[iREZ]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

Americans

oh stfu. i didnt say i was in favor of guns, i just mentioned why they dont ban guns in the US outright.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Athens

Don't you think its sad that in your society, people need to own guns to feel safe? Even walking in Skid Row, the worst area of Vancouver I feel totally safe with out a knife or gun.

I think it's sad that people feel that they need to ban guns to feel safe.

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

This video sums up my feelings on the topic nicely.

Did anyone else think those hicks sounded Canadian?

EDIT: Now with working link!

awesome. wonder if the gun was loaded, or just for show. heh

Alex

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Athens

Don't you think its sad that in your society, people need to own guns to feel safe? Even walking in Skid Row, the worst area of Vancouver I feel totally safe with out a knife or gun.

I feel perfectly safe walking around my neighborhood unarmed despite the events of last night. I also felt perfectly safe walking around East Oakland unarmed when I lived in that area. I've never once had a problem with anyone, never been mugged, robbed, or shot at. Carrying a gun probably wouldn't even make me feel safer. I still support the right to own guns, however.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Athens

Don't you think its sad that in your society, people need to own guns to feel safe? Even walking in Skid Row, the worst area of Vancouver I feel totally safe with out a knife or gun.

I lived in Michigan close to the border of Canada growing up and your country tends to be calmer and more safe in general. However, this is for a variety of complex reasons. The problem with a lot of the discussion here about gun control is that a simple solution -- banning guns--will fix the problem of violence. It won't, our problems with violence here are more ingrained than simple solutions(or a good but one sided documentary by Michael Moore) can fix.

I don't own a gun but I support the ownership of weapons by people who are responsible and have a need for them. Of course, a lot of irresponsible people own guns and do a lot of misery but banning guns will not prevent that either in the short or long term.

Right now, both of our countries have stable governments which most people support(even though we might disagree with policies of the administration) but in 50 years or so that could change and the government could become oppressive and extremely corrupt. It may become necessary then to use force against such a government.

(Cue patriotic music )Its unlikely in the near future-- but I think that is the logic behind the part of the constitution that gives us the right to bear arms. The founding fathers probably realized the government would change radically over the years and that there would always be a danger that democracy might fail someday and would need to be reinstated by the people themselves.

[11011001]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Guns on planes don't kill people, people kill people. I have no clue why they ban guns on planes.

Or snakes for that matter... oh wait!

[finboy]

Originally Posted by tutelary

You are too ****ing dense to even grasp that normal people having to arm themselves to feel secure in their own homes is not the kind of society all of us wish to live in.

Your wishing that you didn't have to live in that type of society doesn't change the fact. I'm sure there are some places in America where bad things never happen and the sun shines every day. For the rest of us, the reality is that knowing how to use a gun for self defense is a valuable skill to have, and having a gun in the home (even in the face of all that risk & expense) is necessary.

[Eug Wanker]

All I can say is that I don't feel safe walking around parts of Washington DC at night. Same goes for parts of LA and Hollywood, etc. I'm just glad I dont live there.

Guns per se are not the root of the problem, but they sure don't help matters much. Personally I find the rules for gun ownership in some US States too lax too.

[Andy8]

I have lived and worked in Asia (Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore) for most of my life. Here even owning any type of gun is a taboo, let alone the thought of "needIng" one.

[11011001]

Originally Posted by Andy8

I have lived and worked in Asia (Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore) for most of my life. Here even owning any type of gun is a taboo, let alone the thought of "needIng" one.

Indeed. In Seoul, I have never felt afraid, and that is a city of 11 million people. I feel just as safe as I do here in Calgary (Canada). Actually, I probably feel safer in Seoul, then I do walking downtown in Calgary.

San Francisco, that was quite a shock. I never really felt totally safe, except in a few crowded places.

[Eug Wanker]

I always found the "This is a drug free zone." street signs in San Francisco a little disturbing.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Arms? Does it mean I can own grenades, missle launchers, and bombs?

Yeah, but the permit is tough to get and it's a real hassle.

[Shaddim]

FWIW, I can get handguns illegally for about $100 and can buy them by the dozen.

Banning guns will remove them from the hands of law-abiding citizens. It's not like a crook would go through the trouble of getting one through legitimate channels.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I feel perfectly safe walking around my neighborhood unarmed despite the events of last night. I also felt perfectly safe walking around East Oakland unarmed when I lived in that area. I've never once had a problem with anyone, never been mugged, robbed, or shot at. Carrying a gun probably wouldn't even make me feel safer. I still support the right to own guns, however.

im not against gun ownership, not at all. But I do support a system that includes a cool off period, background check, manditory gun training, licence and registry for liability.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Athens

im not against gun ownership, not at all. But I do support a system that includes a cool off period, background check, manditory gun training, licence and registry for liability.

And we have most of those things as laws in the United States.

I, honestly, don't get the point of a "cool off" period - if someone is going to shoot people, they'll buy the gun illegally, anyway. But I don't mind having to wait a week or whatever.

EVERY responsible gun owner gets safety training. It's very important to train your children as well, at a certain age. When they learn about guns, they should learn to respect their power, and they won't get in an accident.

As far as registry, that's been the law for a long time. And I really wouldn't mind having a registry of ballistics for forensic testing, i.e. have the lands and grooves on file, as well as the strike signature.

Funny, though, that many liberals are so much in favor of such strict regulations about firearms and never complain about the civil liberties involved in that kind of thing. After all, the right to bear arms is written in the Bill of Rights.

[Eug Wanker]

The civil liberties issue is a red herring. It's not as if they're asking for your fingerprints and a DNA sample. Owning guns is optional, and guns are dangerous things to own. I mean you have registries for cars and licences to use them, so it's not as if having registries for guns and licences to use them is a big deal.

[anonymac]

It's only too easy to see from the anti-gun nuts here that the media and pinko college professors do a great job at brainwashing people into thinking that guns are the source of all problems.

[Eug Wanker]

Somebody is too chicken to use his real nick.

[baw]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06794163083426

[Buckaroo]

We had about a dozen gun shots outside of my apartment. It only took about two minutes before police showed up after they were called. It turns out it was a couple stupid idiots from one of the apartments.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Mike Reed

Necromancer has a supernatural ability to bring long-dead forum discussion threads back to life. After having been flogged to death the thread may have been deceased for many years, and bringing it back may have scant relevance to the current topic, yet Necromancer will unexpectedly exhume the thread’s rotting corpse, and strike horror in the forum as its grotesque form lurches into the discussion. The monster, instantly recognized by all who knew it in life, seems at first to breathe and have a pulse, but, alas, it is beyond Necromancer’s skill to fully restore the thread’s original vitality. The hideous apparition may frighten away some of the weaker Warriors or Warriors badly wounded in former battles, but the thread is only a shadow of its former self and very quickly expires.

Unlike Archivist, Necromancer compulsively saves every forum message in carefully preserved archives for future use in battle, while Necromancer collects departed threads merely for the thrill of resurrecting them. Some say he performs this unnatural act out of malice, others say he can’t help himself, but no one really knows.

[nonhuman]

Wow, I think this may be my first zombie thread!

[lexapro]

I will hand out the Lexapro.

[Dakar the Fourth]

A new account just for that joke? Someone is dedicated bored.