The right to bear arms

[Reggie29]

Best line from the film Breaker Morant:

"No; it was not quite so handsome. As to rules and regulations, we had no Red Book, and knew nothing about them. We were out fighting the Boers, not sitting comfortably behind barb-wire entanglements; we got them and shot them under Rule 303." - Lt. Harry 'Breaker' Morant

Are they people? YES

However more specifically those kinds of people are also known as CRIMINALS.

A gun does not just cause a caring sane person to go out and kill somebody. As evidenced by the fact that with so many gun owners in free societies; the overwhelming majority have no criminal intent to do harm to anyone.

Many "sane" people are gaoled for manslaughter during domestic disputes purely because guns are available.

While they may have not had any criminal intent they become criminals via the act.

How many small children have drown in swimming pools? Are you saying we should ban swimming pools because some parents are neglegent?

How many children die of poisioning from prescription drugs or household solvents and such? Should we ban those products because a small number of adults are idiots?

True there are accidents relating to pool drownings and it's not reasonable to ban them, however it's all about duty of care and doing everything possible to keep the kids out of harms way.

In a FREE SOCIETY a person has the choice to fish, hunt or slaughter a turkey for christmas dinner if that is their choice. As long as no laws are broken, who is to say which personal choices for sport are right or wrong?

You are just offering a "feeling" about something. An opinion. I thought that in a FREE SOCIETY those decisions are left up to individuals?

Opinion yes, "feeling" no.

I don't know about you but I DO live in a free society and make my own decisions.

I CHOOSE not to own a gun.

You think cows and chickens have a chance to shoot back? Hunting -- and eating deer is not a crime. For some people it's just another form of protien.

Chickens and cattle are bred for food so that's a lame argument.

There's nothing wrong with hunting if you are going to eat it.

Besides, I don't know if I get your point. Are you saying you are okay with let's say, bear hunting -- as long as the hunter uses a bow and arrow?

Why would you want to hunt a bear anyway, unless it was a killer?

I suppose it's ok to add to the endangered species list?

Are you against just the guns, or are you also against hunting.... and even fishing I suppose?

Hunting for food is is good but how many people living in suburbia actually hunt for food on a regular basis?

Not too many.

Guns are a tool just like a hammer or a saw. You forgot to say that guns also protect people from criminals as well.

Tools in the wrong hands can become weapons.

Would you have a problem with a cop shooting a crazed man with a sword who had just wounded or killed innocent people? What do you propose the police do in that situation, just talk to the man about their "feelings" of how he is not being a nice guy?

I hate to say it but your sensibilities are overtaking your logic on this issue.

You are totally wrong on this.

I don't have a problem with the police or military dealing with violent criminals.

In fact if they showed more zero tolerance the crime rate would be way down.

Having said that sometimes the "madman with the sword" could be brought down without killing him.

My logic is sound, thank you very much!

Have you ever been confronted by a criminal? Have you ever had a friend or a coworker killed by a criminal? Are you saying that if you had someone break into your home and threaten your family that you wouldn't want one of those .303 Enfieilds ... or at least a .22 to defend your loved ones?

Yes I have been confronted by a moron with a knife and I'm still here and I didn't need a gun.

After that incident I was called as a witness to his trial, for stabbing an off duty cop to death.

He got 20 years.

Don't kid yourself mate, anyone who tries to fuck with me or mine better think twice because no matter they would know all about it and I'm no hero.

The laws about intruders should be changed.

At the moment if an intruder gets injured on your property you are liable!

They are called Lee Enfields.

It's not about "paranioa" it's about our constitutional right to defend ourselves with legal firearms. I have stared down the barrel of criminal's gun. I have had people shoot at me. I own guns because it makes good sense to have that "option" along with calling the police or just staying out of situations where one might be put at risk. But let me tell you, sometimes none of that goes your way, and sometimes it's nice to have a backup.

I take it that you carry a gun even if you're only going to the shop (store)?

Last year (some people may have read this in the news) a man broke into the home of young woman who I happen to know who lived by herself in the Hollywood area. The man who broke in had a knife and he proceded to attack this innocent woman with the intention of killing her. However, she fought back and ended up cutting him with his own knife (after receiving many horrible cuts to herself as well) before the man fled the scene. Later, and based on the blood/DNA evidence left by the attacker at the crime scene; the police were able to make an arrest of the suspet. This case is still in progress, but investigators around the country have been able to track this man to many murders going back 20 years just based on the DNA. One of the murdered victims was the ex-girlfriend of actor Ashton Kutcher.

That is tragic but it was the evidence rather than the gun, that caught the perpetrator.

So are you telling me that people should not have the RIGHT to guns for personal protection? The story I told you has nothing to do with dear hunting, rednecks or "homies". It has to do with life and death. And only by luck and pure will to survive did this young woman not become another victim of a serial killer (one who did not use a gun either btw).

I say that the woman had a good reason to own a gun before this happened. She had a good reason to use a gun when it happened. And I certainly hope she has a gun now, to help her or anyone else in case it does happen again.

I'm saying that it's a shame that y'all "feel" the need to have that kind of protection.

Good for you. And as an American I don't care what you do or don't do in your country. Although I'm pretty sure that the violent crime rate did increase when you all decided to turn in your guns. But I really don't care one way or the other. It's not my business, I don't live where you do.

On the contrary domestic gun crimes dropped dramatically.

There will always be criminals with weapons and thankfully most of the time they just shoot each other.

The most violent are the bikies.

Armed robberies are almost non-existent nowadays, the latest thing is to blow up ATM's with oxygen bottles.

If you did live here you wouldn't need a gun.

I don't need to get a licence, I have a right.

So does that mean your guns are illegal?

IMO guns don't solve problems, they create them.

[Evster2012]

The laws here basically state (in some states) that it is illegal to conceal a firearm. Last time I checked (which was admittedly a looong time ago) you can have a revolver in your car in Arizona as long as it's in plain sight. Hence gunracks in pickup trucks.

The way I see it is this. People own guns for various reasons. The ones who own them for the right reasons shouldn't be made to sacrifice because of the people who use them for the wrong reasons (who will find them anyway).

The same could be said for words. Some use words to enlighten and brighten. Some use words to harm and to hurt. Is the first amendment next?

[Dzldoc]

IMO guns don't solve problems, they create them.

Sorry mate but people create problems, firearms eliminate them.

[Reggie29]

Sorry mate but people create problems, firearms eliminate them.

Sorry mate, but the "problems" will continue until there's no-one left to discharge them!

[Del Zeppnile]

Many "sane" people are gaoled for manslaughter during domestic disputes purely because guns are available.

While they may have not had any criminal intent they become criminals via the act.

what do you mean by "many"? Do you have statistics on that? Or is this just another feeling you have about guns?

Besides, what you are saying doesn't make sense. You're actuallly saying that in the context of a heated domestic dispute, one partner is SO ANGRY that they have decided to commit a manslaughter (I'll address the murder issue later) that they won't do the crime if they don't have a gun. This doesn't make sense, because a manslaughter is usually when the person doing the act is SO ANGRY and SO EMOTIONALLY EXPLOSIVE that they act without thinking.

Why wouldn't they do the act with a knife, a bat or a hammer in the same sitution? And of course we all know that they do. But the number of people who do this with a gun compared to the VAST NUMBERS of law abiding citizens who do not; makes the issue nearly insignificant in the big picture.

And 'murders' are committed with malice aforethought. The murderer makes a conscience desision to kill. The weapon of choice can in that situation be anything. History shows us that murder does not need a gun.

True there are accidents relating to pool drownings and it's not reasonable to ban them, however it's all about duty of care and doing everything possible to keep the kids out of harms way.

Now wait a minute! You are attempting to make the claim that it is reasonable to ban guns because of accidents and other non-criminal events. But you are going to say that is not reasonable to ban something that in many places is many, many times more likely to be the cause of death for small children?

I am not getting where your logic is being applied in this discussion at all. More small children drown in 5 gallons of water than by firearms. Mabye it's reasonable to ban 5 gallon buckets then. But you said it; it's not reasonable to ban something which only requires due dilligence in terms of parental control --- so why ban guns either?

You can't protect society from everything bad that happens. Things have to be weighed by their benefits as well. While it may be reasonable to limit private ownership of dynamite, the same can't be said about guns. Guns just don't EXPLODE or cause other problems unless the person who owns them is a problem. Deal with the criminal is the better answer.

Opinion yes, "feeling" no.

I don't know about you but I DO live in a free society and make my own decisions.

I CHOOSE not to own a gun.

No. In Austrailia (I think that is where you are from), your choices are very limited by your government. In my country I have just as much of a contitutional right to own a firearm as I have to free speech or the type of religion I wish to practice.

I choose to exercise my God given and Constitionally guaranteed rights.

[Del Zeppnile]

Chickens and cattle are bred for food so that's a lame argument.

There's nothing wrong with hunting if you are going to eat it.

Actually there is nothing wrong with hunting even if you aren't going to eat it. You saying that there is is just your opinion. An opinion based on your "feelings" but not the laws. Even in your counrty people are allowed to hunt animals that fall within the conditions set forth in the law.

But hunting has nothing to do with the right own guns, because you can hunt with a bow and arrow or a spear if you want and that is legal to in some cases.

Why would you want to hunt a bear anyway, unless it was a killer?

I suppose it's ok to add to the endangered species list?

Why would some people want to fish for trout? It doesn't matter if the bear is a killer or not. If there sufficient numbers that the jurisdiction in control allows for hunting, then why not? But you seem to be agains deer hunting too for some reason. And where deer are not allowed to be culled, there are way more problems for the deer than left to reproduce without some balance.

Hunting for food is is good but how many people living in suburbia actually hunt for food on a regular basis?

Not too many.

Doesn't matter, I already explained this. In a free society you may hunt, fish, raise cows for slaughter or poison rats in the garage. As long as it is not against the laws, to each his own.

Tools in the wrong hands can become weapons.

So can cars, airplanes and bags of fertilizer. In the largest domestic terrorism case in the United States, the killer used fertillizer in drums soaked in deisel fuel and detonated it.

Lesson learned: Many tools may be dangerous or used to kill. Knives, hammers or even airplanes.

So what are you going to do, ban everything?

I don't have a problem with the police or military dealing with violent criminals.

Okay.

In fact if they showed more zero tolerance the crime rate would be way down.

Well then, isn't that the answer to the problem? Just deal with the criminals. There are already laws on the books against the felony use of firearms, deal with them, but leave the law abiding folks out of it.

Having said that sometimes the "madman with the sword" could be brought down without killing him.

If you want to be a hero I suppose so. And of course if there is a less lethal method of course. But given a situation where a person has harmed or is about to harm another innocent human being I say "take the shot". Why allow a person to die when can prevent it by killing the criminal instead.

[Del Zeppnile]

My logic is sound, thank you very much!

I wouldn't call it logic at all. You make decisions based on your emotional reactions to things rather than exploring where the real problem is. The problem is not with law abiding citizens or with guns themselves. The problem is with criminals. If there were no guns anymore on the planet, criminals would still be harming people with rocks and pointy sticks.

Yes I have been confronted by a moron with a knife and I'm still here and I didn't need a gun.

Well then I suppose you are lucky that he didn't elect to try and kill you with it then. I have been confronted by knives and guns. I have had a gun pressed against the back of my skull by robber. I have been shot at by gang members. I have had friends murdered by criminals. And two of those murders did not involve guns. One was a beating and then strangulation with a rope, and the other was being run over intentionallly with a car.

But why should any of us need to be at the hands of a criminal without some means of protecting ourselves? Why would you want to give the criminals the advantage?

After that incident I was called as a witness to his trial, for stabbing an off duty cop to death.

He got 20 years.

That is a real shame, but if that off duty cop has been carrying his gun then there might never have been the need for another cop funeral. I certainly hope your police are allowed to carry their guns off duty. All police in this country are allowed, and why not? It's not like they are the bad guys.... just like other citizens are not the bad guys.

Don't kid yourself mate, anyone who tries to fuck with me or mine better think twice because no matter they would know all about it and I'm no hero.

I'm sure they would know all about it. And that is your honorable duty to protect you and yours. So why would you then want to restrict another law abiding citizen his means to protect himself and his family? I'm sure you are not afraid of your honorable family, friends and neighbors are you?

The laws about intruders should be changed.

At the moment if an intruder gets injured on your property you are liable!

You are surely allowed to defend your life aren't you? I'm not talking about using deadly force to prevent the theft of property (I would not advocate that). But preventing your own harm or death or that of another is legal even in Red China.

They are called Lee Enfields.

Yes, the rifle is called a 'Lee-Enfield', but I was referring to the caliber or the round as being a .303.

Btw, I used to own Lee-Enfield that I bought at a gun show. I never fired it, but since it was a model made for the Korean war with a bayonet as well, it had a real collectability factor. I traded it however for a really nice Browning Hi Power 9mm with a custom leather holster.... and ended up trading that later on for a boat - LOL! Oh the fun of a free society.

[Del Zeppnile]

I take it that you carry a gun even if you're only going to the shop (store)?

No, not all the time. I have guns in my home. I take guns along when I travel (we do a lot of road trips across the country). I take guns when I go fishing or camping. And yes, sometimes I will have a gun depending on where I might be going in the Los Angels area. But to honest, I don't try and go to certain neighborhoods or business districts if I can avoid them.

I think I use a very common sense approach to where and when I have a gun. But even that doesn't mean that you can always plan for the unexpected. But since I don't hang out in bars or go to clubs anymore, I usually don't have any problems. Most of the problems I had in the past were because I managed for a grocery chain that often put me at risk in some bad parts of town.

That is tragic but it was the evidence rather than the gun, that caught the perpetrator.

No it was the victim who fought back that foiled the murderer. But the point was that why shouldn't a person have a gun in their home to protect themselves if they choose?

I'm saying that it's a shame that y'all "feel" the need to have that kind of protection.

It's not about "feeling the need" there is a need. However, the feelings come into it when you allow people to have a choice in the matter. Much better to have a choice in being able to protect yourself with a gun than having it mandated to you by the government that your life and limb are not as worthy to be protected as a president or a prime ministers.

On the contrary domestic gun crimes dropped dramatically.

Domestic crimes may have dropped, but criminal assaults and robberies went up didn't they?

So does that mean your guns are illegal?

All the guns that I have registered are legal. There may be other guns stocked away someplace... but why trust the government completely, right?

You see the difference between my country and yours is that our founding fathers knew that they needed to protect the rights of individuals from all threats. Wheher those threats came from within or from abroad. In America people lived under the command of a king and his armies just at they did in your country. But since we made our own laws (after our war for Independece), we made laws that would guarantee our rights to private gun ownership.

In your nation however, rights were only given out by the British and later the Commonwealth laws in ways that seemed fit to them, not to any individual.

Therefore, a vast difference in perspective I would assume.

IMO guns don't solve problems, they create them.

Yes, "in your opinion."

And in this country our "opinion" is backed up by a right to it if we choose.

[Reggie29]

what do you mean by "many"? Do you have statistics on that? Or is this just another feeling you have about guns?

Well unless all the news footage I've seen and news stories have been fabricated by the anti gun lobby, then it is documented fact.

Besides, what you are saying doesn't make sense. You're actuallly saying that in the context of a heated domestic dispute, one partner is SO ANGRY that they have decided to commit a manslaughter (I'll address the murder issue later) that they won't do the crime if they don't have a gun. This doesn't make sense, because a manslaughter is usually when the person doing the act is SO ANGRY and SO EMOTIONALLY EXPLOSIVE that they act without thinking.

Most domestic killings are accidental or spur of the moment.

If it is pre-meditated murder then it should be tried on it's merits with the full force of the law.

Why wouldn't they do the act with a knife, a bat or a hammer in the same sitution? And of course we all know that they do. But the number of people who do this with a gun compared to the VAST NUMBERS of law abiding citizens who do not; makes the issue nearly insignificant in the big picture.

Until the moment someone gets shot, especially an innocent bystander.

And 'murders' are committed with malice aforethought. The murderer makes a conscience desision to kill. The weapon of choice can in that situation be anything. History shows us that murder does not need a gun.

History shows that in America most have been caused by guns or is the Old West just a myth?

Now wait a minute! You are attempting to make the claim that it is reasonable to ban guns because of accidents and other non-criminal events. But you are going to say that is not reasonable to ban something that in many places is many, many times more likely to be the cause of death for small children?

I never ever said guns should be banned.

If you had read what I originally wrote (post #11), "The only solution is the government should look at destroying the black market and cutting supply to the traders."

There is always a risk with everything in life.

I am not getting where your logic is being applied in this discussion at all. More small children drown in 5 gallons of water than by firearms. Mabye it's reasonable to ban 5 gallon buckets then. But you said it; it's not reasonable to ban something which only requires due dilligence in terms of parental control --- so why ban guns either?

Once again I never said to ban guns they are your words not mine.

You can't protect society from everything bad that happens. Things have to be weighed by their benefits as well. While it may be reasonable to limit private ownership of dynamite, the same can't be said about guns. Guns just don't EXPLODE or cause other problems unless the person who owns them is a problem. Deal with the criminal is the better answer.

See post #11.

No. In Austrailia (I think that is where you are from), your choices are very limited by your government. In my country I have just as much of a contitutional right to own a firearm as I have to free speech or the type of religion I wish to practice.

I choose to exercise my God given and Constitionally guaranteed rights.

I know more about your country and government than you'll ever know about mine.

I have more freedom and choices than you'll ever have.

BTW guns aren't banned here just better controlled.

Next....

[Evster2012]

Prohibition doesn't work. Period. Just ask a junkie.

[Reggie29]

Actually there is nothing wrong with hunting even if you aren't going to eat it. You saying that there is is just your opinion. An opinion based on your "feelings" but not the laws. Even in your counrty people are allowed to hunt animals that fall within the conditions set forth in the law.

What hang its head on a wall?

In Oz animals that are considered feral, vermin or life threatening can be killed, by professional hunters, not weekend warriors.

But hunting has nothing to do with the right own guns, because you can hunt with a bow and arrow or a spear if you want and that is legal to in some cases.

Where and when?

I suspect this is one of your "feelings".

Why would some people want to fish for trout? It doesn't matter if the bear is a killer or not. If there sufficient numbers that the jurisdiction in control allows for hunting, then why not? But you seem to be agains deer hunting too for some reason. And where deer are not allowed to be culled, there are way more problems for the deer than left to reproduce without some balance.

No that's your interpretation, actually I'm all for hunting for food, not killing animals for trophies or worse leaving them to rot.

We cull crocodiles and kangaroos too.

Like clubbing baby Fur Seals to death?

Doesn't matter, I already explained this. In a free society you may hunt, fish, raise cows for slaughter or poison rats in the garage. As long as it is not against the laws, to each his own.

What are you talking about?

I can hunt and fish all those other things too but there are limits.

I prefer to catch and release.

So can cars, airplanes and bags of fertilizer. In the largest domestic terrorism case in the United States, the killer used fertillizer in drums soaked in deisel fuel and detonated it.

Lesson learned: Many tools may be dangerous or used to kill. Knives, hammers or even airplanes.

So what are you going to do, ban everything?

Once again who said anything about banning anything?

You.

Okay.

Well then, isn't that the answer to the problem? Just deal with the criminals. There are already laws on the books against the felony use of firearms, deal with them, but leave the law abiding folks out of it.

I've been saying that all along.

If you want to be a hero I suppose so. And of course if there is a less lethal method of course. But given a situation where a person has harmed or is about to harm another innocent human being I say "take the shot". Why allow a person to die when can prevent it by killing the criminal instead.

Not long ago on Bondi Beach a bloke was messed up and pulled a knife.

He hadn't harmed anyone only waving it around.

The cops came and shot him dead, why didn't they just wound him instead?

And....

[Reggie29]

No, not all the time. I have guns in my home. I take guns along when I travel (we do a lot of road trips across the country). I take guns when I go fishing or camping. And yes, sometimes I will have a gun depending on where I might be going in the Los Angels area. But to honest, I don't try and go to certain neighborhoods or business districts if I can avoid them.

More peple should adopt that attitude.

I think I use a very common sense approach to where and when I have a gun. But even that doesn't mean that you can always plan for the unexpected. But since I don't hang out in bars or go to clubs anymore, I usually don't have any problems. Most of the problems I had in the past were because I managed for a grocery chain that often put me at risk in some bad parts of town.

Well it's easier to rob someone than to get a job, right?

No it was the victim who fought back that foiled the murderer. But the point was that why shouldn't a person have a gun in their home to protect themselves if they choose?

It seems less of a right, rather a necessity.

It's not about "feeling the need" there is a need. However, the feelings come into it when you allow people to have a choice in the matter. Much better to have a choice in being able to protect yourself with a gun than having it mandated to you by the government that your life and limb are not as worthy to be protected as a president or a prime ministers.

We rely on our police force to look aafter all that and they don't take shit from anyone.

Domestic crimes may have dropped, but criminal assaults and robberies went up didn't they?

As a matter of fact they didn't, sure there are instances occasionally but not very often.

All the guns that I have registered are legal. There may be other guns stocked away someplace... but why trust the government completely, right?

Look every politician has their own agendas and corruption is in all governments, but you've got to trust someone not something.

You see the difference between my country and yours is that our founding fathers knew that they needed to protect the rights of individuals from all threats. Wheher those threats came from within or from abroad. In America people lived under the command of a king and his armies just at they did in your country. But since we made our own laws (after our war for Independece), we made laws that would guarantee our rights to private gun ownership.

Interestingly, within 100 years of signing the document that right allowed the assissination of one of your presidents and a couple of attempts since, one being fatal.

In your nation however, rights were only given out by the British and later the Commonwealth laws in ways that seemed fit to them, not to any individual.

That all changed in 1900 when Federation began and we determined our destiny. The laws we have do fit the individual, contrary to what you think you know about my country and the Commonwealth.

Therefore, a vast difference in perspective I would assume.

Same principles, different ideas.

Yes, "in your opinion."

And in this country our "opinion" is backed up by a right to it if we choose.

I have the freedom to make any choices I desire, as you said if it's within the law.

I could apply and get a gun license because of my (lack of) criminal record but have no need for it.

BTW, I'm a pretty good shot too.

[Del Zeppnile]

We probably won't see eye to eye on this in a million year. But I applaud your passion... although misguided I believe toward the wrong thing. There are actually statistics that show when more of the law abiding folks are armed there is less crime. And Switzerland (where people even own machine guns) comes to mind.

However I need to correct you on this:

Interestingly, within 100 years of signing the document that right allowed the assassination of one of your presidents and a couple of attempts since, one being fatal.

Actually the United States has had four Presidents assassinated in our history, plus two other who are rumored to have died under mysterious circumstances.

Plus there have been probably a dozen or so attempted assassinations as well. The most interesting, and really "American" in it's charm being the assassination attempt on President Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt.

(From wikipedia)

October 13, 1912: Three and a half years after he left office, Roosevelt was running for President as a member of the Bull Moose Party. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, John F. Schrank, a saloon-keeper from New York, shot Roosevelt once with a .38 caliber revolver. A 50-page speech folded over twice in Roosevelt's breast pocket and a metal glasses case slowed the bullet. Amidst the commotion, Roosevelt yelled out, "Quiet! I've been shot." Roosevelt insisted on giving his speech with the bullet still lodged inside him. He later went to the hospital, but the bullet was never removed. Roosevelt, remembering that William McKinley died after operations to remove his bullet, chose to have his remain. The bullet remained in his body until his death. Schrank said that McKinley's ghost had told him to avenge his assassination. Schrank was found legally insane and was institutionalized until his death in 1943.[2]

[Reggie29]

We probably won't see eye to eye on this in a million year. But I applaud your passion... although misguided I believe toward the wrong thing. There are actually statistics that show when more of the law abiding folks are armed there is less crime. And Switzerland (where people even own machine guns) comes to mind.

However I need to correct you on this:

Actually the United States has had four Presidents assassinated in our history, plus two other who are rumored to have died under mysterious circumstances.

Plus there have been probably a dozen or so attempted assassinations as well. The most interesting, and really "American" in it's charm being the assassination attempt on President Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt.

(From wikipedia)

October 13, 1912: Three and a half years after he left office, Roosevelt was running for President as a member of the Bull Moose Party. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, John F. Schrank, a saloon-keeper from New York, shot Roosevelt once with a .38 caliber revolver. A 50-page speech folded over twice in Roosevelt's breast pocket and a metal glasses case slowed the bullet. Amidst the commotion, Roosevelt yelled out, "Quiet! I've been shot." Roosevelt insisted on giving his speech with the bullet still lodged inside him. He later went to the hospital, but the bullet was never removed. Roosevelt, remembering that William McKinley died after operations to remove his bullet, chose to have his remain. The bullet remained in his body until his death. Schrank said that McKinley's ghost had told him to avenge his assassination. Schrank was found legally insane and was institutionalized until his death in 1943.[2]

Misguided eh?

Yeah we'll leave it there.

Just don't shoot me!

No assassinations, yet!

One disappearance though.

http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/meetpm.asp?pmId=17

[MOJO]

my arms are bare, only weapon i need and refuse to use

[danelectro59]

I own several firearms including a handgun. A 9mm S&W.

Why? Because I enjoy shooting and there is nothing, and I mean nothing wrong with responsibly using a firearm. The problem is that too many people watch too many movies with firearms being used to kill other people, and they're so stupid that they can't differentiate fiction from reality. "If I go to school and kill a dozen people today, I'll be immortalized." Give me a fuckin' break. My father taught me how to operate a weapon when I was 9 years old and rule #1 was never point the thing at anyone, even if it's unloaded. Common sense, right? So if any of you tree huggers want to place blame, point the finger at good old Hollywood and set the record straight.

[spats]

Friends of mine were just down in the states and said it is sad that it's so easy to get a gun down there. Nothing good comes from owning a gun. Either animals are being killed with them or a human ends up being killed. Nothing good.

Steve Mcnairs unstable girlfriend is a perfect example of that.

[el mago]

If someone kills a man deserve to die.

If you kill a killer you are a hero.

I play lineage 2 sometimes =)

and I have a great stone and I played with it also...

[Evster2012]

So if any of you tree huggers want to place blame, point the finger at good old Hollywood and set the record straight.

Hollywood may contribute, but people have been getting their asses shot by psychos long before the advent of film. Ask Shakespeare. After Romeo receives a death threat from Tybalt, Mercutio expects Romeo to engage Tybalt in a duel. However, Romeo refuses to fight Tybalt, as Tybalt is Juliet's cousin and therefore his kinsman. Not knowing this, Mercutio is incensed, and decides to fight Tybalt himself. Romeo, not wanting his best friend or his relative to get hurt, intervenes, causing Mercutio to be killed by Tybalt stabbing "under [Romeo's] arm."

Although I do agree that Hollywood isn't helping the weak-minded. Bottom line is, a killer is a killer. The gun is just the medium being discussed. Just ask Jack the Ripper.

[danelectro59]

Hollywood may contribute, but people have been getting their asses shot by psychos long before the advent of film. Ask Shakespeare. After Romeo receives a death threat from Tybalt, Mercutio expects Romeo to engage Tybalt in a duel. However, Romeo refuses to fight Tybalt, as Tybalt is Juliet's cousin and therefore his kinsman. Not knowing this, Mercutio is incensed, and decides to fight Tybalt himself. Romeo, not wanting his best friend or his relative to get hurt, intervenes, causing Mercutio to be killed by Tybalt stabbing "under [Romeo's] arm."

Although I do agree that Hollywood isn't helping the weak-minded. Bottom line is, a killer is a killer. The gun is just the medium being discussed. Just ask Jack the Ripper.

Umm, right.

But a duel is a rather honorable way to settle a dispute, correct?

If i'm not mistaken, Alexander Hamilton, the dude on the $10 bill, was engaged in a famous duel with Aaron Burr, who's not on any currency afaik. What's the point? There isn't any. The fact is, movies glorify killing in large numbers and some can't understand it's supposed to be entertainment.

[Bong-Man]

I don't own a gun or any type of fire-arm, but I acknowledge your right to have one. That being said, if I have to pay taxes to fish, to drink alcohol, to put gas in my car, and especially to smoke, what makes a gun owner think they shouldn't be paying a heavy tax on their fire-arms and especially their ammunition ? If I pay to drink and smoke, why shouldn't you pay to shoot ? I don't own a gun, and I'm all for a new tax to create some revenue.....just like you don't care if I'm taxed to smoke, simply because you don't.

[Deborah J]

I don't own a gun or any type of fire-arm, but I acknowledge your right to have one. That being said, if I have to pay taxes to fish, to drink alcohol, to put gas in my car, and especially to smoke, what makes a gun owner think they shouldn't be paying a heavy tax on their fire-arms and especially their ammunition ? If I pay to drink and smoke, why shouldn't you pay to shoot ? I don't own a gun, and I'm all for a new tax to create some revenue.....just like you don't care if I'm taxed to smoke, simply because you don't.

Like you I do not own a gun, by choice. Until I take the time to get properly trained I will not own one. I do believe that you have the right to own one, but with proper background checks and you should HAVE to be trained.The problem to me in the US is they are so easy to get. The gangs have better guns than our police. People who own guns a lot of times are not responsible. Their own children get shot because the weapons are not secured and the list goes on....

[goldenguitar]

It would actually be better if nobody had weapons.

Wake up guys ,the cow boys era is over, life is not a movie.....

[Evster2012]

I don't own a gun or any type of fire-arm, but I acknowledge your right to have one. That being said, if I have to pay taxes to fish, to drink alcohol, to put gas in my car, and especially to smoke, what makes a gun owner think they shouldn't be paying a heavy tax on their fire-arms and especially their ammunition ? If I pay to drink and smoke, why shouldn't you pay to shoot ? I don't own a gun, and I'm all for a new tax to create some revenue.....just like you don't care if I'm taxed to smoke, simply because you don't.

I'm taxed to smoke, to drink, to put gas in my car too. Thank god I don't shoot my gun for recreation! I'd have to give up driving!

[Bong-Man]

I'm taxed to smoke, to drink, to put gas in my car too. Thank god I don't shoot my gun for recreation! I'd have to give up driving!

I always tell people that the reason I don't own a gun is because I've eventually cut myself with every knife I ever owned, so if I had a gun....