Fighting words

[capt_cope]

Go educate yourself.....!

ISLAM UNDRESSED

Oh I'm well aware of hate-mongering. Doesn't matter how you dress it up, the "evil jew" meet the "evil muslim" I should probably inform my muslim friends that they are making a huge mistake, clearly they haven't been devout enough, they aren't terrorists. That site is [censored]. It doesn't take much to found a bunk idea on quotes from a religious text out of context. Look!

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

See men are better than women in the bible. I should go tell my old pastor Marylin about this devastating find. I'm sure she'll be the first to denounce the bible.

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

Man yet another zinger. How do women console themselves in my Church?

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Ok I think I've found enough.

[Guest TTK]

Snake.......big stick.....that's what they do here in Thailand.....no need for a WMD......of course his Dad could also have picked it up and used it in the next Sunday Service......!

@Capt ......

It doesn't take much to found a bunk idea on quotes from a religious text out of context.

Of course you're right.....and of course Islamic fundamentalists don't take it out of context.....!

Edited April 18, 2007 by TTK

[capt_cope]

It raises a fair point on-topic though - and those are the differing gun needs of the country and the city. Could different gun licensing not address that?

I don't think so. I enjoy shooting, yet I live in a city, and I work in the city. Why should I have to move to the country to enjoy my hobby? It's bad enough you can't find any rifle ranges downtown, but to have discriminating laws dependant on where you live? (to be fair it's close, Milwaukee is a [censored] hole of a city, and they are already talking about registration of firearms inside the city. The moment that day comes I'm moving.) And it still doesn't address any perceived problems with ownership of firearms. Face it, criminals don't own their guns legally, so introducing more laws to stop said criminals is just dumb. What we need is more enforcement of the laws already on the books.

[capt_cope]

@Capt ......

Of course you're right.....and of course Islamic fundamentalists don't take it out of context.....!

I'll assume you're being sarcastic.

[Tim]

Go educate yourself.....!

ISLAM UNDRESSED

What neo-con drivel! Why reference this crap which attempts to vilify all of Islam. These attitudes are what got the US into Iraq.

-T

[cornerstone]

And now society is starting to agree with them, "they can't help it". "He was predispositioned to domestic violence," "he grew up in a rough neighborhood," "he started hanging out with the wrong crowd." BULLSHIT. He chose to beat his wife, He chose to kill someone, he chose to sell drugs. That's the fact, every day we are faced with tough decisions, and the choices we make determines who we are. It doesn't matter how many excuses get thrown in the way, the truth is, behind it all there was a choice, and degenerates continue to make the wrong ones, knowing full well the outcome, but refusing to step up and accept it. How can you change something that you won't even admit is wrong?

What motivates people to crime is a lot more complicated than popular opinion would believe. People aren't just good or bad. Decisions aren't always made in the cold light of day with the benefit of hindsight. Many crimes are committed by psychologically damaged individuals. Many people were intoxicated at the time. The whole subject of criminology is interesting. The response is interesting too.

Is it okay to shoot someone that breaks into your house to steal your cell phone?

Is it okay to shoot someone that breaks into your car and tries to steal it?

Is it okay to shoot someone who walks into your shop and steals the cash?

Is it okay to shoot someone who walks into your shop and steals a watch?

Is it okay for Rolex (or whoever) to shoot you? (Or any of us here?)

introducing more laws to stop said criminals is just dumb. What we need is more enforcement of the laws already on the books.

I think there could be a great case for fewer laws - I have no doubt that this whole tragedy will be jumped on by political opportunists looking for cheap votes, and that equals dumb laws - it's the same everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if the 'solution' ends up banning non-US citizens from owning guns, or something of that ilk.

[capt_cope]

What neo-con drivel! Why reference this crap which attempts to vilify all of Islam. These attitudes are what got the US into Iraq.

-T

Tim as a conservative I'm offended by that. The [censored] Neil posted isn't conservative it's just dim. Dim and childish.

[Craytonic]

OT: cornerstone I love the jet-mid pic...

[Tim]

I prefer Isam Unveiled; the print is easier on my eyes.

....more neo-con crap.

-T

[Guest TTK]

What neo-con drivel

Sorry to disappoint you.....I'm not a neo conservative......but I did do two tours of duty in Northern Ireland......and one in Yemen...followed by the Falklands...( which I won't go into for personal reasons )......I know about guns...I carried one at all times for those two years in N.I.......I walked the Shankhill Rd every day.......just waiting for the one that had my name...I was lucky.....a lot of my chums weren't......killed by WMD manufactured in your country and others who have a vested interest in having an IMC....!

As for Yemen.....let's just say that I learned enough about the racist fundamentalist attitudes and beliefs that pervade Islam.....suffice to say that I have no respect for religion of any shade.....!

I'll assume you're being sarcastic.

How would you know.....

The [censored] Neil posted isn't conservative it's just dim. Dim and childish.

And of course you being the voice of experience are bright by contrast......you're a 10 watt bulb.....and less capable of brightening up this debate than the same...you're like a drunk hanging onto a lampost...not for illumination...but for support.......as I said before.....YOU can't put forward a logical defense of the NEED for WMD......you argue from a biased viewpoint...as you stated yourself.....you have no experience otherwise....other than having killed a lot of paper targets and defensless animals........I have 35 years of experience on you......you're at page 5 in the book....I'm nearly finished with it...!

Edited April 18, 2007 by TTK

[cornerstone]

OT: cornerstone I love the jet-mid pic...

OT: I got a call from Kansas City today, and all the time I was itching to ask, "Hey, do you know Jetmid?!"

[Logan]

Capt cope might be interested to know that I am not in fact in England or Wales.. nor any other part of the UK. I'm in New Zealand which is a long way from either. We have some of the most restricive gun laws in the world that were introduced following a gun massacre in the 1980's. Whilst long guns are still fairly common they are all licenced, Pistols are very very heavily restricted and pretty much impossible to get. Carrying guns in public will land you in jail, no exceptions. Police do not carry guns in their normal duties. Criminals can get guns if they try hard enough but the scumbag kid who breaks into houses will pretty much never have one. Also since the criminals can't get hold of guns easily there are fairly low rates of gun crimes like street muggings, carjacking etc.

I always find is amusing that the gun lobby always assumes that they are perfectly responsible to own guns and carry them in public, but that its "other people" who cause all the problems. You only have to look at the huge number of people killed in your copuntry every year by "legit" guns to see that plenty of legitimate gun owners who also have no business owning the things.

As for other weapons, If you hit with a baseball bat you'll probably still live.. pretty sore perhaps but the odds of dying are much lower. If you are shot, especially with a heavy calibre hand gun, you are in real trouble. Likewise you don't get many massaces with baseball bats where 32 people died.

[capt_cope]

What motivates people to crime is a lot more complicated than popular opinion would believe. People aren't just good or bad. Decisions aren't always made in the cold light of day with the benefit of hindsight. Many crimes are committed by psychologically damaged individuals. Many people were intoxicated at the time. The whole subject of criminology is interesting. The response is interesting too.

Is it okay to shoot someone that breaks into your house to steal your cell phone?

Is it okay to shoot someone that breaks into your car and tries to steal it?

Is it okay to shoot someone who walks into your shop and steals the cash?

Is it okay to shoot someone who walks into your shop and steals a watch?

Is it okay for Rolex (or whoever) to shoot you? (Or any of us here?)

Motivation will always be complex, probably due to the fact that the very people who make poor descisions can't rightly come up with a simple answer. However the root cause for continuing bad choices is allways going to be a lack of responsibility (talking functioning adults here) And it seems to me that mentally incapacitated people are not capable of taking responsibility for their own actions, legally or otherwise. As for intoxication that too stemmed from a choice. If I get drunk and rape a girl can I be held responsible? Of course. It was my own choices that resulted in the final criminal act, and that is my responsibility. Someone who is not mentally fit to make these choices isn't really a factor.

And as to the questions, they are too open ended. In all the cases the answer is no, unless the perpetrator has the means to make you fear for your life. If someone breaks into my house and trys to take my cell phone they will not get shot unless/until they present a threat to me, a cell phone is cheap, a life is not. Not to mention there are legal ways of resolving the situations until a serious bodily threat is introduced. A man walks into my house with a knife and I don't care if he's after my oven mits or my guns, he's going to get shot if he doesn't drop the knife in an expeditious manner.

But we are getting away from my original topic and into lengthy debates in the gray area.

Regardless of motivation, environment, religion, skin color, or nationality, it is the person that needs to be accountable. NOT the tool.

[Tim]

As for Yemen.....let's just say that I learned enough about the racist fundamentalist attitudes and beliefs that pervade Islam.....suffice to say that I have no respect for religion of any shade.....!

How would you know.....

I also have very little use for most of what constitutes religion in this day and age. Joseph Campbell probably said it best:

Give me that old time religion

And that's good enough for me

We will pray to Aphrodite

Even tho' she's rather flighty

And they say she wears no nightie

And that's good enough for me

We will pray with those Egyptians

Build pyramids to put our crypts in

Cover subways with inscriptions

And that's good enough for me

O-old Odin we will follow

And in fighting we will wallow

Til we wind up in Valhalla

And that's good enough for me

Let me follow dear old Buddha

For there is nobody cuter

He comes in plaster, wood or pewter

And that's good enough for me

We will pray with Zarathustra

Pray just like we useta

I'm a Zarathustra booster

And that's good enough for me

We will pray with those old Druids

They drink fermented fluids

Waltzing naked thru the woo-ids

And that's good enough for me

Hare Krishna gets a laugh on

When he sees me dressed in saffron

With my hair that's only half on

And that's good enough for me

I'll arise at early morning

When the sun gives me the warning

That the solar age is dawning

And that's good enough for me

Salon.com had a good write up just yesterday about the whole Islam question. My point is that it does not accomplish anything by painting all of Islam with the same brush used by an exceedingly small minority. I happen to ascribe to the latter view of the following.

Anyone who has studied the war of ideas over the causes of 9/11, Bush's response to it, and his "war on terror" knows that there are essentially two opposed sides in the debate. On the one hand, there are the "essentialists," who argue that Arab/Muslim rage against the West is pathological and peculiar to Islam. It is driven not by real political grievances, which they see as trumped up, but by humiliation at the failure of Islam to keep up with the West, the sickness of Arab civil society, a festering hatred of Western liberalism, democracy and secularism, and the desire to establish a universal Muslim state throughout the world, one that would surpass the glorious days of the Caliphate. Islamist terrorism is simply evil, full stop, and must be destroyed. Any attempts to ameliorate it by political or economic moves are naive at best and appeasement at worst.

The intellectual father of this position is the eminent Princeton Arabist Bernard Lewis, and some of its prominent advocates include Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol and (with some differences) the admin Friedman. Usually combined with Wilsonian rhetoric about bringing freedom and democracy to benighted Arab states, this is the neoconservative view of Islam and the "war on terror." It dominated the Bush administration and was shared by virtually every public intellectual who supported Bush's war on Iraq. Many of those who hold it are strongly pro-Israel.

The opposing side could be called the "historical analysts." Those who hold it -- virtually all of whom opposed Bush's war against Iraq -- argue that Arab/Muslim rage against the West is in large part driven by specific historic injustices, most of which originated in the Western colonialist carving-up of the former Ottoman Empire after World War I. The West, in particular England, France and the United States, raised and then betrayed Arab hopes for independence, undermined fledgling democratic movements, and mouthed hypocritical pieties about "freedom," while it installed or supported dictators to protect Western political, military and economic interests. The overriding grievance, not just for Arabs but for Muslims throughout the world, remains Palestine. Arabs and Muslims throughout the world view the settling of Palestinian land by European Jews, the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians after Israel's 1948 war of independence and Israel's subsequent refusal to allow the refugees to return to their native land, as the West's ur-sin against the Arab and Muslim people. The U.S.'s one-sided support for Israel has poisoned the attitudes of the Arab/Muslim world against it.

Those who hold this position do not claim that Osama bin Laden was justified in launching his jihad against the West, or even that the Palestinian issue was his foremost grievance. (The presence of infidel Americans on holy Saudi soil was.) And they are prepared to agree with the essentialists that the Arab and Muslim world is plagued by corruption, despotism, stasis and desperately needs to reform to move into the modern world. However, they insist that jihadist rage must be understood in a broad historical context, and that Bush's "war on terror" is simplistic and counterproductive. Above all, they argue that until we drain the swamp by addressing root causes, terrorism will continue to bubble upward like a poison gas. To fight Islamist terror, it is necessary for the West in general and America in particular to win Arab hearts and minds by resolving historical grievances, of which the most pressing is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is nothing particularly radical about this position -- it is held by virtually every country in the world, and was recently espoused by the ultra-establishment Iraq Study Group.

-T

[Guest TTK]

@Tim.....please don't ascribe to the view that fundamentalist Muslims have been driven to jihad by virtue of Imperialstic alignment of Middle Eastern countries......and that Jihad is a modern trend in fundamental Islam.....it's not....it's been there since the birth of Mohammed.....and his abrogated / perverse religion......!

[capt_cope]

Capt cope might be interested to know that I am not in fact in England or Wales.. nor any other part of the UK. I'm in New Zealand which is a long way from either. We have some of the most restricive gun laws in the world that were introduced following a gun massacre in the 1980's. Whilst long guns are still fairly common they are all licenced, Pistols are very very heavily restricted and pretty much impossible to get. Carrying guns in public will land you in jail, no exceptions. Police do not carry guns in their normal duties. Criminals can get guns if they try hard enough but the scumbag kid who breaks into houses will pretty much never have one. Also since the criminals can't get hold of guns easily there are fairly low rates of gun crimes like street muggings, carjacking etc.

My mistake, perhaps your country is better than most, but the statistics in others don't offer the same outlook.

I always find is amusing that the gun lobby always assumes that they are perfectly responsible to own guns and carry them in public, but that its "other people" who cause all the problems. You only have to look at the huge number of people killed in your copuntry every year by "legit" guns to see that plenty of legitimate gun owners who also have no business owning the things.

I won't bother with a response beyond this: Show me some actual statistics to back up your claim. It smacks of [censored] propaganda. I see enough of that from the anti-gun lobby every day.

As for other weapons, If you hit with a baseball bat you'll probably still live.. pretty sore perhaps but the odds of dying are much lower. If you are shot, especially with a heavy calibre hand gun, you are in real trouble. Likewise you don't get many massaces with baseball bats where 32 people died.

It's too late and my stat finding is suffering, I'll dig up the stats tomorrow, but I seem to recall you're more likely to die from stab wounds than a gunshot. Besides, you're far more likely to be attacked by something other than a gun here in the us. take a look at this excerpt from the BUJ:

"In addition, during the same time period, an average of 21,000 people were murdered each year. For every homicide victim 12 years old or older, approximately 121 people were injured in a violent crime, including 16 people whose injuries were serious. An estimated 344,000 victims incurred severe injuries, such as gunshot or knife wounds, broken bones, loss of teeth or internal bleeding. Fifty-eight percent of severely injured victims reported the offender or offenders had a weapon, usually a knife or other sharp object (such as scissors, ice pick or ax) or a blunt object such as a rock or club (44 percent), rather than a firearm (14 percent)."

But you're missing the point, no one is arguing that guns, when used with the intent to kill, can in fact kill people (what a novel idea! I never imagined that guns could in fact kill people.) In fact the only statement in which you sort of addressed my original point is on shaky ground, I'll wait for stats, but I suspect that you pulled the huge numbers of legit gun owners killing people thing out of your ass.

[capt_cope]

And of course you being the voice of experience are bright by contrast......you're a 10 watt bulb.....and less capable of brightening up this debate than the same...you're like a drunk hanging onto a lampost...not for illumination...but for support.......as I said before.....YOU can't put forward a logical defense of the NEED for WMD......you argue from a biased viewpoint...as you stated yourself.....you have no experience otherwise....other than having killed a lot of paper targets and defensless animals........I have 35 years of experience on you......you're at page 5 in the book....I'm nearly finished with it...!

You sound rather foolish. I never did state I needed a gun, just that I had good reasons to own them. You try to hide your own failed logic with insults. I don't need guns, and if it becomes illegal for me to continue owning them I will give them up. YOU can't put forth a logical NEED to get rid of firearms, instead you simply drop to the level of name calling and slander. Both marks of childish thought. You claim to have 35 years of experience on me. Could it be you've had a head start of 35 years and are still foolish? I've met many fools, some older some younger, you wouldn't be the first. You claim I have a biased viewpoint, if yours isn't biased what is it? Perhaps a viewpoint dominated by fear, and a lack of understanding? You're older than me, even more experienced, but you certainly aren't wiser. You've proven that yourself.

[Seadweller4000]

You sound rather foolish. I never did state I needed a gun, just that I had good reasons to own them. I don't need guns, and if it becomes illegal for me to continue owning them I will give them up.

There is a difference between "the right to" and a good reason.

In my countries sad history there was a time when poeple had the right to kill other people because of their religion.

In your country a little time back slavery would've been your right (at least in the south).

My girlfriend would have the right to sue her parents because they are not able to give her the money for college.

No tell me, do you really would've done that just because it is your right to do so?

I hope not.

A good reason to carry a gun would be authority service (AND I DO NOT MEAN VIGILANTES). Or maybe if you live on a ranch and had to watch out for wild animals.

By the way, in my country where gun ownership is prohibited, gun crimes are 0.31% in total.

That includes shooting on traffic signs.

If something happens, you can be sure it was a legal gun.

[Guest TTK]

You sound rather foolish. I never did state I needed a gun, just that I had good reasons to own them.

I'm only being foolish in trying to fix stupid....!

I never stated that you NEEDED a gun...in fact it was YOU who stated that you didn't need one....my contention was that YOU have them because you desire them.....not that YOU need them......I asked you to give a good reason for the NEED to have a gun.....and good reasons for you to have a WMD are not that you like shooting at paper targets.....and the assertion that YOU would NEVER become angry at anyone.......I told my first g/f that I wouldn't tell anyone.....know what...I lied...... .!

1. You don't need a gun to repel foreign invaders ....you have an army for that purpose.

2. You don't need a gun to hunt.....the requirement for people to put food on their table passed a long time ago.....!

3. You don't need a gun to defend yourself against personal attack.......there are many alternatives.....not the least of which is if you ban guns and prevent them from falling into the hands of irresponsible people.....then you'll have nothing to worry about.....!

4. You don't need them to prevent tyrannical government....your Gubbamint is way smarter than you are......they can impose tyranny without recourse to violence.....look at your Patriot Act....and the way that government is eroding your civil liberties......classic example......find your way onto a Jetblue airliner.....then find that there's a holdup......2 hours which then escalates into a 10 hour holdup......Jetblue can hold YOU hostage.....yet if you want to express your right not to conduct business with that airline and cancle the contract that you paid for......and not to be held against your will.....by a COMMERCIAL enterprise......YOUR Federal government will put you in jail for up to 20 years ...for trying to leave a plane....or go buy up a smallholding somewhere......and then watch your Gubbamint exercise eminent domain......and deprive you of your CHOICE......so that a COMMERCIAL enterprise can enlarge it's portfolio......at the expense of your choice..... .!

So give me a good reason for you to OWN a gun.....!

If you want to shoot at paper targets.....join a club that rents you the gun for the duration of your visit....or buy a pellet gun.....!

If you want to do clay pigeon shooting.....join a club that rents you the gun for the duration of your visit....!

But no....none of those are acceptable are they....'cos they're no substitute for having a small penis.....!

YOU can't put forth a logical NEED to get rid of firearms, instead you simply drop to the level of name calling and slander.

Wrong....you can't see the logic because of your bias.....I can give you 32 reasons ( plus all the ripples that emanate form those 32....Mothers / Fathers / Sisters / Brothers / friends.....society as a whole.....what if one of those killed was destined to discover the cure for the common cold....HIV.....cancer ..we'll never know will we...)....... for the need to get rid of firearms.......and another 12......and another 4.......ALL of which are more grave than your argument that you like to shoot at paper tragets and KILL small animals......serial killers are often found to be fascinated with the killing of small animals....makes you wonder about the mentality of people who still think they're pioneers by killing unecessarily... for the table....get real.....!

BTW...you're arguing from one standpoint....I argue from two standpoints......I've been where you are.......and where you haven't......I've been obsessed with guns......but when I surrendered them...I quickly realised that I didn't need them....I found plenty of alternatives....gun nuts are just like alcoholics......they are in denial.....until they get on the wagon....and realisation hits them.... .so don't lecture me about foolish.....!

BTW ...any insults I've hurled your way ...are just my way of saying.....you're a dolt.....a dangerous one with a BIG arsenal.....I wouldn't want to live next door to you......!

You've a long way to go son.....and a lot to learn on the way....!

Edited April 18, 2007 by TTK

[Bazz]

The US is a amazing country with many great qualities... unfortunately its gun policy is not one of them.

[Pugwash]

Oh and I wouldn't feel safer because my local police can't carry firearms, statistics show the criminals still carry theirs. Here are some statistics about gun violence in the UK:

"England and Wales

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.

Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased."

So much for no one being able to carry guns eh?

Ah, selective statistics ...

in 1996, we had a massacre at the hands of an unstable armed lunatic which brought the The Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 into being as the result of a public petition. Sincew then, statistics are much lower than your chosen 2002 figure; 97 firearm homicides in 2002, 50 in 2006. This is a significant decline in firearm homicides, in case you can't tell.

The point about criminals having firearms is that you can use that to spot them. If someone is armed with a firearm, they're a criminal and using a gun in a crime will elevate it from a petty crime from a serious crime. Mere possession of a firearm will get you a mandatory minimum 5 years inside.

[Pugwash]

I won't bother with a response beyond this: Show me some actual statistics to back up your claim. It smacks of [censored] propaganda. I see enough of that from the anti-gun lobby every day.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_re...ime/murder.html

These are the statistics. I'll point out that 75% of homicides were with illegal firearms. This means 25% were with legal weapons.

However, massacres are almost exclusively with legal firearms:

Deadliest Mass Shootings (10 or more dead) in Western Democracies

1966-2002

Date Place Dead Legal status

26 Apr 2002 Erfurt, Germany 16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member

27 Sep 2001 Zug, Switzerland 14 + 1 Legal guns, licensed pistol owner

29 Jul 1999 Atlanta, GA, USA 12 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required

20 Apr 1999 Littleton, CO, USA 13 + 2 Not legal guns

28 Apr 1996 Port Arthur, Australia 35 Not legal guns

13 Mar 1996 Dunblane, Scotland 17 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member

16 Oct 1991 Killeen, TX, USA 23 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required

13 Nov 1990 Aramoana, New Zealand 13 + 1 Legal guns, licensed gun owner

18 Jun 1990 Jacksonville, FL, USA 9 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required

06 Dec 1989 Montreal, Canada 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required

19 Aug 1987 Hungerford, England 16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member

20 Aug 1986 Edmond, OK, USA 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required

18 Jul 1984 San Ysidro, CA, USA 21 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required

01 Aug 1966 Austin, TX, USA 16 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required

In a study of 65 high-profile multiple-victim shootings in the United States during 40 years, 62% of handgun shootings and 71% of long gun shootings were committed with legally acquired firearms

[Polynomial]

[censored] off Neil, it is not about killing it is about who is getting killed and by whome. These kids in Virginia are tragic, and so the bloody hell was the [censored] in NI, you are right to feel screwed up about violence, as you had no real purpose being there (or any of your mates). Now, why don't we get back the death sentence in England, this is what we need, not crap about whether non-criminals should own guns or not, as crimials sure as hell have no problem at all getting them. Why is violence bad if used for the right purpose? So what is wrong with guns being made to kill people, some people perhaps need to be killed to let everybody else live. I almost got blown to pieces in the tube two years ago in a low gun-crime London, from a bomb made up from OTC substances, and if you tell me you wouldn't use guns to f...g kills, terminate, blow up, or make disaper bastards doing this [censored], I would strongly disagree. There are people that need to be eliminated, protected from and sentenced to death -- for that guns do have good purpose.

[Seadweller4000]

[censored] off Neil, it is not about killing it is about who is getting killed and by whome. These kids in Virginia are tragic, and so the bloody hell was the [censored] in NI, you are right to feel screwed up about violence, as you had no real purpose being there (or any of your mates). Now, why don't we get back the death sentence in England, this is what we need, not crap about whether non-criminals should own guns or not, as crimials sure as hell have no problem at all getting them. Why is violence bad if used for the right purpose? So what is wrong with guns being made to kill people, some people perhaps need to be killed to let everybody else live. I almost got blown to pieces in the tube two years ago in a low gun-crime London, from a bomb made up from OTC substances, and if you tell me you wouldn't use guns to f...g kills, terminate, blow up, or make disaper bastards doing this [censored], I would strongly disagree. There are people that need to be eliminated, protected from and sentenced to death -- for that guns do have good purpose.

In all respect, I don't think you got the point.

It is not against guns in general - it's against guns for the crowd.

[Polynomial]

In all respect, I don't think you got the point.

It is not against guns in general - it's against guns for the crowd.

Crowd? Is that your point or TTK's point? There are quite a few points here, I am addressing only the "guns are made for killing" and "killing is bad", in summary hope this makes it clear.