One more reason to carry

[black elk speaks]

Hurrah for all those 'responsible gun owners" keeping deaths/serious injuries down to 100,000 a year

"According to widely varying estimates, there are between 77 million and 90 million gun owners in the United States."

So I think that's .13%? ( 100,000 / 77,000,000 ) * 100 = .12987%

I believe alcohol, tobacco, and driving are more dangerous....

I think I saw that the average gun owner has 4 guns too....so that's about 300 million guns in americans homes? Do you want the deaths/injuries ratio in relation to number of guns too?


Is your only argument for their banning that "A small minority use them irresponsibly"?

Firstly please show me where I requested a ban , they are not even banned in Britain, please at least attempt to make some kind of sense. Im glad you mentioned driving as it proves what a mockery some of your firearm laws are, you cant legaly drive without a test and a licence but you can buy a gun in certain places with no checks, no tests , no training - I know your not the brightest spark but surely even you can see that there is a problem and that is what I would like to see addressed.

no need to be rude. now first and foremost, you have to pass a background check before you can own a firearm. I can't tell you all of the requirements, but i do know that you are not allowed to own a gun if you have been convicted of certain crimes. Secondly, to carry a concealed weapon, you do have to pass a training course which, in my state, required a written exam. this is true for hunters as well.

perhaps you could do a little research before making that kind of blind post? better still, clarify what you mean by "certain places" because i don't believe that they exist.

[comic boy]

Hurrah for all those 'responsible gun owners" keeping deaths/serious injuries down to 100,000 a year

"According to widely varying estimates, there are between 77 million and 90 million gun owners in the United States."

So I think that's .13%? ( 100,000 / 77,000,000 ) * 100 = .12987%

I believe alcohol, tobacco, and driving are more dangerous....

I think I saw that the average gun owner has 4 guns too....so that's about 300 million guns in americans homes? Do you want the deaths/injuries ratio in relation to number of guns too?


Is your only argument for their banning that "A small minority use them irresponsibly"?

Firstly please show me where I requested a ban , they are not even banned in Britain, please at least attempt to make some kind of sense. Im glad you mentioned driving as it proves what a mockery some of your firearm laws are, you cant legaly drive without a test and a licence but you can buy a gun in certain places with no checks, no tests , no training - I know your not the brightest spark but surely even you can see that there is a problem and that is what I would like to see addressed.

no need to be rude. now first and foremost, you have to pass a background check before you can own a firearm. I can't tell you all of the requirements, but i do know that you are not allowed to own a gun if you have been convicted of certain crimes. Secondly, to carry a concealed weapon, you do have to pass a training course which, in my state, required a written exam. this is true for hunters as well.

perhaps you could do a little research before making that kind of blind post? better still, clarify what you mean by "certain places" because i don't believe that they exist.

Please be so good not to tell me how to behave you pompous prick
I hear the multi hunters are making afternoon calls so you better get your big gun ready

[black elk speaks]

Hurrah for all those 'responsible gun owners" keeping deaths/serious injuries down to 100,000 a year

"According to widely varying estimates, there are between 77 million and 90 million gun owners in the United States."

So I think that's .13%? ( 100,000 / 77,000,000 ) * 100 = .12987%

I believe alcohol, tobacco, and driving are more dangerous....

I think I saw that the average gun owner has 4 guns too....so that's about 300 million guns in americans homes? Do you want the deaths/injuries ratio in relation to number of guns too?


Is your only argument for their banning that "A small minority use them irresponsibly"?

Firstly please show me where I requested a ban , they are not even banned in Britain, please at least attempt to make some kind of sense. Im glad you mentioned driving as it proves what a mockery some of your firearm laws are, you cant legaly drive without a test and a licence but you can buy a gun in certain places with no checks, no tests , no training - I know your not the brightest spark but surely even you can see that there is a problem and that is what I would like to see addressed.

no need to be rude. now first and foremost, you have to pass a background check before you can own a firearm. I can't tell you all of the requirements, but i do know that you are not allowed to own a gun if you have been convicted of certain crimes. Secondly, to carry a concealed weapon, you do have to pass a training course which, in my state, required a written exam. this is true for hunters as well.

perhaps you could do a little research before making that kind of blind post? better still, clarify what you mean by "certain places" because i don't believe that they exist.

Please be so good not to tell me how to behave you pompous prick
I hear the multi hunters are making afternoon calls so you better get your big gun ready

why would i be worried about that? im no multi. besides, you avoid the questions, because you have no answers and simply get off on being rude.

[comic boy]

Personally if I was such an insufferable self righteous bore I would be more concerned about the almost inevitable results such as driving my kids to see solace in drugs and sex. still I guess a teenage pregnancy is a small price to pay for the right to be royaly pompous on an internet forum

[black elk speaks]

Personally if I was such an insufferable self righteous bore I would be more concerned about the almost inevitable results such as driving my kids to see solace in drugs and sex. still I guess a teenage pregnancy is a small price to pay for the right to be royaly pompous on an internet forum

lol, you are calling me pompous. thats rich.

still avoiding my question i see. fair enough.

[comic boy]

Personally if I was such an insufferable self righteous bore I would be more concerned about the almost inevitable results such as driving my kids to see solace in drugs and sex. still I guess a teenage pregnancy is a small price to pay for the right to be royaly pompous on an internet forum

lol, you are calling me pompous. thats rich.

still avoiding my question i see. fair enough.

If you are refering to gun control checks then the onus is on you to prove me wrong, if it is indeed the case that a major effort is being made to limit gun ownership then I will be delighted to concede the point.

[black elk speaks]

Personally if I was such an insufferable self righteous bore I would be more concerned about the almost inevitable results such as driving my kids to see solace in drugs and sex. still I guess a teenage pregnancy is a small price to pay for the right to be royaly pompous on an internet forum

lol, you are calling me pompous. thats rich.

still avoiding my question i see. fair enough.

If you are refering to gun control checks then the onus is on you to prove me wrong, if it is indeed the case that a major effort is being made to limit gun ownership then I will be delighted to concede the point.

I completely disagree. you made statements that lead me to believe that you have some proof that there are no background checks required to own a fire arm. I suggest that you are in error. you can take the time to prove your point because you obviously have a point of reference. if you don't then you are making a fallacy which negates your argument altogether.

[comic boy]

So you disagree......Wahoo earth shattering.
Strange though that you utterly neglect to take issue with my original point which was that nobody here has talked about bans, I guess your desire for accuracy goes out of the window when its one of your side telling a big fib

[pimpdave]

Everyone in this thread has seen Bowling for Columbine, right?

How many of the gun shows mentioned in that documentary are still going on?

I'm legitimately asking. I have no idea. I've never been to a gun show, nor have any interest.

But I'm pretty sure that's the easiest way to get a gun (legally) without having that waiting period or paperwork taking up precious rage time.

Of course, anyone in a major city could find a fence that could sell them a gun without any paperwork, but also of course those guns are significantly more likely to have bodies on them already, which, unless you're planning on dumping the piece in the East River afterward, probably isn't where the average gun nut wants to make his/her purchase.

[black elk speaks]

So you disagree......Wahoo earth shattering.
Strange though that you utterly neglect to take issue with my original point which was that nobody here has talked about bans, I guess your desire for accuracy goes out of the window when its one of your side telling a big fib

why would i argue a point for bedub1?

Hurrah for all those 'responsible gun owners" keeping deaths/serious injuries down to 100,000 a year

"According to widely varying estimates, there are between 77 million and 90 million gun owners in the United States."

So I think that's .13%? ( 100,000 / 77,000,000 ) * 100 = .12987%

I believe alcohol, tobacco, and driving are more dangerous....

I think I saw that the average gun owner has 4 guns too....so that's about 300 million guns in americans homes? Do you want the deaths/injuries ratio in relation to number of guns too?


Is your only argument for their banning that "A small minority use them irresponsibly"?

Firstly please show me where I requested a ban , they are not even banned in Britain, please at least attempt to make some kind of sense. Im glad you mentioned driving as it proves what a mockery some of your firearm laws are, you cant legaly drive without a test and a licence but you can buy a gun in certain places with no checks, no tests , no training - I know your not the brightest spark but surely even you can see that there is a problem and that is what I would like to see addressed.

that is who you were talking to, wasn't it? but, okay, lets entertain that for a moment. you aren't talking about making guns for recreational and self defense use illegal? taking guns away from the hands of ordinary citizens it what I call banning them. Do enlighten us all just how guns are accessed n Brittan, is it much like the Netherlands where it takes a year to earn a hunting rifle? my my, you are looking more and more foolish by the minute.

[Nickbaldwin]

In the UK handguns are illegal, rifles and shotguns are legal for sporting/hunting use, although I don't know how long it takes to get a license. I do know that you need a clean criminal record.

[black elk speaks]

In the UK handguns are illegal, rifles and shotguns are legal for sporting/hunting use, although I don't know how long it takes to get a license. I do know that you need a clean criminal record.

so judging by this post, illegal means banned. thanks nick.

comic boy, if you can clarify what you wish to accomplish by posting in this thread, please do. don't you mean do suggest that hand guns should be banned here in the states as they are there in Brittan?

[Snorri1234]

is it much like the Netherlands where it takes a year to earn a hunting rifle?

It takes a year to even be eligible for it. Probably takes some more time actually getting the license as they re-check all your shit.

[black elk speaks]

is it much like the Netherlands where it takes a year to earn a hunting rifle?

It takes a year to even be eligible for it. Probably takes some more time actually getting the license as they re-check all your shit.

yeah. i don't think thats so cool.

[Snorri1234]

is it much like the Netherlands where it takes a year to earn a hunting rifle?

It takes a year to even be eligible for it. Probably takes some more time actually getting the license as they re-check all your shit.

yeah. i don't think thats so cool.

Well you're only supposed to use it for hunting or shooting at the range, so I don't see the big deal. (You can shoot at the range with loan-guns before that though, I'd guess.)

[black elk speaks]

is it much like the Netherlands where it takes a year to earn a hunting rifle?

It takes a year to even be eligible for it. Probably takes some more time actually getting the license as they re-check all your shit.

yeah. i don't think thats so cool.

Well you're only supposed to use it for hunting or shooting at the range, so I don't see the big deal. (You can shoot at the range with loan-guns before that though, I'd guess.)

i don't think thats so cool either. i want to be able to own a gun if i want.

[deepsouth]

i want to be able to carry a knife around in my pocket as well, but there's a reason that that's illegal

[Frigidus]

i want to be able to carry a knife around in my pocket as well, but there's a reason that that's illegal

But what if seven burly postal employees jumped you in the street, wouldn't you want a knife so that you might lay down some stab? Or if you were hit twice across the face with a bowling ball by a lunatic on a train, wouldn't you want to pull out a knife and shank the bitch?

[comic boy]

In the UK handguns are illegal, rifles and shotguns are legal for sporting/hunting use, although I don't know how long it takes to get a license. I do know that you need a clean criminal record.

so judging by this post, illegal means banned. thanks nick.

comic boy, if you can clarify what you wish to accomplish by posting in this thread, please do. don't you mean do suggest that hand guns should be banned here in the states as they are there in Brittan?

Hand guns are restricted in Britain not banned, you can own one for a legitimate purpose only such as being a member of a shooting club, its quite a popular sport and we often win medals at the Olympics. Can an individual carry a handgun for protective purposes only, not unless you are a trained member of the security services, this would include some but not all policeman. Do I think there should be greater restrictions in the USA, why not as it would cause less deaths. Clearly though change could not happen overnight as there needs to be a culture change for it to work as it does in Britain, here we see them as an occassional neccessary evil wheras in the US many view them as sexy.
As for what I mean to achieve the answer is I am simply responding to the notion that more guns make for a safer environment, the fact that statistics show that since we started arguing 100 Americans have likely died or been seriously injured by firearms is surely a sobering thought .

[Snorri1234]

i want to be able to carry a knife around in my pocket as well, but there's a reason that that's illegal

But what if seven burly postal employees jumped you in the street, wouldn't you want a knife so that you might lay down some stab? Or if you were hit twice across the face with a bowling ball by a lunatic on a train, wouldn't you want to pull out a knife and shank the bitch?

You've convinced me.

[black elk speaks]

In the UK handguns are illegal, rifles and shotguns are legal for sporting/hunting use, although I don't know how long it takes to get a license. I do know that you need a clean criminal record.

so judging by this post, illegal means banned. thanks nick.

comic boy, if you can clarify what you wish to accomplish by posting in this thread, please do. don't you mean do suggest that hand guns should be banned here in the states as they are there in Brittan?

Hand guns are restricted in Britain not banned, you can own one for a legitimate purpose only such as being a member of a shooting club, its quite a popular sport and we often win medals at the Olympics. Can an individual carry a handgun for protective purposes only, not unless you are a trained member of the security services, this would include some but not all policeman. Do I think there should be greater restrictions in the USA, why not as it would cause less deaths. Clearly though change could not happen overnight as there needs to be a culture change for it to work as it does in Britain, here we see them as an occassional neccessary evil wheras in the US many view them as sexy.
As for what I mean to achieve the answer is I am simply responding to the notion that more guns make for a safer environment, the fact that statistics show that since we started arguing 100 Americans have likely died or been seriously injured by firearms is surely a sobering thought .

the same arguments can be made against the usage of automobiles, drinking alcohol and sky diving. if it is done irresponsibly, it is dangerous and possibly lethal. the actions of the foolish should not infringe on the rights of the responsible.

another factor that grants americans the right to bear arms that most people don't seem to consider is that we also consider it our responsibility to overthrow our own government if it should be considered corrupt. i don't guess that your constitution or equivelant document addressed that issue. personally, I think that such action is long overdue in this country but it would surely be destined to fail since the population at large is lethargic and largely ignorant.

[homeland rules]

people think george bush is corrupt, yet no one rose up and overthrew him. i think american's just like feeling big by having something that goes 'bang' and breaks things with minimum effort.

[homeland rules]

the arguement i keep seeing is 'lots of stuff is dangerous, therefor what makes guns different'

the difference is the only purpose of a gun is to put holes in another person. if something is created purely to harm others, e.g. a gun or a bomb, then why should you be allowed to use it?

[comic boy]

Yeh 3 cheers for Militias and overthrowing the government, you know what, you guys get what you deserve

[Snorri1234]

the same arguments can be made against the usage of automobiles, drinking alcohol and sky diving. if it is done irresponsibly, it is dangerous and possibly lethal. the actions of the foolish should not infringe on the rights of the responsible.

It depends on the amount of usefullness and training though. With automobiles you could argue they are very usefull and that you have to have a lot of training to get a license. Personally, I believe the way americans hand out driving licences is also a bit retarded. It's much harder to get one here. But that's a minor gripe anyway so whatever.

I have no real problem with a more strict regulation on firearms that says you have to take mandatory training both phsycological and physical to own one, basically a little like the one a cop receives but ofcourse less long and hard. (In the USA that is.) I know guns are an integral part of american culture, but you can't claim it wouldn't be a good thing if people learned how to handle and have one better. It would be a bit like Switzerland. You could even have mandatory military education, but I don't think that would really work as Switzerland isn't likely to start wars whereas the US is.

Honestly, the reason for these debates is the different viewpoints both sides have that tackle the issue from a wholy different angle. We are saying that societies without guns prove to be less violent and full of gundeaths, and your side says that it's a personal responsibility and that crime-rates aren't the issue. We're basically arguing two different things. You cannot deny that societies which don't have guns usually prove to be less violent, and we can't actually deny a lot of gun-owners are very responsible. You think that that fact proves you're right, while we think our facts prove us right, but they're totally different.

It's a cultural difference, and it cannot be solved by reasonable debate between different cultures. It's the culture itself that needs internal debate, which is happening in the US but often leads to too much gut-reaction responses saying the other side is "trying to take away our guns" or "they are just a bunch of psycho rednecks" shit.

another factor that grants americans the right to bear arms that most people don't seem to consider is that we also consider it our responsibility to overthrow our own government if it should be considered corrupt. i don't guess that your constitution or equivelant document addressed that issue. personally, I think that such action is long overdue in this country but it would surely be destined to fail since the population at large is lethargic and largely ignorant.

Which is why the european nations haven't bothered to put it in their constitutions as they know things like that don't happen unless it gets severly out of hand and at that point having guns or not won't matter.

The idea that having guns makes you more able to overthrow your government is silly. Revolutions are largely a matter of social change that is inevitable. The point at which it will work is when the military is reluctant to shoot at it's own people, which basically makes the usefullness of owning a gun nill. You can't fight the entire military with a couple of shotguns and handguns, but when they're behind you their guns will make the difference so you won't need your own.


In fact, I'd say an armed mob of revolutionaries is far more likely to draw fire from the military than a group of unarmed people.