where are the anti gun people at

[johnney]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_re_us/washer_death)
so are we going to start seeing anti-washing machine groups poping up? if this would have been a handgun they would be screaming it from the roof tops



MISSION VIEJO, Calif. – Authorities say a 4-year-old girl died after she climbed into a washing machine and her little brother switched it on.

Orange County sheriff's officials say Kayley Ishii apparently climbed into the front-loading washer Monday and her 15-month-old brother managed to start the device.

[Noir]

I love the way you try and sterotype our thoughts to the cause of death, silly johnney.

[darin]

There was a viscious knife-attack in brittian, iirc, a week or two ago...Again, Folks who are anti-gun are part of a religion. Doesn't have to make sense. They lack the foresight and wisdom to see beyond the "Guns are bad" mantra.

[Noir]

Indeed knife crime is a problem over here, it's the weapon of choice for allot of criminals, but there is only so much you can do with knives, beond which deaths will be unavoidable, in saying that though, I would far rather have a knife crime problem, than a gun crime problem, wouldn't you?

[Monkeybone]

Indeed knife crime is a problem over here, it's the weapon of choice for allot of criminals, but there is only so much you can do with knives, beond which deaths will be unavoidable, in saying that though, I would far rather have a knife crime problem, than a gun crime problem, wouldn't you?

key word. crime. not accidents and such, but crime.

and why would you have one over the other? they both kill ppl. knives are just as, if not more concealable than guns. true you lose range with a knife.

[Noir]

key word. crime. not accidents and such, but crime.

and why would you have one over the other? they both kill ppl. knives are just as, if not more concealable than guns. true you lose range with a knife.


I would rather have a knife problem becuase I guy can not go into a knife and kill 30 people in minutes, infact they may not be able to kill 1, a knife relies on CQC, in which case there are always odds both ways, however if a guy walks into a school with a gun then your only hope is that either he doesn't shoot you or If you are shot it's not serious. Again while neither are desirable I know which I would rather.

[johnney]

I love the way you try and sterotype our thoughts to the cause of death, silly johnney.
not even a little silly. there is a need for weapons in todays society. regardless of what anti's think.

[johnney]

I would rather have a knife problem becuase I guy can not go into a knife and kill 30 people in minutes, infact they may not be able to kill 1, a knife relies on CQC, in which case there are always odds both ways, however if a guy walks into a school with a gun then your only hope is that either he doesn't shoot you or If you are shot it's not serious. Again while neither are desirable I know which I would rather.

well lets go this direction. what if someone drives through a school yard running everyone over. would there be an outcry to ban cars/ trucks then? nope. why not?

[Noir]

well lets go this direction. what if someone drives through a school yard running everyone over. would there be an outcry to ban cars/ trucks then? nope. why not?

But cars have a use other than runing folk over, guns don't. I accept there is hunting, and here we have strict rules for owning a hunting rifle and that's fine. But you do not need an Uzi for hunting, and the arguement of protection is a myth.

The problem you guys have is that guns have been avaiabpe for so long, to so many, that trying to reduce the weapons will be near impossible, and you guys will be feeling the pain of it for many years to come, in the form of tens of thousands of dead men, women and children.

[johnney]

But cars have a use other than runing folk over, guns don't. I accept there is hunting, and here we have strict rules for owning a hunting rifle and that's fine. But you do not need an Uzi for hunting, and the arguement of protection is a myth.

The problem you guys have is that guns have been avaiabpe for so long, to so many, that trying to reduce the weapons will be near impossible, and you guys will be feeling the pain of it for many years to come, in the form of tens of thousands of dead men, women and children.

so for you getting rid of guns equals getting rid of crime? getting rid of gun only takes guns out of the law abiding citizens hands. you take away a means for us to protect ourselves and families. why should i loose that right? and while we are at it, why should the right to protect myself end at my doorway?

[Noir]

so for you getting rid of guns equals getting rid of crime? getting rid of gun only takes guns out of the law abiding citizens hands. you take away a means for us to protect ourselves and families. why should i loose that right? and while we are at it, why should the right to protect myself end at my doorway?

Like I said, you guys are fucked, guns have been available freely for so long that criminals will have had no trouble getting guns.

Whereas we have had strict gun controls for many years, and they have been tightened in 1997, since when we have seen around a 30% drop in gun deaths from around 300 a year to around 200 a year, compared to you guys that have around 11000 a year. The stats are clear no? And we have hunters aswell except they are heavily regulated, and all I'd fine for them.

[Little-Acorn]

But cars have a use other than runing folk over, guns don't.
(doubletake)

Huh????

There are literally millions of events every year in this country, where a guy assaults or threatens or etc. a victim, and the victim turns out to have a gun.

In the vast majority, the victim never fires the gun.

He mentions the gun, or shows it in the holster, or pulls it out and points it at the sky or ground, or (more rarely) pulls it out and points it at the perp. The perp either runs like hell, or surrenders.

In the occasional instances where the victim fires the gun, it's usually a warning shot into the air.

Only rarely does he fire it at the perp and hit him. In most of those cases, the perp is injured, not killed.

In VERY rare instances, the perp is killed by his intended victim.

Studies by the U.S. Dept. of Justice and other groups have demonstrated these facts many times.

Bottom line: A gun in a law-abiding citizen's hands is usually used to DETER a crime, with no one being injured or killed.

The argument that guns have no purpose other than to kill, is laughable.

If no victims had guns (especially if the criminals KNOW that no victims have guns), there would be a lot more crimes, and probably a lot more injuries and deaths to law-abiding people.

When I hear people trying to argue for the disarmament of law-abiding citizens, I have to wonder if that's not exactly what they want to accomplish.

Noir?

[-Cp]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_re_us/washer_death)
so are we going to start seeing anti-washing machine groups poping up? if this would have been a handgun they would be screaming it from the roof tops

Obviously they need to make people get permits to have one and only after a background check...its not like people couldn't use the age old solution of clothes pins and line drying...hrm wait kids might accidentally choke themselves...we better just outlaw clothes washing all together ...which, wait a MINUTE.... I have a brilliant idea!! - if we outlaw washing clothes, people will have to buy new ones which will also help stimulate the economy!!!!!! Holy crap I need to call my Senator to relay this genius!!

[johnney]

Like I said, you guys are fucked, guns have been available freely for so long that criminals will have had no trouble getting guns.

Whereas we have had strict gun controls for many years, and they have been tightened in 1997, since when we have seen around a 30% drop in gun deaths from around 300 a year to around 200 a year, compared to you guys that have around 11000 a year. The stats are clear no? And we have hunters aswell except they are heavily regulated, and all I'd fine for them.

were not fucked at all, remember we have all the guns.
why would you put your safety in the hands of the police? how many crimes happen with the cops present?
regardless if you hunt, collect, or have for home protection, you should be able to have what ever type of gun you want. i have at least one gun in every room in my house.
like i said before, when you take guns out of homes, you take guns out of the law abiding citizens. thats why criminals live gun control, it means when they break into your house and all you can produce is a steak knife, he knows your easy pickings.

[Little-Acorn]

http://www.newsmax.com/inside_cover/guns_england/2007/08/26/27556.html

UK Gun Crimes Soar After Gun Ban

Sunday, August 26, 2007 8:36 PM

Gun crimes in England have almost doubled since 1997, when a ban on firearms began.

According to the Sunday Times of London, crimes in which guns were used numbered 4,671 in 2005-06.

Also, government officials report that most gun crime is committed by children and teenagers under 18 years old.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, told the Telegraph: "What this shows is that the majority of these crimes are committed by youngsters under 18.

"The government's policy has failed with the group most responsible for this increase in crime. It is long past time the Government stopped believing its own propaganda, and took measures to get a grip."

[johnney]

(doubletake)

huh????

There are literally millions of events every year in this country, where a guy assaults or threatens or etc. A victim, and the victim turns out to have a gun.

In the vast majority, the victim never fires the gun.

He mentions the gun, or shows it in the holster, or pulls it out and points it at the sky or ground, or (more rarely) pulls it out and points it at the perp. The perp either runs like hell, or surrenders.

In the occasional instances where the victim fires the gun, it's usually a warning shot into the air.

Only rarely does he fire it at the perp and hit him. In most of those cases, the perp is injured, not killed.

In very rare instances, the perp is killed by his intended victim.

Studies by the u.s. Dept. Of justice and other groups have demonstrated these facts many times.

Bottom line: A gun in a law-abiding citizen's hands is usually used to deter a crime, with no one being injured or killed.

The argument that guns have no purpose other than to kill, is laughable.

If no victims had guns (especially if the criminals know that no victims have guns), there would be a lot more crimes, and probably a lot more injuries and deaths to law-abiding people.

When i hear people trying to argue for the disarmament of law-abiding citizens, i have to wonder if that's not exactly what they want to accomplish.

Noir?

amen

[johnney]

Obviously they need to make people get permits to have one and only after a background check...its not like people couldn't use the age old solution of clothes pins and line drying...hrm wait kids might accidentally choke themselves...we better just outlaw clothes washing all together ...which, wait a MINUTE.... I have a brilliant idea!! - if we outlaw washing clothes, people will have to buy new ones which will also help stimulate the economy!!!!!! Holy crap I need to call my Senator to relay this genius!!

as long as we dont outlaw clothes... i work with some scary people

[Noir]

Well if that's true then there would be shit loads of folk being shot and held at gun point in the UK as the criminals know we have no guns, right?...oh, we, a 30% drop in gun deaths to about 200 a year...hm...

Good to see you want to debate gun deaths again, last time I debated with yourself (LA) and hobbit about them, and after using stats from a UK goverment source, you then critized me for using stats from a UK goverment source, satin they were not reliable, remember? You never did reply after that, nor did hobbit...

Like I said you guys are fucked if you do and fucked if you don't. So you may grow use to the massive death toll every year, cus you guys have made a blood soaked bed, and now you may lie in it.

[Little-Acorn]

Well if that's true then there would be shit loads of folk being shot and held at gun point in the UK as the criminals know we have no guns, right?

Right.

----------------------------------------------------

http://www.newsmax.com/inside_cover/guns_england/2007/08/26/27556.html

UK Gun Crimes Soar After Gun Ban

Sunday, August 26, 2007 8:36 PM

Gun crimes in England have almost doubled since 1997, when a ban on firearms began.

According to the Sunday Times of London, crimes in which guns were used numbered 4,671 in 2005-06.

Also, government officials report that most gun crime is committed by children and teenagers under 18 years old.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, told the Telegraph: "What this shows is that the majority of these crimes are committed by youngsters under 18.

"The government's policy has failed with the group most responsible for this increase in crime. It is long past time the Government stopped believing its own propaganda, and took measures to get a grip."

--------------------------------------------------------

Who, again, is "fucked"?

:D

[johnney]

Well if that's true then there would be shit loads of folk being shot and held at gun point in the UK as the criminals know we have no guns, right?...oh, we, a 30% drop in gun deaths to about 200 a year...hm...

Good to see you want to debate gun deaths again, last time I debated with yourself (LA) and hobbit about them, and after using stats from a UK goverment source, you then critized me for using stats from a UK goverment source, satin they were not reliable, remember? You never did reply after that, nor did hobbit...

Like I said you guys are fucked if you do and fucked if you don't. So you may grow use to the massive death toll every year, cus you guys have made a blood soaked bed, and now you may lie in it.

and if you are willing to put your well being soley in the hands of your govenment, then you are fucked too. Darin said this in another thread, and i have seen it all over the internet, "when seconds count, the cops are minutes away".
im not as willing. ill lay in that blood soaked bed and be happy im safe. guns made this country free and we will always have them around. when they take our right to bear arms, what right is next?

[Mr. P]

I would rather have a knife problem becuase I guy can not go into a knife and kill 30 people in minutes, infact they may not be able to kill 1, a knife relies on CQC, in which case there are always odds both ways, however if a guy walks into a school with a gun then your only hope is that either he doesn't shoot you or If you are shot it's not serious. Again while neither are desirable I know which I would rather.

Guess you missed that 911 thing, huh?

[red states rule]

But cars have a use other than runing folk over, guns don't. I accept there is hunting, and here we have strict rules for owning a hunting rifle and that's fine. But you do not need an Uzi for hunting, and the arguement of protection is a myth.

The problem you guys have is that guns have been avaiabpe for so long, to so many, that trying to reduce the weapons will be near impossible, and you guys will be feeling the pain of it for many years to come, in the form of tens of thousands of dead men, women and children.

and when the folks are unarmed, how do they deal with criminals who break into their homes? Use harsh anguage?

What would you do Noir?

The US cities with the harshest gun laws, have the most crime. The criminals know they law abiding citizens are sitting ducks