A sad day

[Cadiva]

I have to ask here, as other forum i shall not mention, failed to answer it ocmpletely:

He was an actor, member of NRA, liked guns...and people hate him for what?

The utter amount of hatred towards this guy just baffles me, especially since there's no real reason given.

About guns and gun laws, i think it was in Chuck, on a t-shirt that(paraphrase): "If we outlaw guns, then the only people with guns would be outlaws." NS really.

I don't hate him in the slightest, I didn't know him to be able to form an opinion on whether or not I would have liked him.
What I disliked about him was his attitude to gun ownership, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Dukat]

which has got bugger all to do with anything. really dont care why u wanted them, the point remains, you cant run down your high street maiming people with a pc, and you would be hard pushed to do it with a motorbike, beyond the first clump of people you ploughed into.
its got nothing to do with what joe public wants, its got everything to do with what retards, and unbalanced people, being able to do with them

Actually it was relevent, you were talking about how people dont NEED things but WANT them. I was illustrating the point that most people have things that they WANT but dont NEED.

Do you really believe that you can do more harm with a samurai sword than with a motorbike if you're properly motivated? what about a car? they're just as easy to get ahold of.

Like I said in my original post, and nath has since repeated, if someone wants to cause harm and is willing to use a samurai sword, do you really think banning the sword in the first place is going to help? dont you think that if they're that sort of person, they'll just use something else, such as a carving knife? would you ban everything they could possibly use to inflict harm before you started thinking that *maybe* the people using them need to be looked at, rather than the instrument of thier acts?

either you are in favour of everyone in the country being able to have all the weapons they could possibly want, cos its their "right", or you arent, the rest is semantics

Are you joking? Do you really think this?

if so I think your own words apply to you FAR more than to fweddy:

"im going to give that the answer it deserves..

lol"

That said, I'm goign to give the question something it doesnt deserve : a decent answer, because I think if everyone did the above to anything they didnt agree with, there isnt alot of point in anyone posting anything, is there?

Just look at nath's nuke example, ofcourse I'm against someone owning a nuke just because they think it makes a nice garden ornament. As I said, I'm not sure about gun laws because it seems like a complicated subject to me. To talk about it as if its as open and shut as you are making it sound is just wrong.

Samurai swords are collectable, they've got alot of history involved, just like the dueling rapiers, broadswords and other period-weaponry. Its not something you can go into a crowded area with and quickly kill lots of people anymore than a carving knife, car, or any other weighty or sharp household object.

There is a valid reason to want one, there are ways to ensure they're kept secure, and worst comes to worst, a maniac can hardly hide it while he's walking down the steet towards a primary school, can he?

I dont pretend to know all of the facts, but to make this sound as neat and tidy as you are is just plain wrong.

 

[DaGaffer]

I'm off on a grater rampage!!!

This could get nasty!

 

[old.Tohtori]

if you want to be the mouthpiece and public face of an organisation that, whatever its design intentions, is a refuge for gun nuts who sit there whining about their "rights" while people are being killed, then you cant really expect to universally loved.

I don't hate him in the slightest, I didn't know him to be able to form an opinion on whether or not I would have liked him.
What I disliked about him was his attitude to gun ownership, nothing more, nothing less.

*bow*

Thanks you and thank you. Finally some answers

 

[Gumbo]

Someone mentioned Micheal Moore earlier. I found it very interesting that throughout Bowling he banged on about the large number of guns being the route of all evil in the states, and then, almost as a postscript he looked at Canada. There, the number of guns per head of population is much higher than in the US, but the gun crime is way way lower. I was suprised this was left in the film as it completely destroyed the preceeding hour and a half of arguments in one fell swoop, and confirmed Heston's and the NRA's viewpoint that it's not the guns fault intrinsically, it is the fucked up americans shooting each other.

I can only surmise that they figured everyone would already be asleep by that point of the film.

 

[Mabs]

stuff

yeah but again , you are missing the point

i was talking about FIREARMS, and ONLY FIREARMS. some of the pro gun people decided to start adding things to the list whimsicly, is their problem.

and will you lot stop making retarded examples.
ZOMG I CAN KILL YOU WITH A CAR.. well thats nice, you could also use a car to go to work
i dont see many people commuting into town on a SWORD

 

[Trem]

Someone mentioned Micheal Moore earlier. I found it very interesting that throughout Bowling he banged on about the large number of guns being the route of all evil in the states, and then, almost as a postscript he looked at Canada. There, the number of guns per head of population is much higher than in the US, but the gun crime is way way lower. I was suprised this was left in the film as it completely destroyed the preceeding hour and a half of arguments in one fell swoop, and confirmed Heston's and the NRA's viewpoint that it's not the guns fault intrinsically, it is the fucked up americans shooting each other.

I can only surmise that they figured everyone would already be asleep by that point of the film.

Exactly.

You sir are full of sex and I am glad it isn't just me that finds Moores films such a load of bollocks its untrue.

Oh and DaGaffer, that picture could never be Jup, hes way shorter, he may even be smaller than Dukat (I doubt it but he may be).

yeah but again , you are missing the point

i was talking about FIREARMS, and ONLY FIREARMS. some of the pro gun people decided to start adding things to the list whimsicly, is their problem.

and will you lot stop making retarded examples.
ZOMG I CAN KILL YOU WITH A CAR.. well thats nice, you could also use a car to go to work
i dont see many people commuting into town on a SWORD

My dad used to have guns, I shot my mum when I was 4 with one of my dads guns, I shot her right through her leg, she obviously still has the scar now.

Now was it my fault that I shot my mum, was it the guns fault I shot my mum or was it my dads fault for taking a loaded Magnum (not the ice cream) on holiday and leaving it in the bedside cabinet?

Quite simply the laws in America need to be tighter for people that own guns, its way too late now as there is too many guns in the country but for every person that gets a gun in the future the laws need to be the same as here. Having said that it won't stop the gun being used for wrong doing if the owner decides to use it that way. Kind of like I have some bleach here now if I wanted to spray some on my bellend that would be my fault not the bleach's.

You cannot ban everything, no matter what it is, just because its dangerous in the wrong hands. My dad never killed anyone but he almost killed me and/or my mum by being a numpty. I have an air pistol and that is in a gun safe, over the top I know but I don't want my son/someone who doesn't know better getting hold of it.

For the record does anyone here, anyone at all think that Tony Martin was wrong for doing what he did with what he used? I for one think he was totally within his rights.

 

[Dukat]

and will you lot stop making retarded examples.

you cant run down your high street maiming people with a pc

i dont see many people commuting into town on a SWORD

I'm not making "retarded" examples anymore than you are, I'm making a point - in exactly the same way you did?

I did point out that I'm aware of the fact that a sword is a purpose built weapon, I even underlined it in my original post. I also pointed out that there are other reasons to own a sword other than to chop someone's head off, didnt you see?

As I said before:

I think that if someones wants to cause harm with a samurai sword, banning the sword will not stop that person causing harm, it will only mean they use something else.

 

[Dukat]

For the record does anyone here, anyone at all think that Tony Martin was wrong for doing what he did with what he used? I for one think he was totally within his rights.

I've said I agreed with the guy did in principle and got flamed for it several times. The guy lived like 20 miles from my home.

 

[Mabs]

I think that if someones wants to cause harm with a samurai sword, banning the sword will not stop that person causing harm, it will only mean they use something else.

exactly, thank you
so in that scenario, man loses samurai sword, has to use kitchen knife
in the one im on about, which is what the whole thread was about before it was diverted is, man loses firearm, has to use something else, single shot, not auto, or a knife not a gun, and so forth

and why is that a bad thing ?!!?! that why i dont understand people defending your argument

 

[Mabs]

or to use the uni thing as an example

how many people do you think you could kill in a packed lecture theatre, before you ran out of ammo, or got tackled by someone if you were using this? :

(its a .22 rifle)

ok, now try again, with this:

(mac10)

thats what im on about, hunting firearms and military type firearms are completely different, civilians do not need the second type
why is that so hard to understand ?

 

[Dukat]

exactly, thank you
so in that scenario, man loses samurai sword, has to use kitchen knife
in the one im on about, which is what the whole thread was about before it was diverted is, man loses firearm, has to use something else, single shot, not auto, or a knife not a gun, and so forth

and why is that a bad thing ?!!?! that why i dont understand people defending your argument

the problem I have is that in the scenario you describe, you would ban the gun the guy had originally, then ban "single shot", then ban the knife, all the way down the line, all because this person wants to cause harm. The guy will end up going out and use a piece of wood in a nail in it and still end up killing someone - yet meanwhile everyone who wants to legally own a weapon for honest purposes has to suffer.

So you've ended up not stopping the guy, and at the same time penalising everyone to try and stop him.

 

[Dukat]

thats what im on about, hunting firearms and military type firearms are completely different, civilians do not need the second type
why is that so hard to understand ?

Maybe this one wasnt aimed at me, if it was, I've already stated I'm not sure about gun laws.

Its not as open and shut as ".22 OR military-grade submachinegun". If it was I would agree, it isnt though - there are alot of things in between/beyond that and its just no where near as simple.

 

[Mabs]

Maybe this one wasnt aimed at me, if it was, I've already stated I'm not sure about gun laws.

Its not as open and shut as ".22 OR military-grade submachinegun". If it was I would agree, it isnt though - there are alot of things in between/beyond that and its just no where near as simple.

yeah but that was the point i was making viz gun control laws. people using hunting weapons i have no problem with ,its the NRA fuckwits banging on about how they need things like Mac10s to hunt deer with, or just to "defend" themselves.
their line is; guns are good, we like guns, we will keep stockpiling them, rest of you can fuck off
which is in no way an acceptable stance, ever.
and that is the line heston was peddling as their front man, see my first post in thread.

 

[Trem]

or to use the uni thing as an example

how many people do you think you could kill in a packed lecture theatre, before you ran out of ammo, or got tackled by someone if you were using this? :

(its a .22 rifle)

ok, now try again, with this:

(mac10)

thats what im on about, hunting firearms and military type firearms are completely different, civilians do not need the second type
why is that so hard to understand ?

Thats like showing a picture of a tooth pick vs a sword.

Instead if you want to make your argument more balanced (which you don't) why don't you show the Mac 10 and a proper hunting rifle, you know, like the one the Washington shooters used from the boot of their car to kill lots and lots of people.

Edit - You agree with hunting rifles Mabs, is that right?

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the guns are what make people kill people and they should all be smashed up. Back in the day before there were guns humans lived in harmony and never slaughtered anyone. Man, those soft fluffy arrows and swords wouldn't kill a fly (*laughs about throds brothers murdered fly story again*).

 

[DaGaffer]

Thats like showing a picture of a tooth pick vs a sword.

Isn't that the point?

Instead if you want to make your argument more balanced (which you don't) why don't you show the Mac 10 and a proper hunting rifle, you know, like the one the Washington shooters used from the boot of their car to kill lots and lots of people.

Edit - You agree with hunting rifles Mabs, is that right?

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. In the case of Columbine and the other school killings, it was close quarters, quick, dozens dead, usually with semi-autos, shotguns and pistols. They would have found it more difficult with a bolt-action hunting rifle like a 30-06 (not impossible, but definitely more difficult). In the case of the Washington sniper, it was from concealment, and over the course of weeks, and probably most importantly, a far more unusual and rare modus operandi than your typical looney gone postal.

Of course a hunting rifle can be used as a murder weapon, but I think it takes a bit more thought than using a pistol pulled from a bedside cabinet; maybe that little bit more necessary thought is all it would take to put a dent in the death rate?

 

[Trem]

No it isn't the point because my point was that Mabs wanted to make a balanced argument for the case of hunting rifles against machine guns yet showed a puny little rifle to validate his argument.

Ahhh so its the type of murdering you don't agree with then DaGaffer? Why didn't you just say that in the first place. You prefer the more calculated type of murder such as the Washington ones rather than the mental murders in schools?

Edit - The only extra thought it would take is to sit on the sports field waiting for break time rather than going into the school.

 

[nath]

Ahhh so its the type of murdering you don't agree with then DaGaffer? Why didn't you just say that in the first place. You prefer the more calculated type of murder such as the Washington ones rather than the mental murders in schools?

It has to come down to who can do the most damage with what, otherwise you could make an argument for legal ownership of active nuclear warheads for decorative purposes. There's no absolutes here, it's just a case of drawing the line somewhere - where we draw the line is clearly a matter of debate, but some people think there is an obvious answer. I really don't think there is at all.

 

[Trem]

You see I would find a hunting rifle far better to murder lots of innocents, hell I might even get away with it and be free to do it again the next day.

You cannot draw a line with human stupidity, thats the problem, I can't say it anymore but "guns don't kill people, rappers do"

 

[DaGaffer]

No it isn't the point because my point was that Mabs wanted to make a balanced argument for the case of hunting rifles against machine guns yet showed a puny little rifle to validate his argument.

Ahhh so its the type of murdering you don't agree with then DaGaffer? Why didn't you just say that in the first place. You prefer the more calculated type of murder such as the Washington ones rather than the mental murders in schools?

Edit - The only extra thought it would take is to sit on the sports field waiting for break time rather than going into the school.

I just think your common or garden "teen angst" killers are quite a lot more frequent than your sniper in the boot variety, so it makes sense to try to minimise them, that's all. Of course you'll never stop a really determined killer, and we shouldn't worry too much about it because it becomes self-defeating (e.g.: most anti-terrorist legislation etc.), but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything about guns either. Just deal with the part of the problem that's going to have the biggest effect. And yes, there's the "thin end of the wedge" argument, but that's what democracy's about, finding a balance.

 

[Trem]

I know and get exactly what you and Mabs ect are on about I aren't acting dumb but I just can't see anyway forward until there is a lot of spangle culling in the world (using a hunting rifle ofc )

Isn't it some sort of law in Switzerland that you have to own a gun, would like to see their murder figures. It just makes sense to me that the American way of life is to blame, the upbringing, the history, the Marlboro man type of image most of them seem to have.

DaGaffer please go watch Elephant I need someone else to watch it to see if it affects them the same as it did me.

EVERYONE WATCH ELEPHANT!

Elephant (2003)

 

[DaGaffer]

Isn't it some sort of law in Switzerland that you have to own a gun, would like to see their murder figures. It just makes sense to me that the American way of life is to blame, the upbringing, the history, the Marlboro man type of image most of them seem to have.

DaGaffer please go watch Elephant I need someone else to watch it to see if it affects them the same as it did me.

EVERYONE WATCH ELEPHANT!

Elephant (2003)

The Swiss example is a good one; every man of military age has to keep an assault rifle, but like I said in an earlier post, they're trained, licenced and policed. As you might expect, Swiss gun crime is a shitload lower than the US, but funnily enough, Swiss gun crime is still a lot higher than anywhere else in western Europe.

I'll...find, Elephant.

 

[Tom]

I saw Elephant. The effect it had on me was a fair bit of boredom, although I liked the Moonlight Sonata bit.

8/10 from me.

 

[Trem]

I saw Elephant. The effect it had on me was a fair bit of boredom, although I liked the Moonlight Sonata bit.

8/10 from me.

Oh god aye it seems a really slow film until the end but it isn't long and for me it added to the feel of it.

Gus Vant Sant makes films that seem slow and weird, one of his most recent Paranoid Park was a similar feel but that also left me thinking it was a good film.

Its just the none human feel of the lads in Elephant that I thought was so well done.

 

[throdgrain]

OK then, Spot the Assault rifle

Go on then, which one is the assault rifle? Not so easy is it?

As far as the rest of the comments in this thread, far too numerous to be answered individually, Ill just say these things.

Yes, lots of Americans list a gun as being kept for "home defence", as they so sweetly put it. That doesnt mean they are running around the streets shooting each other, they take them to ranges and shoot them. I speak to a lot of yanks on forums, and while they always go on about HD guns, hardly any of them have ever had to use them, and the ones that have are often policemen.

Full-auto assault rifles are banned in most states of the USA.

Charlton Heston defended his countries second amendment because it defended his right to own a gun. I dont blame him. Once you give away something to the government, you've lost it forever. The fact it's related to something 200 years ago is IRELEVANT. It was his way of keeping something he loved. If you think he did it for kick backs off the gun industry, you've obviously never seen Ben Hur...

Gun Culture does not mean Murder Culture. They are different words, and different things. Gun culture is people who like guns and shooting. Theres lots of such people over here as well as the states, but we have to hide away because we dont have people like Charlton Heston to help defend us.

Thats it.

 

[DaGaffer]

Throd, you're in a place in Egypt.

And its the bottom one.

 

[Tom]

Oh god aye it seems a really slow film until the end but it isn't long and for me it added to the feel of it.

Gus Vant Sant makes films that seem slow and weird, one of his most recent Paranoid Park was a similar feel but that also left me thinking it was a good film.

Its just the none human feel of the lads in Elephant that I thought was so well done.

Aye overall I thought it was a good film, just a bit lacking in character development.

I was particularly annoyed by the ending though, which bizarrely enough actually makes me think its a better film for that.

I was just happy to hear Moonlight Sonata played in full, uninterrupted

 

[gohan]

Go on then, which one is the assault rifle? Not so easy is it?

having not read tho whole thread ect not sure if u mean some are toys ect

but top 2 are m4 carbines no?, 1 with scope 1 normal

which would mean thier both assult rifels just 1 needs to have the legs ripped off before u ran about with it, also id say the 3rd came under assult rifle catageory too?

infact isny that an m4 aswell o0 just slightly smaller model less bulk/atachments

 

[throdgrain]

Noe of them are. The top one is a British gun, so its basically a bolt action gun, single shot, in .223 calibre.

The middle is an american AR-156, the civillian version of the M16, only available in semi auto or single shot. Probably also .223 calibre, as opposed to the millitary 5.56.

The bottom one is a semi auto in .22 calibre

 

[taB]

They'd all get you shot by a policeman if you waved them around I'd expect.