# Gun Control



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

If they are gonna take away my guns, they'll have to come get them themselves! And I'll put up a fight if they even tried!


----------



## TheRoughrider21 (Aug 25, 2009)

I believe in gun control...I know just where to point my gun. =)

I sleep with guns under my bed...and we have another gun case full of them. My brother-in-law is a cop. Go into his house, there's pistol's laying on his bed, in his gun case. He hunts so there's rifles and shotguns aorund too. I walked in there and wasn't bothered. One of my sister's friends walked in and almost had a heart attack. I think if people have a problem with guns, they should take a hunter safety course or something of the like. It'll make them realize that the gun didn't kill the person, the person behind the gun did. I plan on keeping my guns...no matter who tells me to get rid of them. I have a rifle from 1901, there's no way in the firey gates of hell that I'm getting rid of that. Plus, I'm home alone a lot and we don't have a dog, but I sure know how to load a gun in a hurry and defend myself. I live way out in the boonies, it would probably take cops a good 15-20 minutes to get to me. Plus, I'm an independent woman, I perfer to take care of myself.


----------



## lacyloo (Jul 1, 2008)

Gun control debates make me want to puke...On the ones for it.


----------



## Zeke (Jun 27, 2010)

Im all for guns for legitimate protection while out hunting, those who live in truly rural areas with little back up and nasty critters wandering around but I sure as hell do not want to make it easy for the psycho down the street to get one.


----------



## MyBoyPuck (Mar 27, 2009)

Handguns, rifles, I have no problem with whatsoever. A mentally stable, law abiding citizen should have the right to self protection. However, I do have an issue with automatic weapons. Why are these necessary for anything other than military purposes? I never understood why people would support assault weapons. It just makes no sense to me. I'd rather they all be melted down. If the government would turn their efforts on to stopping illegal guns sales, I would think that would go much further toward stopping gun related violence.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

Puck, fully automatic weapons are illegal. Some assault rifles can be bought by the average citizens but they are all semi-automatic (one bullet per trigger pull), the same as any non-revolver handgun and some rifles. It is illegal to either buy an automatic or convert a semi-automatic to an automatic.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

I love the irony of this situation as one of the big reasons for the 2nd ammendment was to give citizens protection from a tyrant government and the ability to rebel or protect themselves could or would not. 

I am not a gun owner at the moment. Guns have almost always been in my family though and while I do not hunt, I have shot guns many a time. The last time I read up on it, they were looking to ban things like bazookas, assault rifles, etc to the common citizen. 

Like Puck mentioned, these serve no real purpose to the average citizen and support ending the sale of them to civilians. The only thing I could think of where this would become an issue is maybe collectors? Not sure on that one. While they may be illegal, they are very easy to purchase and that's the part that worries me. I know at least 4 people personally that own fully automatic weapons they claim are for 'protection'. :roll:


----------



## MyBoyPuck (Mar 27, 2009)

What does the assault weapons ban that was repealed last year refer to? Are those semi-automatic weapons? Sorry, but I am ignorant where guns are concerned. As far as I'm concerned, the faster a gun can reload, the quicker a psycho can kill people with it.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

I would have to look back, but I do believe that had to do with semi-automatic assault weapons.

SD, you're right. It isn't hard to get a full auto, nor is it hard to convert a semi into one. BUT, if they were caught with that by the law, they would be in a world of hurt.


----------



## Nanaki (Jun 29, 2010)

i have a CCW and several fire arms that i carry (not at the same time!). with proper training and education, a person that owns a gun is a lot more safe than most anybody behind the wheel of a car. 

in case anybody is interested, i carry a glock 36 (.45 sub compact baby!) or a 26 (9mm sub compact). i use generic walmart ammo for practice and hydra shok ammo for when i carry.


----------



## Walkamile (Dec 29, 2008)

Nanaki said:


> i have a CCW and several fire arms that i carry (not at the same time!). with proper training and education, *a person that owns a gun is a lot more safe than most anybody behind the wheel of a car. *
> 
> in case anybody is interested, i carry a glock 36 (.45 sub compact baby!) or a 26 (9mm sub compact). i use generic walmart ammo for practice and hydra shok ammo for when i carry.


I don't understand this.


----------



## Nanaki (Jun 29, 2010)

Walkamile said:


> I don't understand this.


I'm referring to properly trained and competent gun owners per the beginning part of my post. A car is a more dangerous weapon was my point

it's a lot easier for something to go wrong in a car than a gun. Keep finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire and no accidents.

Moving on though 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

smrobs said:


> Puck, fully automatic weapons are illegal. Some assault rifles can be bought by the average citizens but they are all semi-automatic (one bullet per trigger pull), the same as any non-revolver handgun and some rifles. It is illegal to either buy an automatic or convert a semi-automatic to an automatic.


Fully automatic weapons are illegal, but you can get a special permit for them and it is expensive. You also have to go through an extensive background check.


----------



## A knack for horses (Jun 17, 2010)

I am for concealed weapons and the right to carry firearms. 

BUT...I do think that to carry a concelaed weapon, you must take a gun safety course and carry a license (like a drivers license). Even though I don't carry a weapon with me (other than my multitool), it makes me feel safer ko=nowing that somebody around me is carrying. And the first thing I will do after I buy/rent my first residence will be to go to the store to buy myself a gun. 

My mother is anti-gun because she thinks that if they pass the concealed weapon law, that more crazies are going to get a hold of weapons. I believe that if congress wrote the law correctly, there shouldn't be more psychos with guns. I think there would be less.


----------



## Zeke (Jun 27, 2010)

Nanaki said:


> i have a CCW and several fire arms that i carry (not at the same time!). with proper training and education, a person that owns a gun is a lot more safe than most anybody behind the wheel of a car.
> 
> in case anybody is interested, i carry a glock 36 (.45 sub compact baby!) or a 26 (9mm sub compact). i use generic walmart ammo for practice and hydra shok ammo for when i carry.


Having the proper permits, an education and stable mind while owning and carrying a gun make me less weary about people owning guns. It's the gangsters, violence addicts, kids trying to look cool, guy/girl who inherited granddads gun and has shot it that one time way back when, that I have a problem with. Insisting that you need a gun simply because you're afraid of the mentally unstable out there who are involved in crime is not totally valid in my eyes unless you take every absolute precaution when aquiring, carrying and owning your gun.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Nanaki (Jun 29, 2010)

Zeke said:


> Having the proper permits, an education and stable mind while owning and carrying a gun make me less weary about people owning guns. It's the gangsters, violence addicts, kids trying to look cool, guy/girl who inherited granddads gun and has shot it that one time way back when, that I have a problem with. Insisting that you need a gun simply because you're afraid of the mentally unstable out there who are involved in crime is not totally valid in my eyes unless you take every absolute precaution when aquiring, carrying and owning your gun.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Agreed. The good thing about gangsters with guns is they can't shoot for crap because they're more interested in holding the gun super cool than aiming. God bless them for that. I'd rather hear about drive bye where nobody got hurt than the latter.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MyBoyPuck (Mar 27, 2009)

Nanaki said:


> Agreed. The good thing about gangsters with guns is they can't shoot for crap because they're more interested in holding the gun super cool than aiming. God bless them for that. I'd rather hear about drive bye where nobody got hurt than the latter.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I take it you're referring to that butt stupid hold it sideways crap? Yeah, that is embarrassing to watch.


----------



## Nanaki (Jun 29, 2010)

yeah. That's my favorite to watch. Best thing to do in that situation is stand perfectly still 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

Yo B*** Imma bust yo *** up, jus watch me hold this gun sideways while I do it.


----------



## Brighteyes (Mar 8, 2009)

As far as guns going to psychos, I don't think stricter gun laws is going to help. If a psycho wants a gun, laws be damned, he's going to get one. How many murders do we know that follow gun laws? He'll get one from the street. Guns are always going to be on the street, no matter what. Heck, getting a gun may be easier illegally than legally? 'Cause we all know illegal is always faster.


----------



## MyBoyPuck (Mar 27, 2009)

Nanaki said:


> yeah. That's my favorite to watch. Best thing to do in that situation is stand perfectly still
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Good to know. I work nights in New York City, so that's most likely the type of idiot I will encounter.


----------



## Tennessee (Dec 7, 2008)

We've got more guns than I can count, but we hunt so most of them are used for killing deer and duck. However, because we live out in the middle of nowhere and we are surrounded by nothing but miles of woods, we keep a gun to where if someone were to try and mess with us we can get to it. There's one hidden in places like the barn, shed, etc. 

I don't have a problem with people having guns at all.


----------



## Zeke (Jun 27, 2010)

I'm with A knack, if the law is written properly and enforced we should be ok and I might feel better about people carrying weapons. 

The problem with enforcing though is that much like an officer not being able to pull over a car without just cause, they won't people able to stop someone and pat them down and question them about carrying a weapon unless they've done somethin wrong, correct?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Nanaki (Jun 29, 2010)

MyBoyPuck said:


> Good to know. I work nights in New York City, so that's most likely the type of idiot I will encounter.


I tried shooting like that on my in laws property at a target on a large dirt mound. I never came close to the paper, let alone the target that was printed on the paper from probably 7 yards back maybe.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

MyBoyPuck said:


> I take it you're referring to that butt stupid hold it sideways crap? Yeah, that is embarrassing to watch.


_To be honest, when I shoot a rifle or shotgun, it is on a slight angle--tilted inwards....but it isnt for looks...it is just how the rifle/shotgun sits most comfortably on my shoulder and it has never hindered my ability to hit a target accurately. _

_But that is a rifle and not a hand gun...._


----------



## Nanaki (Jun 29, 2010)

VelvetsAB said:


> _To be honest, when I shoot a rifle or shotgun, it is on a slight angle--tilted inwards....but it isnt for looks...it is just how the rifle/shotgun sits most comfortably on my shoulder and it has never hindered my ability to hit a target accurately. _
> 
> _But that is a rifle and not a hand gun...._


That's way Different than doing it with a hand gun with a loose wrist like gangstas do it. I do a slight angle with rifles too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

First, if you live in NYC (a city with one of the highest murder rates in the country) your government has already decided that your only defense will be standing perfectly still. 

Second, there is a widely held belief that converting a semi automatic weapon to a fully automatic weapon is easy and doable for most gun-owners. It is a myth. There are few gunsmiths that could do the conversion and no casual gun owner could. You can get the correct permit and buy a fully-automatic weapon legally. It only takes about $20,000 per gun plus a long and detailed background check. Most gun crimes are committed with cheap low-capacity guns. Not these so-called assault weapons.


----------



## MyBoyPuck (Mar 27, 2009)

Yuck, I don't live in this crap hole. I just work here. I carry a travel size can of hair spray, a mini air horn and I'm fairly quick with a knee to the nuts. I'm fully aware that I am not afforded the right to defend myself. Ironically 40 miles up the road on Connecticut, I am free to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Go figure.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

In America, the laws don't allow one to force mentally ill into treatment without a lot of evidence. The guy who shot Giffords and others in Tucson may have been nuts, but not nuts enough to be committed. I'd support changing the law to increase the chance of stopping him from legally buying a gun - although he could always steal one, or just drive his car into people.

Also, in Arizona, you can carry concealed without a license. Having taken the course, I can't say I learned anything useful from it. I doubt the shooter at the Safeway was worried about violating any CCW laws regardless.

I figure folks have the right to defend themselves, and decide for themselves how much risk they accept before they start carrying weapons. Those inclined to murder aren't going to worry about gun laws, and those not inclined should be able to defend themselves.

Assault weapons banned by the law were simply scary looking. There was nothing in the law based on reality. It was a law to make people feel good, without making them any safer.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

There are only 3 states in the entire US that allow you to carry a concealed weapon without a permit; Arizona, Vermont, and Alaska. There are several states that do not allow a person to carry a weapon at all but most other states issue permits for it. You have to take a class and pass a proficiency test to get the permit (at least in Texas). 

Zeke, if an officer has reasonable belief that a person may be carrying a weapon, that alone gives them reason to ask to see your permit. Terry Vs. Ohio set the precedent for 'stop and frisks'. Basically, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a person is carrying a weapon and the person may be a risk to the safety of the public, then the officer has the right to stop the person and frisk them even if they haven't yet done anything illegal.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

May that's because I'm coming from different culture where guns aren't that common in home usage, but my view differs a bit from most of yours...

I'd say I feel actually pretty safe here where guns aren't carried for protecting use. I'm not sure if the safeness of our society is an outcome stemming from this, or if we haven't developed the gun culture because of safeness of our society, but I like to know that I don't have a gun for that purpose and people around me have neither. Sure there are things like robberies happening every now and then and then something like the two recent school shootings (Jokela and Kauhajoki cases) but the odds that you become robbed or that someone invades your house so that you'd need a gun isn't something that you'd consider even closely daily here.

I'm not sure. On the other hand I think that having accustomed to it that you've guns around you can encourage you to misuse them. On the other hand, I think there's nothing wrong in having one. I still prefer permits and controlling it who can have a gun (for example criminals shouldn't be allowed to have one). The thing I agree is that guns doesn't kill, human does. Sure some people have guns at their homes here too; it can be for hobby etc. If my memory serves me, they tried to ban guns after the school shooting cases but the law didn't pass, tho they tightened criteria of getting one which is good I guess. I think that it's like trying to cure wrong part of body. Unstable people like that will always find a way to harm someone, they'll have an illegal gun or then choose the other way and only innocent people who have guns for/as their hobbies would be punished because of that now. How about, instead of taking guns away, giving some more money for preventative work like early recognizing and mental health work with youngsters?


----------



## corinowalk (Apr 26, 2010)

YouTube - Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion

I don't currently have any guns in my house. Mostly because my children are at a vulnerable age for guns. 2 and 4 don't understand that guns can kill you. 

That being said, I am one of those crazy militant moms that will not allow my children to play with toy guns. Guns are not toys. They should never ever be confused for being a toy. I believe that we should have the right to protect ourselves. And that guns should be respected.


----------



## corinowalk (Apr 26, 2010)

Here it is so you don't have to follow the link.


----------



## corinowalk (Apr 26, 2010)

In PA, if you have a concealed weapon permit (which can be difficult to obtain) if you are pulled over, you must immediately notify the officer that you are carrying.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

Tamma, you are fortunate to live in the society that you do. Even in my little town of 450 people, it isn't safe to let your children play unattended anymore. We have home invasions, thefts, and assaults. Most of these are done by out of towners who come here following the oilfield work but still....

Cori, excellent video. Absolutely guns should be respected.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

I so would love a yard sign like that.



kevinshorses said:


> First, if you live in NYC (a city with one of the highest murder rates in the country) your government has already decided that your only defense will be standing perfectly still.


I know, scary isn't it. 
I can legally carry my hand gun concealed (with my permit) in the rest of the state but I can not carry it in NYC.




corinowalk said:


> In PA, if you have a concealed weapon permit (which can be difficult to obtain) if you are pulled over, you must immediately notify the officer that you are carrying.


I think that is good common sense though. If you have a weapon in the vehicle you should put your hands on the dash or the top of the steering wheel and notify the officer immediately. 

Bsms, I am surprised you did not get much out of your handgun safety course. The group that gave the course I attended were wonderful.


----------



## Tennessee (Dec 7, 2008)

I live by the quote "We have enough gun control. What we need is idiot control."


----------



## A knack for horses (Jun 17, 2010)

Zeke said:


> I'm with A knack, if the law is written properly and enforced we should be ok and I might feel better about people carrying weapons.
> 
> The problem with enforcing though is that much like an officer not being able to pull over a car without just cause, they won't people able to stop someone and pat them down and question them about carrying a weapon unless they've done somethin wrong, correct?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I was actually thinking along the lines of putting up more metal detectors in public places. If you have a gun, you have to show the security gaurd your carrying permit. It would be just like showing your drivers license to a cop. 

Although that wouldn't protect the areas such as parking lots and sidewalks. 

As for pat downs, I believe that if a cop has probable cause that somebody is carrying an illegal weapon, that would be more than enough grounds to request a pat down. Or at least I hope it would.


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

A knack for horses said:


> I was actually thinking along the lines of putting up more metal detectors in public places. If you have a gun, you have to show the security gaurd your carrying permit. It would be just like showing your drivers license to a cop.
> 
> Although that wouldn't protect the areas such as parking lots and sidewalks.
> 
> As for pat downs, I believe that if a cop has probable cause that somebody is carrying an illegal weapon, that would be more than enough grounds to request a pat down. Or at least I hope it would.


But think of the crowds that'd cause having metal detectors. Especially during the holidays :shock:


----------



## A knack for horses (Jun 17, 2010)

^ I didn't think about that. Holiday shopping would be H*ll.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

MyBoyPuck said:


> Handguns, rifles, I have no problem with whatsoever. A mentally stable, law abiding citizen should have the right to self protection. However, I do have an issue with automatic weapons. Why are these necessary for anything other than military purposes? I never understood why people would support assault weapons. It just makes no sense to me. I'd rather they all be melted down. If the government would turn their efforts on to stopping illegal guns sales, I would think that would go much further toward stopping gun related violence.


 
I agree. And I would be horrified to think of my child going to play at the house of the person who "has guns on the bed and laying all over the place".
That is how millions of guns get into the hands of criminals; stolen from unsecured houses. 
I agree we should be free to have guns witthin reason. But many more people die by accidental shootings than criminals killed in self defense by a law abiding gun carrying citizen. 
If you own a gun, SECURE IT PROPERLY!!!


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

I personaly come from a country where guns are controlled by extremely strict laws. I have a gun liscence for a .22 and I have an air pistol which does not require a liscence but struggles to break card at 10m distance. the air pistol must be in its locked case in any public setting, cannot be carried on public transport and can only ever be uncased at an official gun range, competition or in my own home.
I have a .22 for competitions. If not in use it must be in the gun safe with the fireing pin removed and stored in a separate safe in a different location with the ammo. I had to undergo major background checks, profficiency checks and checks on my gunsafes before they would even think about giving me a liscence.

No one in the UK can carry a concealed weapon.

In the UK we have no major gun culture. It is very very rare to hear about a shooting! We do however have a bit of a knife culture. but the damage from a knife is 90% of the time fixable!

TBH i feel nice and safe knowing that it is highly unlikely that anyone around me has a concealed gun.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

tinyliny said:


> I agree. And I would be horrified to think of my child going to play at the house of the person who "has guns on the bed and laying all over the place".
> That is how millions of guns get into the hands of criminals; stolen from unsecured houses.
> I agree we should be free to have guns witthin reason. *But many more people die by accidental shootings than criminals killed in self defense by a law abiding gun carrying citizen. *
> If you own a gun, SECURE IT PROPERLY!!!


Would you care to cite your source?


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

TaMMa89 said:


> Sure there are things like robberies happening every now and then and then something like the two recent school shootings (Jokela and Kauhajoki cases) but the odds that you become robbed or that someone invades your house so that you'd need a gun isn't something that you'd consider even closely daily here.
> 
> I prefer to consider the stakes rather than the odds. I live in a community that has a very low crime rate so the odds of having to use my gun is very low. The stakes involved in that gamble are too high for me to risk though.
> 
> ...


My comments are in red. I think Tamma shares the same opinion as a lot of Americans (although she is not one)that live in urban areas and have not been around guns.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

bsms said:


> In America, the laws don't allow one to force mentally ill into treatment without a lot of evidence. The guy who shot Giffords and others in Tucson may have been nuts, but not nuts enough to be committed. I'd support changing the law to increase the chance of stopping him from legally buying a gun - although he could always steal one, or just drive his car into people.
> 
> Also, in Arizona, you can carry concealed without a license. Having taken the course, I can't say I learned anything useful from it. I doubt the shooter at the Safeway was worried about violating any CCW laws regardless.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with this post totally except that the person that shot the congresswoman could have been involuntarily commited under Arizona law based on his past behavior.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

In 2002, accidental deaths from guns in the US totaled 776. That compares to over 3800 by drowning. In 2006, there were 642.

Estimates of the number of times a gun is used in self-defense each year range from 65,000 to over 2 million annually. 

Speaking for myself, about 30 years ago I was returning from a hike when I found 8 guys drinking whiskey on my car. They didn't say anything, just got off the car and started to surround me. I had a S&W 22/32 Kit gun (a 6 shot .22 LR revolver). I pulled it out. I didn't raise it all the way, but I figured I'd shoot the closest guy in the head and maybe have time for one other.

I guess they weren't much into mathematics, since no one shouted, "8-6=2...we can take him!" Instead, they stopped trying to surround me, I got in my car, and drove away. At the time, I was probably 30+ miles from the nearest cop.

Which reminds me of the old saying: Why do I carry a gun? Because a cop won't fit in my pocket...


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

Why do I carry a .45? Because I they don't make a .46!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

kevinshorses said:


> I agree with this post totally except that the person that shot the congresswoman could have been involuntarily commited under Arizona law based on his past behavior.


Maybe, if someone had reported him and our wonderful sheriff (I live in Pima County) had followed up. I just don't know for certain. I do know that she wasn't shot by anyone carrying concealed with a permit, and I am pretty certain that the nut SHOULDN'T have been walking the streets. I'm also certain he didn't give a rat's rear end about ANY gun laws.

That's the problem: someone who is planning to murder just isn't much deterred by a law saying 'Don't carry a gun'.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

Yeah, if the life sentence for murder isn't going to deter them then why would a gun law?


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

LOL, I can't carry a .45, it's just too big of a gun for me. I carry a .40, but I figure that would be plenty big . The cop percentage around here is not exactly encouraging. For law enforcement, we have a county Sheriff's department and the Highway Patrol (one officer for like 1000 square miles :roll. The SD has 6 officers to cover approximately 940 square miles and 5 towns. While there is one officer and the Sheriff that actually live in my town, there are times that the closest cop is 30 miles away. Not very good odds if one of the meth heads that live in my town decided to kick in my front door in the middle of the night.


----------



## Tennessee (Dec 7, 2008)

smrobs said:


> LOL, I can't carry a .45, it's just too big of a gun for me. I carry a .40, but I figure that would be plenty big . The cop percentage around here is not exactly encouraging. For law enforcement, we have a county Sheriff's department and the Highway Patrol (one officer for like 1000 square miles :roll. The SD has 6 officers to cover approximately 940 square miles and 5 towns. While there is one officer and the Sheriff that actually live in my town, there are times that the closest cop is 30 miles away. Not very good odds if one of the meth heads that live in my town decided to kick in my front door in the middle of the night.


 
Our cops are useless. The only thing they are capable (and care about) of doing is pulling over teenagers are accusing them of doing things.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

We're lucky in that respect. All our cops are good cops (my Dads the Sheriff and he's pretty particular about who he employs), they just can't cover the entire county all the time.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

smrobs said:


> LOL, I can't carry a .45, it's just too big of a gun for me. I carry a .40, but I figure that would be plenty big . The cop percentage around here is not exactly encouraging. For law enforcement, we have a county Sheriff's department and the Highway Patrol (one officer for like 1000 square miles :roll. The SD has 6 officers to cover approximately 940 square miles and 5 towns. While there is one officer and the Sheriff that actually live in my town, there are times that the closest cop is 30 miles away. Not very good odds if one of the meth heads that live in my town decided to kick in my front door in the middle of the night.


I actually carry a 9mm ( a .45 set to stun) because my .45 is heavy and uncomfortable to carry if I have to sit down much.


----------



## TheRoughrider21 (Aug 25, 2009)

I think if gun control does become a factor, the crazies and the druggies and the gangsters and those kind of people are still going to be the ones that have the guns. And then normal civilians won't have any guns to protect themselves with. Why? Because if they're already crazy or a serial killer, just because having a gun is illegal doesn't mean diddley-squat to them. If they're willing to kill somone, I'm pretty sure owning a gun won't be the biggest crime they'll commit.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

Roughrider21 the thing is that if you make a gun extremely difficult to get it will stop the vast majority of crazy's and druggies getting them as they just won't be bothered to go through the hassle and the ones available on the black market will e incredibly expensive. The gangsters will probably still have them but with be less inclined to regularly shoot each other as it will bring the guns to the attention of the police.

The entire of Western Europe has no guns and we are doing fine, Pistols stronger then my airpistol are banned in their entirity, noone can have them, Rifles are rather harder to conceal!
I rather like the fact that it is very very shocking and rare to have someone shot in this country or in mainland Europe and it is spattered all over the news for many many months and the gun laws are generaly tightened after each incident!


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

But the druggies and crazies don't get guns by applying for a license...they steal, borrow, buy or come across them. 

In the right place, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an abundance of them readily available. 

Here in Canada, we also have to go through a licensing system. The government tried to have the citizens register all their guns that they owned but it didn't go over well. I'm pretty sure that half of Canada didn't register what they have.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

A knack for horses said:


> I was actually thinking along the lines of putting up more metal detectors in public places. If you have a gun, you have to show the security gaurd your carrying permit. It would be just like showing your drivers license to a cop.


Many civic type buildings already have medal detectors. I had to go to city hall one day and it was a real pain getting in. Wait in line, empty all my pockets and bags, etc.

And I highly doubt a deranged man on a rampage is going to wait at the entrance in line to get in. They will find a different way in (like an exit as someone leaves). 

You can not make laws that stop a crazy person on a mission and leave the normal people any ability to have a life.



TheRoughrider21 said:


> I think if gun control does become a factor, the crazies and the druggies and the gangsters and those kind of people are still going to be the ones that have the guns. And then normal civilians won't have any guns to protect themselves with. Why? Because if they're already crazy or a serial killer, just because having a gun is illegal doesn't mean diddley-squat to them. If they're willing to kill somone, I'm pretty sure owning a gun won't be the biggest crime they'll commit.


Very well said.



faye said:


> Roughrider21 the thing is that if you make a gun extremely difficult to get it will stop the vast majority of crazy's and druggies getting them as they just won't be bothered to go through the hassle and the ones available on the black market will e incredibly expensive. The gangsters will probably still have them but with be less inclined to regularly shoot each other as it will bring the guns to the attention of the police.


Sorry Faye, but I had to laugh at the thought that the bad guys would not use their guns because it would bring attention to them.

The bad guys all currently have illegal guns and they have no issue using them and bringing attention to themselves. They are not going to suddenly change that MO if the rest of us are not armed.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I live about 50 miles from the Mexican border. My son-in-law has come across weapon caches while riding his dirt bike. The folks running drugs in probably don't want to sing Kumbaya with me if we meet.

My home could have a cop there in response to an emergency call in 10 minutes. That would be a long time if all I had was a baseball bat. And when I need to drive thru rough parts of town - and lets face it, the federal government has signs up along highways warning that the area isn't safe due to illegals passing thru - then being armed with my smiling face is no substitute for a gun.

As for Europe...if a Muslim girl is worried about an honor killing, then she ought to have the means to defend herself. And in the USA, the Constitution recognizes that right. Those who want to overturn it need to pass a Constitutional amendment, or move elsewhere.

I like being free. Being free includes the right to defend myself and my family. It doesn't consist of calling 911 and hoping they are faster than the bad guys.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

BTW - I've hears Switzerland has a lot of guns. Is it a haven of violence and crime? Or is crime caused by people?


----------



## HopalongCassidy (Dec 19, 2010)

bsms i like what you said.

"I like being free. Being free includes the right to defend myself and my family. It doesn't consist of calling 911 and hoping they are faster than the bad guys."

I live 30 minutes from town, on top of a mountain, know if my house gets broken into when i snow or something the cops can't get on this mountain with there wee little cars, we can barley get up with 4 wheel drive long less 2 wheel drive. So the only defense i got is guns.

We have umm, several guns. But there in a case so no one will blow them selfs away. We have a 12 gauge, some kind of rifle,(Very mean rifle) a .22, an automatic .22, and a mussel loader (or how ever you spell it.) No little hand gun yet. I do plan to get one once i'm old enough. Also we're about to get me a 30-30 winchester.

I wouldn't shoot to kill but i would shoot to make them stay on the ground.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

HopalongCassidy said:


> I wouldn't shoot to kill but i would shoot to make them stay on the ground.


Then you shouldn't own a gun. If you pick it up, you'd better be prepared to shoot at whatever you're aiming, be it animal or human.

I'd never use my guns to threaten anyone, or try to hold them at bay. That's a good way to have the gun taken from you and get your silly self shot. If I'm picking it up, I have every intention of using it.


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

^^Agree. If his intent is to harm me, his *** is getting shot.


----------



## HopalongCassidy (Dec 19, 2010)

OK, well i'm no killer, harm attended or not. If i get my house broken into,

1. they may not now your in the house
2.what if its some 14 year old kid. (Live with your self then)
3. Take shooting lessons so you won't have to kill the person. (Why god made people that want to kill i will never now)
4. If he intent to harm me well duh i will shoot but not to kill until i am positive he not caring a gun. If he's caring a gun i either say drop it or shoot. (Just depends on the person. and there decision.)
5. Yes.... shoot know, ask questions later. Until you find out it was like i said a 14 year old kid, unarmed. 
6. yes animal i have no problem shooting then asking questions later.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

The one time I've pulled a gun, I was prepared to use it but I didn't. I took it out of the holster, raised it about 30 deg, and paused. They stopped trying to surround me and I left without firing.

However, I was about 1 second away from raising it to level, and that would mean I had decided shooting was my only option. And I would have shot the nearest guy in the face with my 22. 

I don't believe in warning shots. It is legal in Arizona to reveal a weapon as the final stage of deterrence, but once I raise it, I'm shooting and shooting to kill. Because I won't raise it unless I believe my life or my family's lives are in danger...


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

1. they may not know you're in the house.
So what? They're criminals. They shouldn't be on my property trying to do something bad or steal from me.

2.what if it's some 14 year old kid. Live with yourself then.
I'd live with myself just fine, thank you. Again, THEY'RE invading my home and property; I haven't gone out of my way to hunt them down and shoot them. If they weren't a criminal, they wouldn't need to worry about getting shot and killed.

3. Take shooting lessons so you won't have to kill the person.
You've obviously never taken any gun courses, or you'd know that instructors tell you to SHOOT TO KILL. There is no such thing as 'shoot to maim'. You're instructed to go for the easiest target to hit, which is the torso. Unfortunately for the criminal, the torso contains most of the vital organs.

I don't WANT to kill, nor am I bloodthirsty, but if you have intent to harm me, I'm going to shoot you before you get a chance.

4. If he intent to harm me well duh i will shoot but not to kill until i am positive he not caring a gun. If he's caring a gun i either say drop it or shoot.
This just goes to show me you have NO IDEA about what you're talking.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

HopalongCassidy said:


> OK, well i'm no killer, harm attended or not...


Then don't get a gun. You don't have the option of shooting to wound. That is Hollywood. In real gunfights, cops miss more often than they hit. And if they hit, it may or may not hit anything vital.

But a warning shot can ricochet and kill someone, and a shot in the arm (even if you have the skill to do that deliberately, and I don't after 30+ years of shooting) can sever an artery and the guy will bleed to death in minutes. 

Also, once a bullet enters a body it is unpredictable. They often hit a bone and move off at some odd angle. I don't care if you are an Olympic shooter, you don't decide if you shoot to wound or kill. No man controls THAT outcome. If you shoot, you have to assume the person you are shooting can die.


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

HopalongCassidy said:


> OK, well i'm no killer, harm attended or not. If i get my house broken into,
> 
> 1. they may not now your in the house
> 2.what if its some 14 year old kid. (Live with your self then)
> ...


There is always going to be "what if's" and "exceptions". My theory is, if i feel my self and/or my family is in danger. Im going to try to protect myself/them at *any* cost _no matter what_.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

Hopalong, there is a reason that officers are taught to shoot to kill and not maim. It is not because they have this desire to kill people either. It is the only guaranteed way to eliminate the threat. 
And think about it, no matter how good of a shot you are and no matter how calm you are under pressure, you will be shooting at moving object. Your chances of hitting center body are far better than your chances of hitting a hand or such. 
If it is either me or them I am picking me.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

If you shoot someone with a gun, and you hit him anywhere but the brain, he'll still have a minimum of 10 seconds with which to shoot back. A bad guy can shoot you 15 times in 10 seconds. Telling him to drop merely gives him more time to fill you full of holes.

Here is what the FBI says:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Most won't be that determined, but if you are facing a man with a gun, you cannot save yourself for certain by shooting him. You can only make sure you don't die alone...


----------



## HopalongCassidy (Dec 19, 2010)

I understand everything yal say, If someone brakes my door down it's going to be a: son of a B**ch i don't think so: moment where, You shoot to kill. I would shoot to kill when i see its not some 14 year old kid that got dared into it or bullied. I'm more of a hard to the core person, shoot for the heart, lung, or gut. Why the head. It won't be a very positive kill, like the lady at gun point didn't die in Arizona.


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

^^What if that 14 year old is in a gang, and his initiation was to break in and murder you? Doesn't sound likely, but anything is possible. I've heard of an 8 year old killing his grandparents.


----------



## .Delete. (Jan 7, 2008)

This thread is going to be going in circles with all this "what if" bull crap.


----------



## HopalongCassidy (Dec 19, 2010)

Wonder why i hate cops, Do you know what a cop here in my town did, shoot a mental KID! NO GUN on the poor kid. I understand like i said. I really didn't know people where going to take me say "I'd shoot to harm instead of kill." Any way like i wouldn't protest my self or my family. First site of a gun i'd shoot again just they wouldn't have a chance to think about getting the gun pointed to me to kill me. I see i said i'd give him a chance to drop it. While really i wouldn't. I'm not that stupid if i see a gun in hand i'd probably shoot to kill or if they drop the gun when i shoot them i'd scoot the gun away from them. As in i'm say if the guns/gun is tucked away i'd take it off of them. And i do figure that if i shoot to harm i can kill them if then or later.


----------



## HopalongCassidy (Dec 19, 2010)

I now Kate, I see what your saying, this 8 year olds going to jail for killing his step mother and her unborn kid.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

HopalongCassidy said:


> ...I'm more of a hard to the core person, shoot for the heart, lung, or gut. Why the head. It won't be a very positive kill, like the lady at gun point didn't die in Arizona.


Please read the FBI handout on handgun wounds. I've been shooting for nearly 35 years, and spent 25 years in the military.


----------



## HopalongCassidy (Dec 19, 2010)

i guess you convince me with that hand out even though i'm still reading it i see why we should shoot to kill. Cause they can suffer if we, like you said, shoot one of there main anything in there body. I know God will send me to hell if i do that. I get it. No more ifs, ands or butts about, shoot to kill.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

smrobs said:


> Tamma, you are fortunate to live in the society that you do. *Even in my little town of 450 people, it isn't safe to let your children play unattended anymore.* We have home invasions, thefts, and assaults. Most of these are done by out of towners who come here following the oilfield work but still....
> 
> Cori, excellent video. Absolutely guns should be respected.


:shock:




TaMMa89 said:


> Sure there are things like robberies happening every now and then and then something like the two recent school shootings (Jokela and Kauhajoki cases) but the odds that you become robbed or that someone invades your house so that you'd need a gun isn't something that you'd consider even closely daily here.
> 
> I prefer to consider the stakes rather than the odds. I live in a community that has a very low crime rate so the odds of having to use my gun is very low. The stakes involved in that gamble are too high for me to risk though.
> 
> ...


Yep, I haven't been around guns since our culture doesn't prefer them that much. Like I said (or did I say..?), there are some handguns for hobby use. Then some larger guns are pretty common for hunting, actually we've one in our house too. I think it'd still be interesting to make a research how the amount of guns correlates with amount of crimes made with guns (like I said, one of my theories is that if you've been accustomed to be around guns and can have one easily, I think it'd be possible that you misuse a gun more easily than if you and people around you are and have been "gun-free". Then when that happens a person need to have a gun for protecting himself). Tho I see the cultural context and your viewpoint of having guns too, the things tend to have many sides.

About the criminal comment, I meant that people who've a criminal record shouldn't be allowed to have a gun at least legally, of course depending on the crimes on the record. Same would go with other people who would be considered dangerous or unstable with guns.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

Alwaybehind said:


> faye said:
> 
> 
> > Roughrider21 the thing is that if you make a gun extremely difficult to get it will stop the vast majority of crazy's and druggies getting them as they just won't be bothered to go through the hassle and the ones available on the black market will e incredibly expensive. The gangsters will probably still have them but with be less inclined to regularly shoot each other as it will bring the guns to the attention of the police.
> ...


I think it'd still prevent so called petty criminals to have guns. About the gun usage, I agree that once you've had a gun for criminal purposes I highly doubt you'd avoid to use it.

I know I couldn't kill unless it was an extreme fight over life and death. Not even if somebody decided to invade in my property. May it's a cultural thing again; over here even cops can't shoot deadly unless it's absolutely necessary. Even after that it means a huge investigation over the case and deliberation over it if the cop crossed his authority when shooting that deadly bullet. If the case is something more less than that, the cop will very prolly be proceeded against and receive a verdict.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

You are not allowed to own a gun if you have a criminal record in the US.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

^^Ok. Does that apply all states?


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

I hope you don’t mind if I add in my $0.02?

Having grown up in a country where gun restrictions are very tight, the notion of the average person walking around with a concealed weapon is very foreign to me. Hearing about shootings in the media may seem somewhat normal to those accustomed to it but let me assure you, it is disturbing and frightening to someone who is not. 

Now, interestingly enough, I don’t think gun restrictions are the answer here in America. There are other countries in the world with high gun ownership rates but far less violent crime. Also, there are other countries in the world with low gun ownership rates but far greater violent crime. The correlation is not necessarily between guns and violence, it is the people wielding the weapons that make the difference.

Take Switzerland for example – one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (more than half of which are automatic rifles) yet violent crime rates there are amongst the _lowest_ in the world. What is the difference? Well there are several:

- High median income.
-Excellent social systems including healthcare and education. 
-Low unemployment rate.
-Military training is mandatory for a few days a year, in which time proper gun _training_ is provided.

In summary, the people are well looked after, informed and armed. No problem.

Here in America, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Not to mention the “working poor” – those hard working tax paying people who slog it out every day, every week, every year just to keep their head above water. Bush’s tax incentives did more for big business and high income earners than they did for the lower income earners who needed it the most. The economy is weak, unemployment is high and the social systems are failing. Guess what happens? People are unhappy, frustrated and armed and the crime rate increases.

The only way to alleviate the rate of violent crime is to look at the socioeconomic and cultural factors that are the _real_ determinants of crime and violence in the first place.

It is not the thought of the average well balanced happy individual carrying a gun around me that I find so frightening, it is the thought that the maybe person next to me has a chip on their shoulder and a pistol in their pocket.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

TaMMa89 said:


> ^^Ok. Does that apply all states?


Yes ma'am, convicted felons are not allowed to legally own firearms in the U.S.

Also, any LEO who discharges their weapon in the line of duty is generally put on paid administrative leave until an inquiry is made, even if it's a clear cut case of kill or be killed.

Sarah, I'm not disagreeing with your theories, but you also have to factor in that Americans have_ always_ had the right to bear arms, and we take that right _very_ seriously.

I also don't think we're blase about shootings in this country. The Arizona shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, as well as several others including a child, has horrified the American people.

It's possible to own guns and not be a bloodthirsty, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later type of person, even when you're down on your luck.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Speed Racer said:


> Sarah, I'm not disagreeing with your theories, but you also have to factor in that Americans have_ always_ had the right to bear arms, and we take that right _very_ seriously.


Yep, as I said - removing the guns isn't the answer. Don't worry that wasn't my suggestion! :wink:


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Oh no, I didn't think you were suggesting that at all. Just giving you a little bit of an insight into the American psyche, and why it'd be really hard to do an outright ban of guns here. :wink:


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

I am becoming more and more familiar with the American psyche and don't worry, I would NEVER suggest banning guns here - the culture is different, the history is different, the people are different and I accept that.

I just thought that Switzerland was an interesting comparison and relevant to the topic at hand.

You can have your guns, us Aussies can have our beer and everyone will be merry :lol:


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

The government is gonna have a rude awakening if they attempt to ban guns.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

sarahver said:


> You can have your guns, us Aussies can have our beer and everyone will be merry :lol:


I can't have beer, too? I haz a sad.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Speed Racer said:


> I can't have beer, too? I haz a sad.


OK but you can only have a Fosters as you folk over here seem to think it is amazing stuff. Suckers. :twisted:


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Um, no thanks. I like Corona Light, Heineken Light, or Coors Light. My poverty at any given time determines what I drink! :lol:


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

sarahver said:


> ...Here in America, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Not to mention the “working poor” – those hard working tax paying people who slog it out every day, every week, every year just to keep their head above water. Bush’s tax incentives did more for big business and high income earners than they did for the lower income earners who needed it the most. The economy is weak, unemployment is high and the social systems are failing. Guess what happens? People are unhappy, frustrated and armed and the crime rate increases.
> 
> The only way to alleviate the rate of violent crime is to look at the socioeconomic and cultural factors that are the _real_ determinants of crime and violence in the first place.


Nope. First, America rewards hard work and good judgment. The vast majority of wealthy people I've met have worked very hard for their wealth. The ones who inherit it usually end up losing it. Be careful who you marry, get married and stay married. Work hard, and take every chance at education. 

Bush's tax cuts benefited the poor and middle class.

"In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes. Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmakers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's collective tax burden _negative_.)First, lawmakers lowered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers.[17] The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation."

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts

But most of all, poverty doesn't cause crime. My parents weren't allowed to wear shoes to school until the first frost, because they were dirt poor. But they didn't become criminals. They both came from large families, and every child grew up successful. And none of them went to college - my sister & I were the first in our family's history. And when I was going to college, and collecting sheep pee at minimum wage (long story), I didn't commit crimes. I'm retired now, but I worked 12+ hour days most of my adult life. I didn't have horses because I had no time for them. I spent half of each year deployed somewhere, and got a Master's degree on my own time.

Crimes are associated with poor neighborhoods, because many criminals come from the bad living that also breeds poverty. Broken families are the breeding ground of crime, and they also breed poverty. The two go together, but poverty doesn't cause crime. My wife was born in the Philippines, and was farmed out at 5 to clean the house of the wealthy. She has become an RN, and is now working full time as a nurse while also taking classes to get her BSN. THAT is what it takes to get ahead.

The hospital where my wife works is in the bad part of town. The violent crime rate is 10 times higher there than it is 3 miles away. I drive my wife to & from work, and I carry a gun with me. No one is threatened by my carrying a gun unless they first threaten me. Poverty doesn't cause crime. Guns don't cause crime. Bad people do.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Fair enough and well said. However, according to your assertion, poverty doesn't cause crime (I don't agree) guns don't cause crime (I DO agree) but bad people cause crime (obviously). 

So my question to you is this: What causes bad people then?


----------



## Mike_User (Oct 24, 2006)

Fingerprints can unlock doors, wake computers up from hibernation mode, tell the turnstiles at Disneyworld that you are indeed the owner of your "Magic Your Way" pass, etc.

What about applying that technology to gun triggers so that the only person(s) able to fire a particular weapon are those it's been licensed to? That would allow sane, law abiding citizens to own guns while at the same time making those guns useless to all others.

Even if such technology could be circumvented, if it could be done at all then I'm sure it could be done in such a way so as to make circumventing it far beyond that average person's grasp.

Guns with this technology wouldn't make all of the existing "legacy" guns go away, of course. If law abiding citizens traded their existing guns for guns with this technology (or somehow had them retrofitted with it), though, then as law enforcement officers confiscated guns from criminals there would be fewer and fewer "legacy" guns available for criminals to use, thereby making it harder and harder for them to obtain one until it's nearly impossible.

To satisfy those paranoid of such technology in case the government should ever become so unjust or oppressive that it needs to be overthrown, it should be implemented in such a way so as to prevent any type of remote deactivation.

I realize this sounds like science fiction, but considering what people are already doing with fingerprints and other types of biometrics, it seems like it should be feasible.


----------



## corinowalk (Apr 26, 2010)

I think bad people are a direct result of frustration and lack of proper morals. 

Oh and I can vouch for the 'no felons may own a gun' law. My husband is a ex-con and is forbidden to own any type of firearm. He had to wait til his 7th year to get permission to own a bow. You know, because people rob other people at bow-point all the time...*laugh*


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

sarahver said:


> ...So my question to you is this: What causes bad people then?


Sin. Free will. But statistically, broken families without fathers is one of the best predictors of crime.

We've made it worse in America by telling people their problems are never their fault. If you want to get ahead in America, you can. Not immediately, and maybe not as far ahead as someone else will, but you can get ahead. It requires work, and discipline, and saving, and trying, and starting over when something fails, but you can get ahead. But if your problems are never your fault, then you will never correct the failings that hold you back.

Your question answers itself. What causes bad people? Nothing. They are good or bad because of THEIR choices, not someone else's. Broken homes are statistically tied to crime, but statistics are true about generalities and lie about particulars. No individual is doomed because he grows up without a father, or poor, or anything else. HIS choices determine what happens to HIM. No one and no thing causes bad people. They are bad because of their choices.


----------



## corinowalk (Apr 26, 2010)

bsms said:


> Sin. Free will. But statistically, broken families without fathers is one of the best predictors of crime.
> 
> *We've made it worse in America by telling people their problems are never their fault*. If you want to get ahead in America, you can. Not immediately, and maybe not as far ahead as someone else will, but you can get ahead. It requires work, and discipline, and saving, and trying, and starting over when something fails, but you can get ahead. But if your problems are never your fault, then you will never correct the failings that hold you back.
> 
> Your question answers itself. What causes bad people? Nothing. They are good or bad because of THEIR choices, not someone else's. Broken homes are statistically tied to crime, but statistics are true about generalities and lie about particulars. No individual is doomed because he grows up without a father, or poor, or anything else. HIS choices determine what happens to HIM. No one and no thing causes bad people. They are bad because of their choices.


I heart the bold. Everyone has someone to blame! Not to mention everything comes from a 'crappy' childhood. *eye roll* really? I really do tire of the excuses people make for childish behavior. If you had a perfect upbringing, you are probably just as messed up as the girl who got beat.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Administrator said:


> ...What about applying that technology to gun triggers so that the only person(s) able to fire a particular weapon are those it's been licensed to? That would allow sane, law abiding citizens to own guns while at the same time making those guns useless to all others...


Invent one and you'll be rich. Gun manufacturers have tried, but no reliable system has been discovered. Remember, triggers are small. Your door is large. Yet we don't all come home and open our houses with our fingerprints.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

bsms said:


> Sin. Free will. But statistically, broken families without fathers is one of the best predictors of crime.
> 
> *Sooo.... The Swiss also have lower divorce rates then? Less broken families?*
> 
> Your question answers itself. What causes bad people? Nothing. HIS choices determine what happens to HIM. No one and no thing causes bad people. They are bad because of their choices.


OF COURSE they are bad because of their choices! Again that is fairly obvious. Why do they make those choices?

So, if there is no cause of bad people then I suppose nothing can be done. However, if there was no cause I would expect crime rates around the world to be fairly ubiquitous. Which they are not.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

sarahver said:


> OF COURSE they are bad because of their choices! Again that is fairly obvious. Why do they make those choices?
> 
> So, if there is no cause of bad people then I suppose nothing can be done. However, if there was no cause I would expect crime rates around the world to be fairly ubiquitous. Which they are not.


Ummm...there isn't much violent crime in my neighborhood either. Why? Because the people who live here have led successful lives, and you don't do that if you believe it is OK to rob someone at gunpoint.

I didn't say there was nothing to be done. Limit welfare. Yep, at some point, force folks to get a job or starve. It is amazing how much discipline you can learn when the alternative is dying.

Teach individual responsibility. Stop teaching marxist claptrap about how rich men wake up every day and try to keep you down. Rich people wake up, go to work and try to make money. They don't have time to keep someone else down. They are too busy trying to get ahead.

Stop making excuses for bad people, and put them in jail or execute them. We KNOW who attacked Gabby Giffords and killed a number of others. Is he guilty? Darn right, so why not execute him? I'm willing to bet that with the help of my county sheriff, he'll be found not guilty by reason of insanity and live at my expense for the rest of his life.

The problem isn't that America has guns. Most everyone I know has a bunch of them, and none of us have shot or robbed anyone. The problem is that we coddle bad people, and feel sorry for them, and try to explain away their bad behavior instead of punishing them for it. 

If you look at the crime statistics, America's problem is highly localized. LA has lots of murders. They also have strict gun control - you cannot carry a loaded weapon openly, and can't get a permit to carry concealed without political connections. New York City has very strict gun control laws, as do Washington DC and Chicago. Doesn't help.

When I lived in northern Utah in the 70s, my roommate left the keys in his pickup in case someone needed to move it. When the ignition switch on my motorcycle broke, I replaced it with a toggle switch. IIRC, the valley had its first murder about 10 years after I left. It wasn't a rich community, but folks were expected to pull their weight and act responsibly. Culture affects crime rate, not income.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

bsms said:


> Sin. Free will. But statistically, broken families without fathers is one of the best predictors of crime.
> 
> We've made it worse in America by telling people their problems are never their fault.


Yepper.

Being poor is not the reason.

Having no guidance is the problem. Generation after generation feeling that nothing in life is their problem to solve, it is the rest of societies job to make their world better. 

People are taught that working for what you want is not necessary, you should just be able to have it. Which leads to "I will just take it, it is not fair that they have it and I do not".

That is not the fault of poverty, that is a lack of morals.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Fair enough, I am willing to accept that the comparison I drew is not necessarily correct, but it did make for interesting discussion right?!

Just to clarify to you all, I DID say this:



sarahver said:


> I am becoming more and more familiar with the American psyche and don't worry, I would NEVER suggest banning guns here - the culture is different, the history is different, the people are different and *I accept that.*
> 
> I just thought that Switzerland was an interesting comparison and relevant to the topic at hand.
> 
> You can have your guns, us Aussies can have our beer and everyone will be merry :lol:


Having grown up in a culture without gun violence I am not used to gun related crime. So while it may seem to you that LA is the ‘bad spot’ in relation to America, even the far less graphic crimes committed in Austin can be shocking to me.

And thank you for the civil discussion even though our opinions may not align! :wink:


----------



## A knack for horses (Jun 17, 2010)

Administrator said:


> Fingerprints can unlock doors, wake computers up from hibernation mode, tell the turnstiles at Disneyworld that you are indeed the owner of your "Magic Your Way" pass, etc.
> 
> What about applying that technology to gun triggers so that the only person(s) able to fire a particular weapon are those it's been licensed to? That would allow sane, law abiding citizens to own guns while at the same time making those guns useless to all others.
> 
> ...


I think that would work better if the "safety" was the fingerprinting system. If the system was placed on the handle how you hold it to shoot, you could get out as many rounds you needed until your finger left the pad. Then the safety in the gun would be electronically put back on. 

I'm sure whoever could figure out that would be a billionare. 
Along with the inventer of the "cool" hearing aid. Hahahaha. Sorry fftopic:


----------



## OffTheTrack (Sep 23, 2010)

A knack for horses said:


> I think that would work better if the "safety" was the fingerprinting system. If the system was placed on the handle how you hold it to shoot, you could get out as many rounds you needed until your finger left the pad. Then the safety in the gun would be electronically put back on.
> 
> I'm sure whoever could figure out that would be a billionare.
> Along with the inventer of the "cool" hearing aid. Hahahaha. Sorry fftopic:


The only problem with the safety having the fingerprinting system is not all weapons have external safeties. Then what?? lol Just throwing it out there. 

I own several guns...and carry most days (unless with boyfriend who ALWAYS carry). Gun control only stops the law abiding citizens...criminals dont abide by the law..

And actually I was pleasantly surprised reading the thread..for some reason I expected a different theme. Good to hear I'm not alone. :wink:


----------



## Scoope (Oct 19, 2010)

Please excuse me if this has already been addressed - I have not read all 11 pages of this.

As a NZer I do not understand the American obsession with fire arms??. What exactly is it that you are protecting yourself against?? and how does a firearm do this?? 

Im not trying to be provocative but I seriously don't understand it?? 

here there is very little gun culture - It is not the norm to have one, let alone several, especially in the family home. Heck, even our police don't carry them unless in extreme circumstances. 

Firearms make me intensely uncomfortable - even the toy ones, and I would never allow one in my home, not even the plastic childrens playones - I find it physically repulsive to see children playing with toy replica guns, I don't understand why anyone would let their child engage in that kind of play?

Here we do not have any of the wild animals that I can understand people living in areas habited by the likes of bears, big cats and coyotes might need a gun for (no bears/big cats or coyotes or anything like that) - we do not have any snakes, and no real poisonous spiders (we have a whitetail which while it will give you a sore bite, is not deadly) . We do not have scorpions - infact, the only real wild animal that is of concern is a wild pig - which , are not a problem unless you go after them - and even they only live in certain areas. We do not have crocodiles, or anything of the sort really.

Im not condemning anyone - I just don't understand it?? - is gun control somthing that is taught in American schools?? how is it incorporated into the community? is it something that is promoted as a luxury item? or is it more of an expectation - or considered a 'right'? - Is owning a gun like owning a car - something that is studied for so that rules and regulations are learnt and the permit to use one is earn t and understood? 

please don't flame me as I am not trying to hurt anyones feelings - nor am I condemning the choice to carry a gun - I just don't understand it that is all. There is clearly a big culture gap between New Zealand and America.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

1 - It is a right granted by the US Constitution, which was written by men who overthrew the government with the help of armed civilians.

2 - A gun primarily protects me against bad people. If my car breaks down in a bad part of town, there are people who will see me and think 'victim'. I refuse to be a victim.

New Zealand has a more homogeneous population than the US. I don't think New Zealand ever faced someone like Geronimo, and I don't think you have a big problem with people crossing the border illegally and smuggling drugs. There are places in the state where I live that the federal government put up signs warning people not to stop because of the danger.










And yes, we still have wild animals. I'll go hiking tomorrow, and was asked to bring a gun since the area has cougars, and some of them can get bold.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

sarahver said:


> I hope you don’t mind if I add in my $0.02?
> 
> Having grown up in a country where gun restrictions are very tight, the notion of the average person walking around with a concealed weapon is very foreign to me. Hearing about shootings in the media may seem somewhat normal to those accustomed to it but let me assure you, it is disturbing and frightening to someone who is not.
> 
> ...


Interesting theory.

Even it's a bit offtopic, I think I have to comment the correlation thing between poverty and criminality: 

I believe poverty is one of the reasons that cause people to make bad choices or then bad choices can make you turn to be poor and troubles stemming from that can be inheritable. Even sure it isn't any kind of self-evidence that if you're poor, you'd also turn bad like some people in that thread have brilliantly pointed out.

That's how I see the way goes with some of those poor, passive people: You may born into a family which has many troubles such like poverty, mental health problems, unstable human relationships, problems with life control, violence etc. in it. And then many times problematic families like that can't reach proper living standard but end up to be drifted into some questionable habitat with bunch of similar people. Then, in their miserable state in which they don't mind anymore, they end up to vent their dysphoria with committing to criminality, forming gangs and other bad things like that. Okay, and now you born into that insecure family and surroundings like that. You may end up to grow up to be very insecure person, you've might had many disappointments in your life already and the passive attitude toward you doesn't prefer to you to be enterprising. The closest role models you have have morals like that. You grow up, hit your puberty and like we know, youngsters don't always think what's the best option for the future but do something that they feel great just then. Perhaps the "coolest" role model to young you is that criminal gang or something else not so good around your corners and soon you notice you've gotten involved in it up to your neck and can't get rid of it. May you don't go that radical but have still adopted values around you. Then you perhaps end up to be that insecure parent with lots of troubles once and also your child will grow up in that same atmosphere and the vicious cycle is ready.

Like I said, living in poverty isn't the same thing that committing criminality, not at all. Like stated in that topic, you can grow up as any other good person even your material start wouldn't have been that good. What I wanted to say is that in many cases poverty is still a part of the problem and what's more important, human is weak. Sure there are some people who can yank theirselves apart and have a good life in the conditions I described, but I think in many cases it isn't that easy and there have to be reasons behind the bad moral.

Just my humble opinion and very offtopic . Carry on.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

Scoope, I can kind of understand how you find it so difficult. Guns in the home has been common in the US since we became a country. Because guns are so common here, almost everyone has access to one, even criminals, and they won't hesitate to use them. With our fairly high crime rate here in America, it seems more uncommon for someone to_ not_ be a victim at some point in their life.

When I was living in Amarillo (a city of approx 175,000 people), 2 guys tried to break into my house while I was home at 11:00 in the morning. Would they still have run off if I hadn't met them at the door with my shotgun? I don't know but it's not something that I was willing to risk. 

Most children who are exposed to guns in the home are taught proper gun use and safety by a parent or loved one at an earlier age. My Dad taught me how to use a gun and what to do when I was about 7 or 8. I started with a smaller caliber gun and worked my way up to the bigger guns as I got older.

It is a person's right to have a gun according to our Constitution but that does not require a person to have one. Each individual person is allowed to make that decision for themselves. If they decide that they want one, then they are easy to get and classes to learn about them are easy to find. The only people who cannot legally own a gun are minors (teenagers and children) and people who have been convicted of any crime more serious than a traffic offense.

I understand where you are coming from, Scoope, though it is from the other side of the coin. It is hard for me to imagine a culture where guns are rare.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

So far, most of the posters on this thread are clearly very protective of their right to bear arms, feel a strong attachment to the weapons and feel they have an ever present need to carry one at all times. 
I will not say that that is right or wrong. I don't live where they do. I lead my life day in and day out and never carry a firearm. I don't know one person who has ever used one to prevent a crime, nor even one person who has had a crime perpetrated on them with the criminal holding a gun. Guess I am lucky.

I say this for some of the Non American posters who are puzzled by the apparent love affair that Americans have expressed on this forum for guns.
Many people in America hold quite different views but are not a large portion of the segment of population that tends to represented on the forum.

Now, I will say that we DO have guns in our house; locked away. I think we have three of them; all my husband's. I have fired one of them once, at a firing range. It was a total blast and when I was a kid, we used to go target shooting with my dad out in the woods. I don't believe total gun bans are good or enforceable. I do think that there can be reasonable limits on what is sold on the open market . 
Anyway, what I was thinking about after reading some of the foreign posters questions as to why we are so closely linked with our guns was that looking at our history, of being a "frontier breaking" nation you can see the way that the gun played a big role in our development. AND, our reverence for the rugged individual and individual rights OVER group stability is a both our American hallmark and greatest asset, and a challenge to maintain in a world where privacy is eroding by the minute.
In actuality, considering how many guns are in the hands of the American public, it is amazing how LITTLE gun violence happens. Look at some African nations where guns are toted by reckless "soldiers". The number of guns per capita is probably far less, but the number of times firing the weapon, per capita, probably far more.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Well, just to clarify a few things that I said – I in no way meant that the US is a poor nation, in fact it is a very wealthy nation and sorry if my words were interpreted that way as it sounds very offensive! My comments were more directed at _inequality_ of said wealth. More than one third of the country’s wealth is held by less than 1% of the population.

Not sure if any of you are familiar with the Gini index/coefficient? It is a Financial measure of income inequality. In the US, it reached an all time historical high (suggesting that there is _great_ income inequality) in 2006. The reason I mentioned the Bush tax cuts is that they were introduced three years earlier, by which time had taken full effect. Now, whilst these tax cuts lowered the marginal tax rates for ALL income earners, they also negated the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) which was originally introduced to DETER wealthy tax payers from utilizing too many tax incentives. The AMT rates were never rectified to reflect the new tax rates that Bush introduced and as a consequence, many high income earners were able to claim tax incentives that were previously prohibited on account of their exorbitant income. In my opinion this contributed to the increased level of income inequality. Feel free to dispute, I am not a Financial Analyst.

Switzerland (my original comparison) on the other hand historically has a very low Gini coefficient, suggesting that the wealth is spread more evenly throughout the country.

As for my conclusions regarding a correlation between income inequality and crime, well that is purely speculative and just something I wanted to throw into the debate. Whether I am right or wrong is of no concern to me, I just wondered why Switzerland has so many guns and such a low rate of gun crime.


----------



## Scoope (Oct 19, 2010)

thankyou smrobs and all for explaining it alittle more - here in NZ we often get reports of shootings and people going postal in educational institutions etc (which I know is not solely an American occurance , it is just that America is where we usually get the reports from) and gang violence - much of which I am sure is greatly sensationalized by the media - a little like a round of Chinese whispers at times. We rarely hear good reports and America is very much presented as a 'gun toting' place to avoid - atleast in recent years. I know , as an individual that when I am travelling I try to avoid passing through America at all costs - recently for example we opted for a 39 hour trip to avoid passing through LAX as we are treated like cattle there and it is utter hell being a foreigner in transit in an American airport due to the stringent security methods (which I understand totally why they are in-place, it is just as a forigner travelling it is horrible!)

It is good to hear - from the horses mouth per say - that America is not solely how it is represented to us, I for one would love to visit one day - and we fully intend , when our child is alittle old enough to make the 'pilgrammage' to Disney world that is so covited by all small children. 

Like I said in my initial post, I understand completely re- the wild animals , but , here in NZ - we do not have any of these , being a glorified island (or two if you want to get technical) we are proudly minus any of these threats - the only big cats I have ever seen are the lions at the zoo! and those are through a large sheed of re-enforced glass, a moat and a high electric fence!. Those of you hiking and camping in the wilds must have some serious gonads, I would have the serious quakes and would be locking myself in my car!! - although I dont suppose that is much protection against a Bear is it!!. 

A slightly random question though - I have always wondered - are there really Moose just wandering around town?? and are they bigger than a horse?? or more deer like?? and will they come and bite you?? or will they run away like a deer?? I just have visions of one trying to get into a house or a car (have never actually seen a Moose mind you - but have always wandered what they are like!)


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Scoope, moose are the largest deer on the planet, and some are much bigger than a horse. They're _huge _when fully grown, especially the males.

Moose aren't native to the southern parts of the U.S., but you can find them in the more northern climates, as well as Canada and Alaska.


----------



## Scoope (Oct 19, 2010)

WOW!! that is so cool  thanks  he would seriously give me the willies if I opened the curtains and saw him looking back at me!!


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

More moose pictures:


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

The moose was waiting for its parking space. 

I am told they are big and grumpy things. Cute in photos though.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

I saw a bunch of them when we went to Jackson Hole, as well as tons of elk and pronghorns. 

We saw one momma moose with a baby, but stayed well away from her. Momma anythings with babies to protect are not something to tease! :shock:


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

sarahver said:


> ...My comments were more directed at _inequality_ of said wealth. More than one third of the country’s wealth is held by less than 1% of the population....


Many conservatives would look at that and reply, "So what?"

In America, we believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of results. That doesn't mean we or any other society have or could reach total equality, but we don't try to achieve equality of outcome. Why? Because the only way to ensure everyone is of equal height is to cut down those who grow too tall...

Also, remember that income isn't always defined the same. The Wiki article on your statistical tool notes: "Income in the United States is counted before benefits, while in France it is counted after benefits, which may lead the United States to appear somewhat more unequal vis-a-vis France."

People in the bottom 20% of income in the US receive benefits that, on average, double their 'income' without it being considered income. My wife is a nurse, and commented the other night on a poor patient who came it, couldn't pay, was complaining of headaches, and received an MRI at Arizona's expense to ensure she didn't have something seriously wrong with her. I can promise you that if I went in complaining of headaches, Tricare would NOT pay for an MRI.

The war on poverty in the US has, IMHO, been won. In the 60s, I can remember going through the south and seeing people literally living in shacks made of time and tarpaper. Poor people were skinny. Now, obesity is probably the leading health problem in poor people.

In the early 90s, I was in Texas. My neighbor was on welfare. The state had purchased the house next to mine and kept him there because it wasn't fair for poor people to live in poor neighborhoods. Of course, the enlisted guys working for me had to pay rent, and THEY lived in the poor parts of town. During my 2 years there, he never found work. The state would pay taxis to come and take him places. He somehow found money for cable TV & booze, both of which I did without.

The phrase John Kennedy used was "A rising tide lifts all boats" (John F. Kennedy: Remarks in Heber Springs, Arkansas, at the Dedication of Greers Ferry Dam.) As long as the cheapest boats are being lifted, why worry about how high the other boats go? Americans historically believe in economic opportunity, not class warfare.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

I particularly like the quote you mentioned “The only way to ensure everyone is of equal height is to cut down those who grow too tall...” Very true. Socialism vs. Capitalism and worthy of an entire debate in itself, perhaps another day. 

Like I said, a lot of what I have written is purely speculation on my behalf. I know that you have said that people shoot because they come from broken families, or have no father, or have no morals, or make bad choices etc etc etc. I get that. 

Lets assume that EVERYTHING I proposed is wrong, what do YOU think the difference between Switzerland (*high* gun ownership per capita, *low* incidence of gun crime) and the US (*high* gun ownership per capita, *high* incidence of gun crimes)? The reason I ask is because I agree in theory that gun restrictions will NOT help the situation and such restrictions would violate core American values. I respect that.

But perhaps if someone could figure out what causes people to pull the trigger in instances where they SHOULDN’T, then no-one would have to worry about restrictions being put in place and this debate would be moot.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

I would guess it has to do with the vast difference in the American population vs the population of Switzerland. We are VERY diverse.

Plus, it might also be something so silly as how crimes/violence are reported and tracked. The per person numbers might not be so far off if they are compared that way. (No basis for this thought, just a thought. It is a common reason for statistics making something look lop sided though, just how they are kept, collected, etc.)


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Alwaysbehind said:


> Plus, it might also be something so silly as how crimes/violence are reported and tracked. The per person numbers might not be so far off if they are compared that way. (No basis for this thought, just a thought. It is a common reason for statistics making something look lop sided though, just how they are kept, collected, etc.)


Ha ha, well if that is the case don’t tell the pro-guns groups because Switzerland is their poster child and held up as a shining example of why more people _should_ have guns. They would be bitterly disappointed if the stats had been misinterpreted I am sure. :wink:


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

How many people live in Switzerland, versus how many live in the U.S.? Plus, there's probably not as much cultural diversity because they're a smaller nation. 

We have millions of people and each region, much less each state, has its own culture. We all speak the same language and fall under the same Federal government, but states vary greatly in their laws. 

For instance, in CA and OR it's illegal to slaughter horses for _any_ purpose. In the 48 other states, the only restriction is that you may not _sell_ horse meat for human consumption. You can give it away, but you can't sell it.

When this republic (not a democracy, it's never been a democracy) was conceived, the idea was to have states make their own laws and governments, and they'd all be tied loosely together under one Federal body. The Federal government was originally meant to have very little actual power, and each state was supposed to govern themselves.

Our American Civil War was started over states' rights, not the institution of slavery, as is so commonly believed. The southern states wanted to keep separate governments as it had been conceived originally, and they rebelled against the Federal government telling them what they could or couldn't do.

The Union won, which was not surprising since the north had most of the industry and the south had most of the agriculture. The south was pretty much doomed from the start and had hoped for help from France, who wisely stayed out of what was a local squabble.

So the states lost the majority of their powers, which reverted to the Federal government.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

AB and SR – Interesting theory, I hadn’t thought of it that way. Yes the US is indeed much more diverse so perhaps that diversity contributes to gun crimes? I suppose that would mean that the levels of gun crime will not be lowering any time in soon.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

We're just so big concerning land mass, cultural diversity, and population density, that I don't see how Switzerland is comparable to the U.S. when it comes to guns, Sarah.

The Swiss are used to the government telling them what to do, and I, along with many other Americans, grew up with the idea that for every measure of security or comfort we allow the government to take out of our control, we lose a civil liberty. So when we see what appears to be socialist movement in our government, we get a little antsy.

Our neighbor to the north, Canada, is closer to being a socialist nation than we are. Sure, they have government run health care and everyone gets it, but I've heard horror stories about the care, or the time it takes to even have routine things scheduled. Many Canadians come to the U.S. for their health care because they know it's a capitalist system, and money CAN buy them the best.

There are just so many factors into the WHY of what happens here, and I don't think banning firearms is the answer.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

True, two very different countries. Although I did get the idea of comparing the two from an _Pro-gun_ website, so it wasn’t my idea originally. Here’s the website.

http://wn.com/PROGUN

I probably shouldn’t have weighed in on this one but thought it was interesting, didn’t mean to offend anyone in the slightest. I am not American and so probably shouldn’t be commenting on such things at all. 

For the record, I never suggested BANNING guns :wink:


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Don't be silly, you have just as much right to discuss gun control as anyone. 

I know you never said anything about banning guns in the U.S., so no worries there. I doubt you've offended anyone, either.

I like to hear differing views, as long as we can keep the discussion civil and mature. I think we've managed to do that, less a few notable exceptions early on. :wink:

Pro gun websites, like pro PETA or anti slaughter websites, are going to slant statistics to their own liking. As with everything in life, there are fanatics on every side of the issue, with the more rational folks in the middle.

I just think comparing Switzerland to the U.S. is laughable, and a very far reach.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

I have been thinking about this thread all day so here are my thoughts. 

America fought for it's freedom. We were not granted our freedom by the Crown so we have a different mindset when it comes to having a powerful central government. Also we have two borders and two oceans at at some time in our history we have fought wars at each one. That has quite an effect on a populace. Currently, while our northern nieghbors are quite easy to get along with, our southern neighbors are in the midsts of an undeclared civil war that is spilling over into our country. Drugs that are smuggled across the border are a contributing factor to 90% of our violent crime. Countries that sit in a semi-remote corner of the ocean don't have those problems.

Dinner time.


----------



## Whisper22 (Jan 2, 2011)

Speed Racer said:


> Scoope, moose are the largest deer on the planet, and some are much bigger than a horse. They're _huge _when fully grown, especially the males.
> 
> Moose aren't native to the southern parts of the U.S., but you can find them in the more northern climates, as well as Canada and Alaska.
> 
> ...


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

Kevin, well put.

I am also glad to see this thread staying as a mature place for discussion instead of a yelling match .

The crime rate here is subject to several exceptions too. While the number of crimes is fairly high (at least higher than any of us would like it to be), the number of criminals per capita isn't as high as you might think because many of the crimes committed are done by repeat offenders. For example, one person can add 20 or 30 crimes to the total during their life. 

I don't know how it is in the rest of the states, but here in Texas the recidivism rate is like 75%. That means 75% of criminals who get out of prison/jail will end up back inside within a very short amount of time. There were several inmates in the prison where I used to work that were in their 50's and 60's but had not been out of prison/jail for more than a year total since they were in their teens.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

kevinshorses said:


> I have been thinking about this thread all day so here are my thoughts.
> 
> America fought for it's freedom. We were not granted our freedom by the Crown so we have a different mindset when it comes to having a powerful central government. Also we have two borders and two oceans at at some time in our history we have fought wars at each one. That has quite an effect on a populace. Currently, while our northern nieghbors are quite easy to get along with, our southern neighbors are in the midsts of an undeclared civil war that is spilling over into our country. Drugs that are smuggled across the border are a contributing factor to 90% of our violent crime. *Countries that sit in a semi-remote corner of the ocean don't have those problems*.
> 
> Dinner time.


Well said Kevin. Not sure what you are getting at in the bold though....?! Just kidding. :wink:

Yeah things are different here but I am learning! I honestly had no idea that the pro-guns groups are just a bunch of crazies like PETA (thanks SR) now I know to ignore them! Don't worry I didn't take any info from their website, most of that was from the BBC.

So I accept your right to bear arms don't worry.

Good discussion Smrobs, what next - Pro Life??


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

Not all pro-gun folks are crazies :wink:.

Boy, the pro-life/pro-choice debate, I have a feeling, wouldn't last nearly as long as this one has. Though I haven't noticed any of our resident religious nutjobs around for a while. Hmmmm:think:.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

OMG! Please, not that!


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Noted as per pro gun groups - some good, some crazy.

As for the more holy posters on here, I haven't seen any mention recently of God making decisions about selling a horse or having its feet trimmed or divine intervention as a treatment of colic so perhaps they are no longer here? Too bad, they woulda been great for a Pro Life debate.

Oh well, I'm off to Houston - Wessside of course he he. See? I am assimilating.


----------

