Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
Should guns be banned
Yes 50%
Only when it is proved that they kill people 50%

Votes: 10

 Why we should make all guns illegal

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Aug 31, 2002
 Comments:
It's about time that America woke up to the truth - guns kill, not people.
diaries

More diaries by PotatoError
Hackers: Misunderstood
To all you Windows Criminals
The financial time bomb
Too controversial for Adequacy
A big HI! from Linuz Zealot
Linux Zealot Tells a Story
Why the GNU licence is a good thing
Why copying copyrighted music isnt wrong.
Okay I'll pay for music
Poz techie seeks same. T-count above 10000.
Human behaviour - my thinking on it
Patenting of hyperlinks
Question
The little things
What is god?
awww
Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan
The consequences of Determinism
I think nuclear weapons are good
What IS adequacy all about????
Where are we going?
Secret World Conspiricy Revealed!!!
Diary Entry 24/05/02
The Internet - where is it heading?
Terrifying and Shocking news
w0w I must be 1337 h4X0r
An Introduction to Online Gaming
Why Al-Qeada isn't responsible for the WTC
Linux Zealot - My thoughts about him
How many Adequacy members are there?
Why Internet Piracy is Moral
Trees and Grass. Two more lies of society.
Why US bombs should be banned
The Hunt for God
My vacation to America and what I found there
Are you an Enemy Combatant?
Rock vs Pop
Invasion: America
One Year since 9/11 and Americans haven't changed
Well, of course people DO kill people, but not necessarily with guns. They could use knives, or axes, or chainsaws even. I'm not suggesting we ban axes and chainsaws though, because what would we cut trees down with? We need wood. However we sure as hell don't need guns to cut trees down.

So now that you know my opinion about guns here are some cold facts:

Every year millions of people across the world die.

Every year millions of guns are manufactured across the world.

It's clear that there is a strong correlation between gun manufacture and gun related deaths. This has been proven in many scientific studies like this one. So why on earth are guns still manufactured?

While there is no question that guns are needed for war, are they really needed for civilian use? This study proves that over 85% of shootings occur AT home, not in some far away warzone but AT home.

I'm not going to stand here and ask "what can we do about this?" because the answer is plain as day - we need a national ban on firearms in America.

So why do so many Americans disagree with banning firearms?

Well there are three reasons. Some people like shooting at non-human objects but this is just pointless anyway so it isn't really an argument.

Another well used reason is that Americans need handguns to defend themselves. These two studies prove that civilians with guns do more harm than good. Lets face it, criminals are always going to get the first shot anyway.

The final reason is because Americans think it is their right to be able to carry guns around and kill people indiscriminately. Well this might be true but it makes you think.

So what I propose is for a total nationwide ban on guns. All that you have to do is ban manufacture of ammunition. Guns will soon disapear that way...even from the criminals.


If Guns Are Outlawed, Only Oppressors Will Have Gu (none / 0) (#1)
by Bob Avakian on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 08:40:49 AM PST
We can't solve the drive-by shootings (or any other problems) by disarming the people, and leaving them defenseless before those police who beat Rodney King and murdered Amadou Diallo. To end the desperation of the youth, to end the killings over a street corner, you need to target the injustice of capitalism, the extremes of rich and poor, the lack of opportunity--you need to target capitalism.


What do you think this is about. (none / 0) (#5)
by walwyn on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 11:08:37 AM PST
Of course banning guns is targeting capitalism as you quantly put it. Guns are not only a manifestation of consumerism, but, as a revolutionary ought to know, are also the driving force behind much of the capitalist economy.

Besides the colt and beretta are more of a fashion symbol than heavy gold chains, cell phones, or nike trainers will ever be.


An Unarmed People Cannot Change the World (none / 0) (#6)
by Bob Avakian on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 11:29:28 AM PST
An oppressed class which does not strive to learn to use arms, to acquire arms, only deserves to be treated like slaves. We cannot forget that we are living in a class society, that there is no way out of this society, and there can be none, except by means of the class struggle.

This system cannot be reformed. Revolution in the U.S. will mean revolutionary war!


You complete moron (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by PotatoError on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 12:57:18 PM PST
The military, the rulers will always have better weapons and technology as well as the experience.

Do you seriously believe for one second that a joe-sixpack "malicia" with hand guns could even put up half a fight against the US army's tanks and assualt rifles?

Face it, whether civilians have guns or not is irrelevant. If the military wanted to crush us they could.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

People Not Weapons Are Decisive in Warfare... (none / 0) (#9)
by Bob Avakian on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 01:15:45 PM PST
Mao summed up a whole lot about war in general--and about revolutionary war in particular--when he said: "They fight their way, and we fight our way." Their way relies, and can only rely, on technology and on maintaining the masses of people, and even the soldiers of their own army, in ignorance about what is actually being fought for. Our way relies, and can only rely, on giving the most powerful expression to the desire of the masses for a radical change and their increasingly conscious determination to put everything on the line in waging a revolutionary war to bring about such a change.

What are our great strategic strengths? Everything we represent, and specifically that we represent the only resolution of the fundamental contradictions of this system--the only resolution that is in the interests of the great majority of humanity, worldwide--and the whole world outlook and methodology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that gives us the most thoroughly correct and comprehensive way of understanding, and changing, the world. This, and the ways in which we can translate this into powerful resistance and ultimately revolutionary war against this system, is what we have to rely on most fundamentally in fighting "our way." It is the only thing we can fundamentally rely on.


Typical (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by walwyn on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 02:46:55 PM PST
Bloody armchair nonesense.

You want a state? Go take your fantasy of guerillas in the mist, and masterbate over it, to some smoke filled room some place else.

The State is just a state of mind comrade. Pretty much like religion actually, you can have Roman Catholic, Jew, Anglican, Hindi, Moslem, Buhdist, living cheek by jowl in the same place, and political systems are just the same. Just go ahead and form your Maoist state.


 
Only in classical conflict paradigm. (none / 0) (#10)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 02:13:56 PM PST
The military, the rulers will always have better weapons and technology as well as the experience.

So move the conflict to the area they aren't good in. Make the conflict asymmetrical. Make it distributed; remember Charlie's equipment in the Indochina jungles, and you will see the magic isn't in who has better toys. Make any their usage of force only aggravating the situation. Their strength is their weakness, and their experiences can mislead them.

Do you seriously believe for one second that a joe-sixpack "malicia" with hand guns could even put up half a fight against the US army's tanks and assualt rifles?

One man with a gun can tie alot of adversaries and their resources for several hours, up to a day. A handful of them can cause nationwide problems, which you can need to divert the adversary's resources to allow you to mount another attack. You need coordination in space and time, and information security; standard guidelines apply. Then there are the Media; they are a powerful propaganda machine, playing according to their own rules, and when you understand them you can exploit them. It's like chess on steroids.

The adversary is stronger. So you should never allow the formation of defined battlespace. The adversary should never have clear image of what is happening, so the leaders will misdirect their forces and possibly lose the domestic support. The fog of war is your friend.


Is this what hollywood has done to you? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by PotatoError on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 09:05:20 AM PST
"One man with a gun can tie a lot of adversaries and their resources for several hours, up to a day"

This isn't Rocky. In real life there are no "action heroes", the one man with a gun who forgets this vital truth becomes filled with bullets. The majority of civilians would not be trained enough. They might know how to fire a gun but not how to use one.

As for what will happen if the military rise up in America, its quite interesting so im going to write a diary entry about it. Not enough space here and it also raises a contraversial position at the end which I would be interested to see many people on this site answer.



<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Hollywood is bullshit. (none / 0) (#27)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 09:49:07 AM PST
In real life there are no "action heroes", the one man with a gun who forgets this vital truth becomes filled with bullets.

At the end, possibly yes. But there are no action heroes on both sides of the conflict; the unit leaders are usually nervous about their pension, and their superiors as well, and both are afraid of screwing up. Thus resorting rather to keeping the adversary outgunned and surrounded and trying to negotiate. Add the factor that most of the policemen prefer to end as old retirees than as dead heroes, and that untrained adversaries are harder to predict, and you have a typical siege situation where no side is really eager to fire the first shot.

The majority of civilians would not be trained enough. They might know how to fire a gun but not how to use one.

Which makes them hard to predict, thus potentially more dangerous. Professionals don't tend to panic.


Hang on.... (none / 0) (#33)
by PotatoError on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 11:55:39 AM PST
We seem to be talking about different kinds of conflict.
I am talking about a conflict where soldiers are more bothered about survival than their pensions.

I don't see how this one man with a rifle can hold off say a unit of 8 marines for longer than 5 minutes. Reasons follow:

1) He has a limited field of view, he cannot watch his back and his front simultaneously. He is susceptable from multi-directional attack.

2) He is inexperienced. He will probably spray fire his weapon and also be easy to pin down. He is more likely to make a mistake.

3) He is more likely to panic because a) he is alone and b) he isn't trained. While panic is unpredictable it is a lot more dangerous to the person panicing.

4) Soldiers are trained to deal with this sort of situation. They will attempt to attack from a different angle, they will pin him down with fire while the rest move in.

5) You can't defend a building with only one person. You will not have 360 view and you will eventually have to assume that the enemy are in the building with you, this ruins any chances of firing at targets outside the building.

6) Why can't the soldiers just go around his position and ignore him?

7) If they really can't take him out they could simply call in an air strike or shell it with tanks - this solution works for one man hiding in a building, it also works for 100.


Look at Kosovo, look at Afghanistan - how would any American rebel group win when the US army owns the air? Any stronghold they make will just be bombed, they will be fragmented, always mobile and out gunned. While they may fight the US army for 100 years, the military dictatorship will continue to rule the people.



<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
I'm confused (none / 0) (#64)
by nathan on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 09:05:29 PM PST
One man with a gun can tie alot of adversaries and their resources for several hours, up to a day...

I think that's only if they don't really want to kill him, no?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Correct. (none / 0) (#65)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 01:46:25 AM PST
My statement was done thinking about a standard "peacetime" situation, rather than a full-scale war.

When the adversary is willing to kill you at sight, it's better to stay low-profile and resort to booby traps.


Yea (none / 0) (#68)
by PotatoError on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 09:46:26 AM PST
Yea thats true. Even the most trained special forces can't see laser trip mines.

I know they cut the phone lines before they go in and I suspect they also use mobile phone jammers and suchlike before entering buildings to prevent phone triggered devices. They may also use other jamming devices too.

But this only works against the more stupid enemy. Better devices would be local like laser trip mines (invisible lasers of course - not red ones like in movies). Also you could rig up internal remote explosives. Plastic explosive inside a wall with wires running upstairs to a computer. You could even use a web cam and motion detection software to detonate the charge when movement is detected...however the quality of such software hints that this is unwise. More likely, you would do it by hand.

Maybe special forces can get round the laser trip wires by firing dense gas into a building, but this would take time and give you lots of warning - not their style.
As for the C4 in a wall, short of detonating a nuke down the road so the EMP burst blows your computer what can they do?

On a side note, still on the topic of lethal defense systems - Do you think the military have developed automated sentry guns? They seem pretty easy in concept and have a use so I would be suprised if they hadn't been made.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

And combine the approaches. (4.00 / 1) (#69)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 12:28:13 PM PST
Infrared laser trip mine here. A mousetrap with a shotgun shell, tied with a string to the door knob just there. A couple of claymore mines hidden in the walls, triggered by several motion detectors (on ie. 3-of-5 basis, they aren't too reliable). Weakened stairs a bit further.

Combination of a system and chaos. System for placing of the strategically important "surprises", chaos for peppering the rest of protected space with other ones. The morale of the attacker forces tends to drop when they see their comrades fall (all over the area).

I know they cut the phone lines before they go in and I suspect they also use mobile phone jammers and suchlike before entering buildings to prevent phone triggered devices. They may also use other jamming devices too.

A detector of a jammer can then serve as an early warning system. When both landline and cellphone die, and the cellphone frequencies show unusual signals, something bad is going to happen. (Time for a bidirectional VSAT, or a packet modem radio.)

Maybe special forces can get round the laser trip wires by firing dense gas into a building, but this would take time and give you lots of warning - not their style.

It's why I advocate combining the approaches. They can disable some, but they can't disable all - at least not without extensive use of combined countermeasures.

As for the C4 in a wall, short of detonating a nuke down the road so the EMP burst blows your computer what can they do?

Cut off the power. Wait until the UPS of the central computer will not die, or the generator will not run out of fuel.

Hence it is important to not rely on any central computer. It is a nice thing to have - but if it fails, the security system - instead of stopping working - has to fall apart to individual, microcontroller-driven (or gate-array driven) units. Reflex nodes working even if the spine is cut or the brain is dead.

On a side note, still on the topic of lethal defense systems - Do you think the military have developed automated sentry guns? They seem pretty easy in concept and have a use so I would be suprised if they hadn't been made.

I would be surprised as well. Though there will be problems to prevent friendly fire.

I got another idea, similar to an automated gun. An automated thrower of fast-spinning circular saw blades. Typical adversaries are used to see the effects of machine guns, but witnessing a decapitation with flying swirling blade could have quite devastating effects on attacker's troops' morale. As a side benefit for long narrow corridors with concrete walls, the blades will have tendency to bounce and behave unpredictably. (I will admit my inspirations: shurikens, and "that" weapon from some game.)


Yea (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by PotatoError on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 02:59:37 PM PST
I don't like using films as examples of real life but...

In Aliens they had pretty effective sentry guns. I imagine it would have shot enemies and friendlies alike. I don't think it matters as long as u stay behind the gun, indeed you would only use them for defense and they would be very effective. I imagine a whole squad of well trained soldiers could get wiped out by one placed in a coridoor. Maybe the US uses them as a perimeter defense in their lower profile military bases.

Yea wheras Islamic Terrorists and Far Right extermist groups get screwed over by Special Forces all the time, computer geeks have an advantage - we don't rely on guns. I guess if the worst came to the worst I could put my Quake skillz into use and rocket jump out up the chimney lol.

Of course I sometimes worry about unconfirmed reports of amazing technology that our military have got their hands on and (for some weird reason) are reluctant to share. Not necessarily alien technology but human made technology. Some witness accounts of Roswell make for interesting reading...like strange materials found by civilians near the crash site. Not that it was anything to do with aliens - just that accounts of materials that levitate when a current is put through them are quite interesting and much unlike the publicity gaining "i was abducted" stories.





<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Those that talk of the oppressed classes... (none / 0) (#15)
by walwyn on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 02:52:09 PM PST
...are tomorrows oppressors.

Fucking vanguard - worse then the bloody Libertarians.


What It Means to Be the Vanguard (none / 0) (#17)
by Bob Avakian on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 05:58:05 PM PST
First of all, what does it mean to say you're the vanguard? Does it mean that you insist that everybody follow you whatever you do? No, that's not what it means--or that's not what it should mean.

What it means is not that you are declaring yourself that which everyone must follow, but that you're taking responsibility, in all of its different expressions and every dimension, for actually leading the process that has to be carried forward in order to deal with the problem, in order to bring about the solution, in order to upend and overturn the system and transform all of society and contribute to that process on a worldwide basis. That's what it means to be a vanguard fundamentally. It means you're taking the responsibility for that, and that means both leading and it also means learning. It means learning from the masses and it means learning from other people. It means carrying out a process of unity-struggle-unity with many different forces in society. But that's fundamentally what you're doing when you're saying that you're the--you're saying, "We are willing to and determined to take the responsibility for leading the revolutionary process to overturn this monstrous system and to bring into being a better world together with revolutionaries and vanguard forces throughout the world."




Elitist twaddle. (none / 0) (#18)
by walwyn on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 06:20:32 PM PST
And unoriginal copy at that.

Return when you can formulate an argument of your own, little boy.


 
I agree. (none / 0) (#22)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 01:25:04 AM PST
However, we shouldn't limit our scope to physical arms only.

The best weapon is the information. With better informations than your adversary has, you can win a battle without even letting it happen.

The Adversary knows it. Hence the Carnivore, hence the relaxed regulations on eavesdropping and police access to ISP/telco logs, hence the laws mandating telcos to permit access to unencrypted communication. (Hence the need for end-to-end crypto for phones.)

Another related problem lies in the corporate media ownership. But it is a topic for a whole new thread.

Knowledge is power, and the brain is the best of weapons.


Somebody doesn't know their history (none / 0) (#31)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 10:56:15 AM PST
...and that person is PotatoError.

"The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerilla army wins if it does not lose."

This more or less sums up the reason why it would be impossible for the government to conquer its own subjects if they were armed.

Guerilla warfare is all hit-and-run tactics. They rely on sneaking up on unsuspecting enemies and then sabotage, which lowers their enemies' moral. Equipment gets destroyed, barracks get burned, and booby traps (such as land mines) pose a threat to passing squads of infantry.

The big, high-tech, organized army can only shoot at what they can see. What good is a Tomahawk cruise missile or an LGB smart bomb if you don't have a huge enemy installation to hit? Or what good would an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter be if you can't find any armored tanks on which to use its laser-guided Hellfire missiles? These high-tech weapons of war, which you believe enables a conventional army to crush civilian resistance, are utterly useless in the dark and very sneaky world of guerilla tactics.

The army would have nothing to shoot at. Who would their enemy be? The family sitting at the kitchen table? The begger on the street corner? The local youth basketball team? Or the pizza delivery boy passing by? Any of those people could have a gun or a grenade concealed beneath their clothing to use in a moment's notice. The military would have to kill them all. But that can't happen. Because there are 1 million troops in the U.S. armed forces and over 80 million Americans with guns. There aren't nearly enough soldiers to go door-to-door, confiscating guns from every single American home. Good luck to them.

Seriously, anybody who thinks that civilians with guns don't pose a threat to a heavily armed government do not have a clue what they are talking about. You obviously haven't learned your history. The U.S. did in the Vietnam War and Somalia. The Russians did in Afghanistan and Checnya.


So how are you going to fund... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by walwyn on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 12:11:28 PM PST
...this guerilla army? Cocaine smuggling? Bank hiests?

Mad Scientist and his mates can't even put together a computer OS with a semi decent GUI. You think their going to give up the advantages of dial-a-pizza and rough it out in the woods?

Heck you got Ashcroft et al busy dismantling whatever freedom you thought you had, and yet we don't see you out in them there woods either.


I don't... (none / 0) (#35)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 12:32:15 PM PST
...like Ashcroft either. But until I see a real oppressive government that starts violating every amendment (the 2nd included), then I'm not afraid.

In any case, self-ensured funding wouldn't be entirely necesary. I'm sure that many countries would support the civilian uprising. I can easily see some Latin American and Southeast Asian countries supporting the American people's rebellion; if they won, it would give those countries a chance to get a slice of the economic pie. It happens all the time in guerilla wars.

I don't know if narcotics smuggling would be necesary, but it might. If so, I think it would be a necesary evil to ensure the preservation of the people's freedom.


Ah I see (none / 0) (#40)
by walwyn on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 02:39:14 PM PST
Reintroduction of slavery, incarceration without due process, state religion - fine - but stop collecting taxes too and watch out Hyped will get real mad.

Who except Saddam and the FARC is gonna fund your terrorism? All economic eyes are on China.

The only person who said that... (none / 0) (#41)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 02:45:58 PM PST
...is you.

Reintroduction of slavery? Incarceration without due process? State religion? Where do I support any of those? I am against violations of basic principles of freedom, one of which is to own a gun.

Besides, maybe China WOULD fund a rebellion. Why not? Good way to gain a future economic customer, and they hate our government, not the people.


Pardon me but... (none / 0) (#42)
by walwyn on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 03:02:37 PM PST
...didn't you say:

until I see a real oppressive government that starts violating every amendment (the 2nd included), then I'm not afraid.

why yes you did.

Now an apology would be nice but not expected.

If China were to fund your little rebellion, you'd have to show more commitment then you have up to now. It seems the sky would have to fall before you'd get off the sofa.


Don't you think... (none / 0) (#43)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 03:15:54 PM PST
...that I meant a real tyrannical government?

Now that I think about it (yes, this is a new idea; I've changed my view a bit), even if the government tried to collect all guns, I wouldn't join a rebellion. I just wouldn't turn in my guns. If the REALLY bad stuff started happening, then I would be willing to fight.

That said, let's talk about YOU for a second here. How about this:

If you are from America (I don't know where you're from), then leave. If you don't want to live in a country with guns, then go live somewhere else. If you're in another country, then stop treating law-abiding people in another as though they are criminals just because they like something that YOU don't.

What you think is... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by walwyn on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 03:53:35 PM PST
...not at all clear. You're currently in a thread supporting a Maoist guerilla uprising on American soil to free the oppressed masses.

My suggestion was that the supposed Maoist could combat capitalism by attacking consumerism and through that the 'Military Industrial' machine, rather than start a killing spree.

You, however, start to drool over visions of brother killing brother, and, when prompted, eager to comtemplate drug smuggling, and taking the Chinese yuan.

In light of the above what right do you have to tell anyone to leave America?

You say "If the REALLY bad stuff started happening, then I would be willing to fight." but just how bad would it need to be?


I don't think you... (none / 0) (#45)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 04:28:43 PM PST
...understand.

Maoist guerilla uprising? To be honest, I really ignored most of those posts, but having read them, I can only say this: I support the right of the population to be armed, whether in defense against tyranny or against the criminal underworld. How it will be done, I do not know. Guerilla conflicts are unique in how they are fought, but often identical in their outcome.

"My suggestion was that the supposed Maoist could combat capitalism by attacking consumerism and through that the 'Military Industrial' machine, rather than start a killing spree."

Walwyn, why is that you associate resorting to guns as being a 'killing spree' or 'massacre'? Typical gun contoller behavior...let's associate all guns with senseless murder, shall we?

"You, however, start to drool over visions of brother killing brother, and, when prompted, eager to comtemplate drug smuggling, and taking the Chinese yuan."

Here we go again...you continue to portray gun owners in the most barbaric manner possible.

Brother killing brother? Since when are the oppressors your brothers when they choose to infringe upon your rights and put themselves above you?

Oh, and you think I'm "eager" and "drooling" to think of this? Walwyn, who the hell do you think I am? Do you think I ENJOY those thoughts? Do you really think I'm so trigger-happy that the thought of killing somebody or fighting in a revolution excites me?

As I have said, I hope it never happens. But if somebody tries to take from me what is rightfully mine, then I will fight for it. I have a right to do so. How hard is that for you to understand?

"In light of the above what right do you have to tell anyone to leave America?"

Telling you to leave America? Jesus, it's ridiculous how you fucking kids try to twist words to suit your own agendas. I was not ORDERING you to leave; I was SUGGESTING. There is a difference. If guns make you feel so insecure that you want to take away people's right to defend themselves, then MAYBE you ought to go to a place where there are no guns. That is simply a suggestion. Whether you decide to do it is YOUR choice, not mine.

"You say "If the REALLY bad stuff started happening, then I would be willing to fight." but just how bad would it need to be?"

Again, there is no way to know for sure. It depends upon the circumstances at the time. Do you think I can envision exactly what is going to happen and how?

Following a thread seems to be a mystery to you. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by walwyn on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 05:14:02 PM PST
To be honest, I really ignored most of those posts
So you just jumped right on in without ascertaining the facts first. Typical.

You don't think that Revolution in the U.S. will mean revolutionary war! amounts to a killing spree? Amazing!

And if the 3rd to 5th paragraphs of this aren't an example of 'drooling over brother killing brother', I really don't want to know what you think is.

Since when are the oppressors your brothers when they choose to infringe upon your rights and put themselves above you?

We are talking about the US military here. They are trained not to follow unconstitutional orders. Your guerilla army isn't fighting oppressors it is in revolt against the lawful government.

you continue to portray gun owners in the most barbaric manner possible.
But if somebody tries to take from me what is rightfully mine, then I will fight for it.
You still don't get it do you? This is a thread on a Maoist revolutionary war on American soil. Your attempt to turn it into something about your gun ownership sounds like an obsession. Quite frankly your beginning to look like a comic strip character.

 
GUI? Phooey! (none / 0) (#61)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 02:51:43 PM PST
Who needs a GUI when we have brains?

Besides, computer specialist's role in the woods is somehow limited. While as a fifth column or as an agent sleeper, living two lives, he can accomplish much more.


Well, well, well (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by walwyn on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 03:15:33 PM PST
a fifth column or as an agent sleeper, living two lives

A schizophrenic dreaming about the rise of Fascism eh?

 
Don't forget (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by because it isnt on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 08:48:55 AM PST
that the AQ just played host to a troll-free gun debate, which makes for very interesting reading.

Anyway, I don't think we need a ban on firearms. It's not possible. Instead I think we should just restrict firearms to criminals, the police and the military. Also perhaps the government ministers should get guns to defend themselves from crazy gun fetishists. Remember that if President Kennedy had been waving a gun instead of waving at the people, he could have shot his oppressor Lee Harvey Oswald before he was assassinated.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

But FP polls don't get archived. (none / 0) (#4)
by walwyn on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 10:30:49 AM PST
At some point, probably fairly soon, the gun poll will be replaced and we'll have lost some primetime idiocy.


 
AQ? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by First Incision on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 02:43:09 PM PST
AQ? Al Qaeda? I think we all know what they think about gun control.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Don't look now (4.00 / 1) (#49)
by because it isnt on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 05:40:47 PM PST
but what's that on my toolbar?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Ban on ammo... (none / 0) (#3)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 09:32:40 AM PST
...wouldn't work. Anyone with basic chemistry knowledge can make quite effective gunpowder, anyone with basic lead casting experience can make bullets. The shell casings can be reused, when the primers - composed from ie. lead azide, which is well-within the skills of an average high-school chemistry student - are replaced. I don't even mention the simple construction of a shotgun shell.

The firearms themselves can be manufactured at home as well; all you need is a decently equipped workshop. As a side benefit, they are unregistered.

You may not have the accuracy of modern sniper rifles (a sawed-off shotgun doesn't need accuracy anyway), but you can achieve decent reliability. Look at the technology used just a few decades ago, now available to anyone interested. With the falling prices of control electronics and actuators, in couple years we may have numerically-controlled machines in quite many garages.

I love dual-use technologies.


I have to disagree (none / 0) (#7)
by PotatoError on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 12:39:37 PM PST
You say that clever people could make firearms. But we're not worried about Microsoft employees here - no, we're concerned with criminals.

Clever criminals don't use guns.

It's a lot more difficult to make guns than u say. If you get flaws in the barrel it could end up blowing your hand off.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

I think that... (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 02:18:36 PM PST
...you need to do more research.

In the Middle East, there are gun shops where peasants have produced <a href="http://www.time.com/time/asia/photoessays/pakistan.092401/5.html">fully functioning automatic weapons such as AK47s'</a>, which are nearly identical to the real things. They use tools that are considerably inferior to what you would find in a Sears catalogue.

ANYBODY with a few simple tools can construct a submachine gun or shotgun. Criminals included. It's not that tough. And it's easy to rifle the barrel, too, so that it won't blow your hand off (as you suggested).

Frankly, though, when guns are no longer in civilian hands, then I bet criminals will on buying guns from military and police. If there is demand, there will be supply. And who better to give supply than America's poorly paid GIs' and police officers? Don't you think a police officer would gladly sell his Glock to a drug dealer if he thought he could make some extra bucks? Or maybe some Army officers would sell M16s' and .50 caliber machine guns to a paramilitary extremist group to earn profits.

You need to consider... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by walwyn on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 03:06:51 PM PST
...that your most common criminal is looking to find his next fix. He is in no position to be gundrilling.

Arguing that GIs and police officers are likely to sell their guns to drug dealers: is the most disgraceful slur on Americans I've ever seen.


Demand and supply (none / 0) (#21)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 01:08:36 AM PST
...that your most common criminal is looking to find his next fix. He is in no position to be gundrilling.

Right. He is the demand side of the underground gun market. The ones with the skills and equipment and need or desire for money are the supply side.

Arguing that GIs and police officers are likely to sell their guns to drug dealers: is the most disgraceful slur on Americans I've ever seen.

But quite realistic. Even if the majority of them would be honest, the rest is enough for keeping the market alive and well.


 
how about a decent deterent... (none / 0) (#25)
by PotatoError on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 09:19:03 AM PST
Your link has shown me something I didn't know before but I still disagree that criminals can easily make guns.

I cant make guns. None of my friends can. Even if we looked it up on the internet we probably couldn't. It's one of those manufacturing processes which you need training with - go to that link yourself and look at the tools the bloke has on the back wall. Sure, organised criminals might well be able to find someone who is capable and get him to make their own weapons.

But if the common criminal had no access to guns it would severly slash gun related crime. Even if they got hold of them from the black market, a good stop and search policy from the police force and severe penalties for possession of illegal firearms would put an end to people carrying them on the street.

A very conservative policy should be taken on gun law - not the pathetic communist "everyone should have a gun" view in America. Special armed response police (maybe more akin to soldiers) would react to any "gun disturbances". These people would be armed with automatic weapons, be well trained and shoot to kill.

I guarantee that faced against all this, your average criminal will give up the gun and go to using a knife instead. Problem solved.

The problem in america is that everyone looks at the gun problem in a 2D way. Many Americans say that the criminals will still keep their guns even if they became illegal. Yes, that's true but they wouldn't have them for long. If they took them onto the street and were stopped and searched they should be looking at 10 years imprisonment for possession. THAT will not only stop criminals using guns, it will get criminals off the street. Communists like the NRA are just burying their heads in the sand.







<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Do you... (none / 0) (#29)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 10:18:27 AM PST
...know your ends of the political scale?

"Pathetic communist "everyone should have a gun" view in America...Communists like the NRA are just burying their heads in the sand."

Communists? Do you know what you're talking about? The NRA is not communist. If guns are for a communist society, then why aren't people allowed to own guns in China or North Korea? In a communist society, there would be no need for guns. But, that's not the kind of society we are, or the type that we will ever become.

"...know your ends of the political scale?

"Pathetic communist "everyone should have a gun" view in America...Communists like the NRA are just burying their heads in the sand."

Communists? Do you know what you're talking about? The NRA is not communist. If guns are for a communist society, then why aren't people allowed to own guns in China or North Korea? In a communist society, there would be no need for guns. But, that's not the kind of society we are, or the type that we will ever become.

"Sure, organised criminals might well be able to find someone who is capable and get him to make their own weapons."

PotatoError, I don't think you understand. I'm not talking about criminals making guns themselves. I'm talking about major crime syndicates in the U.S. that have underground factories set up to manufacture guns for widespread distribution amongst the criminal underworld. You saw that picture. That poor Pakistani peasant was making fully automatic AK47 assault rifles with a primitive lathe and files. With the types of power tools that are available in the U.S., how hard do you think it would be for some criminals to set up a complete manufacturing plant in some abandoned warehouse out in the middle of nowhere? Many such factories would spring up. They could make guns and ammunition at a rate of millions per year, and then sell those guns to OTHER criminals. Suddenly, it's just as easy for common criminals to buy guns as it was before. Do you see what I mean?

Might I remind you that in Washington DC (where gun control is strict), almost 1/5th of the guns confiscated annually by the police are homemade. Washington police have found a range of homemade weapons in the hands of drug dealers ranging from Remington shotguns and .38 revolvers to Uzi and MAC10 submachine guns. Even though the weapons are homemade, they are often very authentic copies - right down to the fake serial numbers and trademarks. Many of these guns are not found in the hands of organized criminals, as you suggested; I recall reading an article about police finding a 15-year old heroin dealer in possession of an MP5 submachine gun (which cannot be legally owned in the U.S. for anyone under 21 without a special license).

Don't underestimate the power of black market firearms. What didn't work on narcotics won't work any better on guns when it comes to criminals.

"The problem in america is that everyone looks at the gun problem in a 2D way."

Yes. YOU are one of those people. You seem to hate guns for killing 30,000 people a year, yet you forget the fact that 2.5 million people will use a gun to defend themselves against criminals (in 90% of cases, by simply pointing it at the criminal and scaring him off).

"Even if they got hold of them from the black market, a good stop and search policy from the police force and severe penalties for possession of illegal firearms would put an end to people carrying them on the street."

Unfortunately, there is something called the 4th Amendment to the Constitution that prevents police from doing that. Can't happen.

"If they took them onto the street and were stopped and searched they should be looking at 10 years imprisonment for possession. THAT will not only stop criminals using guns, it will get criminals off the street."

In theory, this could work. In pratice, criminals will gladly shoot at police officers. Try going to lower Brooklyn sometime (where I used to live) where the gangs are out chillin. The Brotherhood, one of New York's toughest gangs, considers it dishonorable to bow down to police pressure. I recall reading in the newspaper every day about a cop who had gotten shot in the hood because he was sweating some gang member. I doubt that any criminals are going to care what the punishment is. They're criminals and know that what they do for a living is gonna land them FAR more time than 10 years if caught with a gun.

"Special armed response police (maybe more akin to soldiers) would react to any "gun disturbances". These people would be armed with automatic weapons, be well trained and shoot to kill."

Oh, yes, so we turn the U.S. into a police state? Again, it's remarkable how much freedom you are willing to sacrifice for a little personal protection, even though you disregard the fact that more Americans' lives are saved by guns than taken by them.

Might I remind you that there is one police officer for every 3,500 Americans. Do you really expect the police to protect you? I don't. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled several times that the police are not responsible for people's personal protection. So if you expect the police to save you when all guns are gone, you are dead wrong.


 
Sure it would work? (none / 0) (#30)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 10:42:12 AM PST
Your link has shown me something I didn't know before but I still disagree that criminals can easily make guns.

Oh - in denial despite the facts?

I cant make guns. None of my friends can.

I can, and at least a dozen of my friends can too. Your country, or at least your social group, is apparently filled with unskilled people.

Even if we looked it up on the internet we probably couldn't.

The blueprints available from the Net are often inaccurate. If you know what are you doing, you can design your own.

It's one of those manufacturing processes which you need training with - go to that link yourself and look at the tools the bloke has on the back wall.

I seen just a few files, a lathe, and a few other more or less standard locksmithing equipment. Nothing I wouldn't have in my workshop except the lathe. A friend has it, though, so it is not really a problem.

Sure, organised criminals might well be able to find someone who is capable and get him to make their own weapons.

I'd guess it is a matter of a phonecall or two. (Okay, okay, maybe three.)

But if the common criminal had no access to guns it would severly slash gun related crime. Even if they got hold of them from the black market, a good stop and search policy from the police force and severe penalties for possession of illegal firearms would put an end to people carrying them on the street.

I don't know how you, but I don't want the police to be able to stop and search me on a whim.

A very conservative policy should be taken on gun law - not the pathetic communist "everyone should have a gun" view in America. Special armed response police (maybe more akin to soldiers) would react to any "gun disturbances".

What about the civilians around? Or are you a fan of "collateral damage"?

These people would be armed with automatic weapons, be well trained and shoot to kill.

Automatic weapons are inaccurate. Have civilians around, and there will be "damages".

I guarantee that faced against all this, your average criminal will give up the gun and go to using a knife instead. Problem solved.

Really? When swords were forbidden to own for the peasants, in Far East ages ago, nunchaku and tonfas appeared - agricultural tools repurposed for combat. Martial arts using sticks or even bare hands appeared. Ban something, and either it will stay on the black market, or workarounds appear.

The problem in america is that everyone looks at the gun problem in a 2D way. Many Americans say that the criminals will still keep their guns even if they became illegal. Yes, that's true but they wouldn't have them for long.

If you carry one 24/7, you have decent chance you will be caught over time. However, if you carry it only to the action, the probability of being intercepted during a routine search is much lower. If the screening process for the searches is nonrandom, which it usually is, you can further lower the odds using the Carnival Booth algorithm.

If they took them onto the street and were stopped and searched they should be looking at 10 years imprisonment for possession.

Nice way how to get rid of you. Just sticking a gun into your briefcase, then alerting a nearby police officer that you behave suspiciously. Try to prove it isn't yours.

THAT will not only stop criminals using guns, it will get criminals off the street.

Yeah, really.

Communists like the NRA are just burying their heads in the sand.

I thought Communists are on the left, while NRA members are typically on the right?


Yea it would (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by PotatoError on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 12:51:10 PM PST
I can, and at least a dozen of my friends can too. Your country, or at least your social group, is apparently filled with unskilled people.

Well are you a common criminal? My point is that if you were one, you probably wouldn't know how to make guns and your choice of friends would be very different too.

I don't want the police to be able to stop and search me on a whim

Do you disagree with searches at airports? Do you disagree with metal detectors and X-ray machines being used?

What about the civilians around? Or are you a fan of "collateral damage"?

Interesting, on one hand you argue that civilians need guns to protect themselves but here you argue that guns harm civilians. Why do you think that a gun used by a trained police officer is more likely to cause "collateral damage" than a gun used by an untrained civilian?

Ban something, and either it will stay on the black market, or workarounds appear.

Knives, sticks, hammers, etc are all melee weapons but gun can take someone out at range. At least if there were no guns around you could run from aggressors.

However, if you carry it only to the action, the probability of being intercepted during a routine search is much lower

In Britain the police throw more resources into catching criminals who use guns than ones who use knives. In a twisted way this encourages criminals to use knives rather than guns as well as causing a form of natural selection where a higher proportion of gun weilding criminals end up in prison.
Over time this will reduce the number of gun criminals, not immediately you understand but my proposal is one of deterent - and deterent takes time to establish. Once the criminals know that the police take guns very seriously they will learn to avoid them.

Just sticking a gun into your briefcase, then alerting a nearby police officer that you behave suspiciously. Try to prove it isn't yours.

It's no different from drugs or any other illegal item. Do you disagree with the policy of arresting people found in possession of drugs? Would you rather drugs were ignored on the off chance that it could have been planted?

"I thought Communists are on the left, while NRA members are typically on the right?"

While NRA members might seem right-wing there is a lot of leftish "power to the people" in their movement. They can't possibly be described as right-wing or their "take up arms to defend against authority" rhetoric would make them hypocrites. They don't fear the threat of a left-wing revolution but they do fear the threat of a right-wing dictatorship. Their only connection with right-wing extremists is a shared liking of firearms.

The NRA is often misnamed as a right-wing organisation because they oppose the ideas of many liberals. Many liberals denounce guns, but just because the liberals disagree the NRA on this issue doesn't make the NRA a right-wing organisation. In fact liberals agree with NRA members on many issues. NRA members often see the government intruding on freedom, a view they share with liberals and the left in general. I think you can sum it up as follows: The NRA and the left hate authority unless they are that authority.




<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Perhaps... (none / 0) (#39)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 01:17:51 PM PST
...we should watch who we call criminals, huh?

"Well are you a common criminal? My point is that if you were one, you probably wouldn't know how to make guns and your choice of friends would be very different too."

Potato, I have a drill press, a lathe, a bunch of files, a vice, and a large Sears tool kit in my basement. I have access to scrap steel at Duke Unversity (where I work), and blueprints for the Sten submachine gun. With all that stuff, I could produce a fully functioning Sten, which would fire 600 rounds per minute. Police would be outgunned if I decided to rob a bank with it. But guess what? I don't intend to do that. Why? Because I am a law-abiding citizen, even though you have labeled me as an evil person.

"Do you disagree with searches at airports? Do you disagree with metal detectors and X-ray machines being used?"

That's because you are entering federal property. It's their land, their building. They have a right to check you when you come in for their sake. But they don't have a right to trespass on your land, in your home. Again, the 4th Amendment prevents this.

"Interesting, on one hand you argue that civilians need guns to protect themselves but here you argue that guns harm civilians. Why do you think that a gun used by a trained police officer is more likely to cause "collateral damage" than a gun used by an untrained civilian?"

Trained police officers? Police officers were responsible for 330 accidental shootings last year (compared to 30 for civilians).

When you give police machine guns and turn them loose on a crowded neighborhood, then you increase the chances of damage. Twenty cops firing hundreds of rounds a second, compared to a civilian firing a few? Yes, that's not a good thing. It's not at all like what he meant.

"In Britain the police throw more resources into catching criminals who use guns than ones who use knives. In a twisted way this encourages criminals to use knives rather than guns as well as causing a form of natural selection where a higher proportion of gun weilding criminals end up in prison."

You are dead wrong about this. Haven't you been paying attention to crime statistics coming out of Britain recently? Their gun crime has INCREASED since the 1997 handgun ban. More criminals are using handguns and automatic weapons than ever before (even though those guns are banned). Gun prohibition sure does work then, huh?

"While NRA members might seem right-wing there is a lot of leftish "power to the people" in their movement."

That doesn't make them communist. Again, in a communist society, there would be a notion towards complete peace and harmony. If guns are a communist society aspect, then why aren't people allowed to own them in China, North Korea, or any other communist nation?


well... (none / 0) (#46)
by PotatoError on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 04:58:31 PM PST
If you think giving civilians guns protects them then how come more civilians die from gun deaths in America than any other country at peace time in the world?

Sure, kids in other countries with guns aplenty don't go around mowing down their class mates with automatic weapons but this is because their society isn't fucked up. It shows how screwed up Western society is and how it can create crazy people. What you don't do in a country of crazy people is lay guns all over the place.

In America can civilians carry guns on the street? No, hardly ever. So if armed robbers burst into a bank lobby and there are 30 people in there are any of them armed? No, so whats all this rubbish about civilians being able to protect themselves?

Imagine if your dream did come true and every civilian walks around with firearms.
Sure that is a deterent and many criminals would decide against attacking people. But have you thought about the lunatics? Arguments happen all the time, some people just can't deal with arguments and lose it. Fortunately most of these people aren't armed at the time and lash out with their fists only. But give everyone a gun and you can be guaranteed that thousands of people will die every year from unplanned shootings bought on in sudden anger.

There are also crazy people. Maybe they've had a breakdown, lost their job or wife, or just have a mental problem, maybe they just don't give a shit anymore..but they can just suddenly snap with no warning. These people don't have the frame of mind to go out and buy guns, especially if there is no warning. But if you put a deadly killing tool in these peoples hands you can guarantee people will start dying.

The criminal will always get the first shot in. Maybe they will only take down one other person before they are taken out by another civilian, maybe they will get more.

Which leads to an interesting point:
If everyone has guns and one maniac is in the middle of a crowd and shoots someone, what happens? Panic, followed by a dozen people drawing their firearms and firing at the aggressor. How many of these people will miss? How will people know that none of these people are accomplises? Surely an all out shootout is going to occur - much like how a brawl starts. The crowd would literally shoot itself. Hundreds could die. That's why everyone should NOT be able to own guns.




<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Come, now. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by because it isnt on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 05:06:42 PM PST
Potato, I have a drill press, a lathe, a bunch of files, a vice, and a large Sears tool kit in my basement. I have access to scrap steel at Duke Unversity (where I work), and blueprints for the Sten submachine gun. With all that stuff, I could produce a fully functioning Sten, which would fire 600 rounds per minute.

I have a bunch of wires, ICs, resistors, capacitors and a soldering iron. It doesn't mean I can make a Pentium 4.

600 rounds of what, incidentally? You haven't made any homebrew ammo for it, and making the 1000s of rounds you'll need quickly becomes tedious.

Police would be outgunned if I decided to rob a bank with it. But guess what? I don't intend to do that. Why? Because I am a law-abiding citizen, even though you have labeled me as an evil person.

Is that so? The FBI report for last night says you were rubbing it between your legs and chanting the word 'Heston'. Your next shipment's going to be late, by the way.

You are dead wrong about this. Haven't you been paying attention to crime statistics coming out of Britain recently? Their gun crime has INCREASED since the 1997 handgun ban. More criminals are using handguns and automatic weapons than ever before (even though those guns are banned). Gun prohibition sure does work then, huh?

Look, I've had it with you. You are completely stupid. Yes, there has been an increase in violent crime using guns. There has been an even LARGER increase in violent crime not involving guns, i.e. THE GENERAL INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIMES HAS BROUGHT UP THE GUN CRIME RATE. If it weren't for the 1997 ban, the general anti-gun culture of Britain, and the lack of armed patrol officers in Britain, then there would be an even LARGER increase in gun crime. Currently, films like the 1998 Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels have made guns 'fashionable' amongst inner-city gang members, which is why there is a specifically targetted police crackdown on this, as PotatoError was trying to tell you.

In 1997, we had *39* handgun homicides, i.e. criminals murdering people with handguns. Yes, 39. Yes, for the entire country. Yes, really. No, I am not missing out any zeros. Yes, I know 30,000 of your lot snuff it with guns every year. Yes, I know that's 80 a day. But anyway, this *39* went up to *42* in 1999. Yes, that's an increase of 3. How many percent? That's a 7.6% increase, but keep in mind that being out by one counts as 2.5%, so let's be careful in counting. Yes, I know twice as many people were killed by guns per day in the US (by guns in general) as are killed in the UK (by handguns) per year.

You like statistics? Here's some 1998 statistics for gun death rates across countries:
  • USA: 14.24 (deaths per 100,000)
  • Scotland: 0.54
  • England & Wales: 0.41
Is it fun being gun death capital of the world? Well, you've got to shed the blood of a few patriots to keep that 2nd amendment oiled.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

The blood is shed... (none / 0) (#50)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 06:37:30 PM PST
...by criminals.

"Is it fun being gun death capital of the world? Well, you've got to shed the blood of a few patriots to keep that 2nd amendment oiled."

Kid, CRIMINALS are the ones shedding blood here. The majority of gun deaths are criminals-on-criminals. And I suppose you consider them patriots as well?

No matter, we'll look into the lack of sense that you and PotatoError seem to have.

"Sure, kids in other countries with guns aplenty don't go around mowing down their class mates with automatic weapons but this is because their society isn't fucked up."

There has never been an incident where a kid used an automatic weapon (machine gun) in a shooting.

Evidnetly, however, you seem to have forgotten about an incident in Brazil in which a college student went blazing away in a mall with a G3 assault rifle (Brazil having strict gun control). We've never had that sort of thing.

"In America can civilians carry guns on the street? No, hardly ever. So if armed robbers burst into a bank lobby and there are 30 people in there are any of them armed? No, so whats all this rubbish about civilians being able to protect themselves?"

Which is why conceal carry permits on a shall-issue basis are a good thing. Vermont has started implementing such laws (many people carry handguns there), and their gun crime went way DOWN. A law enforcement official from some county in Vermont actually cited the conceal carry permits as being responsible, and gave examples of citizens capturing criminals, including one attempted bank robbery incident.

"But have you thought about the lunatics? Arguments happen all the time, some people just can't deal with arguments and lose it."

Arguments usually happen at home. Besides, we don't have an abundance of arguments turning into shootouts.

Again, do you realize how few legal gun owners in America will misuse their guns? 90-95% of people who use a gun to kill somebody are criminals (in that they have an adult criminal record). They don't own guns legally.

"But give everyone a gun and you can be guaranteed that thousands of people will die every year from unplanned shootings bought on in sudden anger."

Really? There are lots of guns around here now, and that doesn't seem to be happening, last time I checked.

"But if you put a deadly killing tool in these peoples hands you can guarantee people will start dying."

Again, very few legal gun owners do that. You don't seem to realize how little that happens. Maybe you should get your head of all the media propoganda in which you are indulged and pay attention to what's really going on.

"The criminal will always get the first shot in. Maybe they will only take down one other person before they are taken out by another civilian, maybe they will get more."

Not all criminals carry guns. Say a mugger attacks a person with a knife, and the person (who has a conceal carry permit) draws a handgun and points it at him. The mugger drops his knife and runs off. These sorts of criminals don't usually use guns. However, even if they do, you seem to believe that criminals immediately shoot to kill when they first see a victim. Not usually...they usually point their gun, demand money, take it, and run. Say a criminal (who isn't expecting the person to be armed) demands their money and starts to run off. The moment he turns his back, the person draws a gun and shouts at him to freeze (maybe fires a WARNING shot), and then he has to surrender.

"If everyone has guns and one maniac is in the middle of a crowd and shoots someone, what happens? Panic, followed by a dozen people drawing their firearms and firing at the aggressor. How many of these people will miss? How will people know that none of these people are accomplises? Surely an all out shootout is going to occur - much like how a brawl starts. The crowd would literally shoot itself. Hundreds could die. That's why everyone should NOT be able to own guns."

Again, this has never happened. Show me an incident where it has. I can give numerous instances in which several people in a crowd used guns to stop criminals, and no innocent bystanders were killed.

Here are some facts about the 2.5 million gun defenses every year:

-In 83.5% of successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first - disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

-In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

-In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

-In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

"I have a bunch of wires, ICs, resistors, capacitors and a soldering iron. It doesn't mean I can make a Pentium 4."

Once again, Because It Isn't proves what an ignorant child he is.

Wow, good comparison, isn't it? You have no idea how easy it is to do. Did you not pay attention to the photograph I posted? Of the peasant gun maker building AK47s' from scratch? You have no idea how easy it is to make a gun compared to a CPU. Go ask the WDC police about the homemade guns they keep finding in criminal hands.

"Look, I've had it with you. You are completely stupid. Yes, there has been an increase in violent crime using guns. There has been an even LARGER increase in violent crime not involving guns, i.e. THE GENERAL INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIMES HAS BROUGHT UP THE GUN CRIME RATE."

Oh, wow...

NO FUCKING SHIT, SHERLOCK!!! YOU MISSED THE FUCKING POINT!!!

My point was simply that the handgun ban didn't lower gun violence. I didn't say it actually <I>caused</I> the violence to go up. Just that it didn't stop it.

Wow, learn to read, kid. Maybe I can give you a hook-up to a local elementary school tutor?

"You like statistics? Here's some 1998 statistics for gun death rates across countries:
USA: 14.24 (deaths per 100,000)
Scotland: 0.54
England & Wales: 0.41"

Yeah, I like statistics. Like these:

Switzerland (low gun control): .44 (deaths per 100,000)

Jamaica (guns prohibited): 36.8 per 100,000

Brazil (guns heavily restricted): 25.78 per 100,000

Also, interestingly enough, England's gun homicide rate was less than .1 back in 1910. At that time, guns were readily available to everyone. Now, with strict gun control, it is more than 5 times that. What? You were saying how no guns = no gun murders?

Stats, damned stats, and 'Hyped' posts (none / 0) (#51)
by because it isnt on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 07:35:44 PM PST
Here are some facts about the 2.5 million gun defenses every year:

You used the biased "2.5 million" figure from gun fetish groups. Therefore, can I assume that they spoonfed you with the rest of your made-up stats? Thanks.

My point was simply that the handgun ban didn't lower gun violence.

No, your point has always been "handgun ban -> gun crimes UP". Now you've been caught out on it, you've had to fall back to a more wussy "handgun ban -> no DROP". Of course, most of the handgun homicides were criminals on criminals, so I can just ignore those like you do. Therefore, the handgun death rate has gone DOWN since 1997, as 1997's quota was mostly INNOCENT LITTLE KIDS being shot by gun fetishists.

Switzerland (low gun control): .44 (deaths per 100,000) Jamaica (guns prohibited): 36.8 per 100,000 Brazil (guns heavily restricted): 25.78 per 100,000

Since when have we been counting 2nd world nations? It's irrelevant whether there are gun laws in Jamaica and Brazil, because it's irrelevant whether there's a government or not. Oh, and you blatantly can't read, as some the same stats, the figure is 12.95 for Brazil (i.e. less than the USA) and 4.31 for Switzerland (i.e. more than 10 times that of England and Wales, who are also a civilised first-world European country).

Also, interestingly enough, England's gun homicide rate was less than .1 back in 1910.

You seem to be labouring under the incredibly stupid apprehension that gun crime is increased by enacting gun legislation. It is the other way around, my friend. We enact more gun legislation every time there's another gun fetishist's bloodbath (they seem to be panning out nicely at about 5-10 years apart - nothing like the "going postal" rate of the States). We have the USA and Switzerland to look to, to imagine what our gun death rates would be like -- 10 to 25 times higher than it is today. As it is, our staunchly anti-gun culture (as reflected in our laws) has given us one of the lowest rates in the world. We are beaten only by Asian countries -- it's all knives and swords over there :)
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

When you are losing... (none / 0) (#53)
by Hyped on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 06:31:34 AM PST
...the correct thing to do is come up with evidence proving your point instead of just blatantly accusing someone else of making shit up.

"You used the biased "2.5 million" figure from gun fetish groups."

Really? 15 other studies (many of which were not conducted by 'gun fetish' groups; some were conducted by wussy little kids such as yourself) have confirmed the same or similar figures.

"No, your point has always been "handgun ban -> gun crimes UP"."

Oh, really? So now you have to make shit up to make yourself feel better, huh, kid? Show me one statement where I specifically said, 'BECAUSE of the handgun ban, gun crime went up.'

"Since when have we been counting 2nd world nations?"

Ah, now I see your game. Whenever any data contradicts your own, you have to deny its worth so that you can feel like you're still on top of things. These are not nations at war. They count as much as the U.S. or U.K.

"Oh, and you blatantly can't read, as some the same stats, the figure is 12.95 for Brazil (i.e. less than the USA) and 4.31 for Switzerland (i.e. more than 10 times that of England and Wales, who are also a civilised first-world European country)."

Where the fuck did you dig that shit up? From one of YOUR biased gun control sites? See, such a hypocrite - you accuse me of being spoonfed statistics, yet you are the one doing it.

4.31 for Switzerland's gun murder rate? That is bullshit...it has never been that high. Let's take a look at an article that was not written by a 'gun fetishist':

http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html

Quote: "Moving to the homicide data, we recall that America is often said to have the highest homicide rate of any "civilized," "Western," "industrialized," or "advanced" nation. Do those who make such claims believe that Mexico is uncivilized, Brazil is not in the Western Hemisphere, Russia is not industrialized, or Ukraine is retarded?"

"We must admit that the U.S. has a higher homicide rate than any Western European nation. Still, 23 nations admit to higher rates: Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Sao Tome, Tajikistan, Trinidad, Ukraine, and Venezuela."

"Perhaps the more we resemble Colombia with its drug wars, and Eastern Europe with its ethnic strife, the more our homicide rate will rise. In fact, homicide rates in some central cities, including Washington, D.C. with its "crack" wars, are already as high as that of Colombia. This is not an encouraging thought."

See, the point is: It's not guns. There are other circumstances instead. You keep blaming guns for all of the crime problems here. That is simply not the case. But, being that you're so scared of weapons that you spend time sucking your thumb under the stairs, I suppose that still doesn't suit your agenda?

"You seem to be labouring under the incredibly stupid apprehension that gun crime is increased by enacting gun legislation."

No, my point is that it is something other than guns that is responsible for rising crime. But I guess that isn't enough for you, is it?

What are you going to make up next to suit your agenda?

You misunderstand... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by PotatoError on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 08:12:07 AM PST
If higher gun ownership protects civilians then why does America, with the highest gun ownership in the world, have the highest level of civilian gun deaths in the world?

You argue that other countries, like Switzerland also have high gun ownership but a low level of civilian gun deaths. That's true and it just goes to show that Swiss society is more moral than American society. You can't compare a country like Switzerland and America, the cultures are too different. Take Brazil for example, they might have made firearms illegal but Brazillian law enforcement isn't powerful enough to enforce this law.

However, you might want to try and compare Britain and America where the culture and police power is very similar but gun policy is very different.

You state that something else than guns is responsible for Americas high gun crime. That's true, maybe its the high level of guns used in movies (I agree with because-it-isn't when he says films like Lock Stock + 2 Smoking Barrels have encouraged guns to be used by gangs in Britain). Movies make guns look cool - look at the Matrix for example.

However even if it isn't guns which create criminals, they are sure helping them. That is the point you understand. Not that guns cause crime but that they are used in crime.

I live in Britain. I can tell you that none of the drug dealers round here have handguns - they all use knives. In America however, even the kids can get guns. To a criminal in this country a gun is a burden for these reasons:

1) They are in danger when carrying it around on the streets - if they get stopped and searched they are certain to go to prison. Their sentence will be heavier for possessing the gun than possessing drugs.

2) Police in this country are paranoid about guns. Someone I know at uni dressed up as a cowboy for a fancy dress party last year. He had a toy shotgun with him. The next day he was messing about with it outside his brothers house. On the way home that afternoon, his car was stopped by a squad of armed police. A neighbour had reported seeing him with what appeared to be a gun.
You see as soon as word gets round that a criminal has a gun, the police will be knocking down their door. Obviously for criminals the risk is not worth it.


I tell you this seriously - if I wanted a gun I couldn't get one in this country. I just don't know anywhere to get one. My friends will all say the same too. You can't just stroll down to the back of some shop in town, black markets aren't literal in any way. So all your rubbish about guns flooding the streets after gun prohibition is just rubbish. There isn't a high demand for them.





<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

I think that... (none / 0) (#57)
by Hyped on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 11:55:39 AM PST
...we need to think about this more from a different perspective.

"If higher gun ownership protects civilians then why does America, with the highest gun ownership in the world, have the highest level of civilian gun deaths in the world?"

PotatoError, there is a difference between the NUMBER and the RATE of gun deaths. The U.S. has the highest NUMBER. We do not have the highest RATE. The rate is more significant because it measures gun deaths of a percentage of population and homicides. The highest rate goes to countries that I mentioned before.

There are guns in 43% of American households and in 1% of Brazilian households. Yet their gun murder rate is twice ours. Again, no correlation.

"That's true and it just goes to show that Swiss society is more moral than American society."

No, that's not true either, PotatoError. Do you want to know why America's crime (and gun crime) are so high? It's a one-word answer: Narcotics. We are currently one of the world's largest consumers for the illegal narcotics market. Drugs are a bigger problem here than in any European country. Granted, gun crime is obviously the same source (in Britain, for example, gun crime is all drug-related), but overall, drugs are still not nearly as significant a problem on your side of the Atlantic as they are on my side.

What does this have to do with gun crime? It's pretty simple: With lots of drug demand comes lots of drug dealers, and with lots of drug dealers comes lots of drug-related crime. And with lots of drug-related crime comes lots of gun crime. If you look at gun crime statistics, you will notice that the majority (2/3rds) of killers and victims in gun homicides are criminals. This is pretty obvious; it's mostly inner-city turf wars involving drug gangs shooting each other up on the streets.

Gun crime in this country actually used to be one-tenth of what it was in the days before the war on drugs. Furthermore, there was a time when kids could carry guns to school with them for after-school target practice (at school-funded shooting ranges), and nobody ever noticed. There were no school massacres then.

Still, most gun homicides are NOT what you think they are. You seem to believe that the majority of gun crimes involve kids shooting up their schools or spouses killing spouses in arguments. Does this happen? Yes. Does it account for a significant percentage of gun crime? No. Those incidents account for a very tiny percentage of gun crime. Law-abiding 'gun fetishists' (as Mr. Isn't so bluntly describes them) who legally purchase guns rarely ever commit heinous crimes. There are 80 million legal gun owners in this country. Newsflash: 99.999999999999999% of them didn't commit a crime today.

So that is, in short, the reason why the U.S. has high gun crime. And if you want gun crime to stop, it's the war on drugs you've got to end, not the availability of guns. Because taking away guns will simply disarm law-abiding people who have a right to self-defense, while not disarming the criminals (who, as we have seen, get guns anyway).

"You can't compare a country like Switzerland and America, the cultures are too different."

Indeed, I cannot. But I can draw the conclusion that having guns in civilian hands does not automatically foster violence, as you seem to believe.

"Take Brazil for example, they might have made firearms illegal but Brazillian law enforcement isn't powerful enough to enforce this law."

PotatoError, you are VERY wrong about this. Brazilian police are everything you said that police should be in an earlier post. They are issued M16 assault rifles and Italian SPAS-12 combat shtoguns as STANDARD-ISSUE (such weaponry is only available to American police with a special permit), and they ride in heavily armored APCs' with machine-gun turrets on the top. Brazilian police officers are ordered to 'shoot to kill' anybody who they see brandishing a gun (no warning necesary, and many accidental police deaths have resulted from this policy). Yet Brazilian gun homicides are very high; their percentage is higher than ours. Heavily armed police are not a deterrance to criminals.

"I tell you this seriously - if I wanted a gun I couldn't get one in this country. I just don't know anywhere to get one. My friends will all say the same too."

PotatoError, I don't know how to buy an illegal gun in this country either, and I am not yet legally old enough to do so, either. But if you were a criminal and you WANTED to buy a gun badly enough, you would. For drug dealers, this is easy. Hustlers get their supply from cartels in Colombia. In Colombia, there is a huge black market where AK47s' and M16s' go for as little as $200 (they're illegal in the U.S.). How hard do you think it is for them to throw a couple guns in with a stash of cocaine? It's not hard. Any criminal who has learned to stay in the shadows away from the law has the ability to procure an illegal gun. I am not one of those people. So I can't buy an illegal weapon. But if I was that desperate, I doubt that a law would stand in between me and that belt-fed .50 caliber machine gun that I could never buy legally in this country (even if I was legally old enough to buy a gun).

"As for civilian weapons, if the US enjoyed the same level of gun control as the Swiss do, the NRA would be pounding the pavement with pamphlets calling for revolution."

Actually, the NRA wishes that people in this country were as well-trained in firearms as the Swiss. Seriously, if we adopted the Swiss system, I think that both the NRA and gun control front would be happy. However, that's not going to happen. Swiss militiamen are issued with SIG-550 and Stgw-57 assault rifles, standard-issue Swiss Army weapon. Do you really think that the government is going to trust American citizens with M16 assaults and M4 carbines? I doubt it. It's all on Congress for that to happen.

"The reason Americans need guns is to defend themselves from other Americans defending themselves from Americans who are defending themselves with guns; and "defend" themselves they do, at a rate of 80 acts of defense per day."

No, LAW-ABIDING Americans need guns to defend themselves from CRIMINALS who use guns in CRIME.

"The NRA is a terrorist organization, my friend. They rely on the use or threat of violence to intimidate and coerce American society for ideological reasons."

How true...NOT.

While I have never agreed with the NRA's very extremist stance on this issue, saying that they try to intimidate people into buying guns is ridiculous. If you're going to say that, then you have to say the VPC tries to intimidate people to give up the 2nd Amendment using the EXACT SAME METHODS. The NRA simply promotes the use of guns for self-defense and preservation of the nation's security. That is not called terrorism; it is called supporting a right to which people are entitled.

Pick'n'mix. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by because it isnt on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 01:08:28 PM PST
(in Britain, for example, gun crime is all drug-related)

GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT TROLL MICHAEL RYAN AND THOMAS HAMILTON WERE NOT ON DRUGS WHEN THEY MERCILESSLY SLAUGHTERED MEN WOMEN AND LITTLE CHILDREN

intimidate people to give up the 2nd Amendment

AGAIN GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT YOU HAVE ALREADY GIVEN UP YOUR RIGHT TO ARMS (IE ASSAULT RIFLES MINES TANKS WARSHIPS PLANES ROCKETS BOMBS AND NUKES) YOUR GUNS WILL NOT TAKE OUT ANY OF THESE IF THE GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY WANTED TO CRUSH YOU.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Ow my ears...stop shouting (none / 0) (#67)
by PotatoError on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 09:30:14 AM PST
I agree with hyped a bit more now. It seems obvious that drugs have a large role to play in gun violence. However, school shootings wouldn't happen if kids didn't have access to guns and aren't we more bothered about kids getting shot than drug gang members?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

It depends. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by walwyn on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 12:38:13 PM PST
Whether we are more bothered about kids getting shot than drug gang members, depends on whether, the rate of gang member deaths can be correlated with a hike in drug prices.

I can't find any evidence of a link one way or another. However, gang members tend to be kids, so maybe we are concerned about the same target group anyway.

Whether Mr "I am not yet legally old enough" Hyped is typical of the group is not yet clear.


 
We are... (none / 0) (#73)
by Hyped on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 01:36:27 PM PST
...definitely concerned about preventing gun violence, but again, the issue is not the guns.

"However, school shootings wouldn't happen if kids didn't have access to guns and aren't we more bothered about kids getting shot than drug gang members?"

Indeed, we are. Drug dealers...they'll have guns and continue to shoot each other up no matter what the laws say. So, yes, that does leave us with the issue of school shootings.

Again, PotatoError, I should remind you that school shootings are still very rare. They do not represent a significant proportion of gun crime, so they are not as big an issue as the media makes them out to be. If you were to measure our gun crime by the number of annual school shootings, it would appear as though we have no gun crime at all. Does this mean we should take them for granted? No, it does not, but we have to think a bit more.

First, you are aware that the Columbine shooters obtained their guns illegally? One of the weapons they used was a TEC9 machine pistol that was banned by the Brady Bill in 1994. It's not like they took their parents' guns.

However, if you want to try and prevent school shootings, the best thing to do is to encourage responsible gun ownership, such as people teaching their kids to respect guns (and not treat them as toys) and keep them locked in a way that they are accessible enough for defense, but difficult enough to reach that their kids can't get them.

But even that is still not going to 'prevent' school shootings. If you want to prevent them entirely, it's just not possible. There have been school shootings in countries where guns are outlawed. Taking guns out of the hands of 80 million people who use them legally and never hurt anyone is not the right solution, especially for families in the ghetto where the drug dealers and gang members (which we were talking about before) are running rampant.

My parents could never have survived in the inner city without guns, and I doubt anyone will without them around. Seriously, are you willing to put the lives of millions of people who live in the hood over the lives of a few dozen or so others?


Ghettos (none / 0) (#74)
by because it isnt on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 02:21:01 PM PST
are formed in the cracks between effective amenities and policing. Of course, the more vigilantes there are, the less people aid the police, the less effective the policing becomes, the less people want to live there, the less amenities there are, etc., etc. The UK call them "sink estates", because that's exactly what they do. They keep on sinking, because anyone who could get out has already left.

You propose nothing but more misery for the unlucky residents. Does a gun stop bricks and molotovs coming through your window? No. Does a gun get your son off the scag? No. Does a gun clean up all the syringes and broken bottles on the pavement? No. Does a gun stop you getting coshed from behind? No. Does a gun make the streetlights work? No. Does a gun get you a job that pays more than minimum wage? No (unless you count crime as a career). Does a gun make the local politicians listen? No. Does a gun magically reopen shops? No. Does a gun secure your car, your bike? No. Does a gun stop a car ramming into your shopfront at night? No. Does a gun do anything when you come back and find you've been burgled? No. Does a gun get the police to actually patrol your area? No. DOES A GUN STOP YOU FROM GETTING SHOT? NO. WHEN PEOPLE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE, EACH STANDOFF BRINGS AT LEAST ONE DEATH.

Come on, kids - piss on your own shoes, because everyone else is doing it.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

The kid here... (none / 0) (#77)
by Hyped on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 02:42:13 PM PST
...is you. Gee, I'm sorry you're so scared of weapons that you squeal like a little girl at the mere thought of them.

I'm so fucking tired of you twisting my words around that I doubt knocking any common sense into you would be achieved unless I went over there and smacked you upside the head.

Where did I say guns are a solution to all crime? You've listed a whole bunch of ways in which guns wouldn't be useful, but ignore that guns are still used millions of times a year (say unbiased sources) for defense, in many cases by people in the inner city.

What do you intend to do if a mugger pulls his blade on you in a dark alley, if someone who's really high comes barging into your house, or if a mob of rioters are looting outside your door? Or what should a woman do if a rapist decides she's a ripe picking? In all of those instances, guns are the best defense.

You think the cops are gonna protect you? Good. I'll trust a cop who has to take care of 3,500 of us, and his protection comes from a half-hour's drive away, whereas personal protection comes from a storage cabinet upstairs.

Your attitude is just stupid as hell. Just because something doesn't guarantee successs, does that mean you don't try? Essentially, what you're telling me is, 'You're fucked anyway, so don't bother trying.' Now that is a good idea, ISN'T it? Cops can't protect anyone, so I guess they shouldn't bother trying either?

Millions of people (you can argue with me as much as you want about the exact number, but even the most anti-gun people in the U.S. agree that it's somewhere in the millions) use guns against criminals who attack them. No matter what arguments you give, you can't deny that guns are still a GOOD THING (TM) in the hands of GOOD PEOPLE (TM). Yes, they are also a BAD THING (TM) in the hands of BAD PEOPLE (TM). But the number of good people outnumbers the bad people by a very large number.

Sorry, little boy. Nobody is gonna listen to you just because of your own personal phobias. Just because YOU have a problem with guns doesn't mean everyone else should, too. And after all that yelling you were doing before, I imagine you've soiled your diaper again. Go ask your mommy to change it for you.

This is why we think USians are all insane... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by gordonjcp on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 03:43:45 PM PST
What do you intend to do if a mugger pulls his blade on you in a dark alley, if someone who's really high comes barging into your house, or if a mob of rioters are looting outside your door? Or what should a woman do if a rapist decides she's a ripe picking? In all of those instances, guns are the best defense.

These things don't actually happen all that often in the UK. You make it sound like having junkies kicking down your door is an everyday occurrence in the US. I used to live in a fairly rough part of Glasgow, and I still live in a not-exactly-brilliant part. I've never even seen a fight, never mind any kind of attack. One of my friends got mugged, reported it to the police, and the police caught the mugger within a day or so. My mate got the money stolen from him back, and about �1500 compensation. So yes, trusting the police does seem to work...

What does that prove? (none / 0) (#81)
by Hyped on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 03:55:22 PM PST
Have you not been paying attention when I explained that such comparisons cannot necesarily be drawn between the U.S. and U.K. without strong evidence?

Muggers are very common in the most crime-filled areas of American cities. I do not know anything about Glasgow; I always imagined the crime was in cities like Manchester, Liverpool, or London (but what do I know - I don't live there). In more rural areas, they aren't common at all.

However, all I can say is that the English police must have considerably less strain on their hands. As I have said repeatedly, there is one police officer for every 3,500 Americans, and in large, crime-filled cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Chicago, police simply cannot be trusted to take care of everything.

Also, in about 97% of all 911 calls in the U.S., the police respond too late to do anything. Relying on police protection is not going to work in this country. Add this to the fact that the Supreme Court has REPEATEDLY upheld the ruling that police are not responsible for people's protection, and you can see why having a gun for defense is the better option.

Glasgow is the third biggest city in the UK. (none / 0) (#106)
by gordonjcp on Sat Sep 7th, 2002 at 04:40:57 AM PST
I have no idea how much strain the English police have on their hands. The Scottish police, however, have a fairly easy time of it. What on earth are the police for, in the US, if not for the people's protection? That's the whole point of them in the rest of the world...

 
When all you have is a hammer, ... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 09:57:16 PM PST
I'm so fucking tired of you twisting my words around that I doubt knocking any common sense into you would be achieved unless I went over there and smacked you upside the head.

Maybe you feel like shooting him?


Ah, I see... (none / 0) (#90)
by Hyped on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 01:14:38 PM PST
...so we now we stereotype people?

"Maybe you feel like shooting him?"

Ah, I get it...because I occasionally go to the shooting range once a month (my family owns one gun, not a hundred...which doesn't fit your 'gun-fetishist' definition), you automatically assume that anybody who likes shooting is psychotic, and that guns are the only thing in their lives?

Wow, you've just proven your level of intelligence, have you not?

If I see a spade, I call it a spade. (none / 0) (#95)
by because it isnt on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 03:38:52 PM PST
Ah, I get it...because I occasionally go to the shooting range once a month (my family owns one gun, not a hundred...which doesn't fit your 'gun-fetishist' definition), you automatically assume that anybody who likes shooting is psychotic, and that guns are the only thing in their lives?

Well, perhaps your gun gets tired from all that shooting, and wants to rest on its pillow and spend 'quality time' with you instead. Perhaps you won't buy a second gun because the old gun might get jealous. But you can't pretend to us that you are not utterly obsessed with guns.
  • You barged into a thread on bloody communist revolt in the USA in order to spout your 2nd amendment crap.
  • You keep repeating the same old mantra again and again (2.5 millon! Guns always save you from any criminal you may encounter, every time! Jamaica and Brazil don't have gun cultures, they just like murdering people with guns a lot!, etc.), even though it is clear you are fooling no-one.
  • You insist on telling British people why their way of life would not work in America, yet propose that they all adopt an American trigger-happy lifestyle. It logically follows that British police (who are required to protect citizens) can't protect Brits, because American police (who are not required to protect citizens) won't protect Americans.
  • You think Glasgow is somewhere in the English countryside -- get a map.
  • You object to UK hunting with dogs (fox hunting) being labelled as cruel and barbaric because you mistakenly believe it has something to do with gunsports. It does not. Fox hunting is when a pack of dogs is set after a single fox in the countryside, and the dogs are pursued by upper class people on horses. Once the fox is too tired to run any further, the dogs rip the defenceless, exhausted fox limb from limb, tearing it apart while it is still alive. This has nothing to do with guns, as you wrongly assumed. You made no attempt to read up on subject.
  • You have made no other comments anywhere else on this free-topic discussion site. You have a one track mind which only sees gun haters and gun lovers.
It is clear to me that you are completely obsessed with guns. Please do not be offended when we call a spade a spade.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

I see a moron, I don't call everyone a moron... (none / 0) (#97)
by Hyped on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 04:48:07 PM PST
...like you (unless I'm talking to the Anonymous Reader who made the earlier comment).

"even though it is clear you are fooling no-one."

Even though it is clear YOU are fooling no-one.

"Perhaps you won't buy a second gun because the old gun might get jealous. But you can't pretend to us that you are not utterly obsessed with guns."

Which is why I own four CPUs' (two AMDs' and two Intels), GeForce cards from the past three Nvidia generations, several 256-MB RAM sticks, a collection of 18 official NBA balls, team jerseys, an infinite number of hip-hop CDs', and Duke University memorabilia, but not one gun (not even an air gun) anywhere in my room.

Who, I ask, are you to talk about people you don't even know? I don't know you, but I assume I have a right to say you're obsessed with child pornography just because you insist on banning guns "to protect the children in schools?" (so that you can have them for yourself instead? :-)

"You insist on telling British people why their way of life would not work in America, yet propose that they all adopt an American trigger-happy lifestyle."

Really? Where did I propose that? Again, you're putting words into my mouth when you don't have a real argument.

Besides, who, I ask, is the one proposing that all countries should ban all guns, just because it's your way of life? You've told us that guns are just for barbaric people. Good, glad I asked you for advice.

Seriously, Because It Isn't, why would any American ask you for advice on what to do about guns? You know nothing about how gun culture in this country works (notice your derogatory references to 'gun fetishists' and 'trigger-happy Yanks').

Asking you for advice on what to do about guns in America would be like asking a crack whore for advice on safe-sex techniques.

"You object to UK hunting with dogs (fox hunting) being labelled as cruel and barbaric because you mistakenly believe it has something to do with gunsports."

Then why the fuck did you bring it up in a topic about *key words* GUNS? Be more specific next time.

"You have a one track mind which only sees gun haters and gun lovers."

And tell me that you're not a gun hater? You're the one who labels gun owners as criminals.

"It is clear to me that you are completely obsessed with guns."

Good, then it is clear to me that you are obsessed with molesting children (as I noted above) by your own logic. Please do not be offended when I call a spade a spade.


Get the reading glasses out! (none / 0) (#99)
by because it isnt on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 04:57:18 PM PST
Then why the fuck did you bring [fox hunting] up in a topic about *key words* GUNS?

*key words* COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE. We can't ban shotguns and we can't ban fox hunting because of the COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE. PLEASE LEARN TO READ.

I'll ignore the rest of your blatant troll.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Gee, I'm so sorry... (none / 0) (#101)
by Hyped on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 05:20:31 PM PST
...I didn't realize that I was offending you so much, never mind that you started out doing the 'trolling' here. Calling me a 'gun fetishist' and saying I use a gun as a 'penis enlargement.'

The only reason this discussion turned into a real bitchfest was because YOU made it that way. Not me. YOU.

And don't tell me now that I'm trolling or sounding too angry. You Nazi bastards are kicking law-abiding people in the face (because they own guns), and I'm supposed to be worried about getting snot on your boots? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

Notice PotatoError. He and I don't agree, but our conversation is at least civil. He is capable of carrying out an intelligent, reasonable conversation without calling somebody a 'gun fetishist' every other word. Adequecy may be a site where it's OK to troll a bit, but when you take it to the level that you did, it becomes like this.

When it comes to behavior, the ball was in YOUR court, pal, not mine. You could have changed it by being less offensive. You chose not to. So don't mind that I gave it a cheap punt right back to you.


Word for the day: 'irony'. (none / 0) (#102)
by because it isnt on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 05:39:42 PM PST
Now this is getting all meta. But I digress. Oh, and it's "penis substitute". Your Freudian slips are showing, Hyped. Using a gun as a penis enlargement? You sick fucker. This just goes to show that I was right about you all along.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Word for the day... (none / 0) (#103)
by Hyped on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 05:51:45 PM PST
...is 'molester'.

Because that's what you are. Take this as you wish, but if I am a gun fetishist just because I am interested in protecting people's right to defend themselves, then you are a child molester because you are interested in protecting children.

Point taken on 'penis substitute.' I couldn't remember what you said exactly, and frankly, I don't really give a shit.

Now, how do you want to finish this? Either we can just agree to disagree right now (since I know we'll never be able to convince each other of our positions), or you can keep dragging it on with your word-twisting personal attacks. If you decide to devote your time to the latter, then you can keep on doing it, because I have nothing but time.


On the subject of molesters (none / 0) (#104)
by because it isnt on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 03:10:12 PM PST
Parents!

Are you aware of the paedophile menace? It is every parent's worst nightmare. You love your child, you never let them out of your sight, but we're all human. Statistics prove that 99.9% of all kiddie fiddling occurs when a child's parents have dropped their guard. Protect YOUR child today with the Smith and Wesson 342 Kids Edition.

The Smith and Wesson 342 Kids Edition is operated directly by your child and statistics prove this gives them 100% defense against:
  • Foot fetishists (pedophiles)
  • Paedophiles
  • Nonces
  • Kiddie fiddlers
  • Charles Chesters
  • Roboplegic wrongcocks
  • Cradle-snatchers
  • Candy stealers
The Smith and Wesson 342 Kids Edition is a bargain at only $99.99, and can be fitted with a number of attractive accessories:
  • Adult-proof lock
  • Cot holster, allowing easy reach whichever direction your baby sleeps.
  • Buggy holster (single and twin strollers)
  • Coat-strings attachment, so your toddler does not lose his gun or his mittens.
  • Rubber bullets, for when you child wants to play "Cops and Robbers" or "Cowboys and Indians"... be responsible and make sure nobody gets hurt!
Buy one today! Two million under-5s have already been saved from the Paedophile menace thanks to Smith and Wesson -- how safe is your child?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
havent been any in England (none / 0) (#76)
by PotatoError on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 02:36:49 PM PST
No school shootings in England. Oh well maybe some kid got hold of a pistol and shot his teacher...maybe that happened..its bound to have.

But in America there have been several cases where kids have gone in with weapons that noone would be able to get in this country. As I have said, and you agreed with (kind of), in this england kids just can't get hold of guns. If America had the same gun policy then drug dealers may be able to get guns but kids wouldn't.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Why do you... (none / 0) (#79)
by Hyped on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 03:00:45 PM PST
...continue to harp on a few deaths caused by school shootings instead of focusing on the people who would be dead if they didn't have guns?

"But in America there have been several cases where kids have gone in with weapons that noone would be able to get in this country."

Again, very few. If you were to measure gun crime on the basis of kids at school killing kids at school, then it would appear as though gun crime is non-existent. They happen, but not enough to justify a complete ban on guns.

"As I have said, and you agreed with (kind of), in this england kids just can't get hold of guns."

I don't think I agreed to that 100%. I believe that anyone who wants a gun badly enough will get one, one way or another. If they can't steal it from their parents, they'll steal it from someone else. If they can't steal it for someone else, they'll turn to the black market. And the black market is always ready to supply whatever anyone can't get legally. If there is enough demand, there is always enough supply.

"If America had the same gun policy then drug dealers may be able to get guns but kids wouldn't."

Well, for one thing, England hasn't banned guns completely. Rifles and shotguns are still legal to own. So this doesn't support your belief that totally banning guns will make school shootings non-existent.

But again, PotatoError, I ask you: Why do you dwell on these school shootings in which a few people die by the gun? Why don't you ever remember the fact that annually, around 2.5 million Americans will use a gun to defend their lvies? Have you considered what might happen to those people if they didn't have a gun? Do you ever think that perhaps it would be WORSE if guns weren't around?

Maybe it is a culture problem. Earlier, you were saying that you believed the rise in gun violence in England was due to some gangster movies that glorified guns. There is even more shit like that in this country - over-the-top Schwareneger and Stallone movies, first-person shooter video games, death metal, and gangsta rap. That stuff exists in England, too, but in this society, it is perhaps far more prevalent. Do I think these things should be banned? No, because the person still has to be held responsible.

But in all this time, you have not proven a link between gun availability and gun murder rates. In countries such as Brazil and Jamaica, where guns are banned or restricted heavily, there is still high gun crime. Then again, in countries like England and Japan where guns are heavily restricted, there is low gun crime. This proves that the correletion between guns and murder is non-existent; it depends on other factors.

My point is, what works for you isn't necesarily going to work for us. American culture has a lot more to it than just the fact that guns are widely available. Just as Brazilian culture has more to it (I am sure) than the fact that guns are hard to acquire. At the end of the day, proving a link between guns and murder rates will never be possible. There are simply too many other things to consider before that conclusion can be drawn.

I'll tell you why. (none / 0) (#82)
by because it isnt on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 04:25:39 PM PST
Why do you continue to harp on a few deaths caused by school shootings instead of focusing on the people who would be dead if they didn't have guns?

It's because the good British public realise that you're talking bullshit - their daily lives refute your scaremongering claims. You unwittingly advocate the institution of a gun culture to a country where guns are absolutely despised. The anti-gun lobby (the Gun Control Network a.k.a. the Snowdrop campaign) has as much power here as your NRA has over there. Offer a gun to a Brit - they'll think "Why? I'm safe as I am.". British women aren't saved from rapists with a gun, because most British women are raped indoors by men they know well. Our police state (who are actually obliged to protect us -- why else would we employ them?) clamp down on violent crime, even to the extent of targetted poster campaigns purely to tell wannabe-hoodlums that they'll get 2 years in jail just for carrying a knife, and they put officers out on foot, armed only with a radio and a truncheon (and kevlar vests in Brixton) to back it up.

You advocate the cowardly, illegal act of shooting criminals in the back as they flee. This very act got Tony Martin a spell in prison. Gun fetishists have their playthings confiscated for the benefit of society.

As you know, I don't advocate taking Americans' guns away; I'm not that cruel. I recognise that they can't bear to be parted from their precious toys. You can't make an institutionally isolationist people give up their guns -- they're culturally moulded to be xenophobic, stubborn and selfish. The only peaceful way out that works is to eradicate gun culture i.e. gun fetishism. The link between gun culture and gun deaths is blatantly obvious. All use and promotion of guns is a contribution to gun culture, although I do grant that certain people; i.e. farmers, the military, etc. must use guns without pleasure in their line of work.

Tell me about culture difference; in Britain, it's a bloody nightmare trying to buy a handgun off the black market, but you can't walk down the streets without someone trying to sell you hash. In America, it's the other way around.

Rifles and shotguns are still legal to own.

Only because we want farmers to keep giving us food. The Countryside Alliance has a lot of power in that respect. We can't ban fox hunting for much the same reason, even though it's a cruel and barbaric sport.

I believe that anyone who wants a gun badly enough will get one, one way or another.

Not little kids, though. Black market gun dealers normally trade in dodgy pubs. Little kids can't even get past the bouncers outside dodgy pubs, let alone buy a gun off the crims inside. How are they going to pay? With their pocket money?

The only little kids to take real guns to school are those who live in the depraved areas of London, and have a career criminal in the family. Every other kid in the country has to make do with an air-gun.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

What the hell... (none / 0) (#83)
by Hyped on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 06:08:40 PM PST
...is it with you putting words into people's mouths all the time? It's starting to get really annoying, and since you use it to fuel your inane arguments, you wind up invalidating your own statements in the process.

"Offer a gun to a Brit - they'll think "Why? I'm safe as I am."

Well and done. Offer me (or most other people in a safe, rural area) a gun, and we'd say, 'I don't need it, but maybe it would be fun for target-shooting.' Offer a gun to somebody in the hood and they'll say, 'Yeah, it could come in handy.'

Again, have I not stressed the drug problem in this country? There is a very large illegal drug industry, and with it lots of drug dealers with guns. Your drug problems are not nearly as serious as ours; we're one of the largest narcotics consumers in the world. Inevitably, you're going to see a lot of drug-related crime, and with it, lots of gun crime.

"British women aren't saved from rapists with a gun, because most British women are raped indoors by men they know well."

And since when do you speak for the entire population of British women that you would know this? No matter where she gets raped or who does it, as long as she has access to a gun, she can prevent it.

"Our police state (who are actually obliged to protect us -- why else would we employ them?) clamp down on violent crime"

And ours don't? But there aren't enough of them to protect us.

Also, saying police are 'obliged' to protect people is an extreme. I don't like, but the purpose of police (AKA LAW ENFORCEMENT) is to ENFORCE LAWS. Enforcing laws means to arrest somebody that breaks a law, not to hang around some place waiting for somebody to break one. I don't like it, but it's what they think. I didn't make that decision. You want to change it? Then get over here and do it instead of sitting around on your lazy ass complaining about it and pointing your finger at gun owners for being the cause of everything.

Nonetheless, police are quick to pull over cars that they suspect contain gang members, or search guys with gang colors for guns or drugs. But there still aren't enough. There is too large a ratio of cops to hustlers.

<B>"You advocate the cowardly, illegal act of shooting criminals in the back as they flee."</B>

STOP TWISTING MY FUCKING WORDS AROUND YOU STUPID DIPSHIT!!!

When did I ever say to shoot a criminal in the back as he flees? HUH? I said point your gun at a criminal and force him to give your stuff back. Nothing wrong with that; you're not hurting anyone.

For God's sake, despite your ignorant misconception that we're just trigger-happy Yanks who shoot everything in sight (this coming from a fucking BRIT who doesn't even live here), might I remind you that it's rare that anyone here ever shoots a criminal in self-defense. The majority of the time, they just hold up the gun and say, 'Freeze! I've got a gun!', and they are left alone. Peacefully. Nobody gets hurt. Get it through your narrow little mind.

"xenophobic, stubborn and selfish"

I could say the same thing about you. You're so afraid of guns that in your selfish attempts to deal with your own security, you turn the blame on others just because you don't like something about them. Look in a mirror before you starting pointing fingers.

"The link between gun culture and gun deaths is blatantly obvious."

Really? Ask the people in Brazil or Jamaica about that one. There is no correlation at all, despite what you seem to believe.

"in Britain, it's a bloody nightmare trying to buy a handgun off the black market, but you can't walk down the streets without someone trying to sell you hash. In America, it's the other way around."

No, it's not the other way around. It's no different. But for criminals, it's easy to buy an illegal gun if they wish. If a drug dealer has ties to a larger organization, how hard is it for them to get him a gun? He asks his boss, 'Toss a Glock-17 in with the next shipment of cocaine for me' and they'll do it. They'll give their pushers whatever they ask for if it guarantees keeping them alive and hustling on the streets.

"even though it's a cruel and barbaric sport."

I've told you many times, and I'll tell you again: That is your opinion. You have no right to ban something just because you don't like it. And nobody is going to listen to you, either. Frankly, judging by the way you talk (it gets annoying being called a 'gun fetishist' when I don't even shoot that often), it's obvious you just don't like guns, and to you, somebody who owns a gun is just guilty by assocation. Sorry, kid, but most people don't share your opinion. You can keep calling them 'barbaric' and insisting you're right, but in the end, nobody's rights trump anyone else's. That's why we live in a democracy. The majority of people here feel that guns are suitable for self-defense. If you don't, that's fine. But that's just your opinion. You can't preach it as though it's gospel truth.

"Not little kids, though."

Of course not. But all of the school shootings in this country have involved high school students. They are old enough to have ties with criminals, and indeed, the Columbine shooting was an example of this.

There is one exception: In 2000, a first-grader shot another first-grader. But guess how he got the gun? His parents were drug dealers and gun-runners. Their house was filled with illegal weapons that they had lying around, so he took one of those.

Drug dealers... (none / 0) (#85)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 10:51:11 PM PST
don't inflict bullets on their customers. Drug dealers use guns on each other. They're professionals.

When you say, "inevitably, you're going to see a lot of drug-related crime, and with it, lots of gun crime," what you fail to realize, you idiot, is that this inevitability is a consequence of people like you becoming drug addicts. Get it? One month you're a peaceful, law-abiding gun fetishist, the next month you're an armed drug addict because some chick you dug ran off with a luser who cannot RTFM and connect to the Internet.

Get it? OK, I'll spell it out: you cannot keep guns away from criminals because you cannot know who is a criminal ahead of time. You are arming yourself against your brother, your sister, and your best friend. The obvious solution, then, is less guns, not more.

Duh.

Give it up. Yours is a fantasy. Guns are not defensive weapons. Your "defense" statistics only prove that everyone is fucking armed. You are defending yourselves from each other, not from (presumably born) "criminals." I have every confidence that you are tomorrow's criminal.

The logic eludes your cause.

I also find it hilarious that you think a gun in the hands of a typical gun-goon yank magically levels the playing field in a potentially violent situation with someone who has known violence all their life, in and out of prison. Please, unless you want to die, keep the gun in its holster and give up your gf's purse.


Isn't it so unusual... (none / 0) (#91)
by Hyped on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 01:48:05 PM PST
...that a bunch of Brits can consider themselves well-educated about a country in which they don't lvie?

You have said almost nothing that makes any sense at all. Evidently, you must be the one who's high here.

"Drug dealers use guns on each other. They're professionals."

Except that when they (or their clients) are high enough, it can sometimes appear to them as though everybody is wearing the colors of a rival gang. Meaning that they pull their guns out and start shooting random people. Or sometimes they break into other people's homes to get money for funding their addiction. It happens very often.

"One month you're a peaceful, law-abiding gun fetishist, the next month you're an armed drug addict because some chick you dug ran off with a luser who cannot RTFM and connect to the Internet."

Wow, you're so smart...brilliant logic...what were you smoking when you wrote that?

That says absolutely nothing at all. Again, do you realize how few legal gun owners ever misuse their guns, or become involved in any legal activities? I think not. As I told PotatoError, "Newsflash: 99.99999999999% of gun owners didn't commit a crime today." But being that you're just another stupid Brit, I suppose you never considered that. Evidently, all gun owners are criminals by your definition, no?

Again, the more you talk the way you do, the stupider you're making yourself look. So 80 million people in America are criminals, right? And I suppose that you facist bastards think we all ought to be lined up and shot? Asshole...

Now I can see why they control guns in England...because everybody is like you: They're all too fucking stupid to know how to use one (yeah, I'm stereotyping as well, but I guess there's no harm in using your own logic against you).

"I'll spell it out: you cannot keep guns away from criminals because you cannot know who is a criminal ahead of time."

Great. But criminals buy guns illegally anyway, so what the hell does that prove?

"You are arming yourself against your brother, your sister, and your best friend."

No, I am arming myself against people who chose a different path...the path to crime. But again, gun owners are all guilty by association, as you say, so I doubt anything would change your view.

"The obvious solution, then, is less guns, not more.

Duh."

Yeah, duh, you're like, so incredibly retarded, d00d...totally, tubular, DUH!!! */Valley Girl mode off*

Really? How so? I can't understand you when your logic, cryptic as it is, so maybe I should get high as well so that I can join up with you?

"Yours is a fantasy. Guns are not defensive weapons."

In your opinion. And as I think you'll realize, nobody gives a fuck about your opinion yourself and the rest of your crack-headed fellow Brits.

Besides, I know some people that would be dead if they didn't have a gun. Tell my aunt (who was pregnant with my cousin at the time), what should she have done when a guy decided to come through her window at night? He had a switchblade and was coming at her. When she pulled a .357 from her drawer, he quickly ran off. Afterwards, she called the police. They came a half-hour later.

Your logical FALLACIES amaze me: Which is better? A gun in the hand, or a cop on the phone? Obviously, in your peaceful world where everything magically falls together, the latter.

"Your "defense" statistics only prove that everyone is fucking armed."

That, or you just don't know how to read. My defense statistics prove that a lot of people save their lives (and the lives of others) by using their guns.

"The logic eludes your cause."

Logic? All I've seen are a bunch of half-assed statements that don't say much except your own opinion (which is based on more half-assed statements you made up). You've obviously done no research into this, but being that you're such a know-it-all, you act as though you have.

Newsflash, lad: YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS EXCEPT THAT YOU SHIT YOUR PANTS WHEN YOU HEAR THE WORD 'GUN'. YOUR 'LOGIC' IS FLAWED. GIVE UP.

"I have every confidence that you are tomorrow's criminal."

I have every confidence that you're not even going to be able to hold a job at a McDonald's, consider the incredible 'logic' upon which you base your 'arguments'. Back to elementary school for you, little boy...

"Please, unless you want to die, keep the gun in its holster and give up your gf's purse."

Please, unless you're going for self-parody, stop talking right now. You're making your country look bad.

Semolina pilchard climbing up the Eiffel tower. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by because it isnt on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 04:48:56 PM PST
So 80 million people in America are criminals, right? And I suppose that you facist bastards think we all ought to be lined up and shot?

At 30,000 a year, I thought that's what you were already doing!
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Really... (1.00 / 1) (#100)
by Hyped on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 05:08:29 PM PST
...so you are saying I killed any number of those 30,000 people? I pulled the trigger, put a bullet through them, made them die? No, lad, the scum of American society did. It's not 'gun fetishists' that are the problem. Just the opposite. It's people like you who drool over the thought of an unarmed people on which to prey.



 
hang on (none / 0) (#87)
by PotatoError on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 10:49:55 AM PST
I don't think you understand - in this country kids CANT get guns. If kids had even the remotest chance of being able to aquire guns then a lot of them would have one. But they don't. There is no black market in firearms in Britain. Criminal gangs get hold of them by importing them for themselves - there just isn't a desire or market for guns in this country - even amongst most criminals.

Lets not just talk about school shootings but also maniacs shooting all their co-workers at their job. I mean in this country an office worker with no criminal connections CANT get a gun no matter how shit their life has become and how determined they are to kill.

Most of the maniac gun shootings in America which I have read about are by pissed off people who have intentionally gone home to get their guns before returning to where they unleash the havoc. The difference is that in Britain, normal people who suddenly hate life can't just get hold of guns like that.

I am sure you would agree that a maniac trying to kill tens of people with a gun will be almost unchallenged compared to one with a knife.

Also you state that guns protect but if everyone was allowed to carry them around on the streets do you think that would be safe?

You might want to ask yourself where that 2.5 million figure came from. If so many Americans use firearms to save their lives then why aren't people in other countries, who don't have firearms to protect themselves, not dying in droves?

Yes violent media plays a part in influencing some people to commit violence. The argument about guns isn't that it influences people, but that it lets them perform the violence in a much worse way than knives. Would you, for example, want grenades to be legalised for civilians to carry around?

Have you thought that some countries are more prone to gun crime than others. You used switzerland as an example before. The Swiss people obviously have some fundemental differences in their culture that prevent maniacs emerging. The US doesn't though. Doesn't it seem sensible then, to keep guns in Swizerland where they aren't misused and ban guns in the US where they are. You say that banning guns won't stop gun deaths, but how do you know?

When I was in America a few weeks ago I watched some man being chased by the police in his car. His life had gone shit, think his wife had left him etc etc. Anyway he eventually pulled over but held police off with his gun. Potentially he could have killed one of them (he was eventually killed himself). Had the same situation been in Britain, that man who was an ordinary citizen (before the chase) and had a job and kids, would not have had the connections to get hold of a firearm. In America almost every crime seems to end with a gun, whether it be a siege or a robbery or mugging. In Britain those activities usually happen with knives or baseball bats. While that isn't good of course, it does limit the total number of people who could be injured. A knifeman can be charged at and over powered or can be run from - A gun man will just shoot you if you charge and possibly shoot you if you run.





<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Hang low... (none / 0) (#92)
by Hyped on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 02:11:36 PM PST
...we're in for some turbulence.

"There is no black market in firearms in Britain."

Evidently, your own country says differently. Look at this: 'One in three young criminals is armed.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,363761,00.html

"Lets not just talk about school shootings but also maniacs shooting all their co-workers at their job."

Again, PotatoError, how many times do I have to tell you? Those are NOT common occurances. Those are isolated incidents that occur every once in a while. The vast majority of gun crimes are gang-related and drug-related.

The problem here is with criminals and illegal guns, not law-abiding citizens and legal guns. So stop referring to those incidents, because they are nearly microscopic in comparison to criminal misuse of guns.

"The difference is that in Britain, normal people who suddenly hate life can't just get hold of guns like that."

Because It Isn't was mentioning how farmers still have shotguns and rifles. I suppose they can't just get ahold of guns, either? There is nothing preventing them from taking a hacksaw, sawing off the barrel of their shotgun, and making a boomstick that they can use to blow away people who have angered them. Being a farmer is a stressful job, after all.

Again, your country is not entirely gun-free. There are still guns in civilian hands in England (not just farmers either; there is trap-shooting as well), yet you claim that because guns are gone, nobody can shoot anybody else. So you still haven't explained why having guns automatically equals violent crime.

"I am sure you would agree that a maniac trying to kill tens of people with a gun will be almost unchallenged compared to one with a knife."

PotatoError, look at this:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/bearingarms/MGBTH8A6U0D.html

Civilian defense against maniacs...using GUNS.

"You might want to ask yourself where that 2.5 million figure came from."

Dozens of government studies (not all from pro-gun organizations) that have confirmed it time and again. Even the anti-gun people in this country no longer dispute it.

"If so many Americans use firearms to save their lives then why aren't people in other countries, who don't have firearms to protect themselves, not dying in droves?"

There are. Brazil, Jamaica, Mexico...people in those countries are dying very rapidly. They don't have guns, but they do have a lot of drug dealers who have illegal guns. As I have said before, the U.S. has a serious problem with drug dealers. England and Japan do not. Maybe it's easy for you to get along without guns. But for us, guns are simply a fact of life, no matter how much some of your fellow Brits (including that crack-headed Anonymous Reader) want to criticize it.

"In America almost every crime seems to end with a gun, whether it be a siege or a robbery or mugging."

The operative word is 'seems' here. Unless you produce statistics confirming that, yes, every crime POSITIVELY ends with a gun, then I don't think you can make that statement. Frankly, where I live, muggings with guns have never occured; you're more likely to get mugged by a knife-wielder. However, in this same area, private citizens have also defeated such muggers by holding them at gunpoint and forcing them to surrender.

"When I was in America a few weeks ago I watched some man being chased by the police in his car. His life had gone shit, think his wife had left him etc etc. Anyway he eventually pulled over but held police off with his gun. Potentially he could have killed one of them (he was eventually killed himself)."

Again, PotatoError, you are using only one example. How often do you think those incidents occur?

Here is an example of something like that happening in Britain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,342158,00.html

That is just one incident, but do I now have a right to assume that every day, some gangster shoots up the streets with an AK47 in England? Of course not. That is still just one isolated incident. So you cannot do the same.

Sweet chariot... (none / 0) (#93)
by walwyn on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 03:05:30 PM PST
...you really ought to be careful when quoting the GRUNIAD. The paper is notorious for its misprints and can't even spell its own name.

In all the references you have given there is no guarantee that what you think is a story about guns, might not, on further examination, be actually about RSM, GNU, Lunix, and ESR.

What does it matter... (none / 0) (#94)
by Hyped on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 03:24:25 PM PST
...if I quote the Guardian? I know nothing about its typos, but even if it has any, how does that invalidate its report? Just because you don't like the newspaper, does that mean the event never happened? In other words, are you trying to cover up the fact that an AK-toting gang member went around shooting up people from a car?



I love the Guardian, (none / 0) (#96)
by because it isnt on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 04:37:55 PM PST
particularly its corrections page, which it runs every day. Every edition of the Guardian has utterly basic facts incorrect, and they're listed in the next day's Corrections and Clarifications column. They don't fix up the website articles post facto.

I'll prove it to you. I've just picked a copy out of my recycling bin; here's the column for the 15th of August 2002. It's a light day for corrections:

In the heading and text of an item in our City briefing, page 21, Finance, yesterday, we used the name Citigate when we should have said Citigroup. The heading Citigate writ in WorldCom IPO was therefore misleading. Citigate (Dewe Rogerson), the international financial communications consultancy, has not received a subpoena from the US Congressional committee and does not own Salomon Smith Barney (Which is owned by Citigroup). Apologies for the confusion.

The Moldau river in the caption to a picture of Prague on the front page, August 13, is one with the Vltava, its Czech name, correctly used throughout the accompanying report. Moldau is the river's German name.

The informal vote referred to in our report Poll votes M25 most horrific place in Britain, page 8, AUgust 13, was not conducted by telephone. Votes were recotded on the BBC website.

In our article about taxation, page 5, Office hors, August 12, we said, "There is no obligation, however, to officially declare self-employed status." That is incorrect. A declaration is obligatory within three months of becoming self-employed. The penalty for failing to do that is a fine of �100.

Lancaster University is not withdrawing independent studies degrees as suggested in Higher Browsing (page 5, education, August 13). Both undergraduate and MA places are available for October.

An article, Swimmers get the drift, page 9 (science), Online, August 1, referring entirely to marine zooplankton, was illustrated, confusingly, with a photograph of fresh-water zooplankton.

Creatures in the group that embraces insects and arachnids are arthropods and not arthopods as we had it in our report Fatal fever that lurks in the swamps, page 3, August 13.


There have been a total of 11 gun incident stories written up by the Grauniad so far this year. How many gun incidents are there in a week throughout America? Please also read the article you listed. It contains many things that we have been saying all along:
'We have a culture developed where people think it is very cool to carry a gun, and are prepared to use it at the drop of a hat. The crime has moved on from just protecting your market and your market share to doling out punishment and intimidation. And the gun is the first resort - the weapon of choice - for settling arguments.'
Perhaps now you at least begin to understand why British people hate guns so much, and everybody fully supports every single crackdown the police perform on the gun menace. It is not the drug dealing that is to blame - people have dealt drugs in this country for years without resorting to guns - it is the deadly spread of gun culture perpetuated by the likes of you that is introducing drug dealers to the novelty of lethal weapons. There is none of this 'defense' bollocks. Guns are used in this country purely to shoot - police, farmers and criminals alike. Only gun fetishists would try and convince people that you don't actually need to shoot guns. Of course you do! Criminals with guns don't hesitate! They wouldn't have brought the gun if they weren't planning on shooting you first and stealing from you later!

Here's a little joke for you: Q: How can you tell when a passer-by on the street* is going to rob you? A: When he has shot you.

*: in south or east London
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Too aid understanding. (none / 0) (#58)
by walwyn on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 12:41:51 PM PST
If higher gun ownership protects civilians then why does America, with the highest gun ownership in the world, have the highest level of civilian gun deaths in the world?

Guns as we all know can be dangerous objects especially when misused. Yet it seems that in America any imbecile can pick one up along with the groceries. In addition, unlike automobiles you don't need to be trained how to use them safely, and there is no one to repremand you when you misuse them. Indeed as the figures, you showed, from Oklahoma illustrate you are likely to either end up dead, injured, or if lucky in jail.

Gun advocates however refuse to accept that guns are inherently dangerous and will argue numbers till there is no tommorow. In many cases their numbers will be correct; it is the conclusions that they draw from them that are highly suspect. This is because the conclusions are already decided, they simply search for the numbers to support them.

Perhaps the NRA are correct though when they say that Americans are safer with guns. After all they do have first hand knowledge of what their fellow citizens are really like - indeed if it wasn't for guns there might well be 100,000s deaths per year rather than 10,000.


A few clarifications... (none / 0) (#60)
by Hyped on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 01:36:36 PM PST
...on my stance and how guns are in America. I'm going to ignore Because It Isn't, as he has not been saying anything intelligent other than twisting my own statements.

"In addition, unlike automobiles you don't need to be trained how to use them safely, and there is no one to repremand you when you misuse them."

Owning a gun is a RIGHT, whereas getting to drive a car is a PRIVILAGE. That is the difference.

But if you misuse them you get in trouble. At least when the police properly enforce the laws instead of giving wrist-slappings.

"Gun advocates however refuse to accept that guns are inherently dangerous and will argue numbers till there is no tommorow."

And so will the anti-gunners. They will refuse to accept that guns save lives.

Here is a fair basic assessment of the two opinions:

Pro-gunners: Many people use guns to defend themselves.

Anti-gunners: Many people use guns to hurt/kill others.

What we need, therefore, is a compromise that will keep both sides happy.

While I do not support banning guns completely, I do support laws that are intended to keep guns away from people who might misuse them. Instant background checks and state-required training courses would be a good idea. The NRA opposes these. Do I agree with them? No. But do I understand why they are opposed? Yes. You must understand that in the past, certain gun control measures have resulted in confiscation of weapons (despite the anti-gunners' promises that they wouldn't), and the NRA does not trust them anymore. But I still don't like the NRA's extremist approach, and so I am not a member.

"After all they do have first hand knowledge of what their fellow citizens are really like - indeed if it wasn't for guns there might well be 100,000s deaths per year rather than 10,000."

Indeed. I ask the question: Which is more acceptable? 100,000 deaths with knives, or 10,000 deaths with guns? If gun control is going to be used as crime control, then I don't see how it will ever work.

 
Dude. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 10:29:44 AM PST
The Swiss militia may distribute its armories in the homes of reservists, but those reservists are (1) trained, (2) not allowed to fire their weapon without explicit orders to do so, and (3) not big enough to conceal a rifle under their clothing. As for civilian weapons, if the US enjoyed the same level of gun control as the Swiss do, the NRA would be pounding the pavement with pamphlets calling for revolution.

The reason Americans need guns is to defend themselves from other Americans defending themselves from Americans who are defending themselves with guns; and "defend" themselves they do, at a rate of 80 acts of defense per day.

The NRA is a terrorist organization, my friend. They rely on the use or threat of violence to intimidate and coerce American society for ideological reasons.


 
Brazil (none / 0) (#63)
by nathan on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 08:54:28 PM PST
I thought that in Brazil, anyone could own 7 guns, 14 with a permit, and 21 with a special license. Did this change recently? I remember reading this factoid in an article about wealthy women carrying guns in their handbags, but that was ca 1994.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
I thought geeks watched Star Trek (none / 0) (#66)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 09:03:54 AM PST
There certainly seem to be a huge amount of lunix using geeks on this site, and I'm amazed that no one has yet mentioned the Star Trek epsisode where Kirk makes a cannon to injure the Gorm Captain in this whole diary. Is it because the sorts that would mention that episode to bolster their side (freedom loving right thinking men) have better things to do than watch masturbatory geek fantasies?


A. Rightmann

The cannon episode... (none / 0) (#70)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 12:30:36 PM PST
...got recently aired even here. Star Trek itself is more a sf-comedy than something serious; its discrepances against real-world physics, changing as the script requires, are one of its funniest parts.


Typical ignorant geek. (none / 0) (#86)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 10:46:58 AM PST
What you are saying, then, is that the only good science fiction is the sort without any fiction in it.

I'll bet you're a real hit at parties, MS.

You canna change the laws of physics! (none / 0) (#89)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 11:09:05 AM PST
What you are saying, then, is that the only good science fiction is the sort without any fiction in it.

Good fiction and adherence to the laws of physics aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. (And even the non-adherence can be a source of (maybe unintended) additional fun, often turning a "serious" movie to a farce. Law of energy conservation, good joke. Conservation of momentum, even better. Sound in vacuum. Sound of blast miles away, heard at the very moment of the blast - sound speed equal to speed of light. And don't let me go on about computer-related blunders. Though I seen a serious computer malfunction that was pretty realistic, in some old B-grade SF - no sparkles, no fire, just a thin stream of gray smoke from one chip. I once done the same kind, with jinxed power supply, back in the good old times when 8 megs of RAM was a lot...)

But movie studios should definitely have science advisors.

I'll bet you're a real hit at parties, MS.

You won the bet. Maybe it's the social group I attend.


 
Most of the geeks (none / 0) (#72)
by because it isnt on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 01:24:15 PM PST
are a bit too young to watch the original Star Trek with the reverence it deserves. They probably want to "mistake" it, rather than take it seriously.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Actually, you make a very valid point. (none / 0) (#32)
by tkatchev on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 11:52:05 AM PST
Your point about the military selling guns off to the criminals is a very valid one. Over here, it is a perennial headache for us. Especially since there is a very large stockpile of old Cold-War era weaponry that nobody knows what to do with. Selling it to the criminals solves both problems -- gets rid of the useless weaponry and allows the military management dudes to make some extra money.




--
Peace and much love...

 
Re: (none / 0) (#12)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 02:41:21 PM PST
You say that clever people could make firearms. But we're not worried about Microsoft employees here - no, we're concerned with criminals.

No. We're concerned with availability/manufacturability of guns. Besides, the cleverness of Microsoft employees is irrelevant here; regardless how good coders do you have, if the management doesn't give them enough of time to test, and orders New Improved Features instead, you get unstable crap.

Clever criminals don't use guns.

True. Clever criminals use brain instead.

It's a lot more difficult to make guns than u say. If you get flaws in the barrel it could end up blowing your hand off.

It's not exactly simple, but with some experience with the properties of metal and the physics involved, nothing outside of reach. Also, you should never test a new barrel in hand. And if you aren't experienced enough, make a shotgun; it is simpler. A final hint: don't use inferior steel on the key parts.


A question.... (none / 0) (#26)
by PotatoError on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 09:32:52 AM PST
We've establisted that "Clever criminals don't use guns"....

Do you think that non-clever criminals have the "experience with the properties of metal and physics" to make a gun?

Do you think that non-clever criminals have the mental ability to self-learn this sort of thing?

Do you think that many non-clever criminals would bother to learn?
We're not talking clever or dedicated people here.

I believe it's pretty true that if guns were illegal, most criminals would not bother making them. Of course organised crime is dedicated and clever and would be bound to cash in on the illegal gun market. But even so, criminals will find it a lot harder to aquire firearms and will have trouble carrying them around without getting locked up. I believe in deterence not rehabilitation or punishment. You don't lock up a criminal for 10 years for carrying a firearm because you are punishing them, or because you are trying to rehab them (how ridiculous), you do it as an example - to keep the deterent alive and to warn others from doing the same thing.








<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

An answer (none / 0) (#28)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 10:05:57 AM PST
Do you think that many non-clever criminals would bother to learn? We're not talking clever or dedicated people here.

Why they should? They will just buy from the ones that bothered, and got the "experience with the properties of metal and physics".

Gun manufacture could be a nice and quiet basement business, for anyone who likes fine mechanics and metal and money.


Well.... (none / 0) (#37)
by PotatoError on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 12:59:03 PM PST
You would have to be talking about organised crime. Any single person who attempted this would be busted within a month.

"Where did you get the gun?" would be one of the first questions the police ask a criminal. If they aren't scared of you, they will tell. You will need backing from an organised crime group to make sure these people are scared.

I'm not arguing that guns will disappear completely - that can't happen. What I'm arguing is that if the penalties for using guns were very inproportionate to using knives then criminals would use knives.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

So... (none / 0) (#38)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 01:06:22 PM PST
...what is your point?

"You would have to be talking about organised crime. Any single person who attempted this would be busted within a month."

Yes, I know...organized crime provides guns for the lower criminal elements. That's how it works even now. But there would be a vast number of illegal gun dealers, just as there is a vast number of drug dealers now. The police can't catch them all or prevent them from distributing guns to criminals.

"I'm not arguing that guns will disappear completely - that can't happen. What I'm arguing is that if the penalties for using guns were very inproportionate to using knives then criminals would use knives."

I doubt it. What would do criminals use guns for? Usually bank robberies or organized gang hits. Either of those activities can get you FAR longer than 10 years. I think the criminals would be more concerned about getting caught in the act than getting caught with the tool they are using to commit the crime. So I don't see how you can 'scare' criminals into ceasing their use of guns. You're going to have to do more than that to convince me that putting harsh penalties on guns will reduce criminals using them.

 
yeah! (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 10:32:48 PM PST
Lets all go back to crossbows!

Crossbows... (none / 0) (#20)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 01:03:47 AM PST
...are formidable weapons. Silent, accurate, deadly. Point and click interface.

Theoretically, you should be able to make one from composite materials, without a trace of metal. Which would render it invisible for metal detectors.


Finally (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 02:22:52 AM PST
Finally someone else who doesn't think with their head up their ass.

 
Guns are not necessary and sufficient. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 12:17:45 AM PST
The Soviet Union and all its satellites fell without a single Second Amendment between them.

A tyrant is one man. He can do nothing if there isn't broad support for his tyranny. Too many of you are under the delusion that nations occupy themselves, or that soldiers have no connection to the society that bred and raised them. Here's a hint from history: without the support of the military, you will not win a national insurrection. Do you know why? Because such wars pit brother against brother, that is why. Only you can take away your freedom by, for example, trying to defend it from a legion of invisible terrorists that has not killed as many people in all the history of the world as the US Army has repeatedly done in one day, before 6am.

Get it straight: government is the actualization of your beliefs. Why are you worried about Ashcroft and his gang of thugs? You can squeeze them into a small Volkswagon. That doesn't sound very frightening to me. It sounds like a circus act.

Meanwhile, the greatest threat to freedom is the geeks. Ooh, look at all the pretty hardware on CNN. After a life spent training to be a space marine in Carmack's army, it is hard not to appreciate a good smart bomb, isn't it? Bah! Show me a geek and I'll show you the future of the military-industrial complex. There's your precious freedom right there, you dorks.

You heard me, there ought to be Constitutional protection from Linux.

Space Marine in Carmack's army (none / 0) (#55)
by PotatoError on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 08:17:38 AM PST
Carmack's army rules + ID rules the world.

Shitty opposition from CounterStrike troops will just collapse and fall behind us when the DoomIII occurs. Then onwards! We will invade the Earth!
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Fine (none / 0) (#75)
by KingAzzy on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 02:24:31 PM PST
I just want it to be clearly understood that once the invasion occurs, I will assume full powers as the minister of pussy dispensation.

Thank you,
-Azzy

Oops. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 4th, 2002 at 10:56:03 AM PST
When you don't know what a word means, using it can really bite you in the ass.

I have no doubt, of course, that your mere presence can grant exemption from pussy. Your "full powers" must be fearsome, indeed.

 
Nugs (none / 0) (#105)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 04:12:38 PM PST
Always remember the words of the great Dick Solomon, physicist and Alien High Commander :

"Guns dont kill people. Physics kills people."



 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.