Gun Control

[Ginger_Warrior]

And banning guns wouldn't stop anything, criminals would still be able to get them. The whole idea of disarming the public baffles me, seeing as how you're just taking a means of self protection away while NOT removing the threat. Guns are just a means to an end, without them we would still be swinging clubs at each others heads #-o .

 

Am I the only non-American here who thinks the American version of pre-18th Century history is grossly misinformed and fantasised? I guess that's what happens when your country's history only spans three centuries (if that).

 

 

 

Let's look at the case for guns being a means of self-protection. You can either take two scopes on this. The first way you can look at it is that the likelihood you will ever need a gun to defend yourself is so low it doesn't warrant a constitutional right to bear arms, or, the likelihood you will ever need a gun to defend yourself is so justifiable, that the crime rate is so ludicrously high there's a serious problem with America and crime anyway, thus nullifying the argument that guns help lower violent crime.

 

 

 

Either way, I cannot see any reasonable justification for a normal citizen needing a gun.

[cadburys_egg]

Go ahead and ban guns, I still won't give my guns to the government. None are registered and none will ever be registered. The guns that are in my household are guns that have been passed down by my family and hold great sentimental value. You can pry them from my cold, dead fingers.

 

 

 

Do you regularly use these guns? If not, thats a different matter.

 

 

 

In the area of the country I live in (middle of nowhere Missouri) guns are a family activity. Hunting is VERY popular and I can guarantee that 99% of the people I know own some type of gun. And guess what, the cops aren't everywhere. When someone breaks into your house or threatens you, you can't say "hold on, ima call 911!!"...

 

 

 

Of course guns are used for hunting, even we use guns over here in the UK for hunting, thats a real purpose to own a gun.

 

No, cops arent everywhere, which is why we have an emergency system to contact them. And, depending on the circumstances, yes you cant always call them, but when you can you will. If someone breaks into your house, chance are they wont do so while youre sat in your front room with the tv on, theyll do so when youre in bed. And should they disturb you, you call 911 and THEN go downstairs to startle/restrain them.

 

 

 

And banning guns wouldn't stop anything, criminals would still be able to get them. The whole idea of disarming the public baffles me, seeing as how you're just taking a means of self protection away while NOT removing the threat. Guns are just a means to an end, without them we would still be swinging clubs at each others heads #-o .

 

So why isnt everyone over here waving a gun about? Yes, they can still get hold of them, but its a lot harder and the moment anyone catches a glance of it, they'll get caught out. Taking guns away from 90% of the public [barring criminals] means theres a lot less chance of any sort of death happening than if 100% of the public have access to them.

 

"Welcome to America! Heres your gun. But dont shoot anyone, ok?". Sounds like the perfect defence.

 

lol, americans, do you honestly think that before the gun the last weapon people owned was a club? Brush up on your history, son.

 

 

 

 

 

~ The rants of a gun slinging country boy

[RichieMcD]

And banning guns wouldn't stop anything, criminals would still be able to get them. The whole idea of disarming the public baffles me, seeing as how you're just taking a means of self protection away while NOT removing the threat. Guns are just a means to an end, without them we would still be swinging clubs at each others heads #-o .

 

Am I the only non-American here who thinks the American version of pre-18th Century history is grossly misinformed and fantasised? I guess that's what happens when your country's history only spans three centuries (if that).

 

 

 

Let's look at the case for guns being a means of self-protection. You can either take two scopes on this. The first way you can look at it is that the likelihood you will ever need a gun to defend yourself is so low it doesn't warrant a constitutional right to bear arms, or, the likelihood you will ever need a gun to defend yourself is so justifiable, that the crime rate is so ludicrously high there's a serious problem with America and crime anyway, thus nullifying the argument that guns help lower violent crime.

 

 

 

Either way, I cannot see any reasonable justification for a normal citizen needing a gun.

 

 

 

I'm going to ask Ginger a question which I feel backs up his first point, Ginger obviously enough Guns aren't legalized where you live, yet do you ever feel the want or need for a gun at home in terms of protection?

 

 

 

It's the same situation in Ireland, guns are illegal, yet I've never felt the need for a gun in terms of protection. If a person broke into my home I'd happily allow him take whatever is in my home, sure I'd even lead him to what he wants knowing my home insurance will cover it, a human life isn't gone to waste (killing or seriously injuring him) and as soon as he leaves I can give an accurate description of him to the cops if applicable. I've been in that situation before, got away unharmed physically, insurance paid for stolen property and he was caught within the hour.

[DaN]

I've been in that situation before, got away unharmed physically, insurance paid for stolen property and he was caught within the hour.

 

 

 

Where as if the thief had needed to arm himself for self defence it would have been a very different outcome.

[Arixe]

Yes the guns get used fairly often. Tons of people around me have not only hunting rifles, but handguns for self defense. People DON'T wave there guns around here either, because its a sure fire way to loose your permit and get a night in jail. And people don't wave their guns around "over there" because it will get you arrested, and if your a criminal that kinda throws a wrench in your plans. Trust me, they are out there.

 

 

 

And the whole using a club thing was a joke, calm your jets people =D>

 

 

 

Another point is that there's a lot of farmland and forests around me, and for some people the closest police officer is 15+ minutes. By the time the cops get there the perp is long gone and you might not be able to give a description if he is wearing a mask.

 

 

 

The whole thing for me boils down to common sense, some people have it some don't. Same goes for guns, some need them but some don't (and some that do own them shouldn't due to lack of common sense). A ban would screw the people that really do need them.

[dangeresque]

 

lol, americans, do you honestly think that before the gun the last weapon people owned was a club? Brush up on your history, son.[/b]

 

 

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.

[baron8000]

And banning guns wouldn't stop anything, criminals would still be able to get them. The whole idea of disarming the public baffles me, seeing as how you're just taking a means of self protection away while NOT removing the threat. Guns are just a means to an end, without them we would still be swinging clubs at each others heads #-o .

 

Am I the only non-American here who thinks the American version of pre-18th Century history is grossly misinformed and fantasised? I guess that's what happens when your country's history only spans three centuries (if that).

 

 

 

Let's look at the case for guns being a means of self-protection. You can either take two scopes on this. The first way you can look at it is that the likelihood you will ever need a gun to defend yourself is so low it doesn't warrant a constitutional right to bear arms, or, the likelihood you will ever need a gun to defend yourself is so justifiable, that the crime rate is so ludicrously high there's a serious problem with America and crime anyway, thus nullifying the argument that guns help lower violent crime.

 

 

 

Either way, I cannot see any reasonable justification for a normal citizen needing a gun.

 

 

 

I'm going to ask Ginger a question which I feel backs up his first point, Ginger obviously enough Guns aren't legalized where you live, yet do you ever feel the want or need for a gun at home in terms of protection?

 

 

 

It's the same situation in Ireland, guns are illegal, yet I've never felt the need for a gun in terms of protection. If a person broke into my home I'd happily allow him take whatever is in my home, sure I'd even lead him to what he wants knowing my home insurance will cover it, a human life isn't gone to waste (killing or seriously injuring him) and as soon as he leaves I can give an accurate description of him to the cops if applicable. I've been in that situation before, got away unharmed physically, insurance paid for stolen property and he was caught within the hour.

 

 

 

Whilst I don't want to speak for Ginger (and I'm sure he will provide his own answer) we both live in the UK and I think both in fairly urban areas (and thus, the standard higher crime rate then the rest of the country). Personally, for the 18 years of my life before I had a gun, I never felt the need to have one to protect myself or my household. Whilst my house is now "protected" by a 12 gauge shotgun, it certainly doesn't make me feel any safer at night and it would never enter my head to use it against a robber in my house unless my life or my family's life were threatened - even then I think I'd rather use a blunt heavy object rather than an unwieldy, dangerous gun.

 

 

 

To be concise, no I've never felt the need to have a gun for protection, and even when a gun is in the house it doesn't make me feel safer. I couldn't agree more with the "let them take the stuff and leave" viewpoint.

[Range_This11]

There's quite a long thread about this that went on for pages during the summer.

 

 

 

This thread is about as important as guns are.

[RichieMcD]

I've been in that situation before, got away unharmed physically, insurance paid for stolen property and he was caught within the hour.

 

 

 

Where as if the thief had needed to arm himself for self defence it would have been a very different outcome.

 

 

 

But he was, it would be pretty easy to stop a unarmed thief going about your house. He was armed with a hunting knife, I knew if I didn't act as he wanted I'd be in pretty bad shape, gave him the stuff he wanted and he was on his way.

[rwinner16]

Ask any surgeon which bullet is the absolute worst to operate on, and 99% of them will tell you its a .22 caliber. The bullet is so small(no weight), that when it penetrates skin, the bullet will fragment and bounce around in your insides. A 9mm and larger bullets have a much less likely possibility of that happening, they go through you creating a "hole". The 45 ACP round was designed to put you on the ground, plain and simple. Hit them in the arm, and they fall to the ground.

 

 

 

And please don't sit there and say that a 9mm is sufficient for defense. A 9mm does not have enough knock down power for about 30% of males. I worked as a gun salesman for 3 years, and out of all the policeman and women I have talked to, 55% use 40 caliber, 40% 45 ACP( the 45 GAP is a horrible round, Glock really F***ed up there) and the other 5% is 9mm.

 

 

 

And if you had to choose, all Semi-autos should be removed from society IF you had to choose. Which is safer, a semi-auto that can hold upwards of 20rds in a clip(10 rd limit in certain states IE California), or a revolver that can shoot around 6(some only shoot 5).

 

 

 

The entire point of the Desert Eagle 44Mag and 50Cal was for the military, 1 shot 1 kill (supposedly goes through bullet proof armor, with right tip). The Israelis are currently manufacturing it, and it is still one of the best pistols to use in military means. TAURUS recently made a revolver that can shoot a shotgun round out of it ( http://www.gunblast.com/Taurus-Judge.htm ) it can shoot .45s or 410 gu, you can also mix/match them if you want(IE 3 410's and 2 .45's). People claim this is a less bulky, just as effective way of self protection in your home.

 

 

 

I don't know where you guys live, but in Oklahoma USA, there is a law called MAKE MY DAY. Roughly means that you can gun down anybody anywhere if they have the means to threaten your life. They recently passed another law that patched up the loop-hole that could get you convicted for murder. There is another law that permits the use of DEADLY force if an intruder is inside your house. If a thief breaks in, you can shoot him and walk away clean from the cops, IF he is INSIDE your house.

 

 

 

You guys might think differently, but if there is a stranger in my house, im not going to wait and see if he is just going to steal my stuff peacefully and leave. Im going to shoot him and then call the cops. What if he is there to R**E my wife or kids? You just going to let him because you have no means to stop him? Have some common sense.

 

 

 

The reason crime is high is because of poverty, I know first-hand what that can do. You bring in poor Mexicans, and they group up(GANG) to help survive by whatever means, but by them GANGin up, the Blacks do it, and the Whites, and every other Race out there. Take away poverty, take away crime.(sounds like Socialism doesn't it?) Foreign countries DO NOT allow gun ownership, in fact most foreigners(Japan, Germany, China) have never even held a handgun, much less seen one thats not in police hands.

 

 

 

Let me ask you this. With the state of the world today, and the USA military spread out so thin because of multiple fronts and enemies, would you want the ENTIRE country defenseless if an enemy landed on our shores tomorrow? Take away guns from experienced hunters, ex cops, ex- military, and you take away the possibility of a militia. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't happen, so don't even try to bring up that defense.

 

 

 

If you teach a child at a young age(every adult gun-owner I know started at age 7) and show them how deadly they can be, show them the correct way to use it, and the correct manner in which it is ALLOWED to be used, and you take away the ACCIDENTAL shootings that everybody is so scared of. If your child burns their hand on a hot stove-top, think they will do it again? If they can see the damage a pistol or rifle can do, and are able to be around it all the time, you take the curiosity out of it. Curiosity is what killed the cat?

 

 

 

Shotguns are self-defense guns, thats what they were designed for. The military especially loves them because it can hit multiple targets in an enclosed space, which in turn can save our military lives.

 

 

 

Guns might actually be the "weapon" that kills you, but its because of Human judgement that leads to a "weapon" being used.

[DaN]

I've been in that situation before, got away unharmed physically, insurance paid for stolen property and he was caught within the hour.

 

 

 

Where as if the thief had needed to arm himself for self defence it would have been a very different outcome.

 

 

 

But he was, it would be pretty easy to stop a unarmed thief going about your house. He was armed with a hunting knife, I knew if I didn't act as he wanted I'd be in pretty bad shape, gave him the stuff he wanted and he was on his way.

 

 

 

But if he knew you where going to shoot him, that would have been an incentive for him to incapacitate you before you even get the opportunity to co operate.

[Ginger_Warrior]

But if he knew you where going to shoot him, that would have been an incentive for him to incapacitate you before you even get the opportunity to co operate.

 

He could just throw it instead, injure you and take the gun away? Or threaten a housemate? I've never been in that situation, thankfully, but I can imagine a thousand ways of holding someone to ransom.

 

 

 

I don't understand this need to protect yourself. Insurance covers against break-ins, police can be easily alerted afterwards (especially if you have a security system), you can even put those stickers to identify your possessions for recovery later - the rest is only money. Is it worth placing the situation into even more danger because of some foolish emotional reaction, or an irrational fear of what might happen if you don't confront someone breaking in?

 

 

 

In response to Baron and kranked, yes I live in an urban area, and it's fairly rough here. Not exactly Moss Side, but rough. Our house has been broken into while we were out, and an air rifle has been shot at our house before. I've never felt the need to possess a gun though. If someone breaks in while you're inside, you just give them what they want, and have the police take it from there.

 

 

 

In fact, if you're streetwise, you'll know carrying a gun or a knife when you're outside inexplicably puts you in more danger, not less. Even if it's concealed. People can tell from body language if someone has a weapon.

[cadburys_egg]

Yes the guns get used fairly often. Tons of people around me have not only hunting rifles, but handguns for self defense. People DON'T wave there guns around here either, because its a sure fire way to loose your permit and get a night in jail. And people don't wave their guns around "over there" because it will get you arrested, and if your a criminal that kinda throws a wrench in your plans. Trust me, they are out there.

 

 

 

I know theyre out there. Last year someone [a teenager] was shot dead for no real reason near where I live. And by 'no real reason' I mean it was another child who had a squabble and wanted to get back at him. So, to do this, he got a hold of what I assume was his parents gun and settled the dispute. Guns solve all problems, right?

 

 

 

And the whole using a club thing was a joke, calm your jets people =D>

 

 

 

Another point is that there's a lot of farmland and forests around me, and for some people the closest police officer is 15+ minutes. By the time the cops get there the perp is long gone and you might not be able to give a description if he is wearing a mask.

 

 

 

Nearest police officer anywhere can be at any time. If it were from my nearest police station to my house it'd probably take over 15 minutes aswell. And you wont always be able to clearly identify them, but would killing them on the spot with your gun help atall? Have you not heard of insurance?

 

 

 

The whole thing for me boils down to common sense, some people have it some don't. Same goes for guns, some need them but some don't (and some that do own them shouldn't due to lack of common sense). A ban would screw the people that really do need them.

 

 

 

The only people who 'really do need them' are those who play a vital role [i.e. police officers/army] and those whose job revolves around them [i.e. hunters], there is no rational need for a gun otherwise. If you honestly have a gun for "self defence", how often do you believe you will get attacked on a daily basis? America certainly may not 'live in fear' but you dwell in your own paranoia quite well.

 

 

 

No we don't, we're just saying that to prove a point. Brush up on your common sense, son.

 

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.

[folmer_veeman]

Yes the guns get used fairly often. Tons of people around me have not only hunting rifles, but handguns for self defense. People DON'T wave there guns around here either, because its a sure fire way to loose your permit and get a night in jail. And people don't wave their guns around "over there" because it will get you arrested, and if your a criminal that kinda throws a wrench in your plans. Trust me, they are out there.

 

 

 

I know theyre out there. Last year someone [a teenager] was shot dead for no real reason near where I live. And by 'no real reason' I mean it was another child who had a squabble and wanted to get back at him. So, to do this, he got a hold of what I assume was his parents gun and settled the dispute. Guns solve all problems, right?

 

 

 

I bet that even if there were no guns allowed, he would have been killed with a baseball bat/golf club/kitchen knife/whatever the killer could get its hands on.

 

 

 

And the whole using a club thing was a joke, calm your jets people =D>

 

 

 

Another point is that there's a lot of farmland and forests around me, and for some people the closest police officer is 15+ minutes. By the time the cops get there the perp is long gone and you might not be able to give a description if he is wearing a mask.

 

 

 

Nearest police officer anywhere can be at any time. If it were from my nearest police station to my house it'd probably take over 15 minutes aswell. And you wont always be able to clearly identify them, but would killing them on the spot with your gun help atall? Have you not heard of insurance?

 

 

 

If you for example shoot someone in the leg or the arm, he would have a hard time escaping, and you could easily disarm him and strike him to the ground. After which you can call the police to pick him up. But if you let frenzy take over you could empty a whole clip leaving him dead, but that's just a matter of training/gun awareness.

 

 

 

No we don't, we're just saying that to prove a point. Brush up on your common sense, son.

 

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.

 

How did he turn your quote upside down?

 

 

 

Read the italics (for those too stupid to figure out ;))

[ThurinEthir]

To those that want guns as a self-defense system at home - Are there not better ways to defend your house?

 

Barricade your doors and windows. Build traps. Keep archers on your roof.

 

Or not. (Still a half-valid point though, I'd think)

 

 

 

I'm fine with keeping guns legal - Just heavily moderated. Of course, moderation might not do much, but it'd be a start.

[cadburys_egg]

I bet that even if there were no guns allowed, he would have been killed with a baseball bat/golf club/kitchen knife/whatever the killer could get its hands on.

 

 

 

That wouldve taken time and preparation. With a gun its easy to just jump out and 'pow' thats one dead kid.

 

 

 

If you for example shoot someone in the leg or the arm, he would have a hard time escaping, and you could easily disarm him and strike him to the ground. After which you can call the police to pick him up. But if you let frenzy take over you could empty a whole clip leaving him dead, but that's just a matter of training/gun awareness.

 

 

 

I cant say I know the law in america on this, but here burglars can turn the blame back on you for needlessly harming them in such a fashion. Im not too sure on the whole detail of it here, but im sure that if you injure them past self-defence then they can claim you caused some GBH. Stupid law, I know, but I dont make the rules. And would it be so easy to just shoot them in the arm/leg? Wouldnt they struggle or attempt to disarm you?

 

This may just be my inner fps speaking, but if someone ran at me after breaking into my house and im holding a gun, im going to be thinking more along the lines of my safety than arresting him.

 

 

 

How did he turn your quote upside down?

 

Taking my 'brush up on your x, son' etc. I dont suppose I worded it right.

[Dizzle229]

a human life isn't gone to waste (killing or seriously injuring him)

 

 

 

Is the life of a criminal really more valuable than the possessions of an honest person?

[Ginger_Warrior]

a human life isn't gone to waste (killing or seriously injuring him)

 

 

 

Is the life of a criminal really more valuable than the possessions of an honest person?

 

If you're asking all of us honestly, yes, I do regard life > possessions.

 

 

 

Don't ask questions you don't know the answer to. ;)

[folmer_veeman]

That wouldve taken time and preparation. With a gun its easy to just jump out and 'pow' thats one dead kid.

 

You can just as easily jump out with, like, a hatchet, and with enough force you can render the person defending his home incapacitated.

 

 

 

I cant say I know the law in america on this, but here burglars can turn the blame back on you for needlessly harming them in such a fashion. Im not too sure on the whole detail of it here, but im sure that if you injure them past self-defence then they can claim you caused some GBH. Stupid law, I know, but I dont make the rules. And would it be so easy to just shoot them in the arm/leg? Wouldnt they struggle or attempt to disarm you?

 

This may just be my inner fps speaking, but if someone ran at me after breaking into my house and im holding a gun, im going to be thinking more along the lines of my safety than arresting him.

 

In that i do agree, though not entirely. With enough training and such, you could learn to stay calm and thus not killing the burglar.

 

 

 

 

Quote train ftw \

[Dizzle229]

a human life isn't gone to waste (killing or seriously injuring him)

 

 

 

Is the life of a criminal really more valuable than the possessions of an honest person?

 

If you're asking all of us honestly, yes, I do regard life > possessions.

 

 

 

Don't ask questions you don't know the answer to. ;)

 

 

 

I guess it depends on your personal set of morals.

 

 

 

Here in the U.S. we have plenty of porch rednecks ready to shoot anyone that knows of the existence of their "proportay".

[dangeresque]

 

 

 

No we don't, we're just saying that to prove a point. Brush up on your common sense, son.

 

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.

[cadburys_egg]

You can just as easily jump out with, like, a hatchet, and with enough force you can render the person defending his home incapacitated.

 

 

 

True, but itd be far easier to conceal a gun than to strut around with a hatchet slung over your shoulder. This particular incident was a 'smart killer', it was just a revengey spur-of-the-moment thing.

 

 

 

In that i do agree, though not entirely. With enough training and such, you could learn to stay calm and thus not killing the burglar.

 

 

 

Then that does depend on the training. Not everyone would share that mindset.

 

 

 

 

No I just thought it was a stupid statement, believe it or not, Americans aren't that stupid.

 

I almost believed you until those last 4 words. Close call there, but youll have to try harder next time.

[RichieMcD]

a human life isn't gone to waste (killing or seriously injuring him)

 

 

 

Is the life of a criminal really more valuable than the possessions of an honest person?

 

 

 

Through proper rehabilitation and reformation techniques a criminal can be reformed into a an average citizen, instead of just throwing them into a 3 X 5 box for "x" years which only helps them share techniques and form further bonds with criminals, a quote from a autobiography of a Criminal I read

 

 

 

The Borstal was my primary school, St. Pats was like my secondary school, The Joy was my college

 

 

 

Borstal = Young juvenile detention centers in Ireland

 

St Pats = St Patricks young offenders institution, for the 16-19 age group.

 

The Joy = Mountjoy prison, Ireland's most infamous prison.

 

 

 

Said by an unnamed criminal who spent more than 60% of his life in and out of jail, referring to in the book to the many techniques he picked up in those various detainment institutions while they offered no incentive to reform other than the lack of freedom, which resulted in him just further honing his "criminal education" while that could've been easily combated by allowing the criminal to take part in prospect creating programs for when they leave prison, turning him away from a life of crime.

 

 

 

Most prisons nowadays don't reform the criminal but instead often help them further improve their "criminal education" and make new friends to help them out when on the wrong side of the law. If the government were to get off their [wagon], provide criminals with some hope and job prospects for when they leave prisons other than the basic and redundant programs they offer know, there would most likely be quite a drop in minor crime levels such as Drug dealing, theft, fraud etc.

 

 

 

If you seriously value your goods (covered under house insurance) over a human life which can be reformed, then I view you as nothing more than a ignorant piece of materialistic scum. :|

[scootlaboot]

a human life isn't gone to waste (killing or seriously injuring him)

 

 

 

Is the life of a criminal really more valuable than the possessions of an honest person?

 

If you're asking all of us honestly, yes, I do regard life > possessions.

 

 

 

Don't ask questions you don't know the answer to. ;)

 

 

 

I guess it depends on your personal set of morals.

 

 

 

Here in the U.S. we have plenty of porch rednecks ready to shoot anyone that knows of the existence of their "proportay".

 

 

 

Not all rednecks sit on their porches with their rifles ready to shoot all trespassers, in fact that stereotype is so over used its not funny anymore, and really how many rednecks do you know?

[BlueLancer]

a human life isn't gone to waste (killing or seriously injuring him)

 

 

 

Is the life of a criminal really more valuable than the possessions of an honest person?

 

If you're asking all of us honestly, yes, I do regard life > possessions.

 

 

 

Don't ask questions you don't know the answer to. ;)

 

 

 

I guess it depends on your personal set of morals.

 

 

 

Here in the U.S. we have plenty of porch rednecks ready to shoot anyone that knows of the existence of their "proportay".

 

 

 

Not all rednecks sit on their porches with their rifles ready to shoot all trespassers, in fact that stereotype is so over used its not funny anymore, and really how many rednecks do you know?

 

 

 

Maybe not all southerners in the US are as backwater as parodies may set them out to be, but the point is somewhat valid.. Where else in the world, except some war-torn Somali villages, are people willing to shoot another human for material possessions worth a few hundred dollars?

 

 

 

Not just that but as far as I know it's even legalised in some states. In any other country you'd be thrown in a jail for use of excessive force, not applauded and patted on the back.