3. To put or lay down; deposit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the wild west days of the American frontier every man carried a gun for protection. Many towns had the requirement that upon entering town you deposit your gun with the sheriff while in town and you retrieved it upon leaving.

Not quite sure we can equate the 'availability' of booze during the time it was outlawed in the USA with the potential 'availability' of guns given an outlaw thereof. Hard to imagine someone knocking up an MP5 in their bathroom

Some good points above (some crap ones too ). I found the following (probably misquoted as I can't be arsed to look back) most compelling in one way or another...

For Guns

----------

- "I would rather have to deal with the law for shooting 'a bad guy' than do nothing and watch my family die" - Assuming s/he is a bad guy that is, and not the new postman!

- "Armed nations are harder to occupy" - although is the USA realy worried about invasion? would it realy come down to hand guns rather than ICBMs?

- "You can't defend yourself close-quaters unless you know how and are capable of it - its much easier to learn to point and squeeze!"

Against

---------

- "More guns means greater avaiablitly for criminals to use them - against us" - Assuming this is where crinminals get them from, and not smuggled in from other countries.

- "Accidents in the home are a big killer, a device designed for blowing your brains out is not likely to help this" - Trigger guard locks should be mandatory, this would only make the gun as dangerous as a hammer then instead

- "Its easy to say that you could, or would, blow the brains out of the crinminal at your door. Much harder to live with it afterwards. Once levelled, could you pull the trigger - if not, what then - the stakes are raised" - When I was young I was told to never carry a knife unless you are willing to use it and live by the consequences; this goes for guns too.

Above all, I agree with the poster who said something like: When in the UK or anywhere where gun crime is low, then I would not have a gun. In the USA, I would have a gun as the criminals all have them and seem willing to use them.

When in Rome.

How do you resolve gun violence then ? by allowing more guns ? or by forbiding guns alltogether ? I see no end to this. It's a point of no return at this stage.

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is the only response - pistols at dawn?

No, that's not what I meant. It's deadlocked issue, something major, like wat with int the country or some other mega bad "thing" would have to happen to get people to jump to one side or the other. And because of that bad thing I am happy with it being deadlocked for right now.

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

But, that doesn't mean everyone, maybe just a lot.

"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.

True, but civil is only something that people want to be, not have to be.

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.

I agree, but people should still be made to understand just how dangerous firearms can be and how easy it is to hurt people with them. They should undertstand the power behing these weapons and treat them with fear and an understanding that using one is not something any one should do willing.

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.

Again, I agree with you. I don't own a gun, nor do I want to. I just feel that if someone wants to own one they should. However, they need to understand the things I mentioned earlier and know that if they are irresponsible with that firearm they should pay dearly for it.

In the times of blades and armor, people were told that to draw your weapon was to use your weapon and you never did this carelessly. Today, when people don't handle weapons as much, we have forgoten the consequences of "drawing our weapons", we need to be thaught that lesson again.

I voted that gun control doesn't work, but that dosen't mean I don't support it. I just want gun control to focus on Firearm education ( which incules how to avoid violence and what firearm violence realy does to the human body) then just outright deniing someone owner ship of a firearm.I will rise my children to perfer the Martial Art over firmarms and tell them that you run first, fight second, and always kill last.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will rise my children to perfer the Martial Art over firmarms and tell them that you run first, fight second, and always kill last.

Don't forget to remind them that he who wears the lightest clothes, has empty pockets and carries no weapons, runs fastest

- and most certainly is not sexually inadequate.

How do you resolve gun violence then ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hate to burst your bubble, but it ain't just america.

There are areas in the middle east where entire towns do nothing but make firearms. These are gun-based economies and gun-based societies.

Things are no different in wide areas of central and south america, where gun violence is effectively the rule of law. The ghettos of Rio are one of many examples.

Changing these areas would require generations of behavioral change, societal change, educational change, etc.

Sorry to say but I don't see it happening in my lifetime or the next. The sadder fact is there is nothing you or I or anyone else can do about it. It is what it is.

How do you resolve gun violence then ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hate to burst your bubble, but it ain't just america.

There are areas in the middle east where entire towns do nothing but make firearms. These are gun-based economies and gun-based societies.

Things are no different in wide areas of central and south america, where gun violence is effectively the rule of law. The ghettos of Rio are one of many examples.

Changing these areas would require generations of behavioral change, societal change, educational change, etc.

Sorry to say but I don't see it happening in my lifetime or the next. The sadder fact is there is nothing you or I or anyone else can do about it. It is what it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a phrase the Danes often over use: såden er det bare - It is what it is

Use of this phrase used to really get on my nerves.

It is the most defeatist description of any state of affairs.

Apologists used to say exactly what you have written about slavery - "It is what it is".

But men with vision came together to disprove this cliché.

Apologists used to say exactly what you have written about slavery - "It is what it is".

But men with vision came together to disprove this cliché.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You speak of slavery in the past tense. I don't think it would be too far off to say that slavery is as bad today as it ever was.

Apologists used to say exactly what you have written about slavery - "It is what it is".

But men with vision came together to disprove this cliché.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You speak of slavery in the past tense. I don't think it would be too far off to say that slavery is as bad today as it ever was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps.

But is it right that we should just forget about it and watch TV, whilst the Philippine maid cleans the house?

If you have a look at what's going on in New Orleans, it could be expected given the gravity of the situation. According to reports, society has almost completely broken down there. No doubt this could happen to any city across the globe given the circumstances.

However, there have been reports of people taking the law very much into their own hands by taking shots at invaders. Not only that, but reports of people firing at rescue efforts.

Given the much freer availability of firearms in the US (compared to the UK), is this to be expected? If the licensing  and usage firearms were controlled would it have any impact on the level of violence we're now seeing in the NO?

What utter and complete balderdash!

The criminal element will always be able to obtain guns - perhaps 'society' should license knives too?

Or, how about cars? Recall that woman in Houston who recently ran over her cheating husband? If we regulate cars, perhaps that won't happen again either...

If you have a look at what's going on in New Orleans, it could be expected given the gravity of the situation. According to reports, society has almost completely broken down there. No doubt this could happen to any city across the globe given the circumstances.

However, there have been reports of people taking the law very much into their own hands by taking shots at invaders. Not only that, but reports of people firing at rescue efforts.

Given the much freer availability of firearms in the US (compared to the UK), is this to be expected? If the licensing  and usage firearms were controlled would it have any impact on the level of violence we're now seeing in the NO?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What utter and complete balderdash!

The criminal element will always be able to obtain guns - perhaps 'society' should license knives too?

Or, how about cars? Recall that woman in Houston who recently ran over her cheating husband? If we regulate cars, perhaps that won't happen again either...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like a good idea to me.

BTW aren't motor vehicles licensed in the USA?

Apologists used to say exactly what you have written about slavery - "It is what it is".

But men with vision came together to disprove this cliché.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You speak of slavery in the past tense. I don't think it would be too far off to say that slavery is as bad today as it ever was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it WOULD be too far off to say that slavery is as bad today as it ever was.

What utter and complete balderdash!

The criminal element will always be able to obtain guns - perhaps 'society' should license knives too?

Or, how about cars?  Recall that woman in Houston who recently ran over her cheating husband?  If we regulate cars, perhaps that won't happen again either...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for your contribution, Boon Mee, albeit at this late stage in the discussion.

If you read a fair few posts back you may appreciate why your above comment is one absolutely ridiculous analogy that many of us have already seen beyond. May I ask you to please take the time to analyze how and why we've come to this assumption before contributing further.

Have a nice day.

I will rise my children to perfer the Martial Art over firmarms and tell them that you run first, fight second, and always kill last.

Don't forget to remind them that he who wears the lightest clothes, has empty pockets and carries no weapons, runs fastest

- and most certainly is not sexually inadequate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Insight - what BM is saying - people are responsible not the weapons themselves.

How do you resolve gun violence then ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hate to burst your bubble, but it ain't just america.

There are areas in the middle east where entire towns do nothing but make firearms. These are gun-based economies and gun-based societies.

Things are no different in wide areas of central and south america, where gun violence is effectively the rule of law. The ghettos of Rio are one of many examples.

Changing these areas would require generations of behavioral change, societal change, educational change, etc.

Sorry to say but I don't see it happening in my lifetime or the next. The sadder fact is there is nothing you or I or anyone else can do about it. It is what it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And that is the nail head upon which we must focus. So, many believe, even in countries like America where the laws work most of time, some people think the only way to deal with a problem is to reach for the steel. The question is how to change this view. Outside education, starting as children, I have no idea.

in countries like America where the laws work most of time,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think this is a bit of an urban myth. America has a lot of the long term problems it does, because laws don't work (i.e., they aren't enforced and offenders aren't properly punished when they are enforced). This goes from top to bottom, from the richest white collar criminals to the lowest form of street thug.

A little bit ridiculous, but governments could do well by following good IT administration practice. That is, a good IT administrator only puts into place as many policies as he/she is willing to audit and effectively enforce. And for those policies that are put into place, he/she audits and enforces them to the "nth" degree.

In other words, if America had half as many laws and two times better enforcement, then the system would work a lot better.

in countries like America where the laws work most of time,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think this is a bit of an urban myth. America has a lot of the long term problems it does, because laws don't work (i.e., they aren't enforced and offenders aren't properly punished when they are enforced). This goes from top to bottom, from the richest white collar criminals to the lowest form of street thug.

A little bit ridiculous, but governments could do well by following good IT administration practice. That is, a good IT administrator only puts into place as many policies as he/she is willing to audit and effectively enforce. And for those policies that are put into place, he/she audits and enforces them to the "nth" degree.

In other words, if America had half as many laws and two times better enforcement, then the system would work a lot better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No system is perfect. I was just saying that the people of America can, for the most part, depend on the laws working.

Insight - what BM is saying - people are responsible not the weapons themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Understood Britmaveric, I'm just saying this one has been debated already.

Okay then, how about this situation:

There's Mr Joe Public. Joe is a law abiding citizen who has never had any problems with the police. He's taken every step to ensure the firearm he owns is completely legal according to the laws of the land.

Now, for whatever reason you can think of, you end up having a bitter dispute with Joe. Insults are traded, threats are made and tempers flared. This is not an issue somebody is going to forget about quickly.

Would you feel safer if:

a) Joe was made to give up his firearms.

You were the proud owner of a firearm yourself.

I know I'd choose (a) - People have been known to be shot in the back before, no matter how cautious they are. But then, wouldn't that be a violation of his "civil rights" ?

Insight - what BM is saying - people are responsible not the weapons themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Understood Britmaveric, I'm just saying this one has been debated already.

Okay then, how about this situation:

There's Mr Joe Public. Joe is a law abiding citizen who has never had any problems with the police. He's taken every step to ensure the firearm he owns is completely legal according to the laws of the land.

Now, for whatever reason you can think of, you end up having a bitter dispute with Joe. Insults are traded, threats are made and tempers flared. This is not an issue somebody is going to forget about quickly.

Would you feel safer if:

a) Joe was made to give up his firearms.

You were the proud owner of a firearm yourself.

I know I'd choose (a) - People have been known to be shot in the back before, no matter how cautious they are. But then, wouldn't that be a violation of his "civil rights" ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If they want to kill you, they will find a way. How they do it matters little.

If they want to kill you, they will find a way. How they do it matters little.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It matters a lot. It's far easier to kill somebody with a gun. Especially considering the "heat of the moment" factor.

If they want to kill you, they will find a way. How they do it matters little.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It matters a lot. It's far easier to kill somebody with a gun. Especially considering the "heat of the moment" factor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They have to go get first, and if they already have it...I'd stop arguing with them.

What utter and complete balderdash!

The criminal element will always be able to obtain guns - perhaps 'society' should license knives too?

Or, how about cars?  Recall that woman in Houston who recently ran over her cheating husband?  If we regulate cars, perhaps that won't happen again either...

Thank you for your contribution, Boon Mee, albeit at this late stage in the discussion.

If you read a fair few posts back you may appreciate why your above comment is one absolutely ridiculous analogy that many of us have already seen beyond. May I ask you to please take the time to analyze how and why we've come to this assumption before contributing further.

Have a nice day.

Well, I've been offline for a few days - actually have a life beyond this keyboard!

Education is the key to gun safety and Spee makes excellent points like it's not just Amerika to the socialists/terror enablers etc who advocate gun control.

BTW - I'm having a lot of nice days! Thanks, Insight, & I'll continue to have 'em and you too!

Well, I've been offline for a few days - actually have a life beyond this keyboard!

oh yeah like posting 24/24 on the BearPit and AE

4500 posts, do you have a life beyond your keyboard Boon Me ?

If they want to kill you, they will find a way. How they do it matters little.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It matters a lot. It's far easier to kill somebody with a gun. Especially considering the "heat of the moment" factor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They have to go get first, and if they already have it...I'd stop arguing with them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How would you know?

If firearms were controlled, the chances of him owning one are extremely unlikely (given the type of character I've already described).

If you have a look at what's going on in New Orleans, it could be expected given the gravity of the situation. According to reports, society has almost completely broken down there. No doubt this could happen to any city across the globe given the circumstances.

However, there have been reports of people taking the law very much into their own hands by taking shots at invaders. Not only that, but reports of people firing at rescue efforts.

Given the much freer availability of firearms in the US (compared to the UK), is this to be expected? If the licensing  and usage firearms were controlled would it have any impact on the level of violence we're now seeing in the NO?

What utter and complete balderdash!

The criminal element will always be able to obtain guns - perhaps 'society' should license knives too?

Or, how about cars? Recall that woman in Houston who recently ran over her cheating husband? If we regulate cars, perhaps that won't happen again either...

Boon Mee, you conveniently choose to use a term like 'the criminal element'... Now why do you do that? Are you trying to persuade us everyone convicted for gun-related crimes are similarly minded criminals? You often preach individual responsibilty, and yet seem to fail to recognize that people are individuals in so many other aspects as well...?

Stricter Gun Control (or stricter enforcement of existing gun control regulations) would not primarily target organised crime - because THESE criminal elements will always have access to guns, yes. Better control might be able to limit their choices of weapons, and raise the prices for them as well, making it more cumbersome to get hold of them. Would this not be a good thing?

But the ones who shoot out of fear or in red hot rage would most likely not have guns to the same extent as before. In other words, you would certainly lower the amount of accidents involving guns, as well as avoid those situations where people get shot because both parties have a gun and thus feel more threatened. It would probably also be easier to avoid such tragedies such as the shool massacres we've seen in recent years. Note that not too many other Western countries have had such massacres (especially involving kids). If it is not part of the relation to guns and policy on guns in the US that caused these events to happen, why is it then that we have not seen the same things happening in Italy, Belgium, Sweden, France or Spain?

A kid with the intent to kill as many as possible, who is not in possession of a firearm, would not be able to make as much damage.

As regards Spee's post:

It is true that this not only a US problem, but AFAIK we dont have any Middle Eastern or Latin American people here in the debate... we could also ask which is a more relevant comparison - the USA with another Western country, or the US with the Middle East or Third-World countries. I should think you feel you belong more with the first group than the second - culturally, politically, etc...? Maybe not though.

I fully agree with Thomas's view about defeatism and how unproductive it can be. It is also funny coming from somebody who supports intervention in Iraq on the grounds of it being non-Democratic. Using the same defeatism when discussing creating a democracy out of Iraq, we could say that "

...changing these areas would require generations of behavioral change, societal change, educational change, etc.

Sorry to say but I don't see it happening in my lifetime or the next. The sadder fact is there is nothing you or I or anyone else can do about it. It is what it is.

Well, is it? Did the US abolish slavery or not? Was absolute monarchy abolished in Europe in favour of parliamentary systems? How many people are literate in the world today as opposed to 150 years ago?

Is the world flat?

Insight - what BM is saying - people are responsible not the weapons themselves.

Why should you grant the right to bear arms to all those people who are obviously not fit to assume that responsibility?

Why should you grant the right to bear arms to all those people who are obviously not fit to assume that responsibility?

Who is able to determine this? The government?

Insight - what BM is saying - people are responsible not the weapons themselves.

I believe this to be true as well. You could argue over this all day. Just like the chicken & the egg argument.

The fact remains that firearms, whether legal or not, will always be available to anyone that has a strong enough desire to obtain them. Since this much is true, responsibility for the operation of the firearm always rests with the person holding it.

Anyone that believes the government placing an "illegal" label on guns will lessen the amount of gun-related crime a great deal, is truely naive.

If a criminal wants to commit a crime against a person and knows that this person legally has a gun to protect himself, with the ability to shoot in self-defense, it will lessen the likelihood of the criminal act in the first place. This is undisputable.