As has been said the gun has no intent. The manufacturer of the gun made it with the intent to sell it. The buyer's intent may have been to protect himself from those with intent to kill.
I keep up fine when I am dealing with coherent people. There is another board around here that may be much more suited to you. Maybe you should visit. I think they would welcome you with open arms.
look, crabs, you accuse me of childish behavior but then you post the following:
your mind is the only place where you are keeping up, and I seriously doubt that too
Now cut the crap. You aren't any better than anyone else, although you apparently think you are. As I stated somewhere there is a forum in the People's forum that would welcome you with open arms. Go visit.
so. putting a hole in a person is a "misuse" of a gun?
No, not if they are trying to kill you in your house at 2:00 a.m. Shooting a woman as a gang initiation is. But I'm sure if there was only a law or we banned all the guns that a fine human being like that wouldn't get one. Here's another tip for you. If it sits in a safe unloaded for 100 years, in that 100 years nothing will happen except rust.
Of course you failed to mention that little constitution thingy or the other uses. What about knives ?
nice neat little world of denial you live in there.
I'm not the one giving animation or action to an object that requires human action. So you would know all about denial.
a friend of mine killed a guy with a knife in high school...what about knives?
Well then if we had banned them I'm sure you're friend wouldn't have killed the poor fellow.
I use them to cut steaks.
If I didn't need to cut steaks, I wouldn't have one around.
And you're not forced to have a knife nor is anyone telling you that you can't. Some people hunt, sport shoot, want it to protect their families or simply collect them. If they didn't need or want to do that they probably don't have them around either how noble of you to decide for them.
So you think "gangs" is a cop out. Well from the stats I have seen it's a huge portion of it. I think blaming guns for our woes is the biggest cop out of all. The minute their is a tragic and violent act and a gun is used the left immediatley and reflexively responds with calling for more gun control. It's politically expedient and takes no thought. You said earlier you felt we had to many of them. It's an argument I've heard many times. Why ? If now I have 1 instead of 7 guns is the crime threat lessened ? If I go to stab someone and look in the knife drawer and there's 1 or 100 I am going to use only 1. If we ban knives or put restrictions on them is that going to lessen the threat ?
I agree with you that it's a people issue. It's refreshing to hear that. So let's take guns completely out of it why do people kill eachorther in this country more than ever before ? Kid shoots up a school, mom posions kids, kids make bomb and blow up school. mom drowns kids in tub. Guy goes on a spree and rapes and kills 14 women. Why does all that happen more than ever ?
Tough question. Look at the 2 biggest changes in the last 50 years. Look at the images and shows our kids are exposed to. Look at the make up of a family today, look at divorce rates. Those to me are probably the biggest changes for kids in the last 50 years. Is that the only reason ? Probably not but all these tools/weapons were there before and easily accessible, why only now are we seeing the violence onm a scale this large ?
Ever seen Japanese videos, and movies and comic books, video games and whatnot. They're hideously violent. The comic books are filled with sexual scenes and images. Japanese kids are exposed to those things, but they don't make a habit of shooting each other up.
Another reason has got to be easy money. There's a lot of money to be had in this country. And some people will stoop to anything to get it.
Americans of Japanese decent commit murders at about the same rate as Japanese citizens do. But the Japanese have a big time suicide rate when compared even to the U.S., and they have virtually no guns.
There was also a study done on Vancouver, B.C. and Seattle to compare murder rates with firearms. If you took Asian and white populations of both cities, there murder rate was almost identical. But when you threw in Blacks, Seattle's black population killed at a much higher rate than Vancouver's black population.
There are many factors involved in the U.S. violence rates. We kill more people with fists and feet per 100K people, than most nations kill with all forms of weapons per 100K people.
"Look at Washington, D.C. You cannot possess a gun there unless it is broken down. No handguns. Big time murder rate. Baltimore is pretty bad too, though Maryland has some of the toughest anti gun laws in the nation. "
I wonder how many guns on DC streets were obtained in Virginia. It's across the river for heaven's sake. That's a bogus argument.
If they then outlawed them in VA they would get them from somewhere else on the black market. If it's law that it has to be broken down to be possesed then they are already breaking the law. Point being the law of course is moot because, well, criminals break laws, it's what they do. Give me 100 dollars and 2 hours and I'll find you an unregistered and probably stolen or illegally imported gun of whatever type you'd like.
Why revisit? That is what has gotten us in trouble before. We keep revisiting amendements and we keep finding new rights or new government powers. It is better than seeing the Amazing Kreskin.
States already have the right to restrict them or make them more accesible. We've seen results from alot of states that allow CCW and they've generally been good. States can and do restrict them as well So we already have 50 labs because they already are making many of those decisions. You say you don't wish to ban them but you want to revisit the 2nd amendment, so what do you propose ?
I'm just thinking out loud because I'm rather ambivalent to the whole thing. What purpose does the amendmant serve? I do think it's been contorted by the gun lobby and could be somewhat misinterpreted by them. The first half talks about a militia, but the gun people only mention the second half. Like the first part, which gives the reason for the amendmant, doesn't exist.
And we have a miltia. It's the weekend warriors. And there's not much you can do about getting rid of guns. They're out there by the hundreds of millions. It's frankly amazing how many there are.
That's not the militia the framers had in mind. It's designed to protect citizens or give them the means to protect themself if the govt. becomes too oppressive. I know that sounds black helicopterish but that's what they were referring to and the reason they included it and that was to have an armed citizenry seperate from the govt. The "weekend warriors" as you so nicely put it are soilders who will be in harms way soon. I digress, they are troops controlled by govt. The amendment assures it's citizens that they can protect themselves from govt. if they need to. It will probably and hopefully never happen. An unarmed citizenry can actually be a detrement to the citizens itself. It wasn't put there for hunting but for protection of the average citizen. I think the framers were years ahead of time and knew what they were doing. There are many examples throughout history where an unarmed citizenry was taken over at the whim of brutal and murderous dictatorships and police states. They had the foresight to protect against it.
So we're awash in guns because because the framers were scared of their own government and trusted no one, even the people built homes and lived among them.
I think that's why I hear people from other countries tell me they still feel like they're on the frontier when the come here.
We're awash in guns ? Do you run into them on the street very often ? Have you been a victim of a gun crime ?
I think that's why I hear people from other countries tell me they still feel like they're on the frontier when the come here.
Perhaps it's unique, perhaps though a frontier spirit is what has made us great. I've been to alot of other countries, it doesn't mean I want to live there though.
See what I'm getting at Rick, I think "awash in guns" Is a bit dramatic. Makes it sound like they are hanging from everyone's belt. I have mine locked away now because of the kids. Years ago however I did use one to avert a crime. So there's two sides to each coin.
I wonder how many guns on DC streets were obtained in Virginia. It's across the river for heaven's sake. That's a bogus argument.
Then why isn't the crime rate in Virginia similar if not higher than D.C.'s? I believe it is you who are on the bogus side.
As far as the Second Amendment goes, I will echo some of LUV2FLY's statements. There are a myriad of gun laws in the 50 different states. In New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts, and Maryland for example, guns are very tightly controlled. They have firearms owners ID cards, registration, bans on some types of guns, waiting periods to purchase firearms, etc.
In South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Vermont, Montana, there are almost no restrictions on purchasing or possessing firearms. We already have 50 different experiments. But what is interesting, is that the anti gun crowd keeps crowing for a Federal set of gun laws. They seem to want only one experiment.
Amendments to the Constitution can do two things. They can protect God given (or natural) rights of the people, or they can cede power to the federal govt. The first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights, and are protectors of our God given rights. These rights pre existed the Constitution, according to how our Founding Fathers set up the Constitution. The first 10 amendments recognize this and more importantly, PROTECT those rights, the right to keep and bear arms being among those. There is a second part of the Second Amendment that explains why the Second Amendment protects the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. That is so that we can form a well regulated (meaning trained and organized) militia if the times require it. Right now, the times do not require it, but no one has a chrystal ball which can truely tell the future. The National Gaurd belongs to the federal govt. The states may use it when the Feds aren't. Our own Rudy Perpich discovered this in a US Supreme Court case.
the INTENT of a handgun is to kill a human being.
As has been said the gun has no intent. The manufacturer of the gun made it with the intent to sell it. The buyer's intent may have been to protect himself from those with intent to kill.
this from someone who can't even keep up.
I keep up fine when I am dealing with coherent people. There is another board around here that may be much more suited to you. Maybe you should visit. I think they would welcome you with open arms.
I'm gonna make this gun...I don't know what for...I'm just making a gun.
it's PURPOSE is to put little holes in people.
Really ? Ever heard of hunting ? Ever heard of sport shooting ? Ever heard of self protection ? Ever heard of the constitution ?
How about knives? If we only had less knives people wouldn't get stabbed right ?
All of the above objects can be misused. The object itself has no "intent".
no...no you don't
your mind is the only place where you are keeping up, and I seriously doubt that too
so. putting a hole in a person is a "misuse" of a gun?
nice neat little world of denial you live in there.
look, crabs, you accuse me of childish behavior but then you post the following:
Now cut the crap. You aren't any better than anyone else, although you apparently think you are. As I stated somewhere there is a forum in the People's forum that would welcome you with open arms. Go visit.
look at a fuckin' mirror once and awhile, will ya?
You are the one that was talking about childish behavior, crabs. If you are going to criticize it don't practice it.
All of the above objects can be misused
No, not if they are trying to kill you in your house at 2:00 a.m.
Shooting a woman as a gang initiation is. But I'm sure if there was only a law or we banned all the guns that a fine human being like that wouldn't get one. Here's another tip for you. If it sits in a safe unloaded for 100 years, in that 100 years nothing will happen except rust.
Of course you failed to mention that little constitution thingy or the other uses. What about knives ?
I'm not the one giving animation or action to an object that requires human action. So you would know all about denial.
and then...
doctor, heal thyself
a friend of mine killed a guy with a knife in high school...what about knives?
I use them to cut steaks.
If I didn't need to cut steaks, I wouldn't have one around.
The crap being your hypocrisy, crabs. geezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
what hypocricy is that?
What about knives ?
Well then if we had banned them I'm sure you're friend wouldn't have killed the poor fellow.
And you're not forced to have a knife nor is anyone telling you that you can't. Some people hunt, sport shoot, want it to protect their families or simply collect them. If they didn't need or want to do that they probably don't have them around either how noble of you to decide for them.
did I say different?
did I say that people should be banned from having anything?
that would be like trying to ban stupidity, and where would that leave bodine?
Hey Crabby, don't you think the first knife was invented to be used as a weapon?
It's intended use, probably to kill someone or something?
BAN KNIVES NOW!
Nevermind Crabs. If you and Jethro want to get into a public pissing match go for it. I've seen that movie. See ya later.
Rob:
I don't think there is a person here who has floated the idea of banning guns.
Why does that seem to be your reflexive answer when the discussion of gun violence comes up.
I was just hoping to get some insight on why the hell Americans kill each other with guns so much. And I gotta say, I haven't learned much.
And I think "gangs" is a cop-out reason.
where are you getting this "ban" thing from?
I'm not for banning anything
but as it stands, I can't have a weed but I can have a device that can easily take a life.
I was just hoping to get some insight on why the hell Americans kill each other with guns so much.
I told ya, it's moral decay.
I was just hoping to get some insight on why the hell Americans kill each other with guns so much.
It's because people get pissed off at other people's postings on message boards.
That doesn't teill me much, either.
what makes Canadians more "moral"?
they are a bit more liberal, aren't they?
Good hearted earnest liberals is what they are. I have great friends from Canada.
O.K Rick, fair enough.
So you think "gangs" is a cop out. Well from the stats I have seen it's a huge portion of it. I think blaming guns for our woes is the biggest cop out of all. The minute their is a tragic and violent act and a gun is used the left immediatley and reflexively responds with calling for more gun control. It's politically expedient and takes no thought. You said earlier you felt we had to many of them. It's an argument I've heard many times. Why ? If now I have 1 instead of 7 guns is the crime threat lessened ? If I go to stab someone and look in the knife drawer and there's 1 or 100 I am going to use only 1. If we ban knives or put restrictions on them is that going to lessen the threat ?
I agree with you that it's a people issue. It's refreshing to hear that. So let's take guns completely out of it why do people kill eachorther in this country more than ever before ? Kid shoots up a school, mom posions kids, kids make bomb and blow up school. mom drowns kids in tub. Guy goes on a spree and rapes and kills 14 women. Why does all that happen more than ever ?
Tough question. Look at the 2 biggest changes in the last 50 years. Look at the images and shows our kids are exposed to. Look at the make up of a family today, look at divorce rates. Those to me are probably the biggest changes for kids in the last 50 years. Is that the only reason ? Probably not but all these tools/weapons were there before and easily accessible, why only now are we seeing the violence onm a scale this large ?
Rob:
Ever seen Japanese videos, and movies and comic books, video games and whatnot. They're hideously violent. The comic books are filled with sexual scenes and images. Japanese kids are exposed to those things, but they don't make a habit of shooting each other up.
Another reason has got to be easy money. There's a lot of money to be had in this country. And some people will stoop to anything to get it.
So we'd be better off being a third world nation?
Maybe we'd be better off if we shifted our priorities some.
Is that asking too much?
Probably. Anyone who looks like they're questioning America's gospel of wealth is looking for trouble.
Shouldn't the demand be looked at rather than the supply, rick? Apparently people want the violence and the sex.
Americans of Japanese decent commit murders at about the same rate as Japanese citizens do. But the Japanese have a big time suicide rate when compared even to the U.S., and they have virtually no guns.
There was also a study done on Vancouver, B.C. and Seattle to compare murder rates with firearms. If you took Asian and white populations of both cities, there murder rate was almost identical. But when you threw in Blacks, Seattle's black population killed at a much higher rate than Vancouver's black population.
There are many factors involved in the U.S. violence rates. We kill more people with fists and feet per 100K people, than most nations kill with all forms of weapons per 100K people.
"Look at Washington, D.C. You cannot possess a gun there unless it is broken down. No handguns. Big time murder rate. Baltimore is pretty bad too, though Maryland has some of the toughest anti gun laws in the nation. "
I wonder how many guns on DC streets were obtained in Virginia. It's across the river for heaven's sake. That's a bogus argument.
Rick,
If they then outlawed them in VA they would get them from somewhere else on the black market. If it's law that it has to be broken down to be possesed then they are already breaking the law. Point being the law of course is moot because, well, criminals break laws, it's what they do. Give me 100 dollars and 2 hours and I'll find you an unregistered and probably stolen or illegally imported gun of whatever type you'd like.
ban guns? why would it work any better than banning drugs?
He's not talking about banning them Jethro.
BTW Rick, what are you suggesting ?
How about revisting the Second Amendment?
It seems to be about militias. What's the National Guard but a well-regulated militia?
Why revisit? That is what has gotten us in trouble before. We keep revisiting amendements and we keep finding new rights or new government powers. It is better than seeing the Amazing Kreskin.
O.K what about it do you believe needs to be re-visited ?
As an ad on I would also ask or pose this to you. Do you think that there are also dangers in messing with the constitution ?
They used to amend it all the time. Was it all written in stone?
Repeal the amendmant and have the states regulate firearms as they choose.
Fifty experiments to see what works.
The Constituion hasn't been "amended" but 17 times in over 200 years. That isn't much.
States already have the right to restrict them or make them more accesible. We've seen results from alot of states that allow CCW and they've generally been good. States can and do restrict them as well So we already have 50 labs because they already are making many of those decisions. You say you don't wish to ban them but you want to revisit the 2nd amendment, so what do you propose ?
I'm just thinking out loud because I'm rather ambivalent to the whole thing. What purpose does the amendmant serve? I do think it's been contorted by the gun lobby and could be somewhat misinterpreted by them. The first half talks about a militia, but the gun people only mention the second half. Like the first part, which gives the reason for the amendmant, doesn't exist.
And we have a miltia. It's the weekend warriors. And there's not much you can do about getting rid of guns. They're out there by the hundreds of millions. It's frankly amazing how many there are.
That's not the militia the framers had in mind. It's designed to protect citizens or give them the means to protect themself if the govt. becomes too oppressive. I know that sounds black helicopterish but that's what they were referring to and the reason they included it and that was to have an armed citizenry seperate from the govt. The "weekend warriors" as you so nicely put it are soilders who will be in harms way soon. I digress, they are troops controlled by govt. The amendment assures it's citizens that they can protect themselves from govt. if they need to. It will probably and hopefully never happen. An unarmed citizenry can actually be a detrement to the citizens itself. It wasn't put there for hunting but for protection of the average citizen. I think the framers were years ahead of time and knew what they were doing. There are many examples throughout history where an unarmed citizenry was taken over at the whim of brutal and murderous dictatorships and police states. They had the foresight to protect against it.
So we're awash in guns because because the framers were scared of their own government and trusted no one, even the people built homes and lived among them.
I think that's why I hear people from other countries tell me they still feel like they're on the frontier when the come here.
We're awash in guns ? Do you run into them on the street very often ? Have you been a victim of a gun crime ?
Perhaps it's unique, perhaps though a frontier spirit is what has made us great. I've been to alot of other countries, it doesn't mean I want to live there though.
"We're awash in guns ?"
I think accumulated firepower in this country is amazing
"Do you run into them on the street very often? "
People don't normally flash them around. I'm thinking there's probably more than I know.
"Have you been a victim of a gun crime ? "
Without going into detail, I'll say yes.
See what I'm getting at Rick, I think "awash in guns" Is a bit dramatic. Makes it sound like they are hanging from everyone's belt. I have mine locked away now because of the kids. Years ago however I did use one to avert a crime. So there's two sides to each coin.
"Makes it sound like they are hanging from everyone's belt."
Liberal conceal/carry law in Minnesota is two legislative sessions away, I predict.
For what it's worth Rick, I wouldn't carry but I wouldn't deny someone else the chance to do so either.
Then why isn't the crime rate in Virginia similar if not higher than D.C.'s? I believe it is you who are on the bogus side.
As far as the Second Amendment goes, I will echo some of LUV2FLY's statements. There are a myriad of gun laws in the 50 different states. In New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts, and Maryland for example, guns are very tightly controlled. They have firearms owners ID cards, registration, bans on some types of guns, waiting periods to purchase firearms, etc.
In South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Vermont, Montana, there are almost no restrictions on purchasing or possessing firearms. We already have 50 different experiments. But what is interesting, is that the anti gun crowd keeps crowing for a Federal set of gun laws. They seem to want only one experiment.
Amendments to the Constitution can do two things. They can protect God given (or natural) rights of the people, or they can cede power to the federal govt. The first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights, and are protectors of our God given rights. These rights pre existed the Constitution, according to how our Founding Fathers set up the Constitution. The first 10 amendments recognize this and more importantly, PROTECT those rights, the right to keep and bear arms being among those. There is a second part of the Second Amendment that explains why the Second Amendment protects the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. That is so that we can form a well regulated (meaning trained and organized) militia if the times require it. Right now, the times do not require it, but no one has a chrystal ball which can truely tell the future. The National Gaurd belongs to the federal govt. The states may use it when the Feds aren't. Our own Rudy Perpich discovered this in a US Supreme Court case.