Gun Control in the U.S.-The Truth

[j2k4]

Here's another one, about the ban on assault weapons:

Charlie Reese

Dumb Legislation

The ban on assault weapons had no effect on crime, and ending the ban will have no effect on crime.

If ever there was a stupid piece of legislation, the so-called assault-weapons ban was it. All it did was ban cosmetic features like flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and high-capacity magazines.

True, assault weapons were already carefully controlled before this dumb legislation was enacted. A semiautomatic rifle, no matter how you gussy it up with cosmetic features, is not an assault weapon. An assault weapon is a submachine gun or a rifle with a selector switch that allows it to fire either semiautomatically or automatically.

Since 1934, any weapon capable of firing automatically could only be purchased from specially licensed dealers and by someone who obtained a special license to buy it from the U.S. Treasury Department. About the only people who bothered were collectors. The cost of ammunition is such that few hobbyists can afford to shoot two bits at the rate of 400 to 600 a minute.

A semiautomatic rifle fires the same way a revolver fires — one shot per one pull of the trigger. Whether it's an AK-47 or an Uzi, as long as it was made to fire semiautomatic only, it has been legal, as it should be. A semiautomatic is a semiautomatic is a semiautomatic. A weapon that can fire automatically keeps firing as long as you hold the trigger down or until your ammo runs out.

By the way, all during this so-called assault-weapons ban, the U.S. government has been selling semiautomatic rifles with bayonet lugs on them to the general public through the Office of Civilian Marksmanship.

All rifles are the same. Whether they are single-shot, bolt-action, lever-action, pump, semiautomatic or fully automatic refers to the mechanics of ejecting the fired case, putting a new cartridge in the chamber and cocking the firing pin. This is done manually in a single shot and mechanically in bolt-actions, lever-actions and pumps. A semiautomatic rifle or pistol diverts some of the hot gases to a mechanism that operates the bolt, ejects the fired case, puts a new cartridge in place and cocks the firing mechanism.

As for the high-capacity magazines, if some guy is shooting at me, it makes no difference whether he has a 15-shot magazine or two 10-shot magazines, which the assault-weapons ban said were legal. You can change magazines in about one second.

I never got excited about the assault-weapons ban because it really didn't ban any weapons. All the manufacturers did was remove the forbidden cosmetic features and continue to sell the exact same rifle. Furthermore, I've never favored semiautos anyway, as they present a temptation to spray and pray. In a gunfight, only the bullets that hit the target count. The one exception to my druthers is the semiauto .45, a fine pistol.

Of course, one should always point out in any discussion of any gun-control measure that, by definition, criminals who don't obey the laws against murder and robbery are not going to obey any gun-control laws. Nor do inanimate objects cause crime. Most criminals use automobiles, but I never heard any politician suggest that cars be banned or limited to 90-horsepower engines.

I noticed that one ignorant person pointed out that the Washington, D.C., snipers used a semiautomatic rifle. Yes, they did, but it could have been a muzzleloader, because they only fired one shot per victim. True sniper rifles, by the way, are usually bolt-action. Still another dumb statement is that the military-style weapons were designed only for killing people. Of course. All firearms are designed for killing people. Do you think you would be any less dead if you were shot with a bullet from a bolt-action rifle?

What you don't want is anybody shooting at you with a shotgun or a rifle, regardless of how it is loaded or what it looks like. If you have got to get shot at, pray to God it's with a cheap .25-caliber pistol wielded by a nearsighted drunk.

Crime is a human behavior problem, not a mechanical problem. Furthermore, if firearms were not very useful for self-defense, then police wouldn't carry them. In a free country, if the government can go armed, so should the citizens, if they so choose.

[Biggles]

Why not disarm the police then? Then there would be no requirement for anyone else to be armed.

Works in the UK.

[vidcc]

seems to me that all these guns are just making up for having a small penis.

The bigger and more deadly the gun...the smaller the gunmans penis.


It's called over compensating

[Everose]

seems to me that all these guns are just making up for having a small penis.

The bigger and more deadly the gun...the smaller the gunmans penis.


It's called over compensating
Did you say the bigger the mouth, the smaller the penis????? Oh....sorry, was not paying attention.

Will try to do better.;)

[vidcc]

Did you say the bigger the mouth, the smaller the penis????? Oh....sorry, was not paying attention.

Will try to do better.;)
Depends on how hard you bite i suppose :o

[Everose]

Did you say the bigger the mouth, the smaller the penis????? Oh....sorry, was not paying attention.

Will try to do better.;)
Uh, Vid, uh.....I was going to say I disagreed with your assessment. But I was afraid you would ask me if I had done some research on the matter.:P

[Everose]

Depends on how hard you bite i suppose :o
:lol: Now that was good. Damnit. :D

[Comic_Peddler]

Why not disarm the police then? Then there would be no requirement for anyone else to be armed.

Works in the UK.


Would this be why the government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03?

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

And what is with the current attempts to ban toy guns?

[Busyman]

Dumb legislation. Hmmmm.

Why not still leave the ban in effect?

Why allow flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and high-capacity magazines?

[spinningfreemanny]

Dumb legislation. Hmmmm.

Why not still leave the ban in effect?

Why allow flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and high-capacity magazines?

I think the article is stating "why ban it?"

[Busyman]

I think the article is stating "why ban it?"
Right and I'm saying why not?

Then keep going....

This is a step backwards to appease the NRA uh 'ers.

[vidcc]

Actually i feel that the point made about the expired law makes sense..it wasn't in reality a ban....... So why didn't they close the loop holes and make it a proper piece of legislation?

I'll tell you why... because there is an election comming up

[CloudSeeder]

There are states in the U.S. with laws on the books that ALL households not inhabited by a convicted felon MUST posess a firearm. The crime rates in these states have dropped to less than half. After all what stupid criminal is going to enter a house where they know the owner has a gun, and probably knows how to use it. On the other hand if a criminal knows there are no guns in the house, why not go on in and do whatever they want to without fear?

[vidcc]

Gun control is only bad if it's us being controlled:dry:

[Busyman]

There are states in the U.S. with laws on the books that ALL households not inhabited by a convicted felon MUST posess a firearm. The crime rates in these states have dropped to less than half. After all what stupid criminal is going to enter a house where they know the owner has a gun, and probably knows how to use it. On the other hand if a criminal knows there are no guns in the house, why not go on in and do whatever they want to without fear?

This is precisely the reason I have a gun on every floor of my house.

I plan to have one on each side as well for a total of six.

I remember a home invasion in DC where there were 7 people having a get together and 2 guys ran in and killed everyone and robbed them.

I will not be huddled in a back room waiting to die.
I will not have my kids waiting to die.

They run up in my house, I'll having something waiting for them.

[vidcc]

There are states in the U.S. with laws on the books that ALL households not inhabited by a convicted felon MUST posess a firearm. The crime rates in these states have dropped to less than half. After all what stupid criminal is going to enter a house where they know the owner has a gun, and probably knows how to use it. On the other hand if a criminal knows there are no guns in the house, why not go on in and do whatever they want to without fear?
Care to give a source for which?

[lynx]

A semiautomatic rifle, no matter how you gussy it up with cosmetic features, is not an assault weapon. An assault weapon is a submachine gun or a rifle with a selector switch that allows it to fire either semiautomatically or automatically.

So is it an assault weapon or not?



I've never favored semiautos anyway, as they present a temptation to spray and pray. In a gunfight, only the bullets that hit the target count.

A fine argument for gun control, well said.



If you have got to get shot at, pray to God it's with a cheap .25-caliber pistol wielded by a nearsighted drunk.

Why not make it a rule that all nearsighted drunks have to carry firearms. Oh, wait...

[CloudSeeder]

Care to give a source for which?

I'm leaving town for the rest of the week and won't have computer access, but will send links at a later date. A good source is the FBI website though

[Biggles]

Would this be why the government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03?

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

And what is with the current attempts to ban toy guns?


Doubled from what to what? How does this compare to gun deaths in the US?

Just like when a person earning a dollar a day has been told he has a 50% wage rise has finished going :01: he realises that it really doesn't amount to much.

On top of this you have a change in Government in 1997 when substantial changes in accounting for crime also took place. The previous crowd were supposedly tough on crime (or at least tough on crime statistics)

As to being the more violent society, perhaps we are. We can get the occasional (well perhaps more than occasional) Wild West bar room brawl precisely because no one is going to pull a gun out and shoot everyone. Which is worse? A black eye soon heals, a hole in the head takes longer.

The majority of gun crime in Scotland (can't speak for our neighbours) is between drug dealers fighting turf wars. The Police, it has to be said, don't seem to lose a lot of sleep over this. It is very rare for an ordinary person to be a victim of gun crime here. I certainly do not lose a second of sleep over not having a gun in the house. Busyman's house sounds like Fort Knox - I think his neighbourhood must be scarier than Baghdad.

Most (something like 85%) house robberies are carried out by junkies who simply want your DVD player to sell in the pub so they can get their next fix. If they had a gun they would sell it to get their next fix. Personally, I would agree with a recently retired Metropolitan Police Chief and cut crime at a stroke by giving junkies free heroin and needles - it would put the gun-toting drug dealers out of business too. Most would then either stay at home or perhaps even lead normal productive lives.

No idea about the toy gun ban. My kids were never into toy guns so I can't recall if they were available or not when they were younger. I cannot remember the last time I saw kids play with toy guns - I think they are classed as gay (which appears to be one of those multi-use words at the moment). It is either Playstation/X-Boxs inside or skateboards and bikes outside - although the occasional football can still be seen.

In short, would I like our police and population armed and have a gun death rate like the US - :blink: This is what I believe is called a no-brainer - which is why there is a broad consensus on both left and right to leave things as they are in the UK.

GUNS DONT KILL - PEOPLE DO - SO BAN PEOPLE.

[vidcc]

I'm leaving town for the rest of the week and won't have computer access, but will send links at a later date. A good source is the FBI website though
Ok just make sure you come back with a source pointing to compulsory gun ownership.... I patiently await your reply

[MagicNakor]

You know what's very curious?

Are King George's men going to come marching into your chambers and demand billeting?

[vidcc]

You know what's very curious?

Are King George's men going to come marching into your chambers and demand billeting?

Well if he's talking about old laws unrepealed he hasn't stated so very well

[MagicNakor]

You get 10 beer stiens of vodka and gin in you and we'll see how well you state. ;)

It's an archaic law, and it ought to be amended. Hell, if they'll ammend barring gays from marrying, they can ammend their "right to bear arms."

[vidcc]

You get 10 beer stiens of vodka and gin in you and we'll see how well you state. ;)

It's an archaic law, and it ought to be amended. Hell, if they'll ammend barring gays from marrying, they can ammend their "right to bear arms."
Thought you were banning yourself for the binge


I was talking about CloudSeeder when i said "he"

If it's just an old unrepealed law dating to colonial times then it won't be enforced and therefore his statement about thoses states having lower crimerates wouldn't be because of these unrepealed laws.
I doubt very much that such a law could be enforced today.
As far as i am aware the "right to bear arms" is a right and not an order and no amount of local bylaws would or could make me have a firearm in my house

[spinningfreemanny]

Right and I'm saying why not?

Then keep going....

This is a step backwards to appease the NRA uh 'ers.

Because it's a government encroachment on it's citizens for no apparent reason; if your going to ban anything; you better have a better reason then "why not?"



How Come I'm a "newcomer"? :angry:

[j2k4]

seems to me that all these guns are just making up for having a small penis.

The bigger and more deadly the gun...the smaller the gunmans penis.


It's called over compensating

Only people with small penises believe that.

Biggles-

Criminals here have been known to disregard gun-laws.

What do you make of this?

[vidcc]

Only people with small penises believe that.

must have hit a bullseye :lol:


Criminals here have been known to disregard gun-laws.

What do you make of this? Criminals have been known to disregard ALL laws.... :huh:

How about we ban laws...with no laws to break that will bring the criminal population down a bit:rolleyes:

[vidcc]

Because it's a government encroachment on it's citizens for no apparent reason; if your going to ban anything; you better have a better reason then "why not?"

There are many solid reasons...just because you disagree with those reasons doesn't mean that there are none

[Biggles]

Only people with small penises believe that.

Biggles-

Criminals here have been known to disregard gun-laws.

What do you make of this?

They do indeed tend to make a career out of disregarding most laws (although they tend to be quite keen on property laws if it is their property)

The thing is, how often do professional criminals gun down innocent home owners? I would suggest that out of the enormous tally of gun deaths in the US each year this is not a major feature in the statistics. I would also suggest that this is not because the firepower of (in Busyman's case) an entire aircraft carrier is behind the door. By and large an experienced gunman could kick one's door in and shoot all and sundry before you could say wtf!!??. UK criminals have guns - they shoot each other with them. They are rarely used on households which, because of our laws, are all unarmed. By the logic you are using we should all be raped and pillaged in our beds. We are not. Our problem is one of petty crime caused by a whole class of people who do not want to be criminals in the first place. Whilst some are undoubtedly violent most would either run for it if disturbed or actually stay to try and beg enough for a fix. In a case recently the old lady showed him her family album and he fell asleep. The police had an easy job removing him.

Unless your society is very different from ours I think it is unlikely you would see a rise in armed household robberies if you all threw your guns away.

However, there appears to be to me an irrational attachment to something 99% of you will never use. Tis a funny old world. At the end of the day, if you want guns you will have them - I just do not want my society to go down that route.

[MagicNakor]

Thought you were banning yourself for the binge


I was talking about CloudSeeder when i said "he"

If it's just an old unrepealed law dating to colonial times then it won't be enforced and therefore his statement about thoses states having lower crimerates wouldn't be because of these unrepealed laws.
I doubt very much that such a law could be enforced today.
As far as i am aware the "right to bear arms" is a right and not an order and no amount of local bylaws would or could make me have a firearm in my house

I did ban myself. But then, you see, I found my keyboard about halfway into it, and everything went tits up from there. ;)

I fully admit to not understanding the strange fascinating Americans have with guns. I've been in many a long argument about it with the resident American, and the only reasoning behind it that I've been "made aware" of is: guns are just a tool! They aren't evil!

Which makes me wonder what, exactly, you use a gun for, if not killing?

:shuriken:

[Rat Faced]

Toy guns arent being banned, certain replica guns are.

This is because of a recent court case where certain individuals were buying them, taking them to a workshop, and turning them into real firearms... making a hefty profit for themselves and supplying upwards of 200 handguns to petty criminals and gangs in London.

[clocker]

Because it's a government encroachment on it's citizens for no apparent reason; if your going to ban anything; you better have a better reason then "why not?"



Would that the gun nuts were as upset about the myriad other "government encroachments" perpetrated by our moronic current President.
But alas, this will probably never happen.
Give a man his AK-47 and he will sit enthralled by his newfound firepower whilst the values this power was meant to protect go up in smoke.

There is irony in that, but I'm too appalled to appreciate it right now.

[B.Helto]

...Crime is a human behavior problem, not a mechanical problem...

Agreed.

And automatic assault weapons could be referred to as "human behavior problem accelerators".

[spinningfreemanny]

Agreed.

And automatic assault weapons could be referred to as "human behavior problem accelerators".

so can beer...

[vidcc]

so can beer...
gosh put all 3 together.... yeah i feel safe

[vidcc]

deleted

[CloudSeeder]

Care to give a source for which?
sorry people, I read this info in either the National Rifle Association, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation web site not too long ago, but I haven't been able to find it since I got back. I will keep searching, and post a link when I find it. I have found where there have been ordinances passed in individual cities, but not the state laws.

[vidcc]

sorry people, I read this info in either the National Rifle Association, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation web site not too long ago, but I haven't been able to find it since I got back. I will keep searching, and post a link when I find it. I have found where there have been ordinances passed in individual cities, but not the state laws.
Ok post individual cities.

Apart from an old colonial unrepealed law which wouldn't be enforced today i can't see how gun ownership could be compulsory.

I do fully understand that there are old laws still on the books but not enforced today...but those cases wouldn't stand with the case about those places being safer because of those laws.:)

[Rat Faced]

Ok post individual cities.

Apart from an old colonial unrepealed law which wouldn't be enforced today i can't see how gun ownership could be compulsory.

I do fully understand that there are old laws still on the books but not enforced today...but those cases wouldn't stand with the case about those places being safer because of those laws.:)

I agree.

In my city, there is a local Law (that has never been repealed) that all Gentlemen must wear a sword within the city limits... If i; or anyone else for that matter, ever tried to do that we would be arrested.

Another is the old Law that makes it mandatory to fire an arrow into the air every Sunday in salute of the Monarch..

There are thousands upon thousands of old Laws on the books that, for one reason or another just have never been repealed.

I think that Trial by Combat was only repealed fairly recently (within the last 100 years) in the UK, as another example...

[CloudSeeder]

I agree.

In my city, there is a local Law (that has never been repealed) that all Gentlemen must wear a sword within the city limits... If i; or anyone else for that matter, ever tried to do that we would be arrested.
You would probably be arrested, But you would have a damn good defense, probably get the law repealed as well.:lol:

[CloudSeeder]

www.gunowners.org
Dec 2003 GOA Speaks Out On Kansas Gun Battle
-- Supports mandatory gun ownership law

For Immediate Release
December 2, 2003
Contact: Ellie McDaniel
703-321-8585
In Geuda Springs, Kansas, some folks are taking the right to keep and bear arms quite seriously. The town council recently passed an ordinance requiring every resident to own a firearm. But not everyone is happy about the common-sense proposal, including the Mayor, who vetoed the ordinance on Monday (December 1).


"Amazingly, we hear the same cries from the Chicken Littles of the world, every time a city or state encourages more gun ownership," said GOA Director of Communications Erich Pratt. "Anti-gun fanatics come out of the woodwork, predicting that more guns in peoples' hands will result in rivers of blood flowing in the streets.

"But it never happens," Pratt said.

"Kennesaw, Georgia enacted a similar law in 1982 requiring every household to own a firearm, exempting those with criminal records or religious objections. Opponents argued the law would result in serious accidents and that angry residents would settle their differences with gunfire. Happily, those predictions never materialized."

An early study found that the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw (in 1982) had fallen 89 percent in the seven months following the law's enactment. That drop far outpaced the more modest 10.4 percent drop in the entire state of Georgia during that same period.

"In the ensuing years, Kennesaw's crime rate has remained at basement levels," Pratt said. "Last year, there was not one murder in the town. There were no accidental gun shot killings. The law has continued to work well for more than 20 years.

"Kennesaw's results should not be surprising," Pratt said. "Guns are a deterrent to bad guys, and we can predict that Geuda Springs would have enjoyed greater safety had the Mayor not vetoed the ordinance." After Mayor Edward Lacey's veto, the town council passed a slightly revised version, which will be considered by the full council at their February 2 meeting.

[CloudSeeder]

http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm
Here are some stastics some of you may find interesting. Yes, this is a pro-gun web-site, however, all of the information is all footnoted.

[clocker]

"In the ensuing years, Kennesaw's crime rate has remained at basement levels," Pratt said. "Last year, there was not one murder in the town. There were no accidental gun shot killings. The law has continued to work well for more than 20 years.


Mandatory bong ownership would probably achieve the same results.

[RPerry]

Mandatory bong ownership would probably achieve the same results.
Doubt it, I would rather be around responsible gun owners, then stupid burn-outs any day :cool:

[Biggles]

I am somewhat bemused by Cloudseeder's and presumably the gun lobby's logic.

The thrust of the argument appears to be that the more guns there are the fewer accidental shootings there will be.

Well call me picky but I think if there are no guns the rate would be lower. What was the number of accidental shootings in the US last year, about 1,500? That is one hell of a lot of unnecessary deaths, a great many of them children. If terrorists were killing 1,500 Americans a year unchecked there would be merry hell and politicians and security officials would rightly lose their jobs.

The gun industry is enormous just like the cigarette industry. Both will come up with the most spurious nonsense in order to protect their market. Understandable - after all, business is business.

Guns kill people (excepting faulty ones that is - which strangely are then deemed useless)

[vidcc]

The ordinance calls for a $10 penalty for those who don't keep a gun at home. But just as the law in Kennesaw (which has a $50 penalty) is not enforced, Mr. Brewer said, authorities will not be going to the doors of homes of Geuda Springs residents to see if they are in compliance.
Those with conscientious or religious objections to firearms are exempt from the law, as are paupers, people with physical or mental disabilities, and convicted felons. "If you don't want a gun, you don't have to have one. ... This is a perfect law," Mr. Brewer said.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031124-103155-9038r.htm

Looks along the lines of the bill that just ran out...not really compulsory...so what's the point other than machismo ?:unsure:

[Rat Faced]

You would probably be arrested, But you would have a damn good defense, probably get the law repealed as well.:lol:

Thats the only reason Trial by Combat was repealed... someone tried to that old Law in Court ;)

[RPerry]

I am somewhat bemused by Cloudseeder's and presumably the gun lobby's logic.

The thrust of the argument appears to be that the more guns there are the fewer accidental shootings there will be.

Well call me picky but I think if there are no guns the rate would be lower. What was the number of accidental shootings in the US last year, about 1,500? That is one hell of a lot of unnecessary deaths, a great many of them children. If terrorists were killing 1,500 Americans a year unchecked there would be merry hell and politicians and security officials would rightly lose their jobs.

The gun industry is enormous just like the cigarette industry. Both will come up with the most spurious nonsense in order to protect their market. Understandable - after all, business is business.

Guns kill people (excepting faulty ones that is - which strangely are then deemed useless)
Not just picking on you biggles, just your thread provoked the thought. The automobile industry is just as big. How many innocent victims of car accidents do we have each year ? how many of them children ? So do we take away the cars too? go back to the days of hourse and carraige ? only then I'm sure we will have people who get ran over by the horses, and have to get rid of them too. There is no argument from me that alot of innocent people are killed by guns everyday. I maintain its up to the gun owners to be responsible for their weapon, and they should be held accountable for anything that happens. Gun saftey, and education is the way to go.

[Rat Faced]

Cars arent designed to kill, Guns are...

[Busyman]

Cars arent designed to kill, Guns are...
What's your point?

[vidcc]

Actually let's consider the car arguement because "generally" drivers have to go through training and take tests before they are let loose on the roads....this is not the case with gun ownership as far as i am aware. Perhaps a gun owner could set me right on this.
Now i know that there are people on the roads without a license. I do appreciate law breakers exist.
I don't think a justification for a tool of death is just because something else kills...2 wrongs never make a right.

I don't want to ban guns...i want proper enforcement and proper controls.

[Biggles]

Cars arent designed to kill, Guns are...

This is primarily the point.

The dual use argument is one I have seen before - (matches can be used for arson, I think it was). The key difference is that all these items are manufactured for non-violent purposes. The overwhelming majority of the time they are put to full use in their primary non-violent function. The gun has no non-violent function. Indeed, it is particularly inflexible on that front. Paperweight perhaps?

[Busyman]

This is primarily the point.

The dual use argument is one I have seen before - (matches can be used for arson, I think it was). The key difference is that all these items are manufactured for non-violent purposes. The overwhelming majority of the time they are put to full use in their primary non-violent function. The gun has no non-violent function. Indeed, it is particularly inflexible on that front. Paperweight perhaps?
Hmmm... but guns are not used most of time by everybody. I bet most registered guns are not used to wound people. I go to the gun range, clean the gun, and then putting back in it's hiding place.

Again so what if guns are only designed to kill?

You've just explained the dual use argument. Fine.

Still what's the point?

[Biggles]

In that post simply highlighting the weakness of the dual use argument.

I have nothing against shooting ranges and shooting as a sport. (Clay pigeon shooting etc., not fluffy bunny blood lust :blink: )

I have never argued that there should be no guns, just that they have little or no use in making society a better place. It sometimes seems (mistakenly I am sure) that gun ownership is equated as the closest thing to godliness.

[100%]

as was proven yesterday.

[thewizeard]

I think that all baseball bats should be banned too..and cricket bats. They are really dangerous in teh wrong hands. Teh Yankees excluded of course.

[bigboab]

If the USA general public must have guns let them have the same guns they had when they drew up the constitution. I am sure that if you have to reload with powder and ball before your next shot it would save a lot of lives. I don't really mean that literally.:)

They could make it an offence to possess a gun that is capable of firing more than one shot without manually reloading.

[thewizeard]

The problem being laws will be broken...

[Barbarossa]

The problem being laws will be broken...

But that's not a reason not to make them.

[thewizeard]

The solution would be a pop up message, that ask's the would be assasin, "Are you sure you want to kill this man/woman, who has an extended family, and whose husband is planning to perform a major operation on your baby child a little later this evening?" ..Then, when he pulls the trigger anyway... another pop-up message with, "You tax money would be better spent if you save this bullet for Bush" If that still dosn't convince him/her not to ruin everyones night out, ..then another pop-down message this time, with 20 choices... and it sends a gprs message to the closest cop, pinpointing his position.:)

[MaxOverlord]

I hate to be Devils Advocate here but all of this is for naught. Lets consider for a moment the idea..er fact that with the advent of a new News cycle Americans tend to forget about.....um...um...Cho and the likes. Hell I can hardly hold attention long enough to figure out what I've just forgotten let alone get enough drive together to ..."MAKE AN IMPACT!" I think sadly enough that people..not all but most...just dont give a shit.
Unless it happens to you or someone you know/love its kinda like...yeah It happens..its the world man...its the face of evil..(Thanks Bill) Weve all seen this kind of carnage 10000000000 times in movies and on The Worlds Most Dangerous Police Chases!! oooooooooh. Its just the evilution of the country. Romans cheered and drank merry whilst men were being torn apart by lions....oh now that is entertainment....Weve been De-sensitized.
How many people in this thread saw 9/11 and thought "This looks just like a hollywood movie?" I know I did. I could bitch and crap all night long...but you see I just dont give a shit........................maybe.

[thewizeard]

..truth be told..no guns..we would then use stones...

[MaxOverlord]

If things continue on their current course we will be using stones.
I think Ill start by throwing Charlie Watts.

[bigboab]

If things continue on their current course we will be using stones.
I think Ill start by throwing Charlie Watts.

Should this not be in the music section? If not I will stick to guns and roses.

They should give everyone guns. It would create more jobs in the Medical and Undertaking industry. Sadly you would have to couple that with less jobs in the Food and Clothing industry.

It's true what someone said earlier about the Drawing Room. There is two sides to every argument with neither side willing to change.:rolleyes:

[MaxOverlord]

Actually Bob its more like three.
Yours,mine,and the Truth.

[Busyman™]

The last episode of 60 Minutes talked about the fact that, in many states, a mentally defective individual is not flagged as such on a background check when buying a gun.

WTF!

Even the NRA supports those folks being flagged. THE FUCKING NRA!

There was some idiot fuck from The National Gun Owners of America (or some shit) saying that a psychotic individual should have the right just like anyone else. :wacko:

[MaxOverlord]

Sadly in some cases individual freedoms trump public safety.
NO ONE with a mental problem should be allowed to purchase a firearm.
We could count the ways that such an individual could get a gun today
but we would be here all day long.
The fact is that in an open and free society these things will always happen.
Then again....:frusty:

p.s We will always have the argument of Who decides what level of mental instability falls into the category of being flagged? I think for any "sane" person this is a question of
common sense...no?

[bigboab]

Sadly in some cases individual freedoms trump public safety.
NO ONE with a mental problem should be allowed to purchase a firearm.
We could count the ways that such an individual could get a gun today
but we would be here all day long.
The fact is that in an open and free society these things will always happen.
Then again....:frusty:

p.s We will always have the argument of Who decides what level of mental instability falls into the category of being flagged? I think for any "sane" person this is a question of
common sense...no?

IMO the fact that you want to own a gun makes your mentality suspect.:(

[Busyman™]

Sadly in some cases individual freedoms trump public safety.
NO ONE with a mental problem should be allowed to purchase a firearm.
We could count the ways that such an individual could get a gun today
but we would be here all day long.
The fact is that in an open and free society these things will always happen.
Then again....:frusty:

p.s We will always have the argument of Who decides what level of mental instability falls into the category of being flagged? I think for any "sane" person this is a question of
common sense...no?

IMO the fact that you want to own a gun makes your mentality suspect.:(

IMO you are an idiot then.:dry:

[MaxOverlord]

Am I to understand that every hunter in the U.S is an idiot?

[vidcc]

Jokes aside.

Very few hunters are idiots..........Unfortunately too many idiots hunt.

Very few gun owners are idiots........Unfortunately too many idiots own guns.

The desire to own a gun doesn't point to questionable mentality..... Unfortunately we allow too many with questionable mentality to own guns.

[bigboab]

You do not own a gun unless you intend to use it at some time. I am not calling everyone who owns a gun an idiot. I just think that that there is something wrong in their mental makeup that requires them to have a gun.

Hunters? If you are asking me to agree to anyone killing a living creature as a sport or for pleasure you have not a hope in hell.:(

An example of Gun Law Lunacy:

In some states in the USA, even though you may have a licence to carry a gun on your person, if you carry a Dagger, a Switchblade or a Gravity knife you are breaking the law. A lot of common sense there. I think not.

Just in case anyone takes that the wrong way. Would anyone do that?:) I don't think they should be allowed to carry any of them.

[bigboab]

IMO the fact that you want to own a gun makes your mentality suspect.:(

IMO you are an idiot then.:dry:

Could you please explain your statement and its connection to my post that you quoted.:ermm:

[Barbarossa]

Am I to understand that every hunterbody in the U.S is an idiot?

fixed.

...and yes :) (some of them 6 times over :dry: )

[MaxOverlord]

Barbarossa do you buzz like a fridge?

[Barbarossa]

No, I hum like a turd :mellow:

[MaxOverlord]

I'm trying to think of something clever but I'm from the U.S. Sorry

[Barbarossa]

I'm trying to think of something clever but I'm from the U.S. Sorry

You already said something clever, any more would be just plain greedy :P


I am guilty of a cheap shot (pardon the pun), and I apologise. :mellow:

[Busyman™]

Am I to understand that every hunter in the U.S is an idiot?

Am I to understand that you have poor reading comprehension?

[Busyman™]

IMO you are an idiot then.:dry:

Could you please explain your statement and its connection to my post that you quoted.:ermm:

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I called you an idiot.

This is based on you calling anyone wanting to own a gun, mentally suspect.

You just grouped a father wanting to protect his children, most law enforcement personell, hunters, a single woman trying to protect herself, etc, as mentally suspect.

All of this due to the stigma you place on simple gun ownership.

Merely owning a gun or wanting to doesn't make one mentally suspect, idiot.

I hope this helps.

[Busyman™]

You do not own a gun unless you intend to use it at some time. I am not calling everyone who owns a gun an idiot. I just think that that there is something wrong in their mental makeup that requires them to have a gun.

....and that's an idiot statement. Think about it.

[Barbarossa]

It's probably one of the starkest cultural differences.

People in the UK don't understand why someone would want to own a gun. People in the US don't understand why someone wouldn't want to own a gun.

You're never going to change our minds, and we're never going to change your minds.

During the recent massacre, it was observed that while the British news services and correspondents were talking about gun control, none of the American ones were.

Guns are in the US culture, and they're there to stay. I just hope things don't ever get like that over here.

[Busyman™]

It's probably one of the starkest cultural differences.

People in the UK don't understand why someone would want to own a gun. People in the US don't understand why someone wouldn't want to own a gun.

You're never going to change our minds, and we're never going to change your minds.

During the recent massacre, it was observed that while the British news services and correspondents were talking about gun control, none of the American ones were.

Guns are in the US culture, and they're there to stay. I just hope things don't ever get like that over here.

I disagree. You guys over there have a narrow view of the US. All you see is the NRA and some hunters on TV and group everyone together and it's quite foolish.

Also I and many Americans understand why someone would not want to own a gun. I hope I never have to use it for protection but rather have it than not have it due to some made up "no gun ideal" or cuz I'm scared.

America is a helluva lot larger than the UK. Everyone here doesn't want to own a gun. I'd bet more of us have no desire to own a gun than all brats.

I don't know what news you watch but all I've seen were talks about gun control (which I'm for).

I support a person's right to own a gun but not everyone, not so easily, and not in all cases. To me there is a difference between gun control and banning guns.

I don't care to change UKan's minds (you are not all for gun contol anyway). However, calling gun ownership mentally suspect goes too far and from a logical standpoint, it's a stupid fucking assertion.

[MaxOverlord]

Busyman...do you need a hug?

[vidcc]

Hunters? If you are asking me to agree to anyone killing a living creature as a sport or for pleasure you have not a hope in hell.:(



If it's hunting purely for "fun'' then you have a point with which I agree, however very little hunting here is purely for that reason. The hunters eat what they kill and the prey has at least a chance of escaping, something not likely in a slaughter house.
One could make the argument that with modern intensive farming there is enough meat to go around without having to hunt. One could make a cruelty argument against hunting, but unless you are a vegan I wouldn't give that argument any weight.

In short:

Twits on horses with 100 plus hounds chasing a fox......bad

tracking down, shooting and eating your prey.....ok.

[bigboab]

Hunters? If you are asking me to agree to anyone killing a living creature as a sport or for pleasure you have not a hope in hell.:(



If it's hunting purely for "fun'' then you have a point with which I agree, however very little hunting here is purely for that reason. The hunters eat what they kill and the prey has at least a chance of escaping, something not likely in a slaughter house.
One could make the argument that with modern intensive farming there is enough meat to go around without having to hunt. One could make a cruelty argument against hunting, but unless you are a vegan I wouldn't give that argument any weight.

In short:

Twits on horses with 100 plus hounds chasing a fox......bad

tracking down, shooting and eating your prey.....ok.

Twits On Horses, Twits With Guns, same thing to me.
The fox had a chance of escaping too, not that I agreed with Fox Hunting.. Can't remember one being shot from about 100 yards or over.

If you are living in the wild and hunting for food that is OK.:)

Killing for killings sake is wrong.

[Busyman™]

If it's hunting purely for "fun'' then you have a point with which I agree, however very little hunting here is purely for that reason. The hunters eat what they kill and the prey has at least a chance of escaping, something not likely in a slaughter house.
One could make the argument that with modern intensive farming there is enough meat to go around without having to hunt. One could make a cruelty argument against hunting, but unless you are a vegan I wouldn't give that argument any weight.

In short:

Twits on horses with 100 plus hounds chasing a fox......bad

tracking down, shooting and eating your prey.....ok.

Twits On Horses, Twits With Guns, same thing to me.
The fox had a chance of escaping too, not that I agreed with Fox Hunting.. Can't remember one being shot from about 100 yards or over.

If you are living in the wild and hunting for food that is OK.:)

Killing for killings sake is wrong.

Here we go. You may have seen folks on TV hunting just for fun.

That doesn't make it so for everyone or even most. In fact, everyone I know personally that hunts, eats what they kill. I think it's plain stupid to kill an animal like a deer and not eat it.

One does not have to live in the wild to hunt wild animals for food. :dry: You can just fuck right off if you are gonna insult anyone that owns a gun.

It's ok if people wanna protect themselves with something besides harsh language.

[vidcc]

Twits On Horses, Twits With Guns, same thing to me.
The fox had a chance of escaping too, not that I agreed with Fox Hunting.. Can't remember one being shot from about 100 yards or over.

If you are living in the wild and hunting for food that is OK.:)

Killing for killings sake is wrong.

I'm wondering what you are arguing that I haven't agreed with. I pointed to fox hunting as an example of "killing for killings sake"

Why does there have to be a distinction of "living in the wild" to make hunting for your meal ok?
I am going to have BBQ, I could go to the store and buy meat that someone else corralled into a pen and killed or I could go out and track the animal down and kill it myself....... Explain the moral difference to me because I don't get it. (I don't go hunting myself but I have killed my own food in the past)
IMO with the exception of the hunter possibly missing and injuring the animal hunting is FAR more humane than intensive farming.

The next time you are in the store looking at your pre packed meat ask yourself this.......did that animal die from natural causes or was rounded up and herded into a cramped trailer and driven to be slaughtered?

BTW. I assume you are going to condemn the fishermen that supplied you with the fish you have with your chips.

[bigboab]

Twits On Horses, Twits With Guns, same thing to me.
The fox had a chance of escaping too, not that I agreed with Fox Hunting.. Can't remember one being shot from about 100 yards or over.

If you are living in the wild and hunting for food that is OK.:)

Killing for killings sake is wrong.

I'm wondering what you are arguing that I haven't agreed with. I pointed to fox hunting as an example of "killing for killings sake"

Why does there have to be a distinction of "living in the wild" to make hunting for your meal ok?

IMO with the exception of the hunter possibly missing and injuring the animal hunting is FAR more humane than intensive farming.

The next time you are in the store looking at your pre packed meat ask yourself this.......did that animal die from natural causes or was rounded up and herded into a cramped trailer and driven to be slaughtered?

BTW. I assume you are going to condemn the fishermen that supplied you with the fish you have with your chips.

I think angling is next on the list.:) This thread is about the possession of guns not the food chain. If you are trying to tell me that all the hunters from the city with their guns and 4x4's are looking for food, then I am sorry but I just don't believe you. They are just the same as fox hunters. They are doing it for the 'thrill and kill'.

[vidcc]

I think angling is next on the list.:) This thread is about the possession of guns not the food chain. If you are trying to tell me that all the hunters from the city with their guns and 4x4's are looking for food, then I am sorry but I just don't believe you. They are just the same as fox hunters. They are doing it for the 'thrill and kill'.
I'm not talking about angling, I'm talking about fishing. It's hunting on a large scale.

As to all hunters that live in cities, so what if they enjoy it, as long as they are eating their kill. What's to say that the guy in your slaughter house doesn't enjoy his job?

I'll look for a video later showing chickens being rounded up for slaughter.

[bigboab]

I am not talking about anyone involved in the food chain. I would be willing to bet that there are mor pleasure seeking hunters with guns than there are hunters hunting for food.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.:) Start another thread about something.:) I cant do it or I will bring out the Trolls.:lol:

[Busyman™]

This is hilarious!:lol:

Now those "hunters from city" are being stigmatized.

Yes I'm sure they like to hunt and yes I'm sure they don't kill their prey and then....just walk away.

Us folk from the city happenz to lurvez teh deerz meatz. After a kill, the deer is taken to a good butcher that'll cut it how you like it.

Deer bologna is quite good.

I remember a similar demonization from merely asking about a E85 fuel and getting a large SUV (from Canadians too). I heard all the crap about how I don't need it and all....all from folks who knew not a damn thing about my personal situation.

Fucking idiots.

[Busyman™]

I am not talking about anyone involved in the food chain. I would be willing to bet that there are mor pleasure seeking hunters with guns than there are hunters hunting for food.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.:) Start another thread about something.:) I cant do it or I will bring out the Trolls.:lol:

No if you don't bother to insult people due to your own ignorance then you won't have them calling you on it.;) Sometimes the troll is you.

Also most pleasure seeking hunters here hunt for food. Take my word for it since you happen to be across the water and know nothing about it except what you see on TV.

[bigboab]

Confirmed

@ Busyman. You are calling me ignorant? You are a thick as pig shit in the neck of a bottle. You post incomprehensible garbage then when members ask you to explain your actions you you cant reply with any sensible explanation.

[Busyman™]

Confirmed

@ Busyman. You are calling me ignorant? You are a thick as pig shit in the neck of a bottle. You post incomprehensible garbage then when members ask you to explain your actions you you cant reply with any sensible explanation.

How can you not understand that you are an idiot?:blink:

I understood you calling all gun owners (and those wanting to own a gun) mentally suspect.

[MaxOverlord]

Busyman. Who isn't an idiot? Yourself excluded,of course.
It appears all you do is hurl expletives at people you don't know.
This is very low class. I think Washington has gotten to you perhaps?
P.S Your right. I don't know you.

[bigboab]

Confirmed

@ Busyman. You are calling me ignorant? You are a thick as pig shit in the neck of a bottle. You post incomprehensible garbage then when members ask you to explain your actions you you cant reply with any sensible explanation.

How can you not understand that you are an idiot?:blink:

I understood you calling all gun owners (and those wanting to own a gun) mentally suspect.

I know people in Kentucky who carry guns. They have one in the glove compartment in their car. They have one in their garden shed. I don't know how many they have in the house. They have said to me that if anyone tried to break into their house they would shoot them then pull them inside the house. Apparently that is within the law.:blink:.

Given the gun crime rate and mass killings would you
just answer me one question why is it only in America that people demand the right to carry guns?

I have never said that hunters are idiots. I said that the mentality of anyone who wants to own a gun must be suspect. There is a vast difference.

[vidcc]

I am not talking about anyone involved in the food chain. I would be willing to bet that there are mor pleasure seeking hunters with guns than there are hunters hunting for food.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.:) Start another thread about something.:) I cant do it or I will bring out the Trolls.:lol:

Well explain to me what moral difference it makes in the way the guy that kills the food feels.

What is the moral difference between someone that chooses to kill his own food (and enjoys it) and someone that chooses to take it off the grocery shelf. The simple removal of involvement in the killing makes no difference in my mind.

Unless one is a vegan then I fail to see any difference even if the hunter only hunts for personal pleasure and never personally eats what he kills but instead gives/sells it to someone else to eat.

As I said if the hunt is just for sport and the kill never makes it to the plate but is just left there, or maybe just the head is taken for a trophy then I agree. But if the kill is eaten and often the rest of the animal used then I see nothing morally different from that or buying meat or things like leather shoes in a store.

[MaxOverlord]

I certainly feel like an idiot right now.

[bigboab]

I am not talking about anyone involved in the food chain. I would be willing to bet that there are mor pleasure seeking hunters with guns than there are hunters hunting for food.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.:) Start another thread about something.:) I cant do it or I will bring out the Trolls.:lol:

Well explain to me what moral difference it makes in the way the guy that kills the food feels.

What is the moral difference between someone that chooses to kill his own food (and enjoys it) and someone that chooses to take it off the grocery shelf. The simple removal of involvement in the killing makes no difference in my mind.

Unless one is a vegan then I fail to see any difference even if the hunter only hunts for personal pleasure and never personally eats what he kills but instead gives/sells it to someone else to eat.

As I said if the hunt is just for sport and the kill never makes it to the plate but is just left there, or maybe just the head is taken for a trophy then I agree. But if the kill is eaten and often the rest of the animal used then I see nothing morally different from that or buying meat or things like leather shoes in a store.

The person that kills in a slaughterhouse has that same mental atitude or he would not do the job.

Incidentally I had a neighbour who did just that. He was applying for a new job and asked me to give him a reference. Under 'present occupation' he had entered killer.:lol:

[vidcc]

So what moral difference is there between the person in the slaughterhouse and the person that eats the meat?



Edit: going to be away for a few hours. My son is visiting and we are going to roast a dead animal on the grill...grrrrrr

[bigboab]

So what moral difference is there between the person in the slaughterhouse and the person that eats the meat?

I don't know, they are only at the end of a long chain in the system.

Not exactly a question that is relevant to gun owning. If I replied that they are morally responsible it would be like saying I am morally responsible for any UK soldier killing in Iraq. He is supposed to be defending me.

[Busyman™]

Busyman. Who isn't an idiot? Yourself excluded,of course.
It appears all you do is hurl expletives at people you don't know.
This is very low class. I think Washington has gotten to you perhaps?
P.S Your right. I don't know you.

Dude, in your post (#70) where'd you get that from?

boab didn't say it so that's why I made reference to your reading comprehension.

[MaxOverlord]

Barbarossa #74.

[Busyman™]

How can you not understand that you are an idiot?:blink:

I understood you calling all gun owners (and those wanting to own a gun) mentally suspect.

I know people in Kentucky who carry guns. They have one in the glove compartment in their car. They have one in their garden shed. I don't know how many they have in the house. They have said to me that if anyone tried to break into their house they would shoot them then pull them inside the house. Apparently that is within the law.:blink:.

Given the gun crime rate and mass killings would you
just answer me one question why is it only in America that people demand the right to carry guns?

I have never said that hunters are idiots. I said that the mentality of anyone who wants to own a gun must be suspect. There is a vast difference.

I never said you called hunters idiots. That was a product of MaxOverLord's lack of reading comprehension.

The demand comes from our Constitution. Everyone has different personal reasons for wanting to own a gun and your idiotic statement grouping them all as mentally suspect speaks volumes to ignorance.

Now your ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing but it is ignorance. No it is not legal to shoot someone and drag them into the house. It is legal shoot someone that broke into your house which is why they'd pull them in to make it seem like a legal shoot.

Based on your logic, a person wanting to protect themselves with any weapon is mentally suspect.:wacko:

[MaxOverlord]

I never said Bob said that. A little more inspection on your reading comprehension perhaps. This is all too childish to be sure. A matter of he said you said but I didn't said that he said what you said I said?

[Busyman™]

Barbarossa #74.

Ahhhh so you're a time traveler.:huh:

[bigboab]

I know people in Kentucky who carry guns. They have one in the glove compartment in their car. They have one in their garden shed. I don't know how many they have in the house. They have said to me that if anyone tried to break into their house they would shoot them then pull them inside the house. Apparently that is within the law.:blink:.

Given the gun crime rate and mass killings would you
just answer me one question why is it only in America that people demand the right to carry guns?

I have never said that hunters are idiots. I said that the mentality of anyone who wants to own a gun must be suspect. There is a vast difference.

I never said you called hunters idiots. That was a product of MaxOverLord's lack of reading comprehension.

The demand comes from our Constitution. Everyone has different personal reasons for wanting to own a gun and your idiotic statement grouping them all as mentally suspect speaks volumes to ignorance.

Now your ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing but it is ignorance. No it is not legal to shoot someone and drag them into the house. It is legal shoot someone that broke into your house which is why they'd pull them in to make it seem like a legal shoot.

Based on your logic, a person wanting to protect themselves with any weapon is mentally suspect.:wacko:

Nobody replied to my point earlier on. Why is it legal possible to carry a gun but not a flick knife a dagger or a gravity knife(In some states). You could use them to protect yourself.

[Busyman™]

I never said Bob said that. A little more inspection on your reading comprehension perhaps. This is all too childish to be sure. A matter of he said you said but I didn't said that he said what you said I said?

Cool I've been past it for awhile now.:unsure:

I just wondered where you got that hunters were idiots and it seemed like poor comprehension is all.

[kazaaman]

I am not really opinionated about whether people should own guns or not, but I do think that America portrays guns in a very positive way. It is all about the image of having a gun and in the U.S it is apparently 'cool' to own a gun and. In other countries like India, a normal person possessing a gun is seen as something that is very dangerous. I think that the pictures Cho Seung Hui took of himself also helps prove my point. They are all in a sort of 'glorified stature'.

Some of Cho's 'glorifying' images: Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/)

[Busyman™]

I never said you called hunters idiots. That was a product of MaxOverLord's lack of reading comprehension.

The demand comes from our Constitution. Everyone has different personal reasons for wanting to own a gun and your idiotic statement grouping them all as mentally suspect speaks volumes to ignorance.

Now your ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing but it is ignorance. No it is not legal to shoot someone and drag them into the house. It is legal shoot someone that broke into your house which is why they'd pull them in to make it seem like a legal shoot.

Based on your logic, a person wanting to protect themselves with any weapon is mentally suspect.:wacko:

Nobody replied to my point earlier on. Why is it legal possible to carry a gun but not a flick knife a dagger or a gravity knife(In some states). You could use them to protect yourself.

I dunno. :idunno: I never hoid uv that.

However, the amount of dumb laws out there never amazes me. The dumb laws do, however.

Tbh, the whole point of a gun versus a knife is stopping power. I have personally fucked someone up that pulled a knife on me.

Knife < Gun

[Busyman™]

I am not really opinionated about whether people should own guns or not, but I do think that America portrays guns in a very positive way. It is all about the image of having a gun and in the U.S it is apparently 'cool' to own a gun and. In other countries like India, a normal person possessing a gun is seen as something that is very dangerous. I think that the pictures Cho Seung Hui took of himself also helps prove my point. They are all in a sort of 'glorified stature'.

Some of Cho's 'glorifying' images: Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/)

It's also done in movies. It has less to do with guns but more to do with portraying one's self as being a bad ass.

Notice that Cho doesn't just have pictures of guns but he was portraying himself as a nutjob with knives as well.

[MaxOverlord]

There's definitely an element of glorifying weapons in movies.
There's also an element of such saturation of these types of images that some become disconnected from the reality of what a bullet can actually do to the human body.

Sometimes I find myself seeing and or doing things and thinking "this looks/feels just like a movie." That certainly was the case on 9/11.

I think maybe people are less engaged with one another on a base level,what with comp. and video games,movies,sports. We all have things that help us to "disconnect." I think that as far as human contact is concerned it does play a role in certain societal problems. I could be wrong. I guess we'll have to leave it up to Chomsky.....;)

[kazaaman]

There's also an element of such saturation of these types of images that some become disconnected from the reality of what a bullet can actually do to the human body.

Right on the spot. :)