ClumsyMonkey.net

Korzic wrote:I have a couple of issues to raise.

First of all, why is there the need to go out and shoot a hundred rounds at a hay bale? Surely there are other less... destructive, more contructive things to do.

2ndly. I live in a country where guns are not part of the culture so I may be missing something here. But surely you don't need an AR 15 to protect your family. IMHO the "right to protect myself with gun" argument i sone of the key pillars to gun owndership. But surely, if there weren't as many guns out there, you wouldn't need one to defend your family with.

3rdly. The fact you are allowed to own these guns makes them more accessible. and the more accessible they are, the easier it is for the ones who use them with "alternative" intents to lay their hands on one. And that makes it a bad thing. There are those who dont share the same morals as some of us and will willingly sell their firearms to less than reputable characters while maintaining a squeaky clean record.

xjsb125 wrote:

Rusty wrote:I never saw the fascination of collecting things designed to kill things.

Me either.


Saying that owning guns is a typically southern thing is wrong. There are a lot of owners in the mid-western United States, and north in Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, etc.

Corey wrote:I'm pretty sure I've said this before but I'll state it again. Gun violence is not a ratio of population ALONE. It is a ratio of population DENSITY. That means the more crowded people are, the more gun violence you have. There have been studies that have matched Canadian cities with US cities of similar size and density and the number of gun violence crimes are nearly identical. Canada is a lot more spread out the the States, that is why your crime level is lower... not because of gun bans.

Also, I'm going to provide an argument as to why citizens want the right to own assault weapons. Not because I agree with it but because I hate the GANG mentality where everyone here seems to agree so that means anyone who doensn't is either a) a moron or b) Satin himself.

Provided a group of militants get together who have already acquired assault weapons, they could easily cease a town, mowing down people who would be utterly defenseless against them. These weapons were smuggled in despite the "ban". The town's people's puny handguns would be no match. If they were to legally own the same type of weapons that could destroy them, maybe they would be able to put up a fight. These weapons however would be legally acquired with the Government's full knowledge of who has them and where they are located. Easier to keep track of. Probable? No. Possible? Why not? Again, not a big assault weapon buff, but there you have it.

I have a hunch that a lot of you gun ban supporters also support legalized drugs with the argument that if they were legalized, things would be more controlled. Same concept.

Oh, one last thing.... some of you need to lay off the Michael Moore references. Seriously... Gun rallies? A bank that just gives you a gun with an account? (that was staged by the way) And this concept that the NRA is some evil killing mob. Correction, the NRA seeks to educate and ensure that guns are used correctly and safely. Again, just sticking up for the little guy,

Secondly in reply to your little militia scenario. A highly trained militia rushes into town with assault weapons and begins mowing people down. The police and the army? Psh who cares about them action must be taken, so lo and behold the citizens of the town bust out some automatic weapons charge into the streets and these untrained, unskilled, scared, and confused citizens defeat the militia that threatend them all. Wow I needed a myth for class, I think I just got one. In truth if that were to happen those that weren't too busy shitting themselves from fear would probably end up killing each other in the madness and confusion of it all and then the evil milita would have siezed the town, taken the spoils and yadda yadda yadda.

First off I'd just like to point out that places like China have a very population dense area and they have very little gun violence hmmm.

Maybe it has something to do with North American culture and society that causes all the violence....

Of course the NRA is there to eduacate about guns and such, but with a motto such as "from my cold dead hands" it's pretty easy to see how some people might see it slightly differently.

Thirdly, despite the bias in michael moores films, what he said is still true and factual.

xjsb125 wrote:

Secondly in reply to your little militia scenario. A highly trained militia rushes into town with assault weapons and begins mowing people down. The police and the army? Psh who cares about them action must be taken, so lo and behold the citizens of the town bust out some automatic weapons charge into the streets and these untrained, unskilled, scared, and confused citizens defeat the militia that threatend them all. Wow I needed a myth for class, I think I just got one. In truth if that were to happen those that weren't too busy shitting themselves from fear would probably end up killing each other in the madness and confusion of it all and then the evil milita would have siezed the town, taken the spoils and yadda yadda yadda.

You've been watching too many movies.

Funny I find it's in the movies that the citizens are able to defeat the militia not the other way around.

First off I'd just like to point out that places like China have a very population dense area and they have very little gun violence hmmm.

That's because their government has all the guns and kills the shit out of the people whenever they try to voice their opinions.

I don't support the government killing people part, but the part where the government has all the guns and somehow there are less gun related murders....makes you think.

Maybe it has something to do with North American culture and society that causes all the violence....

According to your earlier post, culture isn't to blame for gun violence.

I look for the pychological and sociological viewpoints, but my main focus is usually on pychology with individuals but i also look at sociology and find what similar traits every gun related thing has in common that is what I meant to say.

Of course the NRA is there to eduacate about guns and such, but with a motto such as "from my cold dead hands" it's pretty easy to see how some people might see it slightly differently.

Yeah, I scoured their website for that quote as thier motto. If you find it on there, screencap the page and post it here. All I found was a quote from the second ammendment.

I'm sure everyone is very familiar with seeing the NRA president stand there holding a gun and shouting "from my cold dead hands." It was on banners and stuff. Or is that just a personal thing he likes to say? It was stated very clearly in bowling for columbine, or does that not matter because micheal moore made the film?

Thirdly, despite the bias in michael moores films, what he said is still true and factual.

They are cut and paste jobs that are misleading.

I don't support the government killing people part, but the part where the government has all the guns and somehow there are less gun related murders....makes you think.

Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver in defiance to Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon being given the handmade musket he's holding, at that annual meeting. A key word there is 'annual.' Although Moore successfully makes it appear that Heston has held the rally in response to the Columbine massacre - the gathering was preplanned.

I AM ME wrote:Can someone explain why there's almost no gun violence in Britain? The sops don't even carry guns in most cases!