Armed March Success (Breathe the Free Air!)

[Richard G]

Our State legislature (Ohio) will not give us a good CCW bill. So we took to the streets, openly ARMED, in downtown Norwood, and marched in protest. It is legal in Ohio to carry openly, and if that is what they want, that is what they shall get.

News link: (more to follow)

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2003/local/09/28/gunwalk.html

http://www.onnnews.com/story.php?record=26938


We walked over 2 miles in single file, and their were at least 100 participants. I strapped on my Beretta 92 and 2 extra magazines. The 4 protesters against us were pimply faced hippy kids with squirt guns that were calling us murderers. I'm not sure what they were smoking.

It went very well, and the police were friendly.

I will carry openly from now on. Screw the legistlature.

The People have the right to bear arms for their defense and security. Ohio Constitution, Article 1, Section 4

[a_unique_person]

Only two extra magazines? Are you sure you weren't taking a big risk?

[Mr Manifesto]

100 participants. Wow. That's some march. At the worst-attended Gulf War II march I was at, there was a paltry 5000. Maybe we need to get lessons from you on how to rally the troops.

[The Fool]

You tell em Richard! but only one wussy little handgun? C'mon man....get a machinegun strapped to ya!!!!! Citizens should be allowed hand grenades as well, you could clip a couple on too.

[Tony]

Good job!!

According to Mr. Manifesto in this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27148&highlight=unjust+laws), you have every right to dis-obey unjust laws. Carry your weapons, screw the law.

[DavidJames]

Maybe this boy's parents were in the parade, they didn't seem to be home yesterday.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/09/28/children.shot.ap/index.html

[Richard G]

From you news article:

The children were home alone at the time, police spokeswoman Cpl. Diane Richardson said.

THAT is why that tragedy happened. And both parents should be charged.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Richard G
From you news article:



THAT is why that tragedy happened. And both parents should be charged.

But if a weapon is to be any use for preventing the rape of your wife and family, you need it to be available for immediate use. Locking it up means you can't get to it. Trigger guards are derided.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


But if a weapon is to be any use for preventing the rape of your wife and family, you need it to be available for immediate use. Locking it up means you can't get to it. Trigger guards are derided.
Damn stupid gun, didn't it realise it wasn't pointed at a rapist? Next time these people should be more careful and buy a well behaved gun.

[corplinx]

Weak sarcasm, the only tool of the anti-gunner. Keep it up.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
Weak sarcasm, the only tool of the anti-gunner. Keep it up.

OK, two clips was plenty. He probably didn't even use all of the first.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by corplinx
Weak sarcasm, the only tool of the anti-gunner. Keep it up.
weak? I'd better try harder.

So I'm anti-gun am I? Is it because I believe there should be controls on gun ownership? Controls that would hopefully reduce the numbers of guns lying unattended around the house for the kids to play with?

Does this mean that all people who believe in any form of control are "anti-gun" or is it because the level of control I am comfortable with is more than the level of control you are comfortable with?

If the definition of "anti-gun" is "someone who believes in more controls than I do" then yes, I may be "anti-gun" but.....someone who believes in even less controls than you could justifiably call you "anti-gun" too.

[evildave]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Maybe this boy's parents were in the parade, they didn't seem to be home yesterday.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/09/28/children.shot.ap/index.html

It's national news because it's so rare, and especially because it's a two-fer.

There'd never be time to report anything if they put up national stories about kids killed and injured in cars due to the negligence of their parents.

According to Wisqars (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html), there were all of 18 children between 5 and 9 were unintentionally killed in 2000. 780 were killed in traffic. 34 5-9 year olds were injured by firearms. 265,952 were injured in traffic.

19 killed between 0 and 4 years old. 819 in traffic. 55 0-4 year olds injured by guns, 131,253 injured from traffic.

49 10-14 year olds killed by guns, 992 in traffic. 735 10-14 year olds were injured by guns. 364,404 were injured in traffic.

All in all, traffic seems to be orders of magnitude worse than firearms.

Those darned cars kill a lot of people. Better ban 'em.

Oh WAIT! ... But YOU own a car, and don't want that banned, but it's OK to want to ban firearms that other people own, that kill a tiny fraction of the people that your murderous cars do?

It's amazing how often it's the case that OTHER PEOPLE'S things need to be banned. OTHER PEOPLE'S behaviors need to be banned. OTHER PEOPLE'S booze, books, lifestyles, ... freedoms.

It's eventually something of yours you'll give up. The police will come by and collect it for you. Just leave the garage open, and your keys in the ignition.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Richard G
We walked over 2 miles in single file, and their were at least 100 participants. The People have the right to bear arms for their defense and security. Ohio Constitution, Article 1, Section 4

Richard....personally, I would say that if this is an issue as dear to the heart of the average Ohio citizen as you think then you may have got a few more than 100 people? Doesn't seem like much of a mass movement to me....
As or you Ohio constitution......
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up;
Ohio Constitution Artice 1 section 4

Now this little bit you quoted wouldn't be talking about state militias would it? Is it talking about private citizens owning handguns? Damn, better get a lawyer in.....

Now that we know more of the quote will you also be marching for the disbandment of the army in times of peace?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by evildave


It's national news because it's so rare, and especially because it's a two-fer.

There'd never be time to report anything if they put up national stories about kids killed and injured in cars due to the negligence of their parents.

According to Wisqars (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html), there were all of 18 children between 5 and 9 were unintentionally killed in 2000. 780 were killed in traffic. 34 5-9 year olds were injured by firearms. 265,952 were injured in traffic.

19 killed between 0 and 4 years old. 819 in traffic. 55 0-4 year olds injured by guns, 131,253 injured from traffic.

49 10-14 year olds killed by guns, 992 in traffic. 735 10-14 year olds were injured by guns. 364,404 were injured in traffic.

All in all, traffic seems to be orders of magnitude worse than firearms.

Those darned cars kill a lot of people. Better ban 'em.

Oh WAIT! ... But YOU own a car, and don't want that banned, but it's OK to want to ban firearms that other people own, that kill a tiny fraction of the people that your murderous cars do?

It's amazing how often it's the case that OTHER PEOPLE'S things need to be banned. OTHER PEOPLE'S behaviors need to be banned. OTHER PEOPLE'S booze, books, lifestyles, ... freedoms.

It's eventually something of yours you'll give up. The police will come by and collect it for you. Just leave the garage open, and your keys in the ignition.
calmed down now Dave?
good.
Who has suggested guns be banned? Me? then show me where I have said it or quit with the standard misrepresentations.

What was the point of the statistical rant about auto accidents?....old age kills a lot of people too, so we shouldn't do anything about anything that kills less?

Once again I put it to you (evildave) that you are a gun control advocate just as I am. Neither of us want to see drunks buying handguns at quickiemarts at 3am no questions asked....or am I wrong?....... Its just a matter of how much control isn't it.....why oh why, If I talk about gun owership restrictions and speak out against masses of uncontrolled guns lying around houses do we see the standard "you want to ban guns" strawman? OK then.....I would like you to defend the "free handguns for pre school kids" position as you obviously must support this .....or is that a strawman too?

[Jon_in_london]

why just a baby-dick pistol? Why not take a pipe-bomb?

[Ian Osborne]

Ever noticed how the people who claim armed citizens are a force for law and order are the first to say 'screw the legistlature' when it passes a law that doesn't suit them? Just a thought...

[Zep]

Actually, these 100 marchers should have marched straight up to the Army recruiting office and signing on straight away. Not only would they get to play with REALLY BIG AWESOME guns, they would be paid, clothed, fed, trained and kept by the state. Then they could be sent to all the places the US Army needs to go, and actually USE those REALLY BIG AWESOME guns for real against live targets. You can't get much more "frontline" than that!

Not only legit, it would be doing something WORTHWHILE for your country!

Yes???

[Jon_in_london]

why not take petrol bombs as well!!

Why not take an RPG?

Why not drive in a tank instead of walking?

Take a thermonuclear device also!!!

[a_unique_person]

Seriously, though. Why would you want two extra clips? This indicates he was seriously thinking he would have to use his gun.

[Zep]

Did the clips actually have any AMMO in them? If not, it was all for effect! If so, where's the war??

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Seriously, though. Why would you want two extra clips? This indicates he was seriously thinking he would have to use his gun.

Don't you have a pair of nuts for your penis?

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Don't you have a pair of nuts for your penis?

They're not extra. And I hope no one here has to buy new ones after each use. :)



Edited to add:

And please don't insist on the analogy. This might give lawmakers ideas. :eek:

[Richard G]

More news articles:

http://www.cincypost.com/2003/09/29/guns092903.html

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/09/29/loc_wwwloc1guns.html

And yes, every firarm there was loaded. What good is an empty gun going to do you?? DUH!

[Suddenly]

From one of the above articles:

But Hal McKinney, who shot a man in a Northside bar during a robbery last May, thought it was the perfect place to push for something that he says saved his life.

McKinney, a former citizen's patrol member, was carrying a concealed gun when the robbery occurred.

"It saved my life and everyone's in that bar," said McKinney, who participated in Sunday's march.


Saved everyone's life? Does he really believe that someone that robs a bar intends to kill everyone inside?

Also:

Those were some of rules that Vernon Ferrier gave to about 80 people before they walked through Northside Sunday to push for a law allowing citizens to carry concealed guns.

At least 100 eh?

Wait, getting worse:


In a scene reminiscent of the Wild West, about 75 people paraded through Northside with handguns strapped to their sides Sunday.

This was good:

There was heckling, however, from a half-dozen counter-protesters, some of whom carried plastic "Super Soaker" water guns and walked alongside demonstrators packing real guns in their holsters.

Then there was the Ohio Supreme Court Decision that started the whole thing:

On Wednesday, in a 5-2 vote, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the legality of an 1859 Ohio law that said while there is a right to bear arms, "there is not a constitutional right to bear concealed weapons."



Sounds reasonable. All rights are subject to reasonable regulation, and Ohio has decided that banning concealed weapons is a reasonable regulation of the right to bear arms. How is this an "illegal" law?

I will carry openly from now on. Screw the legistlature.


That is legal as far as I can tell. How is this "screwing" the legislature?

[Crossbow]

Richard G:

Why do you consider the armed march to be a success?

Since the Concealed Weapons statute was not passed, I fail to see the success of the march you are so proud of.

Please clarify your statement and thanks in advance!

[P.S.A.]

Two quick points;

1.) Cars, unlike guns, ARE heavily regulated. You need to pass a test of your responsible usage (IE, a driving test) before you can legally use one. And of course, then there's the DMV...

And

2.) Why is the right to concealed arms so important? Isn't one of the chief tenets of the NRA et all that an armed society is a polite society? But if you can't see the arms, how do you know it's an armed society? What deterrant value does a gun have if you don't know it's there? What legitimate use does a hidden gun have that an openly displayed gun does not?

[Richard G]

The march was a success, because I'm concerned with carrying for my defense and security. Not weather I carry openly or concealed. The only reason the OSC gave for maintaing a ban on concealed carry, was the fact that the fundamental right to carry openly is protected. So in the same breath of banning the one, they reaffirmed the other.

I could care less if I'm carrying concealed, or openly, so long as I may carry. Its going to be very interesting to see some po-dunk prosecutor argue against me if they decide to discriminate against my rights. I have a Supreme Court Rulling in my favor!

The ban on CCW is legal, in fact, I correctly guessed the outcome of the case 6 months ago. Its just more practical for everyone to carry concealed. What the legistlature doesn't understand in wrangling over this issue is it isn't about guns, or no guns. Its about carrying openly legaly and frightning all the ignorant gun-phobs, or concealing them. Its entirely up to them.

So screw em, I don't need their permision to carry, I have a Constitution that trumps them, and the Supreme Court.

I love America.

[c0rbin]

Its just more practical for everyone to carry concealed.

:confused:

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by The Fool
So I'm anti-gun am I? Is it because I believe there should be controls on gun ownership? Controls that would hopefully reduce the numbers of guns lying unattended around the house for the kids to play with?Specifically what kinds of controls do you advocate?


Does this mean that all people who believe in any form of control are "anti-gun" or is it because the level of control I am comfortable with is more than the level of control you are comfortable with?
What is your comfort level? In another forum, you urged me to get rid of my gun, even though my wife and I are both models of good citizenship, have no children in the house, have no history of mental instability, pay our taxes, mow our lawn, adopted two homeless kittens, give money to charities that help the mentally retarded and get along well with our neighbors. But you're uncomfortable even with us having a gun in the house. So, again, what is your gun control comfort level? And what kind of controls do you advocate?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Tony
Good job!!

According to Mr. Manifesto in this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27148&highlight=unjust+laws), you have every right to dis-obey unjust laws. Carry your weapons, screw the law. If I read this correctly, he's not disobeying any laws by carrying his gun openly. I guess he's trying to point up the irrationality of a law-abiding citizen's being allowed to carry a gun around in public, as long as it's there for the rest of the world to see, but not to keep it tucked away.

[Crossbow]

Richard G:

Thanks for clarifying your position on the matter!

[plindboe]

I will never be able to understand why people are so gun horny over there. Can it be some subconscious urge to increase one's power immensely? I wonder if the people who have this strange obsession with guns also have small penises. Just wondering.

Seriously though, if people are allowed to carry guns according to the constitution, I also think that they should be allowed to carry them concealed. The demonstration was good, in that it shows how silly it all is, that people have to walk around like cowboys, with their firearms clearly visible.

I can imagine it might have been a demand from the police in the first place, that got the law passed, in order to get some guns off the streets. It is too awkward carrying a gun when it must be visible, which in turn results in that many decide not to bring it along at all. Seems to me like the judicial system aren't really comfortable with that part of the constitution, and therefore create laws that doesn't directly violate the constitution, but makes it difficult for people to exercise the right that the constitution grants them.

Either Ohio must consider rewriting parts of their outdated constitution, or instead let people fully have the rights that the constitution grants them.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


But if a weapon is to be any use for preventing the rape of your wife and family, you need it to be available for immediate use. Locking it up means you can't get to it. Trigger guards are derided.

I consider myself progun but I think the anit-triggerlock crowd really do gun rights a diservice.

How long does it take to remove a gun lock? A few seconds??? You dont need a fully loaded gun lying around in case a rapist suddenly bursts through the door laeving you no time to unlock your gun. What are the odds of that happening?? Now compare that with the odds of a loaded gun being found by a child or stolen while noones home. Trigger locks make sense to me.

[c0rbin]

plindboe,

I had a hard time figuring out the logic of insuring that the population is armed to the teeth.

Just so you know where I am coming from, I am for an amount of gun control that demands responsibility from gun owners and manufacturers.

Anyway, I felt like you did until I read an account of the Khmere Rouge revolution that took place in Cambodia in the seventies....whole cities hurded out of their homes and into the jungle then systematically worked to death or murdered.

I tried to imagine that sort of thing happening here in the states and had to laugh at the idea simply because of the all the damn guns we all have. It sounds comical and I can see how you might shake your head. But that is one sane reason why the US is "gun horny."

[plindboe]

c0rbin,

good point. There are few guns on the streets here in Denmark, but I too laugh at the idea of something like that happening here. Neither Denmark or the US are third world countries. We are free and quite well working democracies, and I doubt very much that any of us will experience any violent revolutions, in a near future. I honestly can't see how that could happen.

[Tmy]

I dont like the idea of people brandishing weapons. Its a quite statement that causes those around you to be fearful and or resentful. Its sort of asking for trouble. And people might be trigger happy if theres a dispute. We really dont need wild west shootouts.

I prefer concealed weapons. When you dont know whos packing then youll be polite to everyone.

Chris Rock has a bit "Dont go to partys with metal detectors. Sure its safe inside, but theres a bunch of ****** outside with guns waiting for you. And they know you aint got one."

[Tmy]

Originally posted by plindboe
c0rbin,

good point. There are few guns on the streets here in Denmark, but I too laugh at the idea of something like that happening here. Neither Denmark or the US are third world countries. We are free and quite well working democracies, and I doubt very much that any of us will experience any violent revolutions, in a near future. I honestly can't see how that could happen.

Ever been thru a hurricane?? Right after the storm theres a sense of anarchy. Everthings a mess electricy and communications are gone. At that point you feel so vunerable because if something goes down (looting or violence) you are on your own. At that time you really want a gun, at least for the sense of security.

[c0rbin]

Was Denmark a third-world country in 1940?

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Tmy
Ever been thru a hurricane?? Right after the storm theres a sense of anarchy. Everthings a mess electricy and communications are gone. At that point you feel so vunerable because if something goes down (looting or violence) you are on your own. At that time you really want a gun, at least for the sense of security.
Is fear always the dominating factor when people wants to arm themselves with a gun? There are many people in your country that doesn't have guns at all, and they seem to survive just fine. Is it based on hard facts that guns really make people more safe, since it seems that it often happens that it's the family members themselves who ends up getting hurt or killed by the very thing that is supposed to protect them.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Was Denmark a third-world country in 1940?
Hmm. We didn't have a violent revolution in 1940, so somewhat different, but I see your point. Imagine what would happen if there were as many danes armed when we got invaded, as there are US citizens armed today. The vast majority of people would realize that their pathetic(compared to the German army) resistance, with a gun, would be utterly futile and meaningless. The few suicidal beings who would start shooting at the German army would of course be instantly slaughtered and such events could quite possibly lead to even greater massacres of innocents. In such cases, guns does much more harm that it brings security. Guns are a little match against an actual army.

[c0rbin]

No one told Belgium.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by c0rbin
plindboe,

Anyway, I felt like you did until I read an account of the Khmere Rouge revolution that took place in Cambodia in the seventies....whole cities hurded out of their homes and into the jungle then systematically worked to death or murdered.

I tried to imagine that sort of thing happening here in the states and had to laugh at the idea simply because of the all the damn guns we all have. It sounds comical and I can see how you might shake your head. But that is one sane reason why the US is "gun horny."

I have always thought that this argument is too romantic. It is absurd to think that a disorganised bunch of citizens with small arms can do much to stop or hinder a sufficiently ruthless modern army unless they receive outside assistance. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are awash with arms including numerous assault rifles, RPG's and the like. Did this stop the invasions? All the armed citizens might achieve is to make the invaders more ruthless. All the pop guns in the world won't stop you starving to death if the occupier cuts off food and power supplies in order to crush resistance.

Now of course if the invader is reasonably well behaved, for reasons of politics, morality or whatever you can get away with making a nuisance of yourselves. But if they get seriously p#ssed off - you're history.

Your example of the Khymer Rouge is particularly poorly chosen. A bunch like that would have promptly exterminated resisting citizens en masse.

There are of course arguments in favour of gun ownership but the one you have put forward isn't one of them.

[Richard G]

Is fear always the dominating factor when people wants to arm themselves with a gun?

Pretty much. Fear of violent attack, death, being a victim, and outlaw goverments. Peacfully owning a firearm pretty much alleviates that fear.

If it was a perfect world, there would be no need for firearms. But human nature being what it is, there will always be the human garbage of society who will violently prey on others.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by c0rbin
No one told Belgium.

Er, no one told Belgium what?

[Richard G]

Do you believe the citizen soldiers of the U.S.A. are going to march into their home states, and slaughter their fellow countryman, neighbors, and families because some plolitician or General orders them to?? It will never happen. The politician / General that orders that is the one who will be strung up by his nads and shot.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Richard G
Do you believe the citizen soldiers of the U.S.A. are going to march into their home states, and slaughter their fellow countryman, neighbors, and families because some plolitician or General orders them to?? It will never happen. The politician / General that orders that is the one who will be strung up by his nads and shot.

In your civil war that is precisely what happened.

[Richard G]

And the outlaw goverment was put down, the constitution still stands, and the people are free.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Richard G
Pretty much. Fear of violent attack, death, being a victim, and outlaw goverments. Peacfully owning a firearm pretty much alleviates that fear.

If it was a perfect world, there would be no need for firearms. But human nature being what it is, there will always be the human garbage of society who will violently prey on others.
But why is there so much fear in the US? Is it simply because there is more violence, or is it something more complicated? Denmark is far from perfect too, but people here doesn't feel any need for guns at all. Well, except for a few loonies I'm sure. Is the fear realistic, when comparing to the chance of something violent actually happening?

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Richard G
And the outlaw goverment was put down, the constitution still stands, and the people are free.

I think there are people on this board who would argue that the South had a constitutional right to secede which was suppressed by the North. Not that it matters now. Personally I think the better side won.

However the South had an army, an armed citizenry, a constitutional right to bear arms and was STILL suppressed and "reconstructed" by the North. This only supports my point that whatever the merits/demerits of citizen gun ownership they won't save you from armed invasion or occupation.

As Napoleon said "God is on the side of the big battalions".

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Richard G
More news articles:

http://www.cincypost.com/2003/09/29/guns092903.html

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/09/29/loc_wwwloc1guns.html

And yes, every firarm there was loaded. What good is an empty gun going to do you?? DUH!

But why the extra clips? Expecting trouble?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Specifically what kinds of controls do you advocate?

What is your comfort level? In another forum, you urged me to get rid of my gun, even though my wife and I are both models of good citizenship, have no children in the house, have no history of mental instability, pay our taxes, mow our lawn, adopted two homeless kittens, give money to charities that help the mentally retarded and get along well with our neighbors. But you're uncomfortable even with [b]us having a gun in the house. So, again, what is your gun control comfort level? And what kind of controls do you advocate?

I tend to advocate a system like Australia's current system. It works for us.

It revolves around a licensing system that allows gun ownership for specific purposes....If you are a member of a sporting club, target club or other recognised organisation you may own gun(s) appropriate to that activity...If you are an ative member of a skeet/trap shooting club you may own shotguns....but not handguns. If you are a member of a pistol target shooting club you may own suitable target pistol(s).
There are also requirements for secure storage (safes etc) which are inspected when your licence is issued and re-inspected when your license is renewed.

If you want to own guns simply for personal protection or because you like the Idea of owning a gun then bad luck. The Australian people overwelmingly deny you that option in this country. We don't see it as an unreasonable impost on freedom.... Gun ownership is quite rare in Australia, If you are truly involved in gun sports you may own guns....No problems at all. If you stop participating in the gun sport then your license to own those guns will be revoked, you will be forced to sell your guns to a gun dealer....or start shooting at the club events again....your choice.

Numerous amnesties and gun hand-in programs have been run and a significant amount of guns have been removed from society. Forgotten shotguns in garden sheds are a thing of the past.

Whats the result of all this? Well, I feel secure in my neighbourhood because nobody has guns, I don't see shootouts in the newspapers, I don't read stories of Children shooting their siblings. I drink at a pub that has been a rough place for 50 years and has never had a shooting... never, thats what makes me feel safe I don't need a handgun down my pants.

[evildave]

Originally posted by The Fool

calmed down now Dave?
good.
Who has suggested guns be banned? Me? then show me where I have said it or quit with the standard misrepresentations.

What was the point of the statistical rant about auto accidents?....old age kills a lot of people too, so we shouldn't do anything about anything that kills less?

Once again I put it to you (evildave) that you are a gun control advocate just as I am. Neither of us want to see drunks buying handguns at quickiemarts at 3am no questions asked....or am I wrong?....... Its just a matter of how much control isn't it.....why oh why, If I talk about gun owership restrictions and speak out against masses of uncontrolled guns lying around houses do we see the standard "you want to ban guns" strawman? OK then.....I would like you to defend the "free handguns for pre school kids" position as you obviously must support this .....or is that a strawman too?

As an answer to The Fool

Originally posted by plindboe
I will never be able to understand why people are so gun horny over there. Can it be some subconscious urge to increase one's power immensely? I wonder if the people who have this strange obsession with guns also have small penises. Just wondering.

Seriously though, if people are allowed to carry guns according to the constitution, I also think that they should be allowed to carry them concealed. The demonstration was good, in that it shows how silly it all is, that people have to walk around like cowboys, with their firearms clearly visible.

I can imagine it might have been a demand from the police in the first place, that got the law passed, in order to get some guns off the streets. It is too awkward carrying a gun when it must be visible, which in turn results in that many decide not to bring it along at all. Seems to me like the judicial system aren't really comfortable with that part of the constitution, and therefore create laws that doesn't directly violate the constitution, but makes it difficult for people to exercise the right that the constitution grants them.

Either Ohio must consider rewriting parts of their outdated constitution, or instead let people fully have the rights that the constitution grants them.

Shall we compare size of cars versus minimum necessary horsepower, weight and handling to manage a commute from home?

People with big cars "obviously" are compensating for something.

Sure, why not?

To disparage possession is as much as to claim people shouldn't possess.

A bit like a teatotaller complaining that people shouldn't drink. Ever.

After all, booze kills people. Lots of people.

But maybe not in Australia.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by evildave


As an answer to The Fool



Shall we compare size of cars versus minimum necessary horsepower, weight and handling to manage a commute from home?

People with big cars "obviously" are compensating for something.

Sure, why not?

To disparage possession is as much as to claim people shouldn't possess.

A bit like a teatotaller complaining that people shouldn't drink. Ever.

After all, booze kills people. Lots of people.

But maybe not in Australia.

No, more like saying people shouldn't get drunk and fall over.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by evildave


As an answer to The Fool



Shall we compare size of cars versus minimum necessary horsepower, weight and handling to manage a commute from home?

People with big cars "obviously" are compensating for something.

Sure, why not?

To disparage possession is as much as to claim people shouldn't possess.

A bit like a teatotaller complaining that people shouldn't drink. Ever.

After all, booze kills people. Lots of people.

But maybe not in Australia.

Well, at least you seem to have stopped trying to tell me I want all guns banned, but you seem to have wandered off and are now telling me that I am a teetolaller or somethng.... and also all this wierd stuff about cars....

Are there any people out there you think shouldn't have guns? any at all? Once again I have to say that we are probably both advocates of some form of gun control...I'll ask you that one again, do you agree? If you do agree why must you continually attempt to move my position to one extreme?

Lets get real here....you have a nice constitution ,but, there is no absolute freedom to own guns in the USA despite your constitution and what it arguably means. Everywhere there is restrictions of some sort. I'm arguing that, on average, your restrictions on gun ownership are inadequate. Discussion of this is rendered very difficult when you and others constantly wish to misrepresent my position by pushing it to the extreme "ban everything" level.

[evildave]

Get drunk and fall over?

How so?

The way it comes across, the teatotaller s are haranguing people anywhere near the door of the bar, claiming all in the vicinity (naturally excluding themselves) are doomed to hellfire and damnation.

Owning a bottle of rum is not the same as getting slobbering drunk and driving through a school yard drunk at 10:00am on a tuesday.

Owning a firearm is not the same as killing people. At least not any more than owning a car is.

The odds are much greater that I'll kill someone with my car accidentally than that I'll ever hurt anyone with a gun.

In California it already is mandated that you get training before being eligible to purchase a firearm. The Brady Bill has been law in the U.S. for over a decade. Ironically, the guy who shot Brady (and Reagan) owned the gun much longer than the minimum 3 week cooling off period, the the Brady Bill wouldn't have helper Brady one bit.

It's also legal in the U.S. to own pepper spray and/or a taser without a background check or training. Of course, pepper spray used indoors will contaminate the house, literally requiring a hazardous chemical clean-up. The myotron will only work on someone within arm's reach.

[evildave]

Originally posted by The Fool


Well, at least you seem to have stopped trying to tell me I want all guns banned, but you seem to have wandered off and are now telling me that I am a teetolaller or somethng.... and also all this wierd stuff about cars....

Are there any people out there you think shouldn't have guns? any at all? Once again I have to say that we are probably both advocates of some form of gun control...I'll ask you that one again, do you agree? If you do agree why must you continually attempt to move my position to one extreme?

Lets get real here....you have a nice constitution ,but, there is no absolute freedom to own guns in the USA despite your constitution and what it arguably means. Everywhere there is restrictions of some sort. I'm arguing that, on average, your restrictions on gun ownership are inadequate. Discussion of this is rendered very difficult when you and others constantly wish to misrepresent my position by pushing it to the extreme "ban everything" level.

We similarly don't have separation of church and state, freedom to speak out against the government's activities, and freedom from unreasonable search and seisures.

There is ever lesser "freedom" every year. What with things like the USA Patriot act and open-ended "War On Terrorism" and "War On Drugs". The U.S. government is treating the constitution more or less like some "nice suggestions" that aren't applicable to what the U.S. government does.

But never fear. We have nukes and fundies in power who want Jesus back.

I think I'll keep the firearms, thank you for your concern.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by P.S.A.

What deterrant value does a gun have if you don't know it's there? What legitimate use does a hidden gun have that an openly displayed gun does not?



A vastly over-simplified scenario, if you please, sort of in the form of a puzzle:

You are a bad guy. It is your intent to commit some harm to at least one person in one of three rooms, each with ten law-abiding citizens inside. You know that each person will act in defense of himself/herself but not in defense of another.

Room 1: All, some, or none of the ten people have guns. But if someone does have a gun, he/she wears it visibly in a holster on the hip. You enter and see nine people with guns; which (of the ten) do you choose to harm?


Room 2: All, some, or none of the ten people have guns. But if someone does have a gun, he/she has the choice to wear it openly or concealed. You enter and see two people with guns openly displayed; which (of the ten) do you choose to harm?


Room 3: All, some, or none of the ten people have guns. But if someone does have a gun, he/she is wearing it concealed so that you do not know if someone has a gun or not. You enter and see ten people, none of whom appear to have guns. Which do you choose to harm?


Now reverse the role-play and assume you are one of the ten people in a room. Also assume that you personally will NOT have a weapon. You know that a bad guy will come in to do harm to one person in your room. Which room would you choose to be in?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by evildave




I think I'll keep the firearms, thank you for your concern.
sigh...oh well. I'm certainy not going to start up a "questions for Evildave" thread. Neither am I interested in asking you a third time. You are certainly not interested in talking about the levels of gun control you are comfortable with and I can accept that....But I'll resist the temptation to attribute a position to you in the absence of any statement from you.


dammit...I've weakened...I'm going to ask one more time just for the hell of it. Your constitution is believed (by many) to say that personal possesion of firearms should not be restricted in any way. Is this your position? Do you believe that firearm ownership should be restricted in any way shape or form?

[Richard G]

Here is what a doctor says about people with a fear of guns.
http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

Do you believe that firearm ownership should be restricted in any way shape or form?

For the law abiding, no. There are many laws however, both Federal, and State, that impose restrictions on ownership for a large number of reasons, to a large number of people (felons, mentaly ill, etc.). Still, there are felons and criminals who will not obey the law (thats why they are felons), and the law abiding must be allowed to protect themselves from this element of society.

Also, as a law abiding gun owner, I am not allowed to have a loaded firearm while in my vehicle. That is a state law. I am required to unload my firearm, then lock it into the trunk everytime I get in, or out of my car. This leaves me vulnerable to being carjacked with no defense, and then some crook drives off with my car with a damned fine handgun in the trunk. This law I am fighting to be repealed.

[Kodiak]

You want to talk about fear??



"DNA Tests For Every Briton" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3088920.stm)

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Richard G
Here is what a doctor says about people with a fear of guns.
http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
That has got to be the silliest, most biased, resentful and absurd article I have ever read. :roll:

[Richard G]

The Brits can be compelled to do anything their goverment wants them to do. They let the goverment pull their teeth a long time ago. And I'm sad that it happened.

[Tony]

Originally posted by plindboe

That has got to be the silliest, most biased, resentful and absurd article I have ever read. :roll:

Really? I thought it was spot on considering that you said:

good point. There are few guns on the streets here in Denmark, but I too laugh at the idea of something like that happening here. Neither Denmark or the US are third world countries. We are free and quite well working democracies, and I doubt very much that any of us will experience any violent revolutions, in a near future. I honestly can't see how that could happen.

From the article:

Another defense mechanism commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is denial. Denial is simply refusing to accept the reality of a given situation.9 For example, consider a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. She may get extremely angry at a well-meaning friend who suggests that her husband is having an affair. The reality is obvious, but the wronged wife is so threatened by her husband's infidelity that she is unable to accept it, and so denies its existence.

Anti-gun people do the same thing. It's obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, victimized. It's equally obvious that law enforcement can't protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you10 and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family.11 There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide.12 Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that "the police will protect you", "this is a safe neighborhood" and "it can't happen here", where "it" is everything from mugging to mass murder.

Anti-gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that "the government will never confiscate my guns" are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Tony
Really? I thought it was spot on considering that you said:

From the article:

Ah, so you believe that since I'm not trembling with fear like the people obsessed with guns, that I must be in denial. Explain to me how you believe that. How can a violent revolution happen here in DK? How can you even consider that a likely scenario? I'm realizing more and more as this thread progresses how absurdly paranoid many gun owners seem to be.

[Tony]

Originally posted by plindboe

Ah, so you believe that since I'm not trembling with fear like the people obsessed with guns, that I must be in denial. Explain to me how you believe that.

Strawman. And a really blatant and pathetic one.

I'm realizing more and more as this thread progresses how absurdly paranoid many gun owners seem to be.

We are not paranoid, you are complacent and pacified.

[plindboe]

You believe I'm in denial because I consider the scenario of a violent revolution here in DK an unlikely scenario. How can it happen, tell me?

[Tony]

Originally posted by plindboe
You believe I'm in denial because I consider the scenario of a violent revolution here in DK an unlikely scenario. How can it happen, tell me?

Not being from Denmark, I am not qualified to answer that question. Not knowing the issues facing your country/society, it makes it rather hard to come up with a scenario, dont you think?

You're the one with the knowledge about your country, drop the baggage, examine your social problems objectively, and YOU come up with a scenario.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Tony
Not being from Denmark, I am not qualified to answer that question. Not knowing the issues facing your country/society, it makes it rather hard to come up with a scenario, dont you think?

Yes!!! Exactly. How can you know? And still you quoted me, where I said that I doubt such a scenario very much from happening, and said that the article was spot on where it said that people it was denial. How can you know I'm in denial about a violent revolution in my own country when you aren't even qualified to answer how likely such a scenario is?

Now, will you retract your baseless comment?

[Tmy]

I think the US gun violence is over hyped. The wild west shootout days are long gone. I dont know anyone whos ever been shot at or shot at someone, though I know lots of gun owners.

Most of the gun violence is gang/drug related (punks wh illegal guns) or the occasional domestic freak out. The press never seems to make any distinction tween legal and illegal guns when reporting an incident.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by plindboe
Now, will you retract your baseless comment?
Hmm. I guess the silence means it's a "no". It's sad that some people haven't got the courage to admit when they are wrong.

[Tony]

Originally posted by plindboe

Hmm. I guess the silence means it's a "no". It's sad that some people haven't got the courage to admit when they are wrong.

Some people have to work, I dont have all the time in the world to reply. Ill get back to you in due course, until then, please try to hold off from masturbating your ego.

[Kodiak]

:eek: http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0903/waffen/violent-smiley-043.gif

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Tony
Some people have to work, I dont have all the time in the world to reply. Ill get back to you in due course, until then, please try to hold off from masturbating your ego.
You're right. I was a bit quick there. Sorry. :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by plindboe

You're right. I was a bit quick there. Sorry. :)

And I apologize for my vindictive tone...wait a second..no I dont!!


SCREW YOU!!!! :p

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Tony
And I apologize for my vindictive tone...wait a second..no I dont!!


SCREW YOU!!!! :p
I see I hurt your precious little feelings. Cry it all out, it will feel better afterwards. There, there. :rub:

[Tony]

Originally posted by plindboe

I see I hurt your precious little feelings. Cry it all out, it will feel better afterwards. There, there. :rub:

Hey!! I was joking. Hence the :p .

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Tony
Hey!! I was joking. Hence the :p .
Hmm, ok. I'll laugh then-> :roll:

Good one. :p

[Richard G]

This is a post from a fellow in Indiana off of another board. We were discussing this same topic. I laughed out loud when I read it. And I applaud the guy.

Living in Indiana myself, I should mention that owning a handgun in the State of Indiana and taking that handgun off your personal property requires a "handgun permit". Just going to the gun store with your handgun to do a little shooting requires you to have a permit. A handgun permit does not allow you to carry concealed, it only allows you to transport it around the state.
Indiana also issues a CCW permit. This allows the owner to carry a gun "any damn why they want", or so I've been told by my local CLEO.

When I asked what "any way I want" means, he told me in no uncertain terms that I could "strap it to my fore head and walk through Wal-Mart" if I was so inclined.

Me any my buddy, probably against our better judgment, have tested this thoroughly in our area. Just this weekend my buddy wore a bright orange and yellow clowns' wig with his 1911 in an open top holster into the local gas station to get a root beer. Everyone laughed, no one called the police.

We've also walked into a very suburban Petland in Merrillville with t-shirts, blue jeans and Blackhawk tactical leg holsters with HK USP's in them. Nothing...

We can also carry machineguns with our CCW, as all machineguns are considered "handguns" in the state of Indiana. So, I've been known to carry my MP5K-PDW in its HK shoulder holster on occasion. I also have a Eagle Ind. leg holster for my PDW that I've been known to wear around town, in the open.

I've had pro-gun people come up and ask me what I was doing. They felt that my being an "out of the closet" gun owner and wearing my stuff in the open actually hurt our cause.

I disagree.

People are scared of what they know nothing about, or can't see. If we hide our guns away as if they are socially unacceptable, then people naturally fear them. But if people become accustom to seeing their doctors, lawyers, store clerks, neighbors, etc. wearing their guns openly and proudly (and harmlessly), they will no longer fear them.

But then I'm one of those wacky gun zealots that wants to arm the world.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by plindboe

That has got to be the silliest, most biased, resentful and absurd article I have ever read. :roll:

You really should have quoted the first few paragraphs it's quite funny. Here it is word for word accurate:-

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

Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
righter@therighter.com


"You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you."

"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."

"I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns."

"I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."

How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect? ......"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This idiot woman starts her article with four statements. The first two are strawmen and the second two are expressions of taste or preference and hence are not "arguments" that in her words can be shown to be " factually and logically incorrect" or indeed the opposite.

Lets not get into words like "victim disarmament" "woefully uninformed" "incontrovertible evidence" and "furiously angry".


As she claims to be a psychiatrist I presume her patients illogical fantasies have affected her rational faculties. Perhaps she needs a stint on the JREF forums to expose her to constructive criticism. It might help her to sharpen up her act !

Any signs of violent revolution in Denmark yet?

[plindboe]

Indeed Nikk. Sadly there are individuals, like the person who posted the link in the first place, that eats it up like candy. Some people lack the ability to think critically and skeptically about stuff they find on the net, and they just automatically go along with it if it fits their own political views.

Originally posted by Nikk
Any signs of violent revolution in Denmark yet?
Not yet. I'll keep you updated. :D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Richard G
Here is what a doctor says about people with a fear of guns.
http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm



For the law abiding, no. There are many laws however, both Federal, and State, that impose restrictions on ownership for a large number of reasons, to a large number of people (felons, mentaly ill, etc.). Still, there are felons and criminals who will not obey the law (thats why they are felons), and the law abiding must be allowed to protect themselves from this element of society.

Also, as a law abiding gun owner, I am not allowed to have a loaded firearm while in my vehicle. That is a state law. I am required to unload my firearm, then lock it into the trunk everytime I get in, or out of my car. This leaves me vulnerable to being carjacked with no defense, and then some crook drives off with my car with a damned fine handgun in the trunk. This law I am fighting to be repealed.

But why did you need extra clips?

[Richard G]

But why did you need extra clips?

Why do police carry extra magazines? You think about that, tell me what your conclusions are, then I'll tell you why I do.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Richard G


Why do police carry extra magazines? You think about that, tell me what your conclusions are, then I'll tell you why I do.

That's what I thought, because you were expecting to have to use them.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by plindboe
c0rbin,

good point. There are few guns on the streets here in Denmark, but I too laugh at the idea of something like that happening here. Neither Denmark or the US are third world countries. We are free and quite well working democracies, and I doubt very much that any of us will experience any violent revolutions, in a near future. I honestly can't see how that could happen. I suspect quite a few people in Germany felt that way in the early 30's..........................................

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Ralph
I suspect quite a few people in Germany felt that way in the early 30's..........................................
The political climate in the 30's was much different than it is today. Many people suspected that something was bound to happen as soon as Hitler came to power. There was alot of tension, and resentment among the German people over their former defeit. There are no resentment today in Germany, and Germans are ashamed of their past. I'm not sure which other country you suspect will launch a surprise attack.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by plindboe
I'm not sure which other country you suspect will launch a surprise attack.Denmark of course! They're all a bunch of savages.

Just look at what they did to this poor man:
http://www.uh.edu/engines/tollund.jpg

Oh my God! They have weapons of mass destruction:
http://members.hknet.com/~alau/1fh1.jpg

:D

[Ralph]

Originally posted by plindboe

The political climate in the 30's was much different than it is today. Many people suspected that something was bound to happen as soon as Hitler came to power. There was alot of tension, and resentment among the German people over their former defeit. There are no resentment today in Germany, and Germans are ashamed of their past. I'm not sure which other country you suspect will launch a surprise attack.

I think you might be taking the freedom you have for granted when you say things like "It couldn't happen here".

Despite the conditions following WW1, Germany was a "civilized, democratic, christian" country.

If you told the average German that in a few years their goverment would be tossing babys into ovens.....I'm sure most would've laughed & said "It couldn't happen here".

Of course that was the "bad" Germans who did that.....not the "good" Germans.

In the US....we have "bad" Americans too. Many of them are more then willing to hurt or even kill you to get what you have.

Perhaps if you lived in a city like Miami or Detroit you might understand a little better why "good" Americans might want to carry firearms for protection from the "bad " Americans....

[evildave]

Originally posted by The Fool

sigh...oh well. I'm certainy not going to start up a "questions for Evildave" thread. Neither am I interested in asking you a third time. You are certainly not interested in talking about the levels of gun control you are comfortable with and I can accept that....But I'll resist the temptation to attribute a position to you in the absence of any statement from you.


dammit...I've weakened...I'm going to ask one more time just for the hell of it. Your constitution is believed (by many) to say that personal possesion of firearms should not be restricted in any way. Is this your position? Do you believe that firearm ownership should be restricted in any way shape or form?

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights.html

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


But as I said, it doesn't matter what the constitution says.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


You'd think this means that some due process should happen before they confiscate your possessions. Nope. Searched? Nope.

So, just because it says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", doesn't mean that they can't come break my door down when I'm not home, let my cats out to be eaten, and seize everything I have, including firearms. All they need is some vague "drug" or "terrorist" notion, and it's bye-bye home, car, everything.

So, NO, I don't have any rights, really.

None at all.

Isn't that nice?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by evildave


http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights.html



But as I said, it doesn't matter what the constitution says.



You'd think this means that some due process should happen before they confiscate your possessions. Nope. Searched? Nope.

So, just because it says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", doesn't mean that they can't come break my door down when I'm not home, let my cats out to be eaten, and seize everything I have, including firearms. All they need is some vague "drug" or "terrorist" notion, and it's bye-bye home, car, everything.

So, NO, I don't have any rights, really.

None at all.

Isn't that nice?
Ok Dave, nice essay but my question? You seem to want to critisize people for suggesting that possesion of firearms should be restricted.......yet you persistantly ignore my requests for your position on what are reasonable restrictions. You seem to prefer to make car analogies and weep for your perceived loss of constitutional rights.

Fair enough...I'm certainly not going to bash my head over and over if you are not interested in answering.

[Richard G]

The one thing that irritates me most about gun-phobes, is when they jump up and down screaming for more restrictions, yet are completely oblivious to a TON of restrictions already on the books.

For your educational pleasure, here is the section of Ohio Revised Code dealing with firearms.
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/pdf/ohio.pdf
I believe you will be MORE than satisfied. (PDF file) This code is very similar to most other states in the country, except for New York, California, and Illinois, which a so restrictive, I refuse to live there. (The crime rate is likewise out of control in those places).

The Federal code is much lengthier, but mostly has to do with machineguns, interstate transport, and requirements for being a licensed dealer.

[Tmy]

Back to the issue: Concealed weapons.

I prefer to have them concealed. It sort of like when someone is walking around with a ball bat. That makes everyone nervous, as if trouble is a brewing. Unless of course you are at a ball field.

Ive always heard its illegal to carry a bat in your car unless your heading to the feild. Could be an urban legend.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
Back to the issue: Concealed weapons.

I prefer to have them concealed. It sort of like when someone is walking around with a ball bat. That makes everyone nervous, as if trouble is a brewing. Unless of course you are at a ball field.

Ive always heard its illegal to carry a bat in your car unless your heading to the feild. Could be an urban legend.

Kind like the time I spent as a security guard. I wasn't allowed to carry a baton or asp, but I could carry an aluminum 4 D-cell MAG flashlight. Go figure...

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Kind like the time I spent as a security guard. I wasn't allowed to carry a baton or asp, but I could carry an aluminum 4 D-cell MAG flashlight. Go figure...

I've found the 6-cell model more effective for that role.

http://www.entrygear.com/img628.jpg

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


I've found the 6-cell model more effective for that role.

http://www.entrygear.com/img628.jpg

I didn't make my patrols on horseback, so I didn't really see the need... :D

[plindboe]

Earthborn, :roll:

Great stuff! :D

Originally posted by Ralph
I think you might be taking the freedom you have for granted when you say things like "It couldn't happen here".
I haven't said that at all. I said I consider it highly unlikely. At least as things are these days. The chance of me getting killed by a car, might be billions times more likely to happen, than getting killed in a revolution. Still I'm not afraid of cars. Why then, should I be afraid of a revolution, and start preparing myself for one?

Originally posted by Ralph
Perhaps if you lived in a city like Miami or Detroit you might understand a little better why "good" Americans might want to carry firearms for protection from the "bad " Americans....
I think you might be correct there. Still I wonder if the fear is rational or irrational, when considering the chances of something actually happening. Is it based on hard facts that guns really make people more safe? It seems that the family members are the ones who end up getting shot by their own gun in some cases. It would be interesting to see some statistics about such, from a neutral site of course.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by plindboe
Is it based on hard facts that guns really make people more safe?...It would be interesting to see some statistics about such, from a neutral site of course.

Give me 24 hours...I might have something, if I can find it...

[c0rbin]

Kind like the time I spent as a security guard. I wasn't allowed to carry a baton or asp, but I could carry an aluminum 4 D-cell MAG flashlight. Go figure...

Kodiak,
The Mag Light would have been my choice.

Plindboe,

I think it's time to state your point again. I apologize if I missed it, but let me try to recoup:

You claim that Americans feel the need to own guns (not merely hunting guns but hand guns and others) and carry them where ever they want because of irrational fear. The source of this irrational fear is as of yet undefined in this thread.

Is this correct?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Kodiak,
The Mag Light would have been my choice.

Mine too.

I just thought their reasoning made no sense: I can't carry a weapon, but I carry carry a flashlight that is far more dangerous than the original weapon in question.

[c0rbin]

That is what confused me about the airline restrictions.

A fountain pen can be quite leathal. A leather belt is a painful weapon. Some people's hands are deadly.

My first impulse, if I were the airline exec, would be to say "Okay, people are using my service as a means to commit violence, now we are going to make it extra hard. All passengers must wear airline-approved smocks made from light tissue and, instead of shoes, booties."

Of course my airline would sink faster than the Titanic toeing the Posieden.

[LW]

Originally posted by Tmy

Ive always heard its illegal to carry a bat in your car unless your heading to the feild. Could be an urban legend.

Might be. Don't know .

Sometimes the weapon control laws get quite absurd. Here, it is illegal to carry a "dangerous edged weapon" in public places. What is or isn't a "dangerous edged weapon" is not always clear.

For example, a 10 cm stiletto falls under the law but a 18 cm "leuku" knife doesn't (it may be carried in public if you have a "good reason" to do so).

The very interesting stuff is that brass knuckles are consider to be dangerous edged weapons under the law, as are nunchakus.

The reason for this is apparently that the law was originally writen so that weapons fell into three classes:

- firearms
- dangerous edged weapons
- other edged weapons

Then, rather than rewriting the law to allow more weapon types, they simply expanded the definition of the second class.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by c0rbin
You claim that Americans feel the need to own guns (not merely hunting guns but hand guns and others) and carry them where ever they want because of irrational fear. The source of this irrational fear is as of yet undefined in this thread.

Is this correct?
Not really. I haven't made any such claims. I have merely asked and speculated over if the fear is rational or not, as I quote below, from my own posts. Also I have talked about obsessive gun owners, not Americans in general. You have really managed to twist my points there. Hope you realize that.

Here is what I said:

Originally posted by me
Is the fear realistic, when comparing to the chance of something violent actually happening?

Originally posted by me
Still I wonder if the fear is rational or irrational, when considering the chances of something actually happening.

About the source: If there is such an irrational fear(which still I have not claimed), then the most likely source would be the media. There is constant focus on crime in the media. The more macabre it is, the more the media will wallow in it.

Also consider that America is not a stranger to irrational fear. The number of gas masks sold the last couple of years clearly shows this.

[c0rbin]

You have really managed to twist my points there.

That is why I made the post. I didn't want to twist your points. Thanks for taking the time to clarify for me.

Your speculation on the media being the source is the one clear point Micheal Moore makes in BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE.

Is the fear of being attacked so irrational considering the recent history (regarding gas masks)?

[billydkid]

Originally posted by evildave


It's national news because it's so rare, and especially because it's a two-fer.

There'd never be time to report anything if they put up national stories about kids killed and injured in cars due to the negligence of their parents.

According to Wisqars (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html), there were all of 18 children between 5 and 9 were unintentionally killed in 2000. 780 were killed in traffic. 34 5-9 year olds were injured by firearms. 265,952 were injured in traffic.

19 killed between 0 and 4 years old. 819 in traffic. 55 0-4 year olds injured by guns, 131,253 injured from traffic.

49 10-14 year olds killed by guns, 992 in traffic. 735 10-14 year olds were injured by guns. 364,404 were injured in traffic.

All in all, traffic seems to be orders of magnitude worse than firearms.

Those darned cars kill a lot of people. Better ban 'em.

Oh WAIT! ... But YOU own a car, and don't want that banned, but it's OK to want to ban firearms that other people own, that kill a tiny fraction of the people that your murderous cars do?

It's amazing how often it's the case that OTHER PEOPLE'S things need to be banned. OTHER PEOPLE'S behaviors need to be banned. OTHER PEOPLE'S booze, books, lifestyles, ... freedoms.

It's eventually something of yours you'll give up. The police will come by and collect it for you. Just leave the garage open, and your keys in the ignition.

See Dave, you really should be a Libertarian!!! Your sentiments are exactly like mine and most other libertarians.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by c0rbin
That is why I made the post. I didn't want to twist your points. Thanks for taking the time to clarify for me.

Ah, ok. :)


Your speculation on the media being the source is the one clear point Micheal Moore makes in BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE.

I haven't seen it. Heard a little about it, but didn't know he arrived at that conclusion.


Is the fear of being attacked so irrational considering the recent history (regarding gas masks)?
It is certainly understandable, considering the horror of those events, but that doesn't make is less irrational. Fear makes people act irrational. It's very human. The funny thing is, that the possibility of being killed in traffic while going to buy the gasmask, was probably greater, than an event happening where the mask would ever be of any use.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Give me 24 hours...I might have something, if I can find it...
Sounds good. I have tried googling for it, but every site I reached was heavily biased, and didn't name their sources. Maybe I'm searching the wrong places.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by plindboe
Earthborn, :roll:

Great stuff! :D


I haven't said that at all. I said I consider it highly unlikely. At least as things are these days. The chance of me getting killed by a car, might be billions times more likely to happen, than getting killed in a revolution. Still I'm not afraid of cars. Why then, should I be afraid of a revolution, and start preparing myself for one?


I think you might be correct there. Still I wonder if the fear is rational or irrational, when considering the chances of something actually happening. Is it based on hard facts that guns really make people more safe? It seems that the family members are the ones who end up getting shot by their own gun in some cases. It would be interesting to see some statistics about such, from a neutral site of course.


How irrational your fear is might depend on your address. Do you live in Copenhagen,Denmark......or one of the more crime-ridden suburbs of New Orleans.

I can't help but notice the number of comments relating to how unlikely it is that they might NEED a gun for self-defense come from people who live in relatively crime-free areas.

Not everyone is so lucky.....(and no--the areas aren't high crime because of loose gun laws).

If you'd been beaten up & robbed several times over the last year...................would you be interested in statistics...or in finding a way to protect yourself the next time it happens.

[evildave]

Originally posted by The Fool

Ok Dave, nice essay but my question? You seem to want to critisize people for suggesting that possesion of firearms should be restricted.......yet you persistantly ignore my requests for your position on what are reasonable restrictions. You seem to prefer to make car analogies and weep for your perceived loss of constitutional rights.

Fair enough...I'm certainly not going to bash my head over and over if you are not interested in answering.

Seeing as you don't want to give a clear assessment of what you believe is right and equitable, why should I? Especially since you keep changing your question every time I answer the previous one, and insisting that I haven't answered the new one.

No amount of legal red tape would have saved those kids from the earlier cited article, which I was originally responding to. The negligent parents could have left bare and energized electrical wires lying around for the kids to play with - and nobody would have claimed electricity was bad.

Actually, drowning is the next big killer of young children, second only to cars. Maybe they'd have left standing bath water for them to drown each other with. Would people demonstrate to ban and better regulate use of water? What's a swimming pool or spa or bathtub good for, next to the lives of young children who might drown in them when unsupervised?

Plenty of chemicals and knives and appliances and such for unsupervised young children to play with, too. They could have even been killed playing "moon patrol" in the clothes dryer.

NOBODY WAS HOME WATCHING THEM.

Negligence killed the kids.

What about RESPONSIBLE PARENTS?

How about we start tying some tubes when people turn out to be this naturally irresponsible as parents?

Can't be trusted to raise their own children? THEN MAKE SURE THEY CAN'T HAVE ANY!

Show me one constitutional law that guarantees the right to make babies!

Not that anything in the constitution matters, as I've now pointed out three times.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ralph

Not everyone is so lucky.....(and no--the areas aren't high crime because of loose gun laws).



So, we have areas of high crime, not because of loose gun laws, and areas of low crime, because of loose gun laws.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by evildave


Seeing as you don't want to give a clear assessment of what you believe is right and equitable, why should I?

Sorry Dave, Not really true, you must have missed my post to this very thread, It was right above one of yours... I'll repeat it for you...

I tend to advocate a system like Australia's current system. It works for us.

It revolves around a licensing system that allows gun ownership for specific purposes....If you are a member of a sporting club, target club or other recognised organisation you may own gun(s) appropriate to that activity...If you are an active member of a skeet/trap shooting club you may own shotguns....but not handguns. If you are a member of a pistol target shooting club you may own suitable target pistol(s).
There are also requirements for secure storage (safes etc) which are inspected when your licence is issued and re-inspected when your license is renewed.

If you want to own guns simply for personal protection or because you like the Idea of owning a gun then bad luck. The Australian people overwelmingly deny you that option in this country. We don't see it as an unreasonable impost on freedom.... Gun ownership is quite rare in Australia, If you are truly involved in gun sports you may own guns....No problems at all. If you stop participating in the gun sport then your license to own those guns will be revoked, you will be forced to sell your guns to a gun dealer....or start shooting at the club events again....your choice.

Numerous amnesties and gun hand-in programs have been run and a significant amount of guns have been removed from society. Forgotten shotguns in garden sheds are a thing of the past.

Whats the result of all this? Well, I feel secure in my neighbourhood because nobody has guns, I don't see shootouts in the newspapers, I don't read stories of Children shooting their siblings. I drink at a pub that has been a rough place for 50 years and has never had a shooting... never, thats what makes me feel safe I don't need a handgun down my pants.




Especially since you keep changing your question every time I answer the previous one, and insisting that I haven't answered the new one.


Keep changing the question? Here are my attempts so far.

Attempt 1
Once again I put it to you (evildave) that you are a gun control advocate just as I am. Neither of us want to see drunks buying handguns at quickiemarts at 3am no questions asked....or am I wrong?

Attempt 2
Once again I have to say that we are probably both advocates of some form of gun control...I'll ask you that one again, do you agree?

Attempt 3
I'm going to ask one more time just for the hell of it. Your constitution is believed (by many) to say that personal possesion of firearms should not be restricted in any way. Is this your position? Do you believe that firearm ownership should be restricted in any way shape or form?


I give up..... Its a simple question....Do you believe there should be any restrictions on gun ownership or not?

Now I really don't care what your views are on bare electrical wires full baths , bottled chemicals or any other houshold hazards you can attempt to muddy the waters with.... I think I may know why you are avoiding the simple question, but I am loathed to speculate without hearing your views.

[evildave]

I believe that people should be held responsible for their actions.

Objects don't kill people on their own.

If you set up the situation that harms people, or directly harm people, pay the piper.

I don't see how much more clear I can make it.

Just because people hit each other with rocks does not make rocks "bad".

Punish the person who uses rocks inappropriately, not the everyone who hapens to own a rock.

Punish the person who abuses the weapon, not all people who happen to have one.

Or, at least be balanced, and give outcry for banning cars, swimming pools and other things that kill, maim and injure far more children than firearms do.

As for "specific purposes", we differ.

Would you license cars only to drive from your home to your office, and have it banned for driving to get groceries or visit a doctor?

Once someone has a car, if they abuse it, and drive where they weren't licensed to, and run over a child, does it make sense to take everyone else's car away? If an unsupervised child gets into a car and kills two other children, do we take away everyone's cars?

Stay in Australia and never visit the U.S. It's not such a big deal. It's one heck of a long airplane ride. Nobody has a handgun that can be fired in the U.S. that could ever possibly hit anything or anyone in Australia, after all. Do you hear me telling you what to do about Kangaroo poaching?

I recommend you worry more about Dubya, Nukes, and putting "Jesus" in charge. That could result in some fallout that you might feel.

Not that randomly starting wars and comming up with excuses for "why" after the fact should bother you as much as some guy 8,000 miles away from you possessing a simple machine that you don't approve of.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Ralph
How irrational your fear is might depend on your address. Do you live in Copenhagen,Denmark......or one of the more crime-ridden suburbs of New Orleans.

As I have already said once, I agree with your point, so no need for you to keep repeating it. I live in Copenhagen. It is far from crime free, though certainly safer than any of the big American cities. I wonder why that is. Perhabs because our city is not flooded with guns, resulting from low restrictions.

[Dilettante]

Man, I don't want to ruin things just by asking a new question.
But seriously...
why does anybody want people to carry openly??
As a safety matter, isn't it better if people carry concealed?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That's what I thought, because you were expecting to have to use them.


Is there something wrong with this?????????



Also--you keep referring to "clips".......They're magazines. (There's a difference)............................

[Tony]

Originally posted by plindboe

Perhabs because our city is not flooded with guns, resulting from low restrictions.


So I guess you think that having guns around magically turns people into ruthless criminals?

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Tony
So I guess you think that having guns around magically turns people into ruthless criminals?
Guns make criminal life so much easier and profitable. There's nothing magical about it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by plindboe

Guns make criminal life so much easier and profitable. There's nothing magical about it.

That’s not what you implied, you implied there was a correlation between guns and crime.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Your speculation on the media being the source is the one clear point Micheal Moore makes in BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE.
Um, from what I've read, citing Michael Moore and Bowling for Columbine as any kind of justification for gun control might not be the best strategy. Seems he made up a few things. If you're interested, check this: (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)

[Richard G]

.Man, I don't want to ruin things just by asking a new question.
But seriously...
why does anybody want people to carry openly??
As a safety matter, isn't it better if people carry concealed?

Yes, it is safer to carry concealed. You don't have to worry about someone trying to grab your firearm (I have 2 retention devices on my holster, same as the police).

In fact, at the demonstration, a couple of anti-gunners were jumping at me acting like they were trying to grab my piece. If they weren't so young, and STOOPID, I would have knocked them both on their ass and had them arrested for assault. They were by their very actions proving why we need what they were against.

The legistlature, in their infinite wisdom, doesn't see it this way, so we will do what the Constitution allows until they fix it.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Tony
That’s not what you implied, you implied there was a correlation between guns and crime.
Indeed I did. When something is easier, certain people might do what they otherwise wouldn't have the courage or the strength to do. It's much easier and risk free to rob and kill with a gun, than it is, for instance, with a knife.

(Edited to add): When I wrote about such a possible correlation, I didn't mean it as the only reason for the differences in crime, between the cities. It's of course much more complicated than that with multible factors to consider.

[c0rbin]

Um, from what I've read, citing Michael Moore and Bowling for Columbine as any kind of justification for gun control might not be the best strategy.

I am not at all.

Thanks, though.

[Tony]

Originally posted by plindboe

Indeed I did. When something is easier, certain people might do what they otherwise wouldn't have the courage or the strength to do. It's much easier and risk free to rob and kill with a gun, than it is, for instance, with a knife.


Hey!! You're right. And doesnt it make since to want a gun to defend yourself against those people?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by c0rbin


I am not at all.

Thanks, though. Whoops - you're right. Wasn't following the thread carefully enough, my bad. Sorry. Point still valid about Bowling for Columbine mendacity, though.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Tony
Hey!! You're right. And doesnt it make since to want a gun to defend yourself against those people?
That's what I have been trying to find out in this thread, and is the reason why I have asked for statistics from a neutral site.

In the meantime, consider this:

1.People are afraid of criminals because criminals have guns, therefore people get guns->
2.When people get guns, the guns will eventually end up in criminals' hands too(read again from 1.)

It's a bad cycle. People get guns to protect themselves from people with guns. So to conclude; guns only bring fear and crime.

PS.I know it isn't as simple as presented here, but I still think I make a valid point.

[Tony]

Originally posted by plindboe

That's what I have been trying to find out in this thread, and is the reason why I have asked for statistics from a neutral site.

In the meantime, consider this:

1.People are afraid of criminals because criminals have guns, therefore people get guns->
2.When people get guns, the guns will eventually end up in criminals' hands too(read again from 1.)

It's a bad cycle. People get guns to protect themselves from people with guns. So to conclude; guns only bring fear and crime.

PS.I know it isn't as simple as presented here, but I still think I make a valid point.

Its not a cycle, criminals will have guns even if they are illegal.

[c0rbin]

Point still valid about Bowling for Columbine mendacity, though.

No sweat, dude. Agreed. I watched BOWLING and had a hard time trying to find the point Moore was making.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Tony
Its not a cycle, criminals will have guns even if they are illegal.
Here they are illegal, but there are still very few guns on the streets. When someone gets shot by a gun, it will usually be in the prime time news. That's why I have the position I have, since I experience first hand how it is to live in a society without fear of getting shot or held up at gunpoint. Ask danes if they want looser restrictions on guns, and I'm sure 99% will say "no", as it is a given that bringing guns into our society would only make things worse.

But that said, I can also understand that in a society that is already infested with guns, like in the US, they will indeed end up primarily in the hands of the criminals if they got banned,at first. It would take decades to clear all those guns from the streets, before it begins to pay off.

Here follows a humourous cartoon that illustrates my point quite well: ;)

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/hsc0284l.jpg

[Checkmite]

I think the armed march was a fine idea - I mean, it probably would've helped to have more than 100 marchers, but there it is.

However I, like others, think the "loaded, with 2 extra clips" thing was completely unnecessary. Sure, you might say "what good is an unloaded gun", and the answer is "no good", but only if you plan to shoot somebody. For the purposes of a demonstratory march, the answer of course is "just as good as a loaded gun". And 2 extra clips? I don't see the reasoning behind this either. You were going to a peaceful protest march, not a battle. Unless you actually thought that an armed standoff with police or each other was winnable; in which case, you were probably smoking something better than the pimply kids who were calling you "killers".

[Richard G]

I always carry 2 magazines. Marching, or not.

I don't "plan" on ever shooting anybody. A pistol on my hip is like my car keys in my pocket, its a hunk of metal I forget about. But if I ever need it, I'll never regret that it was there.

With the goverments never ending attack on my rights, and restrictions on the capacity of gun magazines, I am FORCED to carry more.

When it gets so ridiculous that they say you may only have 1 bullet in your gun, I'll carry 30 guns then.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Richard G
I always carry 2 magazines. Marching, or not.

I don't "plan" on ever shooting anybody. A pistol on my hip is like my car keys in my pocket, its a hunk of metal I forget about. But if I ever need it, I'll never regret that it was there.

With the goverments never ending attack on my rights, and restrictions on the capacity of gun magazines, I am FORCED to carry more.

When it gets so ridiculous that they say you may only have 1 bullet in your gun, I'll carry 30 guns then.

What cracks me up is that, if you ever got into a real firefight, you'd be shot dead in seconds.

But if you want to die to uphold a macho ideal, who am I to stop you? One can only hope it happens before you breed.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


What cracks me up is that, if you ever got into a real firefight, you'd be shot dead in seconds.


How do you know?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Richard G


Yes, it is safer to carry concealed. You don't have to worry about someone trying to grab your firearm (I have 2 retention devices on my holster, same as the police).

In fact, at the demonstration, a couple of anti-gunners were jumping at me acting like they were trying to grab my piece. If they weren't so young, and STOOPID, I would have knocked them both on their ass and had them arrested for assault. They were by their very actions proving why we need what they were against.

The legistlature, in their infinite wisdom, doesn't see it this way, so we will do what the Constitution allows until they fix it.
Man I love e-heros.... Tell us the one about the guy that knocks you unconcious with one punch and makes off with your gun. But of course you are way too tough a dude for that to ever happen eh?


internet toughguys....don't you just love em:roll:

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool

internet toughguys....don't you just love em:roll:

As opposed to internet bedwetters like you?

:dl:

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


As opposed to internet bedwetters like you?

:dl:
Lol...we have another one? Want to judge how tough you are by seeing how tough you can sound on a forum?....wooo-hoooo!!!!

I'm so tough even my farts ask permission to leave....:roll: