|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Gun Control?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: TwiztidJuggalo
Well? Are you for or against gun control? I am totally against it. What good does gun control ever do? I'll tell you what it does. It takes away guns from law-abiding citizens so they are defenseless. So that way all of the non-law-abiding citizens have all the guns. As for the Second Amendment, its exact wording: "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". It doesn't say "the right to bear arms under these circumstances:" It says that right shall not be infringed. Period. No discussion. People can have guns. As the saying goes, "Guns don't kill people, People kill people." That could not be more true. People are the ones who control it. Don't blame the guns, that is just plain stupid and idiototic. People need to take responsibilty for themselves. If a person uses the gun to kill someone, don't blame the gun makers or try to take guns away, blame the person, the entity that actually did the crime. In effect, blaming the gun and/or its makers and trying to take it away is partially taking away the responsibility of the criminal. People's actions, people's responsibilities.
Anyways post your thoughts.
Posted by: redwench
i do believe you need to define gun control more clearly. you imply that you are referring to a complete ban on private firearms as gun control in your post; but the term generally encompasses a much wider variety of legislation, including prohibiting convicted felons from owning firearms (which i would assume you have no objection to).
back to the matter at hand. using your people-kill-people argument, everyone should be able to own live hand grenades, tanks, and missle launchers. but for some reason, most people using that argument are the ones that want drugs, prostitution, and neighbors odd landscaping to be illegal because they "harm society". imho, one has to make up ones mind whether you want a nanny government, or a libertarian one.
Posted by: Gunslinger
I support idiot control.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Your poll question itself is so limited that it means nothing. What do you mean by gun control? Are you saying that a 7 year old should be able to buy a gun? Would not allowing a 7 year old to buy a gun be gun control? No one, or atleast not many, gun control advocates are screaming for a ban on all guns. Most gun nuts still yell like that is what people are proposing though. How is selling trigger locks with hand guns taking your rights away or requiring exstensive background checks. You say that by limited guns you are only taking them away from law abiding people, that is just false. It is a lie told so many times that people believe it. Where do you think most guns that are used to commit crimes are bought? They are bought from legal dealers.
This thread exemplifies what is wrong with political debate in this country. Issues like this are not black and white. There are no easy solutions. Ofcourse we are going to limit what "arms" people can buy. We would never allow someone to buy grenades or anti-tank missles.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Control on all guns? no...
Control on assault/military weapons for public consumption? yes...
You don't buy assault weapons to shoot deer, not matter what the republicans say... and gun collection isn't stated in the second amendment...
Posted by: Erekose
here is the whole thing about the second amendment, it is intended to make sure the citizens could defend themselves against hostile parties by having an armed militia.
now a militia is a trained fighting force that is not made up of professional soldiers, but of ordinary citizens. if those citizens are to effect a successful fighting force it is necessary that they are granted the right of armament. it does not say anywhere in the bill of rights, best i can remember it, that joe bag'o'donuts can have a gun. joe bag'o'donuts is not in the militia (and for good reason), therefore he need not be armed. you want a gun, get some training, learn how to handle the thing, drill regularly with other able bodied members of your militia.
what's that? you don't belong to a militia? then you don't need a gun, joe
Posted by: IceBreaker
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
You don't buy assault weapons to shoot deer, not matter what the republicans say
|
Aye, but I doubt the right-wingers oppose gun control for Freedom™'s sake - more like for some other rea$on......
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elhior_manwe
You say that by limited guns you are only taking them away from law abiding people, that is just false. It is a lie told so many times that people believe it.
|
Wait, there's a better one: some claim that draconian gun control will actually improve security & prevent criminals from getting their hands on the guns - a lie told so many times that people believe it!!
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
Control on all guns? no...
Control on assault/military weapons for public consumption? yes...
You don't buy assault weapons to shoot deer, not matter what the republicans say... and gun collection isn't stated in the second amendment...
|
you'll never take away my god-given-right right to hunt prarie dogs with kevlar piercing bullets
Posted by: redwench
im all for every law abiding citizen owning one shotgun to protect them in their homes. every other weapon should require training and licensing.
Posted by: TwiztidJuggalo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Erekose
here is the whole thing about the second amendment, it is intended to make sure the citizens could defend themselves against hostile parties by having an armed militia.
now a militia is a trained fighting force that is not made up of professional soldiers, but of ordinary citizens. if those citizens are to effect a successful fighting force it is necessary that they are granted the right of armament. it does not say anywhere in the bill of rights, best i can remember it, that joe bag'o'donuts can have a gun. joe bag'o'donuts is not in the militia (and for good reason), therefore he need not be armed. you want a gun, get some training, learn how to handle the thing, drill regularly with other able bodied members of your militia.
what's that? you don't belong to a militia? then you don't need a gun, joe
|
* United States Code
o TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
+ SUBTITLE A - GENERAL MILITARY LAW
# PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
* CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
What this means is what it says. This means that joe bag'o'donuts CAN have a gun because if he conforms to these standards (most likely he does) then he is in the militia.
-matt
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Wait, there's a better one: some claim that draconian gun control will actually improve security & prevent criminals from getting their hands on the guns - a lie told so many times that people believe it!!
|
Honestly we do not know that. We do know right now that most guns used in crimes are purchased legally.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elhior_manwe
Honestly we do not know that.
|
Hear hear
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elhior_manwe
We do know right now that most guns used in crimes are purchased legally.
|
Forcing criminals to purchase their toys illegally sure will solve the problem - having a crapload more guns on the black market will make them far easier to keep track of...
Posted by: redwench
more guns on the black market? howso? guns that are black market currently have either been used in a crime or are stolen. so it defies the imagination that if there are less guns available legally that any more would be available illegally, short of massive imports.
and again, you keep confusing career criminals with your standard joe criminal, who commits crimes on impulse using the tools available. i dont think anyone sane would be suggesting that drug gangs would be unarmed regardless of legislation passed.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Are you suggesting that more stringent laws will prevent a standard yet determined Joe from getting his hands on a gun?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
more guns on the black market? howso? guns that are black market currently have either been used in a crime or are stolen. so it defies the imagination that if there are less guns available legally that any more would be available illegally, short of massive imports.
|
amongst other things, yes - though I wouldn't call them "imports" - this has a somewhat legal connotation to it...
You know damn well that gun bans feed the black market (which in turn, perhaps, creates the need for even tougher bans, at least according to some politicians still naïve enough to embrace the idea that adding more oil to the fire they themselves lit in the first place will actually put it out http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/kryten.gif )
By the way, that's where your "standard joe criminal" comes into play - as the customer playing his own little part in keeping the black machine running smooth & unhindered. Gun bans making it impossible for Joe Standard to procure a gun? No problem - check out the "gun dealer", at the corner down Lone Alley, who can get him his toy - without the legal hassle. Sure it will cost him extra buck$, too bad for him...
Guns bans trigger an increase in demand, making them more expensive - a godsend for those in the firearms trafficking "business"...
tell me...do you really think gun traffickers would want all guns made legal?
Posted by: TwiztidJuggalo
Also, something else to think about... The second amendement places NO RESTRICTIONS on guns. Therefore, NO GUNS should be banned. That's the technical version.
In 1939, US v Miller, the Supreme Court decided that a sawed-off shotgun is not protected under the second amendment. Know why? Because they decided that it was not a military type weapon. That is stating that if it is not a military weapon then it is unconstitutional. Hmmm, that implies that if a weapon is military issue the weapon is protected by the second amendment. Hmm, this is a contradiction to current rulings that ban military issue weapons.
-matt
EDIT: Did you know that the prez can just get on the radio and call the militia? He can just say "Hey we need all the militia from north texas to report to the border" (or something of the like). The militia is supposed to report to the border immediately with their military weapon. When needed, the militia is a military force, therefore, we should be allowed military weapons.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Are you suggesting that more stringent laws will prevent a standard yet determined Joe from getting his hands on a gun?
amongst other things, yes - though I wouldn't call them "imports" - this has a somewhat legal connotation to it...
You know damn well that gun bans feed the black market (which in turn, perhaps, creates the need for even tougher bans, at least according to some politicians still naïve enough to embrace the idea that adding more oil to the fire they themselves lit in the first place will actually put it out http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/kryten.gif )
By the way, that's where your "standard joe criminal" comes into play - as the customer playing his own little part in keeping the black machine running smooth & unhindered. Gun bans making it impossible for Joe Standard to procure a gun? No problem - check out the "gun dealer", at the corner down Lone Alley, who can get him his toy - without the legal hassle. Sure it will cost him extra buck$, too bad for him...
Guns bans trigger an increase in demand, making them more expensive - a godsend for those in the firearms trafficking "business"...
tell me... do you really think gun traffickers would want all guns made legal?
|
I think alot of gun traffickers would like to see all guns legal as these are the guys selling the guns. You still don't get it do you. Let me repeat myself one more time MOST GUNS USED TO COMMIT CRIMES ARE PURCHASED LEGALLY. There is not a thriving black market for guns in this country. Guns that are sold to gangs where at some point in there life purchased legally, guns sold to career criminals where at some point purchased legally. When they trace the histories back through the serial numbers the police normally find a legal buy in the history of the guy.
I am not suggesting that tougher laws will somehow magically fix our problems with violence as a society just suggesting that this argument "If you make guns illegal criminals will be able to get guns just as easy or easier then they can now", is asinine
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elhior_manwe
I think alot of gun traffickers would like to see all guns legal as these are the guys selling the guns. You still don't get it do you.
|
OMG...
http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/rofl.gif
Damn - this should be saved for posteriority -
Maybe you should have looked up the definition of "black market" before coming out with such vapid assertions - especially when following it with the "you don't get it" retort - because, you know, quoting isn't of much use if you don't even bother reading/comprehending what you're quoting in the 1st place..
So I'll try to make it clearer this time (not that it wasn't clear enough last time but hey, patience is a virtue isn't it) :
Gun traffickers sell guns illegally, on the black market => at prices WAY higher than they would otherwise have been sold at within the legal channels.
Therefore in the case of guns, if previously banned firearms are made legal, then any client with a minimum of common sense will choose lower cost over higher black market prices - which means more money to the State (via taxes) - and no more juicy income for the traffickers. Simple isn't it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elhior_manwe
Let me repeat myself one more time
|
Of course - please, entertain me......
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elhior_manwe
MOST GUNS USED TO COMMIT CRIMES ARE PURCHASED LEGALLY. There is not a thriving black market for guns in this country. Guns that are sold to gangs where at some point in there life purchased legally, guns sold to career criminals where at some point purchased legally. When they trace the histories back through the serial numbers the police normally find a legal buy in the history of the guy.
|
I don't know about the gun trafficking statistics in the US - perhaps you could provide some links to back that highly speculative & unlikely claim?
But that is not even the problem - the problem is that:
1) you're talking as though there is nothing outside your own borders - well here's some news: there is! In fact there's a whole world out there - hundreds of other nations, across the seas & oceans! Would you believe! And guess what: there's a black market to match, that actually spans the entire globe - an international black market! Several illegal items are involved in this black market: drugs, contraband...and firearms.
Cruel world isn't it?
2) you're forgetting that guns can be illegally manufactured, in fact in some countries - in the Utar Pradesh state of India for example - illegal gun production is a business that continues to boom (pardon the pun) - thus providing more fuel to feed the Global Black Market.
Oh, and BTW: illegal guns often have their serial numbers altered or filed off......
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elhior_manwe
I am not suggesting that tougher laws will somehow magically fix our problems with violence as a society just suggesting that this argument "If you make guns illegal criminals will be able to get guns just as easy or easier then they can now", is asinine
|
Aye, and it is even more asinine to ascribe that argument to someone who never actually brought it up - on the contrary:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
gun bans making it impossible for Joe Standard to procure a gun? No problem - check out the "gun dealer", at the corner down Lone Alley, who can get him his toy - without the legal hassle. Sure it will cost him extra buck$, too bad for him...
|
so obviously the bans won't make it easier for him - but as I said, that doesn't mean it will prevent him from getting one now, does it?
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Guns sold illegally in this country are normally bought legally. Making it more difficult to buy guns legally would in turn make it more difficult to buy guns illegaly.
Posted by: IceBreaker
More difficult, perhaps; but - again - not impossible. Nor will it prevent any determined person from acquiring one.
What it will do, however, is to radically shift the balance of force between law-abiding citizens & criminals - in favour of the latter. There is no need for further proof of that, as the miserable failure of the UK methods is pretty blatant http://forum.presence-pc.com/icones/smilies/ange.gif
Posted by: TwiztidJuggalo
By saying making ot more difficult what are you thinking of? How would you suggest making it more difficult?
-matt
Posted by: trekpsycho
I agree. I am against gun control in the sense that all guns should be banned. I don't necessarily disagree with background checks and I do agree that some kind of training should go along with owning a weapon. Here's the kicker for me. All the people who are so convinced that banning guns will limit criminals from getting their hands on one (yes even Joe Blow one time criminal) are forgetting one thing: all the narcotics that have been made illegal in this country has not reduced the drug trade. The so called "War on Drugs" hasn't eliminated drugs from getting through our borders and never will. As long as the desire for something is there and money is to be made selling it, there will always be someone to obtain and sell it.
Does anyone seriously think that we could keep guns out of the US when we can't even stop drugs and illegal immigrants? I for one do not.
The best way to reduce the crimes committed with guns is to make the penalties so severe that someone will hesitate to do it.
Posted by: redwench
difference between narcotics and guns however. humans find narcotics pleasurable, if not addictive.
i happen to have the same stance on guns and drugs, they should both be legal to possess, but their sale should be strictly regulated 
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
difference between narcotics and guns however. humans find narcotics pleasurable, if not addictive.
|
Doesn't matter whether its pleasurable and addictive. The market would be there, criminals would smuggle them.
Quote:
|
i happen to have the same stance on guns and drugs, they should both be legal to possess, but their sale should be strictly regulated
|
I kinda agree, but would have to know what kind of regulation you mean. I happen to think that if narcotics were legal, a lot of the drug trade would disappear.
Posted by: IceBreaker
http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/cyberjack.gif
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
I kinda agree, but would have to know what kind of regulation you mean.
|
similar legislation to alcohol and tobacco products now. strict controls over sellers and producers, and age limits on buyers.
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
similar legislation to alcohol and tobacco products now. strict controls over sellers and producers, and age limits on buyers.
|
I could live with that.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
I keep hearing the same argument.
Making guns more difficult to acquire wouldn't matter because people would figure out some way to get them if they really wanted.
I have never quite understood that, it is not a new argument. Guns nuts have been saying that for years. It is like they expect a huge a thriving black market to pop up imediatly everywhere that is supplying guns from this mythical illegal gun trade that is pouring into America. I am not saying that criminals would not be able to buy guns but I dont understand what is wrong with making it harder for people to buy guns considering the majority of guns used in crimes are bought legally. When we start seeing a rise in illegal imports then you deal with that if you can. What we shouldnt do is pretend that we know the ultimate consequences of new ways of dealing with problems and just because the solution is not perfect does not mean we should just continue with a extremely flawed system.
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elhior_manwe
I keep hearing the same argument.
Making guns more difficult to acquire wouldn't matter because people would figure out some way to get them if they really wanted.
I have never quite understood that, it is not a new argument. Guns nuts have been saying that for years. It is like they expect a huge a thriving black market to pop up imediatly everywhere that is supplying guns from this mythical illegal gun trade that is pouring into America. I am not saying that criminals would not be able to buy guns but I dont understand what is wrong with making it harder for people to buy guns considering the majority of guns used in crimes are bought legally. When we start seeing a rise in illegal imports then you deal with that if you can. What we shouldnt do is pretend that we know the ultimate consequences of new ways of dealing with problems and just because the solution is not perfect does not mean we should just continue with a extremely flawed system.
|
First off, I am not a "gun nut". I just demand my right guaranteed under the Constitution to own firearms. I am not against reasonable precautions and regulations to insure that guns are not purchased by criminals or used in a criminal manner. But I am very leery of how the government chooses to regulate any of my rights. The government tends to go overboard with what they think is good for me.
Banning firearms completely just because someone (without a criminal record) may buy one and use it in a crime is not acceptacle to me because it denies me my rights. I said it before and I'll repeat myself, what really is needed is tougher punishments for someone who uses a gun in a crime. This may make the average citizen more cautious about using that fire arm that he bought to commit a crime.
BTW, the illegal gun trade is not mythical. Guns can be purchased illegally now, although I admit that it is not a huge problem the way that illegal drugs are. The reason that this is so is because there are criminals who cannot buy a gun legally, but want them anyway.
Also, for my information, please give me a link or some kind of resource to the fact that most firearms used to commit crimes are bought legally (not being sarcastic here, I really would like to read about it). Thanks.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Wasnt saying you are a gun nut and am certainly not saying that we should completely ban the sale of guns in this country. My point about the mythical black market for guns isnt that people cant find illegal guns but that most of those guns were at some point in there life bought legally in the U.S. and not smuggled in. I will find some information on my assertion that most guns used in crimes are bought legally. The first thing that pops into my head is the columbine shootings at the colorado school. All the guns that those kids had were purchased legally, not by them they bought them fomr someone who did buy them legally though. Though one example(especially that example) does not prove my point, I will link some stuff when I have time.
One thing I hear argued by the NRA is that they do not want guns required to be sold with trigger locks, I have never understood that. Gun control advocates also have been working hard to get stricter regulations at gun shows were it is very easy for people who would normally be flagged at a shop to buy guns. Also you can purchase kits to make rifles fully automatic at guns shows which is legally grey as long as they do not install it for you. There are many examples in my opinion were we could have stricter laws and not impede people that obey laws. With groups like the NRA constantly lobbying congress I think that we do not need to worry about the "slippery slope" because they(the gun lobby) will always be there.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elhior_manwe
I will find some information on my assertion that most guns used in crimes are bought legally. The first thing that pops into my head is the columbine shootings at the colorado school.
|
Aye, and guess what - the killers' leader's dad was a military officer http://forum.presence-pc.com/icones/smilies/ange.gif
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
Wasnt saying you are a gun nut and am certainly not saying that we should completely ban the sale of guns in this country. My point about the mythical black market for guns isnt that people cant find illegal guns but that most of those guns were at some point in there life bought legally in the U.S. and not smuggled in.
|
Wasn't accusing you of anything, just wanted to make sure. I believe that if handguns are banned, then there will be handguns bought legally in some other country and then smuggled in. Of course they're not smuggled in now, it's much cheaper for said black marketeer to buy or steal it here to sell to someone who can't buy one legally themselves. I don't disagree with that statement.
Quote:
|
The first thing that pops into my head is the columbine shootings at the colorado school. All the guns that those kids had were purchased legally, not by them they bought them fomr someone who did buy them legally though.
|
But they didn't buy them legally. So the laws already in force didn't stop them from getting what they wanted. Therefore we come back to what most gun control advocates seem to want; total ban on any private individual purchasing a firearm. Which I disagree with. And then what do you do about the two shotguns that were used? Shotguns are normally used for hunting right? But these two nuts sawed them off (which is illegal) and used them to kill people. And while only 37 shotgun rounds were fired, I guarantee you that a sawed off shotgun loaded with buck shot (I don't know what ammo they used) is a lot more lethal than a 9mm in close quarters. So do we ban all guns, even those used for hunting? Actually, the only gun that was used in Columbine that could be considered a weapon designed solely for killing people was the TEC-9 pistol. That was bought legally by Mark Manes and then sold illegally to Klebold. Now, I can see someone's point about owning a TEC-9. Personally, I think that is going a little overboard in the personal protection area. But It could just as easily been an ordinary 9mm pistol (which I do have).
So you see the problem? We start off banning assault weapons. Well and good. I can see that. But then it is decided to ban all handguns. But, whoops, hunting rifles and shotguns can be used to kill people too. So what about a total ban on all guns? That's what I mean about being leery when the government starts trying to limit my rights. I'm afraid it might get out of hand once it gets started.
BTW, I am not a member of the NRA.
Oh, one more thing to think about; what do you think is the most violent country in the world? Who's second? Check it out.
Posted by: Null Actor
Tiny detail, but the second amendment was added to allow people to protect themselves from the government, should the government turn bad.
It was never so that joe sixpack could have an M16 in case theoretical 'attackers' were to appear.
Posted by: Qui Gon-Jinn
Gun Control... Hitting what you aim at..
BTW.. I am sitting in my office with my .40 pistol on the desk besides me.. I keep it there all the time. only time I move it is when the grandkids come over.
Posted by: TwiztidJuggalo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
Tiny detail, but the second amendment was added to allow people to protect themselves from the government, should the government turn bad.
It was never so that joe sixpack could have an M16 in case theoretical 'attackers' were to appear.
|
That is only one reason.
Another reason is because the Constitution states that the government can call forth the militia, to quell an uprising, hold off invasion, etc etc.
Also, if you examine some of the Founding Fathers' documents, they believed it is a right to have guns for self-defense.
-matt
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Qui Gon-Jinn
Gun Control... Hitting what you aim at..
|
LOL!
Quote:
|
BTW.. I am sitting in my office with my .40 pistol on the desk besides me.. I keep it there all the time. only time I move it is when the grandkids come over.
|
I'm the same way.
Posted by: armystud0911
I recently joined the community of firearms owners, and to be honest, they sometimes freak me out. I bought a 12 ga. a month ago so that I could go and fire off some rounds at a local sportsmans club once a month or so. When I brought my gun home, one of my gun weilding buddies was trying to tell me to use for home defense. In all honesty, I have no intention of putting my housemates in danger by weilding a gun when I think there is an intruder (we have had several btw). Furthermore, I think its ludicrous, at least at this point in my life, to rationalize defending my future wife and kids by keeping a handgun loaded and ready by the bedside. I also do not think we will ever see a call for the militia again in this country, we are the largest (or close to the largest) military power on the earth. As for using the militia to overthrow a corrupt government, somehow the idea of rallying every redneck with a gun at the texas boarder for a battle scares me even more than a corrupt government, not to mention the fact that it would completely ineffective against the US army with all its tanks, missiles, aircraft, ect. I think gun control is a very good thing, we are using it right now and it is making it harder for felons to acquire firemarms. Personally, I wouldnt mind some tighter requirements, such as more extensive background checks and laws about using gun safes in the home.
Posted by: Bishop
Society will rebel through the domination of technology.
Guns will only help us if the zombies march.
Posted by: Bix VT
I got your home defense solution right here
Posted by: Fury451
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by armystud0911
I recently joined the community of firearms owners, and to be honest, they sometimes freak me out. I bought a 12 ga. a month ago so that I could go and fire off some rounds at a local sportsmans club once a month or so. When I brought my gun home, one of my gun weilding buddies was trying to tell me to use for home defense. In all honesty, I have no intention of putting my housemates in danger by weilding a gun when I think there is an intruder (we have had several btw).
|
maybe youll change your mind when youve got a bunch of armed intruders threatenin your housemates ( unless u think u can drive them away by just asking them to “please leave” lol  )
and seriously dude if them COPS have the right 2 defend themselves n their homes then there aint no reason why we ordinary citizens cant do the same
unless u think the life of ordinary ppl is worth less than the life of them SS , u know , like back in nazi germany or somethin 
Quote:
|
Personally, I wouldnt mind some tighter requirements, such as more extensive background checks and laws about using gun safes in the home.
|
yeah i dont mind either as long as the law also stops givin cops ( u know , those who are supposed to protect the inocent not shoot them ) the right to act like cowboys , u know like qualified immunity crap 
( qualified immunity = the right to break teh law while they on duty and get away with it even if they kill bystanders or torture ppl or tamper with evidence ... )
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fury451
maybe youll change your mind when youve got a bunch of armed intruders threatenin your housemates
|
um, just what on earth do you think youre going to do if a bunch of armed intruders are in your house?
Posted by: armystud0911
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fury451
maybe youll change your mind when youve got a bunch of armed intruders threatenin your housemates ( unless u think u can drive them away by just asking them to “please leave” lol )
and seriously dude if them COPS have the right 2 defend themselves n their homes then there aint no reason why we ordinary citizens cant do the same
unless u think the life of ordinary ppl is worth less than the life of them SS , u know , like back in nazi germany or somethin |
I certainly dont see how my remark gave the implication that I think that ordinary people are worth less than police, but in general, a police officer has a much better idea of how to use a gun in a life threatening situation than I do (and please don't be so ignorent as to say that all you have to do is know how to point and shoot).
Furthermore, a "bunch of armed intruders" will be much more likely to fire upon my housemates (or me) if they feel threatened, and in all honesty, I would be more trigger shy than them.
Posted by: Fury451
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by armystud0911
I certainly dont see how my remark gave the implication that I think that ordinary people are worth less than police, but in general, a police officer has a much better idea of how to use a gun in a life threatening situation than I do (and please don't be so ignorent as to say that all you have to do is know how to point and shoot
|
i call bs on that . blind trust in the autorities huh ? sweeeet
then how about them shooting unarmed suspects ? u call that a “life thraetening” situation too ? cuz u know , cops are way more likely to do so then ordinary citizens :
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/89/104/03_1_m.html
“11 percent of the individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents mistaken for criminals, while only 2 percent of those in civilian shootings were so misidentified.”
11 vs 2 do the math . kinda contradicts what u were sayin huh ?
heck what did u expect ? what the hell do they care about shootin ppl ? theyre ABOVE THE ****IN LAW so they know they gonna get away with it !
yet no one seems to have a problem with them keepin guns in their houses
Quote:
|
Furthermore, a "bunch of armed intruders" will be much more likely to fire upon my housemates (or me) if they feel threatened
|
o rilly ? and just how dyou know about that ?
cuz unless the intruder guy is suicidal or somethin dont u think hes WAY more likely to back off if he gets an “armed” warning ?
maybe u think unarmed ppl never get killed by robbers ?
suppose youre unarmed what do u think an armed robbers gonna choose : a live witness or a dead one ? 
REDWENCH :
Quote:
|
um, just what on earth do you think youre going to do if a bunch of armed intruders are in your house?
|
yeah and what do you think youre going to do if a bunch of armed intruders are in yur house and youre unarmed ?
tell them youre unarmed and beg 4 mercy ?
dodge bullets ?
pray ? 
Posted by: armystud0911
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fury451
i call bs on that . blind trust in the autorities huh ? sweeeet
|
Here is what I said
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Armystud0911
in general, a police officer has a much better idea of how to use a gun in a life threatening situation than I do
|
I wasnt generalizing about the american public, only myself
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fury451
11 vs 2 do the math . kinda contradicts what u were sayin huh
|
That is a very good point on your part, and I must commend you on your research, here is my 2 cents tho.
The graduate student who wrote that article is clearly bias or at least makes more than a few irrational conclusions. You can make a statistic just about anything, despite its factuality. Even though the stat says 11% vs 2% there are several loopholes in this logic. The writer of the article has just assumed that the average police officer deals with the same situations that people defending their homes do. You can legally do whatever you want to an intruder as long as he doesnt leave the premisis, so your encounter with them is pretty straightforward. A police officer deals with a much more diverse spread of crime than a civilian, many of these situations are not as black and white as a break-in. I do not have "blind faith" in our police, I know that there is an appalling number of incidents where they have fired on and killed innocent people. However, in many of these cases, said "innocents" were behaving foolishly and forced the officer to make the wrong decision.
Posted by: redwench
i would do what any sensible person would do. leave the premises, gun or no gun. im not a gunslinger, and have no interest in a shootout with an armed gang.
Posted by: armystud0911
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
i would do what any sensible person would do. leave the premises, gun or no gun. im not a gunslinger, and have no interest in a shootout with an armed gang.
|
I'm afraid that is simply not possible without confrontation in many homes, even though you must legally have at least 2 fire exits, one of these can be just a second or third story window. I would wind up crippling myself if I jumped from my window, and in a worse jam than ever. It might be feasible to hide I suppose, but there are some cases when confrontation is unavoidible.
Posted by: redwench
so you have no plans to leave your house in case of fire in the stairwell?
Posted by: Fury451
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by armystud0911
A police officer deals with a much more diverse spread of crime than a civilian, many of these situations are not as black and white as a break-in.
|
yeah right . maybe they deal with “many situation” but honestly how many of them do u think justify SHOOTIN ppl ?
theres only one n its the same wether youre a civilian or SS and thats DEFENSE . period
Quote:
|
I do not have "blind faith" in our police, I know that there is an appalling number of incidents where they have fired on and killed innocent people. However, in many of these cases, said "innocents" were behaving foolishly and forced the officer to make the wrong decision.
|
yeah like its never them cops fault , only the “ordinary people”
even if they have to shoot ( wich i still think is wrong if the person is innocent ) why the hell do they have 2 KILL em ? why not just disable them instead ?
aint U the one who said cops r supposed to be better than us at knowing how n when to use their guns ?
so instead of them anti gun loonys yappin about need for “more gun control” crap dont u think there are more important things they outa be worried about like for example making sure those ppl who are paid to PROTECT us get punished if they misuse THEIR guns ?
btw what exaclty did u mean by “foolishly” ? tell me what u think justifies shooting innocent ppl 
REDWENCH :
Quote:
|
i would do what any sensible person would do. leave the premises, gun or no gun.
|
yeah good luck with that if your cornered ^_^
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fury451
REDWENCH :
yeah good luck with that if your cornered ^_^
|
you generally walk around your house with your gun on you? i dont. if i can get to my gun, i can get out.
ive noticed that some gun owners seem to think the gun makes them invincible, and are way too ready to use them, even when usage is contraindicated. these people are usually men, although certainly not always. using your brain, and not your reproductive organs is generally recommended.
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
you generally walk around your house with your gun on you? i dont. if i can get to my gun, i can get out.
ive noticed that some gun owners seem to think the gun makes them invincible, and are way too ready to use them, even when usage is contraindicated. these people are usually men, although certainly not always. using your brain, and not your reproductive organs is generally recommended.
|
Good points Red, but I especially enjoyed the last sentence! LOL! You are entirely correct, though. The difficult part to owning firearms is knowing when not to use one. Avoiding a confrontation is infinitely preferable to having one.
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
even if they have to shoot ( wich i still think is wrong if the person is innocent ) why the hell do they have 2 KILL em ? why not just disable them instead ?
|
Because it is an order of magnitude more difficult to shoot someone to disable them than it is to shoot to kill. Size of the target area, you know. Also, sometimes there is no time to try to wound the suspect.
Put it this way, if you were in what you believed to be a life threatening situation, would you take the chance on trying to wound your possible assailant and miss? Leaving him with a chance to kill you? Myself, if I were to pull the trigger on someone, the gun would be aiming to kill. That's why it is important to know when to shoot, not just how.
You seem to have a problem with the police, Fury. For myself, even though police officers are only human and make mistakes just like everyone else, I much prefer to have them around to protect me. How would it be if there were no police? Do you think that private citizens could stand a chance against every criminal in the country?
time
Posted by: DemonBob
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
Because it is an order of magnitude more difficult to shoot someone to disable them than it is to shoot to kill. Size of the target area, you know. Also, sometimes there is no time to try to wound the suspect.
Put it this way, if you were in what you believed to be a life threatening situation, would you take the chance on trying to wound your possible assailant and miss? Leaving him with a chance to kill you? Myself, if I were to pull the trigger on someone, the gun would be aiming to kill. That's why it is important to know when to shoot, not just how.
You seem to have a problem with the police, Fury. For myself, even though police officers are only human and make mistakes just like everyone else, I much prefer to have them around to protect me. How would it be if there were no police? Do you think that private citizens could stand a chance against every criminal in the country?
time
|
To furthe comment on this. Police and Military are taught from the first day of Firearm training to aim for the MID CHEST since this is the largest mass on a human body. This is not only for the "aim to kill" reason, but because larger areas are easyier to hit. If i had to shoot someone that was trying to do me harm, i'd much rather take less time aiming to disable them, and just shoot for what i know will hit. Every second you take to aim for a disabling shot, is a second taken off you life if thier trying to do you harm, kill you or someone else. Thats why police are thought to aim for the chest.
Another reason to aim for the mid chest, you have more of a chance of hitting them if they move suddleny, IE if they duck or strife. Which is entirly plausable if they are trying to get to you to kill or harm you and see you pull a gun. (If anyone plays any FPS they know that trying to get a Head Shot everytime is not easy, so most people aim for the mid to lower chest so if the opposition ducks or strifes they will most likely still hit them, i've got pleanty of head shots this way with half life, and snipers ducking suddenly) Most people bent on hurting someone else or trying to kill the is not going to stop at the site a gun, espeically if thier a season criminal breaking in on someones house, thier mind set is most likely going to be, he/she don't have the balls to use it. So 6 out of 10 times thier going to keep coming even if you do pull a gun.
Posted by: Fury451
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
Because it is an order of magnitude more difficult to shoot someone to disable them than it is to shoot to kill. Size of the target area, you know. Also, sometimes there is no time to try to wound the suspect.
Put it this way, if you were in what you believed to be a life threatening situation, would you take the chance on trying to wound your possible assailant and miss? Leaving him with a chance to kill you? Myself, if I were to pull the trigger on someone, the gun would be aiming to kill. That's why it is important to know when to shoot, not just how.
|
no prob with that if the guys armed and your shootin in defense
Quote:
|
You seem to have a problem with the police, Fury.
|
yup sure do . the bad ones i mean . heard enough news about them cops misusing their powers even killed innocent ppl and and these aint urban legends . heard of Rodney king ? u think that wuz an exception or somethin ? thats how the lapd work . or how about 0 tolerence n the nypd ? that guy they killed just coz he wuz black he wuz unarmed but they pumped him with like 400 rounds . and in new orleans aftr katrina theres this guy with his gf they were just walking then the SS told em to put up their hands and then pointed their guns @ them ( cnn ) ! it wuz only a couple and they were unarmed yeah thats a real threat
i use to be like you like all kids thinkin their the good guys .
“serve and protect” **** yeah
Quote:
|
For myself, even though police officers are only human and make mistakes just like everyone else, I much prefer to have them around to protect me. How would it be if there were no police? Do you think that private citizens could stand a chance against every criminal in the country?
|
yeah and whos gonna protect you against THEM ?
WHOs gonna protect you n yur husband n kids against the guys in blue if they go overboared ? the police ? the law ? ho wait a sec , they are the police n they are the law ! ( hell their above the ****in law )
thats the thing with you anti gun ppl : you oppose the second amendment coz you think the population gotta be disarmed and can have like COMPLETE trust in the autorities . yeah right . like when youve got a bunch of robbers in your house , think the cops will teleport to the rescue or somethin
RW :
Quote:
you generally walk around your house with your gun on you? i dont. if i can get to my gun, i can get out.
ive noticed that some gun owners seem to think the gun makes them invincible, and are way too ready to use them, even when usage is contraindicated. these people are usually men, although certainly not always. using your brain, and not your reproductive organs is generally recommended.
|
nah it dont make anyone invincible but it sure makes em less “vincible” than havin only their fists
maybe some ppl can afford to be easy targets , jus scram and leave all their belongings to them robbers then buy back whatever was taken . but we aint all milionaires . for those ppl who aint got the bucks whos gonna give them back what wuz stolen from them ? the cops ? bush ?
btw i dunno how u brought sex into this topic but duh whatever i dont mind . im “on” ^_^
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fury451
no prob with that if the guys armed and your shootin back in defense
|
So the cops have to let the criminal get the first shot off? Would you?
Quote:
|
yup sure do . the bad ones i mean . heard enough news about them cops misusing their powers even killed innocent ppl and and these aint urban legends . heard of Rodney king ? u think that wuz an exception or somethin ? thats how the lapd work . or how about 0 tolerence n the nypd ? that guy they killed just coz he wuz black he wuz unarmed but they pumped him with like 400 rounds . and in new orleans aftr katrina theres this guy with his gf they were just walking then the SS told em to put up their hands and then pointed their guns @ them ( cnn ) ! it wuz only a couple and they were unarmed yeah thats a real threat
|
Yes there are always some bad apples. But you're saying that all police are bad because some that are make headlines is like saying that all African Americans are bad because some of them make the news with their crimes. Or that all Muslims are evil because some of them are terrorists. Makes no sense. Yes, mistakes happen because this is not a perfect world. If it was, we wouldn't need any police. You site all of this notorious bad police work, how many thousands of times more good police work is there that you've never heard of that doesn't make the news? Are you somehow claiming that the majority of cops are bad?
Quote:
|
i use to be like you like all kids thinkin their the good guys .
|
BTW I'm 42 years old, not a kid.
Quote:
yeah and whos gonna protect you against THEM ?
WHOs gonna protect you n yur husband n kids against the guys in blue if they go overboared ? the police ? the law ? ho wait a sec , they are the police n they are the law ! ( hell their above the ****in law )
|
I'll take my chances with the system. Compared to rampant crime that would occur if there were no police.
Quote:
|
thats the thing with you anti gun ppl : you oppose the second amendment coz you think the population gotta be disarmed and can have like COMPLETE trust in the autorities . yeah right . like when youve got a bunch of robbers in your house , think the cops will teleport to the rescue or somethin
|
Read my posts, I'm not anti gun. Just the opposite.
Posted by: Fury451
let the criminal get the first shot off ? i never said that
i said it wuz ok for u to shoot if the criminal is armed and your in a defense situation . whether youre a cop or civilian . defense is legit . in fact its the only thing thats legit .
as for cops lettin the criminal shoot first ? maybe not but i dunno . thats a risk .
but on teh other hand cops aint as vulnrable as we are . they got their bulletproof vests n stuff . that means less risk for them . besides criminals aint gonna shoot a cop as wilingly as theyd shoot an ordinary person cuz cops are WAY better protected by the law : if he kills ordinary person then its just “simple” homicide . but if he kills a cop then its capital punishment for him , sure thing : its the law .
in other words the law says that if some guys got a police badge then his life is worth more then yours or mine ( thats justice )
the criminal knows hes gonna get into some major trouble if he shoots @ the cops . u think thats a risk many of them will take ? how many cops dyou think get shot n killed every year ? and how many civilians do u think get shot n killed every year ( by criminals ) ? u can bet that last figure is a hell of a lot bigger than the first one
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
Yes there are always some bad apples. But you're saying that all police are bad because some that are make headlines is like saying that all African Americans are bad because some of them make the news with their crimes. Or that all Muslims are evil because some of them are terrorists. Makes no sense. Yes, mistakes happen because this is not a perfect world. If it was, we wouldn't need any police. You site all of this notorious bad police work, how many thousands of times more good police work is there that you've never heard of that doesn't make the news? Are you somehow claiming that the majority of cops are bad?
|
nope . i said :
“yup sure do . the bad ones i mean .”
meanin , the BAD ONES ONLY . dont that make sense ? u dont side with them too do u ?
and who the heck cares if the bad ones r only a minority ? your forgeting that these ppl are supposed to represent the law n protect us .
dont u get what that means ? it means that even ONE single corupt cop is worse than a zilion ordinary criminals . thats more then just a “bad apple” . heck its even worse then the fungi thats eatin the rotten apple
society can deal with criminals : thats what the laws for . but against corrupt gun totin SS ? basicaly the law is powerless . call that justice ?
Quote:
|
BTW I'm 42 years old, not a kid.
|
lol i never meant 2 say that .
jus sayin that once upon a time most ppl inc myself use to think of the guys in blue uniforms as the good guys , u know , kinda like heroes that protect the people n can never go bad . i was wrong of cos .
no offense mang
Quote:
|
I'll take my chances with the system. Compared to rampant crime that would occur if there were no police.
|
oh ok . so basicaly yur sayin we cant have a police force AND a clean system cuz their both are incompatable . we have to surrender to corruption n accept it not fight it .
yeah so were making so called “freedom wars” in foreign countries n accusing those that dont side with us of chickening out , but at the same time some of us dont even wanna fight for their own freedoms lol
but remember : ordinary criminals can be punished , but if some day some guy has a grugde against u for whatever personal reason and if this guy just happen to be a corrupt cop ( bad luck huh ) and decides to ruin you n your familys life , there wont be shit you can do . youll be completely on your own mang . no law no rights , NOTHIN .
for yur sake i hope it dont come to that but if it does then good luck with the system
Quote:
|
Read my posts, I'm not anti gun. Just the opposite.
|
k whatever
one thing tho : imagine your neighbors a cop and imagine your both robbed one night . both of you got a gun ( hes got his police gun but hes ofduty )
so them robbers are armed n break into both your home and his home
so you both shoot them ( but dont kill them , jus disable )
you know whats gonna happen dont you ?
the police with come n take you in for questioning . wtf youll be prolly arrested n charged with assault or somethin . plus the robbers you shot will sue you for all youve got .
BUT your neighbor , who jus happens to be a cop , wont get into any kinda trouble ! the police ( his partners ) come n DONT arrest him he just tells em it wuz self defense n theyll take his word for it .
PLUS the robbers he shot cant even sue him cuz hes a cop
so in the end u both defended youselvs but your screwed and your neighbors not . cuz thats the way things work .
so tell me trekpsycho : u call THAT justice ?
Posted by: Bishop
all of this is sophistry until you've been in several situations.
Posted by: DemonBob
First off, Learn some Spelling and proper grammer....no one is going to take any debate you post very seriously until you do...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fury451
no prob with that if the guys armed and your shootin back in defense
|
Shoot back? So your're saying let him shoot first....wow...
I consider someone armed when they are trying to harm me, and i'm going to do what i have to do to disable them or stop them. Even if all they got are thier fist. I'm not going to sit back and let them harm me....and will use what ever is closes to stop them....gun, knife, chair, or my hands.
Quote:
yup sure do . the bad ones i mean . heard enough news about them cops misusing their powers even killed innocent ppl and and these aint urban legends . heard of Rodney king ? u think that wuz an exception or somethin ? thats how the lapd work . or how about 0 tolerence n the nypd ? that guy they killed just coz he wuz black he wuz unarmed but they pumped him with like 400 rounds . and in new orleans aftr katrina theres this guy with his gf they were just walking then the SS told em to put up their hands and then pointed their guns @ them ( cnn ) ! it wuz only a couple and they were unarmed yeah thats a real threat
|
Ever hear of any cops doing good? Nope, you know why? Because of the media, they look for bad stuff to show you for ratings, for every incident like above thier 1000's going on everyday where a cop is helping someone, or putting a rapest or murder behind bars.
My advice, stop harping on the media, because all they do is show the down side of anything, and your being very biased using information and storys from a third party I.E CNN and Fox. Have you every been to a news station? As soon as something happens they will boardcast it for ratings, and more then half the time on those type of stories the incident is so recent, IE happend 30 mins before or an hour, that not even they can have all the facts.
Quote:
i use to be like you like all kids thinkin their the good guys .
“serve and protect” **** yeah
|
Kids? This coming from someone who in ther profile has thier birthday set as October 31, 1990, that only makes you....what 16? I'm 22 by the way, and i know that 40% of the members on this forum are above the age of 20....
Quote:
thats the thing with you anti gun ppl : you oppose the second amendment coz you think the population gotta be disarmed and can have like COMPLETE trust in the autorities . yeah right . like when youve got a bunch of robbers in your house , think the cops will teleport to the rescue or somethin
|
Um, I have a total of 6 rifles/shotguns in my house, which were all my dad's (and my dad is trekpsycho) at one time. And I know for a fact he is not anti-gun. He is for people having guns only if you know how to use them saftly and hit the target...which most people don't.
Quote:
|
let the criminal get the first shot off ? i never said that
|
Acctually....yes you did. Refer to the bolded word below.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fury451
no prob with that if the guys armed and your shootin back in defense
|
By those words, and since your grammer is lacking, i'm taking the meaning as is he has already shot at you first...
Quote:
|
and who the heck cares if the bad ones r only a minority ? your forgeting that these ppl are supposed to represent the law n protect us. dont u get what that means ? it means that even ONE single corupt cop is worse than a zilion ordinary criminals . thats more then just a “bad apple” . heck its even worse then the fungi thats eatin the rotten apple society can deal with criminals : thats what the laws for . but against corrupt gun totin SS ? basicaly the law is powerless . call that justice ?
|
*cough* Thats why they invented the IAS (Internal Affairs Service), to check the cops..and i an garentee that they have people going behind the IAS and checking behind thier backs. And for you information anytime a complaint against a cop is made, the IAS does look into it. Although most the claims made are false from people that are "sore" about being put in jail for something that do not have the balls to fess up to. Not to mention most, if not all major city police officers have to goto a psycological exam ever few years if not ever year, thiers even an exam you have to take in order to get on with the police department. I know I tried.
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
Kids? This coming from someone who in ther profile has thier birthday set as October 31, 1990, that only makes you....what 16? I'm 22 by the way, and i know that 40% of the members on this forum are above the age of 20....
|
I didn't check your profile, fury . No wonder you have the opinions that you do. You're still too wet behind the ears to have an opinion on this issue. To you, the world is still black and white. When you get older, you'll realize that the world is actually shades of gray. So I will no longer continue this debate with you. The only reason I got into it in the first place is because I can't resist a good debate. Come back in another 20 years and we'll try again .
Cheers.
Posted by: Fury451
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DemonBob
First off, Learn some Spelling and proper grammer....no one is going to take any debate you post very seriously until you do...
|
lol ive like so been pwned
dude at least learn to spell “grammar” before ditchin other peoples grammar k ?
sheesh . this is the internet not exam day . not like im writing sms or somethin
Quote:
|
Shoot back? So your're saying let him shoot first....wow...
|
my bad my bad . i meant “shoot” ( edit )
tho if the guys pointing his gun at you n you shoot maybe this can also be considerd “shootin back” more or less . i dunno
Quote:
|
I consider someone armed when they are trying to harm me, and i'm going to do what i have to do to disable them or stop them. Even if all they got are thier fist. I'm not going to sit back and let them harm me....and will use what ever is closes to stop them....gun, knife, chair, or my hands.
|
yeah so will i so i guess we agree
got six guns huh ? cool . just remember tho when it comes to defense , even defendin your life , the law aint gonna ovrlook that : if your an ordinary citizen n shoot an intruder even in defense then your in deep shit . but if you got a police badge then your safe from proscution ( see my above msg )
ho wait your just a citizen right ? no police badge no talisman to protect u against the law
sux huh ?
Quote:
|
My advice, stop harping on the media, because all they do is show the down side of anything, and your being very biased using information and storys from a third party I.E CNN and Fox. Have you every been to a news station? As soon as something happens they will boardcast it for ratings, and more then half the time on those type of stories the incident is so recent, IE happend 30 mins before or an hour, that not even they can have all the facts.
|
yeah glad u mentioned fox coz u know , their also biased esp when its about the authorities . cept THEY dont show the downside of it
from what ive read in yur posts i figure u and trekpsycho are reps , right ?
then my advice : dont take Fox seriously esp when they talk about our president , fbi homeland security iraq n so on
Quote:
|
Kids? This coming from someone who in ther profile has thier birthday set as October 31, 1990, that only makes you....what 16? I'm 22 by the way, and i know that 40% of the members on this forum are above the age of 20....
|
yeah so ? i never called anyone a kid and beside i never meant kid as insult
btw that dont make me 16 but 15 . aint october yet
heres what : u learn to count and i learn to spell . deal ?
Quote:
|
*cough* Thats why they invented the IAS (Internal Affairs Service), to check the cops..and i an garentee that they have people going behind the IAS and checking behind thier backs. And for you information anytime a complaint against a cop is made, the IAS does look into it. Although most the claims made are false from people that are "sore" about being put in jail for something that do not have the balls to fess up to. Not to mention most, if not all major city police officers have to goto a psycological exam ever few years if not ever year, thiers even an exam you have to take in order to get on with the police department. I know I tried.
|
yeah thats great n all that but your forgettin something :
first internal affairs is made up of law enforcment officers . yup , COPS .
second lookin at the number of bad cops and the crimes some have comitted looks like teh psychological tests aint all that effective r they ? or is it that easy to bribe the examiners pehraps ?
third ever noticed how prosecuton simply drops charges or only infict symbolic sanction against corupt cops , like for example if a cop commits a crime that would get him lifetime imprisoment if he were a citizen , then he only get like 6 months or somethin cuz hes a cop !
sometimes no jail just a warning or suspended with pay . even if the cop kills an innocent person . it happened in new york , the cops stopped some guy ( black again whata surprise ) for a trafic violation . he wuz cousin of some basketball star or somethin . he was unarmed but they hancuffed him then they held him face on teh ground an he sufocated to death . u know what ? NO CHARGES against the cops . how dyou explain THAT ? where was internal affairs huh ?
no surprise cops dont give shit about ia . havin internal affairs is useless if the justice itsefl is screwed up .
just to give u an idea how ****ed up our system is : u know cops sometimes do the worst crimes even murder . can u give one example where a cop wuz found guilty and sentenced to death for killin a citizen ? just ONE example ?
TREKPSYCHO :
Quote:
I didn't check your profile, fury . No wonder you have the opinions that you do.
The only reason I got into it in the first place is because I can't resist a good debate.
|
yeah like the debate only stopped bein good when u found out my age
everythin makes sense with hindsight huh ?
Quote:
|
You're still too wet behind the ears to have an opinion on this issue. To you, the world is still black and white. When you get older, you'll realize that the world is actually shades of gray.
|
hey thanx for the advice
o wait i know another guy who thinks exacly the same way : its our president !!
he says aligned vs non aligned and patriot vs terrorist . if your not a gop patriot then your a terrorist . if your not with us then your against us | |
