to surrender the weapon. After the crack of a flashlight across his knuckles to speed compliance, the crazed gunman surrendered. And because the regular guy carried a gun, nobody died.

The guy was me."

Out of modesty, I didn't mention in that earlier post that I was honored with a plaque by the town's mayor, police chief, and council for heroism. And my picture was on the front page of the local newspaper. But I'm convinced that it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented here. Alas, many of you will cling at any cost to your socialist beliefs concerning private gun ownership.

9/3/2006 7:04:04 AM

your personal story is touching and you did a good deed. that, however, isnt much better than an equally shocking story to the contrary.

that said, your list is larger than expected, but still not that big. a few riots every few years in 1 city (or part of a city) in the US isnt a large threat factor. plenty of things that are unlikely could kill me in 1 try that i dont worry about. plane crashes, stray bullets, construction equipment falling onto me, etc. some are obviously more likely than others, but you dont see me wearing a hardhat or bulletproof vest everywhere i go (not to mention, what happens if you get stuck in the riot and you left your gun at home? kinda sux).

9/3/2006 9:29:13 AM

^ Very true, Cryon, hence why other people have been posting statistics instead of anecdotal BS:

"Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense"
"1.3 million U.S. residents faced an assailant armed with a firearm"

Ok, so, in bulk, guns are used almost twice as much in self-defence than to commit a crime. Therefore, on net, even if you managed to eliminate all guns (which is impossible) the U.S. population is worse off, being unable to defend itself 1.2 million times a year (assuming the 1.3 million crimes committed with a firearm were not committed, also not probable since they can still commit the crime without a firearm).

9/3/2006 9:42:15 AM

you know my objections to said statistics. i understand the questions you asked as well. unfortunately i dont think we can say for certain which items were used and necessary at any given time.

9/3/2006 11:05:24 AM

"Praise the Lord and swing into position / Can't afford to be a politician / Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition / And we'll all stay free" (Frank Loesser).

9/5/2006 10:22:27 AM

Well, Cryon, we might try to compromise and say the criminal only needed the gun to commit the crime about half the time. It is only fair to apply any such deflator equally to the statistics of both sides.

Therefore:
Guns were only needed for self-defence about 1.25 million times a year.
Guns were only needed by criminals about 0.65 million times a year.

9/5/2006 10:35:40 AM

Quote :

"how many times was it used by someone such as a store owner, private detective, bodyguard, etc who might argue their need for such an item at work?"

Question: Why is a store owner protecting property any more entitled to a gun than a regular citizen protecting his own life? For that matter, why is a private detective or a body guard entitled to a gun? If the average citizen doesn't need a gun, surely these people don't either, they can call the cops just like everyone else.

9/5/2006 10:38:50 AM

now, how to arm the other 9......

out of the 560 killed by guns as a homicide, 560 would have been killed with a knife, blunt object, poison, or something else if guns didn't exist

9/5/2006 11:50:16 AM

When your ass gets in a sling, who do you call? Ghostbusters? No! You call someone with a gun to come and save your ass--whether it's the police, the Army, or a "cowboy."

Don't worry, though, when the shit hits the fan and you unarmed nancy-boys are crying for help, I might save you. All the left-wingers talk shit about a cowboy--until they need one. Just ask the French.

9/5/2006 4:48:55 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/09/wheelchair.shooter.ap/index.html

Quote :

"NEW YORK (AP) -- Margaret Johnson might have looked like an easy target. But when a mugger tried to grab a chain off her neck Friday, the 56-year-old Johnson, while riding in her wheelchair, pulled out her licensed .357 pistol and shot him, police said. Johnson said she was in Manhattan's Harlem neighborhood on her way to a shooting range when the man, identified by police as 45-year-old Deron Johnson, came up from behind and went for the chain. "There's not much to it," she said in a brief interview. "Somebody tried to mug me, and I shot him." Deron Johnson was taken to Harlem Hospital with a single bullet wound in the elbow, police said. He faces a robbery charge, said Lt. John Grimpel, a police spokesman. Margaret Johnson, who lives in Harlem, has a permit for the weapon and does not face charges, Grimpel said. She also was taken to the hospital with minor injuries and later released."

That greedy bitch in the wheelchair should have surrendered her chain and her wheelchair, for that matter. It is a tragedy that the poor young man performing the theft does not have a safe working environment.

9/9/2006 6:52:31 PM

Quote :

"Question: Why is a store owner protecting property any more entitled to a gun than a regular citizen protecting his own life? For that matter, why is a private detective or a body guard entitled to a gun? If the average citizen doesn't need a gun, surely these people don't either, they can call the cops just like everyone else."

you misrepresent my point. a store owner is protecting both his life and his economic well being. id be willing to look at store robberies VS home robbery stats with you though if you think that'll help your case any.

we've established before that people who hire bodyguards generally are more likely to be targets due to celebrity status, wealth, etc.

private detectives, due to the nature of their work, could very well be in the line of fire more often as well (potentially as much as a policeman depending on the line of their work).

Quote :

"out of the 560 killed by guns as a homicide, 560 would have been killed with a knife, blunt object, poison, or something else if guns didn't exist "

you dont know that. would the criminal have bothered without the gun? if they did, how likely could the attacker fend them off or ran away. i guess he could throw his bat at me.

Quote :

"That greedy bitch in the wheelchair should have surrendered her chain and her wheelchair, for that matter. It is a tragedy that the poor young man performing the theft does not have a safe working environment."

im glad she came out of the situation alright, but had she killed the man id be a lot less pleased with the situation.

[Edited on September 9, 2006 at 7:27 PM. Reason : then again, a store owner could easily use a shotgun/rifle like a homeowner, so perhaps nix them]

9/9/2006 7:25:10 PM

Should the woman have a rifle harness on her wheelchair, or would you prefer for her to lay it across her lap while she wheels her vulnerable ass around?

9/9/2006 8:08:14 PM

I cant wait till the ray guns become reality. You could shrink then down and implant them in your eyes. If everyone has the ability to kill anyone in the room with their mind, we'd have one great society. Generally, the more people with deadly weapons the better. We're on our way to a utopia.

[Edited on September 9, 2006 at 8:16 PM. Reason : 567567]

9/9/2006 8:15:39 PM

If everybody had the ability to reason as poorly as you, we can imply just about anything!

And then, the future is ours.

9/9/2006 8:17:01 PM

Either you want criminals and citizens to have guns, or you want both groups not to have guns.

9/9/2006 8:26:21 PM

Josh#### is gonna go shoot some people

9/9/2006 8:37:28 PM

Another win for gun owners

9/9/2006 8:39:38 PM

Quote :

"Should the woman have a rifle harness on her wheelchair, or would you prefer for her to lay it across her lap while she wheels her vulnerable ass around?"

like it or not, im not a fan of any gun ownership to protect property. you can not like that and im sure someone will make another stupid claim about how we should just hand over our possessions at anyone's whim, but that doesnt change my position.

9/9/2006 8:43:26 PM

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

9/9/2006 8:44:57 PM

Maybe in "Democratic Republic" of Congo there is a group that is attempting to jeapardize the right of the people to self-determination. Apparently, since the people are armed, they are having a tough time of it

9/11/2006 8:58:12 AM

Thanks Canada for your gun control laws, yall are safe now!!!
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14818183/

9/13/2006 3:00:08 PM

so you are saying people in classes at college should have been carrying their side arms?

ok...

9/13/2006 3:10:44 PM

No, I think... think... that he is saying that all the people ranting and raving earlier about not having stricter gun control leads us to have these incidents whereas the strict gun control laws in other countries, Canada specifically, prevent such events from happening. Of course he would have to clarify his own point.

9/13/2006 3:23:15 PM

its a stone cold fact we've got more gun violence in our country. one event doesnt change that.

9/13/2006 3:27:11 PM

we have more violence, period.

9/13/2006 3:30:18 PM

Quote :

"one event doesnt change that."

i agree...one event, like banning handguns, would not change the amount of gun violence

well actually it might increase it

9/13/2006 3:37:00 PM

thats by definition more then one event, socrates.

9/13/2006 5:01:05 PM

Quote :

"then"

9/13/2006 5:53:16 PM

suspend^

9/13/2006 5:54:00 PM

at least you didnt say "suspand"

9/13/2006 5:56:08 PM

youre an elitist.

9/13/2006 5:57:20 PM

you're a retard

9/13/2006 5:57:34 PM

suspend for elitism.

9/13/2006 5:59:39 PM