Is it just me...

[Ban Hammer 13,279]

ETA: You don't think I am ignorant and am alienating you by writing something in Portuguese, do you?

hehe good one Rey, good thing this is in Latin forum, if it was in OT someone looking for attention would be jumping on your neck right now

[Reynaldo 0]

ah wondered where she was. did she take a pistol with her?

No, to her guns kill people

[Nessa 23]

Last I knew people kill people not guns

[Reynaldo 0]

Last I knew people kill people not guns

That is the motto from the National Rifle Association, or NAMbLA.

You are not a member of the NRA are you charles?

Edit: formatting NAMBLA

Edited December 7, 2006 by Reynaldo

[Ban Hammer 13,279]

Last I knew people kill people not guns

That is the motto from the National Rifle Association, or NAMBLA.

You are not a member of the NRA are you charles?

nambla and nra are two entirely different organizations.......

no, not a member of nra. however, if alex believes guns kill instead of people doing so, then our house must be a war zone, i have no idea how nessa survives with those 15-20 guns lying around all the time

[Reynaldo 0]

nambla and nra are two entirely different organizations.......

no, not a member of nra. however, if alex believes guns kill instead of people doing so, then our house must be a war zone, i have no idea how nessa survives with those 15-20 guns lying around all the time

NAMBLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association.

Well, I am against banning guns, but I am still a big liberal on the issue. I think people should have to be tested for any psychological disorders periodically in order to be able to have a gun.

Just because the gun will have no use if the person carrying it doesn't know how to use it, or why to use it.

ETA: And to be honest, I don't think 70% of the members of the NRA would pass any test.

Edited December 7, 2006 by Reynaldo

[Ban Hammer 13,279]

nambla and nra are two entirely different organizations.......

no, not a member of nra. however, if alex believes guns kill instead of people doing so, then our house must be a war zone, i have no idea how nessa survives with those 15-20 guns lying around all the time

NAMBLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association.

Well, I am against banning guns, but I am still a big liberal on the issue. I think people should have to be tested for any psychological disorders periodically in order to be able to have a gun.

Just because the gun will have no use if the person carrying it doesn't know how to use it, or why to use it.

ETA: And to be honest, I don't think 70% of the members of the NRA would pass any test.

yes, that is what nambla is. nra is certainly not to be confused with them.

as for the testing of people owning guns, that could be a slippery slope to embark on. generally speaking, anyone who meets the requirements for ownership (i.e. not disqualified) is able to do so. some exercise that ability, some do not. agreed that some of the most dangerous people around have no formal training or familiarity firing their personal firearms. it's not something that i agree with, having a firearm and not being familiar with it (safety, loading/unloading, maximum range, etc) along with when to use such. in most states, someone breaking into your home is the time to use it.

i disagree with that about 70% of the nra members not passing such a test. i've yet to meet any nra member that does not take the responsibility of being a gun owner seriously. btw, i passed the nra hunter safety course at 12 years old

i have to wonder if much of alex's dislike for guns is her being unfamiliar with them.

it's a foregone conclusion that armed criminals have no formal training, the mental aptitude test you reference above, or any safety course either. so who's more dangerous? the armed homeowner or the armed criminal? i think we know the answer already........

[bora bora 1]

I just have to jump in here and say I love Buenos Aires too...

And that I love NYC even more!! Just be careful in Washington Heights (my best friend was attacked there earlier this year) but then our car was broken into in Miami 2 weeks ago...

so, there is no such place as a safe place.

But there are AMAZING cities...(i.e.: NYC and Miami)

[Reynaldo 0]

yes, that is what nambla is. nra is certainly not to be confused with them.

as for the testing of people owning guns, that could be a slippery slope to embark on. generally speaking, anyone who meets the requirements for ownership (i.e. not disqualified) is able to do so. some exercise that ability, some do not. agreed that some of the most dangerous people around have no formal training or familiarity firing their personal firearms. it's not something that i agree with, having a firearm and not being familiar with it (safety, loading/unloading, maximum range, etc) along with when to use such. in most states, someone breaking into your home is the time to use it.

i disagree with that about 70% of the nra members not passing such a test. i've yet to meet any nra member that does not take the responsibility of being a gun owner seriously. btw, i passed the nra hunter safety course at 12 years old

i have to wonder if much of alex's dislike for guns is her being unfamiliar with them.

it's a foregone conclusion that armed criminals have no formal training, the mental aptitude test you reference above, or any safety course either. so who's more dangerous? the armed homeowner or the armed criminal? i think we know the answer already........

Even though Alex will kill me as soon as she sees this, I have to agree with you.

But there are (must be) still homeowners that are not trained to use a gun, even if that percentage is really low, those lives gun-control people are trying to save.

I think, when it comes to firearms, the system must be perfect and bulletproof (no pun intended, nah that was a big pun), so that these people are safe from themselves.

Having a firearm at home comes with a lot of responsibility, if the system allows you to prove that you are responsible enough to be able to purchase one, then I don't have a problem.

But guns are dangerous in the hands of people that might use them to settle a traffic fight, or leave them in a place a small (or not that small) children (or even teenager) can reach.

When they voted for gun control down here in my fine country, I proudly voted "No" (after a long argument with Alex) and I believe that it is not a solution, mainly because down here all the guns that are purchased by criminals are sold illegally.

If you say that ALL the people that own guns in the U.S. of A. are that responsible, then I will have to say that I was wrong and nothing has to be changed.

[Ban Hammer 13,279]

yes, that is what nambla is. nra is certainly not to be confused with them.

as for the testing of people owning guns, that could be a slippery slope to embark on. generally speaking, anyone who meets the requirements for ownership (i.e. not disqualified) is able to do so. some exercise that ability, some do not. agreed that some of the most dangerous people around have no formal training or familiarity firing their personal firearms. it's not something that i agree with, having a firearm and not being familiar with it (safety, loading/unloading, maximum range, etc) along with when to use such. in most states, someone breaking into your home is the time to use it.

i disagree with that about 70% of the nra members not passing such a test. i've yet to meet any nra member that does not take the responsibility of being a gun owner seriously. btw, i passed the nra hunter safety course at 12 years old

i have to wonder if much of alex's dislike for guns is her being unfamiliar with them.

it's a foregone conclusion that armed criminals have no formal training, the mental aptitude test you reference above, or any safety course either. so who's more dangerous? the armed homeowner or the armed criminal? i think we know the answer already........

Even though Alex will kill me as soon as she sees this, I have to agree with you.

But there are (must be) still homeowners that are not trained to use a gun, even if that percentage is really low, those lives gun-control people are trying to save.

I think, when it comes to firearms, the system must be perfect and bulletproof (no pun intended, nah that was a big pun), so that these people are safe from themselves.

Having a firearm at home comes with a lot of responsibility, if the system allows you to prove that you are responsible enough to be able to purchase one, then I don't have a problem.

But guns are dangerous in the hands of people that might use them to settle a traffic fight, or leave them in a place a small (or not that small) children (or even teenager) can reach.

When they voted for gun control down here in my fine country, I proudly voted "No" (after a long argument with Alex) and I believe that it is not a solution, mainly because down here all the guns that are purchased by criminals are sold illegally.

If you say that ALL the people that own guns in the U.S. of A. are that responsible, then I will have to say that I was wrong and nothing has to be changed.

the same situation applies in the usa, btw. the only ones that would follow a law to disarm are those who obey the law anyways. criminals won't care, and they'd love that such occurs. remember that saying about the one eyed man in the land of the blind? a criminal with a single shot .22 would be king with a disarmed populace. and it shows in countries that have done just that. australia, britain.......

i cannot say that everyone in the usa who legally owns guns is very responsible, as there is always an exception. but as a vast majority of gun owners want to keep their right to own firearms, they obey the law and are extremely responsible with their firearms. i'd compare it to drunk drivers - should we ban autos because someone gets drunk and kills someone?

[Reynaldo 0]

the same situation applies in the usa, btw. the only ones that would follow a law to disarm are those who obey the law anyways. criminals won't care, and they'd love that such occurs. remember that saying about the one eyed man in the land of the blind? a criminal with a single shot .22 would be king with a disarmed populace. and it shows in countries that have done just that. australia, britain.......

i cannot say that everyone in the usa who legally owns guns is very responsible, as there is always an exception. but as a vast majority of gun owners want to keep their right to own firearms, they obey the law and are extremely responsible with their firearms. i'd compare it to drunk drivers - should we ban autos because someone gets drunk and kills someone?

Hitler banned guns as soon as he got in to office.

But it doesn't take much for a small child to shoot themselves or some other kid in the head.

Not to mention that, a normal person, thinks twice before shooting someone, but a criminal won't.

But that can be solved with training.

What I am really afraid is that a responsible, but not that much, gun owner would allow their kids to kill themselves. That is what frightens me the most.

And to be honest, I wouldn't be able to live with myself being paranoid about that.

ETA: If you have a problem with crime, I think the first option should rebuild your public security forces, and then go to the guns.

Edited December 8, 2006 by Reynaldo

[Reynaldo 0]

Another thing: If you have small children, you'll have to hide the guns and separate guns from ammo. That reduces time for you to react to a imminent threat, doesn't it?

[Ban Hammer 13,279]

the same situation applies in the usa, btw. the only ones that would follow a law to disarm are those who obey the law anyways. criminals won't care, and they'd love that such occurs. remember that saying about the one eyed man in the land of the blind? a criminal with a single shot .22 would be king with a disarmed populace. and it shows in countries that have done just that. australia, britain.......

i cannot say that everyone in the usa who legally owns guns is very responsible, as there is always an exception. but as a vast majority of gun owners want to keep their right to own firearms, they obey the law and are extremely responsible with their firearms. i'd compare it to drunk drivers - should we ban autos because someone gets drunk and kills someone?

Hitler banned guns as soon as he got in to office.

But it doesn't take much for a small child to shoot themselves or some other kid in the head.

Not to mention that, a normal person, thinks twice before shooting someone, but a criminal won't.

But that can be solved with training.

What I am really afraid is that a responsible, but not that much, gun owner would allow their kids to kill themselves. That is what frightens me the most.

And to be honest, I wouldn't be able to live with myself being paranoid about that.

ETA: If you have a problem with crime, I think the first option should rebuild your public security forces, and then go to the guns.

i think lots of that regarding kids is due to the parents not teaching the kids about the guns. my dad had guns all over the house when i was a kid, i knew better than to touch one.......

[Ban Hammer 13,279]

Another thing: If you have small children, you'll have to hide the guns and separate guns from ammo. That reduces time for you to react to a imminent threat, doesn't it?

one solution is to put them out of reach. i've done that before, btw.

[Reynaldo 0]

Another thing: If you have small children, you'll have to hide the guns and separate guns from ammo. That reduces time for you to react to a imminent threat, doesn't it?

one solution is to put them out of reach. i've done that before, btw.

Like I said, I wouldn't have the guts to let my kids be in the same place with a gun.

I do wish I could learn how to shoot, as a sport, without killing anyone (or anything).

But owning guns, I honestly can't...