Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I lived in NY and had no access to functional
firearms ( tho I lusted for them, in the privacy of my mind ).

Yeah... pretty much explains it all.

And I tease because you make absolutely absurd arguments. If I heard someone in the street talking the nonsense you do, I'd laugh in their face.

By the way, I though "there is no way this guy can be serious" when you were talking about how there should be no minimum age for kids to carry guns. But you were. Common sense alone should tell you that there should be a minimum age for children to carry firearms.

Yeah, they may know how to use guns, but children (by their very nature) are not mentally or emotionally mature enough to carry something like that around.

Yeah yeah, I know your reply (something along the lines of how there are plenty of adults who are in the same boat), but come on, man. There are some adults who fit that category, but just about ALL children fill that category.

Just because you can find a handful of incredibly mature/intelligent children that a person could trust with guns doesn't come close to justifying allowing all children to carry.

Anyone who seems only to think about guns (and may have done so since childhood) can't be taken seriously.

There's more to life than that...

Quote:

That does not sound like objective reporting, to me.

It's a comment - such has nothing to do in a report - and was thought to be a response to your: "The English press was not in support of your opinion." - which is untrue.

U appear to imply that there is agreement,
as to what is " ABSURD ".

I remember seeing on TV, probably in the 1990s,
a singularly shocking, alarming and disgusting news report:
a 7 year old boy was riding his bike, after dinnner.
A pervert grabbed him,
cut his throat, and left him for dead,
after cutting off and taking his penis.

One question- you hinted about allowing children to use guns. What is the cutoff age that you think is too young to allow a kid to carry around a firearm? I don't mean "lets go with daddy to the range and he'll help you shoot." I'm talking about "There's little Johnny, walking around with his 9mm."

Montana wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Montana wrote:

I think it's too late to take away guns from the good folks because the ones that would be left with the guns are the criminals, who would be tickled pink to know that the law just made their life of crime much easier.
I know that a lot of accidents happen with guns, but the cold facts are that there are a lot of evil mother f*ckers out there who wouldn't think twice about blowing your childs head off right in front of you, so on that note, I think people should have the right to protect their family.

I also think that anyone who is allowed to own a gun should be required to go through some type of safety training first. There are far too many accidents that happen with guns and if people are to be able to own this deadly weapon, someone better teach them a thing or two.

What scares me more than criminals having guns is stupid people with guns. My neighbor, who is in his 70's was out in our field a few weeks ago at 9:30 PM shooting at porccupines. I was just starting to go to sleep, since I was working 12-13 hr shifts, 6 days a week and this moron (moms cousin) is shooting animals on my property at 9:30 at night, knowing that I love animals and am not crazy about guns, but if I had a gun, I think I would have shot his ass! <kidding> <kind of>

Bottom line is people need to be trained.

I had an FID card when I lived in the states and I got it just so I could buy mace, but I could have bought a gun as well if I wanted. I had no training what so ever and just because I had a clean record, they hand me a license to buy a deadly weapon or several if it pleased me. This just doesn't make any sense at all to me.
I was very young and if I had decided to buy myself a nice gun, I can imagine several situations that could have turned deadly.
The father of my son was very abusive towards me both physically and emotionally for several years and I can picture situations where I would have killed him or if he got the gun first, he most certainly would have killed me.

The man is dead, but I'm sure glad it wasn't me who killed him and even happier that he didn't kill me!

When I was in school,
we were informed that we 'd not graduate
unless we cud swim safely. In that same spirit,
students shud be taught safety in firearms use,
as early in life as possible.
David

I meant educating adults who can actually buy a gun and that doesn't belong in our schools.
There are enough things being taught in school that crosses the line and we don't need more.

No wonder kids these days are failing in important subjects, they're too busy being taught about sex and what not and I strongly think they better get back to what's important because from what I see, most of the teenagers today are out of control,
so we don't need to be teaching them how to aim a freakin gun.....
Hello!

U think that if thay DON 'T get training in safe use of firearms,
then thay will NOT be aiming their guns ?? What will stop them ???
HELLO ??
Safety training will result in fewer accidents.

The kids in my neighborhood
used to MAKE their own guns,
( even tho we had an abundance of commercially manufactured guns )
because it was FUN, fast and ez to do. Of course, the quality of
homemade gunsmiths varied quite a lot.
David

I'm not sure I should risk a serious answer to someone who only insults, but I'd say 18 years old, for carrying a handgun everywhere they go.

I'd say responsible 16 year olds should be able to go hunting by themselves, with their parents' permission, though.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I lived in NY and had no access to functional
firearms ( tho I lusted for them, in the privacy of my mind ).

Yeah... pretty much explains it all.

And I tease because you make absolutely absurd arguments. If I heard someone in the street talking the nonsense you do, I'd laugh in their face.

By the way, I though "there is no way this guy can be serious" when you were talking about how there should be no minimum age for kids to carry guns. But you were. Common sense alone should tell you that there should be a minimum age for children to carry firearms.

Yeah, they may know how to use guns, but children (by their very nature) are not mentally or emotionally mature enough to carry something like that around. Yeah yeah, I know your reply (something along the lines of how there are plenty of adults who are in the same boat), but come on, man. There are some adults who fit that category, but just about ALL children fill that category. Just because you can find a handful of incredibly mature/intelligent children that a person could trust with guns doesn't come close to justifying allowing all children to carry.

parados wrote:

You mean the unsupported claims from Australia pushed by gun nuts?

The claims that were soundly debunked in this thread earlier. The only argument against the evidence of the reduced crime in Australia seemed to be we had to wait to see if 3 years of a lower crime rate was an anomaly.

The fact of the matter is that both England and Australia have a crime rate that has gone down

If it adds to the happiness of your life,
u can believe that, if u want to.
David

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:

That does not sound like objective reporting, to me.

It's a comment - such has nothing to do in a report - and was thought to be a response to your: "The English press was not in support of your opinion." - which is untrue.

I was referring to press reports of wildly increasing
violent crime since prohibition of law abiding folks' guns,
not to editorials.

I 'm not sure about the editorials.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:

That does not sound like objective reporting, to me.

It's a comment - such has nothing to do in a report - and was thought to be a response to your: "The English press was not in support of your opinion." - which is untrue.

I was referring to press reports of wildly increasing
violent crime since prohibition of law abiding folks' guns,
not to editorials.

I 'm not sure about the editorials.

\


Oh, you were referring to something that doesn't exist. Of course.. Your failure to live in the real world again.

FACT, crime has gone down in England since the "prohibition of law abiding folk's guns." Crime has gone down in Australia as well. Your unsupported claim is nothing but the ranting of a gun nut at this point. You haven't presented any evidence. I wonder what happened to your claim you had to be away all weekend so that was your last post earlier in the day. Are your weekends away just fantasy too?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

U appear to imply that there is agreement,
as to what is " ABSURD ".

Sure there is. My thoughts and the thoughts of civilized people who DON'T "lust over guns" such as yourself.
U define reality as agreement with your own position;
fine, BE that way.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I remember seeing on TV, probably in the 1990s,
a singularly shocking, alarming and disgusting news report:
a 7 year old boy was riding his bike, after dinnner.
A pervert grabbed him,
cut his throat, and left him for dead,
after cutting off and taking his penis.

Seriously dude, chill out with the stupid dramatic idiocy. I can take a dramatic, terrible incident that happens once in a blue moon and use it to support my argument, but I don't. Know why? Because doing so is retarded.

And for Chrissakes, make an effort to write correctly. People might be able to take you a little more seriously.
What I say will stand or fall on its own merit.
I don 't need to make it personal.
You supposedly have a law background ()... your writing should at least try to reflect it.

Kids shouldn't be hunting. It's not like it's needed to survive anymore and
they are simply not responsible enough to be holding any gun.

JustanObserver wrote:

One question- you hinted about allowing children to use guns. What is the cutoff age that you think is too young to allow a kid to carry around a firearm? I don't mean "lets go with daddy to the range and he'll help you shoot." I'm talking about "There's little Johnny, walking around with his 9mm."

I'm not sure I should risk a serious answer to someone who only insults,
but I'd say 18 years old, for carrying a handgun everywhere they go.

I'd say responsible 16 year olds should be able to go hunting by themselves, with their parents' permission, though.

parados wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:

That does not sound like objective reporting, to me.

It's a comment - such has nothing to do in a report - and was thought to be a response to your: "The English press was not in support of your opinion." - which is untrue.

I was referring to press reports of wildly increasing
violent crime since prohibition of law abiding folks' guns,
not to editorials.

I 'm not sure about the editorials.

\


Oh, you were referring to something that doesn't exist. Of course.. Your failure to live in the real world again.

FACT, crime has gone down in England since the "prohibition of law abiding folk's guns." Crime has gone down in Australia as well. Your unsupported claim is nothing but the ranting of a gun nut at this point. You haven't presented any evidence. I wonder what happened to your claim you had to be away all weekend so that was your last post earlier in the day. Are your weekends away just fantasy too?

Y do u feel a need to be so nasty ?
I was not about to undertake a long research project.
I expect to leave around 5 AM.

Montana wrote:

Kids shouldn't be hunting. It's not like it's needed to survive anymore and
they are simply not responsible enough to be holding any gun.

Naked prejudice.

That does not accord with my experience
of 5 years direct observation,
including myself. There were no problems.

Are u sure that u are justified
in throwing other peoples' rights away in the garbage ?
David

If there's no suitable liberal cause for them to froth at the mouth over, they'll invent one.