NationStates Jolt Archive

I think all guns should be legalissed mainly because im trigger happy and because i see theres no reason not to have them illegal. Just because we bann these guns does'nt mean we can't still get them. Practically everyone i know has an m60 or some type of automatic rifle!

The other reason is theres no one who would go around killing people for the hell of it and even if there was they could still get the guns from illgal trade or such and such.

I'm gonna set up a protestment about this any1 want to join me? and if so try give me some more arguments to for gun legalisation

I think all guns should be legalissed mainly because im trigger happy and because i see theres no reason not to have them illegal. Just because we bann these guns does'nt mean we can't still get them. Practically everyone i know has an m60 or some type of automatic rifle!

I would not like to live in your neighbourhood. Granted, M60s are cool rifles but, I would be a bit scared if nearly everyone had one. And those that didn't had an M16 or whatever

I also think all guns should be legal.

yeah guns kick ass every1 say it with me.........GUNS KICK ASS!

I agree ....legalize all guns ... outlaw the bullets.

I think all guns should be legalissed mainly because im trigger happy and because i see theres no reason not to have them illegal. Just because we bann these guns does'nt mean we can't still get them. Practically everyone i know has an m60 or some type of automatic rifle!

The other reason is theres no one who would go around killing people for the hell of it and even if there was they could still get the guns from illgal trade or such and such.

I'm gonna set up a protestment about this any1 want to join me? and if so try give me some more arguments to for gun legalisation

erm...

Lets legalise guns cuz some ppl think its cool.

And yeah, there are no people at all that shot at other people...

The more people that have a gun or more, the more disputes will be "solved" with the guns.

I think all guns should be legalissed mainly because im trigger happy and because i see theres no reason not to have them illegal. Just because we bann these guns does'nt mean we can't still get them. Practically everyone i know has an m60 or some type of automatic rifle!

The other reason is theres no one who would go around killing people for the hell of it and even if there was they could still get the guns from illgal trade or such and such.

I'm gonna set up a protestment about this any1 want to join me? and if so try give me some more arguments to for gun legalisation


So almost everyone you know has an M60 Machine gun? I find that very hard to believe

This guy obviously live in the US. And take a look at the deathcount and corruption there. Right, still want a gun? Move there.

guns are a non-skilled way to kill your enemies. swords are the way to go. you actually NEED to train. guns you just pull a trigger and someone dies before you. and in the US its not really any bad if you find a good suburb. only problem is after that cannabis isnt legal(which should be)

they really should set up a far corner in the world and let the crazy people who want to shoot each other or sell their bodies or smoke crack as much as they want go there. that way, nobody will complain being mistreated and nobody will worry about their neighbours brandishing M-16s when it's obvious they are high on cocaine.

Oh, come on people. The Unholy Ones' post is one of the most blatant satires I've seen for some time. (I have a horrible feeling that Enodscopia is genuine however).

Legalissed guns, that's another reason why i think that USA i fucked up... :rolleyes:

At least Americans don't have the stupid habit of firing guns the air (with live ammo) during celebrations like the Afghans and Iraqis. If you do, 500 lb bombs will be delivered to your doorstep ...

How about we legalize all guns, but...


.. you have to have a license to use bullets in your guns. For each model bullet, you need a different type of license. To get the liscence, you must pay $5,000, get a background check, and sign a document/contract promising that the bullets you purchase will not be used for any crime-intended purposes.

In addition, no single bullet shall be sold for less than $2,000. Rubber bullets can be bought for normal prices.

That way, you can have all the guns you want, but crazy people who intend to kill or rob some place will have a lot more trouble getting it done.

That way, you can have all the guns you want, but crazy people who intend to kill or rob some place will have a lot more trouble getting it done.
As will the woman defending herself from a rapist.

If she had rubber bullets, she could defend herself fine, but she wouldn't kill the guy. Also, how many women carry around guns to protect especially for rape? Your counter point assumes that all women fearing rape carry guns for protection.

If she really wanted to protect herself no matter what, a deftly wielded knife would do just fine.

If she had rubber bullets, she could defend herself fine, but she wouldn't kill the guy. Also, how many women carry around guns to protect especially for rape? Your counter point assumes that all women fearing rape carry guns for protection.

If she really wanted to protect herself no matter what, a deftly wielded knife would do just fine.
Handgun ownership acts as a deterrent to crime. In October 1966, the Orlando police began a highly publicized program designed to train women in the use of firearms. The program was prompted by an increase in rape in the months preceding its implementation. The rape rate dropped from 34 incidents for every 100,000 inhabitants in 1966 to 4 incidents per 100,000 in 1967, even though the surrounding areas showed no drop at all. Burglary fell by 25%. No woman ever had to use her gun; the deterrent effect sufficed. Even five years later, Orlando's rape rate was 13% below the 1966 level, although the surrounding area was 308% higher.11,12 In Albuquerque, New Mexico; (13) Highland Park, Michigan;8 New Orleans, Louisiana;8 and Detroit, Michigan;8 crime rates, especially burglaries, plummeted when shopkeepers publicized their acquisition of handguns. When the city council of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring each household to keep a firearm, crime dropped 74% the following year. (14)

Surveys of convicted felons indicate that when the risk of confronting an armed victim increases, robberies are abandoned. (15) Among police officers, 90% believe that banning ownership of firearms would make ordinary citizens even more likely to be targets of armed violence. (16)

Criminals do respond to incentives. (17) When they think they will have their own actions reflected back to them, they choose cooperation instead of exploitation. The TIT FOR TAT strategy makes sure that crime doesn't pay.

Few criminals are affected by handgun bans anyway, since five-sixths of them don't purchase their guns legally. (18) Gun bans harm only the innocent.

From Dr Mary Ruwart's "Healing Our World"

Very good point(s), nice citation, but once again, the guns would be legal, bullets would be expensive.

If the gun deters so well, then they can deter with the gun, since it will be legal anyway. The suspect being detered by the gun will have to wonder if the projectile emerging from the gun will be lead or rubber. If he wants to take the risk, let him go for it.

Also, you have to think of the thousands of gun deaths each year in the United States. Hopefully with rubber bullets, these will mostly turn into non-fatal cases.

erm...

Lets legalise guns cuz some ppl think its cool.

And yeah, there are no people at all that shot at other people...

The more people that have a gun or more, the more disputes will be "solved" with the guns.

Well if we all had guns people would be less likely to fight with them for fear of getting shot.

Solution to gun violence in the States.

Ban firearms but make heavy artillery compulsory. That will slow down troublemakers since the loading, aiming and firing times are so high.

:D

If she had rubber bullets, she could defend herself fine, but she wouldn't kill the guy. Also, how many women carry around guns to protect especially for rape? Your counter point assumes that all women fearing rape carry guns for protection.

If she really wanted to protect herself no matter what, a deftly wielded knife would do just fine.

But, if they are killed you won't have to worry about them rapeing no one ever again.

Very good point(s), nice citation, but once again, the guns would be legal, bullets would be expensive.

If the gun deters so well, then they can deter with the gun, since it will be legal anyway. The suspect being detered by the gun will have to wonder if the projectile emerging from the gun will be lead or rubber. If he wants to take the risk, let him go for it.

Also, you have to think of the thousands of gun deaths each year in the United States. Hopefully with rubber bullets, these will mostly turn into non-fatal cases.

the gun may deter but that effecyt eould be lost if it dod nt hav any live ammo rubber bullets don't deter real ones do

Untrue. People don't tell each other WHEN they're going to shoot each other. They just do it.

For example. I wouldn't tell you "I'm gonna shoot yo' ass tomarrow, so watch the hell out." I would walk up to you, empty a clip on you, and run. Just because you happened to have a gun as well doesn't help you, because you're dead.

Also, If the person firing just so happens to miss, another person completely removed from the conflict may be injured and/or killed. And since guns would be so easy to get, more unskilled aiming and firing will occur.

Very good point(s), nice citation, but once again, the guns would be legal, bullets would be expensive.

If the gun deters so well, then they can deter with the gun, since it will be legal anyway. The suspect being detered by the gun will have to wonder if the projectile emerging from the gun will be lead or rubber. If he wants to take the risk, let him go for it.

Also, you have to think of the thousands of gun deaths each year in the United States. Hopefully with rubber bullets, these will mostly turn into non-fatal cases.
Any lessening in the disincentive to rape (unloaded or non-lethal gun) will lead to increased rapes.

As an aside, wanting to ban guns isn't the same as wanting to stop violence.

1) An armed society will be less violent than the SAME society without guns (so UK/US is not a valid comparison as UK would have even less violence if armed. Comparing US states yields this conclusion)

2) Banning guns means that SOME PEOPLE WITH GUNS should preemptively disarm OTHER PEACEFUL PEOPLE, at gunpoint if necessary.

the gun may deter but that effecyt eould be lost if it dod nt hav any live ammo rubber bullets don't deter real ones do

If you were approched by someone and they pressed a gun to your stomach, I belive you'd be detered, no matter if it was empty, full of live ammo, or rubber ones.

Not only that, but have you ever been shot by a rubber bullet? It hurts a LOT when it hits your arm, but imagine that same force in your face, stomach, or genitals.

Any lessening in the disincentive to rape (unloaded or non-lethal gun) will lead to increased rapes.

As an aside, wanting to ban guns isn't the same as wanting to stop violence.

1) An armed society will be less violent than the SAME society without guns (so UK/US is not a valid comparison as UK would have even less violence if armed. Comparing US states yields this conclusion)

2) Banning guns means that SOME PEOPLE WITH GUNS should preemptively disarm OTHER PEACEFUL PEOPLE, at gunpoint if necessary.

I disagree that an armed society would have less violence than one that is unarmed. An unarmed society's violent activity would include knives, fist fights, blunt objects, and in rare cases a firearm. If you told everyone "Ok, now you can all buy guns!" people who once refrained from that type of violence due to fear of retaliation would use guns, and not have to fear those consequences.

And, in the case of violence without firearms, the chances of someone dying in the conflict is obviously much lower than if guns were readily accessable to the public (like here in the US).

However, I agree that US and UK can't be compared.

I disagree that an armed society would have less violence than one that is unarmed.
First I'm impressed. You're more open minded and civil than most anti-gun advocates. But this is a measured fact, not a matter of opinion.

First I'm impressed. You're more open minded and civil than most anti-gun advocates. But this is a measured fact, not a matter of opinion.

Well, you got me there. if it's been proven, then it's better to do it your way. However, In my personal experiences, I've formed a dislike for guns.

And thanks ^_^, I'm glad I can talk to people who aren't zealously closed minded.

NO NOT THE GENITILIA

but sierusly if guns where banned (all of them) then what would happen if the government went mad and told police and military to shoot every civilian on the street. We couldn't have an armed revolution because you told us we shouldn't have guns. Ever heard of Hitler??

Anyways if you want a gun to kill someone ur gonna get it illegally. I don't think you'll be carrying around a licensed gun if your gonna rob a bank or kill someone. Not to mention what about people who like to either A. Collect guns (guns with no ammo don't hurt) or B. Likes to hunt. Are you gonna take away their hobbies?

Also lets look at the death rates, i heard someone say thousands. Thats NOTHING. Millions die a year from ciggarets. Even more die from car crashes than guns should we ban cars? (i do want to ban ciggarets) What about abortions? 32 million die a year from abortions. (not the women the babies). Thats murder on a mass scale right there not even Hitler couldn't match that when he was in power for 10 years! Should we ban abortions? No.

For some reason you people look at guns as a device that kills people. A gun can't kill a person, just like a chair or knife can't. Its the people behind these tools that need to be locked up, not the devices. I mean there are lots of stabbings a year from people carying knives but i don't hear people complaining.

And as they say if we outlaw guns then outlaws would be the only ones to have em.

NO NOT THE GENITILIA

but sierusly if guns where banned (all of them) then what would happen if the government went mad and told police and military to shoot every civilian on the street. We couldn't have an armed revolution because you told us we shouldn't have guns. Ever heard of Hitler??

Anyways if you want a gun to kill someone ur gonna get it illegally. I don't think you'll be carrying around a licensed gun if your gonna rob a bank or kill someone. Not to mention what about people who like to either A. Collect guns (guns with no ammo don't hurt) or B. Likes to hunt. Are you gonna take away their hobbies?

Also lets look at the death rates, i heard someone say thousands. Thats NOTHING. Millions die a year from ciggarets. Even more die from car crashes than guns should we ban cars? (i do want to ban ciggarets) What about abortions? 32 million die a year from abortions. (not the women the babies). Thats murder on a mass scale right there not even Hitler couldn't match that when he was in power for 10 years! Should we ban abortions? No.

For some reason you people look at guns as a device that kills people. A gun can't kill a person, just like a chair or knife can't. Its the people behind these tools that need to be locked up, not the devices. I mean there are lots of stabbings a year from people carying knives but i don't hear people complaining.

And as they say if we outlaw guns then outlaws would be the only ones to have em.

I've got a few replies to that.

if guns where banned (all of them) then what would happen if the government went mad and told police and military to shoot every civilian on the street.
That is extremely unrealistic in major countries like the US, UK, Germany, etc. Do you seriously belive that after years of civilized police and military activities, that they'd suddenly, like robots, go and shoot everyone? Not a good point at all.

Ever heard of Hitler??
Yeah. He wasn't very nice. There's a documentary that says he's gay (homosexual), and that's funny.

Anyways if you want a gun to kill someone ur gonna get it illegally. I don't think you'll be carrying around a licensed gun if your gonna rob a bank or kill someone.
You're right on that. And if all guns were legal, that wouldn't change. Same for if they were illegal.

Not to mention what about people who like to either A. Collect guns (guns with no ammo don't hurt)
(since you didnt' quote anyone, I assume you're talking to me) What I proposed was having guns (yes, all of them) legal, but the bullets would be difficult to get. Gun collectors won't be hindered in the least.

B. Likes to hunt. Are you gonna take away their hobbies?
Not at all. If you like to hunt, go buy a gun, then get a licence, then buy some bullets. You shouldn't need too many. However, there is some validity to that. Those who hunt (which personally, I don't like- if you want to make it fair, go hunt something dangerous, not a deer) would be hindered, so they're gonna have to learn to use a knife, or a bow and arrow.

Also lets look at the death rates, i heard someone say thousands. Thats NOTHING. Millions die a year from ciggarets.
Fine. I agree, lets outlaw that too. And by the way, when someone dies from a gun, they are usually shot by someone else. If you're dumb enough to kill yourself by smoking ciggarettes for years, that's your problem. You can't CHOOSE to be shot by someone, but you can CHOOSE to smoke ciggarettes. If you die from second hand smoke, then you're a victim, and that's different.

Even more die from car crashes than guns should we ban cars?
The lifestyle of the average American (or Brit, or German, or Hispanic, etc.) requires a car. Unfortunatley, we need cars nowadays, and accidents are unavoidable.

32 million die a year from abortions. (not the women the babies). Thats murder on a mass scale right there not even Hitler couldn't match that when he was in power for 10 years! Should we ban abortions?
Once again, that's a choice. The woman chooses to not have a baby, then she will abort it (if that's her belief). In additon, fetuses aren't considered a living, breathing human being that was happily living life up until they were shot by a pistol. I agree that abortions need to stay legal, by the way.

For some reason you people look at guns as a device that kills people. A gun can't kill a person, just like a chair or knife can't.
But look at it this way- if you take the gun out of the person's hand, can he/she still kill the person with the ease of pulling a trigger? The whole "Guns don't kill people, People do." motto is just wrong to me.

I mean there are lots of stabbings a year from people carying knives but i don't hear people complaining.
I'm complaining. The police are complaining. The victims are complaining. The families of the dead are complaining. The government is complaining. The doctors caring for the stabbing victims are complaining. The friends of the victims are complaining. The dead aren't complaining, but they would if they could.

Maybe you should listen more closely.

And as they say if we outlaw guns then outlaws would be the only ones to have em.
That's a good quote. And it's true. But the outlaws have them now. If guns are legalized, they won't throw them away.

Phew, that was a lot of typing...

As will the woman defending herself from a rapist.

a gun is not the way to deal with a rapist tbh.

Handgun ownership acts as a deterrent to crime. In October 1966, the Orlando police began a highly publicized program designed to train women in the use of firearms. The program was prompted by an increase in rape in the months preceding its implementation. The rape rate dropped from 34 incidents for every 100,000 inhabitants in 1966 to 4 incidents per 100,000 in 1967, even though the surrounding areas showed no drop at all. Burglary fell by 25%. No woman ever had to use her gun; the deterrent effect sufficed. Even five years later, Orlando's rape rate was 13% below the 1966 level, although the surrounding area was 308% higher.11,12 In Albuquerque, New Mexico; (13) Highland Park, Michigan;8 New Orleans, Louisiana;8 and Detroit, Michigan;8 crime rates, especially burglaries, plummeted when shopkeepers publicized their acquisition of handguns. When the city council of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring each household to keep a firearm, crime dropped 74% the following year. (14)

Surveys of convicted felons indicate that when the risk of confronting an armed victim increases, robberies are abandoned. (15) Among police officers, 90% believe that banning ownership of firearms would make ordinary citizens even more likely to be targets of armed violence. (16)

Criminals do respond to incentives. (17) When they think they will have their own actions reflected back to them, they choose cooperation instead of exploitation. The TIT FOR TAT strategy makes sure that crime doesn't pay.

Few criminals are affected by handgun bans anyway, since five-sixths of them don't purchase their guns legally. (18) Gun bans harm only the innocent.

From Dr Mary Ruwart's "Healing Our World"

oki, sure. but did this continue? and what does the static say now?

How about we legalize all guns, but...


.. you have to have a license to use bullets in your guns. For each model bullet, you need a different type of license. To get the liscence, you must pay $5,000, get a background check, and sign a document/contract promising that the bullets you purchase will not be used for any crime-intended purposes.

In addition, no single bullet shall be sold for less than $2,000. Rubber bullets can be bought for normal prices.

That way, you can have all the guns you want, but crazy people who intend to kill or rob some place will have a lot more trouble getting it done.

That is probably the dumbest idea ever.....

Would you mind explaining your point of view please?

are for all the pansy and wusssies alike.


guns should be OUTLAWED! and if they were, there would be no way to get them, in the righteous society.


guns KILL THATS IT FOLKS THAT IS ALL THEY DO, so why have one.

you would probally dislike guns if someone you know as gotten shot.

I for one dont have one nor will i ever, And i have never know anyone who has gotten shot.

BUT i dont want some stupid punk shitface! to shoot me just cause i was walking through the wrong neiborhood!!!

all and all the world would be much happier without them.

Even though I agree with ya on the whole damning of the gunz...

outlawing them may cause more trouble than keeping them. People who have guns for non-lethal purposes will be pissed, and will get them illegally, and may end up getting dragged into something worse, causing a chain reaction of crimes.

I think we should all go back to swords. I'd be da man with my katana!

The problem with outlawing guns is that the people least likely to follow the anti-gun laws are the people who shouldn't have them. Thus leaving those that they bother with those guns completely unarmed themselves.

See my Buns for Guns thread for an alternative solution. :)

About 2 people I know own guns, and they are for target shooting. The only time I've ever seen a pistol was when the police were carrying them overseas.

About 2 people I know own guns, and they are for target shooting. The only time I've ever seen a pistol was when the police were carrying them overseas.

So what are you trying to say?

are for all the pansy and wusssies alike.


guns should be OUTLAWED! and if they were, there would be no way to get them, in the righteous society.

How would you stop them getting guns? Would the police shoot them, with guns perhaps? If you ban guns then only the mafia and the govt (the same thing really) have guns.

a gun is not the way to deal with a rapist tbh.
Actually it's quite a good way. BANG. No more rape.

Well, you got me there. if it's been proven, then it's better to do it your way. However, In my personal experiences, I've formed a dislike for guns.

You don't have to carry one. Just don't tell me I can't. Of course, it takes guns to ban guns so banning firearms doesn't get rid of guns.

oki, sure. but did this continue? and what does the static say now?
You'd have to ask Dr Ruwart.

I'm all for mandatory water pistol ownership as a compromise.

Legalizing is a good idea, after they pass a test and have a criminal background check, otherwise my cooler than cool citizens might lose an eye..of course they could shoot out the other persons eye, but im looking for a safe community!

The main problem I have with the gun advocates in the US is their general lack of consistency. Where were the NRA protests when the state was trying to disarm the Black Panthers?

Legalizing is a good idea, after they pass a test and have a criminal background check, otherwise my cooler than cool citizens might lose an eye..of course they could shoot out the other persons eye, but im looking for a safe community!
"To allow is to control". Most people will take training voluntarily but even if they don't they still have a right to defend themselves. I do agree that some criminals should be denied firearm rights as part of their punishment. Probably impossible to enforce, though.

Legalising *all* guns? Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but what would happen if people bought artillery pieces, mortars and rocket batteries instead of second cars? Over-the-fence arguments would spiral exponentially! ;)

Reminds me of the Gary Larson cartoon where a couple are watching their neighbours install an ICBM and comment 'The Hendersons have the bomb too, now' or something...

Legalising *all* guns? Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but what would happen if people bought artillery pieces, mortars and rocket batteries instead of second cars? Over-the-fence arguments would spiral exponentially! ;)

I have no problem with mercenaries owning high powered weaponry. Privatise the military. That's how it used to be done.

I'd rather my neighbour owned missiles than Bush. My neighbour hasn't started any wars to the best of my knowledge.

Not nukes obviously. Nobody should have those.

This is my first ever post...forgive me if I goof up the format :)

Originally posted by Omatic:

I've got a few replies to that.

if guns where banned (all of them) then what would happen if the government went mad and told police and military to shoot every civilian on the street.
That is extremely unrealistic in major countries like the US, UK, Germany, etc. Do you seriously belive that after years of civilized police and military activities, that they'd suddenly, like robots, go and shoot everyone? Not a good point at all.

What about all of the trouble in the nations of the former Soviet Union? The term "ethnic cleansing" was coined about the actions of the civilized police and military seeking to wipe out another group of people. Historically, governments have oppressed their people. I'm oversimplifying, but there can be many examples drawn from the French and American Revolutions. Back in the '90s when the trouble in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia erupted the first thing the Soviets tried to do was take the guns and the radio stations. Why, so nobody could stop them or tell others about what was happening.

Ever heard of Hitler??
Yeah. He wasn't very nice. There's a documentary that says he's gay (homosexual), and that's funny.

That is actually funny. What actually isn't funny is reading the quote from Hitler that goes something like..."for the first time in generations we'll have complete and total gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police will be more effective...blah, blah, blah". It very closely mirrors many of the arguments used today. Hit the net and check it out. Scary stuff.

B. Likes to hunt. Are you gonna take away their hobbies?
Not at all. If you like to hunt, go buy a gun, then get a licence, then buy some bullets. You shouldn't need too many. However, there is some validity to that. Those who hunt (which personally, I don't like- if you want to make it fair, go hunt something dangerous, not a deer) would be hindered, so they're gonna have to learn to use a knife, or a bow and arrow.

I'm not a hunter, but generally when I hear the argument about "go hunt something dangerous" I never see the followup that explains how hunting helps control overpopulation. Follow me here...deer aren't hunted, their population explodes, they eat all of the food, they start to starve to death. One of the main benefits hunting is that it helps prevent ALL of the deer from starving due to overpopulation. Or so I'm told :)

Even more die from car crashes than guns should we ban cars?
The lifestyle of the average American (or Brit, or German, or Hispanic, etc.) requires a car. Unfortunatley, we need cars nowadays, and accidents are unavoidable.

We can just all move to cities with good metro systems or lots of busses and not need cars either, right :)

...The whole "Guns don't kill people, People do." motto is just wrong to me.

Where should the responsibility fall then? More and more society, particularly in America, is becoming a society of blamers. "It had to be the restaurant's fault that I burned myself on the coffee...they must have made it too hot...it couldn't be that I am a moron for spilling it on myself, right?" Saying that guns are solely responsible for killing people is like saying that fast food is solely responsible for making people fat.

I mean there are lots of stabbings a year from people carying knives but i don't hear people complaining.
I'm complaining. The police are complaining. The victims are complaining. The families of the dead are complaining. The government is complaining. The doctors caring for the stabbing victims are complaining. The friends of the victims are complaining. The dead aren't complaining, but they would if they could.

Yeah, don't think I'd want to be shot OR stabbed.

And as they say if we outlaw guns then outlaws would be the only ones to have em.
That's a good quote. And it's true. But the outlaws have them now. If guns are legalized, they won't throw them away.

True, and if guns are banned then they can run amok since they know the rest of us don't have them. There are definite statistics out there that show the correlation between crime rates and citizen possession of firearms. I believe Libertovania provided a few. They're not made up. You don't need to own a gun or want to own one to believe that banning them is the wrong choice. Education works wonders. Do you want your either your kid or a friend's kid finding a gun and never to have been told anything about it. That which is forbidden becomes even more alluring. If I had a kid, I'd rather they had been taught anything about it.

Phew, that was a lot of typing...

You said it brother/sister!

You'd have to ask Dr Ruwart.

so all you can prove is that it is good on a short term.

so all you can prove is that it is good on a short term.
Not being an expert, yes. In fact, no. Freedom to bear arms is morally good in the long and short term, regardless of consequences. Even then, in the long long term there will probably be some sort of invasion or oppressive govt in which case an armed citizenry will be indispensible.

Not being an expert, yes. In fact, no. Freedom to bear arms is morally good in the long and short term, regardless of consequences. Even then, in the long long term there will probably be some sort of invasion or oppressive govt in which case an armed citizenry will be indispensible.

And with freedom you mean no restrictions at all?

I agree ....legalize all guns ... outlaw the bullets.


No because you could just get tehm illegally. make bullets legal but cost several thousand dollars a piece.


"I would fucking kill yo ass, If I could afford it!" -Chris Rock

Privatise the military.

Thats a scary thought. Imagine if major corporations owned the military? It would give the term "hostile-takeover" a whole new meaning. Anbody ever read Snow Crash? that is what you are suggesting.

I totally agree. If everybody carried around a gun, bank robberies would be a lot harder to pull off. give the guys behind the counter some bullet-proof glass and a shotgun, and theyre good to go until backup arrives. You can't rob somebody in plain site if you have twenty other people packin' heat aiming straight at him. On top of that, crime might even drop. Sure, more people could get their hands on guns and use them for the wrong reasons, but that's why we have the rest of the population to keep em in line.

Legalization of all guns would make it very very easy for a militant group to carry out deadly attacks. Armed civilians wouldn't prevent this, just turn it into a big shootout really really quickly. This is BAD idea...

Also, think about every drunken asshole on the street carrying guns, there would be A LOT of shootings. It would be like the wild west.

***NOTICE***

the US federal governmenst ban on assault weapons EXPIRES on september 13, 2004

put in your order now and avoid the rush

I think instead of Guns, I agree with the one who said we should use swords... and I also say martial arts.... it will keep us in better shape and can prove a very effective way of protecting yourself..... or getting yourself out of the way of danger

I think instead of Guns, I agree with the one who said we should use swords... and I also say martial arts.... it will keep us in better shape and can prove a very effective way of protecting yourself..... or getting yourself out of the way of danger

It would be much cooler too, and involve some skill.
How about public, first-blood, (first one to draw blood wins) duels to settel disputes of honor?

It would be much cooler too, and involve some skill.
How about public, first-blood, (first one to draw blood wins) duels to settel disputes of honor?

And make it easier for the stronger ones(stronger ones = better on these duels) to bully the lesser ones. And when they are challangd and they win, it's all of a sudden "ok" for them to do so. That's not a society i'd like to live in...

as much as I dislike the original thread poster, I must agree that guns should stay legal. At least in America. Everywhere else can let the government push them around.

I'm looking to buy my first pistol. I want something that is relatively inexpensive ($300 -$400 range) but reliable. I've read up on several. I just wondering if anybody has any suggestions. Also, my wife needs to be able to handle it.

an m60 isnt a rifle

This is my first ever post...forgive me if I goof up the format :)

Originally posted by Omatic:

I've got a few replies to that.

if guns where banned (all of them) then what would happen if the government went mad and told police and military to shoot every civilian on the street.
That is extremely unrealistic in major countries like the US, UK, Germany, etc. Do you seriously belive that after years of civilized police and military activities, that they'd suddenly, like robots, go and shoot everyone? Not a good point at all.

What about all of the trouble in the nations of the former Soviet Union? The term "ethnic cleansing" was coined about the actions of the civilized police and military seeking to wipe out another group of people. Historically, governments have oppressed their people. I'm oversimplifying, but there can be many examples drawn from the French and American Revolutions. Back in the '90s when the trouble in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia erupted the first thing the Soviets tried to do was take the guns and the radio stations. Why, so nobody could stop them or tell others about what was happening.

Ever heard of Hitler??
Yeah. He wasn't very nice. There's a documentary that says he's gay (homosexual), and that's funny.

That is actually funny. What actually isn't funny is reading the quote from Hitler that goes something like..."for the first time in generations we'll have complete and total gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police will be more effective...blah, blah, blah". It very closely mirrors many of the arguments used today. Hit the net and check it out. Scary stuff.

B. Likes to hunt. Are you gonna take away their hobbies?
Not at all. If you like to hunt, go buy a gun, then get a licence, then buy some bullets. You shouldn't need too many. However, there is some validity to that. Those who hunt (which personally, I don't like- if you want to make it fair, go hunt something dangerous, not a deer) would be hindered, so they're gonna have to learn to use a knife, or a bow and arrow.

I'm not a hunter, but generally when I hear the argument about "go hunt something dangerous" I never see the followup that explains how hunting helps control overpopulation. Follow me here...deer aren't hunted, their population explodes, they eat all of the food, they start to starve to death. One of the main benefits hunting is that it helps prevent ALL of the deer from starving due to overpopulation. Or so I'm told :)

Even more die from car crashes than guns should we ban cars?
The lifestyle of the average American (or Brit, or German, or Hispanic, etc.) requires a car. Unfortunatley, we need cars nowadays, and accidents are unavoidable.

We can just all move to cities with good metro systems or lots of busses and not need cars either, right :)

...The whole "Guns don't kill people, People do." motto is just wrong to me.

Where should the responsibility fall then? More and more society, particularly in America, is becoming a society of blamers. "It had to be the restaurant's fault that I burned myself on the coffee...they must have made it too hot...it couldn't be that I am a moron for spilling it on myself, right?" Saying that guns are solely responsible for killing people is like saying that fast food is solely responsible for making people fat.

I mean there are lots of stabbings a year from people carying knives but i don't hear people complaining.
I'm complaining. The police are complaining. The victims are complaining. The families of the dead are complaining. The government is complaining. The doctors caring for the stabbing victims are complaining. The friends of the victims are complaining. The dead aren't complaining, but they would if they could.

Yeah, don't think I'd want to be shot OR stabbed.

And as they say if we outlaw guns then outlaws would be the only ones to have em.
That's a good quote. And it's true. But the outlaws have them now. If guns are legalized, they won't throw them away.

True, and if guns are banned then they can run amok since they know the rest of us don't have them. There are definite statistics out there that show the correlation between crime rates and citizen possession of firearms. I believe Libertovania provided a few. They're not made up. You don't need to own a gun or want to own one to believe that banning them is the wrong choice. Education works wonders. Do you want your either your kid or a friend's kid finding a gun and never to have been told anything about it. That which is forbidden becomes even more alluring. If I had a kid, I'd rather they had been taught anything about it.

Phew, that was a lot of typing...

You said it brother/sister!

This has to be the best argument I ever had! Its fun to argue formally ^_^ .

Anyway, it's time to refute!!!

What about all of the trouble in the nations of the former Soviet Union...
This is a good point. Actually, as we speak the Sumarian (spelling error?) government is under pressure because of the horrible genocide occuring in the provence of Darfor. The US and UK are requesting that the government stop supplying and start restricting the Islamic terrorists "cleansing" the African natives. Theoretically, if the natives were armed, they could fight back.

However, I was mostly referring to major nations like US, UK etc. Worldwide, this is a good argument. I just shudder when I imagine every person in the world with a gun...

I'm not a hunter, but generally when I hear the argument about "go hunt something dangerous"...
Here I was reffering to the fact that people hunt deer and raccoons and animals that have no real natural defenses to guns (or anything, for that matter). I guess I said what I meant wrong. Try hunting a deer with a knife, or something to make it a challenge, not just something simple, like firing a bullet into the hide of an elk. It's comparable to playing a normally difficult game with cheats on. It's not anything you should feel proud of. However, if you're seriously hunting for food, then go for it, but here in america, where you can buy beef for 2.59 a pound at Publix, you shouldn't have a need for doing that.

Im getting sidetracked from my work, so I'm gonna stop here.

I know of a town in Texas that enacted a law that requires all people of the right age to carry a firearm. I can't remember the name of the town right now, so if someone could help me out, that'd be nice. Anyway, last I heard, the town hasn't had a single murder since the law was passed. I find this very interesting, that the guns that have been proven to kill have been proven to protect. Like the NRA says, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

Guns only foster a culture of fear and recrimination. They don't help. British criminals have a damn hard time getting guns, its not the case that guns can easily be gained illegally if they aren't legalised

In 1996, for instance, 30 people were killed with handguns in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 211 in Germany. In the U.S., 9,390 died this way. In Japan,15.

I don't remember the last british Columbine? The closest thing we had to that was when a crazed man killed children in Dunblane, the gun control was tightened further, and we've had nothing like it since.

P.S America also has the highest rate of violent crime in the world.... But, maybe thats just a crazy coincidence eh?

Guns only foster a culture of fear and recrimination. They don't help. British criminals have a damn hard time getting guns, its not the case that guns can easily be gained illegally if they aren't legalised

In 1996, for instance, 30 people were killed with handguns in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 211 in Germany. In the U.S., 9,390 died this way. In Japan,15.

I don't remember the last british Columbine? The closest thing we had to that was when a crazed man killed children in Dunblane, the gun control was tightened further, and we've had nothing like it since.

P.S America also has the highest rate of violent crime in the world.... But, maybe thats just a crazy coincidence eh?


Statisitics are wonderful in that you can generally make them support your point of view. Obviously the U.S. stats are higher, but if you equalize population the equivalent number you quote for Canada would be over 1,000. Please note that I'm not disagreeing that there is too much violence, just shooting holes in wonky stats...pardon the pun :)

With that said, comparing the societal and cultural developments of the U.S., U.K., Canada and Japan on the basis of apples to apples is slightly over-simplistic. There are many factors that add up to the total of a nation's identity, not just the one that you don't like.

Thats a scary thought. Imagine if major corporations owned the military? It would give the term "hostile-takeover" a whole new meaning. Anbody ever read Snow Crash? that is what you are suggesting.
If major corporations owned the military (note the important pluralisation, I'm assuming a competitve market) several things would happen.

1/ Wars would be less frequent. Since paying for wars decreases profits corporations would avoid them. Contrast with govt which simply steals more money from the taxpayers, usually the poor.

2/ Military would be smaller: People wouldn't pay for a large military given the choice.

3/ Military would be more efficient: Less waste. You know what govts are like.

4/ No conscription: Corporations aren't allowed to enslave people, unlike govts.

I'd trust Bill Gates more than Bush any day. Bill Gates isn't waiting for Jesus to tell him to push the button.

Anyone who's interested in radical but practical ways to preserve peace, prosperity and freedom should read this article.

http://libertariannation.org/a/f22l3.html

How about we legalize all guns, but...


.. you have to have a license to use bullets in your guns. For each model bullet, you need a different type of license. To get the liscence, you must pay $5,000, get a background check, and sign a document/contract promising that the bullets you purchase will not be used for any crime-intended purposes.

In addition, no single bullet shall be sold for less than $2,000. Rubber bullets can be bought for normal prices.

That way, you can have all the guns you want, but crazy people who intend to kill or rob some place will have a lot more trouble getting it done.

Ah, yes, The Wisdom of Chris Rock.

"Man, I would Blow your F**king Head Off...If I could AFFORD it! I'm gonna get me another Job, start savin' some Money... And You're a Dead Man!"

Guns only foster a culture of fear and recrimination. They don't help. British criminals have a damn hard time getting guns, its not the case that guns can easily be gained illegally if they aren't legalised

In 1996, for instance, 30 people were killed with handguns in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 211 in Germany. In the U.S., 9,390 died this way. In Japan,15.


Don't Canada also have a lot of guns (proportional to the amount of people).

Guns only foster a culture of fear and recrimination. They don't help. British criminals have a damn hard time getting guns, its not the case that guns can easily be gained illegally if they aren't legalised

In 1996, for instance, 30 people were killed with handguns in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 211 in Germany. In the U.S., 9,390 died this way. In Japan,15.

I don't remember the last british Columbine? The closest thing we had to that was when a crazed man killed children in Dunblane, the gun control was tightened further, and we've had nothing like it since.

P.S America also has the highest rate of violent crime in the world.... But, maybe thats just a crazy coincidence eh?
Americans kill each other with knives more than Brits do too. It's a more violent society generally. Perhaps that's WHY they are more insistent on being allowed to carry guns. The arrow of causation points the opposite way.

Don't Canada also have a lot of guns (proportional to the amount of people).

If I remember my stats correctly, the quantity of guns per household in Canada is superior to that of guns per household in America, yes.

(this is a joke) maybe its becuase we see the problem of overpopulation and are doing somthing about it so we dont end up like india.

while i try to support the rights of gun owners, it always scares me that the most vocal gun advocates are the ones who can't even spell their own arguments correctly...it doesn't give one much confidence in their judgment or intelligence.

I'm looking to buy my first pistol. I want something that is relatively inexpensive ($300 -$400 range) but reliable. I've read up on several. I just wondering if anybody has any suggestions. Also, my wife needs to be able to handle it.

Great starter pistol is actually a Glock. Very easy to maintain, very simple design, and it goes bang every time. It's a little more than you're looking to spend, however, unless you can get a deal on a used one. They're usually right around the $500 mark.

If you're looking for very controllable recoil, look into either the Glock 17 (full size 9mm) or a Glock 19 (mid-size 9mm). Both decent for defense or competition shooting.

Just make sure you two get some training, and you'll do just fine.

while i try to support the rights of gun owners, it always scares me that the most vocal gun advocates are the ones who can't even spell their own arguments correctly...it doesn't give one much confidence in their judgment or intelligence.


What if their first language isn't english hmmm?

I'm not a hunter, but generally when I hear the argument about "go hunt something dangerous"...
Here I was reffering to the fact that people hunt deer and raccoons and animals that have no real natural defenses to guns (or anything, for that matter). I guess I said what I meant wrong. Try hunting a deer with a knife, or something to make it a challenge, not just something simple, like firing a bullet into the hide of an elk. It's comparable to playing a normally difficult game with cheats on. It's not anything you should feel proud of.

WRONG! Have you ever tried to hit a deer from 1 mile away with a gun? Its not that easy even with the scope. You have to judge wind speed and the decline of the bullet. Its even harder without a scope. Bullets don't just travel at the speed of light you know. Also the deer moves when it hears the shot which travels slower than sound. So you can still miss =P.

And if your thinking of getting close to it thats hard too. You have to stay downwind and can't make even 1 peep. If a twig snaps or a bush ruffles it will run away. You could be hunting a single deer for an hour if you keep messing up. Which is fairly simple to don't take your time.

Try hunting a deer with a knife, or something to make it a challenge, not just something simple, like firing a bullet into the hide of an elk. It's comparable to playing a normally difficult game with cheats on. It's not anything you should feel proud of.

You'd never get close enough to hunt an elk with a knife... even the Indians used bows and arrows. Bow hunting is fun too...

Hunting is a lot more than just lifting a rifle and blowing a hole in a deer. You have to get close enough to be able to aim, tolerably accurately, at the deer's chest, because if you just put a bullet into it the damn thing will run away and leave you deerless. It depends on one's skill with a rifle as to how far away you can be and still hit the deer in the right spot. Getting close to the deer is 49% of the battle, and finding the deer in the first place is another 49%. Actually aiming and shooting is only a small part of the hunt.

If you're on the wrong side of the wind the deer will smell you and run off. If you don't blend in will with the foliage the deer will see you and run away. If you make any noise the deer may hear you and run away. It takes experience and skill to read sign (droppings, tracks, etc) and find out where the deer are. Sometimes a hunt can take hours, just following a set of fresh tracks and trying to stay upwind.

Anyways... I am an American and I own lots of guns, some of which are classified as "assault weapons." None of my guns have ever killed anybody. None of my guns have ever fired a shot at anybody. They've never jumped out of the gun safe and started shooting at people.

Yet, there are people in the Government today that say I shouldn't be allowed to own these firearms. Because criminals have abused them, the Government (and lots of Americans too, apparently) believes that by taking MY AR15, they can lower assault weapons crime. By the way, less than 5% of firearm crime involve rifles of any kind, true "assault weapons" make up about 1%.

Taking my AR15 will not make your streets safer. My AR15 never was, and isn't, a danger to anybody that obeys the law.

I am not a "potential criminal" that needs to be disarmed, I am not a danger to society that needs to be disarmed... I am just your next door neighbor.

Kw.II

Gun control doesn't actually reduce crime, in fact a prevalence of guns reduces it. Take the Swiss, for example. They have a law in place that requires males between the ages of 20 to 42 to possess a firearm. Furthermore, some cantons, the swiss equivalent of states, allow the purchase of handguns, hunting guns, and most kinds of semiautomatic shotguns and rifles without permits, assault weapons are available for purchase, hunting is the national sport, and shooting contests are open to participants as young as twelve. Yet, somehow they have managed to avoid killing each other and descending into anarchy for centuries, have a homicide rate of about 1 out of 100,000 and a robbery rate of about 32 out of 100,000, and avoid school shootings.
On another note, England's rate of handgun related robbery has sky rocketed, despite banning guns. Further, no gun control law ever reduced violent crime, South Carolina rationed its gun sales to one handgun per month, the crime rate went up by 100% and Washington D.C. practically banned handguns, and the rate of handgun related homicides has gone up by 300%.

I loves my gun.

tell me, is "I loves my gun" a witty and crafty reference to Bowling For Columbine, the cartoon segment? Or am I just being hopeful?

Seriously, if your murder rate isin't due to to guns what do you suppose it is? If you're going to just generalise and say "cause and effect, americans are more violent anyway, if you took away their guns they'd kill each other with sharpened planks" why is this? Why exactly are you the most bloodthirsty people on earth? More ethnically diverse than anyone else? nope. More bloodthirsty history? nope.

plus, if you're going to try to lie and say that you can't compare countries due to their size, then think again. Japan had 13 murders, as I posted earlier, last year. America had 9,390. Now, the population of Japan is 127,214,499. America's population is 290,342,554. If my maths is correct (which it is, before you think you've seen a loophole) this is 43.8% of America's population. So, shouldn't they have about 4114 murders? How curious, they didn't.

Explanations please, the best and least laughable one not involving gun control wins a prize!

are for all the pansy and wusssies alike.


guns should be OUTLAWED! and if they were, there would be no way to get them, in the righteous society.


guns KILL THATS IT FOLKS THAT IS ALL THEY DO, so why have one.

you would probally dislike guns if someone you know as gotten shot.

I for one dont have one nor will i ever, And i have never know anyone who has gotten shot.

BUT i dont want some stupid punk shitface! to shoot me just cause i was walking through the wrong neiborhood!!!

all and all the world would be much happier without them.



indeed.

tell me, is "I loves my gun" a witty and crafty reference to Bowling For Columbine, the cartoon segment? Or am I just being hopeful?
I'd normally not bring this up, but since you mentioned the cartoon segment of bowling for columbine . . .
That cartoon is about as accurate as a blind man trying to use an M16 after far too many adult beverages. Among its claims are the fact that the pilgrims eliminated all the Indians (yet somehow the 1990 Census found nearly 2 million of them, odd yes?), that there was witch burning in Colonial America (they were hung, a less gruesome way to go), that Americans swept down on happy, if half-naked, Africans and gathered them as slaves (why would you go through teh effort to capture a slave when you can just buy them from the fun-loving tribal leaders), then these angry, and poorly drawn, slaves massacred their owners and then claiming that they took no revenge (no comment neccessary), that free blacks were happy and nice while they lived in poorly built gray houses (when not killing all the white people in sight and selling off their brothers), that the 2nd amendment was designed to let the white people own their guns (But, if they were running everything with the great white conspiracy, why write something into law that was later used by abolitionists as an arguement against slavery (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev19thcentury.htm#Spooner)), that the NRA and the Klan both started in 1871 (yet the Klan actually started in 1866, too bad it took them five years to get around to telling Michael Moore, it was, however, in 1871 that Congress passed the KKK act, officially criminalizing their actions), and were in league (yet the NRA was founded by Union officials and eight of its first presidents were Union veterans, black chapters of the NRA were organized in the mid-20th century to get rifles to fight off the Klan, Ulysses S. Grant, who vigorusly defended civil rights as the U.S. President, over 5,000 arrests made, became the eighth NRA president after leaving office, finally, the ninth NRA president was Gen. Sheridan, who removed the governors of Texas and Louisiana for not fighting the KKK with an approproate amount of vigor).

Oh, come on people. The Unholy Ones' post is one of the most blatant satires I've seen for some time. (I have a horrible feeling that Enodscopia is genuine however).

Why wouldn't it be genuine.

Legalize guns only if:

A. Strict limit of 10 per month.
B. All guns must be made of cement, chocolate, or skin.
C. Only those with IQs above 140 or below 60 may own one.
D. No triggers, only fuses.

tell me, is "I loves my gun" a witty and crafty reference to Bowling For Columbine, the cartoon segment? Or am I just being hopeful?
I'd normally not bring this up, but since you mentioned the cartoon segment of bowling for columbine . . .
That cartoon is about as accurate as a blind man trying to use an M16 after far too many adult beverages. Among its claims are the fact that the pilgrims eliminated all the Indians (yet somehow the 1990 Census found nearly 2 million of them, odd yes?), that there was witch burning in Colonial America (they were hung, a less gruesome way to go), that Americans swept down on happy, if half-naked, Africans and gathered them as slaves (why would you go through teh effort to capture a slave when you can just buy them from the fun-loving tribal leaders), then these angry, and poorly drawn, slaves massacred their owners and then claiming that they took no revenge (no comment neccessary), that free blacks were happy and nice while they lived in poorly built gray houses (when not killing all the white people in sight and selling off their brothers), that the 2nd amendment was designed to let the white people own their guns (But, if they were running everything with the great white conspiracy, why write something into law that was later used by abolitionists as an arguement against slavery (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev19thcentury.htm#Spooner)), and that the NRA and the Klan were in league because they both started in 1871 (yet, the Klan officially started in 1866, a pity it took them five years to get around to telling Michael Moore), and that the NRA were a bunch of mean white people (yet in the mid-20th century black chapters of the NRA were formed in order to get guns to fight off the Klan, 8 out of the first 10 presidents of the NRA were Union vets, and Gens Grant and Sheridan were both heavy fighters of the KKK and were the 8th and 9th NRA presidents).

seems like quibbling to me, buying slaves as opposed to capturing them? what proof have you of that? Have you ever heard of the slave triangle between Africa, America and England? And I'm fairly certain that at least some "witches" were burnt, thats how we in merry old England dealt with such terrible witches as Joan of Arc for example, who used her evil black magic to liberate the french

In fact considering that such was Southern Americans hatred for black people that they started fights in British pubs (bars, residents of America) in World War 2 when they were posted there because said bars were not segregated like they were back home, and considering that after the KKK, slavery, segregation and the likes of Bull Connor going against Martin Luther King using the methods that he did, the response of the blacks was preportionally tiny. Wouldn't it have been more just if all slave owners were enslaved?

You did massacre all the Indians. They now work in casinoes and live on reservations. The suicide rate amongs young native American Indians in the 15-24 age group is the highest in your country. They live in grinding poverty. You tore up every agreement you ever made with them. You gave them blankets with cholera under the pretence of friendship, to reduce their numbers (historical fact)

plus, why hasn't anyone refuted the points I made yet?

I'm not sure if anyone's made these points, yet, so forgive me if they have.

I live in the UK, and support my government's harsh stance on firearms. The point is, if you just go down the store, and get a gun to protect the good ole' homestead, you probably have little idea on how to use it correctly, and may well end up doing more harm than good. After 9/11, gun sales in the US skyrocketed - did people this Mr. Laden was going to come wandering down the street, or they'd be able to stop the next jumbo with a pistol? Essentially, it was a comfort blanket - which also happened to be lethal to everyone, friends and family included.

Defence against aggressors is a laudable aim, which I fully defend. But I still believe guns cause more problems than they solve, and self-defence should rarely include the lethal force inherent in a gun. Martial Arts, or Mace would do pretty well, I think, as opposed to a gun. And if guns were illegal, the criminals would find it harder to get them as well.

And an interesting point: I believe Houston, Texas has a higher murder rate by a pretty high degree than the whole UK. This may be simplistic reasoning, and I am sure there are other factors, but I'm pretty sure guns are a big factor.

Defence against aggressors is a laudable aim, which I fully defend.

Such as the govt agressors who try to steal your gun? Oh agression is fine if you've got a shiny badge! Lol.

It takes a gun to ban guns and the state has historically shot more people than all the private crime in history. If you ban guns only criminals (and I include the thieves in Whitehall here) will have guns.


But I still believe guns cause more problems than they solve, and self-defence should rarely include the lethal force inherent in a gun. Martial Arts, or Mace would do pretty well, I think, as opposed to a gun.

Tell that to your granny. Does she do kung fu? Anyway, I don't want to spend hours every week learning how to do stoned camel style. Guns are also a better deterrent than mace or kung fu. They solve more problems than they cause, that's a fact.


And if guns were illegal, the criminals would find it harder to get them as well.


But once they get them (and they will) it's open season!


And an interesting point: I believe Houston, Texas has a higher murder rate by a pretty high degree than the whole UK. This may be simplistic reasoning, and I am sure there are other factors, but I'm pretty sure guns are a big factor.
As they did BEFORE guns were banned here.

So, after reading all of the historical commentary, and thinking back to the question of why the murder/violence rate is so high in the U.S. compared to other countries, I wonder at the disconnect. As I said before, every country in the world has been forged by it's own set of cultural experiences. By the previous postings we see that societal issues that have impacted life in the U.S. include a variety of ethnic/racial issues (slavery, native americans, etc.). We could come up with a list of equally important historic events for every country. Obviously slavery and the treatment of native peoples has influenced what the country is today.

What I hope anyone takes away from this is not to attribute a broad cultural concept (i.e. violence) to one specific, narrowly-focused cause (guns).

You did massacre all the Indians. They now work in casinoes and live on reservations. The suicide rate amongs young native American Indians in the 15-24 age group is the highest in your country. They live in grinding poverty. You tore up every agreement you ever made with them. You gave them blankets with cholera under the pretence of friendship, to reduce their numbers (historical fact)


Shall we discuss manifest destiny, India, and the E.I.C. next? :)

So, for all these deaths that guns supposedly cause, how about the drops in violent crime for every state that has enacted a "shall issue" concealed carry law?

For those of you who don't know what "shall issue" means: A law enforcement agency must issue a permit according to the rule of law per state, provided the applicant passes a required background check and the individual state requirements, like training.

And we don't really hear about those "wild-west" shootouts in Vermont and Alaska, now do we? Oh yeah, they're the ones without ANY laws restricting carrying or registering. Funny how they don't have a lot of murders....hmmm. Could there be a link somewhere??? I think so.

That opinion that restricting guns will keep them out of criminals' hands? Funny, but obtaining a class three license for an automatic weapon still requires local law enforcement approval. I can guarantee those gangs that actually have anything automatic, didn't follow the letter of the law to get them. Gun control doesn't work, unless you live in a completely controlled environment--like Japan's--where they're lowjacking their kids! The kids will grow up thinking that type of surveilance is okay. They won't fight it as an adult, either.

Just because an official was elected, doesn't mean that suddenly they know more than you. Or what's best for you. Most countries outside the US have always had rulers. When the US was created, our elected officials were to run the operational end of the country. That's it. The citizens were still the CEOs or board members. Our president is supposed to report to us, not the other way around, as with kings and queens. We're not meant to be ruled or told what to do. That means the full-control option won't ever happen here (at least not without one big fight). And that means guns can't be banned.

Sure, Japan has a lower murder rate than the US, but look at their suicide rate. They're still keeping pace with human-affected killings. Regardless of weapon. Guns don't change a person, regardless of what those that don't have them think. They don't have the experience, and are just working off fear. Fear of an instrument. How foolish is that? I have several firearms, yet I have yet to kill someone--why might that be? Oh yeah, because I'm sane, and realize that murder is wrong. Until you actually shoot a firearm a few times, you don't know--or at least haven't experienced--enough to talk on the subject. A device is not to be feared.

Yes, I do know someone who was killed with a firearm. The guy obtained the gun illegally (he was a felon, and had no right to own any firearm at that point--yeah, gun control works in a free society....), and killed my fiance's aunt. I purchased my first pistol a year later. My fiance eventually took it from me for herself (and now she shoots better than I do), so I bought another. I don't blame the tool. I blame the jerk that used the tool to kill a person. Time to realize where actual responsibility belongs, people.

seems like quibbling to me, buying slaves as opposed to capturing them? what proof have you of that? Have you ever heard of the slave triangle between Africa, America and England?
The Proof, eh? Does the fact that despite the Modern World's condemning and non-participation in slavery, it is still a thriving industry. If them whities ain't gettin' em, someone has to be buying. Further proof? Olaudah Equiano was captured and sold around by his fellows for awhile before entering the hands of white folks. More Proof? Africans saw nothing wrong with enslaving each other, this has been documented in many places. I think I can dig them up if its a must know for you.

And I'm fairly certain that at least some "witches" were burnt, thats how we in merry old England dealt with such terrible witches as Joan of Arc for example, who used her evil black magic to liberate the french
No, only in Europe were witches burnt. In Colonial America all were hung, except one guy who was crushed during an interrogation.

In fact considering that such was Southern Americans hatred for black people that they started fights in British pubs (bars, residents of America) in World War 2 when they were posted there because said bars were not segregated like they were back home, and considering that after the KKK, slavery, segregation and the likes of Bull Connor going against Martin Luther King using the methods that he did, the response of the blacks was preportionally tiny. Wouldn't it have been more just if all slave owners were enslaved?
I suppose you're reffering to the decapitation bit? I was mearly pointing out the fact that it is impossible to say that free slaves were happy and peaceful, and then, in the same 15 minutes, send them off on violent head gathering rampages.

You did massacre all the Indians. They now work in casinoes and live on reservations. The suicide rate amongs young native American Indians in the 15-24 age group is the highest in your country. They live in grinding poverty. You tore up every agreement you ever made with them. You gave them blankets with cholera under the pretence of friendship, to reduce their numbers (historical fact)
How can a people who were massacred centuries ago run cheesy casinos in grinding poverty, and then pop off for a nightcap and an oral session with their shotguns? Fun Fact = There is typically a 0% rate of people doing things after having been victims of genocide
It's funny, though, I don't remember giving anyone cholera blankets. In fact I don't remember tearing up any agreements either, mayhaps I did it in my sleep, or mayhaps you should avoid using the second person in an accusatory sense?
They weren't loving angels anyway. Nasty tendancy to snatch captives in a manner that, according to you and Michael Moore, seems almost, dare I say, white. Equally nasty tendencies towards cannibalism among some of the tribes, too. Finally, it was a war. The Indians, fun-loving and peaceful as they no doubt were, didn't want to coexist with the Colonial Americans. Very rarely does a hugely successful invading power allow its foes to dwell in relative autonomy. If the Native American's feel the need to speed themselves out of this world because a more powerful nation came in and handed them their moving papers centuries ago, that just might be their problem.

plus, why hasn't anyone refuted the points I made yet?
You did accuse anyone who tried of being stupid. And you are arrogant. And you don't use proper capitilisation. And you've given less than a day. And a number of people have refuted your "points" already.

Oh, don't hurt my feelings, it's not my fault if no one can refute any of my points, yourself included my flamethrower brandishing buddy

I am not arrogant, you and your fellow countrymen simply cannot accept that your murder rate is treble that of any other country due to the lack of gun laws. Perhaps I did imply "blanket" (hehe) guilt in my phrasing, so for "you" read "your family line, your predecessors, your noble forefathers" (unless of course you or your family have migrated into America since)

I don't think you're a liar, just misinformed about witches... please see below, I believe that this indicates that some witches were burnt at the stake in America, just not in certain Northern British states


http://www.kings.edu/womens_history/witch/werror.html#burned


What happened to the indians was genocide. The Jews were victims of Genocide, but they didn't all die, lots of them did. You seem to confuse genocide with extinction and assume that others like myself make the same mistake.The American people gave them cholera infected blankets, after STARTING THE WAR. Who says they didn't want to live alongside you? Your American festival of thanksgiving is meant to be celebrating how the Indians helped you out when you first landed in America. Now, point taken about the slaves being sold to you by the africans themselves but thats no reason to provide a market for it. Do you really regard suicide amongst american indians as their own fault?

You wrote:

If the Native American's feel the need to speed themselves out of this world because a more powerful nation came in and handed them their moving papers centuries ago, that just might be their problem.

I think -call it a hunch, or intuition- that its more the appaling living conditions, squallor and inhumanity of being fenced like animals. Plus, you weren't more powerful, simply just honourless liars that made fraudulent treaties.


You also wrote:

You did accuse anyone who tried of being stupid. And you are arrogant. And you don't use properly capitilization. And you've given less than a day. And a number of people have refuted your "points" already.

This is a text book of amusing errors, since we seem to be on the subject of literary critiques. I did not accuse anyone of being stupid, that is a blatant lie, I merely suggested that a non laughable explanantion other than mine couldn't be given, because there wasn't one. Sentences should not start with "And" it should be "And you don't properly use capitalization" as opposed to your "And you don't use properly capitilisation" unless you are Yoda. Once again, sentences should not begin with "And". Also, back on the subject of lies, no-one has refuted my points so far (for you see, being coherent and logical they are in no way deserving of the inverted commas that you so amusing ascribed as neccessary)

I am not arrogant, you and your fellow countrymen simply cannot accept that your murder rate is treble that of any other country due to the lack of gun laws.


For the year 2000, we weren't number one in the homicide arena. We weren't in the top five.

http://corporatism.tripod.com/homicide.htm#murd

As for guns (or lack of gun laws) causing crimes--again look at the Switzerland example. Those are some of the most well-armed citizens on the planet, per capita. Lower homicide rate than England.

I am not arrogant, you and your fellow countrymen simply cannot accept that your murder rate is treble that of any other country due to the lack of gun laws.
But, as Zaxon pointed out, it isn't in the lead. It isn't treble every other country. It is such a shame when the facts directly contradict your arguement, is it not?

Perhaps I did imply "blanket" (hehe) guilt in my phrasing, so for "you" read "your family line, your predecessors, your noble forefathers" (unless of course you or your family have migrated into America since)
My forefathers were far from noble, but for the typical stuff, theft and murder. Never once did they attempt genocide, biological warfare, or tear up a treaty.

I don't think you're a liar, just misinformed about witches... please see below, I believe that this indicates that some witches were burnt at the stake in America, just not in certain Northern British states

http://www.kings.edu/womens_history/witch/werror.html#burned
But the page that that links to says, quite clearly "A notoriously common myth is that the alleged witches at Salem in colonial Massachusetts were burned. All of the convicted during the Salem Witch Hunt in 1692 died by hanging." and "In fact, no witches were executed by burning in the English colonies of North America." I have to thank you here, not many people are courteous enough to disprove their own arguments. :)


What happened to the indians was genocide. The Jews were victims of Genocide, but they didn't all die, lots of them did. You seem to confuse genocide with extinction and assume that others like myself make the same mistake.
I was the one who said genocide as it was a handy word, you said "You did massacre all the Indians" which, considering the fact that "massacre" means "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty," that "all" means "the whole amount or quantity of," and that "Indians" was used to mean "American Indians of North America and especially the U.S.", would imply that you meant "The whole amount of American Indians in the U.S. were killed in circumstances of cruelty."

The American people gave them cholera infected blankets, after STARTING THE WAR. Who says they didn't want to live alongside you? Your American festival of thanksgiving is meant to be celebrating how the Indians helped you out when you first landed in America.
So, the Indians accepted blankets from people with whom they were at war? Do think they were that thick? They, the injuns, were happy to accept the new arrivals at first, but they grew a bit antsy when more people started showing up. They were, however, a tribal people, so while one tribe might be ready for a chat, some feasting, and a trade treaty, the other tribe was prepping a war party for some good old raiding. Finally, Thanksgiving was celebrated by less than 40 some-odd underprepared religious settlers. Just because it is used to add another excuse for a three day weekend and a feast day doesn't make it a defining moment in U.S. history.

Now, point taken about the slaves being sold to you by the africans themselves but thats no reason to provide a market for it.
Here you are fully right, it wasn't, isn't, and won't be a reason. I was merely using that as an example to point out general themes of lying and hypocrisy.

Do you really regard suicide amongst american indians as their own fault?
Of course not! Because they aren't commiting suicide, I'm really killing them all and then making it appear to be suicide! Drat, you've foiled my evil plans again, Oggidad!

I think -call it a hunch, or intuition- that its more the appaling living conditions, squallor and inhumanity of being fenced like animals. Plus, you weren't more powerful, simply just honourless liars that made fraudulent treaties.
The apalling living conditions of receiving the benefits of U.S. citizenship (military protection, law enforcement) for free (no taxes, no gambling laws), how terrible. The squallor is their own fault, they're the lords of their own reservations. The fenced in condition of being free to leave and go at your own whims? If they want to join the rest of the world, the door is about as open as it gets. Finally, we (if you will call the U.S. "you" I will call the people powerful enough to take this luverly stretch o' dirt "we") were more powerful, it was war, people died, and the indians were whacked, its life (or death) move on.

This is a text book of amusing errors, since we seem to be on the subject of literary critiques. I did not accuse anyone of being stupid, that is a blatant lie, I merely suggested that a non laughable explanantion other than mine couldn't be given, because there wasn't one.
No you just called all americans violent morons who rut with pigs and can't be trusted with guns, sharpened planks, or sizeable rocks. (Ok, maybe rut with pigs is a stretch, but not much of one)

Sentences should not start with "And" it should be "And you don't properly use capitalization" as opposed to your "And you don't use properly capitilisation" unless you are Yoda. Once again, sentences should not begin with "And".
I was making a list and emphasizing each point. And I was making a joke. Yodah, by the by, would have said "And use proper capitilisation you don't, young jedi." Once again, you don't use proper capitilisation.

Also, back on the subject of lies, no-one has refuted my points so far (for you see, being coherent and logical they are in no way deserving of the inverted commas that you so amusing ascribed as neccessary)
Its far from logical to make points that are complete fallacies. Anyway, dese quote marks, dese t'ings, dese t'ings dat I use, dey call it double quotes. Finally, it should be "amusingly ascribed" it almost makes me cry to see someone use "ascribed" properly, and then fail to use "amusingly." It really does.