Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: allmebaby Apr 16 2007, 04:17 PM

Man this is a fucked up tragedy. 32 people dead and more injured.
What is wrong with people today?

Posted by: evade20 Apr 16 2007, 04:19 PM

Man this is a fucked up tragedy. 32 people dead and more injured.
What is wrong with people today?

Posted by: allmebaby Apr 16 2007, 04:23 PM

I just can't understand why it is not safe to get an education anywhere.
Junior high, Senior highs, colleges. WTF???

Posted by: davy Apr 16 2007, 04:26 PM

I just can't understand why it is not safe to get an education anywhere.
Junior high, Senior highs, colleges. WTF???

Posted by: allmebaby Apr 16 2007, 04:32 PM

Good question.

Prayers to them all.

Posted by: Boobluver2 Apr 16 2007, 04:38 PM

Man this is a fucked up tragedy. 32 people dead and more injured.
What is wrong with people today?

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Apr 16 2007, 04:43 PM

no comments

Posted by: Gnappster Apr 16 2007, 04:59 PM

some messed up shit to say the least.
it's one thing to off youself, but to try and take that many others with you.
baffling and sad.

Posted by: Macdonald Apr 16 2007, 05:44 PM

some messed up shit to say the least.
it's one thing to off youself, but to try and take that many others with you.
baffling and sad.

Posted by: Puppet Apr 16 2007, 08:59 PM

Its taking the a grouping of people diverse in thought and sparking up friction... its just a pool of potential violence

Posted by: baby21 Apr 17 2007, 03:17 AM

How sad

I can't even imagine going through any of that..
Definetly praying for everyone involved.

It's real sad to hear kids talk about being afraid to go to school.

Posted by: COMEDYMAN Apr 17 2007, 09:38 AM

I bet there will be tightened security on all campuses nationwide. All gunstores within walking distances to campus will prolly be scrutinzed.


What is pissing me off is the media. It hasnt been one day and the media are frothing at the fucking mouth to try and get information and crying students... I swear to god it seems like the media is acting like.. FINALLY somehing tragic to report... Lets ask a bunch of stupid questions right out of the gate. Hey maybe this random fuck knows everything about what happened.. lets ask him or her. Plus the specualtion... terrorism... Chiense plot .. yadda yadda..... or some fucking moronic student who didn't get the date he wanted.

I hate that it happened. Especially that Holocaust survivor german teacher who held the door taking bullets while his students escaped. He should have a posthumous medal or something. Im sure there will be other tales. But we all have to give it time.

Prayers to all of the VT students and families who Visit RMM And I am sorry for your loss.

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Apr 17 2007, 12:17 PM

no comments

Posted by: UncleBuck Apr 17 2007, 03:14 PM

What a sad stupid act, and from what I gather from the media he took the cowardly way out and killed himself.
Personaly I think they should now take his body and hang it in the public square and let the birds pick his corpse to the bones. Maybe that would discourage any wannabe copycats to think again.
On the gun issue and I do believe in the right to bear arms (i know this is 'overstated?') People kill People guns don't. There are lots of ways to kill other than with guns, thank god he didn't just throw pipe bombs into each classroom as he passed.
What if a few of those people were packing guns themselves? A person may think twice if they think someone might shoot back.
It was just a sad senseless cowardly act and my thoughts go out to all the families.

Posted by: ddd35 Apr 17 2007, 04:15 PM

My prayers to the friends, familys and loved ones of any there or that it has touched , it is a sad day for the world when something like this happens .. Its just pisses me off that the media is doing what there doing , and that the guy offed himself thats a much to easy way out , he should have been made to spend some time alone with the familys of those that lost there lives , Those victim impact statements stay with a person beyound anybody comprehension , and he deserved some serious beating for what he did and how he did it ..


Prayers to all .


3D

Posted by: bondiguy Apr 18 2007, 12:32 AM

Man this is a fucked up tragedy. 32 people dead and more injured.
What is wrong with people today?

Posted by: BRIGHTEYES Apr 18 2007, 12:38 AM

I AGREE

AND I FOR ONE SUPPORT THIS

THIS HITS TO CLOSE TO HOME FOR ME


MY BEST FRIEND GRADUATED V-TECH IN 1990 AND MY DAUGHTERS IN COLLEGE IN TAMPA

THIS IS A PARENTS WORSE NIGHTMARE

AND WHATS EVEN WORSE....PEOPLE KNEW ABOUT THIS GUYS PROBLEMS AND THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH HIM


THIS WAS A SENCE LESS THING AND SUCH A TRAGITY WHEN WE ARE IN WAR FIGHTING AGAINST TERRORISIM WERE KILLING OUR OWN PEOPLE WITH LAWS THAT DONT PROTECT US BUT IN-FACT HELP THE ONES WHO COMMET THE CRIMES.

Posted by: bondiguy Apr 18 2007, 12:41 AM

I dont know what state Virginia Tech is in but I hear that city has next to no gun laws.

No background checks
No waiting periods
No registration needed on firearm purchases???

Someone can buy a gun anyday of the week?

Posted by: baby21 Apr 18 2007, 02:11 AM

I dont know what state Virginia Tech is in but I hear that city has next to no gun laws.

No background checks
No waiting periods
No registration needed on firearm purchases???

Someone can buy a gun anyday of the week?

Posted by: bondiguy Apr 18 2007, 02:13 AM

I guess Virginia is one of the only states left with next to no gun laws.
You'd think we would have learned something by now

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Apr 18 2007, 10:19 AM

no comments

Posted by: ddd35 Apr 18 2007, 11:23 AM

Guns don't kill people, People kill People! 

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Apr 18 2007, 11:37 AM

no comments

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Apr 18 2007, 11:50 AM

no comments

Posted by: UncleBuck Apr 18 2007, 01:16 PM

You Don't Know Me, and I Have a Gun!

You don't know me, or maybe you just don't know that you do. I am your neighbor, doctor, clergyman, nurse or just another nameless, faceless stranger in the crowd. I have a state authorized, court issued permit to carry a concealed handgun. I do so whenever possible.

Though you don't know me, there are a few things you should know about me.

In my case, I was fingerprinted by the local police for an FBI criminal background check. Before that, I had to pass state and local background checks. I had to present evidence to the court of approved training in firearms laws, safety and marksmanship before my application would even be accepted.

I am not a felon, junkie, drug dealer, stalker or even a shoplifter since any number of indiscretions including alcohol or other drug abuse or even simple assault or a restraining order would disqualify me from holding a permit.

My classroom training covered when it is appropriate and legal to even indicate that I have a gun, much less display it or actually use deadly force.

Doing so in any circumstance, under which I am not in immediate fear for my life or the life of another, would mean more than the loss of my permit. Most likely, I would also be charged with brandishing a weapon, disorderly conduct and/or assault.

If it was determined that my use of deadly force was not to protect a life in immediate danger, I would probably be charged with second-degree murder or first-degree manslaughter. On top of these, I would also face civil liability.

Like most people who legally carry concealed handguns, I practice regularly at a range. I am well aware of the laws and regulations affecting me. My fellow permit holders and I are generally more well trained and practiced than many law enforcement officers.

I am not a non-resident alien. I am a good citizen, and I vote.

I am aware of the responsibility I bear, and I will walk or run away rather than risk confrontation. I will retreat as fast and as far as possible. I always avoid conflict. I know that should a situation escalate, I could be identified as the instigator and face losing my right to carry, or worse.

Should the need arise, however, I will act swiftly, intelligently and decisively to protect my life and the lives of those around me

Are you still afraid of me?

In my home state of Virginia, not one permit holder has been convicted of a violent gun crime despite more than 110,000 issued permits. Throughout the entire United States, no police officer has been injured by a person with a legal handgun. A number have, however, been assisted and even rescued by armed, law abiding citizens.

You should feel a degree of comfort knowing that there may be someone nearby with means, motive and training to possibly save your life, or that of those around you.

Criminals, on the other hand, should feel fear. They never know if their next intended victim may armed, trained, and ready to effectively defend themselves.

If you feel safer patronizing establishments with a NO GUNS ALLOWED policy, please keep in mind that the criminals don't obey the signs or the laws. That is why we call them criminals.

Criminals know that the law-abiding customers of that establishment are easy prey, and will have little to no fear of the consequences of their actions. The hallways and parking lots of these establishments might just as well post a sign saying...



[attachmentid=41754]
[attachmentid=41754]

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Apr 18 2007, 02:38 PM

no comments

Posted by: baby21 Apr 18 2007, 02:51 PM

ehhh I don't want to get into politics or anything, but I think it was kinda generalized and quick to assume that by talking about gun control we were saying that there shouldn't be guns at all.

I'm glad that they make things so strict for people to get guns... seems like the only way you'd go through with that is if you were legit. Do I think it stops everyone? No. Do I think it helps? Yes.

I think it's sad that people are going to use this to push their own political agendas on either side.

Ps:
"Guns dont kill people, people kill people"
What about those stories you hear about kids showing their parents guns to friends, or playing with it themselves and getting killed? ... Just curious

Posted by: BRIGHTEYES Apr 18 2007, 03:01 PM

I DONT KNOW IF ANY OF YOU ARE FROM THE WEST COAST AND HEARD ABOUT THIS OR NOT

BUT ABOUT 5 OR 6 YEARS AGO IN SPRINGFIELD OREGON AT THURSTON HIGH SCHOOL KIP KINKLE WENT ON A SHOOTING SPREE AT THE HIGHSCHOOL ON GRADUATION CELIBRATION DAY IN THE CAFETERIA HE SHOT AND KILLED 3 SENIORS 2 WEEKS BEFORE GRADUATION.


THE NIGHT BEFORE HE SHOT HIS PARENTS KILLED HIS PARENTS


KIP KINKLE WAS MY SPANISH TEACHERS SON

KIP WAS ALWAYS A BRAT AS I REMEMBER HIM...KIPS SISTER WAS A FRIEND OF MINE AND WE WERE IN THE SKI CLUB TOGETHER. I KNEW THE FAMILY WELL FOR MR KINKLE HELPED MY SKI ADVISOR WITH THE OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES FROM TIME TO TIME.


I WOULD HAVE NEVER SUSPECTED THAT KIP WOULD EVER BE ABLE TO DO SUCH A TERRIBLE THING

BUT I GUESS HE WENT TO SCHOOL WITH A GUN AND GOT CAUGHT THE DAY BEFORE THE SHOOTING AT THE SCHOOL, AND WAS KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL FOR IT.

HE WENT HOME AND I GUESS THE SCHOOL NEVER REACHED HIS PARENTS BECAUSE KIP WENT HOME "HIS DAD WAS RETIRED" THEY MUST HAVE GOT INTO A FIGHT AND KIP SHOT AND KILLED HIS DAD AND HE DIDNT WANT TO TELL HIS MOM ABOUT KILLING HIS DAD SO HE WAITED FOR HIS MOM TO GET HOME AND HE SHOT AND KILLED HER THEN THE NEXT DAY HE WENT TO THE SCHOOL AND DID THE SHOOTING THERE DID....THING IS HE DIDNT TURN THE GUN ON HIM "YOU THINK HE WOULD HAVE".


ANYONE CAN SNAP I GUESS BECAUSE IT HAPPENED TO A NORMAL KID WITH EDUCATED NORMAL PARENTS.

NOBODY HEARD THE SHOTS THE NIGHT BEFORE BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY LIVED IN THE COUNTRY, AND PRACTICALLY EVERYONE HAS A GUN WHOLIVES IN OREGON.

IT WAS SAD TO SEE MR GUTTORMSEN MY SKI ADVISOR AND TEACHER ON THE TV TALKING ABOUT MR KINKLE WHO WAS MY OTHER OUTDOOR ADVISOR AND SPANISH TEACHER AND TRYING TO MAKE SINCE OF THIS TERRIBLE THING, BUT THERE WAS NO WAY TO MAKE ANY SINCE OF THAT OR WITH THIS SHOOTING AT V-TECH OR COLUMBINE.

Posted by: baby21 Apr 18 2007, 03:03 PM

ANYONE CAN SNAP I GUESS BECAUSE IT HAPPENE TO A NORMAL KID WITH EDUCATED NORMAL PARENTS.

Posted by: BRIGHTEYES Apr 18 2007, 03:08 PM

MY SCHOOL WAS OPEN CAMPUS AND WAS THE SAFEST PLACE AND IT HAPPENED THERE

THE SCHOOLS TO NOT GO TO WERE EAST EUGENE AND SPRINGFIELD HIGH, NOT THURSTON HIGH SCHOOL.... IT WAS FULL OF COUNTRY KIDS

IT WAS A PERTY BIG SCHOOL WE GRADUATED 250 IN MY CLASS WHEN I GRADUATED BUT IT WAS A GREAT SCHOOL AND IF THIS CAN HAPPEN THERE AT THURSTON IT CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE

Posted by: baby21 Apr 18 2007, 03:10 PM

MY SCHOOL WAS OPEN CAMPUS AND AWAS THE SAFEST PLACE AND IT HAPPENED THERE

Posted by: BRIGHTEYES Apr 18 2007, 03:18 PM

GIRL I GRADUATED IN 1984 WHAT R U TALKING ABOUT A LONG TIME AGO YOUR IN COLLEGE NOW...LOL

IVE GOT A DAUGHTER IN COLLEGE!!!!!


AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING AT MY OLD SCHOOL MY OLDEST DAUGHTER WAS A FRESHMAN IN HIGH SCHOOL AND MY EX HUSBAND AND I KNEW BOTH TEACHERS AND BOTH GRADUATED THURSTON HIGH AND WE BOTH WERE SHOCKED IT HAPPENED THERE.

BUT LIKE I SAID IF IT CAN HAPEN THERE IT CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Apr 18 2007, 06:10 PM

no comments

Posted by: CaramelTits Apr 18 2007, 09:11 PM

Sad just isnt the word for this tragedy!!, They were scrabbling around trying to find out who shot the girl in the stair well thinking it was her boyfriend at his house searching....Meanwhile they get a call from the college saying someone is still shooting..

Im trying to understand why didnt they just search the campus..Wasting time wondering, 32 innocent ppl were killed in cold blood,They just need a better system so that no one will have to go through this again...

The guy was sick mentally and they knew he was yet they didnt have him removed from the school..they had records saying he was clinically depressed, he was stalking two other females and other things they had on him..Yet nothing was done...Its sad they had to wait until someone dies to check and do something about it.

Posted by: bondiguy Apr 19 2007, 01:01 AM

I have owned about  25 guns for the last 20 yrs and i have yet to see any of them sprout feet and go shoot  anything by themselves  , its the nut behind them that causes the damage , just like the nut behind the wheel that drives drunk  or reckless , or the parent that doesnt place his child in  a child safety seat   for there own safety  ..    I do agree  that state needs to update there back ground checks  and such  but the fact is the kid  didnt have a record  so  he still would have got a gun he just would have had to wait a few days  ...    This is a aurgument that will never be won .  Its just very  sad that we have these kind of people in our society . 

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Apr 19 2007, 01:52 AM

no comments

Posted by: bondiguy Apr 19 2007, 02:01 AM

All I can ask is why do normal citizens need firearms? Freedom, that why! Arms Citizens are not Slaves!
Sound like Australia like to be Rule by England, so your not free, and until then I guess you can find Happiness in Slavery song by Nine Inch Nails!
Sorry if I sound like a Dick, But I enjoy my Freedoms... I just don't want America to become New Germany rule by Nazi with deaths to millions by Gun control !

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Apr 19 2007, 02:13 AM

no comments

Posted by: bondiguy Apr 19 2007, 02:15 AM

What about the columbine massacre? The Amish kids that were killed? The countless other schoolyard massacres that have happened over the past decade?

All non Americans?

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Apr 19 2007, 02:26 AM

no comments

Posted by: bondiguy Apr 19 2007, 02:45 AM

What about the columbine massacre? Racist
The Amish kids that were killed? Racist
The countless other schoolyard massacres that have happened over the past decade? Name them and I'll give you an Answer!

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Apr 19 2007, 02:56 AM

no comments

Posted by: Christof Apr 19 2007, 03:10 AM

Firstly what has happened sucks and im truly sorry for anyone that has been affected by this tragedy.

secondly, im really suprised by Skulls views, using 9/11 as an argument for civilians having hand guns is just crazy, how did having a hand gun or not make any blind bit of difference? I can understand hunters and land owners etc, but a normal civilian has no need to have/carry a gun. This is just one of those things that by now is the norm for many people in the states but still just seems mental to people like myself as guns just arent a factor here, hell not even the majority of our police have them let alone anyone else.

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Apr 19 2007, 03:31 AM

no comments

Posted by: bondiguy Apr 19 2007, 04:29 AM

Racist Americans
as for your other question
Gun store are not the only places you can get a gun, Gangs members get them on the streets, stolen, etc....

9/11, not one of terrorist use a gun, only boxcuters and kill 3,000 Amercians!
So how is slightly stricter gun laws would have saved 3,000 Amercians or 33 Amercians? End of Story

Firstly what has happened sucks and im truly sorry for anyone that has been affected by this tragedy.

secondly, im really suprised by Skulls views, using 9/11 as an argument for civilians having hand guns is just crazy, how did having a hand gun or not make any blind bit of difference?  I can understand hunters and land owners etc, but a normal civilian has no need to have/carry a gun.  This is just one of those things that by now is the norm for many people in the states but still just seems mental to people like myself as guns just arent a factor here, hell not even the majority of our police have them let alone anyone else.

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Apr 19 2007, 10:11 AM

no comments

Posted by: bondiguy Apr 20 2007, 12:37 AM

racist or not, they were still Americans. Also, I know there will always be guns out there but why not make them harder to obtain? How can we make it Harder to Obtain for Killer, Gangers, Rapiest, etc... when they can just get it anywhere anytime, store or streets?
Im sorry but you just fit the "crazy gun totting American" stereotype and I thank god you, and people like you, live thousands of miles away from me! Give me tight gun control anyday! lol, I don't even own Guns, I just Have a God given Right to Own Guns! My Bestfriend is a Police officer, we both go Duck hunting all the time!

I mean seriously, scroll through the dudes posts, he isnt the sharpest knife in the drawer and the US will trust HIM with a handgun
In God we Trust!

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Apr 20 2007, 01:23 AM

no comments

Posted by: BRIGHTEYES Apr 20 2007, 08:29 AM

I think Bondiguy & Skullzombie both made good points

its just pointless to even try to make any since of something that makes no sinceat all!!!

ya know what i mean?


but skulzombie

lets say everyone had guns or maybe just the teachers and say a student unarmed walked into a class to hide from the shooter and someone sht that person thinkng they were the shooter.....there more than likely would have been even more dead instead of the other way around it would have been like the shoot out at the ok coral or world war 3

theres no answer to this its just sad to even think why this happened

Posted by: closeup Apr 20 2007, 01:13 PM

Fine Bondiguy, lets just call it even   
you have your views, and I have my 
It still sad about what happen VT, I just hope the family and friends get all the help they need 

Posted by: UncleBuck Apr 20 2007, 02:08 PM

Why, what happened in Vermont? I've been around firearms for quite a few years being in the military. When I was a Marine, I wore a Colt .45 as a sidearm as part of my responsibilities. Because there was always alot of cash around, the Captain always wanted someone armed. Instead of assigning someone new every week, he asked me if I would just do it on a permanent basis. I agreed to. There were very few enlisted guys (except MPs) who wore a sidearm, so it was pretty unusual to be issued one. Anyway, my point is, that I always felt a little safer with that on my hip than I did when I wasn't wearing it. Anyone who sees a .45 pointing at them gets a real quick attitude adjustment. That handgun would go into you making a hole about the size of a dime and exit out your back with a hole about the size of a softball. It's got some stopping power. If anyone on that campus in Virginia had had a weapon, that crazy fuck might have been put out of his misery BEFORE he started his rampage. There are times when the use of deadly force is necessary, and if ever there was right time, last week on that campus was it.

Posted by: baby21 Apr 20 2007, 02:26 PM

You think kids would learn.. my brother is at home today because there were threats made at his (my old) high school this week and they sent everyone home...

Posted by: closeup Apr 20 2007, 02:31 PM

You think kids would learn.. my brother is at home today because there were threats made at his (my old) high school this week and they sent everyone home...

Posted by: bondiguy Apr 20 2007, 08:28 PM

Why, what happened in Vermont? I've been around firearms for quite a few years being in the military. When I was a Marine, I wore a Colt .45 as a sidearm as part of my responsibilities. Because there was always alot of cash around, the Captain always wanted someone armed. Instead of assigning someone new every week, he asked me if I would just do it on a permanent basis. I agreed to. There were very few enlisted guys (except MPs) who wore a sidearm, so it was pretty unusual to be issued one. Anyway, my point is, that I always felt a little safer with that on my hip than I did when I wasn't wearing it. Anyone who sees a .45 pointing at them gets a real quick attitude adjustment. That handgun would go into you making a hole about the size of a dime and exit out your back with a hole about the size of a softball. It's got some stopping power. If anyone on that campus in Virginia had had a weapon, that crazy fuck might have been put out of his misery BEFORE he started his rampage. There are times when the use of deadly force is necessary, and if ever there was a right time, last week on that campus was it.

Posted by: closeup Apr 20 2007, 11:00 PM

If I gave the impression that I thought college kids should be carrying weapons, than I stand corrected. There is definitely a matter of training and responsibility inherent in carrying a firearm. It's more a matter of kill or be killed. It's really as basic as that. It's self-defense. Here's the gist of my thinking: When push comes to shove, when it's a situation where it's your life or your attackers, I want to have a way to defend myself. That's EXACTLY what happened on that campus. It was a rampage by a sick, crazy, sociopath. But, if you were one of the ultimate victims, don't you think you would have fared better if you were armed? If even one of those students had a way to protect themselves, my belief is fewer students would have been killed.. I'm no gun nut, but the world is proving itself to be a very violent place. I believe my life has a value, to me, that exceeds it's value to anybody else. Therefore, the protection I'm willing to provide myself, will, by definition, exceed whatever anyone else is willing to provide. I can wish, I can hope, I can vote and I can pray that someone else will be willing to protect my life by sacrificing theirs if the situation should arise. But I guess I just don't have that much faith. The ultimate protection of my life is solely mine. That can be a hard truth to swallow, but to ignore that reality is to ignore something that's pretty obvious.
A weapon is sort of like carrying adequate insurance. Probably 95 out of 100 people lose money on carrying life insurance. Does that mean that they wasted their money? No. The odds that you'll outlive your policy are offset by the chance that you'll die earlier than expected. A weapon is sort of an equalizer.
But, I can see why people don't want to see more guns on the street. People are impulsive and unpredictable. Drinking, drugs and mental illness can't be ignored when it comes to using deadly force. Simply because there is no room for error. People are impulsive; obviously we can't have anyone who wants to tote a gun around be allowed to.
I think it's very hard for the average person to imagine himself or herself in a life or death situation. It's extremely rare and extremely unpredictable. But so isn't hitting the lottery for hundreds of millions. But people DO win millions in the lottery and people DO find themselves in situations where their life is literally on the line. As much as we like to think that it'll never happen to us personally, that's what everyone who is a victim of a violent crime thinks. It's a sure bet that not one student out of the 33 that got massacred thought that was their last day on earth. Not one. Having the ultimate defense is the only defense in a situation like this. I can't see anything else being at all effective.

Posted by: BRIGHTEYES Apr 20 2007, 11:03 PM

Edit.... PM for stuff like this ....

CM

Posted by: bondiguy Apr 20 2007, 11:16 PM

If I gave the impression that I thought college kids should be carrying weapons, than I stand corrected. There is definitely a matter of training and responsibility inherent in carrying a firearm.  It's more a matter of kill or be killed. It's really as basic as that.   It's self-defense. Here's the gist of my thinking: When push comes to shove, when it's a situation where it's your life or your attackers, I want to have a way to defend myself. That's EXACTLY what happened on that campus. It was a rampage by a sick, crazy, sociopath. But, if you were one of the ultimate victims, don't you think you would have fared better if you were armed? If even one of those students had a way to protect themselves, my belief is fewer students would have been killed.. I'm no gun nut, but the world is proving itself to be a very violent place. I believe my life has a value, to me, that exceeds it's value to anybody else. Therefore, the protection I'm willing to provide myself, will, by definition, exceed whatever anyone else is willing to provide. I can wish, I can hope, I can vote and I can pray that someone else will be willing to protect my life by sacrificing theirs if the situation should arise. But I guess I just don't have that much faith. The ultimate protection of my life is solely mine. That can be a hard truth to swallow, but to ignore that reality is to ignore something that's pretty obvious. 
     A weapon is sort of like carrying adequate insurance. Probably 95 out of 100 people lose money on carrying life insurance. Does that mean that they wasted their money? No. The odds that you'll outlive your policy are offset by the chance that you'll die earlier than expected. A weapon is sort of an equalizer.
     But, I can see why people don't want to see more guns on the street. People are impulsive and unpredictable. Drinking, drugs and mental illness can't be ignored when it comes to using  deadly force. Simply because there is no room for error.  People are impulsive; obviously we can't have anyone who wants to tote a gun around be allowed to.
    I think it's very hard for the average person to imagine himself or herself in a life or death situation. It's extremely rare and extremely unpredictable. But so isn't hitting the lottery for hundreds of millions. But people DO win millions in the lottery and people DO find themselves in situations where their  life is literally on the line. As much as we like to think that it'll never happen to us personally, that's what everyone who is a victim of a violent crime thinks. It's a sure bet that not one student out of the 33 that got massacred thought that was their last day on earth. Not one. Having the ultimate defense is the only defense in a situation like this. I can't see anything else being at all effective.

Posted by: closeup Apr 21 2007, 12:14 AM

Closeup, unlike skullzombie you provide a compelling argument and I totally understand every single point you made in your post. I guess sometimes I can be an idealist and think no guns would equal no gun related killings but I know that will never happen.

If I was being attacked and it was my life or theirs I would love to have a gun in my pocket but I guess I will never be that type of guy. We have murders in Australia but a massacre such as this one is extremely rare and I truly do attribute that to our strict gun laws. That was the point I was ultimately trying to make.

I would live comfortable in the knowledge that you had a firearm which is I guess a result of your rights, but unfortunately there are very few people like yourself in the world it would seem.

(fuck im deep today haha)

Posted by: bondiguy Apr 21 2007, 12:26 AM

Hey, I agree. I'd be completely comfortable if there were no guns, owned by anyone. It's a situation in America that's got completely out of hand. It doesnt have a simply solution. Anyone who thinks it does, doesn't understand the problem. For some reason, the US is a very violent society. Like everyone, I've heard that it's TV or video games or too much sugar in soda. But what ever it is, it's here. And to ignore it or wish it wasn't so, is not a viable option. I truly wish I lived in a country that wasn't so bent on self-destruction as the United States seems to be. But this is where I am. And being the realist that I am, I'll always try to find a solution that is effective as opposed to politically correct or popular.
     To put it bluntly, I have a concealed weapons permit. Where I live isn't high crime at all. But, when the situation calls for it, I'm not gonna be caught off guard. Like I said, I've had training in the uses of deadly force. I've NEVER had to pull my weapon, either in the military or otherwise. But, if my life were on the line, I also know that I'd have no hesitation. I can certainly respect the idea that most? people have -that guns equal violence. But they also equal protection. A weapon is neutral, neither good or evil. It's the human brain that displays those qualities.

Posted by: closeup Apr 21 2007, 12:54 AM

touche, but even you will agree that the gun is finding itself in the hand of the evil far too often.

Once again to me, it is another world. I know not one person who owns a gun, not one friend, relative, neighbour or friend of a friend. So to me, the USA's fascination with the firearm amazes me, but like I said, I totally understand your points and views

Posted by: bondiguy Apr 21 2007, 01:06 AM

No doubt, guns are defiantly owned and used by citizens that shouldn't have access to them. I think we'd both agree that, as far as the U.S. is concerned, the horse is already out of the barn. It's gotten so out of hand, protecting yourself isn't just a good idea, it's almost a case of naivety if you choose not to. Anyone who thinks that they won't ever be a victim of a violent crime is either an unrealistic optimist or foolhardy. Not matter what your belief system or upbringing or religion: bad things happen to good people. That's a fact that I think is almost too obvious to state. It's not a negative outlook or a pessimistic one. It's just the way things are.  I think people ignore that fact to their own detriment. Being armed  isn't being paranoid, it's hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. And yes, it does suck that this is what it's come to. When I do a moving job, I literally have everything a family owns in my van. If I got robbed of my truck, my insurance would cover most of the monetary costs, but there'd be a family that lost everything. And people have been killed for a lot less that what I have in that van. What a depressing subject. But it is what it is.

Posted by: Something_Creative Apr 21 2007, 10:55 PM

using 9/11 as an argument for civilians having hand guns is just crazy, how did having a hand gun or not make any blind bit of difference? Only if Arms Civilians had been on the planes that day, would have saved 3,000 Americans!

can understand hunters and land owners etc, but a normal civilian has no need to have/carry a gun. Tell that to the Two Millons Americans that Save their live every year by Have/carry a gun! From Rapes, Killers, Gangs, Drugs Dealers, Racist, Terroist, etc...How many people in your country get stab, rob, killed, raped, etc... I know its higher than here in the States!

im really suprised by Skulls views?
Why for being a Realest?
Guns are just tools, in the right hands will save life, and in the wrong hands will take them.

More people die from cars, smoking, Aides, etc... than from Guns! Before we Ban guns, ban Tobacco, Ban Alcohol, etc...

Posted by: bondiguy Apr 22 2007, 11:18 PM

Where did you get these stats and the other one about then gaving a higher violent crime rate than the US??

Posted by: Something_Creative Apr 24 2007, 04:54 AM

The same place faeces exit his body!

Posted by: ddd35 Apr 24 2007, 03:34 PM

the students were asking the news media to leave today so they begin the task to get back to normal , it should be our hope that they would indeed heed that and move out ...

Posted by: bondiguy May 17 2007, 01:03 AM

Yeah, gun laws in the USA are just fine...

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21741054-5006003,00.html?from=public_rss

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE May 17 2007, 01:53 AM

no comments

Posted by: bondiguy May 17 2007, 02:06 AM

Yep, just the way it should be, God bless the good Old USA 

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE May 17 2007, 02:40 AM

no comments

Posted by: bondiguy May 17 2007, 04:05 AM

You may have survived Cleveland. You may have escaped from New York. But, this is L.A., vato. And, you're about to find out that this fu**ing city can kill anybody!
Quote by Escape from LA

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE May 17 2007, 10:51 AM

no comments

Posted by: Gnappster May 17 2007, 11:41 AM

You may have survived Cleveland. You may have escaped from New York. But, this is L.A., vato. And, you're about to find out that this fu**ing city can kill anybody!
Quote by Escape from LA

I know what you're thinking: "Did he fire six shots, or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But, being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya punk?
Quote by Dirty Harry

Posted by: closeup May 17 2007, 02:26 PM

Yeah, gun laws in the USA are just fine...

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21741054-5006003,00.html?from=public_rss

Posted by: Gnappster May 17 2007, 03:00 PM

Do you think alcohol should be banned in Australia if a minor is involved in a fatal accident? Or do you think that responsible adults should be allowed to own and consume alcohol even thou thousands die each year from cirrhosis of the liver, domestic violence due to alcohol abuse and fatal auto accidents due to driving under the influence.

Web  Results 1 - 10 of about 1,010,000 for "alcohol related accidents australia"
There's over a million hits on Google using those words.  Ban it, or accept it?

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE May 17 2007, 04:33 PM

no comments

Posted by: Gnappster May 17 2007, 06:59 PM

My hypocrisy goes only so far.
quote by Tombstone

Posted by: ddd35 May 17 2007, 07:36 PM

"you're fuckin retarded"
-quote by gnappster

Posted by: closeup May 17 2007, 11:09 PM

maybe most of those hits are "alcohol related accidents" rarely occur in "austrialia.

but I think the point of the story is how the governing body who issues these things doesn't look closely enough at these things to think, "hey, should a 10 month old have a gun license?" regardless of what the law says.
accidents, shootings aside, if a 5 year old goes and buys a bottle of whiskey, there is a problem there, regardless if they were only buying it for their dad and not consuming it themselves.

but your points are taken too, unlike Skull's. 

Posted by: bondiguy May 18 2007, 12:20 AM

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Introduction

Do you think alcohol should be banned in Australia if a minor is involved in a fatal accident? Or do you think that responsible adults should be allowed to own and consume alcohol even thou thousands die each year from cirrhosis of the liver, domestic violence due to alcohol abuse and fatal auto accidents due to driving under the influence.

Web  Results 1 - 10 of about 1,010,000 for "alcohol related accidents australia"
There's over a million hits on Google using those words.  Ban it, or accept it?

"you're fuckin retarded"
-quote by gnappster

Posted by: ddd35 May 18 2007, 09:46 AM

I wont debate , here the pig aurgument is valid I live in the rural midwest , farming community , the law says my neighbers can raise hogs as long as they stay 1/4 from my house , wel I now have 7500 hogs within a 1/4 mile of my house and hes getting ready to build and house 7000 more and theres nothing I can do , my 250,000 home is going to depreciate ,, and on days that the wind is from the east or the humidity is high we dont use our pool or hot tub cause it smells like shit outside and sure as hell dont leave during the day with your windows open on a warm day .. the point is they are protected by law , Im a farmer but I dont believe that I should be able to inflict undo stress on my neighbers as they do me ..


Do any of you know how many gun deaths there are in the US on any given yr ?

for comparison here there are on average 16000 . gun related deaths

a real point is In Illinois alone there are 115,000 deer killed by guns .. thats just in Illinois .. in comparison the gun deaths are pretty small .. that makes it no less critical I know but there are worse things that effect lives everyday ... Like these fucking fuel companys that are fucking us evryday we burn gas ..

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE May 18 2007, 10:16 AM

no comments

Posted by: Gnappster May 18 2007, 12:54 PM

I can agree, but only so far. Where I have a problem is the phrase "regardless of what the law says".  Say you just bought a new house, in a residential neighborhood. Two weeks after your closing, you get a new neighbor. He's just paid top dollar for his new home. But what he wants to do is raise pigs, 30 or 40 of them. Right next door. Naturally, you're not going to be too pleased with this new development. You think, "There's gotta be a law against this." Your neighbor's defense consists mostly of the refrain, "Regardless of the law."  People want bacon, people want ham and pork chops. So, fuck it, I'm raising pigs. '" Your property value drops in half. But you have no defense because, "People love bacon, pigs have to live somewhere" Obviously, had you known of this was going to happen, you'd have never bought the property. My point being, one guys, "Regardless of the law", is another guys kick in the nut sack. The law is the only thing that let's you have ANY control of the future. And, as slight as that may be, it's really the only assurance a person can have that things are going to be dealt with in a fair manner. Maybe this should have gone in the rant thread but here it is anyway. I guess you could call me a "Libertarian" and for those of you who don't know what that entails, Google it.

Posted by: ddd35 May 18 2007, 01:21 PM

Good point, can't just make up laws to suit one's needs(unless you're a politician).
But it just seems like a passive attitude to take in such a case. Yes there was no law barring it, but maybe the people issuing them should have contacted the parent and asked if they really wanted a gun license for a baby. Maybe go to a superior and see if there is some loophole for them not to issue it etc. It just seems like an apathetic attitude to hand out a gun license to a one year old becasue there is no law against it. And that raises the questions, why the hell ISN'T there an age requirement. But that's another debate I suppose.
btw, I'm not familiar with US gun laws, but don't you need to take some type of safety course before you can buy a gun or have a gun license?

Posted by: closeup May 18 2007, 04:31 PM

Underage liquor sales are a real problem in Portland. Here's part of an article from the local paper:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alcohol sting sheds light on a source of the problem


Portland Press Herald (ME) July 27, 2004
Page A10


An undercover sting operation initiated by the Cumberland County Sheriff's Department has proven to be very worthwhile, not to mention disturbing.


The results of the operation showed that minors were able to purchase alcohol at liquor-selling stores in as often as 80 percent of the attempts that were made.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, obtaining a license or permit isn't the same as actually owning a weapon. Yeah, I'd have a real problem with minors carrying handguns. But, as an adult, it's your right to be able to protect your own life. And if your life is threatened, it's comforting to know that you've got the means to defend yourself. Obviously, anyone in their right mind hopes that deadly force will never be needed. It truly does suck that this is what the world has come to. But I'm more of a realist than an idealist. I don't have to like something to accept it. Now it would just be my luck to be the first guy shot by a one year old. Kinda like Maggie shooting Mr Burns.

Posted by: bondiguy May 18 2007, 06:46 PM

Underage liquor sales are a real problem in Portland. Here's part of an article from the local paper:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alcohol sting sheds light on a source of the problem
Portland Press Herald (ME) July 27, 2004
Page A10


An undercover sting operation initiated by the Cumberland County Sheriff's Department has proven to be very worthwhile, not to mention disturbing.
The results of the operation showed that minors were able to purchase alcohol at liquor-selling stores in as often as 80 percent of the attempts that were made.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, obtaining a license or permit isn't the same as actually owning a weapon. Yeah, I'd have a real problem with minors carrying handguns. But, as an adult, it's your right to be able to protect your own life. And if your life is threatened, it's comforting to know that you've got the means to defend yourself. Obviously, anyone in their right mind hopes that deadly force will never be needed. It truly does suck that this is what the world has come to. But I'm more of a realist than an idealist. I don't have to like something to accept it. Now it would just be my luck to be the first guy shot by a one year old. Kinda like Maggie shooting Mr Burns.

Posted by: ddd35 May 19 2007, 08:40 AM

When you say underage sales of alcohol are bad in Portland, are the kids that are buying liquor 10 months old or 20 years old? IN the states it would seem you can own a gun license at 10 months, own a gun at 14 years, but fuck don't have a beer until you're 21 son!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I honestly feel sorry for people who live in a country where carrying a gun offers peace of mind that one day it will save your life. Thank god I live in Australia. Shot by a one year old, it would be some sort of poetic comedy right? haha. I put this article up more to highlight the apathy by whatever association hands out these licenses and the apathy shown by the general community and their views on guns in society

Posted by: bondiguy May 21 2007, 01:55 AM

to each there  own , thats what makes the world go around  !!!

the only thing currently you have to worry about in your country is  dying for lack of water  , it seems to be a fact  that there is becoming a major  problem  ..  I guess it could be  from living with B,O  due to lack of being able to bath due to  water shortage  ..  either by guns  or other means were all going to leave this earth in one way or another  ..it doenst much matter   how or when  ..

Posted by: ddd35 May 21 2007, 06:56 AM

as usual Americans only listen to the part of the news they wish to. Yes their are drought problems in my country but here is a free tip for you, I live in the City. Believe it or not they exist outside the USA. I am right on the coast where rainfall is plentiful! It is in the country where they need the water.

Moron

Posted by: bondiguy May 21 2007, 07:05 AM

according to the news  global warming is effecting    it all  , you yourself have quoted global warming  in a another thread  .. dont take it personal  .. geez

Posted by: ddd35 May 21 2007, 07:11 AM

Please tell me what global warming has to do with rainfall? It still rains despite the fact average temps might by slightly higher.

I am not taking anything personal, I am just pointing out idiocy. Do I have baths? No I shower. Redneck

Posted by: ddd35 May 21 2007, 07:13 AM

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Gunman-at-large-in-Melbourne-suburbs/2007/05/21/1179601326451.html


didnt think gun violence was a problem ?

Posted by: ddd35 May 21 2007, 09:35 AM

http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2465904.ece


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming these might help educate so you can understand How critical global warming and its effects


to say that the drought only effects the rural areas is a misunderstood concept , if the food supply is interupted in any way shape or form then we all pay the price , By the prime minister cutting irrigation to the farms he jepardizes the farm economy and therfore the food supply , I realize Australia does import a large supply of food , but they need to export to help offset the costs of bringing in the imports or the change in supermarket prices in the cities will have a great effect on all ..


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article2465960.ece

Posted by: closeup May 21 2007, 11:48 PM

The lake we get our water from is 29,000 acres and 316 feet deep. Poland Spring water uses the same aquifier. What you'll pay $1.79 a liter for, I get out of the tap. They did a study last year when some "conservationists" were concerned that Poland Spring, which is owned by Nestles, was taking too much water out of the springs. Then it was determined that the amount they bottled and sold amounted to 3/4 of an inch off the top of Sebago Lake. There's so much water in that lake it would be impossible to make even a dent in it.

Posted by: jrock8 May 22 2007, 12:07 AM

The lake we get our water from is 29,000 acres and 316 feet deep. Poland Spring water uses the same aquifier. What you'll pay $1.79 a liter for, I get out of the tap. They did a study last year when some "conservationists" were concerned that Poland Spring, which is owned by Nestles, was taking too much water out of the springs. Then it was determined that the amount they bottled and sold amounted to 3/4 of an inch off the top of Sebago Lake. There's so much water in that lake it would be impossible to make even a dent in it.

Posted by: bondiguy May 22 2007, 01:44 AM

LOl  gotta love it

global warming is just  that  , its the effect of warming the oceans  which in turns causes   lack of rainfall and climate changes  , I have some great  articles I will place here for you later so you can educate yourself , i do study the drought  In your fair country cause it directly effects  the  currnet patterns and future patterns that can  effect the USA  which  causes stress to my life blood  , my crops ..   If the  water supply  is  short in your fair country  then Im sure there is rationing of water as several articles  reflect  ,   and weather you bath or shower  they both take water  ..  It may  rain but if the temperatures are higher then water (rain) will not stay around long and be able to be used or recharge the resevours were your water supplys come from  .  ITs called evaporation  ..  

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Gunman-at-large-in-Melbourne-suburbs/2007/05/21/1179601326451.html
didnt think gun violence was a problem  ?

http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2465904.ece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming  these might help  educate  so you can understand  How critical  global warming and its  effects
to say that  the drought only effects the rural areas  is a  misunderstood concept  ,   if  the food supply is interupted in any way shape or form   then we all pay the price  ,   By the prime minister  cutting irrigation  to the  farms he jepardizes the   farm economy and  therfore the food supply  ,  I realize Australia does import a large supply of food  , but they need to export to help  offset the costs  of bringing in the  imports  or the  change in supermarket prices in the cities will have a great effect on all  .. 
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article2465960.ece

Posted by: bondiguy May 22 2007, 04:43 AM

Here is actually a sensible spin on the debate if you can be bothered reading it all, it highlights why I don't feel the need to bear arms whilst many Americans do...

http://www.gabriellereillyweekly.com/gabrielle_reilly/politics/gun_laws_australia_america.htm

Posted by: ddd35 May 22 2007, 07:26 AM

Explain why this year in the Sydney Metro area we have had above average rainfall? Not everything is explained with theories and science you retard!
I never said gun violence didn't occur in Sydney, all I said was I have never felt scared enough to arm myself just to go out at night.
What reports you may have read obviously are false. The Prime Minister has no say over farm irrigation despite what some hack wrote. I see I have to take the step to ignoring your posts again. I thought you might have mellowed but I see now that once a redneck, always a redneck.

oh and p.s I earn enough to affaord to buy my produce despite any possible rise in cost

Posted by: closeup May 22 2007, 11:16 AM

note to self: pee on the surface of sebage lake...

Posted by: Gnappster May 22 2007, 12:47 PM

The lake we get our water from is 29,000 acres and 316 feet deep. Poland Spring water uses the same aquifier. What you'll pay $1.79 a liter for, I get out of the tap. They did a study last year when some "conservationists" were concerned that Poland Spring, which is owned by Nestles, was taking too much water out of the springs. Then it was determined that the amount they bottled and sold amounted to 3/4 of an inch off the top of Sebago Lake. There's so much water in that lake it would be impossible to make even a dent in it.

note to self: pee on the surface of sebage lake...

If anyone's Poland Spring water tastes funny, you'll know who to blame. On a side note, one of my workers was eating an egg salad sandwhich from Tim Horton's and bit into a metal screw. Almost chipped a tooth. They gave him a five dollar gift certificate. Cheap bastards.

Posted by: ddd35 May 22 2007, 02:02 PM

If anyone's Poland Spring water tastes funny, you'll know who to blame. On a side note, one of my workers was eating an egg salad sandwhich from Tim Horton's and bit into a metal screw. Almost chipped a tooth. They gave him a five dollar gift certificate. Cheap bastards.

Posted by: bondiguy May 22 2007, 06:08 PM

he's lucky. if i worked there I would have made him pay for the screw.

Posted by: Gnappster May 22 2007, 06:41 PM

After all, they are prizes!

Ohhh a spark plug!

Posted by: closeup May 22 2007, 11:41 PM

HEY-OH! 

Canada has so much water I pour the stuff down the drain and spray it haphazardly all over my lawn.
he's lucky. if i worked there I would have made him pay for the screw.

Posted by: bondiguy May 23 2007, 01:01 AM

spotted 

Posted by: Something_Creative May 23 2007, 04:03 AM

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Gunman-at-large-in-Melbourne-suburbs/2007/05/21/1179601326451.html
didnt think gun violence was a problem  ?

Posted by: Something_Creative May 23 2007, 04:05 AM

Were you born worthless, or did you have to work at it?
quote by zombie

Posted by: bondiguy May 23 2007, 04:26 AM

Are you serious?? Gun Violence in Australia no where near compares to what it does here. It's not to say deaths by guns NEVER OCCUR, but to compare there levels of crime and gun violence to ours is absurd. There is no comparison. AS far as global warming, the earth has a way of evening itself out, it goes through periods like we are experiencing now. America also has had plenty of droughts in area, people had to conserve water. It's a part of life, you take what you got and go with it. Is it hotter in AU ummm yeah OF COURSE look where it is located. Just like it can get pretty cold in Canada, I really can not understand your logic 3/4 of the time.  If you don't want your neighbor to raise 100 pigs next to you buy enough property it isn't a problem of live in city lines where it isn't allowed. You choose where you want to live. We plan on buying land and building on it, when we do we will buy enough that we won't have to worry about pesky neighbors.

Posted by: ddd35 May 23 2007, 07:02 AM

3/4 of the time? I can understand him anytime!!!

Posted by: ddd35 May 23 2007, 07:13 AM

Are you serious?? Gun Violence in Australia no where near compares to what it does here. It's not to say deaths by guns NEVER OCCUR, but to compare there levels of crime and gun violence to ours is absurd. There is no comparison. AS far as global warming, the earth has a way of evening itself out, it goes through periods like we are experiencing now. America also has had plenty of droughts in area, people had to conserve water. It's a part of life, you take what you got and go with it. Is it hotter in AU ummm yeah OF COURSE look where it is located. Just like it can get pretty cold in Canada, I really can not understand your logic 3/4 of the time.  If you don't want your neighbor to raise 100 pigs next to you buy enough property it isn't a problem of live in city lines where it isn't allowed. You choose where you want to live. We plan on buying land and building on it, when we do we will buy enough that we won't have to worry about pesky neighbors.

Posted by: Gnappster May 23 2007, 12:42 PM

Isn't Tim Horton's a Canadian company? So you're saying getting screwed is extra? In Maine, it's just considered part of the service.

there was no comparison  made , just stated the fact that there is gun violence in other countrys  as well , probably not to the point as the USA  ..   but there is gun violence evrywere  . 

As far as city life thats a whole different set of problems , the garbage , the screaming kids , the late night partys ,  parking , parking , parking  ,  traffic . neighbers infringing on your property , neighbers that dont clean ther propertys  and so on .  

Posted by: ddd35 May 23 2007, 02:33 PM

Except Canada. We are the only perfect country left. 
Have you been talking to my neighbours?

Posted by: bondiguy May 23 2007, 05:04 PM

Have a look in your own backyard 3d b4 u preach to me about CO2 emmisions!

Who said I had to move???

Posted by: ddd35 May 24 2007, 08:29 AM

Have a look in your own backyard 3d b4 u preach to me about CO2 emmisions!

Who said I had to move???

Posted by: bondiguy May 25 2007, 01:14 AM

Your neighber  ... lol or at least he hoped  hes tired of the moaning  ...  

Posted by: Something_Creative May 25 2007, 03:15 AM

I believe it's America that tops the charts on ruining this planet as far as Global Warming, we are the top country in everything when you factor in amount of people and stuff for polluting and all the stuff creating the global warming.

Bondi never said there was no violence or gun violence, he never said AU was perfect. He said he couldn't imagine having to live in fear feeling like you need a gun to protect yourself and I agree. It sucks

I mean really AU must really suck, They don't work there people to death, they give there employees 4 week paid vacations starting off not after working 15 years on the job. The give mothers paid maternity leave more than 6 weeks because they see the value of family. They are a very laid back country who work to live not live to work. The horror of it all. Not to mention there crime rates don't even put a dent in ours.

Now yes America is a great place when you compare it to , Iraq, Korea, Darfur, Iran and so on. But when you go boot to boot with other free countries, I don't think we are the best. We have a lot of problems here in America but we are a country that acts like our shit don't stink while pointing out the smell of everyone else's.

As far as City life, I live in the city, and it isn't like that at all. Depends on what city you are living in. I have lived in Heavy Populated Cities and Smaller Cities. I have lived in communities and out in BFE where I had no neighbors, You can live in a city and not experience the things you mentioned.

Posted by: bondiguy May 25 2007, 03:23 AM

I believe it's America that tops the charts on ruining this planet as far as Global Warming, we are the top country in everything when you factor in amount of people and stuff for polluting and all the stuff creating the global warming.

Bondi never said there was no violence or gun violence, he never said AU was perfect. He said he couldn't imagine having to live in fear feeling like you need a gun to protect yourself and I agree. It sucks

I mean really AU must really suck, They don't work there people to death, they give there employees 4 week paid vacations starting off not after working 15 years on the job. The give mothers paid maternity leave more than 6 weeks because they see the value of family. They are a very laid back country who work to live not live to work. The horror of it all. Not to mention there crime rates don't even put a dent in ours.

Now yes America is a great place when you compare it to , Iraq, Korea, Darfur, Iran and so on. But when you go boot to boot with other free countries, I don't think we are the best. We have a lot of problems here in America but we are a country that acts like our shit don't stink while pointing out the smell of everyone else's.

As far as City life, I live in the city, and it isn't like that at all. Depends on what city you are living in. I have lived in Heavy Populated Cities and Smaller Cities. I have lived in communities and out in BFE where I had no neighbors, You can live in a city and not experience the things you mentioned.

Posted by: bondiguy May 25 2007, 03:29 AM

What was that about people in glass houses 3d?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Posted by: ddd35 May 25 2007, 08:31 AM

What was that about people in glass houses 3d?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Posted by: bondiguy May 25 2007, 05:16 PM

I didnt have time to read this this morning , cause  I have to fix a window  , but I  think I already agreed to this above  ... 

Posted by: ddd35 May 25 2007, 05:19 PM

You agreed we output similar emmisions.

I'll give you the rundown because you seem to be so time poor (even though you've posted everywhere). The USA output's almost 25% of the world's carbon emissions, Australia a mere 1.5%

Posted by: bondiguy May 25 2007, 05:22 PM

ok   for the population what is it there Mr Scientist ?  .and back at ya         a double  even   . wow that does feel good  !!!!

Posted by: ddd35 May 25 2007, 05:26 PM

I knew you'd come back with that argument... does the USA have 1/4 of the world's poppulation? Far from it. I know Australia isn't perfect when it comes to emissions due to our coal industry but you of all people shouldn't casts stones. India has over 1 billion people and they produce about 5%?

Posted by: ddd35 May 25 2007, 05:32 PM

I didnt have time to read this this morning , cause  I have to fix a window  , but I  think I already agreed to this above  ... 

You agreed we output similar emmisions.

I'll give you the rundown because you seem to be so time poor (even though you've posted everywhere). The USA output's almost 25% of the world's carbon emissions, Australia a mere 1.5%

Posted by: bondiguy May 25 2007, 05:37 PM

read the post    , I said I had to fix a window  , Glass ,  Glass   you get it  ?

Posted by: ddd35 May 25 2007, 06:17 PM

Oh I got it, I just didnt think it was very funny

Posted by: closeup May 25 2007, 06:25 PM

Down boys. Let's just say that the U.S. is the greatest, most wealth-producing nation that ever populated the Earth. I think we can all agree to that. As for pollution, I'll agree the Earth is warming. That's indisputable. BUT, how much is caused by co2 emissions is open to debate. The Earth has gone thru many, many, warming and cooling phases, this could just be another one. Don't forget, the Earth is over 4 billion years old. It was here long before mankind was and will be here long after we're gone.

Posted by: ddd35 May 25 2007, 06:39 PM

Down boys. Let's just say that the U.S. is the greatest, most wealth-producing nation that ever populated the Earth. I think we can all agree to that.    As for pollution, I'll agree the Earth is warming. That's indisputable. BUT, how much is caused by co2 emissions is open to debate. The Earth has gone thru many, many, warming and cooling phases, this could just be another one. Don't forget, the Earth is over 4 billion years old. It was here long before mankind was and will be here long after we're gone.

Posted by: bondiguy May 25 2007, 07:00 PM

Down boys. Let's just say that the U.S. is the greatest, most wealth-producing nation that ever populated the Earth. I think we can all agree to that.    As for pollution, I'll agree the Earth is warming. That's indisputable. BUT, how much is caused by co2 emissions is open to debate. The Earth has gone thru many, many, warming and cooling phases, this could just be another one. Don't forget, the Earth is over 4 billion years old. It was here long before mankind was and will be here long after we're gone.

Posted by: ddd35 May 25 2007, 07:04 PM

I have no doubts the USA is a great nation but in recent times your leaders and your tourists (the minority) give the rest of you guys (the majority) a bad reputation overseas?

I agree with ur CO2 statement, I was just pointing out 3d's small mindedness

Posted by: bondiguy May 25 2007, 07:13 PM

whew I agree with evrything but the small minded  for obvious reasons  ..

Posted by: ddd35 May 25 2007, 07:17 PM

Probably due to your small mind

Posted by: Gnappster May 26 2007, 01:16 AM

Probably due to your small mind

Posted by: bondiguy May 26 2007, 01:17 AM

ZING!

Posted by: ddd35 May 26 2007, 08:10 AM

ZING!

Posted by: ddd35 May 26 2007, 08:12 AM

Watch out 3d, seems I called in the cavalry

Posted by: ddd35 May 26 2007, 05:15 PM

Homer - " Heres to alcohol ,the cause of-and solution to - all lifes problems "





Homer -" facts are meaningless . you could use facts to prove almost anything that is remotely true "

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Nov 30 2007, 02:29 PM

no comments

Posted by: bondiguy Nov 30 2007, 04:16 PM

Lets hope for the sake of mankind they tighten those fucking laws

Posted by: penman Nov 30 2007, 04:18 PM

Lets hope for the sake of mankind they tighten those fucking laws

Posted by: bondiguy Nov 30 2007, 05:00 PM

Too right.........there absolutely no need for the amount of guns over there.

Posted by: DoubleJ Nov 30 2007, 05:43 PM

I couldnt agree more brother

Posted by: evade20 Nov 30 2007, 06:06 PM

My Dear,
Greetings to you dear?.hope this mail we find you in a good condition of hearlth pls listen to this love message and get back to me if it sound good to you dear i belive it we,when the sun rises,I'll be there To share my love with you.I'll do my best to bring you here each day.I'll help you treasure the love That we've gathered along the way. When the sun sets,I'll be right there next to you.I'll love you And whisper how much I love you.I'll make you feel as good As the stars that twinkle above you. Love,lydia my contact mail: lyahijo/ at / gmail / dot /com
i need your e-mail so i can send you my photos!
Lydia Ahijo.
Here is my mail address once again; lyahijo@gmail.com

Posted by: bondiguy Nov 30 2007, 08:55 PM

I was just saying the other day that one of the main reasons (one of many) that I most likely will never shoot someone is that I do not have a gun

Posted by: bondiguy Nov 30 2007, 09:03 PM

Did somebody say ...

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Nov 30 2007, 11:57 PM

no comments

Posted by: ddd35 Dec 2 2007, 01:54 PM

aurguing gun laws is a no win situation , the problem is no matter how strict they get the crooks , killers , robbers will still have guns or will get guns through the black market , just like they did with alcohol during the prohibition during the depression , if a pesron wants soemthing bad enough they wil find a way to get it .. I hope they do strngthen the laws were the god fearing honest people of this country dont have to worry about those that are not god fearing cant infringe on our rights but I really dont think its going to happen during this campaighn or any other in the next 20 yrs .. Thus I will keep my gun safe and be prepared to protect my family from any intruder that comes my way weather it be a Mountain lion , a Wolf , a cougar , or a drug induced wacko trying to break into my home to get some cash to support his habit . not auguing anyones views just speaking how I see it first hand . there are for sure other countrys that have better control on these things its just it seems this country is not ready to move to that level yet .

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 10 2007, 12:52 AM

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, January 9, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the "instant" background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on "semi-automatic" weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the "sporting purposes" test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a "destructive device" simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be "non-sporting."

Thomas Jefferson said "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders' vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act.

ron paul for president 2008 

Posted by: LDrider Dec 10 2007, 01:06 AM

At first I thought about debating your will to carry arms and have guns so easily accessible but then I thought, fuck it!

If Zombie wants to look over his shoulder everytime his kids go to school, he goes to church, or a mall, or just about any other public place in his fine country then so be it. That is the price he will pay for putting his support in the whole "right to bear arms" policy.

The USA should probably spend more time looking at gun related deaths INSIDE it's own country by ITS OWN PEOPLE rather than the external threat of terrorism.

Barely a week goes by where another mass shooting isn't world wide news. It doesn't paint a good image of your nation to the world.

To ward off any comebacks; I know Australia has gun crime and gun related deaths but in comparison it is miniscule. You will never rid guns or gun related crime from society completely but to give access to any nutjob who wants to go out in "infamy" is plain absurd

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Dec 10 2007, 03:46 AM

no comments

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 11 2007, 12:45 AM

If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns..........

Posted by: baby21 Dec 11 2007, 02:28 AM

Mate like I said, nothing will completely stop the availability of guns anywhere in the world but surely you must agree these mass shootings would occur less frequently if gun laws were tightened? These people that carry out these shootings aren't typical criminals. They usually have no prior convictions and get the guns through legal avenues.

Personally, I don't give a fuck because I don't live in the USA. If I did though, I would hate to visit a church, school, college, shopping mall etc

This is the problem, it has been built into your psyche that it is your right to own a gun and that will somehow protect you? If a mad man comes in to your church and starts wildly spraying bullets from his automatic weapon, if one of those bullets meets your skull that .45 in your holster isn't going to do shit

Posted by: Ratt Dec 11 2007, 04:29 AM

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Dec 11 2007, 01:04 PM

no comments

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 12 2007, 01:26 AM

So.. since I live where the church shootings happened and reading this... I thought I would have something to say, but I must be in a bad mood because all I can think of is what ass holes the people in Colorado Springs are. Honestly, they probably all carry guns down there anyways, and it didn't stop anyone. Anyways, bless everyone involved in all of this and let them find stength through the holidays.. I cant even imagine.

I really have to agree with Bondi. Have you looked at the gun laws in Japan?? Super, incredibly strict. Have you looked at their gun related crimes?? Almost nothing. I think it is really ignorant to try and argue that everyone should own a gun and I'm really sorry for the people that are that paranoid and convinced that they need a deadly weapon to protect themselves.

I too agree with Bondi - I mean here in Australia a guy killed 35 people at Port Arthur and within a short time even semi-automatic weapons were banned. The US has a constitution right to bear arms... but until they ammend that right (as the reasoning has long since stopped being an issue) unfortunately, US citizens also have the right to die en masse.

Watch this movie! 

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Dec 12 2007, 03:23 AM

no comments

Posted by: closeup Dec 12 2007, 04:38 PM

Something I saw on another website: Australians are learning the lessons of indiscriminate, draconian gun control laws the hard way. In 1996, a criminally insane man shot to death 35 people at a Tasmanian resort. The government immediately responded by passing stringent gun control laws, banning most firearms, and ordering their confiscation. More than 640,000 guns were seized from ordinary Australian citizens.(10)

As a result, there has been a sharp and dramatic increase in violent crime against the disarmed law-abiding citizens, who in small communities and particularly in rural areas are now unable to protect themselves from brigands and robbers. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent. Two years following the gun ban/confiscation, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent and manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Posted by: UncleBuck Dec 12 2007, 06:05 PM

I am all in favor of the right to own firearms, I believe if someone is going to harm someone they will find a way. It gives me a little sense of security knowing that I am able to protect myself and family if the need arises.( if I am able )

There are I believe alot more deaths caused by other means than firearms in this world

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071208/calgary_crash_071208/20071208/

This fellow apparantly had 3 previuos drunk driving convictions before this terrible crash...should we ban alcohol ( god I hope not )....it is a terrible thing to have happened and my thoughts go out to the people involved in these tragidies

people kill people one way or another

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 12 2007, 11:52 PM

Something I saw on another website:                                                    Australians are learning the lessons of indiscriminate, draconian gun control laws the hard way. In 1996, a criminally insane man shot to death 35 people at a Tasmanian resort. The government immediately responded by passing stringent gun control laws, banning most firearms, and ordering their confiscation. More than 640,000 guns were seized from ordinary Australian citizens.(10)

As a result, there has been a sharp and dramatic increase in violent crime against the disarmed law-abiding citizens, who in small communities and particularly in rural areas are now unable to protect themselves from brigands and robbers. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent. Two years following the gun ban/confiscation, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent and manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Posted by: closeup Dec 13 2007, 12:25 AM

Mate what I am talking about is Mass Shootings. There will always be homocides. ALWAYS!

Also, the whole "gun to protect yourself" is BS. I have lived in Sydney (Australia's largest and inherently most dangerous city" all of my 26 years and I have not been shot, not been stabbed, never even really been in a fight!

Posted by: baby21 Dec 13 2007, 12:52 AM

Something I saw on another website:                                                    Australians are learning the lessons of indiscriminate, draconian gun control laws the hard way. In 1996, a criminally insane man shot to death 35 people at a Tasmanian resort. The government immediately responded by passing stringent gun control laws, banning most firearms, and ordering their confiscation. More than 640,000 guns were seized from ordinary Australian citizens.(10)

As a result, there has been a sharp and dramatic increase in violent crime against the disarmed law-abiding citizens, who in small communities and particularly in rural areas are now unable to protect themselves from brigands and robbers. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent. Two years following the gun ban/confiscation, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent and manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Posted by: closeup Dec 13 2007, 02:36 PM

I'm curious where you found this...

Posted by: ddd35 Dec 13 2007, 06:28 PM

Something I saw on another website:                                                    Australians are learning the lessons of indiscriminate, draconian gun control laws the hard way. In 1996, a criminally insane man shot to death 35 people at a Tasmanian resort. The government immediately responded by passing stringent gun control laws, banning most firearms, and ordering their confiscation. More than 640,000 guns were seized from ordinary Australian citizens.(10)

As a result, there has been a sharp and dramatic increase in violent crime against the disarmed law-abiding citizens, who in small communities and particularly in rural areas are now unable to protect themselves from brigands and robbers. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent. Two years following the gun ban/confiscation, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent and manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Posted by: ddd35 Dec 13 2007, 06:29 PM

Doesn't 35 people killed at that resort constitute a mass killing?

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 14 2007, 12:12 AM

Doesn't 35 people killed at that resort constitute a mass killing?

Posted by: baby21 Dec 14 2007, 02:05 PM

Ok, what I don't get is if you all are so respectable with your guns, why do you oppose stricter gun laws (assuing from this conversation that most of you do)? It wouldn't effect the law obiding citizens, and if you value your right to own guns soo much, then you should be willing to go through a little more to own them.

I know it wouldn't stop crime, but it would deter some crazies who know they can get a gun like that...

Posted by: ddd35 Dec 14 2007, 02:24 PM

Ok, what I don't get is if you all are so respectable with your guns, why do you oppose stricter gun laws (assuing from this conversation that most of you do)? It wouldn't effect the law obiding citizens, and if you value your right to own guns soo much, then you should be willing to go through a little more to own them.

I know it wouldn't stop crime, but it would deter some crazies who know they can get a gun like that...

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Dec 14 2007, 03:36 PM

no comments

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 14 2007, 05:04 PM

Ok, what I don't get is if you all are so respectable with your guns, why do you oppose stricter gun laws (assuing from this conversation that most of you do)? It wouldn't effect the law obiding citizens, and if you value your right to own guns soo much, then you should be willing to go through a little more to own them.

I know it wouldn't stop crime, but it would deter some crazies who know they can get a gun like that...

Why not just Stricter Crime laws? Better yet Stricter People Control laws!

Posted by: closeup Dec 14 2007, 06:06 PM

Here's an example of a massacre being stopped by a woman who was carrying a weapon:


Jeanne Assam, a church member who volunteers as a security guard, shot and killed Murray, who was found with a rifle and two handguns, police said. The pastor called her "a real hero."

"When the shots were fired, she rushed toward the scene and encountered the attacker there in a hallway. He never got more than 50 feet inside our building," he said. "There could have been a great loss of life yesterday, and she probably saved over 100 lives."

Boyd said the gunman had a lot of ammunition and estimated that 40 rounds had been fired inside the church, leaving what looked like a "war scene."

She described how the gunman, Matthew Murray, entered the east entrance of the church firing his gun. “There was chaos,” Assam said, as parishioners ran away. “I saw him coming through the doors” and took cover, Assam said. “I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down.”

Assam had several years of experience in law enforcement and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service.

Posted by: jester89 Dec 14 2007, 10:56 PM

If you take away the right to bear arms in America, mall shootings won't stop, church shootings, school shootings, etc. Those incidents have less to do with gun control than they do with problems we have in our society and culture. Even if there wasn't a single gun in America, people would go to malls and kill others with knives and bombs.

Interestingly enough, when I was in Costa Rica, you saw guns everywhere, people working in stores had them, a McDonalds employee had one, bank security guards carried shotguns. When I asked if things were dangerous, they said there was almost no violent crime, simply because if you tried to hurt someone with a gun, there was a good chance four or five would be pointed back at you.

I can also say for a fact that a gun saved my Uncles life. If he hadn't been allowed to own and have a gun, he would most likely not be here today.

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Dec 14 2007, 11:58 PM

no comments

Posted by: jester89 Dec 15 2007, 01:58 AM

Yes, that was PRE gun laws being tightened in Australia. That happened, we have tightened our gun laws. Yes, there are still terrible things like rape and murder and robbery etc but we have not had a totally unprovoked, senseless massacre since.

In the USA in recent years
Columbine School massacre
The massacre of the Amish
VA Tech Massacre
2 or 3 church massacres
One shopping mall massacre
and these are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head

Posted by: ddd35 Dec 16 2007, 09:00 AM

an old saying says .. ( LAWS CANT CHANGE HUMAN NATURE ) a good case for this being fact is people drinking and driving . speeding , driving without insurance .. etc.

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 16 2007, 11:07 PM

Here's an example of a massacre being stopped by a woman who was carrying a weapon:
Jeanne Assam, a church member who volunteers as a security guard, shot and killed Murray, who was found with a rifle and two handguns, police said. The pastor called her "a real hero."

"When the shots were fired, she rushed toward the scene and encountered the attacker there in a hallway. He never got more than 50 feet inside our building," he said. "There could have been a great loss of life yesterday, and she probably saved over 100 lives."

Boyd said the gunman had a lot of ammunition and estimated that 40 rounds had been fired inside the church, leaving what looked like a "war scene."

She described how the gunman, Matthew Murray, entered the east entrance of the church firing his gun. “There was chaos,” Assam said, as parishioners ran away. “I saw him coming through the doors” and took cover, Assam said. “I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down.”

Assam had several years of experience in law enforcement and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service.

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 16 2007, 11:09 PM

Just to point out, a very likely reason for some of those massacre's, is copycat syndrome. Which is brought on by the fact that when anything shooting related happens here in the US. It receives tons of media attention. This makes some of the loons out there see the attention people receive and desire it themselves. You see that in other countries that have these situations also.

Thats not something I thought up, that was from some lecture on criminology in psych or soc. back in college...

Posted by: jester89 Dec 17 2007, 04:45 AM

I am well aware of the copycat syndrome. I am a big Kurt Cobain fan and I remember reading of the dozens if not hundreds of people who committed suicide as a direct reaction to his suicide.

The question I pose to you is why does it not happen in Australia? We are a very similar society to the USA and these shootings usually lead the news over here, massive media coverage in print, radio and TV. No copycat's though?

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 17 2007, 07:16 AM

My actual point was more of a numbers thing, 7 is a lot worse than 1, yet if you consider that 5 of those 7 were directly related to the 1st, it makes a little difference.

Really? All the times I've been in Australia, I always thought you had to dig a little to find any American news, perhaps I was reading the wrong papers and watching the wrong news.  Still I think theres a difference in hearing about something that happened in the U.S. when you live in the U.S. and when you hear about something that happened in the U.S. and you live in a different country.

A lot of foreigners would chalk it up to "those crazy Americans"

Why doesn't it happen in Australia? Good question, I'd say tougher gun laws do play a part. God forbid though, should someone go out of there way to get a weapon and do something like that, then you could see another round of violence similar to what we have faced.

I mean why don't kids in Mexico shoot there classmates? I know for a fact you can get automatic weapons down there, no problem.

Sadly though, I think the US had a series of individuals who were determined to go out there and hurt people, they were going to do it no matter what.

Recently theres been a little more activity like this in Europe, and in some of those place, gun ownership in virtually nill.

Besides, tougher gun laws, and even removal of guns, is not going help. Not in this day an age. All it will do is take the guns out lawful citizens hands. And force more criminals to go through Mexico for handguns and South America for automatics.

Why do gangbangers have Mac-10's, pretty sure you everday citizen isn't supposed to have those, in any place.

Sorry, got a little long winded there. I'm not really an ultra-conservative, but this is one thing I do feel passionatly about.

Posted by: jester89 Dec 17 2007, 05:55 PM

And well done to you for standing up for what you believe in.

I have never lived in a society where gun ownership was a regular thing. I know a couple of guys who do own a rifle but they go pig shooting in outback NSW (There are a lot of feral pigs in the outback) but aside from those guys I don't know anyone who has a gun, it is just foreign to me.

I don't really chalk your predicament (your country's predicament) down to "those crazy Americans" but more the gun culture that you have been bought up with. To me guns are for the bad guys and the cops, where in the US it seems from the outside looking in that guns are for anyone... catch my drift?

Mate when were you in Aus? Get your ass back here and I will shout you a beer (buy you a beer)

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 17 2007, 10:58 PM

Interesting side question? Is it legal to hunt Kangaroo? I know I saw a few places offering the meat, but in most areas it seemed that folks go out of their way to protect them.

And that's why you're a lot more reasonable than some of the foreigners I've dealt with.

I first went to Australia when I was 16-17 as a school thing and fell in love, been back twice... Last time was around... 16 months ago I guess... A friend was working with one of the big corps. in Sydney and had me out for a week.
I can't wait to go again. The U.S. is my home, and I love it dearly, but if I ever leave it's because I found a job in Australia. I'll tell you when I'm heading back again, hopefully in the next year or so...

Posted by: baby21 Dec 18 2007, 12:57 PM

Here's an example of a massacre being stopped by a woman who was carrying a weapon:
Jeanne Assam, a church member who volunteers as a security guard, shot and killed Murray, who was found with a rifle and two handguns, police said. The pastor called her "a real hero."

"When the shots were fired, she rushed toward the scene and encountered the attacker there in a hallway. He never got more than 50 feet inside our building," he said. "There could have been a great loss of life yesterday, and she probably saved over 100 lives."

Boyd said the gunman had a lot of ammunition and estimated that 40 rounds had been fired inside the church, leaving what looked like a "war scene."

She described how the gunman, Matthew Murray, entered the east entrance of the church firing his gun. “There was chaos,” Assam said, as parishioners ran away. “I saw him coming through the doors” and took cover, Assam said. “I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down.”

Assam had several years of experience in law enforcement and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service.

Posted by: baby21 Dec 18 2007, 01:13 PM

Mate I see your point and it refreshing to debate with someone who can put his thoughts into words as well as yourself. I just have to ask one question though... what came first, the chicken or the egg? The gun saved x amount of people that day but without the criminal's gun, would the samaritan's gun be needed?

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Dec 18 2007, 02:23 PM

no comments

Posted by: closeup Dec 18 2007, 04:58 PM

It's relatively easy to see merit in both sides of this debate. One the one hand, nobody wants to get shot by some nut who got ahold of a gun. On the other hand, nobody, (except evidently Baby) would want to be robbed, raped or killed and have no way to adequately protect themselves. I guess the question is; who is ultimately responsible for protecting your (and your families) life. You, or a stranger (cop, bystander, etc). I believe each citizen has a right to protect themselves. And with that right comes responsibility. The government doesn't "give" you the right to protect yourself, it's something you are born with as a citizen of the United States. (inalienable rights). Although you may pay for that protection thru taxes, it's a simple fact of life that the cops can't be there every time someone needs that protection. Then there are Second Amendment issues. The Founding Fathers were well aware of what governments were capable of. Disarming the citizenry was looked upon as taking away a citizens ability to stand up to a hostile government.

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 18 2007, 11:20 PM

Oh Bondi.. looks like we're the only two here that share our opinion... which suprises me and scares me a little... haha.

I guess I just don't see the appeal in owning a gun for protection. I would never want to be responsible for injuring or killing a person, not even in the name of self-defense (Yes I'm as close to a "tree-hugging" whatever you call it... but for the record I've never hugged a tree).

I know that people will always have guns, but I'm possitive that if they were illegal or much harder to get, you wouldn't have your white suburban house kids shooting each other with daddy's guns or killing each other with the gun they paid their friend to get... The fact that guns would be harder to find would discourage some people.

So if you really want a gun then you should have to go through a hell of a lot to get one. If you're not willing to do that.. then you must not want it that bad.

It's relatively easy to see merit in both sides of this debate. One the one hand, nobody wants to get shot by some nut who got ahold of a gun. On the other hand, nobody, (except evidently Baby) would want to be robbed, raped or killed and have no way to adequately protect themselves. I guess the question is; who is ultimately responsible for protecting your (and your families) life. You, or a stranger (cop, bystander, etc). I believe each citizen has a right to protect themselves. And with that right comes responsibility. The government doesn't "give" you the right to protect yourself, it's something you are born with as a citizen of the United States.  (inalienable rights). Although you may pay for that protection thru taxes, it's a simple fact of life that the cops can't be there every time someone needs that protection. Then there are Second Amendment issues.  The Founding Fathers were well aware of what governments were capable of. Disarming the citizenry was looked upon as taking away a citizens ability to stand up to a hostile government.

Posted by: closeup Dec 19 2007, 05:00 PM

Baby I never thought there would be anyone who would agree on my stance with this issue, just because of the differences in our socities. Australia was never bought up on guns, my dad never owned one, neither did his father, or his father. yet the same can not be said for people inside the USA who hold on to their ancient constitutional right like it has any relevance or any merit in today's society. They feel like if you take their right to own a gun you take away all democratic freedom and it is something that will take a lifetime to being to change.
I'll keep stating it. I don't own a gun and I live in a city whilst it seems lovely and blue and dandy on tv commercials has an underground scene. I have never been shot and I have never though (shit I wish I had a gun right now)

Maybe that is the general difference here, the countries and societies we live in

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Dec 19 2007, 05:33 PM

no comments

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 19 2007, 11:41 PM

Here's another way to think of it: You don't wear a motorcycle helmet everytime you ride because you're gonna fall off everytime you ride. You don't wear a life vest everytime in a canoe because you think you're gonna capsize everytime you go out. But the ONE time you need it, it's only gonna be there because you use it EVERYTIME. The one time you may need a gun, and don't have one, could very well be one time too many. Why bother wearing a helmet if you don't plan on crashing that day? Why wear a seat belt if you've never been in a fatal crash and have no intention of getting in one today? It's not a fatalistic attitude to want to protect yourself, it's a realistic attitude. Nobody leaves the house in the morning thinking they're going to be the victim of a robbery, rape, or stabbing. But, the fact is, it happens.

Posted by: closeup Dec 20 2007, 12:22 AM

I see your point but I will never agree I'm afraid. Guns aren't for me.

Can I ask you something? DO you carry a handgun everywhere you go?

If you ask me that is a fucking paranoid existence. I'd rather not live

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Dec 20 2007, 03:51 AM

no comments

Posted by: baby21 Dec 20 2007, 04:48 AM

Discourage People? 
Prisons Can't stop Prisoners from getting Drugs or Killing each other in Prisons

It's relatively easy to see merit in both sides of this debate. One the one hand, nobody wants to get shot by some nut who got ahold of a gun. On the other hand, nobody, (except evidently Baby) would want to be robbed, raped or killed and have no way to adequately protect themselves. I guess the question is; who is ultimately responsible for protecting your (and your families) life. You, or a stranger (cop, bystander, etc). I believe each citizen has a right to protect themselves. And with that right comes responsibility. The government doesn't "give" you the right to protect yourself, it's something you are born with as a citizen of the United States.  (inalienable rights). Although you may pay for that protection thru taxes, it's a simple fact of life that the cops can't be there every time someone needs that protection. Then there are Second Amendment issues.  The Founding Fathers were well aware of what governments were capable of. Disarming the citizenry was looked upon as taking away a citizens ability to stand up to a hostile government.

Posted by: baby21 Dec 20 2007, 05:01 AM

Baby I never thought there would be anyone who would agree on my stance with this issue, just because of the differences in our socities. Australia was never bought up on guns, my dad never owned one, neither did his father, or his father. yet the same can not be said for people inside the USA who hold on to their ancient constitutional right like it has any relevance or any merit in today's society. They feel like if you take their right to own a gun you take away all democratic freedom and it is something that will take a lifetime to being to change.
I'll keep stating it. I don't own a gun and I live in a city whilst it seems lovely and blue and dandy on tv commercials has an underground scene. I have never been shot and I have never though (shit I wish I had a gun right now)

Maybe that is the general difference here, the countries and societies we live in

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 20 2007, 05:44 AM

No, I don't carry all the time. But I do have a concealed weapons permit. I'm armed when I'm carrying a lot of cash, or in a bad neighborhood, or whenever I think I might want the protection of a handgun. I'm not a gun nut, by any means. I've been trained by the Marines in the lawful use of deadly force.I've also taught Air Force officers and personal how to shoot both handguns and rifles. I ran the armory in a reserve unit in the Army. Not to toot my own horn, but I've been honorably discharged from the Marines, the Army and the Air Force.In all three branches of service, I've been involved with weapons. In the Marines, one of my duties was to guard the payroll. I would carry a satchel with $25,000-$35,000 dollars across the base where 2500 Marines had M-16 weapons in their possession. The base I was stationed on was where the "first response" of Marines would originate from if anything happened in the world that required an immediate response. These Marines DID NOT keep their weapons at the armory. When I was a Corporal, one of my duties was to guard the payroll after it got dropped at the base but before it got loaded onto a naval ship. I remember sitting all night with a weapon locked and loaded on five safes that contained $250,000 cash. Again, the base where every Marine had an automatic weapon with them.  I guess my point is I've been in situations where being armed was not only a good idea but absolutely necessary.   It would upset me tremendously to shoot another human being. But, and this is the key, it would upset me even more to get attacked and have no way to defend myself. When it comes to deadly force, having a second chance is not an option. I value my life to the  extent that I don't want some crack-head who wants to steal my $50.00 sneakers for his next hit to be the one who decides whether or not I live or die. I know it's hard to understand why someone might be pro- gun ,but it's more a matter of being ready if the ultimate bad luck chooses you as it's next victim. I'd hate to miscalulate even once.

It always suprises me just how many people out here own guns/ are fanatical about their "rights." I've grown up in a family without guns and been around families without guns. My mother has even been politcally active in trying to get stricter gun laws. I just can't imagine seeing one or wanting to use one, let alone to hurt someone. I guess if you really feel the need to have one... that's your choice in this country, I just think the majority of people don't need to or deserve to carry.
I suppose I need to pack my bags and head to Australia! Sound good?? 

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Dec 20 2007, 03:32 PM

no comments

Posted by: closeup Dec 20 2007, 11:19 PM

[quote=baby21,Dec 20 2007, 04:48 AM]
If you thought for about two seconds about what I wrote, then maybe you'd realize that the whole process of getting a gun would discourage people. If they were at least somewhat more difficult to obtain, it would take the "appeal" out of it and someone who was going to committ a crime of passion wouldn't be as capable in most circumstances.
Yes, since I so said that I wanted to get robbed, raped or killed. There are other methods of self defence other than carrying a gun around that would be just as effective and less harmful. I feel more threatened by paranoid people such as yourself than anything else. I honestly doubt that you will ever run across an instance where you will need your gun. If you do I doubt that you'll be carrying it and have access to it in time to make any difference.

That's not really my point though.. my point, like Bondi's is that guns just aren't for me. My other point is that if you value your right to own a gun so much, then you should go through all the training, and background checks, and yearly checkups the government can handle to inforce. (sounds like you shouldn't have a problem with this since you've apparently already had training). I really don't see what the big deal is.

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Dec 21 2007, 03:39 PM

no comments

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 23 2007, 06:42 PM

lol, do you even watch the News or History Channel?
Discourage? you can't even discourage teens from having sex!
You can't discourage people from doing or making Drugs!
You can't discourage the Middle East from Killing Each Other or the rest of the Free World!

Its not about Discourage, its about Teaching Everyone Right from Wrong!
And why would you be THREATENED by an Armed American with the CCW?
Do you feel Threatened by Armed Polices? If only 4 person with a CCW on the planes of 9/11, would have save thousands of lives that day! If only 2 person with a CCW at Va Tech would have save 32 lives!
Are you also THREATENED by Armed Jesus? Is Jesus Paranoid? Or just you?

Guns save lives

Jesus Saves

Well, where to start? First off, I can think of many instances where being armed is better than not. I might be driving a moving van into an area that is a high crime area. The truck I'm driving contains literally every single thing a family owns, except maybe a suitcase and the clothes on their backs. If someone were to rob me and get the keys to my truck, that family would lose everything. Insurance would cover MY loss, but not theirs. I do antique shows around the country. There are times when they're are items in the truck worth many, many thousands of dollars. (I need to carry two million dollars of insurance just to be eligible to carry these loads.) Do you think a crook wouldn't love to steal a truck with a that kind of pay-off? There are times when I have to report to the local police station and get an escort into the place where I'm unloading. I need to show them my weapon and carry permit so everyone knows that I'm armed.
And, Bondi is right. I don't always have a weapon on hand. I don't carry when I'm jogging or shooting hoops or just going to the beach or grocery store. America is safe in the sense that people don't need to walk around paranoid, but that is beside the point. I have a responsibility to myself to try never to be a victim of a random crime. It is not my intention to try to persuade others to act as I do. I'd be happy if there were less guns and more restrictive availability. There should be background checks and mandatory training. But, for the government( which, in reality, is just someone bureaucrat) to say that I don't have the right to protect myself, that's where I draw the line. They're not up to the task of protecting every citizen. How many times have you ever heard of a cop PREVENTING a rape or robbery? They always show up on the scene AFTER the damage is done. And, how much comfort is it to the victim's family to hear such platitudes as, " We'll do every thing we can to find the guy" or "We're sorry, we're doing all we can." And, I'm not knocking the cops, they're in an impossible position. It's simply not possible for them to prevent crime. They respond after the crime has been committed. I think that most people who feel "safe", are delusional to a certain extant. They seem to go around with the mindset of "It can't happen to me". But, it can and it does. I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind about guns or gun laws, but not everyone is in the same boat.

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Dec 23 2007, 07:22 PM

no comments

Posted by: closeup Dec 24 2007, 02:44 PM

That was an interesting article, thanks for taking the time to post it. Here's another interesting point: Have you ever noticed when these nutcases go on their rampages, it's almost always a school or mall or church? In other words, where people are unlikely to be armed. You never see them shoot up a police station or an army post. Why? Because they know they are likely to get shot before they can kill anyone.
To answer Skull's question, I carry a military-issue Colt .45.

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Dec 24 2007, 03:04 PM

no comments

Posted by: baby21 Dec 25 2007, 04:06 AM

Well then that goes against your very argument. Do you carry it to church? Do you carry it when you have $2 in your pocket and you are just quickly going to the store to get some milk?

You said you never know when you're going to need it so I presumed it went everywhere with you? Know that I know it doesn't it makes your argument hold less sway.

You are obviously not the type of person I am talking about and I am sure you know that. You seem not only qualified but mentally stable enough to own a gun and hold enough common judgement of when and if to use it. I just don't like the idea of some dude sitting next to me having a coffee is carrying something that could kill me because I accidentaly glanced the wrong way
You're damn right you do honey!

Owning a gun in the USA looks as much like having a baby. Everyone is able to do it but maybe the bloody well shouldn't.

Owning a gun (and having a child) should be a privilage not a right

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Dec 25 2007, 07:19 AM

no comments

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 26 2007, 11:24 PM

bondiguy 

here the answer to your question

WHEN AN ARSONIST lights a match that burns a building, is the match at fault? Are match manufacturers responsible for the fire? Should laws be passed prohibiting you from having and using matches, or restricting which types you can have, and in what quantities?

The obvious answer to these questions is no. The same match that is misused by the arsonist lights the fireplace that warms us, and the stove that feeds us. The match has no mind of its own. It is not an evil invention. Its purpose is to ignite, nothing more. If it is misused, the solution is to punish the individual wrongdoer. Everyone else should be left alone.

The same is true of firearms.

Firearms are employed every day by police, military, and law-abiding private citizens to deter crime, participate in competitions, hunt, and in the gravest extreme, to save the life of a victim of murder, rape, or serious assault. Most often, the mere presence of a firearm is enough to stop criminal activity in its tracks.

To the woman whose clothes are about to be torn from her body by a knife-wielding rapist in a deserted parking lot, a handgun in the purse is a lifeline. It is a genuine equalizer that may mean the difference between her life and her death. It gives her a chance when she otherwise would have none.

Every police officer who has made an arrest or stopped a crime understands this principle. Every soldier who has known battle understands this as well. And every private citizen who has ever faced a violent criminal alone, and knows the feeling of an impending, untimely death at the hands of a merciless savage, understands the importance of being able to own and carry a firearm, whether or not he or she ever has to fire it.

Guns Stop Crime

Criminologists of all political persuasions, in over a dozen studies, estimate that firearms are used for protection against criminals several hundred thousand to 2.5 million times per year, often without a shot fired. This is a staggering statistic, but it's not one you are likely to hear on the evening news. Why is it that you don't hear about the homeowner who defended his family before the police could arrive; or the shopkeeper who saved his own life and the lives of his customers; or the woman who stopped her own rape and murder; or the teacher who stopped the school shooting?

Yet when a single criminal goes on a tragic rampage, that's ALL you hear about, over and over and over again, along with angry cries to ban firearms.  Why?

Media Bias

A recent study by the media watchdog Media Research Center (Alexandria, Virginia) concluded that media coverage of firearms is overwhelmingly biased to the negative, noting that between 1995 and 1999, television networks collectively aired 514 anti-gun stories, to a mere 46 that were pro-firearm, a ratio of more than 11-to-1 against firearms.

Unfortunately, we are only being told one side of the story. When we hear only one side, we assume that what we are told is all there is to know, and we do not inquire further. Biased media coverage controls public opinion by controlling public perception.

We have been conditioned to associate gun ownership with criminal activity, when in fact the opposite is true. There are nearly 80 million law-abiding gun owners in America, whose use of firearms is entirely for sport and self-defense. For these millions of people, firearms represent safety, security, and recreation. Shooting is even an Olympic sport, and the first medal of the 2000 Summer Olympics was gold, and was won by an American woman in a shooting event.

When a lone criminal misuses a firearm, does that negate the hundreds of thousands of times each year that firearms are used by citizens to prevent crime? Should the misdeed of a single wrongdoer be seized upon as an opportunity to recast all firearms and their law-abiding owners into evil entities to be ostracized, regulated and banished from society? Should you be compelled to turn in your matches because of the acts of an arsonist; or to turn in your steak knife because of the acts of a slasher; or to turn in your car because of the acts of a drunk driver? Of course not.

Crime Control, Not Gun Control

The public outcry for justice after a tragedy is both understandable and correct. But rather than calling for specific justice -- the apprehension and punishment of the particular wrongdoer so severely that future criminals will be effectively deterred -- we have been conditioned to emit an emotional response decrying guns and gun owners, and calling for urgent new regulation in the name of public safety.

This ignores the fact that there are already more than 20,000 gun laws in the United States, and every act perpetrated by the criminal was already in violation of existing law. What makes us think that new laws will have any more influence over the criminal mind than the existing ones?

New laws may make us feel good for the moment, satisfying the emotional need for a sense of justice after a tragedy, but all they really accomplish is to further restrict the rights of those who already follow the law.

Like the arsonist and his match, it is the wrongdoer who must be punished, not the law-abiding owner or manufacturer. Arson was already illegal when the fire was started. What will a new law accomplish, except making it more difficult -- perhaps impossible -- for you to light your fireplace when you need its warmth to stay alive?

Self Defense Hindered

Regulating and banning guns has the effect of disempowering the law-abiding while supplying advantage to the criminal. Try arguing this point with Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp. In 1991, after leaving a legally owned firearm in her car in compliance with a local “safety” law restricting its carry in certain public places, Suzanna watched helplessly as her parents, along with 21 others, were murdered in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. Suzanna followed the law; the criminal didn't. How might the outcome have been different if the law had not restricted Suzanna’s right to have her firearm with her?

One might ask the same question about every mass shooting or terrorist attack that has occurred in recent memory: how might the outcome have been different if one of the victims had been lawfully armed?

The inescapable answer to this question is that lives would have been saved. This has been demonstrated in many documented incidents, but the mainstream media refuses to report that lawfully armed citizens have stopped killings before police could arrive.

For example, in 1997 in Pearl, Mississippi, a 16-year-old satanist murdered his ex-girlfriend and wounded seven other students at a high school. As he was leaving to kill more children at a nearby junior high school, the assistant principal retrieved a lawfully owned handgun from his car and held the youth for five minutes until police arrived. Not long after, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a school rampage ended abruptly when a local merchant lawfully armed with a shotgun convinced the teenage killer to surrender before police could arrive. How many more children would have died if “safety” laws had prevented the assistant principal and the merchant from owning and accessing their firearms?

And how many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had a pilot, an air marshall, or a qualified passenger been lawfully armed?

Gun Ownership Reduces Crime Rates

The surprising truth is that there is a direct connection between lawful ownership and possession of firearms and the reduction of violent crime rates. In his book More Guns, Less Crime, Professor John R. Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press) provides the most comprehensive and statistically reliable study of firearms and crime ever conducted, analyzing the relationship between gun ownership and FBI crime statistics for each of the 3,045 counties in America over an 18 year period.

The study’s irrefutable conclusion: crime rates for murder, rape and robbery drop six to ten percent, and are sustained at reduced rates, when and where law-abiding adult citizens are permitted to carry concealed firearms. The reason for this is obvious: some criminals are deterred when they think that their intended victims may be armed.

This principle is not novel. For several years, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia had an ordinance requiring every resident to keep at least one firearm in the home. As a result, the home burglary rate in Kennesaw fell by over 80%. A similar regulation was recently passed in the town of Virgin, Utah.

Before you conclude that Georgia and Utah are populated by the misguided, consider the nation Switzerland, which actually issues military firearms and ammunition to be kept in the home. Possession of pistols and semi-automatic firearms by civilians is only modestly regulated. The resulting crime rate is surprisingly low – lower, in fact, than the crime rate in Great Britain, where gun control laws are the most restrictive in the western world.

Guns Prevent Oppression

Movements to ban and overregulate firearms and demonize their owners are based on fear and misunderstanding of the role that firearms play in a free society. Private firearms ownership insures personal safety when police are delayed or unavailable, and collective firearms ownership by a population is an insurance policy against government oppression and extreme abuses of power. This is what the men and women who founded America had in mind when they acknowledged the people's right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights, next to the First Amendment.

If you don't think that governments oppress and commit atrocities against their own people, think again. During the 20th century, while Americans were building cars, factories, and shopping malls, at least seven major genocides occurred throughout the world, in which more than 50 million people were exterminated by their own governments (Germany, USSR, Communist China, Cambodia, Uganda, Guatemala, and the Ottoman Empire). Each of these state-run atrocities was preceded by "common sense" gun control, registration, and eventual confiscation by the government, all under the pretext of advancing public safety.

The most well-known example is Nazi Germany. Prior to the murder of 13 million people throughout Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, a gradual and systematic program of gun control and registration was implemented. Public safety was the stated justification. Once gun owners had been identified through registration, an aggressive gun confiscation program to disarm the population (and in particular, Jewish people) was implemented. As a result, the population was rendered defenseless against the slaughter that followed. Said Hitler in his Edict of March 18, 1938: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."

How might the outcome of the Holocaust and other government-organized genocides have been different if the victims had not first been disarmed under the pretext of public safety?

Even the great pacifist leader Mahatma Ghandi comprehended the significance of a population's right to be armed. Said Ghandi in an autobiography: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

Guns Save Lives

The bottom line is that firearms stop crimes, prevent oppression, and save lives. Like any tool or instrument, they can also be misused. The solution is not to restrict or eliminate the tool in general, but rather to punish and banish the specific misuser. Restriction or elimination of the tool creates the mere illusion of justice while depriving everyone else of its undeniable benefits.

—Scott L. Bach
   (Publication Pending)

I couldn't have said it better... I feel that the world would be a whole lot better with less children and less guns!! Oh well...

I don't really think this conversation is getting anywhere, but I suppose it's refreshing to hear the other side argued out. I will choose to respectfully disagree with you guys. I just hope you realize that there are people out there that feel safe without guns, and I don't believe that a live in a dilusional state. I just choose to be happy with my life and every minute of it so if and when something does happen to me I'm ready, whether that's a hundred years from now from old age or tomorrow from some serial killer...

I guess we just live life differently and hold some different views! I'm glad your gun offers you the protection and safety you feel it does, and out of all of this it is refreshing to see a responsible level headed gun owner.

Posted by: baby21 Dec 27 2007, 12:36 AM

I highlighted the only word worth highlighting in your post.... show me the facts!

Take a match out of an arsonists hand and it will take him a long time to burn that building down rubbing 2 sticks together!

Guns may not stop murders but it surely only limit them?
Yeah I am now officially over it. I do like the USA and most of it's people but with guns bred so deeply into it's culture I am glad I do not live there. If I had to carry a gun for protection I'd rather put it to my own temple.

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 27 2007, 01:17 AM

Well.. you could put your gun to my temple.

(ooo that was bad .. I'm sinking to new lows!)

Posted by: belicked6924 Dec 27 2007, 02:10 AM

I highlighted the only word worth highlighting in your post.... show me the facts!

Take a match out of an arsonists hand and it will take him a long time to burn that building down rubbing 2 sticks together!

Guns may not stop murders but it surely only limit them?
Yeah I am now officially over it. I do like the USA and most of it's people but with guns bred so deeply into it's culture I am glad I do not live there. If I had to carry a gun for protection I'd rather put it to my own temple.

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 27 2007, 03:33 AM

Not to get into this arguement because I can truly see both sides on this one, but trying to show facts on something not taking place is impossible. It brings to mind the old question of if a tree falls in the woods and there is noone around to hear it does it make a sound?

Posted by: baby21 Dec 27 2007, 03:02 PM

Finally.... welcome to our level!

I possess a lethal shot!

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 27 2007, 05:23 PM

I don't know... I need some proof before you make me a believer.

Posted by: baby21 Dec 27 2007, 09:40 PM

Well get your fine little self over here!

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 27 2007, 11:11 PM

Easier said than done!

Posted by: baby21 Dec 27 2007, 11:14 PM

Open the first VS store in Sydney!

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 27 2007, 11:15 PM

I'll do one better... I'll open the first one in Sydney and the first one where the associates wear the clothes!!

Posted by: baby21 Dec 27 2007, 11:26 PM

Now THAT is a franchise that will work!

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 27 2007, 11:29 PM

I have a feeling it would be a hit!!

Posted by: baby21 Dec 27 2007, 11:30 PM

I'd be a platinum level customer within the first day

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 27 2007, 11:46 PM

LOL.. I have a feeling it mite turn into a little more than just selling clothes..

Posted by: baby21 Dec 27 2007, 11:49 PM

Isn't that the privilage of the platinum member?

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 28 2007, 12:00 AM

Why.. yes of course!! Would you like pink or black velvet pillows in your private room?

Posted by: baby21 Dec 28 2007, 12:01 AM

Hmmmmm pink!

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 28 2007, 12:09 AM

Ok, and here is Rocky, he'll be modeling our new man thong and will be glad to rub you down!!

Posted by: baby21 Dec 28 2007, 12:16 AM

My name is Bondi.... not Gnappster!

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 28 2007, 12:17 AM

Oh sorry for the mix up sure!!

Here is Candy, she's modeling our sexy little things thong and corsette collection and she'd be happy to get down on her knees for you!

Posted by: baby21 Dec 28 2007, 12:21 AM

I love this store!

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 28 2007, 12:23 AM

Excelllleeennt

Posted by: baby21 Dec 28 2007, 12:26 AM

Hmmm maybe you shouldn't open it... I'd be bankrupt within weeks

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 28 2007, 12:29 AM

THat;s my plan...

Posted by: baby21 Dec 28 2007, 12:45 AM

You're as evil as you are sexy

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 28 2007, 12:47 AM

Of course... did you think this much sexy could come without all the evil??

Posted by: baby21 Dec 28 2007, 12:48 AM

I had hoped it did!

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 28 2007, 12:50 AM

Posted by: baby21 Dec 28 2007, 12:51 AM

It would be a crying shame for a good looking girl to be too good to use what she's got!

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 28 2007, 12:53 AM

Spoken like a wise man!

Posted by: evade20 Dec 28 2007, 08:04 AM

It would be a crying shame for a good looking girl to be too good to use what she's got!

Posted by: hunter362436 Dec 28 2007, 09:03 AM

First off, I don't understand why you would need to have a gun here to feel safe. I live an hour from Philadelphia, go there 1-2 times a month to visit our son at Temple. I also live about 10-12 miles from the Amish shooting.
Some people carry a gun because they have "little man syndrome", and I don't mean pecker size lol. I work with a few that have them because it makes them feel like a big shot, and knowing them, there is one that should NOT have one.
I have no problems with people having a weapons permit, but they should be a little harder to get. I was brought up with a Dad that was a collector. At one time, we had around 105 weapons in the house, all locked up, with an alarm system. We also had a napoleon cannon from the Civil war that we did reenactments with.
Between training from my Dad, 6 years of National Guards, I have plenty of experience with weapons, but I still choose not to carry one.
The U.S. is a violent culture. We have the same video games, movies and music as many other countries, but they are not violent, we are. Figure that one out. Could it be we have a bigger drug problem? More disparity between the greedy rich and the middle class/poor? To many broken families? How 'bout that little fellow running the Country that feels he can invade a Country for Preemptive reasons? One could argue for any one of these issues.
When the right to have arms was written, it was for a quick assembly of a militia in case of need again. (not for fear of natives lol) But did they foresee a gun firing hundreds or rounds/sec when they wrote it?
I repeat, I have no problems with people who need to carry weapons getting a permit, but there should be better screening.
You will NEVER get the guns away from the people that want to use them to commit a crime. Drugs are illegal, and look how easy it is to get them. Any way, points to ponder.

Posted by: ddd35 Dec 28 2007, 03:46 PM

First off, I don't understand why you would need to have a gun here to feel safe. I live an hour from Philadelphia, go there 1-2 times a month to visit our son at Temple. I also live about 10-12 miles from the Amish shooting.
Some people carry a gun because they have "little man syndrome", and I don't mean pecker size lol. I work with a few that have them because it makes them feel like a big shot, and knowing them, there is one that should NOT have one.
I have no problems with people having a weapons permit, but they should be a little harder to get. I was brought up with a Dad that was a collector. At one time, we had around 105 weapons in the house, all locked up, with an alarm system. We also had a napoleon cannon from the Civil war that we did reenactments with.
Between training from my Dad, 6 years of National Guards, I have plenty of experience with weapons, but I still choose not to carry one.
The U.S. is a violent culture. We have the same video games, movies and music as many other countries, but they are not violent, we are. Figure that one out. Could it be we have a bigger drug problem? More disparity between the greedy rich and the middle class/poor? To many broken families? How 'bout that little fellow running the Country that feels he can invade a Country for Preemptive reasons? One could argue for any one of these issues.
When the right to have arms was written, it was for a quick assembly of a militia in case of need again. (not for fear of natives lol) But did they foresee a gun firing hundreds or rounds/sec when they wrote it?
I repeat, I have no problems with people who need to carry weapons getting a permit, but there should be better screening.
You will NEVER get the guns away from the people that want to use them to commit a crime. Drugs are illegal, and look how easy it is to get them. Any way, points to ponder.

Posted by: bondiguy Dec 28 2007, 04:36 PM

First off, I don't understand why you would need to have a gun here to feel safe. I live an hour from Philadelphia, go there 1-2 times a month to visit our son at Temple. I also live about 10-12 miles from the Amish shooting.
Some people carry a gun because they have "little man syndrome", and I don't mean pecker size lol. I work with a few that have them because it makes them feel like a big shot, and knowing them, there is one that should NOT have one.
I have no problems with people having a weapons permit, but they should be a little harder to get. I was brought up with a Dad that was a collector. At one time, we had around 105 weapons in the house, all locked up, with an alarm system. We also had a napoleon cannon from the Civil war that we did reenactments with.
Between training from my Dad, 6 years of National Guards, I have plenty of experience with weapons, but I still choose not to carry one.
The U.S. is a violent culture. We have the same video games, movies and music as many other countries, but they are not violent, we are. Figure that one out. Could it be we have a bigger drug problem? More disparity between the greedy rich and the middle class/poor? To many broken families? How 'bout that little fellow running the Country that feels he can invade a Country for Preemptive reasons? One could argue for any one of these issues.
When the right to have arms was written, it was for a quick assembly of a militia in case of need again. (not for fear of natives lol) But did they foresee a gun firing hundreds or rounds/sec when they wrote it?
I repeat, I have no problems with people who need to carry weapons getting a permit, but there should be better screening.
You will NEVER get the guns away from the people that want to use them to commit a crime. Drugs are illegal, and look how easy it is to get them. Any way, points to ponder.

Posted by: closeup Dec 29 2007, 03:47 PM

First off, I don't understand why you would need to have a gun here to feel safe. I live an hour from Philadelphia, go there 1-2 times a month to visit our son at Temple. I also live about 10-12 miles from the Amish shooting.
Some people carry a gun because they have "little man syndrome", and I don't mean pecker size lol. I work with a few that have them because it makes them feel like a big shot, and knowing them, there is one that should NOT have one.
I have no problems with people having a weapons permit, but they should be a little harder to get. I was brought up with a Dad that was a collector. At one time, we had around 105 weapons in the house, all locked up, with an alarm system. We also had a napoleon cannon from the Civil war that we did reenactments with.
Between training from my Dad, 6 years of National Guards, I have plenty of experience with weapons, but I still choose not to carry one.
The U.S. is a violent culture. We have the same video games, movies and music as many other countries, but they are not violent, we are. Figure that one out. Could it be we have a bigger drug problem? More disparity between the greedy rich and the middle class/poor? To many broken families? How 'bout that little fellow running the Country that feels he can invade a Country for Preemptive reasons? One could argue for any one of these issues.
When the right to have arms was written, it was for a quick assembly of a militia in case of need again. (not for fear of natives lol) But did they foresee a gun firing hundreds or rounds/sec when they wrote it?
I repeat, I have no problems with people who need to carry weapons getting a permit, but there should be better screening.
You will NEVER get the guns away from the people that want to use them to commit a crime. Drugs are illegal, and look how easy it is to get them. Any way, points to ponder.

Posted by: hunter362436 Dec 30 2007, 12:05 AM

You're arguing both sides of the issue. Did your Dad, a gun owner, have "Little Man Syndrome"? Then you say in one sentance that you can't understand why someone feels the need to carry a weapon, followed by "The U.S. is a violent culture". There's your answer. You're basically calling the government incompetent, yet it's this very gov't that would be solely responsible for protecting you from crime if everyone relinquised their right to carry arms. Carrying a weapon is a serious responsibility. For the people not willing to accept that responsibilty, deny them access to weapons. Prosecute those who misuse them and leave everyone else alone.

Posted by: closeup Dec 30 2007, 01:31 AM

No, not arguing both sides, "some points to points to ponder" was at the end of that. Just to stimulate more discussion about different points.

Wow, way to toss my Dad under the bus.  My Dad was a gun COLLECTOR, did not have a concealed weapons permit. I thought I made that clear that the two people I work with had the permit, and DO suffer from this syndrome. Re read it, did I say ALL people that carry have this syndrome? No.

I don't feel the need to carry one, and the US is a violent culture. You can have both, because most Americans DON"T carry weapons, but the violence can be seen on the news every day. Do you not agree??

I think my government IS incompetent. I think they should all be booted out, replaced
with people that are worried about a Countries NEEDS, not wants, and not keeping squeaky wheels oiled. I need to buy a few cases of tea and head to Boston Harbor.
Do you not agree that the US is a violent culture?

If you also notice, I said I have no problem with people HAVING a concealed weapons permit, they need to change WHO they give them to, and what checks they do.
I don't recall saying the Feds should round up all the weapons from people either. Re read it again.

Posted by: hunter362436 Dec 30 2007, 03:34 PM

It's not up to the governments discretion whether Americans can own guns. The Second Amendment is pretty clear on that. You WANT them in charge, then in the next breath claim they are incompetent, how is that rational? Basically, what you want is incompetent people responsible for who can own a weapon. Does that sound logical to you? I, along with millions of Americans, am confident that I'm smarter and more well informed when it comes to my personal safety than any random government bureaucrat is. If you want to leave your life and the lives of your family in the hands of (your words) incompetent government employees, than that is a choice you are certainly entitled to. I choose not to and that's a right I'm entitled to.

Posted by: ddd35 Dec 30 2007, 04:10 PM

You read stuff that isn't even there, and narrow other statements down to suite your opinion  lol.   

Posted by: closeup Dec 31 2007, 01:42 AM

You read stuff that isn't even there, and narrow other statements down to suite your opinion  lol. And no, not everyone should be able to carry a weapon, or even own one and anyone that thinks so is a major idiot. You want a convicted Felon to be able to carry a concealed weapon? How 'bout to even own a gun. If you say no, then you are yapping out of both sides of your mouth, because doesn't the looneys on the hill dictate that already?  Just because I think the Boys on the hill are idiots, that doesn't mean EVERY decision they make is bad/incompetent, just most of them lol.

You just seem like one of those radical NRA folks/supporters that you just can't discuss this topic with, and I WAS an NRA member, so I will give you the pleasure of the last reply or a game ow twister with my words, I am going to bail on you for this topic. I'll still support gun owners, shoot guns also, but not everyone has the right to a concealed weapons permit. The radical right of any special interest group gives the whole group a black eye.   Have a good/safe new years.  

Posted by: hunter362436 Dec 31 2007, 07:13 AM

WELCOME TO  RATE MY MELONS  ..get used to the above sentence  if you choose to stay  ... 

Posted by: closeup Dec 31 2007, 08:30 AM

Lol, been here for a while, just don't post to often. Still hard to believe people think that EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun. Yep, good feeling to know there are people that rob banks, rape, child abusers, people being treated for brain disorders, walking down the street with a 9mm under their coat. How would that make you feel safer. Some you ask that very question to, and they avoid the answer.   

Posted by: ddd35 Dec 31 2007, 09:47 AM

Lol, been here for a while, just don't post to often. Still hard to believe people think that EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun. Yep, good feeling to know there are people that rob banks, rape, child abusers, people being treated for brain disorders, walking down the street with a 9mm under their coat. How would that make you feel safer. Some you ask that very question to, and they avoid the answer.   

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Feb 22 2008, 03:55 AM

no comments

Posted by: ddd35 Mar 1 2008, 06:49 PM

my prayers go out to the familys and friends of those that lost there lives In dekalb at southern Illinois university . it is simply amazing why these crazys think by killing others it will make there lives worth something .. I will never understand it .. and now once again we will have to endure the politicians wanting to change the gun laws of our state , it just makes no sense . peace to all

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Jun 26 2008, 03:33 PM

no comments

Posted by: misschickie Jun 28 2008, 04:52 AM

I am not against owning guns at all skull (we have them in our house), but when you know some kid who has been shot accidentally, and the way it rips apart a family with a tragic death at the age of 18, you might think differently on the trigger lock thing.

Virtually useless does not equal completely useless.

Posted by: ddd35 Jun 28 2008, 08:46 AM

I am not against owning guns at all skull (we have them in our house), but when you know some kid who has been shot accidentally, and the way it rips apart a family with a tragic death at the age of 18, you might think differently on the trigger lock thing. 

Virtually useless does not equal completely useless.

Posted by: FreakyShinnizle Jun 28 2008, 12:17 PM

I'm glad I don't live in the US.

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Jun 30 2008, 10:24 PM

no comments

Posted by: ddd35 Jul 1 2008, 02:43 PM

I'm just old school, Freedom for all people 

Posted by: SKULLZ0MBIE Jul 1 2008, 03:21 PM

more importantly  sex for all !!!!   

Posted by: ddd35 Jul 1 2008, 07:53 PM

Hell yea.......