Illinois is becoming like most of Europe.
-
Think of the children
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost "All users always want Excel" --Ennis Lynch
-
Have you seen that Gun in the Photo of the article you linked too. Are you seriously bemoaning the fact that a State want's to outlaw it? I will sleep better in my Bed tonight knowing that if a Burglar crept into my house he wouldn't be armed with that, as he won't have access to it. My Missus will sleep easier in my Bed knowing that I can get up and Beat the Shit out of any Intruders, without having to rely on trying to get access to a Gun Cabinet in the middle of the night. At the end of the day I guarantee you my Missus feels more safer with me to protect her in a gun-free society than yours does in a gun-prevalent society, no matter how many guns of varying type you own. (Good Point on the NYE photos though, although I haven't seen them this Year I can imagine. Link will be appreciated.)
The Reincarnation wrote:
I will sleep better in my Bed tonight knowing that if a Burglar crept into my house he wouldn't be armed with that, as he won't have access to it. My Missus will sleep easier in my Bed knowing that I can get up and Beat the sh*t out of any Intruders, without having to rely on trying to get access to a Gun Cabinet in the middle of the night.
Specious given that a burglar was creeping into your house they wouldn't have that in the first place for many reasons such as cost and even ease of use.
The Reincarnation wrote:
At the end of the day I guarantee you my Missus feels more safer with me to protect her in a gun-free society
Quite possible but specious as well in the context of this discussion because any such discussion relevant to this will NOT create a gun-free society. Would your wife feel safer knowing for a fact that the burglar WOULD have a gun and you would NOT?
-
My brother in law used to own several licenced handguns - a 9mm semi-automatic pistol and a .44 Magnum revolver (Dirty Harry type), but had to turn them in after the Dunblane massacre[^] I felt much safer afterwards, as he was an alcoholic and I wouldn't trust him with a pea-shooter after he had hit the sauce, never mind a lethal weapon.
==================================== Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise! ====================================
-
It's not so much the legality that is the problem it's the willingness to have them. I am sure that the average American is more eager to own, and believe he has a right to own, an AR15 than your typical Italian.
The Reincarnation wrote:
It's not so much the legality that is the problem it's the willingness to have them. I am sure that the average American is more eager to own, and believe he has a right to own, an AR15 than your typical Italian.
And perhaps more willing to use them and use them to 'solve' a greater variety of problems as well.
-
Who said it stops them? It's a question of statistics isn't it? First gun culture isn't the norm here, so few people would be thinking of carrying a gun in the first place. Most burglaries, for example, in the UK are opportunistic, so the burglar doesn't feel the need to arm themselves against the householder they are burgling and so don't need to carry guns. Similar logic applies to most other crimes, and probably prevents a lot of heat-of-the-moment shootings too. Additionally, as we have a gun ban, anyone carrying a firearm is [almost] automatically doing something illegal, often the penalty for carrying the gun is worse than the crime the criminal is likely to carry out. This logic follows sane pattern as the above, if you are carrying a gun, your intention is that you are prepared to kill or seriously injure someone who is likely to be unarmed in the progress of your criminal activity. The really heavy criminals are always going to have access to guns, but then there probably less likely to actually shoot someone with them compared to a similarly armed petty criminal. I normally keep out of gun control debates: it's a bit like religion. Both sides think that whoever disagree with them is nuts (as I do, I really can't understand the gun culture in the US) and I've never seen anyone say "You know what- you are right" to someone who opposes them (again I've never heard one pro-gun argument that I've found at all convincing). When topics like this are discussed, it becomes pointless, the same debating positions are raised (endlessly) and people sit in their own positions without really listening (again, I'm guilty of this, and that's why I normally keep out of it).
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
Keith Barrow wrote:
Additionally, as we have a gun ban, anyone carrying a firearm is [almost] automatically doing something illegal, often the penalty for carrying the gun is worse than the crime the criminal is likely to carry out. This logic follows sane pattern as the above, if you are carrying a gun, your intention is that you are prepared to kill or seriously injure someone who is likely to be unarmed in the progress of your criminal activity.
The sad thing is, in this state, this is already the case. Unfortunately most of these criminals will serve no time for it though. And that to me is the problem. 500+ murders in a city where guns are basically illegal, assault weapons are banned, and carrying a weapon is a felony. The Governor in the meantime, has fought to close prisons, as there allegedly, aren't enough prisoners for them to stay open.
-
wizardzz wrote:
The Governor in the meantime, has fought to close prisons, as there allegedly, aren't enough prisoners for them to stay open.
I haven't seen any convincing evidence that more people in prisons solves anything.
Would you like a list of crimes committed by people let out early because the Governor wanted to close prisons? This piece of shit has gone on to commit further crimes, too. His partner was even found dead, but since the murder rate is so high, it got classified as a "death" investigation. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-12-31/news/0912310242_1_attack-shattered-hall-and-hoffman[^] Also, since this debate is now all a result of grown men killing children. How exactly do grown men kill children from within jail?
-
LabVIEWstuff wrote:
maintaining a militia capable of overthrowing any despotic government
of all the laughable excuses gun nuts use, that's my favorite. what kind of rifle am i going to need to defend myself against the F-16s the National Guard currently has parked down at our local airport ? it's self-aggrandizing idiocy.
Chris Losinger wrote:
what kind of rifle am i going to need to defend myself against the F-16s the National Guard currently has parked down at our local airport ?
Specious. The point is not about you defending yourself against a specific weapon in one specific instance of time. It is about the population, ie everyone, preventing/stopping a government over time. And although a F-16 might seem like a nice weapon the pilots still need to get out of them every once in a while, the plane needs to be serviced and fueled by mechanics. There needs to be cooks and nurses and officers. And supply lines to deliver food, fuel, parts, medicine, entertainment, etc. And that means lots and lots of people. And every single one of those people can be shot using almost any normal handgun. The pilot is the sole exception and is only exempt when in the plan itself.
-
Very good point, although like cars knives have other uses whereas guns are designed for killing prey (human or otherwise). Maybe it's just the 'fighting chance' aspect of guns that make us lily-livered liberals queasy? This may be naive but I've always thought that if get a warning and you can run fast enough or hide somewhere you at least have a small chance against a knife attacker, or car, or baseball-bat, whereas against a gun you can't run, can't really hide so you are in essence an execution. Hmm, maybe I'm coming round to the arm-everyone argument, but then surely we'd have to ban alcohol or anything else that impares judgement? Andy B
LabVIEWstuff wrote:
whereas against a gun you can't run, can't really hide so you are in essence an execution.
Well you just stand there, because it will give the shooter something to aim at while I run away and hide. War would be really short affairs if everyone just dropped dead when a gun was aimed in their general direction.
-
-
What you are forgetting is everything that you have mentioned has other predominate uses other than to kill people, and were designed to be, and are used in other ways than to kill people. Guns however are designed to kill people.
The Reincarnation wrote:
Guns however are designed to kill people.
Poisons exist solely to kill. And there are guns that designed without killing in mind. At least to the extent that they are impractical for that purpose in the normal course of events. (Go look up competition level target pistols and look at how they are used.) What about bows? Or for that matter catapults. Which might seem funny but there are numerous competitions in the US every year attended by thousands (if not tens of thousands) of people solely to participate in those. What about cars that are designed to go 150+ miles per hour and are marketed to consumers for public use despite the fact that there is no public place to go that fast? And a bit more esoteric but in terms of why something must be practical what about people eating blowfish? Or whales (which occurs in Europe)?
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
what kind of rifle am i going to need to defend myself against the F-16s the National Guard currently has parked down at our local airport ?
Specious. The point is not about you defending yourself against a specific weapon in one specific instance of time. It is about the population, ie everyone, preventing/stopping a government over time. And although a F-16 might seem like a nice weapon the pilots still need to get out of them every once in a while, the plane needs to be serviced and fueled by mechanics. There needs to be cooks and nurses and officers. And supply lines to deliver food, fuel, parts, medicine, entertainment, etc. And that means lots and lots of people. And every single one of those people can be shot using almost any normal handgun. The pilot is the sole exception and is only exempt when in the plan itself.
jschell wrote:
It is about the population, ie everyone, preventing/stopping a government over time.
well, it's your fantasy, so i guess you can dictate exactly how it will play out. but remember, even in the days when the ink on the original Constitution was still wet, the government was strong enough to put down multiple armed rebellions with little trouble at all (Shay's rebellion, Whiskey rebellion, etc). and these days, the military's firepower is so much greater than anything civilians can muster, there would be no battle at all.
jschell wrote:
And although a F-16 might seem like a nice weapon the pilots still need to get out of them every once in a while, the plane needs to be serviced and fueled by mechanics. There needs to be cooks and nurses and officers. And supply lines to deliver food, fuel, parts, medicine, entertainment, etc. And that means lots and lots of people.
it would all be over before any of that mattered a bit. an actual armed rebellion would be over in a matter of days. and if you're talking about sitting around stroking your barrels, grumbling about the government and talking big talk and not actually using your guns to force your way into power... well, that's not a rebellion, that's an NRA meeting.
-
Yes, but it has the function of cutting up meat, which every house-hold will need. I cannot think of a situation where I would need a gun, apart from if I wanted to kill someone.
The Reincarnation wrote:
I cannot think of a situation where I would need a gun, apart from if I wanted to kill someone.
That's only a negative if you believe it is never justified to kill or injure another human. If someone breaks into your house and threatens you and your family with a gun of their own, would it be acceptable to shoot them first? And you are not even required to shoot to kill, you could shoot to disable instead. Also, just because you own a gun, does not mean you have to use it. That would be like saying having health insurance means you have to get sick/injured. I guess this is how I see it: a criminal does not care if the gun is illegal, so they will have it either way (because a criminal, by definition, has already broken at least one law, another one isn't likely to stop them), the question is, to me: do I want to be on equal footing? And I can't see a situation where I'd rather they had the advantage.
-
Tell me what?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997THEY SKY! THE SKY IS FALLING! NOW AT A PLACE NEAR YOU!
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
how is this an argument for doing nothing about the 65% of murders which are caused by firearms ?
So your claim is that this will in fact completely eliminate that 65%?
If you make it harder to murder people, less people will be murdered. You can't escape the bleeding obvious.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Yup - safer - just like Switzerlend.[^]
"Investigations revealed the man was a known drug addict and former mental health patient, authorities say." That's not quite the same as the usual report from the US: "He was a nice chap and a good family man."
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
LabVIEWstuff wrote:
Flame-throwers - I'm guessing they'd be fine, shoot your deer and BBQ it at the same time?
Flamethrowers are completely legal to make/own in the U.S., in fact I don't think they've ever been regulated. But let's look in the other direction too, should we ban all knives? Those are also weapons. Only criminals should be allowed to eat steak!
With a knife, you have to get up close and personal, and put some physical effort into it. That's enough to dissuade most people who would have no problem twitching their finger from a long way away to kill.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
This is exactly my stance. I read an article the other day that was about a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment which pretty much came to the same conclusion. The People should be armed to a similar level as the government's military.
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
Colin Mullikin wrote:
The People should be armed to a similar level as the government's military.
Then there's no point in having a military, because the people become a militia, and take care of protecting the country from external and internal threats. That was the point of the amendment: There was no military, so the people had to be a militia. The amendment has been null and void since a standing army was assembled.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Yup - safer - just like Switzerlend.[^]
Damn, he had a carbine! I missed that on the first read-through. Now I'm jealous.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Each person (according to the Constitution) is free to decide what he "needs". Cost would be more of a barrier than anything else. I'd like to have a helicopter gunship, but they're way too expensive, become even more dangerous when not maintained well, and then there's the problem of fitting it in the gun safe. Back in the 1700's, people owned their own canon. I see no reason why I should be compelled to limit someone else's "needs" based on my own viewpoints.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997I'd rank pretty highly the need to sleep soundly, knowing that any Tom, Dick, and Harry who decided to burgle my house wouldn't be able to pick up a gun on any street corner.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!