Would you be OK with banning guns if...

[Freedom 4 all]

they banned them for police as well? That was a question seriously posed to me recently. Apparently this British dude believes that when England can be sure there are no longer any guns in civilian hands, they will take them away from police and then there would be no more guns (and apparently everyone will commence joining hands and singing kumbayah or some shit). Personally, I find this argument retarded especially because of the fact that IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN IN A MILLION YEARS, but if we suspend our disbelief and say it could happen, would it be desirable? I don't think so. For one thing, crime would skyrocket as anyone big or strong could just overpower the cops or person they are robbing and run, making theft of small businesses very easy.

[oyarde]

no

[SWATH]

Nope. Are you also going to erase the technology from everyone's minds?

[fade]

Not a chance in hell.

[FrankRep]

they banned them for police as well?

Only the criminals will have guns.

Hell No.

[Dr.3D]

Banning guns for everyone wouldn't keep people from having guns.

When are people going to learn this?

[pcosmar]

NO

I am in favor of eliminating the Concept of Police however.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

[FrankRep]

NO

I am in favor of eliminating the Concept of Police however.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Police = State Issue.

[CaliforniaMom]

No. Criminals would bring them in the country illegally and only they would have the guns. Bad idea.

[pcosmar]

Police = State Issue.

perhaps,
But you will notice that I said Concept.
The very idea of police is contrary to free society.

[Freedom 4 all]

Only the criminals will have guns.

Hell No.

This was intended as more of a mental exercise than anything else. Of course criminals will still have guns in reality, but we are assuming the completely irrational premises of an utterly retarded argument are true, therefore criminals would not have guns in this fantasy society.

[ssantoro]

Everyone should have guns. Oh, and don't forget ammo.

[pcosmar]

This was intended as more of a mental exercise than anything else.


in this fantasy society.

I have an entirely different fantasy of a Free Society. One that existed once for a while.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary.

[SamuraisWisdom]

In theory, yes, I would absolutely support that idea. If guns could be completely removed from society we'd all be better off for it. Unfortunately I think that would be like trying to remove the entire cockroach population from the Earth.

That being said, I am in favor of ratifying the second amendment to only allow hunting equipment. That way handguns and the like could be outlawed constitutionally.

[sailingaway]

Absolutely not.

[Live Free or Die]

No!

[pcosmar]

That being said, I am in favor of ratifying the second amendment to only allow hunting equipment. That way handguns and the like could be outlawed constitutionally.

The 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with hunting. It's whole purpose was to arm the people for defense.

[Dr.3D]

Even if there was a way to get rid of all guns, the next thing would be a plan to eliminate bows and arrows and swords.

There will always be weapons, even if it goes all of the way back to stones and clubs.

[payme_rick]

Even in the event of a fairy-tail where it was totally impossible for even one gun to exist PERIOD, absolutely NOT!

You can't get rid of all of the trees... So a healthy 28 year-old man with a Louisville Slugger could still break into a 75 year-old widow's house and beat her to death etc... The 75 year-old woman with the same Louisville Slugger or even a knife probably wouldn't stand a chance... But that 75 year-old with decent aim and a shot-gun would be able to protect herself, for damn sure...

Hell naw!

[ThePiousPriest]

Against, Humanity will always find ways to kill each other. It's just who we are.

[SamuraisWisdom]

The 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with hunting. It's whole purpose was to arm the people for defense.

I know, but I think it's outlived its usefulness.

[SamuraisWisdom]

Even in the event of a fairy-tail where it was totally impossible for even one gun to exist PERIOD, absolutely NOT!

You can't get rid of all of the trees... So a healthy 28 year-old man with a Louisville Slugger could still break into a 75 year-old widow's house and beat her to death etc... The 75 year-old woman with the same Louisville Slugger or even a knife probably wouldn't stand a chance... But that 75 year-old with decent aim and a shot-gun would be able to protect herself, for damn sure...

Hell naw!

How many 75 year old women do you know have fought off a burglar with a gun?

[JK/SEA]

Yes. I suggest everyone switch to these.

http://www.tbotech.com/throwing-stars.htm

[SamuraisWisdom]

Against, Humanity will always find ways to kill each other. It's just who we are.

You're probably right, but there's no harm in trying. Handguns are only meant for one thing, and that's killing people. So eliminating them is a step in the right direction.

[belian78]

I know, but I think it's outlived its usefulness.

I happen to believe its more relevant than ever, and getting increasingly so.

[JWZguy]

How many 75 year old women do you know have fought off a burglar with a gun?

I personally know 1, but I've read about many more. Are you seriously suggesting that women don't defend themselves enough for it to be "worth it" to you?

[oyarde]

Even if there was a way to get rid of all guns, the next thing would be a plan to eliminate bows and arrows and swords.

There will always be weapons, even if it goes all of the way back to stones and clubs.

I have a war club , I will call it a hammer .....

[VBRonPaulFan]

In theory, yes, I would absolutely support that idea. If guns could be completely removed from society we'd all be better off for it. Unfortunately I think that would be like trying to remove the entire cockroach population from the Earth.

That being said, I am in favor of ratifying the second amendment to only allow hunting equipment. That way handguns and the like could be outlawed constitutionally.

The framers came from a time where an oppressive government had tried their best to control everyone as best they could. The second amendment isn't about hunting. It is about being able to defend yourself from a possibly tyrannical government as well as from outside invaders. A nations' armies can be defeated... a free society that is armed and wishes to be free cannot be without being completely wiped out. No nation would have the stomach for that.

[FrankRep]

perhaps,
But you will notice that I said Concept.
The very idea of police is contrary to free society.

I don't support Anarchy. You could move to a state with your friends and abolish the police. See what happens.

[JWZguy]

You're probably right, but there's no harm in trying. Handguns are only meant for one thing, and that's killing people. So eliminating them is a step in the right direction.

You couldn't be more wrong.

[oyarde]

You're probably right, but there's no harm in trying. Handguns are only meant for one thing, and that's killing people. So eliminating them is a step in the right direction.

I would prefer a sawed off shotgun , but those are illegal ...

[olehounddog]

No

[pcosmar]

I know, but I think it's outlived its usefulness.

You believe there is no need for self defense?

Or that there is no need for Community defense?

National Defense?

Or Defense from a corrupt Government?

:confused:

[Krugerrand]

How many 75 year old women do you know have fought off a burglar with a gun?

Here's two quick examples:
http://www.wkbw.com/news/local/91100889.html
Elderly Woman Calls Police, Holds Intruder at Gun Point
4/16/2010

Elderly Richmond woman scares off burglar with a gun
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_17541025
3/4/2011



Do you have a reason as to why physically weaker people should not be permitted to defend themselves? Or, do you think might makes right and aggressors should be allowed whatever they can take?

[payme_rick]

How many 75 year old women do you know have fought off a burglar with a gun?

None... But I know of my great aunt who was 75 when a burglar broke into her house and raped and beat her... She said her regret was getting rid of her husband's shot-gun after he died... she actually went looking for it when she heard the burglar trying to get in, but remembered she had given it to her son... She had enough time to look for the gun and then dial 911 before it happened... but of course: the cops didn't make it in time...

She could have stopped it with that shotgun she didn't have...

[Acala]

No. Nobody has the right to tell me what I can or cannot own in the way of tools or recreational equipment. To admit that one person can invade the sovereignty of another in this way is to admit that some people have rights and powers that others do not. I disagree with that idea. I don't have the right to tell others what to do or not do with their lives, property or other consenting adults and nobody has the right to do that to me.

And, of course, the whole concept of a "ban" is that somebody must enforce the ban. Will they do that with pea shooters?

Supposing that if by magic you could eliminate guns from the planet in such a way that nobody could ever have one, I would still oppose it. Because guns are fun and useful.

[pcosmar]

I don't support Anarchy. You could move to a state with your friends and abolish the police. See what happens.
I do not either.
And you obviously did NOT read the link I posted from the Constitution Society site.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement.11 Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding.12 Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community, rather than a power of the government.13 Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.14
I believe that it is one that should be read and understood by any that believe in a Constitutional Limited Government.

[jmdrake]

they banned them for police as well? That was a question seriously posed to me recently. Apparently this British dude believes that when England can be sure there are no longer any guns in civilian hands, they will take them away from police and then there would be no more guns (and apparently everyone will commence joining hands and singing kumbayah or some shit). Personally, I find this argument retarded especially because of the fact that IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN IN A MILLION YEARS, but if we suspend our disbelief and say it could happen, would it be desirable? I don't think so. For one thing, crime would skyrocket as anyone big or strong could just overpower the cops or person they are robbing and run, making theft of small businesses very easy.

A) Taking guns away from the cops doesn't mean guns would be taken away from the military or the intelligence services.

B) Criminals would just ignore the law anyway.

That said, if firearms could be magically wished away and we went back to the days where being a drunken kung fu master meant something, that would be cool with me too. ;)

[FrankRep]

I do not either.
And you obviously did NOT read the link I posted from the Constitution Society site.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

I believe that it is one that should be read and understood by any that believe in a Constitutional Limited Government.


I've seen it before and Law Enforcement is a State Issue.

[SamuraisWisdom]

You believe there is no need for self defense?

Or that there is no need for Community defense?

National Defense?

Or Defense from a corrupt Government?

:confused:

LOL talk about putting words in my mouth. Of course there is a need for self defense, there always will be. However, the 2nd amendment specifically points to firearms for that self defense and that's what I think is outdated. Civilians stand no chance against a modern military (unless you have a secret stash of tomahawk missiles somewhere) and using handguns to prevent home breakins just does not work.

[Acala]

You're probably right, but there's no harm in trying. Handguns are only meant for one thing, and that's killing people. So eliminating them is a step in the right direction.

I was going to reply to this but realized that not only is every word of the post wrong but the very root of your thinking about the way human beings should relate to each other is wrong. And I don't have time to tackle that one.

But I will say this: I have several handguns, enjoy them very much, use them regularly with friends and family, and yet have never killed anyone. So I guess they must have a use besides killing people.

[VBRonPaulFan]

LOL talk about putting words in my mouth. Of course there is a need for self defense, there always will be. However, the 2nd amendment specifically points to firearms for that self defense and that's what I think is outdated. Civilians stand no chance against a modern military (unless you have a secret stash of tomahawk missiles somewhere) and using handguns to prevent home breakins just does not work.

...which is exactly why the founders didn't believe in standing armies. but to say people can't successfully use handguns to defend themselves and their property is so completely ridiculous. it happens every day.

[oyarde]

LOL talk about putting words in my mouth. Of course there is a need for self defense, there always will be. However, the 2nd amendment specifically points to firearms for that self defense and that's what I think is outdated. Civilians stand no chance against a modern military (unless you have a secret stash of tomahawk missiles somewhere) and using handguns to prevent home breakins just does not work.

That is because laws prevented you from owning the weapons that you could defend yourself with from the tyrants.

[archangel689]

This was intended as more of a mental exercise than anything else. Of course criminals will still have guns in reality, but we are assuming the completely irrational premises of an utterly retarded argument are true, therefore criminals would not have guns in this fantasy society.

Why even partake? It's imaginary masturbatory fantasy. There will always be guns.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6118520/expedient-homemade-firearms-bsp-9mm-smg-p

And it there isn't guns there will be swords and knives and if those don't exist there would be nail bats and other improvised weapons. The uk has gotten to that extreme of idiocy. They're trying to ban kitchen knives. Find me a person who can't find a piece of steel and sharpen it....

[tangent4ronpaul]

Why sure! - I would be totally cool with that, so long as they also ban them for the military, criminals and psychopaths... OH WAIT! :eek:

[SamuraisWisdom]

Here's two quick examples:
http://www.wkbw.com/news/local/91100889.html
Elderly Woman Calls Police, Holds Intruder at Gun Point
4/16/2010

Elderly Richmond woman scares off burglar with a gun
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_17541025
3/4/2011



Do you have a reason as to why physically weaker people should not be permitted to defend themselves? Or, do you think might makes right and aggressors should be allowed whatever they can take?

Now think of how many burglaries take place per year and how many of those are foiled by guns. I bet the ratio is pretty low. Not to mention, what if one of those burglars had a gun? It's a safe bet that they've used it before too, and when two people face off and one's used a gun and the other hasn't then it's easy to guess who usually wins.

[Acala]

LOL talk about putting words in my mouth. Of course there is a need for self defense, there always will be. However, the 2nd amendment specifically points to firearms for that self defense and that's what I think is outdated. Civilians stand no chance against a modern military (unless you have a secret stash of tomahawk missiles somewhere) and using handguns to prevent home breakins just does not work.

Wrong again. A determined population of riflemen is ALWAYS formidable. You really haven't been paying attention. When was the last time the invincible modern army eradicated an entrenched population of armed and determined individuals?

Besdies, are you saying that because the people are, in your mind, outgunned by the army we should give up what arms we have? You aren't thinking clearly.

You also are ignorant of histroy and current events if you think that your neighbor is more of a threat to your safety than the government you wish to empower to disarm your neighbor.

You should drop the gun grabber rhetoric and think for yourself.

[belian78]

LOL talk about putting words in my mouth. Of course there is a need for self defense, there always will be. However, the 2nd amendment specifically points to firearms for that self defense and that's what I think is outdated. Civilians stand no chance against a modern military (unless you have a secret stash of tomahawk missiles somewhere) and using handguns to prevent home breakins just does not work.

I wish I knew how to neg rep, this post surely warrants it. Ask the mujadeen fighters how ineffective their conventional weapons are against a military in an urban setting. And there are so many news reports to refute your second statement, I just have to laugh.

[SamuraisWisdom]

That is because laws prevented you from owning the weapons that you could defend yourself with from the tyrants.

Do you have $1million to spend on a ballistic missile if it were legal?

[oyarde]

Now think of how many burglaries take place per year and how many of those are foiled by guns. I bet the ratio is pretty low. Not to mention, what if one of those burglars had a gun? It's a safe bet that they've used it before too, and when two people face off and one's used a gun and the other hasn't then it's easy to guess who usually wins.

I have used on thousands of times and am not alone where I live....

[MelissaCato]

No.

[pcosmar]

and using handguns to prevent home breakins just does not work.

Bullshit.
And unsupported by fact.
http://thearmedcitizen.com/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8oEO_MV57I

You know,, I could fill this thread with hard evidence and fact. Videos and news reports that will prove your statement to be,,,False.

[oyarde]

Do you have $1million to spend on a ballistic missile if it were legal?

No , but I could buy a Browning Automatic Rifle or a .55 cal anti tank rifle , an anti tank rocket , grenade launcher etc etc

[Acala]

Now think of how many burglaries take place per year and how many of those are foiled by guns. I bet the ratio is pretty low. Not to mention, what if one of those burglars had a gun? It's a safe bet that they've used it before too, and when two people face off and one's used a gun and the other hasn't then it's easy to guess who usually wins.

Get some facts.

Less than 10% of burglaries in the USA happen in occupied homes. Almost 50% of burglaries in the UK happen in occupied homes. Can you figure out why the difference? Here's a hint: in surveys of incarcerated thieves, their NUMBER ONE concern is accidentally running into an armed homeowner. And published research by Gary Kleck estimated that around A MILLION crimes a year are foiled by direct intervention of armed civilians. And that doesn't count crimes that don't even get started because of fear of armed encounter.

So you basically don't know what you are talking about.

[A Son of Liberty]

LOL talk about putting words in my mouth. Of course there is a need for self defense, there always will be. However, the 2nd amendment specifically points to firearms for that self defense and that's what I think is outdated. Civilians stand no chance against a modern military (unless you have a secret stash of tomahawk missiles somewhere) and using handguns to prevent home breakins just does not work.

The mujahadeen, Viet Cong, and American Revolutionaries say, "hello".

Your comment that handguns do not prevent break-ins may be true, in that they do not PREVENT them; they do, however, offer the possessor a measure of self-defense from the machinations of the trespasser.

But me thinks you're just trolling around, trying to get a rise out of people...

[Acala]

Interesting that the Samurai were basically a thugocracy in which the people were prohibited the use of arms and essentially enslaved by the samurai who could rule over them with complete and arbitrary violence. I guess you are advocating that system for this country?

[Krugerrand]

Now think of how many burglaries take place per year and how many of those are foiled by guns. I bet the ratio is pretty low. Not to mention, what if one of those burglars had a gun? It's a safe bet that they've used it before too, and when two people face off and one's used a gun and the other hasn't then it's easy to guess who usually wins.

Am I to assume by this response that you've taken upon yourself to decide how somebody should be permitted to defend themselves? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand your response to these people would be:
I'm sorry - but you are potentially too stupid to know how to defend yourself properly, so in the interest of protecting you - you will have to be a victim to somebody stronger than yourself. Let's all just hope they don't kill you. (Perhaps the "hope" Lord Barry was promising.)

[A Son of Liberty]

Now think of how many burglaries take place per year and how many of those are foiled by guns. I bet the ratio is pretty low. Not to mention, what if one of those burglars had a gun? It's a safe bet that they've used it before too, and when two people face off and one's used a gun and the other hasn't then it's easy to guess who usually wins.

Ah. I see. Too bad for those few folks who managed to defend themselves, then, huh? Just doesn't jive with your collectivist ideology, I guess. Too bad for them.

Hey, isn't Maddow on? Or maybe there's a Michael Moore documentary playing somewhere? Surely one of these horribly philosophically flawed pass-times might be more appealing to you that getting owned here, don't you think?

[LeJimster]

I live in Britain, and I believe where most of the gun crime comes from is gangs located in heavily populated areas that are generally poorer. I'm happy with the no gun laws, because it's what I'm accustomed to. But most of our police force do not carry guns AFAIK and the ones that do have to go through training.

In general though, the police do not always make good decisions when it comes to use of fire arms. Just thinking back to Jean Charles de Menezes and his execution makes me feel sick. And not long ago a man who had asked for mental help for months and they knew about him went on a revenge shooting spree and ended up committing suicide because some idiot cop tazered him while he had the barrel pointed at his head.

The only place I like guns is in games and movies personally, because I know I'm not really hurting anyone. I don't have a problem with gun hobbyists going to shooting range or even hunters, as long as they eat what they kill. (I do not see the point in senseless killing) -- I can understand people keeping a gun in their house for protection and I understand why many police in the US carry.. But I do think there is a lot of stupidity and resorting to using a gun to solve problems comes too naturally for some.

[Acala]

But I do think there is a lot of stupidity and resorting to using a gun to solve problems comes too naturally for some.

Absolutely true. And by FAR the most common and most destructive example of resorting to using guns to solve problems is creating laws and then dispatching government thugs with guns to enforce those laws. Which is what Samuraiswisdom is advocating.

The level of violence in our culture and in our own individual lives is tragic. But the leading role model for violence is government, which does EVERYTHING by violence or threat thereof.

[LeJimster]

Get some facts.

Less than 10% of burglaries in the USA happen in occupied homes. Almost 50% of burglaries in the UK happen in occupied homes. Can you figure out why the difference? Here's a hint: in surveys of incarcerated thieves, their NUMBER ONE concern is accidentally running into an armed homeowner. And published research by Gary Kleck estimated that around A MILLION crimes a year are foiled by direct intervention of armed civilians. And that doesn't count crimes that don't even get started because of fear of armed encounter.

So you basically don't know what you are talking about.

One thing I would say that I disagree with on British Law is that if you injure a robber or kill them.. It's not always considered self defence and you can get put away for it. Which really drives me crazy. I think you should have a right to do everything necessary to protect your family if somebody has invaded your home.

[Bern]

@0:10:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4B0pLDqYqI&s=10

[pcosmar]

I live in Britain,

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1411652/posts

The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime. We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_legislation

Then there are canes or sticks.
Perhaps Boots. I have a habit of wearing Steel toes.

[A Son of Liberty]

Absolutely true. And by FAR the most common and most destructive example of resorting to using guns to solve problems is creating laws and then dispatching government thugs with guns to enforce those laws. Which is what Samuraiswisdom is advocating.

The level of violence in our culture and in our own individual lives is tragic. But the leading role model for violence is government, which does EVERYTHING by violence or threat thereof.

Excellent point. Imagine the resultant peace if just the drug laws were repealed.

[libertyvidz]

LOL talk about putting words in my mouth. Of course there is a need for self defense, there always will be. However, the 2nd amendment specifically points to firearms for that self defense and that's what I think is outdated. Civilians stand no chance against a modern military (unless you have a secret stash of tomahawk missiles somewhere) and using handguns to prevent home breakins just does not work.

The mujahadeen managed to stalemate the Soviets even before we gave them stingers. And taliban has stalemated us with little more than RPGs and IEDs. Plus it's possible to build your own tomahawk equivalent (http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/) from over the self parts.

[Bern]

The mujahadeen managed to stalemate the Soviets even before we gave them stingers. ...


Since last year, The New York Times and At War have taken several different looks at insurgent arms and munitions in Afghanistan, which can yield information about how insurgents equip themselves and fight, and how the Taliban has been able to maintain itself as a viable force for more than 15 years.

Today the blog will turn back to this pursuit with another sampling of data from Marja, the area in Helmand Province that has seen some of the most sustained insurgent fighting of 2010. In this case, early this summer, the civilian law enforcement liaison working with the Marines of Third Battalion, Sixth Marines, along with the battalion’s gunner, had in their custody 26 firearms and an RPG-7 launcher captured from Taliban fighters or collected from caches.


Of these weapons, 12 were variants of the Kalashnikov assault rifle, 8 were bolt-action rifles from World War II or earlier, 4 were variants of the PK machine gun, and 2 were small semiautomatic pistols. This was in some ways a typical mix for Afghanistan, although the ratio of bolt-action rifles was higher than what many units outside of Helmand Province have seen.

The ratio is interesting and aligns with the experience of patrolling in and near Marja and other contested areas nearby. Insurgents in Helmand Province seem to have used bolt-action rifles more than in many regions of Afghanistan. Whether this indicates a pressure on the supply of assault rifles and their ammunition or a preference for the longer effective ranges of Lee-Enfield and Mosin-Nagant rifles is not clear. But the longer range of bolt-action rifles compared with assault rifles, and their relative abundance in Helmand Province, is a reason this particular acreage of Afghanistan has a reputation as being plagued by a more dangerous set of Afghan marksmen, ...
...
Together the technical qualities of these rifles and the thinking behind them, along with the quality of their manufacture and the relative simplicity of their ammunition resupply, have helped a largely illiterate insurgent movement not just to exert its will on its own country, but also to stand up to the most sophisticated military in the world.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/whats-inside-a-taliban-gun-locker/

[Anti Federalist]

LOL talk about putting words in my mouth. Of course there is a need for self defense, there always will be. However, the 2nd amendment specifically points to firearms for that self defense and that's what I think is outdated. Civilians stand no chance against a modern military (unless you have a secret stash of tomahawk missiles somewhere) and using handguns to prevent home breakins just does not work.

Holy smoke, what are you talking about?

Here's a site that lists thousands of cases of people defending themselves with firearms:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

Scroll down to "Operation self defense".

Several vetted and peer reviewed studies indicate that defensive use of firearms, many times without a shot being fired, happen up 2.5 million times a year. (Search: Kleck and Lott)

I've used mine in just this way, twice.

As to your other point...You sure about that?

Roughly 10,000 guys with beat up AK47s have had us hemmed up for 10 years now.

But I see it's already been well responded to.

[SamuraisWisdom]

After doing a brief google search on firearm related deaths, the United States rates among the highest in the world. According to the CDC.gov website (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html) the mortality rate for all firearm related incidents (adjusted for age) is 10.23 ranking us among the highest in the world. Compare that to countries with gun bans like Canada (4.78) England (.46) and Australia (2.94) and it's pretty easy to see where we stand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

I'm done arguing here. It's no use trying to argue with an entire board. But as to the original question to start off this topic, if I could choose between a society with guns and a society without guns, I'd choose the latter.

[affa]

I don't support Anarchy. You could move to a state with your friends and abolish the police. See what happens.

The libertarian view of government is far, far closer to the ideal of anarchists than I think you realize. Though, I'm actually talking about actual anarchists, not the television's absurdly twisted view of anarchism presented everywhere from the news to cop shows.

If you haven't researched it before, I suggest reading up on anarcho-capitalism / libertarian anarachy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
In staying with the topic of law enforcement, the wiki states: "In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market."

Though this is a bit of an oversimplification. Anyway, the point is, anarchism and rules are not the antithesis of each other, despite the media's neverending campaign to present anarchism as 'do what ever the hell you want, rob and steal, rape and kill".

For the record, I'm not anarcho-capitalist, I differ with that concept on enough points to put me in another camp.

[Dr.3D]

After doing a brief google search on firearm related deaths, the United States rates among the highest in the world. According to the CDC.gov website (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html) the mortality rate for all firearm related incidents (adjusted for age) is 10.23 ranking us among the highest in the world. Compare that to countries with gun bans like Canada (4.78) England (.46) and Australia (2.94) and it's pretty easy to see where we stand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

I'm done arguing here. It's no use trying to argue with an entire board. But as to the original question to start off this topic, if I could choose between a society with guns and a society without guns, I'd choose the latter.

Right, fire arms related deaths. How about crime statistics? That is another story. As soon as those other countries did away with guns, their crime rate when up.

[payme_rick]

After doing a brief google search on firearm related deaths, the United States rates among the highest in the world. According to the CDC.gov website (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html) the mortality rate for all firearm related incidents (adjusted for age) is 10.23 ranking us among the highest in the world. Compare that to countries with gun bans like Canada (4.78) England (.46) and Australia (2.94) and it's pretty easy to see where we stand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

I'm done arguing here. It's no use trying to argue with an entire board when they are right and I am wrong. But as to the original question to start off this topic, if I could choose between a society with guns and a society without guns, I'd choose the latter.

Fixed :)

[Wesker1982]

I don't support Anarchy.

Neither does pcosmar iirc, but the two guys in your signature on the other hand... ;)


You could move to a state with your friends and abolish the police. See what happens.

First, that isn't an argument. Second, not supporting a violent monopoly on defense is not the same as not wanting any defense (police) at all.

The government is incapable of doing what it's suppose to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.- Ron Paul

[Acala]

After doing a brief google search on firearm related deaths, the United States rates among the highest in the world. According to the CDC.gov website (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html) the mortality rate for all firearm related incidents (adjusted for age) is 10.23 ranking us among the highest in the world. Compare that to countries with gun bans like Canada (4.78) England (.46) and Australia (2.94) and it's pretty easy to see where we stand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

I'm done arguing here. It's no use trying to argue with an entire board. But as to the original question to start off this topic, if I could choose between a society with guns and a society without guns, I'd choose the latter.

Do more than a brief search. And look at the more relevant question: what happens to gun homicides in a specific country before and after their gun ban laws. See if you can find one where gun homicides go DOWN after the ban. Then you have some evidence.

Also, the stats you cite include suicide which seems to me totally irrelevant, unless you are afraid of guns because you think you might decide to shoot yourself.

[pcosmar]

After doing a brief google search on firearm related deaths, [/url]



Not even a good try.
It does not differentiate as to Shootings in self defense, Shootings BY police. It lumps all incidents together. Accidents, Justifiable and criminal.
It also lists none of the countries where the US is waging Unconstitutional Wars.

It does not factor in the WAR on Drugs, a cause of most violence in this country.

It is pointless without all the facts.

[Krugerrand]

Right, fire arms related deaths. How about crime statistics? That is another story. As soon as those other countries did away with guns, their crime rate when up.

You're right. Firearm related deaths is a horribly misleading statistic.

How many of the deaths were criminal aggressors?

How many victims were raped/injured/murdered without a firearm in the other countries? Just because somebody chose another means to attack/kill somebody does not mean that the crime went away.

[Expatriate]

No, I would not want guns to be removed from existence, even if the government lost theirs as well. Consider these two points.

1. If this fantasy land with no guns existed, it would be a very violent place where the physically strong would rule over and have their way with the weak. Firearms are called equalizers for a reason, they are the only weapon that puts people on relatively equal footing in a fight regardless of strength, age, size or numbers.

2. Even if such a medieval nightmare was desirable, you can't enforce a gun ban without guns. If no-one has guns including the police, what's to stop me from making one and becoming some kind of unstoppable god-king? It's very simple to make a gun and the ammo to go with it from scratch, just read this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?163989-**Homemade-weapons**/page9
or this blog: http://improguns.blogspot.com/

[Freedom 4 all]

Absolutely true. And by FAR the most common and most destructive example of resorting to using guns to solve problems is creating laws and then dispatching government thugs with guns to enforce those laws. Which is what Samuraiswisdom is advocating.

The level of violence in our culture and in our own individual lives is tragic. But the leading role model for violence is government, which does EVERYTHING by violence or threat thereof.

And this thread has a winner. People are always saying we need gun control because we shouldn't respond to violence with violence. Sounds nice unless critical thought is applied. Gun control IS violence. It is violently showing up armed at someone's house to steal their guns. In what universe is that not a violent response?

[Anti Federalist]

Also, the stats you cite include suicide which seems to me totally irrelevant, unless you are afraid of guns because you think you might decide to shoot yourself.

Not to mention that the top 10 nations by suicide rate all have very strict gun control, in the case of places like Japan, (number 5) and South Korea (number 2) guns are very severely restricted and next to impossible for a Mundane to obtain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

[affa]

No, I would not want guns to be removed from existence, even if the government lost theirs as well. Consider these two points.

1. If this fantasy land with no guns existed, it would be a very violent place where the physically strong would rule over and have their way with the weak. Firearms are called equalizers for a reason, they are the only weapon that puts people on relatively equal footing in a fight regardless of strength, age, size or numbers.
SNIP


I think this is the strongest point that can be made to anyone that is anti-gun, though you need to frame it correctly.
In a fist fight between an average 100 pound woman, and an average 200 pound man, who do you think will most often win?
In a sword fight between an average 100 pound woman, and an average 200 pound man, who do you think will most often win?
History is a long line of examples of the strong subjugating the weak -- this can be seen in every culture, and bears with it some of the worst crimes -- rape and murder.
Now.
In a gun fight between an average 100 pound woman, and an average 200 pound man, who do you think will most often win?
Guns equalize the odds. They even the playing field. The so-called weak can defend themselves.
Of course, this can only happen if both sides are armed.
As soon as you criminalize weapons, only the cops and criminals have guns... and you have turned the law abiding citizen into the weak.

[Wesker1982]

It does not factor in the WAR on Drugs, a cause of most violence in this country.


Beat me to it. +1

[pcosmar]

Guns equalize the odds. They even the playing field. The so-called weak can defend themselves.
Of course, this can only happen if both sides are armed.
As soon as you criminalize weapons, only the cops and criminals have guns... and you have turned the law abiding citizen into the weak.
"God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal,"
An advertizing slogan that has a good bit of truth to it.

[AFPVet]

If you take away the peoples' teeth, there will be nothing to stop the vet from putting down the dogs which they do not like. The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting or self defense!

With regard to the criminal element, taking firearms away from everyone will not prevent criminals from creating their own weapons.

[WarChestNC]

The problem that I see with this argument is that, nowhere dose it mention where criminals and secret police give up there guns and where Dr Manhattan would oversee the whole scheme.

As long as I have access to firearms, I need not fear tyranny.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Do more than a brief search. And look at the more relevant question: what happens to gun homicides in a specific country before and after their gun ban laws. See if you can find one where gun homicides go DOWN after the ban. Then you have some evidence.

Also, the stats you cite include suicide which seems to me totally irrelevant, unless you are afraid of guns because you think you might decide to shoot yourself.

Bad argument. I did a college research paper on this, and found, I believe it was the Philippines, the actual murder rate went up, but murder by guns went down. The new weapon of choice was a machete.

I believe my source on that was the book "Death by gun control".

[Verrater]

No.

[aGameOfThrones]

I know, but I think it's outlived its usefulness.

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

[JohnMeridith]

I have plenty of handguns, not one was purchased with the intent of killing people. Only shooting paper and protection.

[Fredom101]

they banned them for police as well? That was a question seriously posed to me recently. Apparently this British dude believes that when England can be sure there are no longer any guns in civilian hands, they will take them away from police and then there would be no more guns (and apparently everyone will commence joining hands and singing kumbayah or some shit). Personally, I find this argument retarded especially because of the fact that IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN IN A MILLION YEARS, but if we suspend our disbelief and say it could happen, would it be desirable? I don't think so. For one thing, crime would skyrocket as anyone big or strong could just overpower the cops or person they are robbing and run, making theft of small businesses very easy.

"Banning" anything is anti-freedom. By your handle, I think you may already know this.

[Acala]

Bad argument. I did a college research paper on this, and found, I believe it was the Philippines, the actual murder rate went up, but murder by guns went down. The new weapon of choice was a machete.

I believe my source on that was the book "Death by gun control".

So of all the countries in the world that have enacted gun control you found ONE (and a virtual military dictatorship in the middle of a civil war by the way) that had a reduction of firearms homicides and THEY had an increase of overall homicides? And an increase in machete hacking murder is an argument FOR gun control? I plan on quoting this as support for the argument against.

[Fredom101]

Also, this whole thing is a mute point. If you ban guns from everyone, who enforces the ban? Someone with a gun likely! Makes no sense.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't support Anarchy. You could move to a state with your friends and abolish the police. See what happens.

http://techbuddha.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/vader-fail.jpg

[BamaAla]

That's a negative Ghostrider.

[heavenlyboy34]

Anti-gun nuts should read:


More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) (http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305748587&sr=8-1)

[Pericles]

I see that practically all of the relevant points have been covered by previous posters, who I will +rep for exceptional contributions, and as an exception to my policy of encouraging free ranging discussion, a -rep to the poster who never replied to any of the valid points made, and only further trolled the board with no contribution to the board of how his position contributed to individual liberty.

Let me summarize that any attempt to disarm me or my fellow citizens will be met with

http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt317/Pericles-photo/A2-3.jpg

and an appropriate number of FMJ projectiles traveling at a muzzle velocity of some 3200 FPS. And after the proximate threat to my liberties has been negated, I and my associates will then deal with those who sent the party organs, and give them their due.

[Working Poor]

No and I would not trust police to disarm either

[Theocrat]

Here is why:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-H1UY2-YDY

[Agorism]

Does the military disarm as well along with the police
First?

[Pericles]

I was going to reply to this but realized that not only is every word of the post wrong but the very root of your thinking about the way human beings should relate to each other is wrong. And I don't have time to tackle that one.

But I will say this: I have several handguns, enjoy them very much, use them regularly with friends and family, and yet have never killed anyone. So I guess they must have a use besides killing people.
Why I sadly found it necessary to -rep this (Samurai) board member.

[Pericles]

Do you have $1million to spend on a ballistic missile if it were legal?

I'm sure Chrysler Defense could have come up with a payment plan so I could afford a M1A2 tank.

ETA: And probably kept the Lima, Ohio plant open, employing many of my fellow citizens besides.

[payme_rick]

I see that practically all of the relevant points have been covered by previous posters, who I will +rep for exceptional contributions, and as an exception to my policy of encouraging free ranging discussion, a -rep to the poster who never replied to any of the valid points made, and only further trolled the board with no contribution to the board of how his position contributed to individual liberty.

Let me summarize that any attempt to disarm me or my fellow citizens will be met with

http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt317/Pericles-photo/A2-3.jpg

and an appropriate number of FMJ projectiles traveling at a muzzle velocity of some 3200 FPS. And after the proximate threat to my liberties has been negated, I and may associates will then deal with those who sent the party organs, and give them their due.

Holy Shit! I just got goosebumps... Can I have one of those? And some of those projectiles?

+repo of the U.S.

[Acala]

Why I sadly found it necessary to -rep this (Samurai) board member.

I was close. I even had the rep window open. I relented, but he deserved it. I can understand how reasonable minds differ on many of the issues that are discussed in these forums, but on this one? I just can't see how anyone who understands liberty can favor a government-enforced disarming of the people.

[Pericles]

I was close. I even had the rep window open. I relented, but he deserved it. I can understand how reasonable minds differ on many of the issues that are discussed in these forums, but on this one? I just can't see how anyone who understands liberty can favor a government-enforced disarming of the people.
There was another board member I thought deserved +rep on this thread, but I ran out of ammunition on this one.

[JK/SEA]

I've been thinking a little bit on this banning guns discussion, and of course like most in here my reaction is a HELLNO policy. Frankly, in my twisted world inside my head a part of me says yes. Do it. I want to see what would happen if this idea came to pass. I'm guessing there would be vicious fighting in many areas, and in places like SanFran it would be celebrated, and then everything in between. The final outcome would be interesting thats for sure. I'm getting REALY REALLY annoyed at this talk about banning guns. Anyone that remotely thinks this is a good idea just isn't paying attention...to put it mildly.

[DamianTV]

they banned them for police as well? That was a question seriously posed to me recently. Apparently this British dude believes that when England can be sure there are no longer any guns in civilian hands, they will take them away from police and then there would be no more guns (and apparently everyone will commence joining hands and singing kumbayah or some shit). Personally, I find this argument retarded especially because of the fact that IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN IN A MILLION YEARS, but if we suspend our disbelief and say it could happen, would it be desirable? I don't think so. For one thing, crime would skyrocket as anyone big or strong could just overpower the cops or person they are robbing and run, making theft of small businesses very easy.

Not only NO but FUCK NO!!!

Since when has the government ever given an inch to preserve Freedom? The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms is so essencial to maintaining the power in the hands of the people that the only thing more imporatant than having the Right to have a Gun is being able to talk about what is wrong with the Government, IE, 1st Amendment. If we are not allowed to Speak of the problems, we dont know that there is one. Thus, the 1st Amendment is just slightly more important than having the 2nd Amendment.

Next, why would you give the power to take away guns, regardless of whom they are taken away from, to the very people you need your gun rights to protect yourself from in the first place? If you give that power to allow or deny anyone any right to someone else, then it is no longer a right, and becomes a priviledge. Mr Bank Robber, can I please have permission to bring a gun with me the next time you rob us? How do you think he is going to answer?

I would be ok with all cops and government (city, state, and federal) being prohibited from carrying a firearm while working, as long as everyone else was required to be packing heat with them at all times.

[cdc482]

It will never happen, but a world with 0 guns would be ideal.

If the sole purpose of an object is to infringe on the rights of others, then the object should be illegal. However, guns are used recreationly...
And you don't want criminals to be the only ones with guns.

All this said, yes I do support the second amendment. Just trying to share some ideas with you.

[VIDEODROME]

Only if I get to see the first Potato Gun robbery.

[aGameOfThrones]

Before guns it was swords. Before swords it was rocks. Before rocks(lol) it was hands... :p

[payme_rick]

It will never happen, but a world with 0 guns would be ideal.


No, a world with 0 need for guns would be ideal, and that world does not exist...

As I suggested earlier, there would still be baseball bats, and a young man could have his way with an old lady if he had one, and even if she had one she'd still be at a great disadvantage... But if she had a shotgun and knew how to use it: game over... others have summarized it very well on this thread, "a gun is an equalizer!"/"a gun is the great equalizer!"

[cdc482]

No, a world with 0 need for guns would be ideal, and that world does not exist...

As I suggested earlier, there would still be baseball bats, and a young man could have his way with an old lady if he had one, and even if she had one she'd still be at a great disadvantage... But if she had a shotgun and knew how to use it: game over... others have summarized it very well on this thread, "a gun is an equalizer!"/"a gun is the great equalizer!"

touche. good point.

[Maximus]

I think a world without guns is better than a world with guns. However, the world has guns.

[Grubb556]

The problem I have is not so much the gun part, but rather the banning of a certain type of property. Who's to say the government won't ban something else, like violent video games ?

[Noob]

Police should not be able to carry guns around with them.

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

two words... machine shop.
Can never remove weapons.

What's next, dull knives?

[nolvorite]

perhaps,
But you will notice that I said Concept.
The very idea of police is contrary to free society.
no police = no 911 calls = anarchy

[Dr.3D]

no police = no 911 calls = anarchy

no 911 calls = no dogs being shot

[enjerth]

Handguns are only meant for one thing, and that's killing people.

Wrong.

[aGameOfThrones]

no police = no 911 calls = anarchy

As opposed to what we have now, laws for the mundanes, "anarchy" for the police.

[nolvorite]

no 911 calls = no dogs being shot
= anarchy.

[Thrashertm]

they banned them for police as well? That was a question seriously posed to me recently. Apparently this British dude believes that when England can be sure there are no longer any guns in civilian hands, they will take them away from police and then there would be no more guns (and apparently everyone will commence joining hands and singing kumbayah or some shit).

So the only people that will have guns will be the criminals? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[Dr.3D]

= anarchy.

Well, I'm not an anarchist, but I could be converted to one if it meant not having my dogs shot.

[aGameOfThrones]

= anarchy.


Lol

[nobody's_hero]

What will the British military be using?

[nobody's_hero]

I've been thinking a little bit on this banning guns discussion, and of course like most in here my reaction is a HELLNO policy. Frankly, in my twisted world inside my head a part of me says yes. Do it. I want to see what would happen if this idea came to pass. I'm guessing there would be vicious fighting in many areas, and in places like SanFran it would be celebrated, and then everything in between. The final outcome would be interesting thats for sure. I'm getting REALY REALLY annoyed at this talk about banning guns. Anyone that remotely thinks this is a good idea just isn't paying attention...to put it mildly.

It already happens. There are enough pockets of anti-gun city-council tyrants out there to provide examples of cities that have turned from economic powerhouses to crime-ridden slum cities because 1) people were not allowed (or heavily deterred by regulation/registration) to defend themselves and criminals figured this out quick, and 2) property taxes had to be raised to hire more cops to 'protect' the defenseless people and the local taxpaying businesses figured this out quick.

[johnrocks]

Not only no but hell no! I'm not so worried about police;right now as of today; as I am criminals who would still have them and besides;it's my right and not just because of the 2nd A but because I want a damn gun!

[Michael P]

Hell no

[eduardo89]

No!

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

lol, how can the govt ban anything without guns.

[Anti Federalist]

no police = no 911 calls = anarchy

Fail, if you think dialing 911 will save your ass.

[Dr.3D]

Fail, if you think dialing 911 will save your ass.

When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.

[pcosmar]

no police = no 911 calls = anarchy

How do you figure.
First of all , I am NOT an anarchist, as one of our anarchist members pointed out.
He was apparently familiar with my postings.
Secondly, I posted a link to Constitution.org and to a particular article there. It is relevant to this discussion and ignored by most of readers here.

I said and I maintain that the Concept of police is contrary to a free society. That does not mean anarchy, and that does not mean "No Law" or no enforcement of law. The concept of police and the need for them is Authoritarian.

I believe in a limited government, and in government by the people. That is not anarchy. That is limited government that the Founders intended.

Please read this,,,study it even.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

I fear that some here do not even grasp or understand the Concept of Liberty.

[nolvorite]

Well, I'm not an anarchist, but I could be converted to one if it meant not having my dogs shot.hmmm... okay.

wait I thought cops always had those k9 cadavers to find criminals on the run

[Dr.3D]

hmmm... okay.

wait I thought cops always had those k9 cadavers to find criminals on the run

Well, the reason I post about this as I do is because of what is contained in the threads below.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?293057-Cops-called-for-help-with-threatening-phone-call.-Cops-show-up-and-shoot-family-dog-dead.&highlight=police+shoot+dog
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?288695-MI-Lansing-cop-shoots-dog-SOP-MI-Mundane-shoots-dog-that-came-in-his-yard-charges-filed.&highlight=police+shoot+dog
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?288066-Cops-Spray-Neighborhood-With-33-Rounds....-To-kill-a-dog&highlight=police+shoot+dog
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?286988-MI-Cops-shoot-family-dog-while-creeping-around-in-back-yard-on-an-unrelated-case.&highlight=police+shoot+dog
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?286618-Question-about-cops-and-when-it-is-justified-for-a-cop-to-shoot&highlight=police+shoot+dog
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?281670-24-Feb.-2011-PA-Cops-raid-wrong-house-shoot-family-dog-dead.&highlight=police+shoot+dog
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?276212-Cop-shows-up-at-house-for-unrelated-issue-nobody-home-shoots-dog-dead.&highlight=police+shoot+dog
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?262686-Oakland-Police-shoot-and-kill-family-labrador&highlight=police+shoot+dog
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?261931-Armed-men-rob-home-homeowner-call-cops-cops-show-up-shoot-dog-arrest-homeowner&highlight=police+shoot+dog
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?260537-Cop-throws-dog-down-flight-of-stairs-shoots-and-kills.&highlight=police+shoot+dog
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?255874-Federal-cop-shoots-kills-dog-at-dog-park.&highlight=police+shoot+dog

If you just check the topic of each one of these threads, you may understand what I've been talking about.

[MelissaWV]

No.