Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Gun Control

Should firearms be controled? 27 members have voted

  1. 1. Should firearms be controled?

    • Yes
      62%
      17
    • No
      37%
      10

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Featured Replies

I fully support the right to bear arms.

Why?

See that gun,

pick it up,

all day long you'll have good luck.

See that gun,

let it lie,

you'll want that gun before you die.

If mine enemy uses a weapon against me I will do likewise.

  • Replies 119
  • Views 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let’s face it guns used by anybody except the military or law enforcement agencies is just plain male sexual sublimation.

Having a gun is a just one of many ways of feeling that you have a big d*ck.

If you don’t believe me, answer me this: why is it only little boys who point their fingers and and say pow, pow (squirt, squirt) and never little girls?

Oh right, give the people with all the power all the weapons. Come on :o TM, after all your quotes of Churchill, you say this?

Either it's getting late, or something, but I see no relation in what you have written to what you have quoted from me.

All I am saying, to put it another way: is men who find arguments for having guns and also tote the odd six-shooter or two, are men with little d*cks trying to pretend they have big d*cks.

And the proof of that is women (who very rarely have d*cks) do not play with guns when they are children. Why?

Because they have no need to expand that which they do not have.

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. That bumpersticker is succinct . W/o the equalizer or the uncertainty that a citizen may have an equalizer the bullies will rule, street bullies or political bullies.

When a govenment outlaws guns they can use the criminals to intimidate and control the public. W/o citizen self-reliance the criminals become a intimidaing element on the citizenery. They can be used to cower a society into compliance and generate more dependence on the government. The public feels less safe so it then asks the government to provide more security and in exchange the public gives up more of their precious freedoms. So in a sense criminals become a tool of the government to control its citizens when the citizens do not have the means or confidence that they have the means to protect themselves.

Either it's getting late, or something, but I see no relation in what you have written to what you have quoted from me.

All I am saying, to put it another way: is men who find arguments for having guns and also tote the odd six-shooter or two, are men with little d*cks trying to pretend they have big d*cks.

And the proof of that is women (who very rarely have d*cks) do not play with guns when they are children. Why?

Because they have no need to expand that which they do not have.

merton , stop your incessant pontificating for just one minute (if that is at all possible) , and try to think pragmatically , if you and your family were threatened by a gun toting intruder with obvious murderous intent, and you suddenly remembered that there was a loaded gun under your pillow , would you use that weapon to save yourselves , or ignore it and die a slave to your principles?

Gun control versus no gun control. I'm sure every poster must have discussed this subject at one time or another.

The problem is that both sides have valid points. Neither side will ever convert the other to their way of thinking.

I do believe in gun control and would never own a gun myself as long as I lived in Thailand or, the UK.

If I lived in the States, I would definitely want to own a gun for protection of the home.

I fully support the right to bear arms.

Why?

See that gun,

pick it up,

all day long you'll have good luck.

See that gun,

let it lie,

you'll want that gun before you die.

If mine enemy uses a weapon against me I will do likewise.

Actually in the USofA at least having guns is not good luck....gun owners are way way more likely to get shot than those who own no guns....check it out.

Maybe the high proliferation of illegal guns is due partly to easy access to legal guns? If everybody has them, this should ultimately mean easier access to them for criminals as well, I think.

Illegal guns are not *made* illegally by crime syndicates, they are the same guns as the ones you buy in your store or receive when you sign up as a police officer or as an army recruit. They have just become illegal along the way. [Edit: Sorry, Insight already said that, but it bears repeating...]

I would have replied much sooner but TV crashed today.  Did that happen to everybody or just me?  It was down almost all day for me. 

Anyway, for your statement above, let me cite another example.  You think that if guns are made illegal by law and no longer sold that criminals will no longer be able to get them?  Let me cite another example of where that is wrong.  Does anybody remember Prohibition?  Production and sale of all alcohol was deemed illegal by the government. 

Did this stop people from making it?  No.

Did this stop people from buying and selling it?  No.

What exactly was gained from Prohibition, what lesson was learned?  Well, it was the single largest reason the Mafia in the U.S. became so powerful & rich, from bootlegging.  Just because some politicians say we shouldn't be allowed to have something and make it illegal does not mean it's ever going to stop.  The legality of firearms is a futile debate.

Do you have any proof the right to bear arms cuts back on crime? In that case, I am genuinely interested in seeing it. Many countries have stricter gun laws than the US and still do not have anywhere near the same crime level. Of course there are many other factors that influence the crime level too, but I really think that easy access to gun will mean more crime (at least more violent crime), not less.

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

                          Florida  United States

homicide rate            -36%        -.4%

firearm homicide rate  -37%          +15%

handgun homicide rate -41%        +24%

Do you also happen to have corresponding statistics for how many people got shot in this state since the law was introduced, as opposed to before?

I'm sorry, I searched and could not locate this information.

In a society with a high proliferation of guns, there is bound to be a number of people who come into contact with guns who have not received the proper education to handle them. If people do not keep their guns safely locked away, the risk that children or mentally sick or retarded people find them and use them is also higher.

This statement is exactly my point.  Guns dont kill people, people kill people.  If you legally own a gun, it is your responsibility to take care of it and not let it fall into the wrong hands.  Proposing to take away a persons right to defend themselves because an accident might happen is asinine.  Should all first-world nations cease sending aid to impoverished nations because it might fall into the wrong hands of some criminals?

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

                          Florida  United States

homicide rate            -36%        -.4%

firearm homicide rate  -37%          +15%

handgun homicide rate -41%        +24%

Additional information: Florida instituted a law called "10-20-Life" in 1999. It is similar to California's Three Strike law.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/press/1999/1020life.html

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/10-20-life/index.html

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

                          Florida  United States

homicide rate            -36%        -.4%

firearm homicide rate  -37%          +15%

handgun homicide rate -41%        +24%

Additional information: Florida instituted a law called "10-20-Life" in 1999. It is similar to California's Three Strike law.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/press/1999/1020life.html

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/10-20-life/index.html

Interesting statistics...where did they come from...they don't seem real to me but I could be wrong...if they are real then I'm very interested in checking them out.

Either it's getting late, or something, but I see no relation in what you have written to what you have quoted from me.

All I am saying, to put it another way: is men who find arguments for having guns and also tote the odd six-shooter or two, are men with little d*cks trying to pretend they have big d*cks.

And the proof of that is women (who very rarely have d*cks) do not play with guns when they are children. Why?

Because they have no need to expand that which they do not have.

merton , stop your incessant pontificating for just one minute (if that is at all possible) , and try to think pragmatically , if you and your family were threatened by a gun toting intruder with obvious murderous intent, and you suddenly remembered that there was a loaded gun under your pillow , would you use that weapon to save yourselves , or ignore it and die a slave to your principles?

If,If,...If....and what are the chances of this happening - let's see some odds.

Considerably less than the chances of me or a member of my family getting run over by a car.

Using your logic we should all be walking around in Michelin suits to protect ourselves and our dearest from the big automobile threat.

Anyway by far the greatest number of deaths in the home are cause by simple domestic accidents - having a gun under my pillow is certainly not going to help, in fact the complete opposite, providing yet another deadly appliance whose only function is to wound and kill.

Interesting statistics...where did they come from...they don't seem real to me but I could be wrong...if they are real then I'm very interested in checking them out.

Interesting but don't seem real to you? Why, because it proves my point and you don't like it?

I got those stats from this website: Gun Control Stats

Interesting statistics...where did they come from...they don't seem real to me but I could be wrong...if they are real then I'm very interested in checking them out.

Interesting but don't seem real to you? Why, because it proves my point and you don't like it?

I got those stats from this website: Gun Control Stats

We can debate the validity of the statistics til the cows come home and we won't get that much further to the truth I guess...

Anyway, just one interesting point I discovered from going through that site (justfacts.com) is that it seems to be Republican-oriented without explicitly telling us it is. Have a look at the arguments concerning abortion, and compare the layout and presentation of facts concerning abortion, as opposed to the layout and presentation of the facts page concerning Gun Control.

The Gun Control site is all statistics and no pictures. There is no discussion or analysis of the use of language/terminology in the Gun Control section, but most of the Abortion part consists of these analyses, most of them seemingly aimed at trying to present pro-choice people as people with double standards... Also note the use of pictures. In the abortion part, we are presented with pictures of the human faetus, showing us forms we are bound to identify as 'human', arguably trying to make us feel guilty for even contemplating ending such a little life...

Why are there no pictures of people with their brains blown out, bullet wounds etc., in the Gun Control section? The statistics per se may well be correct, but to me justfacts.com seems like a website a republican created in order to fuel likeminded people with statistics to bolster their arguments.

Interesting statistics...where did they come from...they don't seem real to me but I could be wrong...if they are real then I'm very interested in checking them out.

Interesting but don't seem real to you? Why, because it proves my point and you don't like it?

I got those stats from this website: Gun Control Stats

You have absolutely and completely misjudged me and my reasons for asking...I wanted to learn something about the two sided issue of gun control....and what I've learned instead from your response is that you tend to go off the deep end emotionally for absolutely no reason at all....makes me think you are some kind of gun nut....I don't promote gun control inspite of gun nuts like you...if I went off as easily as you do then your baseless accusations would be enough to put me into the gun control nut's camp.....your 'hair triggered' response does not serve your purpose well.

And by the way I thought the link had lots of interesting statistics about gun control but it is a very one sided link being against gun control...I recommend this site for anyone wanting to see interesting information that is against gun control but I also recommend that they find a pro gun control site to see the other side.

And also I want to apologize a bit for being so harsh above...I'm a bit sensitive about this issue because I understand the arguements for both sides and I have not been able to decide one way or the other on this issue...consequently I get accusations from both sides and sometimes I react more strongly than is necessary...sorry, Chownah

You have absolutely and completely misjudged me and my reasons for asking...I wanted to learn something about the two sided issue of gun control....and what I've learned instead from your response is that you tend to go off the deep end emotionally for absolutely no reason at all....makes me think you are some kind of gun nut

your 'hair triggered' response does not serve your purpose well.

And also I want to apologize a bit for being so harsh above...I'm a bit sensitive about this issue because I understand the arguements for both sides and I have not been able to decide one way or the other on this issue...consequently I get accusations from both sides and sometimes I react more strongly than is necessary...sorry, Chownah

Hardly did I go "off the deep end" as you put it. It's impossible for people reading words on a computer to get a sense for the writers emotions as one writes his/her statement. Perhaps I should have thrown in a smilie but I am not getting worked up, heated, or distraught discussing this argument so don't worry about that.

I do not even own a gun so labeling me a gun nut is ridiculous.

There is no need to apologize. It's fine. :o

I will never understand the obsession of americans for guns.

I will never understand some people's mis-interpretation of Webster's (the word obsession in this case), and the willingness to generalize isolated cases across mainstream populations.

Let’s face it guns used by anybody except the military or law enforcement agencies is just plain male sexual sublimation.

Having a gun is a just one of many ways of feeling that you have a big d*ck.

If you don’t believe me, answer me this: why is it only little boys who point their fingers and and say pow, pow (squirt, squirt) and never little girls?

Oh right, give the people with all the power all the weapons. Come on :o TM, after all your quotes of Churchill, you say this?

Either it's getting late, or something, but I see no relation in what you have written to what you have quoted from me.

All I am saying, to put it another way: is men who find arguments for having guns and also tote the odd six-shooter or two, are men with little d*cks trying to pretend they have big d*cks.

And the proof of that is women (who very rarely have d*cks) do not play with guns when they are children. Why?

Because they have no need to expand that which they do not have.

Maybe I should've been more clear, I will try. You have placed quoted thing like people are able to sleep because rough men stand ready, etc. In other words you have expressed the opinion that sometimes violence is a nesscary evil. So, why do you take such a complex issues as gun control and reduce it to school yard big d1ck theory?

I will grant you that there are men who use their ownership of firearms to affrim their manhood in the eyes of others. I will also agree with anyone who says such behavior is wrong. Glorifing a killing machine is not a moral thing do to.

My grandfather is a collector of firearms. He likes to find antiques and restore them. Some of his favorites are from the WW II era. His intrest is purely historical.

My father-in-law spent his time in the Thai armed services and developed a love of target practice. Still do this day he finds relaxing and fun to test his skill at a range. I have never met a man who is more clam and peace loving and uncocerned with the size of his genitals then him.

My mother and I lived in very rough neighborhoods when I was a child. She kept a nine mm with hollow points. I guess you would say she had penis envy.

I am not a fan of firearms but I would be a fool to ignore the roles these weapons play in everyday crime. I would also be a fool to hand the people with all the power all the weapons and pray that they will be merciful.

I guess I just expected more insight from you than a big d1ck theory. :D

I fully support the right to bear arms.

Why?

See that gun,

pick it up,

all day long you'll have good luck.

See that gun,

let it lie,

you'll want that gun before you die.

If mine enemy uses a weapon against me I will do likewise.

Actually in the USofA at least having guns is not good luck....gun owners are way way more likely to get shot than those who own no guns....check it out.

Unlucky and dead are two different things. But yes, I know of many cases where homeonwers have been punished becuase they defends thier homes from invaders. It's sad, but I still would rather get in trouble with the law and know of family is okay than take the risk of them getting hurt.

I fully support the right to bear arms.

Why?

See that gun,

pick it up,

all day long you'll have good luck.

See that gun,

let it lie,

you'll want that gun before you die.

If mine enemy uses a weapon against me I will do likewise.

Actually in the USofA at least having guns is not good luck....gun owners are way way more likely to get shot than those who own no guns....check it out.

Unlucky and dead are two different things. But yes, I know of many cases where homeonwers have been punished becuase they defends thier homes from invaders. It's sad, but I still would rather get in trouble with the law and know of family is okay than take the risk of them getting hurt.

I'm not talking about police, I'm talking about friends and family members and suicides. If you check this out you will find that having guns around is dangerous and this ever present danger can back fire on the owner and sometimes does. Of course the answer to this is to keep the guns locked up where others can't get them....my remarks are not meant to be anti gun ownership...

The definition of a civil society is to "depose" weapons at the gate of the city

Let’s face it guns used by anybody except the military or law enforcement agencies is just plain male sexual sublimation.

Having a gun is a just one of many ways of feeling that you have a big d*ck.

If you don’t believe me, answer me this: why is it only little boys who point their fingers and and say pow, pow (squirt, squirt) and never little girls?

Oh right, give the people with all the power all the weapons. Come on :o TM, after all your quotes of Churchill, you say this?

Either it's getting late, or something, but I see no relation in what you have written to what you have quoted from me.

All I am saying, to put it another way: is men who find arguments for having guns and also tote the odd six-shooter or two, are men with little d*cks trying to pretend they have big d*cks.

And the proof of that is women (who very rarely have d*cks) do not play with guns when they are children. Why?

Because they have no need to expand that which they do not have.

Maybe I should've been more clear, I will try. You have placed quoted thing like people are able to sleep because rough men stand ready, etc. In other words you have expressed the opinion that sometimes violence is a nesscary evil. So, why do you take such a complex issues as gun control and reduce it to school yard big d1ck theory?

Because in my opinion and experience it is true.

"Rough men" are the army and the police - they are armed and trained to use these weapons. They have also developed experience in there use plus learning especially (hopefully) when not to use them.

Mr. and Mrs John Doe cannot ever attain this expertise. If Mr. & Mrs J-D have firearms in their house under the pretext "it helps protect the family against the bad man", they are unnecessarily increasing the element of danger for their family, whilst at the same time over prioritising a threat that is minimal.

The vast majority of injuries and deaths in the family are caused by simple domestic accidents - stairs, ladders, electricity etc.. Having one more appliance - namely a weapon whose only function is to cause injury or death - only increases the risk within the family home of an accident, not lessened by the lack of training and experience of the owners.

The logic - based on statistics outlining accidents in the home - is simple and obvious.

Then why do some ignore the real safety issues in their home at the expense of an imaginary demon coming from the outside? And then invest in equipment that can only increase the risk of domestic tragedy?

I see no other answer than some distorted macho sublimation.

I will grant you that there are men who use their ownership of firearms to affrim their manhood in the eyes of others. I will also agree with anyone who says such behavior is wrong. Glorifing a killing machine is not a moral thing do to.

My grandfather is a collector of firearms. He likes to find antiques and restore them. Some of his favorites are from the WW II era. His intrest is purely historical.

My father-in-law spent his time in the Thai armed services and developed a love of target practice. Still do this day he finds relaxing and fun to test his skill at a range. I have never met a man who is more clam and peace loving and uncocerned with the size of his genitals then him.

My mother and I lived in very rough neighborhoods when I was a child. She kept a nine mm with hollow points. I guess you would say she had penis envy.

I am not a fan of firearms but I would be a fool to ignore the roles these weapons play in everyday crime.

I know that Thailand, despite its Buddhist tradition, can be a much more violent society than the UK, but tell me, honestly, how many times have you or your mother actually been confronted by an armed attacker or assailant?

I would also be a fool to hand the people with all the power all the weapons and pray that they will be merciful.

I guess I just expected more insight from you than a big d1ck theory. :D

Let’s face it guns used by anybody except the military or law enforcement agencies is just plain male sexual sublimation.

Having a gun is a just one of many ways of feeling that you have a big d*ck.

If you don’t believe me, answer me this: why is it only little boys who point their fingers and and say pow, pow (squirt, squirt) and never little girls?

Oh right, give the people with all the power all the weapons. Come on :o TM, after all your quotes of Churchill, you say this?

Either it's getting late, or something, but I see no relation in what you have written to what you have quoted from me.

All I am saying, to put it another way: is men who find arguments for having guns and also tote the odd six-shooter or two, are men with little d*cks trying to pretend they have big d*cks.

And the proof of that is women (who very rarely have d*cks) do not play with guns when they are children. Why?

Because they have no need to expand that which they do not have.

Maybe I should've been more clear, I will try. You have placed quoted thing like people are able to sleep because rough men stand ready, etc. In other words you have expressed the opinion that sometimes violence is a nesscary evil. So, why do you take such a complex issues as gun control and reduce it to school yard big d1ck theory?

Because in my opinion and experience it is true.

So, you are saying that all the gun owners you have ever met are alpha male wannabes? So, does that mean that everybody is then, just because that's all you've met?

"Rough men" are the army and the police - they are armed and trained to use these weapons. They have also developed experience in there use plus learning especially (hopefully) when not to use them.

And how hopeful are you? We have already had one civil war over states rights, I wouldn't be surprised to see another.

Mr. and Mrs John Doe cannot ever attain this expertise. If Mr. & Mrs J-D have firearms in their house under the pretext "it helps protect the family against the bad man", they are unnecessarily increasing the element of danger for their family, whilst at the same time over prioritising a threat that is minimal.

The vast majority of injuries and deaths in the family are caused by simple domestic accidents - stairs, ladders, electricity etc.. Having one more appliance - namely a weapon whose only function is to cause injury or death - only increases the risk within the family home of an accident, not lessened by the lack of training and experience of the owners.

This is why many people in America are trying to make firearm training mandatory when purchasing a firearm.

The logic - based on statistics outlining accidents in the home - is simple and obvious.

Then why do some ignore the real safety issues in their home at the expense of an imaginary demon coming from the outside? And then invest in equipment that can only increase the risk of domestic tragedy?

I see no other answer than some distorted macho sublimation.

I will grant you that there are men who use their ownership of firearms to affrim their manhood in the eyes of others. I will also agree with anyone who says such behavior is wrong. Glorifing a killing machine is not a moral thing do to.

My grandfather is a collector of firearms. He likes to find antiques and restore them. Some of his favorites are from the WW II era. His intrest is purely historical.

My father-in-law spent his time in the Thai armed services and developed a love of target practice. Still do this day he finds relaxing and fun to test his skill at a range. I have never met a man who is more clam and peace loving and uncocerned with the size of his genitals then him.

My mother and I lived in very rough neighborhoods when I was a child. She kept a nine mm with hollow points. I guess you would say she had penis envy.

I am not a fan of firearms but I would be a fool to ignore the roles these weapons play in everyday crime.

I know that Thailand, despite its Buddhist tradition, can be a much more violent society than the UK, but tell me, honestly, how many times have you or your mother actually been confronted by an armed attacker or assailant?

My mother and I were mugged on the front porch of our house one evening. The men hit her twice over the head with a baseball bat and punched me in the gut. My mother had to do to the ER and get 16 stiches. I was eight at the time. A couple of years later one night a man in a mask was trying to open the backdoor to our house. My mother's friend and roommate called the police whille my mother went to the kitchen, were the back door was. The was a window in the backdoor so this man saw my mother aim her 9mm at him. Needless to say he didn't stick around to find out if she would pull the tigger.[/COLOR]

I would also be a fool to hand the people with all the power all the weapons and pray that they will be merciful.

I guess I just expected more insight from you than a big d1ck theory. :D

I fully support the right to bear arms.

Why?

See that gun,

pick it up,

all day long you'll have good luck.

See that gun,

let it lie,

you'll want that gun before you die.

If mine enemy uses a weapon against me I will do likewise.

Actually in the USofA at least having guns is not good luck....gun owners are way way more likely to get shot than those who own no guns....check it out.

Unlucky and dead are two different things. But yes, I know of many cases where homeonwers have been punished becuase they defends thier homes from invaders. It's sad, but I still would rather get in trouble with the law and know of family is okay than take the risk of them getting hurt.

I'm not talking about police, I'm talking about friends and family members and suicides. If you check this out you will find that having guns around is dangerous and this ever present danger can back fire on the owner and sometimes does. Of course the answer to this is to keep the guns locked up where others can't get them....my remarks are not meant to be anti gun ownership...

That's one of the biggest mistakes people make when they buy a gun. If you buy a gun, you must have a safe or a gun safe, with a combo lock. This is not something you just shove under the bed. I don't have gun and really don't want to buy one, but if I do, I must also buy a safe.

The other thing that really makes me worry is that so many people bring firearms in to the home and don't talk to the children about them. Kids must know that they don't touch a gun if they see one, at all. But because of the anti-gun movement even simple safety tips like that aren't allowed in any mass media form. That worries me.

What alot people don't know either is the weapons one needs to buy. The best gun for home defense is a shotgun. Why?

One: You don't have to aim just point.

Two: You don't have to load it to scare off an invader.

You should lock your loved ones up in a room and wait for the people to leave. If they get near the room you and your family is in, you warn them you are armed and the pump the shotgun. They will know that sound and go away.

If a person owns a firearm they are responible for that weapon. If anything happens that shouldn't with that weapon they are the ones to blame. This is no different from anyother object we use (car, power tools, ladders, kinves, etc;) that can be harmful. The problem is we given an education concerning harmful objects expect the gun.

As someone pointed out earlier, this has all been said before. Was he right? Has anyone here heard an argument that they have not heard before? I haven't. Has anyone here learned any new statistics or information about this topic. I have. I learned in Florida there was at least one year in the '90's when some types of gun crime were lower than one year in the 80's. Not a very convincing piece of information...I wonder why that state and those particular years were singled out and no other data was offered....but...anyway....anything new here?...or are we all just lined up on opposite sides of a dead horse and just kicking away?

As someone pointed out earlier, this has all been said before.  Was he right?  Has anyone here heard an argument that they have not heard before?  I haven't.  Has anyone here learned any new statistics or information about this topic.  I have. I learned in Florida there was at least one year in the '90's when some types of gun crime were lower than one year in the 80's.  Not a very convincing piece of information...I wonder why that state and those particular years were singled out and no other data was offered....but...anyway....anything new here?...or are we all just lined up on opposite sides of a dead horse and just kicking away?

Nope, it's all the same. I don't think it will ever change. It's just one of those issues which will remain the same.

The definition of a civil society is to "depose" weapons at the gate of the city

This statement leaves me drawing a blank because of one word in it. Butterfly, tell me in what context this word is meant to be in your statement, I just don't get it.

de·pose Audio pronunciation of "depose" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-pz)

v. de·posed, de·pos·ing, de·pos·es

v. tr.

1.

1. To remove from office or power.

2. To dethrone.

2. Law.

1. To state or affirm in a deposition or by affidavit.

2. To take a deposition from: Investigators will depose the witness behind closed doors.

3. To put or lay down; deposit.

As someone pointed out earlier, this has all been said before.  Was he right?  Has anyone here heard an argument that they have not heard before?  I haven't.  Has anyone here learned any new statistics or information about this topic.  I have. I learned in Florida there was at least one year in the '90's when some types of gun crime were lower than one year in the 80's.  Not a very convincing piece of information...I wonder why that state and those particular years were singled out and no other data was offered....but...anyway....anything new here?...or are we all just lined up on opposite sides of a dead horse and just kicking away?

Nope, it's all the same. I don't think it will ever change. It's just one of those issues which will remain the same.

Is the only response - pistols at dawn?

The definition of a civil society is to "depose" weapons at the gate of the city

This statement leaves me drawing a blank because of one word in it. Butterfly, tell me in what context this word is meant to be in your statement, I just don't get it.

de·pose Audio pronunciation of "depose" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-pz)

v. de·posed, de·pos·ing, de·pos·es

v. tr.

1.

1. To remove from office or power.

2. To dethrone.

2. Law.

1. To state or affirm in a deposition or by affidavit.

2. To take a deposition from: Investigators will depose the witness behind closed doors.

3. To put or lay down; deposit.

Nr. 3 (pay my fee for this English lesson to the Victims of "Collateral Damage" in the Home)

Let’s face it guns used by anybody except the military or law enforcement agencies is just plain male sexual sublimation.

Having a gun is a just one of many ways of feeling that you have a big d*ck.

If you don’t believe me, answer me this: why is it only little boys who point their fingers and and say pow, pow (squirt, squirt) and never little girls?

Oh right, give the people with all the power all the weapons. Come on :o TM, after all your quotes of Churchill, you say this?

Either it's getting late, or something, but I see no relation in what you have written to what you have quoted from me.

All I am saying, to put it another way: is men who find arguments for having guns and also tote the odd six-shooter or two, are men with little d*cks trying to pretend they have big d*cks.

And the proof of that is women (who very rarely have d*cks) do not play with guns when they are children. Why?

Because they have no need to expand that which they do not have.

Maybe I should've been more clear, I will try. You have placed quoted thing like people are able to sleep because rough men stand ready, etc. In other words you have expressed the opinion that sometimes violence is a nesscary evil. So, why do you take such a complex issues as gun control and reduce it to school yard big d1ck theory?

Because in my opinion and experience it is true.

So, you are saying that all the gun owners you have ever met are alpha male wannabes? So, does that mean that everybody is then, just because that's all you've met?

In 58 years of life, mainly working for the ICRC, I have met more than my fair share.

"Rough men" are the army and the police - they are armed and trained to use these weapons. They have also developed experience in there use plus learning especially (hopefully) when not to use them.

And how hopeful are you? We have already had one civil war over states rights, I wouldn't be surprised to see another.

I thought we were debating civilised society not its opposite.

Mr. and Mrs John Doe cannot ever attain this expertise. If Mr. & Mrs J-D have firearms in their house under the pretext "it helps protect the family against the bad man", they are unnecessarily increasing the element of danger for their family, whilst at the same time over prioritising a threat that is minimal.

The vast majority of injuries and deaths in the family are caused by simple domestic accidents - stairs, ladders, electricity etc.. Having one more appliance - namely a weapon whose only function is to cause injury or death - only increases the risk within the family home of an accident, not lessened by the lack of training and experience of the owners.

This is why many people in America are trying to make firearm training mandatory when purchasing a firearm.

Training can never be a substitute for experience.

The logic - based on statistics outlining accidents in the home - is simple and obvious.

Then why do some ignore the real safety issues in their home at the expense of an imaginary demon coming from the outside? And then invest in equipment that can only increase the risk of domestic tragedy?

I see no other answer than some distorted macho sublimation.

I will grant you that there are men who use their ownership of firearms to affrim their manhood in the eyes of others. I will also agree with anyone who says such behavior is wrong. Glorifing a killing machine is not a moral thing do to.

My grandfather is a collector of firearms. He likes to find antiques and restore them. Some of his favorites are from the WW II era. His intrest is purely historical.

My father-in-law spent his time in the Thai armed services and developed a love of target practice. Still do this day he finds relaxing and fun to test his skill at a range. I have never met a man who is more clam and peace loving and uncocerned with the size of his genitals then him.

My mother and I lived in very rough neighborhoods when I was a child. She kept a nine mm with hollow points. I guess you would say she had penis envy.

I am not a fan of firearms but I would be a fool to ignore the roles these weapons play in everyday crime.

I know that Thailand, despite its Buddhist tradition, can be a much more violent society than the UK, but tell me, honestly, how many times have you or your mother actually been confronted by an armed attacker or assailant?

My mother and I were mugged on the front porch of our house one evening. The men hit her twice over the head with a baseball bat and punched me in the gut. My mother had to do to the ER and get 16 stiches. I was eight at the time. A couple of years later one night a man in a mask was trying to open the backdoor to our house. My mother's friend and roommate called the police whille my mother went to the kitchen, were the back door was. The was a window in the backdoor so this man saw my mother aim her 9mm at him. Needless to say he didn't stick around to find out if she would pull the tigger.[/COLOR]

This is very sad news indeed - you and especially your mother have all my sympathy.

But you, yourself pointed out earlier, there is a danger in basing your views and opinions with respect to this matter, on a single personal experience.

Ask yourself, what could have happened had your mother begun to shoot?

My father-in-law (Thai) once shot after an intruder on his land. The man returned the next day with his gang, and executed my father-in-law by shooting him through the head. Fortunately Pa managed to move his head at the last moment and survived. Although the bullet can still be seen, quite clearly lodged in his skull.

I would also be a fool to hand the people with all the power all the weapons and pray that they will be merciful.

I guess I just expected more insight from you than a big d1ck theory. :D

Whew, had to get rid of the page long quotes and requotes. End up reading the same thing 6 or 7 times each page.

So, does Gun Control work ? I suppose it depends on it's purpose.

Has it ever worked ? Darn tootin' partner ! As an example, Germany instituted gun control once, starting in 1928. All it's citizens dutifully lined up and registered their firearms.

When the Nazis gained control of the country, they used those very same gun registries to disarm anyone they thought might be a threat, including almost the entire Jewish population. This took place shortly before Kristalnacht, and ensured there would be very little resistance when the Gestapo started rounding up the Jews and sending them off to places like Auschwitz and Dachau.

When the Nazis invaded another country, they were able to use the gun registries in those countries to round up anyone that owned a firearm.

Apparently, Hitler wanted to invade Switzerland as well:

"Hitler wanted to annex Switzerland but "Nazi invasion plans acknowledged the dissuasive nature of this armed populace," writes Halbrook, who documented the country's "armed neutrality" in his 1998 book, Target Switzerland.

Not only did the Swiss deter invasion, they were able to save half a million refugees who came there during the war. And had Hitler invaded, Halbrook notes, "his plan to annihilate the Jews would have faced a special obstacle in Switzerland, where every Swiss Jew (like every other citizen) had a rifle in his home."

Hitler fumed against the Swiss, calling them "mortal enemies of the new Germany."

He was so mad, he even banned the play William Tell."

I was posted to Germany from '84 - '88, towards the end of the Cold War. One of the theories tossed around at the time was that one reason Russia never tried attacking the US was because they knew they could never occupy it. They could conceivably destroy large hunks of it, but would never be able to fully control it.

Too many US citizens owned firearms, making any occupation too costly (they got the same kind of lesson during their occupation of Afghanistan in the 80's, much like the Americans are learning in Iraq right now. I think America made a mistake thinking that all the Iraqis would welcome them with open arms, and forgive the betrayal that hapened after the first Gulf War).

So, Gun Control can work, if your aim is to disarm your population to prevent an uprising. The more a government crows about needing gun control and registration, the more I suspect what their true motives are.

Having an armed population can prevent things like invasions, take over by undemocratic governments and mass population exterminations.

If it wasn't for having an armed citizenry, America would probably still belong to the British.

Why do you think the founding fathers of confederation wrote that specifically into the US constitution, the Right To Bear Arms ?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Who are the "militia" ?

"The Framers (of the constitution)used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms.

Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia."

Meaning that the militia and the National guard are two entirely different organizations.

The US Code

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 Prev | Next

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

Release date: 2004-03-18

(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.

(:o 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.

In other words, the "militia" is pretty much every male citizen of the US over 17 years of age.

Well, that killed about a half an hour. Anybody still awake ?

3. To put or lay down; deposit.

I would think instead of depose that you wanted to use the word "dispose" and just spelled it wrong. It would fit better in what you were saying IMO. :o

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.