Illinois is becoming like most of Europe.

wizardzz

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?

jschell

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

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.

wizardzz

...the hygiene, too...

jschell

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

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.

image processing toolkits | batch image processing

lewax00

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.

peterchen

THEY SKY! THE SKY IS FALLING! NOW AT A PLACE NEAR YOU!

ORDER BY what user wants

Mark_Wallace

If you make it harder to murder people, less people will be murdered. You can't escape the bleeding obvious.