dangeresque

Gratz corr :thumbup:

Good job RSD.

Gratz gladz =D>

Yeah...back on track now please or I'll just have this locked. I'll edit in some stuff when I get enough time.

Maybe when you reposted the link you should of pulled some main points from it. Otherwise we could all just post links and not discuss anything. Well hell I'll copy and paste stuff if you really want. Maybe later though. Yeah I should have posted some made points, but still no reason to freak out over it and call me insecure and the like.

Errr, no. christ people I just didn't think anyone saw it so I re-posted it. Do you want me to copy and paste or something? srysly -.- srysly, if you're that insecure about whether your posts get seen by people, I wouldn't trust you within 1,000 miles of a gun. Oh please, I just reposted a link big woop. I'm not insecure I just thought it had some valid points and it got overlooked. So can we stop talking about the fact that I reposted a link and making minute insults about me and get back on point? Sheesh -.-

Errr, no. christ people I just didn't think anyone saw it so I re-posted it. Do you want me to copy and paste or something? srysly -.-

You seem to think repeating the same statistics over and over again somehow adds to your argument. No I just think that it has some good points and it seems like they're being ignored, so I just repost it. Not a big deal -.-.

Nobody saw this, please click.

I don't see this as a problem. Handguns are designed to kill people -- these are not toys to fool around with or stamps to be collected. Continued ownership of handguns, especially for mere recreational use, is not worth the increase in homicide rate that comes with it. Yes, handguns are designed to kill people, but to the people that don't kill people they are recreational items and they use them at a completely safe firing range somewhere back in the sticks and there is absolutely no harm done. And people do collect them, and why can't they? They're not going to kill anyone with them. And recreational use isn't a good reason? Why not? You can use your computer can't you? You could kill someone with that if you really tried. Granted it will be a lot harder but my point stands. And yet again, people will always kill people whether it be with illegal firearms or with something else, they'll do it. Here is a fact sheet showing how many crimes are prevented with the presence of firearms. Yeah it's biased but facts are facts. http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm

I don't think you saw mmy post venomai, or you jsut ignored it or forgot to post about it or whatever the case, I'm ging to restate my main point:

If that was directed at me I was talking about the piece of bolded text in the quote I was commenting on. ;)

Well...lol. :)

Am I the only one that noticed that? :?

No, but they do have the idea in their mind, "Hmm... I just bought a weapon that kills and loaded it." They might not have the intent to kill at the time it was bought and loaded, but it's silly to say "they have no clue what they're getting into". Just because it wasn't their original intent, it doesn't mean that their new intent doesn't count. If it is not by accident, then it was done intentionally. I don't see what you are trying to say unless you're arguing that they cause lots and lots of lethal accidents. In that case, I agree... but so do cars and knives. Wait, I thought your plan was to stop the demand? You're speaking of stopping the supply now by bringing up their availability here. Yeah, and hopefully world hunger will end. Hopefully. The "crazies" as you call them usually kill with illegal weapons - speaking of school massacres and such. Look at the columbine incident, For one thing, the kids weren't old enough to purchase a gun. and Second, the guns were illegal, sawed off shotguns and Tec 9's aren't legal -.-. The problem with banning handguns all together is this - you will be taking away the guns that are either not used or responsibly used for sport or otherwise away from law abiding citizens. Yes, there are more deaths do to handguns, I'm for more control over them as well, but I don't see the reason for taking them away from law abiding citizens due to some thugs in the hood somewhere, that, in my mind, just isn't right. Also, It would really hurt gun companies if they were to ban handguns. And if they were to ban guns as a whole it would just be terrible. A lot of people over look that but whatever. And to people who say that shooting for sport isn't a good reason to own a gun, why? Just wondering. edit: With maple syrup tied to a hockey stick of course :

Oh [garden tool], turning my quote on its head, how clever of you, sir. What point were you trying to make? It just seemed like you were trying to be pedantic. No I just thought it was a stupid statement, believe it or not, Americans aren't that stupid.

UGA - GT game was good, Oregon and Oregon state game was alright, both defences sucked and resulted in ALOT of points. Best game was the Oklahoma - OSU game, sorta mad that OSU lost, but it was still a great game. Lol @ Sam bradford getting flipped :lol:, what a dumb move that was.

No we don't, we're just saying that to prove a point. Brush up on your common sense, son. Yes, banning guns might slow the flow of illegal guns, but it sure won't stop it. And as said before with the banning of guns that will open up a whole new, bigger problem. and to the person who said that America is all scared and stuff, we're not really, and it's irrelevant even if we were.

Tis true, god the justice system is so [developmentally delayed] in some ways, but I would go to jail if I was trying to save my spouse or child tbh. Didn't mean it like that... The point is you can always work to get more money. In many cases, a robber is dumb & gets caught and you get the property back & possibly even damages paid for by the criminal. However, you can *never* recover a human life if you choose to kill someone. That's why it's "excessive" use of force. An LCD television is not worth more than a human life, no matter if he's trying to take it by force from you. Of course I would shoot a robber if he was trying to harm my kids (if I had any) or my friends, and go to jail for that... But not over material possessions. There is a reason why even banks instruct the tellers to comply with robber's demands instead of trying to play hero. First of all, the money is federally insured. Second of all, it's just paper. Even if the robber gets away with $200k in cash, at least the customers and clerks stayed alive. There are tracking devices, dye packs, satellites that can trace amateur robbers and sometimes the entire loot can be recovered & the robber put behind bars for a decade or more. I think it's a case of distorted values if a single item is placed as more valuable than a life. This kind of thinking just doesn't exist widely in any other western nation than the US. Yes of course I wouldn't shoot him if he was stealing something, that would be pointless. Ever heard of the Black Panthers? They were a group dedicated to the overthrow of the government through use of force. OBviously it wouldn't of succeeded, and didn't for that matter, just thought I'd through that out there. My point is, of course it would've been illogical to use violence, but that's not why they didn't use it.

negative wisdom/10.

Why? It would have just alerted people outside... Hardly any incidents of robbery involving a gun end with someone being shot. If you shot someone dead, you're just asking for a higher sentence, quite possibly life. The money's not worth it. Yes, hardly any, but that still leaves some. Of course I would do everything I could to not end it with a bullet, but if it came down to it I would. Life is worth it though. edit: And if I really have to shoot a robber, which I really hope I will never have to do (and probably won't have to), I wouldn't give a rat's about startling people outside. Oh wait...lol I see what you were responding to now >_<. Disregard that. But they could've used silencers.

Not even sure if that's sarcasm or a straight out insult. There are countless hunters and game animals in Japan, it's extremely ignorant to say there isn't "anybody in Japan that hunts". Hunters in Japan are free to own shotguns and hunting rifles after passing the licensing test. The ban only extends to handguns which have practically no other real use than killing another human by a portable and concealable firearm. I was exagerating when I said that, obviously there are hunters in Japan, but I doubt there are near as many as there are in the U.S. Maybe there are, Idk, it's just the fact that they have far less territory, much more urban area, etc that I'm basing that on, not statistics. Post some if you find any, I'm to lazy to look any up atm. I take it you have never heard of the Yakuza which is one of the largest organized crime groups in the world right after italian mafiosi and russian mobsters. Again, it's totally ridiculous to say they just aren't the "crime type". The Yakuza even has popular support amongst the conservative elements of society. There are over 100,000 members of the Yakuza alone in Japan not including other organised crime groups http://www.yamasa.org/acjs/network/engl ... se_12.html (compared to USA with 30,000 of various groups) Yes that's organized crime, most shootings in the US are done by street gangs trying to control turf and drugs, not the mob. I for one don't support the "banning" of guns. Just ban the ones that serve absolutely zero practical purposes such as .50c rifles and handguns. (Or make them available at shooting clubs for fun purposes) Nobody kills people with .50 cals, so what's the point in banning them? Handguns are used all the time at firing ranges for fun, or for self protection, which granted most of the people on here will never need them for self protection seeing as we don't live in any really bad spots, but nonetheless you never know. You can't get away with that in *any* country of the world, bar maybe some states in the US. It's called excessive use of force in court and you will almost definitely get a life prison term for killing a robber with a handgun. Refer to this for example; The person wasn't even using a gun but a sword to protect himself from a robber, and stabbed him to death: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3561555.stm It's amazing how some people forget material possessions can be recovered, a human life can't. You *will* go to prison in almost all cases if you kill a robber in a western country. Tis true, god the justice system is so [developmentally delayed]ed in some ways, but I would go to jail if I was trying to save my spouse or child tbh. And that guy that stabbed his intruder just got lucky, if those criminals were really serious they would have shot him dead. edit: God I keep failing at posting in the quotes right, put my responses in Bold and italics.

That's why the US has over 16,000 gun-related murders per year, more than all other western industrialized nations combined http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm (66% of US murders are committed with a firearm, compared to 1-5% in other western nations) wat. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offense ... le_10.html. There wasn't even 16,000 total in 2006, a pretty high crime rate year. In Scandinavian and most European countries, you have to declare a reason for owning a firearm before gaining a license. "Self-protection" or "fun" are not reasons to own 9mm hand guns and assault rifles. In countries such as Japan, a civilian cannot even own a firearm. What other reasons are there other than sport, collection, or self-protection? And Japanese people don't need to own one anyways because I doubt there is anyone in Japan that hunts so there is no point for them anyways. Compare the armed robbery statistics between Japan which has roughly 140 million people, and USA which has 300 million people: Japan has around 1.3 robberies per 100,000 people. By comparison, the U.S. has 233 per 100,000 people[1] Japanese people aren't really the crime type, of course they won't have much. And almost all people that rob gas stations and convieniant stores get caught anyways, so maybe it's a good thing they're robbing them! :P Having a firearm just because of 300-year old laws that were intended to protect colonialists from the English isn't an actual "reason". Of course, it's legally unrestricted, but you can see how horribly it works in reality. USA has more crime, murders and prisoners than any industrialized nation [2] Banning guns will do nothing to stop the crime. The flow of illegal guns will grow even bigger, and open up a huge black market for guns in the U.S., not good. Ok, so there are well organized gov't agencies to protect you, such as Police, etc. That's all fine and dandy, the US has a fine law enforcement agency, but when an intruder walks in threatening your family, what are you gonna do? go get a bowling ball, chuck it at him and hope for the best? No, you should be able to go snatch your 9mm real quick and eliminate the problem, unless you want to talk it out, but what fun is that? :P (joke btw) And to whoever was inferring that Americans solve everything through guns obviously didn't think of the Civil Rights movement, "this may come as a surprise". There are plenty of peaceful protests every day in America.

Wisdom. but I don't think CEO's taking a few million out of their check would help that much at the moment to be honest. And you have t oreward scucessful people or else they will cease to be successful and just go to a different company. They could hire like 20 more people a year cutting just a million out of their budget. Some make hundreds of millions. Yeah, but still they are the CEO, I mean if I was a CEO I would like it to show in the check book. And 20 people a year is like nothing in big companies tbh, especially at a time when it would be better for the companies to cut jobs.

A weapon such as the Desert Eagle uses .50 caliber ammunition (with the exception of some low-production models with lesser calibers). There is absolutely no rational or logical excuse for owning one as a private citizen for any purpose except as a collector's item/in a museum. Here's a pretty good comparison of ammunition sizes. The far right one is the .50cal ammunition such a weapon uses [hide=][/hide] Please, even a single reason for a citizen to own one. People claim it's for target shooting and hunting which sounds a bit far fetched considering the giant recoil The point is, nobody in their right mind would own one for house defense anyways, and pretty much none do. And BTW, the .50 cal refers to the diameter of the bullet, the round pictured in your pic is obviously not going to come out of a handgun if it is 5 inches long -.-. The guns will keep on coming, legally or illegally if you ban them or not. And a person pulls the trigger, the gun doesn't. If there weren't guns they would use knives, and maybe even barehanded if they really wanted to (some do). My point is, if some killer is gonna go kill someone, whether he has a gun or not he's still gonna kill the person.