birdlike

You want stats? Chew on this one: An estimated 80,000,000 gun owners possess 250,000,000 guns (old estimates) in the U.S. All gun deaths combined (accident, suicide, homicide both justifiable and criminal) each year hovers around 30,000. Assume that every single gun death is caused by a separate gun, and divide it out. Only .00012 of the guns in this country (12 thousandths of one percent) is ever used in a death, even justifiable deaths. In ten years, only slightly over 1 tenth of one percent of our guns would be used to kill. Amazing. I wonder how the stats for cars stack up. People like to pretend that if guns are rounded up and destroyed, they'll never come back. That's ridiculous. Take a look at the firearms bazaars in backward-assed places like Afghanistan, where they make AK-47 knockoffs that work just fine, as well as pistols. Granted I can't do it, but there are plenty of folks around who have the know-how to make garage guns to supply a black market. Who's the first to line up for such things on a black market? The dangerous criminal types. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

But wait a moment, the U.K. has made it more difficult to own a gun, even to the point that they confiscated what was privately owned, and gun fatalities are higher than they used to be in the U.K. Haven't you folks always beamed about how rare they used to be? Explain why british cops, who used to be almost universally unarmed, now have to maintain armed units. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Dude, that's a really great picture! Congratulations. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Mine too!! With plastic flowers on it!! Just kidding. My first bike was made by AMF, actually. It was pretty cool, I guess. Soon after I got it, everyone started getting BMX bikes. I remember seeing my first BMX bike, it belonged to this kid named Kyle. It was a Team Murray, colored gold and silver. I remember that it looked ridiculous to me at the time; since it had no fenders, it looked longer than regular kids' bikes even though it wasn't. My bike was stolen from outside a stationery store, and I ended up getting a Huffy BMX bike. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Ugh. Oh, god. That's just too gross to think about. Fortunately, I haven't been at DZs that were that kind of community. Or at least, I didn't know about it. I make it my own habit to not sleep around, so fortunately they can have all the STDs in the world and it won't be affecting me as long as I'm careful. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I'd never loan a gun to someone who is so obviously contemptuous of the notion of their utility. We know what did happen because a psycho had a gun and no good people did, at Virginia Tech. What might have happened if someone with a license to carry a gun had his gun (or her gun) on hand that day? Only 17 killed? Only 2 killed? Maybe none killed? Gun crime may not be at cataclysmic levels in the U.K., but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that its victims might not do well to have guns of their own. And you don't need to be faced with an enemy who has a gun in order to be justified in using a gun of your own. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I guess you're prepared to trump any scenario with one that even a gun wouldn't help in. It makes me wonder how you are able to discount the true-life accounts of people who actually have saved their lives or the lives of others using their civilian guns. But yeah, I wouldn't like my chances against multiple assailants armed with guns. But since punks and thugs will always get weapons, and MY not having guns would never guarantee that my attackers would not have them, I'll keep mine, thanks. Besides, is it your argument that when I face a group of armed thugs, I'm better off with NOTHING for a weapon than I am if I have a gun? I suppose I can always offer up to them everything I have (which they'd take anyway whether I offer it or not) and then beg them not to kill me. You know, the British way... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If you owned a dog, and you and the dog were killed by someone who later wrote a history of the events and claimed that it was a cat you had, does that make your dog a cat? Seriously, this claim that history actually was whatever the "victor" says it was is absurd. All that's really true in such a case is that "history says this or that," not that history was this or that. So even if 100 years later the Russians/commies wrote books that said they had always occupied North America, that would not make it true. There's no way to change historical truth, only the record of history. Facts don't change just because someone lies about them. The FACTS are that the Wolverines lived in a country that was invaded by outsiders. ANYTHING they did to reclaim what was stolen from them was justifiable, and not terrorist. The invaders had no entitlement to what they tried to take. The defenders had every entitlement to kill to keep it or reclaim it. edit: you'll never guess what I'm watching now. Here's a great piece of dialog: "How'd you get yourself shot down, Colonel?" "It was five to one! I got four!" Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You're kidding, right? They were survivors of an invasion of their sovereign nation, fighting back against their attackers. Why on earth would anyone consider for even a moment that they were "terrorists"? They were fully justified in using violence to repel violence. They were "guerrillas," certainly, in the manner of their warfare. But they were freedom fighters all the way. Doesn't depend at all on who won eventually; depends on objectivity. They were invaded. They repelled the invaders. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

So give the husband a gun and he can shoot the anyone who intervenes with his wife beating antics..smart. Well, stop pretending that "police presence" is the panacea to violence. You simply cannot put a police officer between victim and attacker with anything remotely resembling adequacy or frequency. To suggest so is just dumb. You obviously know little to nothing about self defense if you think it boils down to how "macho" you are in the means you use to defend yourself. It's about surviving, and protecting yourself from harm. Only a fool thinks he ought to "fight fair" when attacked by a criminal. Fisticuffs is how it ought to be, huh? Well, what about when there are multiple attackers? Is it your opinion that if we can't all train to the point where we are deadly Bruce-Lee-types who can take on five guys at a time, we should be shit-outta-luck for self defense? And if anyone actually is that deadly with just his fists that they're all he needs for defense, then he can probably kill people just as effectively as if a weaker guy had a gun, and then what did you solve? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You seem to be in the minority if you are asserting that gun ownership in the U.K. is anything but vanishingly rare. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

This is all well and good, but certainly you don't expect that pointing out the unfairnesses inherent in this bill will make those who have contempt for your right to have guns, period, suddenly turn sympathetic? They rejoice in any legislative unfairness that impedes your right to have a gun. This will not spur them to oppose unfair legislation! It will cause them to be glad! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Wait wait wait, let's not pretend that only the "yanks" have a sick court system. It was in England, after Tony Martin defended himself from the umpteenth burglary of his residence/farm, that he shot and killed one burglar and wounded another. And then, he was sentenced to life in prison for murder. (Sentence later overturned and lessened.) And THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT not only gave the burglar funds and guidance on how to sue Mr. Martin, IT ASKED FOR THE CRIMINAL BURGLAR'S INPUT ON WHAT PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO MR. MARTIN! I'm sorry, but if I am victimized, and I defend myself, and I possibly go too far in doing so, that doesn't mean that the guy who attacked me first should be asked how I should be punished. That's demented. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Wow. Dude, that was thought-provoking and profound and succinct. I like it!

I thought the shroud of turin had long since been said to NOT be jesus' burial shroud. Now you're saying it's "believed to be"? Says who? I think it's absurd to try to find out what jesus looked like. No one knows, and no one will know. It is, though, pretty laughable to depict him as some american-lookin' white dude! Funny thing is, I accepted that for years as a kid without questioning it. Funny how when you grow intelligent to QUESTION things, you realize how absurd religion actually is and walk away from it. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Sorry, I find that offering ridiculous. Just what do you want, a police officer issued to every citizen? Because anything short of that would be doomed to failure. You could put a police officer on the streetcorner three houses away from someone's house. Does that somehow guarantee that during an argument, the husband can't beat the wife to death before he gets there? Just how saturated with police officers do you envision society being at a point where you consider society "safe"? One every block? One every square mile? (Even that would be monstrous increase) The fact is that even if a police officer were in the same ROOM with a violent criminal and his victim, that doesn't mean the criminal couldn't fatally stabe the victim before the cop intervened. The answer is more about empowering would-be victims to be alert, aware of their surroundings, and physically equipped to fight their attackers (guns, is what I mean) and legislatively protected from being sued or prosecuted for justifiable self defense. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

No no no no no. Look, having a crappy life situation or not being able to make much money at a job is NOT a justification to go robbing people or stealing what's not yours. So I don't want to hear, "Oh, the only reason I robbed and stole was because my economic status was in the gutter." SO? DEAL with it. Make it better. But don't you dare act as though simply because you don't have luxuries and leisure that you're ENTITLED to TAKE it without EARNING it. So this bullshit about how we need to "put the would-be criminal in a better position" is really just succumbing to his extortion scheme: "GIVE me success, or I'll make myself into a criminal problem for you to deal with." No no no no no. You're not going to get me to dig into my OWN pocket to give you what I EARNED just because if I don't you'll go and be a criminal. Time to grow up and realize you're not entitled to success, you have to work for it. What happens if we "put the would-be criminal in a better position" and he still is greedy and still wants more? This is like negotiating with terrorists or paying kidnapers ransom. Where does it end? Once you open the door to paying, you'll be bled dry, 'cause they'll know they can continually threaten you and you'll keep forking over. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Encourage and equip would-be victims to fight back and kill those who would victimize them. Criminality would decrease by attrition. It's time to stop pussyfooting around criminals and hoping that once they've attacked a dozen or so people and finally get arrested, that the police, courts and prisons can turn them into wonderful, good people. No, we need to simply eliminate them. The best time to do that is in flagrante delicto, when an innocent is about to have a crime perpetrated against him. There is a perfect moral justification for exterminating the evildoer at that moment in time -- far less ambiguous than an execution that might occur ten, twenty years later after a load of appeals have been exhausted. I think that the population needs to be tougher and more prepared, and encouraged in an official way to do what they need to do when confronted by a criminal. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

- I hate stupid slanted polls This is not about texans, this is a racial thing. This was a bunch of black people who attacked a hispanic dude. If the guys in the car had been black, I doubt it would have happened. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Lame. No one has a sense of history, or the dignity of these birds, anymore. Everything we do nowadays is dictated by what will save money, or make money, most effectively, even at the tremendous expense of heritage. I have news for the bean counters: some things are worth an expense even when they don't yield back a tangible return on investment. For example, I skydive and at the end of the day I don't have anything to show for it except the experience, and the joy of having done it. Do I stop doing it because it makes me hemhorrage money? Hell no! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If it makes no difference either way - then it makes sense to remove them... There are around 800+ accidental deaths from guns in the US each year so you would prevent these losses. By your reference this could only then be compared to the economic loss of production jobs etc... and as no other industry would be allowed to continue with such fatalities there would be a strong argument. Then how many of the many thousands who repel criminal attacks each year with their guns would be vulnerable and fall to such attacks? Probably more than the 800 you claim would be saved. Besides, according to stuff I've read, in the time that we've been keeping track (basically like a century or so) gun-related accidents have steadily declined and are at an all-time national low. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

That's the point. The 1997 ban was not supposed to make any difference. That was not the reason behind the legislation. Then the reason waaaaaas....? I mean, a law without a reason - what's the point of that? Was it to address a lead shortage? For what reason, other than to hopefully increase public safety, did they want a gun ban over there? It is widely acknowledged that the gun ban was directly precipitated by the Dunblane school massacre. Public opinion against guns - even legal ones - swelled to where opportunistic politicians, who are always happy to be able to remove any means of popular resistance, were able to pass a ban. If this was a ban that descended directly from the Dunblane thing, how can the claim be made that it was not intended toward keeping the public safe by eliminating gun ownership? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Good points. Maybe the "martial law" amazon fears is coming would be geared specifically or exclusively to arabs in America, or those who appear to be arabs. Sort of like profiling, taken to the extent that it was with the Japanese during WWII. I can't say I'd really mind that too terribly. FDR did it and he's viewed as a historically great president! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I have to ask you, since I haven't been around here long enough to have observed, where you stand on the ancient commonlaw right of citizens to have arms for their own defense? I mean, you're railing, evidently, against the Bush admin about how it's after our rights, and will be the death of them. Do you support gun control, and the idea that we shouldn't have guns but the police and military should? Or do you support the idea that anyone who's not insane or a criminal should have the right to guns, and to carry them for personal protection? Just curious. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Yeah. But first certain people wanna do this> http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lieberman-calls-for-wider-use-of-surveillance-cameras-2007-07-01.html Well, that and banning/confiscating all the guns the citizens own. How could martial law possibly succeed in a place where 80,000,000 individuals own guns? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire