Of course Switzerland has a lower crime rate, look at the Chocolate they make!
Printable View
Of course Switzerland has a lower crime rate, look at the Chocolate they make!
Neg, I posted as a point of discussion, I in no way agree with Nugent's comments only I do recognize his right to say them. You must have known that it was only a mater of time before someone from the gun activist community was going to mouth off on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Negative
Cheers:
http://washtimes.com/commentary/2007...0540-3374r.htmQuote:
A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told 'em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased 'em away.
Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where's the nearest place around here where you're most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have forsworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors.
BTW, the murder was not done with guns. Hunting knives were sufficient, since the
victims were unarmed.
I won't quote statistics because "The figures don't lie, but liars can figure" I am
not a mathematician or a scientist, and I don't think they should rule the world.
This is an issue of constitutional law. In my opinion "the right of the people
to keep and bear arms" is a reference to "the people" and not the "army" or
the "police" to bear arms, since the authorities always had the right
to bear arms, it was not necessary to enable them to do so by constitutional
amendment.
I predict that, within twenty years, all firearms will be banned in the USA.
Many of us will live to see that day. Maybe we can agree to get together
at that time over a pint, and discuss whether it has become a better world,
if they haven't banned beer as well.
:cool:
They already tried banning beer, the guns reminded them it was a bad idea. One of many reasons I'm against prohibition of substances. They can take away guns, won't stop anyone from using explosives, they can take away those too, and then someone would invent a new way to kill people.
Any evidence you need of that, just watch a special on Prisons in America. They have caught inmates with guns that would fire a 9MM bullet made out of PLUMBING.
Take both away and people will find another way to kill or go back to knives and arrows. Take those away they'll make spears, take those away and they'll still find a way and the only solution would be to kill everyone on the planet and then what would the point be? Who is anyone protecting if they're dead?
If we go down the list of things you can make a weapon from there isn't much left. Hell we'd even need special shoes, even gaurds in jail know a shoe string is all it takes, that's why inmates can't have those either.
Well then lets level the playing field and ensure all US citizens have a firearm, that would work out to approx 300 Million (with the exception of Illegal Aliens of course), and lets factor in the cost of keeping those firearms with a steady supply of bullets, should keep the arms manufacturer's in enough dough to make it through the next couple of generations.
As I read somewhere else, it is incumbent for the NRA to help get a grip on the control side of this issue or they very well may lose the opportunity to keep their weapons.
As long as the NRA are seen to side with the gun nuts then the tax paying public are soon going to start demanding tighter controls, and before you know it the "right" will be amended right out of the consititution, nothing is ever ingrained in stone.:rolleyes:
This would not have helped in the case of the Virgina Tech shooter however the problem with violence is the crime and punishment issue. Our justice system is broken.
We have countless politicians from both sides of the aisle talking about cracking down and zero tolerance but our prison system is a revolving door. instead of rehabilitating it is training prisoners to be worse.
When we have a violent person running amok at some point the common good of society has to outweigh this person's extended rights.
I am a pro gun person. I've had no problem with 5 day waiting periods, if indeed they were doing background checks.
The VT shooter fired over 100+ rounds. I haven't read what types of clips he was using but if he was using stock clips that would mean at least 10 reloads. With two pistols and only two hands that's a lot of work. Someone couldn't have smashed a chair over his head?
Right, but once again two key points spring to mind:Quote:
Originally Posted by gore
1) Average Joe needs his laces to keep his shoes on, the fact it can be used as a weapon is incidental.
2) You are Billy Everyteen sat in your college classroom minding your own business, defenseless. A maniac bursts through the door threatening to kill you. Would you prefer him to be holding:
a) his shoelaces
OR
b) an assault rifle.
The Assault Rifle. If he came in with shoe laces I'd be laughing to hard to defend myself and I'd get strangled laughing. At least with an AK I'd be seriouse enough to try SOMETHING. Like for example if they had the safety on though however unlikely it was, or if they aimed at the kid next to me or had his back turned to spray rounds, a quickie bottom of a chair where the base of the steel is to the the back of the head where that little indent is generally takes down anyone for at least an hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aardpsymon
And being one person here who's actually wrestled an AK out of someones hands before I know how to do it. (Best friend was going to kill himself, I prevented it).
A couple of problems with this reaction gore, is 1) whatever action you take may have dire consequences for those other's who are in the room with you, on your own go for it and good luck, but if you miss and he kills everyone else, better hope he takes you out last, cause someone's parent will do it for them. 2) It is 100% different to disarm a buddy then one who is trying to put a bullet into your brain cavity.Quote:
Originally Posted by gore
Suffice to say, I would be hard pressed to believe that a person placed in that situation would have the cojones to actually carry it out, even police officers in the line of fire, sometimes hesitate to pull their weapons, unfortunately to their demise, but a split second reaction in the wrong direction can be disastrous, doesn't matter how many times you have recreated the scenario in training, nothing can ever prepare you for that showdown.;)
Dalek:
I know, I wasn't pretending to say I'd be sitting there pumping with testosterone and ripping his head off, I was just trying to add a more humor based outlook on it to a very VERY serious situation because well, to many people in serious times get angry over small things and take it out on the ones around them, and I try to find humor where others don't see it.
Believe me, I really have no idea if I'd do something if I didn't know who the trigger was. But if I DID, I really wouldn't be abel to live with myself if I missed and they fired and hit someone aiming for me.