InstantForum.NET v4.1.41BC Civ Forumshttp://www.1bcciv.com/forums@1bcciv.comThu, 08 Jan 2009 07:32:57 GMT20http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxThe best way to reduce the murder rate would be to eliminate 100% of all handguns. Unfortunately this is impossible. How do you get rid of all the handguns from the criminals? The second best thing would be to allow people to own their own guns and the criminals will be forced to take their chances.[QUOTE] I see the key difference as being concealability. If a person has a weapon obviously displayed, people are going to be cautious in what they do or how they act in the proximity of that person. [/QUOTE]Interesting. I know different states have different rules regarding this. There was a time when it was legal to walk around with a loaded gun (it still may be in some places) as long as it was in plain sight and in a holdster. Thieves would at least think twice about robbing someone if they saw someone with a gun walking around.Isn't it true that in switserland everyone must have a gun? Last time I checked, they have a quite low crime rate.Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:54:12 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Honestly, taking guns away from people will not decrease crime rate. [/QUOTE]It would have some affect... But not as much as it seems to be claimed. Crimes of passion and the sort (spur of the moment, not premeditated) would go down (can't shoot a person if there wasn't a gun readily available). And they wouldn't really go down in number, just their severity would. Premeditated murders wouldn't really be effected, if the person wanted to kill someone, they will get around a simple weapons ban. [QUOTE] yes, handguns are what most murders are commited with. Also, they are much easier to use inside a building, i.e., to kill an intruder. [/QUOTE]I see the key difference as being concealability. If a person has a weapon obviously displayed, people are going to be cautious in what they do or how they act in the proximity of that person. Moreover, if it's a public place, someone is going to report the person wandering around with a hunting rifle.Pistols are relatively easy (atleast compared to rifles) to conceal. This concealibility makes pistols much more appropriate for crminal activities, as the gun doesn't give them away.In my opinion, there are some guns that should be outlawed and done away with (Canadian opinion of course). Guns are tools, rifles and the sort that have very pratical uses such as hunting still have a place in society. Pistols and other weapons similar seem only to have one design... Killing people. These are the smaller and much easier to conceal weapons that anybody on the street could easily have somewhere on their person.Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:14:45 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxHonestly, taking guns away from people will not decrease crime rate. Think about what people used before there were guns. If I wanted to murder someone, and didn't have a gun, I'd just use a knife or maybe a baseball bat. I don't think people are looking at the big picture here. Sure, we need to enforce the regulations that we have on people wanting to buy weapons in the first place, but get to the root of them problem. What causes someone to want to commit a crime? Poverty? Unemployment? These seem to be the questions no one is asking.Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:38:57 GMTcleopatra143http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxDefinitely to build on Seared's comment about handguns vs. long rifles, and Sticker's quote, yes, handguns are what most murders are commited with. Also, they are much easier to use inside a building, i.e., to kill an intruder. Thus, rifles are not a very effective weapon for protecting one's loved ones while at home."Its a Saturday Night Special. Its got a barrel of blue and coal. Ain't good for nothing, cept put a man six feet in a hole . . ."Only problem that Lynard did not address in that very poignant and sincere song is: if we DID dump them "all right into the sea," all it would do is up their profitability by several thousand percent, and there would be an immediate arms RACE!Solutions that address the psychosocial sources of violence are extremely elusive, problematic, and necessarily long-term. But there are, for the US and many other world regions, far more pragmatic than "banning," though synergistic with efforts to regulate availability.Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:09:43 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxWhen I was just baby, my mama told me "Son, always be a good boy and don't ever play with guns."Sorry, couldn't resist. :DFri, 07 Oct 2005 09:12:02 GMTStickerhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxI actually think that the crime percentage has more to do with the people and little to do with the guns. Hey that's a compliment to you Canadians.Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:31:53 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Maybe that's just because there are fewer bow hunters, now that I think of it. [/QUOTE]The range with bows is alot less and you need to be much much closer then you do with a rifle.Doing my own little research... Although canadians critisize the gun happy americans, we have nearly 2x the number of guns per household ;) The key difference is most Canadian weapons are rifles... Most American weapons are much easier concealed and are more often side arms. I wonder if that makes much of a difference?[QUOTE] But only after WWII [/QUOTE]I know WWI opened up the way for a few nations... I guess WWII opened up the way for the rest.Thu, 06 Oct 2005 10:13:45 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]Didn't most brit colonies eventually break off peacefully?[/QUOTE]ehhh...yeah. But only after WWII and the realization by the Crown that it no longer had the financial and military resources to maintain the empire...though they did do a number on those pesky Argentinians:PWed, 05 Oct 2005 21:24:01 GMTClayhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxI like that site too. I just found it by googling for statistics and they have quite an extensive amount of them. I actually added it to my favorites. Do you know of any other good, unbiassed (this one seems to be unbiassed but I am not sure) statistic sites.[QUOTE] The bow is fun, but not much for level playing field. [/QUOTE]I guess it wouldn't really be a level playing field unless deer could shoot back. :D From what I understand, bow hunting is more challenging though so they get to start their deer season first. Maybe that's just because there are fewer bow hunters, now that I think of it.Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:04:59 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxThe bow is fun, but not much for level playing field. Those comp long bows have more punch then alot of rifles. Though your forearm hurts a few times till you learn how to avoid that. hehe[QUOTE] I should keep up on Canandian politics more often[/QUOTE]From that nationmaster.com site you linked earlier (great site btw), I clicked on canada and clicked on the link for the rankings that Canada rates number one in the world. See for yourself [URL=http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ca/Top-Rankings]Here[/URL]. 2 second glance over it... It's pretty easy to tell how tied our nations are. Knowing the politics of your number one trading partener (by far) is important. And a decent reason why most Canadians are aware of and have an opinion on American policies.Addit:Point in case.. from nationmaster (linked above) Canada rates number 1 in:[QUOTE]Economy - Exports to US Economy - Imports from US [/QUOTE]Wed, 05 Oct 2005 18:22:46 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx:doh: Sorry man. You get so into an argument that you don't notice when someone is being fecitious. I should keep up on Canandian politics more often considering the amount of Canadians on this board. I view bow hunting as a more pure form of deer hunting as it puts the deer on a slightly more even "playing" field. Unfortunately I don't have any experience with a bow. Someday maybe.Wed, 05 Oct 2005 18:11:03 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]One might even argue that, without militia, the US would still be part of the UK, where ownership of a firearm depends on substantial bureacracy and is a true pain in the arse because the Crown looks down on its subjects having any capacity to resist its control [/QUOTE]Hmm, if I recall correctly the US is one of the few nations that acheived independance through force of arms. To my knowledge atleast... Didn't most brit colonies eventually break off peacefully?And Jerm, tis a joke that you'd get a bit better if you followed Canadian politics I guess. There was a bit involved with gun registration where fully automatic weapons apparently classified as a hunting weapon... SO a bit of an inside joke I guess. heheAnd FYI, I prefer bow hunting.Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:58:21 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Apparently you're not a hunter... Deer require a minimum of fully automatic assault weapon to take down. Preference towards explosive ammunitions too. [/QUOTE]I'm glad to see you have not lost your sense of humor Seared!There are definite idiots who own and tot guns. I _NEVER_ go into the many areas of the U.S. without a bright orange cap on my head.Citizen-owned firearms are just _SO_ _INCREDIBLY_ DEEPLY built into American society, from its very origins, really any discussion of taking them away is just basically moot, because there is no way the majority of Americans would ever agree to it. One might even argue that, without militia, the US would still be part of the UK, where ownership of a firearm depends on substantial bureacracy and is a true pain in the arse because the Crown looks down on its subjects having any capacity to resist its control.Moreover, the majority of gun-toting Americans would probably never be distinguishable from their unarmed fellow citizens if you did not demand that they turn in their weapons. They are in general peacful, stable, responsible, capable, and indistinguishable in most circumstances from the average non-gun-toting citizen.Compared to many nations and regions, we in the U.S. have a relatively much smaller problem with being armed to the teeth. That primarily is due to the fact that we have been from the beginning largely middle class, and dependent on solidary amongst ourselves for our identity, as opposed to the many regions where tribalism prevails.[quote] So does that mean if I am not armed, does that mean I am not a responsible American citizen?? [/quote]As it is written, it is a _right_, not a duty! You are not (YET!) expected to serve in the defense forces in order to enjoy citizenship, and hopefully we will never get there. The fact that an outspoken pacifisitic minority in America live under the protection of a strong but silent majority who actually would do (or else DO do) what is needed when the ugly necessities arise, is part of what makes America great!I believe if I were faced with no other option, I could, and would fight with lethal force to defend your right to be a pacifist American. I'm happy with the situation, whether or not you believe you would/or would not, if faced with no other option, argue for my right, to use my gun(s) to fight for such rights.Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:04:19 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] He walked in on a man robbing his home and being an ex military policeman, reaches for his gun but of course he doesn't have it on him. [/QUOTE] . . . bummer.Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:59:24 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxScips comments: [quote] wish I owned more guns. I wanna get a really high powered rifle. I got one 9mm Chinese made beretta ripoff, [b]but that is just NOT enough for an American household.[/b] Gotta have AT LEAST one 12 gauge shotgun, and one high-powered rifle. 3006 would be fine I guess, but maybe something more modern?Oh yeah, a breech loader would be REALLY cool! Be fun to see how many shots you could rip off with one of those in a minute.No need for any semi-automatic rifles though for me. Just not that much of an enthusiast I guess[/quote]When I read Scips comments I laughed... just not enough for one American household? Is there not humor there? maybe it's not enough for a gun enthusiasts, but for an American household. There's certainly room for varibility there, right?? When I read Seareds comments about hunting there, I took them with the same humor that was present in Scip's comments. Don't take the man so seriously when he's not asking for it! :P I'll have to remember that about the 9 iron, clay. Fortunately I've never been in the position where I've had to take a golf club to anyone's head. ;) Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:47:38 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]Hey, I have golf clubs. Last time I checked, A driver to the head didn't feel too good. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: LC, LC, LC...if you're going to take someone on with a golf club use the freaking 9 Iron! :mad: :p And Seared, for the record you can put the people that need the Automatics to go hunting in the same category that we put the "Legalize all Drugs" crowd in (Libertarians right:P)...just don't put them all in the same room...or maybe...:PWed, 05 Oct 2005 14:46:54 GMTClayhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxNo offense guys, but I am stunned by the absolutely ignorant things being said. [QUOTE] From what I've seen and heard (and somewhat experienced), owning and using a gun breeds gun violence. I've never owned a gun, and I stay out of areas where they're use is more prevalent.I'm 36 years old and have never had a gun pointed at me. I've never pointed a gun at anyone.If you own a gun, odds are better that someone's going to come in and try and steal it from you and shoot you with it.[/QUOTE]I grew up in a household where we owned about 10 guns. We lived on the outskirts of L.A. and we never pointed our guns at anyone, were never broken into and there was never any kind of violence in our home. We would go to the firing range every couple of months or so and my father to this day has a hobby of reloading his own ammunition. Any gun safety course you go to will tell you that the first rule of shooting is that a gun is always loaded. This means, even if you think the gun is empty, you never point the gun in the direction of anyone. Another rule of shooting is never shoot where you cannot see. For example if there is a hill, you shoot into the hill and not over it. Guns are a very effective killing machine if it is in the hands of a killer and perhaps it makes it easier to kill, but what makes it harder to kill is if you victim also has a gun. True, not every person will have a gun on them but criminals don't know that and the higher the odds that someone around might have a firearm the lower the odds that criminals will physically attack someone. Obviously this will have no effect on white collar crime but people don't get physically harmed in white collar crime.[QUOTE] Apparently you're not a hunter... Deer require a minimum of fully automatic assault weapon to take down. Preference towards explosive ammunitions too. [/QUOTE]Seared, I am surprised to hear such an ignorant statement from you. Usually you at least have got the facts straight but this is #2 in this thread. Deer require a minimum of being upwind, silence, and good aim. It only takes one shot to take down a deer and many hunters actually prefer to have single action rifles because they tend to be more accurate. ...explosive ammuntion... :shakeshead:[QUOTE] Quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is the America way to be armed, responsible citizens -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So does that mean if I am not armed, does that mean I am not a responsible American citizen?? [/QUOTE] :rolleyes:Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:44:06 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx[quote]It is the America way to be armed, responsible citizens[/quote]So does that mean if I am not armed, does that mean I am not a responsible American citizen?? Hey, I have golf clubs. Last time I checked, A driver to the head didn't feel too good. :PWed, 05 Oct 2005 10:10:03 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] No need for any semi-automatic rifles though for me. Just not that much of an enthusiast I guess [/QUOTE]Apparently you're not a hunter... Deer require a minimum of fully automatic assault weapon to take down. Preference towards explosive ammunitions too.[QUOTE] Now, if he had had his sidearm, he wouldn't have broken knuckles now would he? [/QUOTE]Now if the robber remembered his sidearm, you're friend wouldn't have had broken knuckles either hey?Wed, 05 Oct 2005 10:03:07 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxPersonally I woudn't want to live somwhere where I felt that I had to own a gun to be safe. I don't have a (big :p ) problem with people owning gun though, if they a responsible and take the matter seriously. On the other hand I know from personal experience that responsible people can make misstakes that have fatal consequences, but I guess that can apply anywhere.Wed, 05 Oct 2005 08:50:33 GMTStickerhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxkinda ironic that we are talking about guns and my friend gets robbed last night. He walked in on a man robbing his home and being an ex military policeman, reaches for his gun but of course he doesn't have it on him. So he and the man basically pummel the living crap out of each other. Now, if he had had his sidearm, he wouldn't have broken knuckles now would he? =PWed, 05 Oct 2005 08:31:28 GMTcleopatra143http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] From what I've seen and heard (and somewhat experienced), owning and using a gun breeds gun violence.I've never owned a gun, and I stay out of areas where they're use is more prevalent. [/QUOTE]Just curious. How is it that you KNOW where to stay "out of?" You might be surprised which households have guns in them in North America.[QUOTE]I'm 36 years old and have never had a gun pointed at me. I've never pointed a gun at anyone. [/QUOTE] Why does owning a gun necessarily equate in your mind with it being pointed at anyone? I'm 38. I own a pistol, I've shot pistols, shotguns and rifles, and I also have NEVER pointed a gun at anyone, nor has anyone pointed one at me. There are many potentially lethal machines, and activities which we use everyday. Automobiles kill far more people than guns. Motorcycles, frankly, should be outlawed for recreational and personal travel use: they're statistically equivalent to suicide machines. Jelly donuts are the biggest killers of all, along with tobacco and beer. You really wanna reduce suffering, focus on these implements of mayhem.Most gun owners are responsible, safe, and know that pointing one at anyone means, you'd better be defending your life or that of a loved one, and willing to shoot to kill, otherwise, there is no point in owning it at all, and also no point in feeling the guilt or grief when/if an intruder harms you or your loved ones in a way that might have been preventable had you been suitably armed.There are a highly visible minority of gun users/owners who give private ownership a bad name, i.e., criminals. As Jerm points out, taking the guns out of the hands of responsible citizens will do virtually NOTHING to take the guns out of the hands of criminals. Moreover, affording a system in which private citizens CAN acquire and own guns has a minimal effect on the number in the hands of criminals.[QUOTE]If you own a gun, odds are better that someone's going to come in and try and steal it from you and shoot you with it. [/QUOTE]Show me the stats. I don't believe it. There are a lot of speculative claims made in this area of sociology.Exactly how is it that someone is going to KNOW that there is a gun in YOUR house, so that he/she should intrude and try to steal it? Also, even if there is a correlation between breaking and entering and gun ownership, this does not demonstrate that the guns caused the criminality. It might just as well indicate that the pre-existing state of criminality for which the gun was attributed by the owner as being a necessary response did in fact exist!It is the America way to be armed, responsible citizens, ready to defend our way of life through use of militia if necessary. To deny this, or to assert that "times have changed" is delusionary.Wed, 05 Oct 2005 08:10:45 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxFrom what I've seen and heard (and somewhat experienced), owning and using a gun breeds gun violence.I've never owned a gun, and I stay out of areas where they're use is more prevalent.I'm 36 years old and have never had a gun pointed at me. I've never pointed a gun at anyone.If you own a gun, odds are better that someone's going to come in and try and steal it from you and shoot you with it.Again.. this is just my opinion.Oh.. and thanks for the SouthPark reference. It's ALWAYS a good idea :DWed, 05 Oct 2005 07:03:05 GMTGrishnak01http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxI wish I owned more guns. I wanna get a really high powered rifle. I got one 9mm Chinese made beretta ripoff, but that is just NOT enough for an American household. Gotta have AT LEAST one 12 gauge shotgun, and one high-powered rifle. 3006 would be fine I guess, but maybe something more modern?Oh yeah, a breech loader would be REALLY cool! Be fun to see how many shots you could rip off with one of those in a minute.No need for any semi-automatic rifles though for me. Just not that much of an enthusiast I guess :pWed, 05 Oct 2005 00:04:10 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]Ya gotta love the direction the conservatives are taking the once great nation of the USA. [/QUOTE]Glad to see you're back to your usual trolling self Ness. :rolleyes:Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:14:50 GMTClayhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxAs usual, the Left exaggerates. It is true the homicide rate for the US is roughly 8 times that of the UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden etc. But a closer look at crime rates shows that the US has [B]lower[/B]crime rates for Burglery, & Robbery see[URL=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cnscj.htm]International Statistics[/URL]. Homicide is most often a crime of passion while robbery and burglery are more calculated crimes. It would seem that our "gun ridden" country may discourage such calculated crimes- I repeat, a gun carrying country is a polite country.In the case of Assault, the rate for the US is about 10 per 1000 population, for Australia it is 36 per and for Switzerland it varies from 23 to 41 in the '90s.The US is [B]LESS[/B] crime ridden than most of the countries it compares with in GDP per capita- the only crime where this is not true is homicide.So, I recommend all the America haters get their facts straight or expect to get their heads handed to them.Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:17:10 GMTScottyhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] As far as gun law, this isn't anything big... Though it does open the gates to the (heres the southpark comment) 'It's coming straight for us!' [/QUOTE]He he. I don't really see how. A prosecutor can decide to take on cases where it is not clear whether the killing was justified.[QUOTE] It does lend itself to shooting then claiming self defence. But thats not much of a change. [/QUOTE]You said it better than I.[QUOTE] Highest murder rate by nearly 10x any other country = polite society [/QUOTE]The question is whether the high murder rate is attributable to gun ownership or a large underclass (I don't mean poor I mean criminals) and whether that underclass are killing other underclass members. I would argue that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens would reduce crime. If criminals knew that there was a higher percentage of persons who carried guns do you think they would be more or less likely to commit at least a violent crime?Just for your information, here's some statistics on murder rates. I don't know if they count in favor or not of my possitions, it's just for your information. [URL=http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html]Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2003[/URL][URL=http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap]Map & Graph: Crime: Murders (per capita) [/URL]This one has a compilation of a bunch of stats with some links as well:[URL=http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#world]Death by Murder[/URL]According to this site, and the first one I gave, the U.S. is not even on the top ten list of highest murder rates.Tue, 04 Oct 2005 18:54:13 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxHate to bring a Southpark comment into a discussion but.. (from the bill link Jerm provided):[QUOTE] WHEREAS, the Legislature finds that it is proper for law- 36 abiding people to protect themselves, their families, and 37 others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution 38 or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others [/QUOTE]As far as gun law, this isn't anything big... Though it does open the gates to the (heres the southpark comment) 'It's coming straight for us!'Southpark uses the line quite well... Several hunters enjoy killing endangered speicies and got around the laws by yelling out 'OH MY GOD IT"S COMING STRAIGHT FOR US!!!' right before shooting... Making sure that anybody nearby the saw the hunter knew the hunter had done it in self defence.[QUOTE] 128 (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is 129 necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to 130 himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent 131 commission of a forcible felony; or [/QUOTE]It does lend itself to shooting then claiming self defence. But thats not much of a change. The law doesn't appear to change too much really... But the fact it's being altered is providing a good time for people opposed to US gun law a chance to vocalize.[QUOTE]An armed society is a polite society. [/QUOTE]Highest murder rate by nearly 10x any other country = polite society :rolleyes:Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:37:03 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Great leaders like Roosevelt have made America Great. Charlatan leaders like the Bush family (and Regan) make it less great. [/QUOTE]Let's be more specific. What was it that Roosevelt did to make America great and what has the "Bush family" and Regan done to make it less great?While Roosevelt was a great president in my eyes as well, there are many things brought about in his presidency which have trickled down and caused many of the problems of today. Social Security was started by him which has created a dependent welfare state, actually creating more poverty in my opinion. Even Roosevelt himself said that SS should only be temporary.By the way, I see how the left could make the argument that the "Bushes" are charlatains but Reagan? He was one of the most principalled presidents of our age. You may strongly disagree with his principals but to call him a charlatain just plays into the leftist rhetoric.[QUOTE] And the direction towards promoting the armament of urban centres to me ostensibly appears dangerous. [/QUOTE]Do you really think that law abiding people will start shooting at every guy who looks at them funny? Criminals by definition don't follow the same rules of society so how would creating tougher gun laws change anything?Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:15:18 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Well, I may be krazy but if france, mexico or england ever tries to invade America again, I'll be ready :)Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:11:23 GMTcleopatra143http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxAn armed society is a polite society.Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:38:43 GMTScottyhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Okay, how is this nation less great today because of conservatives and what made it great in the past? [/QUOTE]Great leaders like Roosevelt have made America Great. Charlatan leaders like the Bush family (and Regan) make it less great. And the direction towards promoting the armament of urban centres to me ostensibly appears dangerous.Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:05:28 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxNo worries. I actually started an new thread on that subject. I wasn't being sarcastic. I just don't want two totally different topics in the same thread because it's just harder to make arguments when you are trying to remember what you are arguing. [QUOTE] Oh... I thought that this one was about the direction that the conservatives were taking this once great nation.... [/QUOTE]Okay, how is this nation less great today because of conservatives and what made it great in the past?Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:31:51 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]Hey Locus, maybe you should start a thread about that. I was under the impression that this one is about gun control. [/QUOTE]Oh... I thought that this one was about the direction that the conservatives were taking this once great nation.... :pTue, 04 Oct 2005 15:19:50 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxHey Locus, maybe you should start a thread about that. I was under the impression that this one is about gun control. :rolleyes: Ness, Is that what the law states? I don't get that from the article. It sounds like the article is really just reporting on the leaflets being passed out by an activist group, the likes of which tend to not be 100% candid about what they oppose (this is true of right wing as well as left wing activists, BTW).Here's an article in the Orlando Sentinel by Mike Thomas (note that it is an editorial):[URL=http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-miket0205oct02,0,7881093.column?coll=orl-home-headlines]Self-defense law won't stir trigger-mania[/URL][QUOTE] The simple fact is that most gun owners are responsible people, and laws don't change their behavior. There are almost 15,000 people in Orange County with concealed-weapons permits. When's the last time one of them pulled a gun on you?If someone was not going to open fire before this weekend, he will not open fire after this weekend.And if there is some crazed DeNiro character out there, a change in statutory language won't factor into whether he pulls the trigger. [/QUOTE]Here is the Florida senate website: [URL=http://www.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?Mode=Bills&Submenu=1&BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Billnum=0249&Year=2005]Florida Senate[/URL], and here is the actual bill: [URL=http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?Tab=session&Submenu=1&FT=D&File=hb024902c2.html&Directory=session/2005/House/bills/billtext/html/]HB 0249[/URL], which is actually an amendment to an existing law, or so it appears. Take a read and tell me if you still feel the same.Tue, 04 Oct 2005 14:49:52 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxYes, and nevermind the fact that Mr. President nominates someone to the Supreme Court that has zero judicial experience. :rolleyes:Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:14:34 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxIs a gun really necessary to protect yourself from a person without a gun? :rolleyes:Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:48:17 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxHaving the right to protect oneself if attacked is a conservative value? :rolleyes:Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:05:04 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034327-56-1.aspxYa gotta love the direction the conservatives are taking the once great nation of the USA. Article [URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051004.wdeadly1004/BNStory/International/]here. [/URL]Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:30:49 GMTNess