Governor Good Hair Says Guns are Good in Church and School

**Roidie McDouchebag** · Posted On: 5/05/2007 11:18pm

Originally Posted by Kein Haar

LOL WHATEVER THAT EVEN MEANT.

Foraging, the gathering of food, etc, that occurs naturally in the wild. That's where I would get most of my food anyway, so all them taking my food means is the next day, I need to go find some food, kill a deer, catch some fish, what have you.

Originally Posted by Donna

So who's Cracky, and what's his excuse? Stroke? TBI?

I Choke You. Stimulant psychosis.

**Camus** · Posted On: 5/14/2007 1:28am

Who says killing people over property isn't worth it?

I can hardly think of a better reason to stick it to someone.

**Matt W.** · Posted On: 5/14/2007 11:11am

I see LEO's being against this

Actually, what you find is most officers on the street are very supportive of law abiding citzens being armed. However, most of the various associations of police chiefs and whatnot are supportive of stricter gun control.

**Roidie McDouchebag** · Posted On: 5/14/2007 5:22pm

Who says killing people over property isn't worth it?

I can hardly think of a better reason to stick it to someone.

I don't kill anything I'm not going to eat. I'm not saying I wouldn't shoot somebody for trying to steal my ****, but I'd have to be really hungry.

**TEA** · Posted On: 5/15/2007 10:08am

Originally Posted by Cracky McSlugHoot

I don't kill anything I'm not going to eat. I'm not saying I wouldn't shoot somebody for trying to steal my ****, but I'd have to be really hungry.

I have a couple of good recipes if you're interested. :eatbaby:

**kultist** · Posted On: 5/23/2007 1:06pm

Being a Brit, my take on the VT shootings is this: Cho bought a gun legally and the ammunition legally, not from some redneck gun show or whatever they're called where the serials are scratched off and anyone can buy a gun, no liscence required, he brought it from a normal shop that sold guns. He wasn't supposed to have been allowed to buy those guns because he was mentally ill, and a backgroud check should have brought that up. It seems to me that the reason he was able to buy the guns wasn't because gun laws are innefective but because America seems to do **** all to enforce them.
In addition to that, all the talk about CCW permits is madness. Look at England compared to the States. In England the only people allowed to own a gun are a few select members of the police force (but only the British version of SWAT teams), people with gun liscences that are only for shotguns & .22 rifles and revoked at the slightest breach of the conditions (and the conditions are strict, unless they are being used the gun must be locked away at all times and the ammunition must be locked away in a different area of the house) and of course the army is also allowed them. It is a 5 year minimum term for possessing a handgun for any reason (after a particulary nasty school shooting that resembled the Amish schoolgirl travesty). The only way to get hold of an illegal weapon is to buy one for about $1200 on the black market, which means that although some well to do criminals in London might have them, there won't be a ton of guns stolen from private homes for the gangs of garden variety chavs everywhere in England to swing around. Now, England has about 55 gun deaths per year. America, where in many areas you can own just about any gun you fancy should you stay within the law and have money (and a thriving black and grey market if you don't) and take it in many places just about anywhere you want, last time i checked has upwards of 25000 gun deaths a year.
Ban guns. Yeah, you might get a spike in crime to start off with. Deal with it. It will force you to improve law enforcement because for the gun ban to work you'll need to get as many people as possible to hand in their guns. The more this happens, the less that get nicked by gang members burgaling the houses of gun owners and the less that are floating around ready to be traded illegally at gun shows. Eventually guns will just be filtered out of society. Crazies like Cho aren't going to spend a few months fishing around the criminal fraternity to buy a gun that costs more than several months rent. You think it's an accident that England and Japan and other places have tiny incidences of gun crimes compared to America? I just can't see the point of owning an incredibly dangerous phallic symbol that isn't used for hunting and only "needed" to defend yourself with because so many others are in possesion of guns. Most gun owners probably are not in a well organized millitia capable of resisting the government, so what's the point?

**Don Gwinn** · Posted On: 5/23/2007 1:52pm

Wow. Being a Brit, your view of the VT shootings is long and complicated. Hey, watch this:

Being a Brit, my take on the VT shootings is this: Cho bought a gun legally and the ammunition legally, not from some redneck gun show or whatever they're called where the serials are scratched off and anyone can buy a gun, no liscence required, he brought it from a normal shop that sold guns. He wasn't supposed to have been allowed to buy those guns because he was mentally ill, and a backgroud check should have brought that up. It seems to me that the reason he was able to buy the guns wasn't because gun laws are innefective but because America seems to do **** all to enforce them.

In addition to that, all the talk about CCW permits is madness. Look at England compared to the States. In England the only people allowed to own a gun are a few select members of the police force (but only the British version of SWAT teams), people with gun liscences that are only for shotguns & .22 rifles and revoked at the slightest breach of the conditions (and the conditions are strict, unless they are being used the gun must be locked away at all times and the ammunition must be locked away in a different area of the house) and of course the army is also allowed them. It is a 5 year minimum term for possessing a handgun for any reason (after a particulary nasty school shooting that resembled the Amish schoolgirl travesty). The only way to get hold of an illegal weapon is to buy one for about $1200 on the black market, which means that although some well to do criminals in London might have them, there won't be a ton of guns stolen from private homes for the gangs of garden variety chavs everywhere in England to swing around. Now, England has about 55 gun deaths per year. America, where in many areas you can own just about any gun you fancy should you stay within the law and have money (and a thriving black and grey market if you don't) and take it in many places just about anywhere you want, last time i checked has upwards of 25000 gun deaths a year.

Ban guns. Yeah, you might get a spike in crime to start off with. Deal with it. It will force you to improve law enforcement because for the gun ban to work you'll need to get as many people as possible to hand in their guns. The more this happens, the less that get nicked by gang members burgaling the houses of gun owners and the less that are floating around ready to be traded illegally at gun shows. Eventually guns will just be filtered out of society. Crazies like Cho aren't going to spend a few months fishing around the criminal fraternity to buy a gun that costs more than several months rent. You think it's an accident that England and Japan and other places have tiny incidences of gun crimes compared to America? I just can't see the point of owning an incredibly dangerous phallic symbol that isn't used for hunting and only "needed" to defend yourself with because so many others are in possesion of guns. Most gun owners probably are not in a well organized millitia capable of resisting the government, so what's the point?

I'll fisk this later. For now, the Reader's Digest version: "**** You."

**Nid** · Posted On: 5/23/2007 2:23pm

I'll let you in on a little secret, Kultist.

Those gun deaths in the U.S. each year?

Psst.

Most are shithead-on-shithead crime. In other words, nobody cares, and most have it coming. There's a certain demographic which, as of '97-'00 (roughly), had a inter-demographic homide rate of 26 per 100,000.

Barring what I just mentioned, the homicide rate for the restuvus is something like 2-3 per 100,000. Same as the U.K Oi! :wav:

See, gotta take the greater population of the U.S. into consideration and only compare that which is comparable.

Furthermore, this is not the forum for your anti-gun fantasies. Its well established by all great minds that guns are good on many levels.

So what's the point?

I don't know. What's the point of anything beyond a tropical climate, a few vitamins, amino acids, and water?

Edit: There's a comma in the 2nd Amend. *Two* things are not to be infringed. One, two.

Edit2: And then there's the pesky 4th Amend.

**TEA** · Posted On: 5/23/2007 4:40pm

Kultist, you're ignorance is appalling. Please do some research and educate yourself upon some facts. Here is a good primer:

http://www.gunfacts.info/

Also, with regards to gun deaths in the US, keep in mind that those numbers also include accidents (very small number), suicides (large number) and self-defense. Even the homicide numbers include self defense, since the FBI statistics do not differentiate between justified homicide (self-defense) and criminal homicides, the latter of which, as Kein Haar has pointed out, are scumbag v.s. scumbag.

If you want a nice tidy, although strictly non-significant from a social sciences point of view, set of statistics - crime in the US has been going down as legal gun ownership has increased v.s. crime in the UK has gone up as legal gun ownership has been legislated into virtual non-existance.