Guns.

[the new JR Jansen]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by the new JR Jansen: quote: Originally posted by Sir Heinrich Godfrie IV: quote: Posted By: JR Jansen The difference being that the US has more serious crimes, aka armed robberies, murders. etc. Why ? Because it's easier for untrained people to get a gun. Not just a gun, but one that packs power. Again why do you need an SMG when a pistol will suffice ?

who said anything about arming yourself with a sub-machine gun?

and it's not about untrained people getting a gun and maybe using it. it's about criminals HAVING a gun, and you don't. thats all i'm trying to say.[/QUOTE]The point is that owning an SMG is overkill. It is legal in certain states of the US to own it. Again, i don't have anything against responsible people owning a pistol or rifle but an SMG IS overkill.
It's all about untrained, and even worse, unbalanced people owning a gun. That's why so many people get shot over, well, nothing, if you think about it. If the criminal has a gun and you don't, i agree that, to put it mildly, you are at a disadvantage. But it's rather easy for untrained and unstable people to get one legally. The threat doesn't lie solely with the criminals. If you allow such a free selling of guns, overpowered guns to people who aren't carefull enough with them or are not totally balanced, you're going to get 'accidents'. Why do you need a very powerfull gun to protect yourself when a normal pistol will do ? This is my point. Again i do not have anything against trained and balanced people owning a gun but why does it have to be a powerfull one ?[/QUOTE]Contrary to media hysteria, not very many people get shot in the USA with Submachineguns, Machineguns or assault rifles. You are way way way more likely to be killed in a car wrek.....And I can assure you, if you are killed by a bullet...you do not give a damn wether it was from a hand gun, a rifle or a machine gun.

With over 400 MILLION firearms leglally owned in the USA the percentage of all firearms used to commit crimes is miniscule. Guns are not the problem.

Actually considering that there are roughly 300 million people in the USA, the percentage of anyone getting shot for any reason is quite low too. Someone else pointed out that only 67% of the murders are due to firearms...so almost half are due to other means.[/QUOTE]Ok then don't take a submachine gun, take a desert eagle for instance. If, and that's what you are talking about, want to use a gun in self defence, wich i condone mind you, how powerfull does it need to be ? I mean, in most situations, you will not be far from your target. A normal pistol does enough damage to stop someone like that. The point i'm making is not that i'm against trained, stable individuals having a gun, i'm only trying to make clear that it doesn't have to be a very powerfull gun. The fact that they are legal is the proof. Those should be outlawed, even if not many people own such a gun.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Originaly posted by:the new JR Jansen

Ok then don't take a submachine gun, take a desert eagle for instance. If, and that's what you are talking about, want to use a gun in self defence, wich i condone mind you, how powerfull does it need to be ? I mean, in most situations, you will not be far from your target. A normal pistol does enough damage to stop someone like that. The point i'm making is not that i'm against trained, stable individuals having a gun, i'm only trying to make clear that it doesn't have to be a very powerfull gun. The fact that they are legal is the proof. Those should be outlawed, even if not many people own such a gun.

I own a desert eagle and I resent you malighning my beautifull chrome plated weapon!! Besides, It has 3 sets of interchangeable barells and components to make it either a .22 cal,a .44mag, or a .50cal. If you take that into accout then a Desert Eagle isnt realy all that powerfull because you can barely get through a soda can with a .22 cal gun. On the other hand , if someone breaks into your house and your gonna shoot them wouldnt you want a .50cal gun to make sure they didnt get back up after you shot them? I mean if your going to shoot someone dont you want to do it right the first time? Besides that , a shot gun loaded with a slug will do WAYYYYYYY more damage than even the most powerfull hand gun , and IF I am remembering correctly shot guns are legal through most of europe.

[ 05-20-2002, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: The Hunter of Jahanna ]

Originally posted by the new JR Jansen: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by the new JR Jansen: quote: Originally posted by Sir Heinrich Godfrie IV: quote: Posted By: JR Jansen The difference being that the US has more serious crimes, aka armed robberies, murders. etc. Why ? Because it's easier for untrained people to get a gun. Not just a gun, but one that packs power. Again why do you need an SMG when a pistol will suffice ?

who said anything about arming yourself with a sub-machine gun?

and it's not about untrained people getting a gun and maybe using it. it's about criminals HAVING a gun, and you don't. thats all i'm trying to say.[/QUOTE]The point is that owning an SMG is overkill. It is legal in certain states of the US to own it. Again, i don't have anything against responsible people owning a pistol or rifle but an SMG IS overkill.
It's all about untrained, and even worse, unbalanced people owning a gun. That's why so many people get shot over, well, nothing, if you think about it. If the criminal has a gun and you don't, i agree that, to put it mildly, you are at a disadvantage. But it's rather easy for untrained and unstable people to get one legally. The threat doesn't lie solely with the criminals. If you allow such a free selling of guns, overpowered guns to people who aren't carefull enough with them or are not totally balanced, you're going to get 'accidents'. Why do you need a very powerfull gun to protect yourself when a normal pistol will do ? This is my point. Again i do not have anything against trained and balanced people owning a gun but why does it have to be a powerfull one ?[/QUOTE]Contrary to media hysteria, not very many people get shot in the USA with Submachineguns, Machineguns or assault rifles. You are way way way more likely to be killed in a car wrek.....And I can assure you, if you are killed by a bullet...you do not give a damn wether it was from a hand gun, a rifle or a machine gun.

With over 400 MILLION firearms leglally owned in the USA the percentage of all firearms used to commit crimes is miniscule. Guns are not the problem.

Actually considering that there are roughly 300 million people in the USA, the percentage of anyone getting shot for any reason is quite low too. Someone else pointed out that only 67% of the murders are due to firearms...so almost half are due to other means.[/QUOTE]Ok then don't take a submachine gun, take a desert eagle for instance. If, and that's what you are talking about, want to use a gun in self defence, wich i condone mind you, how powerfull does it need to be ? I mean, in most situations, you will not be far from your target. A normal pistol does enough damage to stop someone like that. The point i'm making is not that i'm against trained, stable individuals having a gun, i'm only trying to make clear that it doesn't have to be a very powerfull gun. The fact that they are legal is the proof. Those should be outlawed, even if not many people own such a gun.[/QUOTE]Actually JR Automatic weapons (in the USA) are only illegal if 1. you are a fellon or 2. You cannot come up with the $5000 Federal Firearms Fee for the registration of such...the only reason they are illegal at all is so that the government can charge an arm and a leg for the license, that $5,000 every year.

As for how powerful is powerful enough, well thats pretty subjective, besides power isnt the only criteria, I own a .357 Magnum, now if I used a heavy load with a solid slug, that would penetrate the villian, the wall behind him, the car across the street and the next wall behind that......so instead I load my .357Mag with what is called "sanke shot" it is a special shell that is like a mini-shotgun shell, the pelets will stop an intruder..and knock him on his ass but won't kill my neighbors....if you are going to own a gun, you are SUPPOSED to know how to use it properly.

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: Originaly posted by:the new JR Jansen quote: Ok then don't take a submachine gun, take a desert eagle for instance. If, and that's what you are talking about, want to use a gun in self defence, wich i condone mind you, how powerfull does it need to be ? I mean, in most situations, you will not be far from your target. A normal pistol does enough damage to stop someone like that. The point i'm making is not that i'm against trained, stable individuals having a gun, i'm only trying to make clear that it doesn't have to be a very powerfull gun. The fact that they are legal is the proof. Those should be outlawed, even if not many people own such a gun.

I own a desert eagle and I resent you malighning my beautifull chrome plated weapon!! Besides, It has 3 sets of interchangeable barells and components to make it either a .22 cal,a .44mag, or a .50cal. If you take that into accout then a Desert Eagle isnt realy all that powerfull because you can barely get through a soda can with a .22 cal gun. On the other hand , if someone breaks into your house and your gonna shoot them wouldnt you want a .50cal gun to make sure they didnt get back up after you shot them? I mean if your going to shoot someone dont you want to do it right the first time?[/QUOTE]Hunter, .22 cal's are quite lethal and it would take a dozen or more soda cans to stop the round, a .22 will usually penetrate a stop sign (not that "I" would ever shoot government property) unless I suppose you are useing hollow points...but I don't want anyone getting the idea they can shoot their buddies with a .22 and expect them to live.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Sorry magik , for the record I was NOT advocateing shooting ANYONE!! but I do see your point.

[Sir Heinrich Godfrie IV]

Posted By: JR Jansen The point is that owning an SMG is overkill. It is legal in certain states of the US to own it. Again, i don't have anything against responsible people owning a pistol or rifle but an SMG IS overkill. It's all about untrained, and even worse, unbalanced people owning a gun. That's why so many people get shot over, well, nothing, if you think about it. If the criminal has a gun and you don't, i agree that, to put it mildly, you are at a disadvantage. But it's rather easy for untrained and unstable people to get one legally. The threat doesn't lie solely with the criminals. If you allow such a free selling of guns, overpowered guns to people who aren't carefull enough with them or are not totally balanced, you're going to get 'accidents'. Why do you need a very powerfull gun to protect yourself when a normal pistol will do ? This is my point. Again i do not have anything against trained and balanced people owning a gun but why does it have to be a powerfull one ?

what do you mean by saying that the primary problem is untrained unbalanced people having a gun?

correct me if i'm wrong but the vast majority of murders within "civilized" nations happens in the inner city and other crime infested areas, do they not? therefore it's not about mentally ill individuals getting or finding a gun and using it, it's about CRIMINALS and thugs who ARE mentally balanced using it for the wrong reasons.

and like i said earlier i do not think that SMGs have much use, unless you live in a war-zone.

although i want to mention that the swiss government REQUIRES their citizens to own a machine gun. atleast thats what i was told by someone who knows alot on this subject. if that is true, then why do we not hear about people going on murderous rampages over there??

[Sir Heinrich Godfrie IV]

hey Magik. i tried voting but i'm having a problem with the javascript. when i click on the vote now button it does nothing. and my address bar reads: javascript:void(0).

maybe you have no idea whats this means or why i'm not able to vote but i'm sure someone else does.

oh well, atleast you know how i feel.

[Sir Heinrich Godfrie IV]

Posted By: Magik No, you would not cut the murder rate by 67% you would force the murderers to find some other and possibly more violent way to kill their victims.

Posted by: Magik And the less personal freedom you have...funny that. And Im still trying to figure out how you are going to make the criminals turn over all their illegal firearms after you disarm the populace?

Amen brother! Amen!

for those who still think that GUNS are the problem (Dramnek), i want to let you know that every fall there is a thing called hunting. and where i live there are hundreds of thousands of people who head out into the woods (within Minnesota & Wisconsin). and nobody gets murdered! and for that matter, very very very few people get killed accidentily.

sooo wwhat dooes that prove??? hhmm...need i say more??

[Donut]

Originally posted by Sir Heinrich Godfrie IV: quote: Posted By: Donut So there is no burglary in the US then - is that what you are saying?

come on get real. burglaries happen LESS often per capita within the US than in countries that have self-defenseless citizens. guns are a deterient.[/QUOTE]Absolute rubbish. Where are the facts to back up this ridiculous statement.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Sir Heinrich Godfrie IV: quote: Posted By: JR Jansen

what do you mean by saying that the primary problem is untrained unbalanced people having a gun?

correct me if i'm wrong but the vast majority of murders within "civilized" nations happens in the inner city and other crime infested areas, do they not? therefore it's not about mentally ill individuals getting or finding a gun and using it, it's about CRIMINALS and thugs who ARE mentally balanced using it for the wrong reasons.

and like i said earlier i do not think that SMGs have much use, unless you live in a war-zone.

although i want to mention that the swiss government REQUIRES their citizens to own a machine gun. atleast thats what i was told by someone who knows alot on this subject. if that is true, then why do we not hear about people going on murderous rampages over there??[/QUOTE]You are wrong again. The vast majority of murders are not committed by criminals. The majority of murders are committed by family or by people who are known to the victim.

Switzerland again! I'll go through this once more because you are new to the board. Men in Switzerland are required to own a rifle (not a machine gun!). The rifle must be kept in a sealed container. They are issued with 20 rounds of ammunition which must also be kept sealed. The type of ammunition used is not available to be purchased so there is no possibility of them getting more. There are regular checks to make sure that the ammunition has not been used. It is difficult (although not impossible) to use a rifle to commit crime because you can't conceal it. The limited ammunition makes it difficult to go on a rampage. I hope that you can pass this information on to your friend who knows a lot about this subject.

Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership in the western world and has the second highest number of gun related deaths. I'll leave it to you to work out which country is number one in both of these statistics.

BTW - given the respect that Winston Churchill has in the US I think it only right to point out the inaccuracy in the the quote in your sig. Firstly there is no record of Churchill ever using these words. Secondly, even if he had, both of the words 'Liberal' and 'Conservative should be capitalised because they refer to political parties rather than fixed political ideologies. It is the same as describing someone as a democrat or a Democrat. The first meaning someone who believes in democracy and the second meaning a supporter of the Democrat party.

Churchill was originally a member of the Conservative (Tory) party at the age of 25, switched to the Liberal (Whig) party at 35 before returning to the Conservative party.