NationStates Jolt Archive

its not even that guns dont kill people

its that more powerful guns help you kill alot of people alot easier and faster

(all the other threads were dumb so i thought i should make one)

Someone write: "Why punish the many for the actions of the few?"

Someone write: "Why punish the many for the actions of the few?"

Do you mean, "Why punish the decent majority of gun owners for the behaviour of the minority of criminal/irresponsible gun owners?"; or do you mean "Why punish the non-gun-owning majority by forcing them to live in a more dangerous and violent society, just because a minority wish to own guns?"

"Why punish the non-gun-owning majority by forcing them to live in a more dangerous and violent society, just because a minority wish to own guns?"
There is no "force" involved there.

its not even that guns dont kill people

its that more powerful guns help you kill alot of people alot easier and faster

(all the other threads were dumb so i thought i should make one)
They also help you protect yourself and your family better. Stop trying to control other peoples' lives.

Guns for all.

An armed society is a polite society.

They also help you protect yourself and your family better. Stop trying to control other peoples' lives.
Ah yes. From 50 RPM weapons? For what reason, other than killing lots and lots of people, do you need to be able to spray a room with bullets?

Guns are just effiecient. I prefer blades. :rolleyes:

They also help you protect yourself and your family better. Stop trying to control other peoples' lives.

Stop giving people the means to easily end the lives of others.

It's not guns that kill people, it's maneuvers.

Stop giving people the means to easily end the lives of others.

Stop trying to control my ability to defend my life and that of my families from criminals who own guns illegally.

There is no "force" involved there.

I suppose the non-gun-owning majority could always get up and leave for another (non-gun-owning) society. It's a bit drastic, though. Why should a majority of the population have to endure a more dangerous, more violent society, just because a minority wish to own noisy, dangerous little devices?

They also help you protect yourself and your family better. Stop trying to control other peoples' lives.

No, they don't. They make it more likely that you or a member of your family will be shot -- usually by another member of your family, usually by mistake -- and they make your society more dangerous. Stop trying to make other peoples' lives more dangerous.

Should I be allowed to drive as fast as I like, even though by doing so I'm endangering not only my own life but the lives of other people?

Ah yes. From 50 RPM weapons? For what reason, other than killing lots and lots of people, do you need to be able to spray a room with bullets?
a) fun.
b) killling lots of bad people.
c) killing one bad person who's in that room.
d) defending myself from a military force (e.g. guerilla warfare)

Do you mean, "Why punish the decent majority of gun owners for the behaviour of the minority of criminal/irresponsible gun owners?"; or do you mean "Why punish the non-gun-owning majority by forcing them to live in a more dangerous and violent society, just because a minority wish to own guns?"
explain why you as an average citizen need a military issue weapon and i might care

Stop trying to control my ability to defend my life and that of my families from criminals who own guns illegally.
how many average criminals have a MAC-10?

I suppose the non-gun-owning majority could always get up and leave for another (non-gun-owning) society. It's a bit drastic, though. Why should a majority of the population have to endure a more dangerous, more violent society, just because a minority wish to own noisy, dangerous little devices?



No, they don't. They make it more likely that you or a member of your family will be shot -- usually by another member of your family, usually by mistake -- and they make your society more dangerous. Stop trying to make other peoples' lives more dangerous.

Should I be allowed to drive as fast as I like, even though by doing so I'm endangering not only my own life but the lives of other people?


You can endanger your own life as much as you want. It's your life. However, dictating what we can or cannot do, when we haven't actually harmed anyone is unacceptable.

Stop giving people the means to easily end the lives of others.
How are you going to stop me? With *gasp* a gun? Sure, it's okay to use guns agressively if you are a cop, right? YOU are the one who's wanting to start the gun fights with innocent people, I just want to protect my family from agressors.

d) defending myself from a military force (e.g. guerilla warfare)
1 word for you

asinine

what is the chance that if the military force of the united states decided to take over that you could defend yourself with an automatic rifle.

you know those bombs that go down chimneys? but they dont really care about those, they would rather hover outside your house and see how long it will stand up against some hellfires. and this is to say nothing about the tanks and carpet bombing your town for harboring "insurgents"

The solution is simple. None need guns if all are protected. If all stand by the stairs, then all are protected. Stand by the stairs.

I suppose the non-gun-owning majority could always get up and leave for another (non-gun-owning) society. It's a bit drastic, though. Why should a majority of the population have to endure a more dangerous, more violent society, just because a minority wish to own noisy, dangerous little devices?

Societies where only the govt and criminals have guns are LESS dangerous?!? News to me.

No, they don't. They make it more likely that you or a member of your family will be shot -- usually by another member of your family, usually by mistake

That's my choice. Cars kill people by accident too. Should we ban them?

Should I be allowed to drive as fast as I like, even though by doing so I'm endangering not only my own life but the lives of other people?
You should be allowed to drive as fast as the road owner will allow you to drive on his property. You should be allowed to carry a gun if the property owner allows you.

Societies where only the govt and criminals have guns are LESS dangerous?!? News to me.


That's my choice. Cars kill people by accident too. Should we ban them?

You should be allowed to drive as fast as the road owner will allow you to drive on his property. You should be allowed to carry a gun if the property owner allows you.
here is what i say to your ludicrous unthought out arguments

:headbang:

1 word for you

asinine

what is the chance that if the military force of the united states decided to take over that you could defend yourself with an automatic rifle.

you know those bombs that go down chimneys? but they dont really care about those, they would rather hover outside your house and see how long it will stand up against some hellfires. and this is to say nothing about the tanks and carpet bombing your town for harboring "insurgents"
Really? That must be why they don't take casualties in Iraq or Vietnam. That must be why they didn't get dragged through the streets of Mogadishu behind cars when they tried to invade Somalia. That must be why the Russians crushed Afghanistan so easily. That must be why Che Guevara and Fidel Castro didn't take control of Cuba.....

here is what i say to your ludicrous unthought out arguments

In every generation there are those who can't just mind their own business, they have to force their grand vision on everyone else. All I want you to do is leave me alone. Why do you insist on violently interfering in other peoples' lives? Don't you see that it is immoral and ineffectual?

You can endanger your own life as much as you want. It's your life. However, dictating what we can or cannot do, when we haven't actually harmed anyone is unacceptable.

Say I routinely drive everywhere at 90mph. I haven't killed anyone yet. Should I be allowed to make the world a more dangerous place for everyone else, just because of my personal liking for speed? Is it unacceptable for you to suggest that I slow the hell down before I get someone killed?

How are you going to stop me? With *gasp* a gun? Sure, it's okay to use guns agressively if you are a cop, right? YOU are the one who's wanting to start the gun fights with innocent people, I just want to protect my family from agressors.

Police only need guns when they're facing criminals with guns. Works fine in the UK.

Police only need guns when they're facing criminals with guns. Works fine in the UK.

No actually it hasnt been. The UKs crime rates are vastly above the US crime rate.

Say I routinely drive everywhere at 90mph. I haven't killed anyone yet. Should I be allowed to make the world a more dangerous place for everyone else, just because of my personal liking for speed? Is it unacceptable for you to suggest that I slow the hell down before I get someone killed?

Yes, you should be able to. However, you will be held accountable for you actions, should you harm someone else. Pre-emptively punishing people doesn't work, and it certainly isn't one of the tenets of a free nation.

The solution is simple. None need guns if all are protected. If all stand by the stairs, then all are protected. Stand by the stairs.

We know the TERRIBLE SECRET OF SPACE.

But we're immune to it, since we actually don't exist.

As for guns: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

If everyone has guns tho, its a load easier for everyone to kill everyone in what could be the most massive gunfight ever. I'd really wish that'd happen in america... Someone starts shooting, someone starts shooting back, and back, and back, and back...

Societies where only the govt and criminals have guns are LESS dangerous?!? News to me.
and that's why in the world the greatest risk per capita of being shot (or shot to death) is in the US.

That's my choice. Cars kill people by accident too. Should we ban them?
If you're willing and able to walk/ride your bike/train/bus to work, please do. You have to get there to earn your money to buy food, housing, water, electricity, etc.
So what BASIC NEED did you need your gun for? Protection? Then what do you need police for? Or your army? Or the UN?

Do you really think you could shoot a burglar carrying a gun who was expecting people to be in the house when you just woke up and fumbled the gun from under your pillow? What if it's your son coming home late from the pub and he's just not willing to wake you up?

Societies where only the govt and criminals have guns are LESS dangerous?!? News to me.

Check out some statistics. Switzerland has a higher murder rate than the UK, to say nothing of Canada and the USA. The more guns there are in a society, the more murders there are (to say nothing of the accidental shootings). The easier it is to kill people, the more often it happens.

That's my choice. Cars kill people by accident too. Should we ban them?

It's your choice, and yours alone, insofar as it only affects you. If it starts to affect me, then I sure as hell want a say in it too. Personally speaking I'd gladly get rid of cars, but given the huge majority opposed to this view I'll just have to lump it. However, there are enforced restrictions on who can drive them, where they can drive and how fast they can go.

You should be allowed to drive as fast as the road owner will allow you to drive on his property. You should be allowed to carry a gun if the property owner allows you.

But given that we don't live in a free-market anarcho-capitalist utopia, do you have any practical suggestions for the present situation?

Really? That must be why they don't take casualties in Iraq or Vietnam. That must be why they didn't get dragged through the streets of Mogadishu behind cars when they tried to invade Somalia. That must be why the Russians crushed Afghanistan so easily. That must be why Che Guevara and Fidel Castro didn't take control of Cuba.....

US invading Iraq != iraq invading US

if the nations of africa and europe united under the asian communist banner or something like that, and we decided to kick your collective ass, trust us, the guns you'd have would be useless.

Like the man said, tanks, bombs, and nukes. And for every gun you'd have, there'd be 100 suicidal asians knocking on your door.

No actually it hasnt been. The UKs crime rates are vastly above the US crime rate.

I'd like to see you prove that with sources, please.

No actually it hasnt been. The UKs crime rates are vastly above the US crime rate.
Crime does not equal the danger of being shot to death. Crime is also smashing a parkbench, not paying taxes, jaywalking, insulting a cop, etc.

Someone write: "Why punish the many for the actions of the few?"


Because that is what laws do... they set standards to protect the many FROM the few.

:)

Its not guns that kill people its...


the bullets fired from them unless of course you bash someone to death with a gun then guns kill people

Yes, you should be able to. However, you will be held accountable for you actions, should you harm someone else. Pre-emptively punishing people doesn't work, and it certainly isn't one of the tenets of a free nation.

Is it "punishing people" to pass a law that stops them driving at reckless speeds and making life dangerous for everyone else? This isn't "pre-emptive punishment". It is, I'll grant you, a restriction on your liberty. But guess what? There are loads of restrictions on your liberty. Are you being "punished" because there are laws stating that you can't drop your drawers and shit in the middle of the street? Why can't you? Because it makes life needlessly unpleasant for everyone else, that's why.

US invading Iraq != iraq invading US

if the nations of africa and europe united under the asian communist banner or something like that, and we decided to kick your collective ass, trust us, the guns you'd have would be useless.

Like the man said, tanks, bombs, and nukes. And for every gun you'd have, there'd be 100 suicidal asians knocking on your door.



really if they united how would they attack us. They don't have the sea power to suppress our navy, harrass yes, suppress no. So that makes movement of troops on the scale your talking about...............impossible.

Naval supremecy and our dozen Aircraft Carriers protects the US from that happening. ANd the simple fact we can destroy every major city in the world with our missiles if you bum rushed us.

sorry a massive alliance would have to land troops down in mexico, and getting the troops there would be impossible. Yes you can fly soldiers, but no one has the airlift capacity to airlift a field army and all its equipment.

sorry thats just a fantasy. Our real power is not our army its our Air and Sea power.

really if they united how would they attack us. They don't have the sea power to suppress our navy, harrass yes, suppress no. So that makes movement of troops on the scale your talking about...............impossible.

Naval supremecy and our dozen Aircraft Carriers protects the US from that happening. ANd the simple fact we can destroy every major city in the world with our missiles if you bum rushed us.

sorry a massive alliance would have to land troops down in mexico, and getting the troops there would be impossible. Yes you can fly soldiers, but no one has the airlift capacity to airlift a field army and all its equipment.

sorry thats just a fantasy. Our real power is not our army its our Air and Sea power.

With the loss of their overseas markets, the USA would be in quite dire trouble economically. And it would probably lose a protracted war of attrition, like it or not...

Of course, I dont for a minute doubt that the US would blow the rest of the world away with nuclear weapons in order to ensure its survival.

Crime does not equal the danger of being shot to death. Crime is also smashing a parkbench, not paying taxes, jaywalking, insulting a cop, etc.

You are partly correct. The US firearm murder rate is HIGHER than the UKs firearm murder rate. The US's non firearm murder rate is also higher than the UK's non firearm murder rate.

The UKs VIOLENT crime rate is considerably higher than the US. The UK overall crime(including petty crime) is also higher than the US's

You are partly correct. The US firearm murder rate is HIGHER than the UKs firearm murder rate. The US's non firearm murder rate is also higher than the UK's non firearm murder rate.

The UKs VIOLENT crime rate is considerably higher than the US. The UK overall crime(including petty crime) is also higher than the US's
I'd still rather be beaten that shot

really if they united how would they attack us. They don't have the sea power to suppress our navy, harrass yes, suppress no. So that makes movement of troops on the scale your talking about...............impossible.

Naval supremecy and our dozen Aircraft Carriers protects the US from that happening. ANd the simple fact we can destroy every major city in the world with our missiles if you bum rushed us.

sorry a massive alliance would have to land troops down in mexico, and getting the troops there would be impossible. Yes you can fly soldiers, but no one has the airlift capacity to airlift a field army and all its equipment.

sorry thats just a fantasy. Our real power is not our army its our Air and Sea power.


True, IF they would attack by conventional means. Since when does a terrorist use armies? There methods were very effective on 9/11.

Piss off those people enough for them to take arms against you like the Islamists do and they are capable of a lot.

I'd like to see you prove that with sources, please.

Ive posted my sources many time in various gun threads. Unfortunately interpol does not give me access to their site, the Dept of Justice here does. So, I am limit to posting second hand sources.

here is one off the top of my head. There is also a UN sponsored joint home ministry/FBI report that I have seen. I will try to look it up

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html

With the loss of their overseas markets, the USA would be in quite dire trouble economically. And it would probably lose a protracted war of attrition, like it or not...

Of course, I dont for a minute doubt that the US would blow the rest of the world away with nuclear weapons in order to ensure its survival.


the problem would be BRINGING THE WAR TO US!


you completely missed my point.

Our economy would take a step back but without overseas market we'd go back to making what we needed for ourselves. There aren't many(if any) resources or manufacturing you can't find outside of the US.

We wouldn't be as rich and without the US the global market would suffer as well.

I don't believe in our supremecy but i don't believe what you said could happen.


Yes a war of attrition could wear us down. Hmm we do get wore down but wearing us down to that point would be rather hard, especially if you only have people but no major weapons of war.


oh and stay with your fantasy or read up on the major world militarys

if we pulled back and went Isolationist we'd have more then enough to defend ourselves.

US invading Iraq != iraq invading US

I was showing that a lightly armed militia can wreak havoc on a superior military force.

if the nations of africa and europe united under the asian communist banner or something like that, and we decided to kick your collective ass, trust us, the guns you'd have would be useless.

I'm Scotish. And that wouldn't work at all.

Like the man said, tanks, bombs, and nukes. And for every gun you'd have, there'd be 100 suicidal asians knocking on your door.
Logistically impossible. You can't deny it, around the world lightly armed popular militias are causing military forces real damage.

I'd still rather be beaten that shot
I'd rather have a gun and be neither beaten nor shot.

True, IF they would attack by conventional means. Since when does a terrorist use armies? There methods were very effective on 9/11.

Piss off those people enough for them to take arms against you like the Islamists do and they are capable of a lot.


you keep doing that and the US will say be damned with the constitution and lock down every Islamic in the US. I don't like the idea but if they pushed too hard that would come to pass.

They'd just be giving us reasons to put them in camps.

I'd like to see you prove that with sources, please.


here is another link

http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/ukimage.html

The whole issue over gun ownership boils down to 2 primary issues.

1. No one needs to own a gun, or needs to own an assault weapon, or needs to own whatever form of firearm being preaching about at the time.

2. Guns and their affect on relative crime rates.

Anti-gun proponents have suggested that crime rates will drop with the absolute removal of all guns not in police or military control from society. So far, I havent seen one shred of evidence to support this claim. However, many many posts have been made, and sources cited to claim that guns and the defensive use of guns reduce crime.

As for the need issue... people live everyday with things they do not need. They have it because they want it. Nothing wrong with that.

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible people who never use their guns against another human being. Rabid anti-gun proponents would have you believe that simply owning a gun makes a person want to shoot and kill people. They refuse to believe that we, as gun owners, never want to see another human die by our hands.

Guns are not the problem. Crime and underlying reasons behind crime are. Guns are not the solution either. Focus on the problem, not emotional reactions to inanimate objects.

I'd rather have a gun and be neither beaten nor shot.
WRONG: You'd have a gun and would get shot but not beaten (what a relief).

The difference? Anyone with a gun can shoot everyone, but not anyone can beat up everyone. So: less guns = safer.

WRONG: You'd have a gun and would get shot but not beaten (what a relief).

The difference? Anyone with a gun can shoot everyone, but not anyone can beat up everyone. So: less guns = safer.


oversimplification= dumb people

Ive posted my sources many time in various gun threads. Unfortunately interpol does not give me access to their site, the Dept of Justice here does. So, I am limit to posting second hand sources.

here is one off the top of my head. There is also a UN sponsored joint home ministry/FBI report that I have seen. I will try to look it up

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html

I like the way you cleaned up the stats for the US by omitting the black criminal element. However, you failed to use the same approach for Germany and France. You should be made aware that most European countries are becoming a melting pot like the US. There are ethnic groups in these countries that also skew the data for crime. (Turkish and Morroccan groups are causing a real shift in the crime stats for these countries.

For example, 55% of Morrocans in the Netherlands are on long term disability, milking the Dutch system for all its worth. As a result, bored Moroccan youth are causing a disproportionate spike in the crime rate stats for that country.

So, your little US stats hocus pocus should also be applied to the countries like Germany and France, etc.


(in a post further down the article, even more...)

Straight from the Interpol Website. You can't use these stats because the way they are collected is different for each country. You can only compare the countries who collect the data the same way. I assume you didn't see this HUGE BOLD warning on the interpol stats page?

I know for a fact that Sweden reports heaps more rapes and assualts then other countries because each one can be counted more then once. If a child if raped 1000 times over a 10 year perid then it is reported as 1000 rapes and 1000 assaults for the year that sick f*ck was finally caught. (See 1993 for a 25% jump in Swedish Rape statistics as this actually happens.) The same thing occurs for assaults. If 10 men beat one man then 10 assaults are reported. It is not the victim they count but the actual number of crimes.

(more and more, trust me. but the post would be gigantic)

Ive posted my sources many time in various gun threads. Unfortunately interpol does not give me access to their site, the Dept of Justice here does. So, I am limit to posting second hand sources.

here is one off the top of my head. There is also a UN sponsored joint home ministry/FBI report that I have seen. I will try to look it up

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html

As long as you can back it up, I have no problem. I just hate seeing claims made without backup :)



the problem would be BRINGING THE WAR TO US!


you completely missed my point.

Our economy would take a step back but without overseas market we'd go back to making what we needed for ourselves. There aren't many(if any) resources or manufacturing you can't find outside of the US.

We wouldn't be as rich and without the US the global market would suffer as well.

I don't believe in our supremecy but i don't believe what you said could happen.


Yes a war of attrition could wear us down. Hmm we do get wore down but wearing us down to that point would be rather hard, especially if you only have people but no major weapons of war.


oh and stay with your fantasy or read up on the major world militarys

if we pulled back and went Isolationist we'd have more then enough to defend ourselves.

OK, firstly, I believe the claim "Our economy would take a step back but without overseas market we'd go back to making what we needed for ourselves. There aren't many(if any) resources or manufacturing you can't find outside of the US." does not hold true.

Most industries are being outsourced to locations of cheaper labour. For the capitalist economic system to work, it needs to keep expanding. Forced isolationalism will cause an eventual collapse....

It could take years, but it would happen.

"without the US the global market would suffer as well."

Certainly. However, in a period of hot war, it wouldn't be so important to the unidentified aggressor nations if they were making concrete gains, would it?

And you seem to forget that in times of war, military technology advances extremely rapidly. You seem to believe that the USA has an indisputable and unstoppable military lead. It doesn't necessarily. In the current "cold peace" international situation, yes, i'd agree (because it's quite obvious) that the US sits above all others.

But, let's say China, for example, went on a military rampage...if the majority of China's industry was devoted to war production to build these "weapons of war", The USA would have great difficulty. If forced into isolation by Asian continental military power, it wouldn't last as a nation.

Oh, By the way. They could come through Alaska like the Japanese were planning in WW2 :p

I like the way you cleaned up the stats for the US by omitting the black criminal element. However, you failed to use the same approach for Germany and France. You should be made aware that most European countries are becoming a melting pot like the US. There are ethnic groups in these countries that also skew the data for crime. (Turkish and Morroccan groups are causing a real shift in the crime stats for these countries.

For example, 55% of Morrocans in the Netherlands are on long term disability, milking the Dutch system for all its worth. As a result, bored Moroccan youth are causing a disproportionate spike in the crime rate stats for that country.

So, your little US stats hocus pocus should also be applied to the countries like Germany and France, etc.


(in a post further down the article, even more...)

Straight from the Interpol Website. You can't use these stats because the way they are collected is different for each country. You can only compare the countries who collect the data the same way. I assume you didn't see this HUGE BOLD warning on the interpol stats page?

I know for a fact that Sweden reports heaps more rapes and assualts then other countries because each one can be counted more then once. If a child if raped 1000 times over a 10 year perid then it is reported as 1000 rapes and 1000 assaults for the year that sick f*ck was finally caught. (See 1993 for a 25% jump in Swedish Rape statistics as this actually happens.) The same thing occurs for assaults. If 10 men beat one man then 10 assaults are reported. It is not the victim they count but the actual number of crimes.

(more and more, trust me. but the post would be gigantic)

read it again, carefully this time. The pre cleaned US numbers are lower than European ones.

The cleaning was just an exercise the author did. You can completely ignore the second half of the link (as I do) because I dont think the authors rational for cleaning the number is justified. In any case, the cleaned numbers only apply to homicide, not overall crime.

Really? That must be why they don't take casualties in Iraq or Vietnam. That must be why they didn't get dragged through the streets of Mogadishu behind cars when they tried to invade Somalia. That must be why the Russians crushed Afghanistan so easily. That must be why Che Guevara and Fidel Castro didn't take control of Cuba.....
but its why there were thousands of people that died in the bombing of baghdad weeks before ground troops were deployed, why hundreds of innocents die in iraq and israel for helicopters ripping apart supposed strong holds.

guns dont kill people. dangerous minorities do.

oversimplification= dumb people
prove me wrong

Really Alaska, several thousand miles of Tundra, Ice and not to mention Mountains.

Very Ideal invasion country. ::rollseyes::


It would TAKE YEARS upon YEARS for anyone to catch up sufficiently with our naval forces.

a Frigate navy can not survive against a Carrier navy on open seas.


there are only a few countries with Carriers, and all of them together could be defeated by 3 or 4 American Supercarriers. We'd slaughter anything they built. with current resources we'd bomb them enough they wouldn't build any and keep up the pressure.


You are thinking EVERY country in the world would fight us. Such a coalition would be EXTREMELY hard to put together. We are not impregnable and with a combined everybody vs. us attack it could make us collapse in a massive war with enourmous casualties. But, such a war would be ruinious and idiotic and to tell you the truth its even ludicrious to think about it.

In every generation there are those who can't just mind their own business, they have to force their grand vision on everyone else. All I want you to do is leave me alone. Why do you insist on violently interfering in other peoples' lives? Don't you see that it is immoral and ineffectual?
is it i am who is the violent one?

i dont feel the need to keep a gun on me at all times, and definately not a fully automatic one to litterally massacre anyone and pretend they are magically preventing crime just by being there


i dont feel the need to throw around threats of insurgence if anyone suggests regulating something i like

Really Alaska, several thousand miles of Tundra, Ice and not to mention Mountains.

Very Ideal invasion country. ::rollseyes::


It would TAKE YEARS upon YEARS for anyone to catch up sufficiently with our naval forces.

a Frigate navy can not survive against a Carrier navy on open seas.


there are only a few countries with Carriers, and all of them together could be defeated by 3 or 4 American Supercarriers. We'd slaughter anything they built. with current resources we'd bomb them enough they wouldn't build any and keep up the pressure.


You are thinking EVERY country in the world would fight us. Such a coalition would be EXTREMELY hard to put together. We are not impregnable and with a combined everybody vs. us attack it could make us collapse in a massive war with enourmous casualties. But, such a war would be ruinious and idiotic and to tell you the truth its even ludicrious to think about it.
And you'd get many friends for nuking the world

No actually it hasnt been. The UKs crime rates are vastly above the US crime rate.
you know what i find utterly hilarious? the people in the UK insist their crime is lower than that of the US and they feel safer

prove me wrong

No, you made the assertion that less guns = safer. Prove that statement.

It has been proven many many times that the presense of lawfully owned guns actually reduce crime rates.

prove me wrong


ummmmmmm hmmmmmmmmm that would be giving up my guns.

nope, can't do that for you.

You are partly correct. The US firearm murder rate is HIGHER than the UKs firearm murder rate. The US's non firearm murder rate is also higher than the UK's non firearm murder rate.

The UKs VIOLENT crime rate is considerably higher than the US. The UK overall crime(including petty crime) is also higher than the US's
oh yes because violent crime not resulting in death and high petty crime rates are a HORRIBLE price to pay for a lower murder rate

guns don't kill people
rappers do
ask any poloyician and they'll tell you it's true
guns don't kill people
rappers do
(i saw it on a documentary on bbc 2)
Guns don't kill people
rappers do
i'm a F**king rapper and i might kill you
Guns don't kill people
rappers do
from bristol zoo to B&Q

for y'all who don't know what i'm tlkin about, download the song
'guns don't kill people' by Goldie Lookin Chain

Guns are so old fashioned and nuance. Why resort to blood letting when we can just hook kids on crack, heroin, blow. Why buy bullets when you can simply offer a cig or a joint. Why spend time in prison, when you can simply impose gayness on them, and have them commit suicide.

Yes, guns are definetely out of date, giv ethem up. When I come to your neighborhood with my stash, I expect hot chocolate and cookies. Are your kids over 8 years old yet, I got an itch too while I'm at it.

I'd rather have a gun and be neither beaten nor shot.
listen, i dont know what side of the looking glass you are typing from

but on THIS side of mirror land, a gun under your jacket does not create a magic barrier around you that deflects blows, stabs, and bullets

oversimplification= dumb people
i agree, but id rather oversimplification than pure imagination

Really Alaska, several thousand miles of Tundra, Ice and not to mention Mountains.

Very Ideal invasion country. ::rollseyes::

I was joking, hence :p smiley.


It would TAKE YEARS upon YEARS for anyone to catch up sufficiently with our naval forces.

a Frigate navy can not survive against a Carrier navy on open seas.

there are only a few countries with Carriers, and all of them together could be defeated by 3 or 4 American Supercarriers. We'd slaughter anything they built. with current resources we'd bomb them enough they wouldn't build any and keep up the pressure.

They won't last forever. They'll need to be replaced as they get older. Eventually, other nations will catch up if they desire to.

And besides, Carriers aren't the be-all and end all of naval operations...as technology matures, submarines may increase their power yet again, who knows?


You are thinking EVERY country in the world would fight us. Such a coalition would be EXTREMELY hard to put together. We are not impregnable and with a combined everybody vs. us attack it could make us collapse in a massive war with enourmous casualties. But, such a war would be ruinious and idiotic and to tell you the truth its even ludicrious to think about it.

Oh, I certainly agree that such a coalition is practically impossible, but that was the extremely hypothetical situation we were talking about originally.

listen, i dont know what side of the looking glass you are typing from

but on THIS side of mirror land, a gun under your jacket does not create a magic barrier around you that deflects blows, stabs, and bullets

No, but having a gun under my jacket allows me to defend myself against someone who attempts to beat or shoot me.

By your own assertion and making all weapons illegal, I would not be able to defend myself agains the criminal who uses said illegal weapons.

I was joking, hence :p smiley.




They won't last forever. They'll need to be replaced as they get older. Eventually, other nations will catch up if they desire to.

And besides, Carriers aren't the be-all and end all of naval operations...as technology matures, submarines may increase their power yet again, who knows?




Oh, I certainly agree that such a coalition is practically impossible, but that was the extremely hypothetical situation we were talking about.

but your also forgetting the american sub force, in deep waters they are second to none. The soviet subs don't have the endurance, range, and acoustic stealth that american subs have. The Akula is Close to the LA but we've moved beyond that. The brits might have good subs i don't know how good. But they do have those nice 63 knot torps.

No, but having a gun under my jacket allows me to defend myself against someone who attempts to beat or shoot me.

By your own assertion and making all weapons illegal, I would not be able to defend myself agains the criminal who uses said illegal weapons.
1) i assume you will be using your republican psychic ability to be able to tell when some one is going to shoot you or drag you down and beat you within an inch of your life

2) i have NEVER even assrted that i want all weapons illegal, or even all guns illegal. and just because you are too incompetent to defend yourself is your fault. find a major commercial zone in your town, somewhere within it will be some martial arts studios, go register. and dont bullshit me about guns, if the person intended on shooting you in a manner you couldnt defend yourself with training, a gun isnt going to protect you

oh yes because violent crime not resulting in death and high petty crime rates are a HORRIBLE price to pay for a lower murder rate

Where do you see the one leading to the other?

The US NON firearm murder rate is higher than UK/Europe's NON firearm murder rate.

What does this mean? Clearly guns arent causing the NON firearm murder rate to be higher in the US. Perhaps there are other more important issues at work than the simple existance of guns.

I have a comment (duh) about how guns affect people's behaviour.

Lets look at Abu Ghareb (sp?) prison where the scandel over US troops abusing prisoners took place. They had the ability, authority and justification to hurt these people. So they did.

A psychology study proved the same thing and had to be ended when people started getting sadistic when they were allowed to punish people by shocking them. This was all on the news when the scandel first surfaced.

Now guns are the 'power' to kill. Pretty much gives you the power of life and death and I can see how someone can get drunk over that God-like power.

Now comes justification. Easy. If the person 'wrongs' you he can be viewed as less than human, like some kind of animal and its okay to punish or kill them. Justification can be a very subjective term. Someone might view that someone stepping on the sidewalk outside their home as tresspassing and enough reason to kill. There are many laws in the US that also say when its okay to kill someone. (I wish I had a list at the moment) And as we all know (and what Reverend Lovejoy said) "Once the government approves of something it is no longer immoral." (Hurray!)

Next is the culture of the people who live here. This psychological aspect links to justification. Government and culture (one often reflects the other) define what is moral. The fact that violence was approved in the form of the French, German and US revolutions that formed them have a part in this but there are many other factors. I can't speak for european countries but the culture of fear that exists in the US makes justification much more easier.

I assume murder is more frowned upon in europe and the law gives people less excuses to kill people. I do not have a link showing what constitutes a justified homicide by law in european countries.

Where do you see the one leading to the other?

The US NON firearm murder rate is higher than UK/Europe's NON firearm murder rate.

What does this mean? Clearly guns arent causing the NON firearm murder rate to be higher in the US. Perhaps there are other more important issues at work than the simple existance of guns.

Yup. It could mean Americans are just more inclined to murder by any method :)

That's even more reason to take guns away from Americans. Like you would take a car away from a drunk driver or forbid a sex offender near children under 14 (or whatever age it is where you are). It seems to be a national sickness.

oh yes because violent crime not resulting in death and high petty crime rates are a HORRIBLE price to pay for a lower murder rate

There's also the fact that Isanyonehome's statistics are open to question, at the very least. There's a set of graphs here (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime) which give comparative statistics for crime in various countries areound the world. The UK has a higher overall crime rate than the USA, that's true -- but the UK also has a far greater population density, which will lead to higher crime. It's open to debate as to what the USA's crime rates would be like with a similar population density. However, if you compare crime rates in US cities to crime rates in UK cities -- places of equal population density -- things start to look really bad for the USA. For example, Denver has a population twice that of Glasgow, and comparable levels of social deprivation -- yet Denver has ten times as many murders every year.

On the charts here (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime), although the UK has a higher crime rate overall, the USA has higher rates than the UK in every form of violent crime: the per-capita murder rate is 4 times higher, the rape rate is more than twice as high, and the assault rate is slightly higher also (7.70 per 1000 people in the USA compared to 7.50 per 1000 people in the UK). This is even after the figures have been diluted by the vastly greater numbers of small-town and rural residents in the USA.

Another factor to consider is that US law allows for plea bargaining, i.e. pleading guilty to a lesser charge than the original, which will further dilute the US statistics. This doesn't happen in the UK. So by these figures, at least, it looks like you may be more likely to be burgled in the UK, but much more likely to be murdered, assaulted or raped in the USA. Despite -- or, in my opinion, because of -- the number of guns they have.

Yup. It could mean Americans are just more inclined to murder by any method :)

It could very well mean that.



That's even more reason to take guns away from Americans. Like you would take a car away from a drunk driver or forbid a sex offender near children under 14 (or whatever age it is where you are). It seems to be a national sickness.

How does this make sense? You would only be able to take guns away from LAWFUL Americans. Taking away the priveledge to drive on public roads is perfectably acceptable, but how is that the same thing as taking it away before he does anything wrong(as you are proposing with regards to guns).

Where do you see the one leading to the other?

The US NON firearm murder rate is higher than UK/Europe's NON firearm murder rate.

What does this mean? Clearly guns arent causing the NON firearm murder rate to be higher in the US. Perhaps there are other more important issues at work than the simple existance of guns.
maybe its that the british arnt already predisposed to violence

maybe its that the british arnt already predisposed to violence

The British VIOLENT crime rate is higher than that of the US, so that kinda negates your statement.

No, but having a gun under my jacket allows me to defend myself against someone who attempts to beat or shoot me.

By your own assertion and making all weapons illegal, I would not be able to defend myself agains the criminal who uses said illegal weapons.

If anyone indended to beat you up they would try and knock you out with one blow or shoot you when you didn't even know they were there. And if a mugger saw you reaching for a gun, he'd kill you straight out. Better you than him.

A gun will not protect anyone from terrorists in America. Are you gonna shoot and kill a poison gass cloud? A plane? Radioactive particles?

If someone robs your house, if they have any brains they will do it while your away.

If they invade your house armed what are the chances of you running to safety and getting your gun? Slim. You would likely be shot first. As slim as the home invasion scenario is to begin with, and most times the people invaded are criminals themselves.

The British VIOLENT crime rate is higher than that of the US, so that kinda negates your statement.
quote a real statistic

Yup. It could mean Americans are just more inclined to murder by any method :)

That's even more reason to take guns away from Americans. Like you would take a car away from a drunk driver or forbid a sex offender near children under 14 (or whatever age it is where you are). It seems to be a national sickness.

Thats funny....

However.... when you look at WHO is being murdered and by WHOM it becomes clearer that this argument is flawed. By far the people BEING murdered have put themselves into that position. Drug deals gone bad account for more killings than not. Is the loss of two drug dealers who kill each other a tragedy? I don't think it is a loss to society at all.

I am not saying that innocents are not murdered, but discounting the drug dealers and those who engage in activities that open themselves up to being killed, the numbers are far lower.

i like chris rock's idea of "bullet control" as opposed to gun control. all bullets should cost $5,000. that way, you know you must have done something bad to piss off someone if he's gonna fill you with $50,000 in bullets.

The British VIOLENT crime rate is higher than that of the US, so that kinda negates your statement.

Not judging by the statistics given here (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime) it's not. The figures given are drawn from the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, 1998-2000.

In every aspect of violent crime, the USA scores higher than the UK -- despite the fact that a greater proportion of the UK's population live in large conurbations where crime, especially violent crime, is more common.

Thats funny....

However.... when you look at WHO is being murdered and by WHOM it becomes clearer that this argument is flawed. By far the people BEING murdered have put themselves into that position. Drug deals gone bad account for more killings than not. Is the loss of two drug dealers who kill each other a tragedy? I don't think it is a loss to society at all.

I am not saying that innocents are not murdered, but discounting the drug dealers and those who engage in activities that open themselves up to being killed, the numbers are far lower.

Yeah, but that's true in all countries. Criminals shoot criminals more than the law-abiding shoot anyone in any country.

Then there is the fact this suggests there is more violent crime in America. Not an unbelievable statistic at all. Even if you correct for population there would likely be a big difference (like the gun death stats Moore presented in BfC).

Can someone post a link that breaks down homicides in America. Is Britain's crime statistics taken in a similar matter than the US? I know methods differ from country to country. It would be nice to get a fair comparison.

Guns dont kill people, rappers do...
you f**kin' knowz it clart!

Yeah, but that's true in all countries. Criminals shoot criminals more than the law-abiding shoot anyone in any country.

Then there is the fact this suggests there is more violent crime in America. Not an unbelievable statistic at all. Even if you correct for population there would likely be a big difference (like the gun death stats Moore presented in BfC).

Can someone post a link that breaks down homicides in America. Is Britain's crime statistics taken in a similar matter than the US? I know methods differ from country to country. It would be nice to get a fair comparison.

I found this....

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

And this....

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/htiuscdb.pdf

Is it "punishing people" to pass a law that stops them driving at reckless speeds and making life dangerous for everyone else? This isn't "pre-emptive punishment". It is, I'll grant you, a restriction on your liberty. But guess what? There are loads of restrictions on your liberty. Are you being "punished" because there are laws stating that you can't drop your drawers and shit in the middle of the street? Why can't you? Because it makes life needlessly unpleasant for everyone else, that's why.

Considering we are a nation based on liberty, restricting them is punishment.

Admittedly, I wouldn't drop my drawers and take a dump in the street, however, nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee that you'll never feel uncomfortable.

You're also talking about extremes. How many people actually go to those? Not many.

With the loss of their overseas markets, the USA would be in quite dire trouble economically. And it would probably lose a protracted war of attrition, like it or not...

Of course, I dont for a minute doubt that the US would blow the rest of the world away with nuclear weapons in order to ensure its survival.

What the US needs to do is pull out of other people's countries and go back to just trading with everyone. It's not our job to tell anyone else what to do. It's not right.

I'd still rather be beaten that shot

I'd rather be able to shoot the guy that's trying to attack me.

They also help you protect yourself and your family better. Stop trying to control other peoples' lives.

I'll let everyone have uninhibited access to guns as soon as I'm allowed to smoke on airplanes, movie theaters, and elevators again.

You stop controlling my life and I'll stop controlling yours. :D

Guns don't kill people: Wappers do!

(Sorry!)

is it i am who is the violent one?

i dont feel the need to keep a gun on me at all times, and definately not a fully automatic one to litterally massacre anyone and pretend they are magically preventing crime just by being there


i dont feel the need to throw around threats of insurgence if anyone suggests regulating something i like

No, you just want us all to be killed by the weapons we wish to keep. Don't make me quote that one again.

You are the one suggesting our weapons be taken away by force, and then forced to learn martial arts.

Force is the thing we're opposed to.

Force is the thing we don't want to have to use. We just want to be left alone, but for some reason, you keep dogging us because you're scared of an inanimate object. Scared of what someone MIGHT do. Not has done. That is completely irrational and paranoid.

Having a firearm is being prepared--I don't have the mindset that everyone is out to get me. I have the mindset that if I ever get into a REALLY tight spot, and the only way out is to shoot my attacker, then I definitely want the option to stay alive.

You can endanger your own life as much as you want. It's your life. However, dictating what we can or cannot do, when we haven't actually harmed anyone is unacceptable.

A group of middle-eastern men walk onto a plane concealing knives...

Its not that they hurt anyone BEFORE they highjacked the plane, so why shouldnt they be allowed to bring knives onto a plane?

dictating what we can or cannot do, when we haven't actually harmed anyone is unacceptable.

I love terrorists and think they should be able to attack us

No offense intended to anyone outside the US, but they've had longer to get used to being ruled and TOLD what is right and wrong for them, as opposed to living in a country designed to not allow the government to rule the population.

It's ingrained in the culture and history of the older nations.

Thats a good analogy! I refuse to have the Gov't tell me what is right and what is wrong for me and my family. Others might like that, but they are not free to choose their own path as they might be "wrong."

you know what i find utterly hilarious? the people in the UK insist their crime is lower than that of the US and they feel safer

No offense intended to anyone outside the US, but they've had longer to get used to being ruled and TOLD what is right and wrong for them, as opposed to living in a country designed to not allow the government to rule the population.

It's ingrained in the culture and history of the older nations.

oh yes because violent crime not resulting in death and high petty crime rates are a HORRIBLE price to pay for a lower murder rate

So, you're saying that a woman without a gun who was raped is morally superior than one with a gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

Great.

**walks in**

Guns don't kill people. Bullets ripping through a human being's body kills people :D

**walks out**

**shouts back**

But I suppose pistol whipping could work!

So, why do you continue to use your emotional imagination to make your arguments?

You are going to end up on his ignore list too.... ;)

listen, i dont know what side of the looking glass you are typing from

but on THIS side of mirror land, a gun under your jacket does not create a magic barrier around you that deflects blows, stabs, and bullets

Nope, but it definitely increases your chances of getting out alive/unhurt. Nothing ever makes an impenetrable shield. We know this.

I have the mindset that if I ever get into a REALLY tight spot, and the only way out is to shoot my attacker, then I definitely want the option to stay alive.

Terrorists got into a tight spot, why shouldnt they be allowed to own AK47s to shoot our soldiers with? Lets all send love to our taliban friends!
:gundge:

i agree, but id rather oversimplification than pure imagination

So, why do you continue to use your emotional imagination to make your arguments?

You people are totally missing the point. Guns don't kill people, high velocity bullets kill people. It is our duty to end the horrible threat to human life.
OUTLAW BULLETS

I knew I remembered you saying it--choke on this, Chess:

Post #56 on the thread entitled: Assault Weapons Ban to be Lifted by Monday


You HAVE stated your opinion about making firearms illegal. Not in this thread, no, and it took me a while to find it, but damn it, you did state it. So quit your lies and misinformation peddling--you have just been rendered unreliable as an information source, ya liar.

I love it!! This is good stuff..... ;)

2) i have NEVER even assrted that i want all weapons illegal, or even all guns illegal. and just because you are too incompetent to defend yourself is your fault. find a major commercial zone in your town, somewhere within it will be some martial arts studios, go register. and dont bullshit me about guns, if the person intended on shooting you in a manner you couldnt defend yourself with training, a gun isnt going to protect you

I knew I remembered you saying it--choke on this, Chess:

Post #56 on the thread entitled: Assault Weapons Ban to be Lifted by Monday
see thats what im talking bout, outlaw ALL FIREARMS and require everyoen to take martial arts classes and have convential weapons training with swords and stuff

You HAVE stated your opinion about making firearms illegal. Not in this thread, no, and it took me a while to find it, but damn it, you did state it. So quit your lies and misinformation peddling--you have just been rendered unreliable as an information source, ya liar.

I knew I remembered you saying it--choke on this, Chess:

Post #56 on the thread entitled: Assault Weapons Ban to be Lifted by Monday


You HAVE stated your opinion about making firearms illegal. Not in this thread, no, and it took me a while to find it, but damn it, you did state it. So quit your lies and misinformation peddling--you have just been rendered unreliable as an information source, ya liar.

Terrorists are just trying to show their own opinion. Its the American Government that is the bad guy here. Stick it to the man, Osama! :sniper:
:gundge:

:gundge:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaxon
I have the mindset that if I ever get into a REALLY tight spot, and the only way out is to shoot my attacker, then I definitely want the option to stay alive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaxon
Terrorists got into a tight spot, why shouldnt they be allowed to own AK47s to shoot our soldiers with? Lets all send love to our taliban friends!


Funny, I never made that second quote. Nice try.

You are going to end up on his ignore list too.... ;)

I think I've actually been there, but kept posting and Chess' curiosity got the best of him.

Which, actually is an admirable trait.

I have another good thing to say about my adversary, he doesn't back down from a fight.

Gun death figures from Bowling For Columbine

(Ironically from this site http://www.hardylaw.net/replytomoore.html)

U.S.: 11,127 gun deaths comes from the Center for Disease Control.

(which by the way counts ALL gun deaths, even non-criminal vs criminal. Which is what the other countries do. FBI records don't matter since they omit self defense and other 'justified' gun use)

Japan: 39 provided by the National Police Agency of Japan;
Germany: 381 gun deaths from Bundeskriminalamt (German FBI);
Canada: 165 gun deaths from Statistics Canada;
UK: 68 gun deaths, from the Centre for Crime and Justice studies in Britain;
Australia: 65 gun deaths from the Australian Institute of Criminology;
France: 255 gun deaths, from the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Country Populations:

(From http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/population/)
(I admit I don't have the populations of the countries the time the stats were taken. These are very current estimates. They should be proportionally correct and any differences should be minimal.)

US: 288275856
Japan: 127765670
Germany: 81842360
Canada: 31804157
UK: 59772319
Austrailia: 19648589
France: 60380921

Now we must do some math and find the amount of gun deaths in each country if they had the population of the US.

(US population/Country population) x Country gun deaths = Country with population of US deaths

(I'll round up the results. its not like less than one person can die. These aren't maiming statistics)

Japan: 2.256 x 39 = 88 deaths
Germany: 3.522 x 381 = 1342 deaths
Canada: 9.064 x 165 = 1496 deaths
UK: 4.822 x 68 = 328 deaths
Austrailia: 14.671 x 65 = 954 deaths
France: 4.774 x 255 = 1218 deaths

As you can see none of them measure up to the US's 11,127 gun deaths.

I hope the stats (and my math) add up. The difference does not account for any changes that might occur if increased population by itself would lead to more crime. There are likely more factors to consider but looking at these figures its hard to imagine any increases that would bring the number of deaths even close to 11,127.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaxon
I have the mindset that if I ever get into a REALLY tight spot, and the only way out is to shoot my attacker, then I definitely want the option to stay alive.

Funny, I never made that second quote. Nice try. Besides, terrorists arnt my friends, they are my smelly, bearded lovers. Pass me the lube, Osama

:gundge:

quote me seriously stating that all guns should be banned, seriously stating, not one of the "if i ruled the world" posts

you cant, because i never said it

A group of middle-eastern men walk onto a plane concealing knives...

Its not that they hurt anyone BEFORE they highjacked the plane, so why shouldnt they be allowed to bring knives onto a plane?

Then again, in that world, I'd have my pistol with me....gotta go with the global picture when ya do that.

Not judging by the statistics given here (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime) it's not. The figures given are drawn from the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, 1998-2000.

In every aspect of violent crime, the USA scores higher than the UK -- despite the fact that a greater proportion of the UK's population live in large conurbations where crime, especially violent crime, is more common.


great site. I added it to my bookmarks

Unfortunately, when you look at it per capita(vs total number), the UK exceeds the US in everything but murder and rape.

Rape should not be compared between countries because of the different reporting standards. Some report only upon conviction while others report as soon as the complaint is lodged.

A group of middle-eastern men walk onto a plane concealing knives...

Its not that they hurt anyone BEFORE they highjacked the plane, so why shouldnt they be allowed to bring knives onto a plane?

You keep doing that. I did not type that. Knock it off--otherwise I report you to the webmaster.

Then again, in that world, I'd have my pistol with me....gotta go with the global picture when ya do that. Seriously, whats the point of traveling to Afganistan without my favorite brand of "Pistol Anal Penetration" cream? Surrounded by all those sexy men, i'd definatly need something for extra lubrication abilities
:gundge:

You keep doing that. I did not type that. Knock it off--otherwise I report you to the webmaster.

Heres your main flaw:
You are attempting to fight sencelessness with the mindset of a normal person. It just doesnt work. The only language that non-sensical people understand is the same non-sensical jibberish they wage war with.

Try again

:gundge:

All guns should be banned
making utterly false quotes can be so much fun...
:gundge:

Mikallah, you will cease making up quotes from people this instant. It is blatent flamebait and if you do not stop, you will be forum banned for a period of time left to my discretion. Do I make myself clear?


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

My penis is still bigger
:gundge:

Mikallah, you will cease making up quotes from people this instant. It is blatent flamebait and if you do not stop, you will be forum banned for a period of time left to my discretion. Do I make myself clear?


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

:gundge:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaxon
I knew I remembered you saying it--choke on this, Chess:

Post #56 on the thread entitled: Assault Weapons Ban to be Lifted by Monday


You HAVE stated your opinion about making firearms illegal. Not in this thread, no, and it took me a while to find it, but damn it, you did state it. So quit your lies and misinformation peddling--you have just been rendered unreliable as an information source, ya liar.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaxon
Terrorists are just trying to show their own opinion. Its the American Government that is the bad guy here. Stick it to the man, Osama!



I never had that last part in the post. Fine, have it your way. Mods contacted.

Mikallah, you will cease making up quotes from people this instant. It is blatent flamebait and if you do not stop, you will be forum banned for a period of time left to my discretion. Do I make myself clear?


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

Wow. That was quick. Thank you.

quote me seriously stating that all guns should be banned, seriously stating, not one of the "if i ruled the world" posts

you cant, because i never said it

<sigh> if you keep changing your qualifications I'll never be able to prove anything ever.

You said it. I posted it. You lied.

There's also the fact that Isanyonehome's statistics are open to question, at the very least. There's a set of graphs here (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime) which give comparative statistics for crime in various countries areound the world. The UK has a higher overall crime rate than the USA, that's true -- but the UK also has a far greater population density, which will lead to higher crime. It's open to debate as to what the USA's crime rates would be like with a similar population density. However, if you compare crime rates in US cities to crime rates in UK cities -- places of equal population density -- things start to look really bad for the USA. For example, Denver has a population twice that of Glasgow, and comparable levels of social deprivation -- yet Denver has ten times as many murders every year.

On the charts here (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime), although the UK has a higher crime rate overall, the USA has higher rates than the UK in every form of violent crime: the per-capita murder rate is 4 times higher, the rape rate is more than twice as high, and the assault rate is slightly higher also (7.70 per 1000 people in the USA compared to 7.50 per 1000 people in the UK). This is even after the figures have been diluted by the vastly greater numbers of small-town and rural residents in the USA.

Another factor to consider is that US law allows for plea bargaining, i.e. pleading guilty to a lesser charge than the original, which will further dilute the US statistics. This doesn't happen in the UK. So by these figures, at least, it looks like you may be more likely to be burgled in the UK, but much more likely to be murdered, assaulted or raped in the USA. Despite -- or, in my opinion, because of -- the number of guns they have.

Nice argument. I have to remember that nationmaster site. *BOOKMARKED*

I would have never thought of plea bargaining. You must be a bit experienced in law, or are you just an experienced polemicist?. That would have a serious effect on figures.

Last I checked, you're the only one doing that.

When did i say others had to be doing it for it to be fun?

:gundge:

making utterly false quotes can be so much fun...
:gundge:

Last I checked, you're the only one doing that.

I havent taken the time to readd the whole thing but in case someone hasnt said it....



its not guns that kill people....its people that kill people

When did i say that others had to do it for it to be fun?

Good point.

I'm out for an indiscriminate ammount of time. To my adoring public, I bid thee adieu.

And for no apparent reason, here is a bio-terrorism smiley
:gundge:

Ah yes. From 50 RPM weapons? For what reason, other than killing lots and lots of people, do you need to be able to spray a room with bullets?

Its not the bill of needs, is the bill of rights.

Its not the bill of needs, is the bill of rights.
What about the Bill of Wants?

NO, guns dont kill people, rappers do!!! :sniper: :headbang:

Some comments and questions:

What do people consider "Millitary" weapons?

Why do some of the people on both sides insist on attacking each other?

Lets face it, furearms are a part of American culture. I own two weapons, a Millitary issued rifle from WWII that could punch through a brick wall, and a single action revolver that I enjoy shooting paper targets and tin cans with. If you do not like the idea of having a firearm I have a simple solution for you: don't buy one. Thoes who do own a firearm, you must use it responsibly or you do not deserve to have any firearm. Let Europe, England and the rest of the world dictate to their people what they can and cannot have, our country is better than that(no offense intended to any persons who are reading this from overseas, just my opnion).

Is it "punishing people" to pass a law that stops them driving at reckless speeds and making life dangerous for everyone else? This isn't "pre-emptive punishment". It is, I'll grant you, a restriction on your liberty. But guess what? There are loads of restrictions on your liberty. Are you being "punished" because there are laws stating that you can't drop your drawers and shit in the middle of the street? Why can't you? Because it makes life needlessly unpleasant for everyone else, that's why.

:headbang: firearms ownership is a constitutional right, taking a shit in the street or driving are not!

There's also the fact that Isanyonehome's statistics are open to question, at the very least. There's a set of graphs here which give comparative statistics for crime in various countries areound the world. The UK has a higher overall crime rate than the USA, that's true -- but the UK also has a far greater population density, which will lead to higher crime. It's open to debate as to what the USA's crime rates would be like with a similar population density. However, if you compare crime rates in US cities to crime rates in UK cities -- places of equal population density -- things start to look really bad for the USA. For example, Denver has a population twice that of Glasgow, and comparable levels of social deprivation -- yet Denver has ten times as many murders every year.

3 things you are missing with this part of the argument.

1) I have always said that both firearm and non firearm murders are higher in the US than the UK

2) Population density is less important than rural vs Urban settings. If density was the key, then Tokyo would be one of the highest crime zones in the world.

3) London vs. NYC: similar populations, NYC has about double the population density yet it has 1/6th the violent crime of London.



On the charts here, although the UK has a higher crime rate overall, the USA has higher rates than the UK in every form of violent crime: the per-capita murder rate is 4 times higher, the rape rate is more than twice as high, and the assault rate is slightly higher also (7.70 per 1000 people in the USA compared to 7.50 per 1000 people in the UK). This is even after the figures have been diluted by the vastly greater numbers of small-town and rural residents in the USA.


I will say it again, you cannot compare rapes between any two countries because of differances in reporting. Some places count it as a rape once it is reported to the police while others only count rape upon conviction.



Another factor to consider is that US law allows for plea bargaining, i.e. pleading guilty to a lesser charge than the original, which will further dilute the US statistics. This doesn't happen in the UK. So by these figures, at least, it looks like you may be more likely to be burgled in the UK, but much more likely to be murdered, assaulted or raped in the USA. Despite -- or, in my opinion, because of -- the number of guns they have..

The underlying statistics (fbi uniform crime report) are all based upon reports to the police, not upon what happens in the court system. Your argument about plea bargaining does not apply. Unless of course you believe the UN put its own people throught all these countries to gather information instead of going to the leading police agencies and compiling their data.

take a good long look at the international crime victimization survey. It has paints a very bad picture for the UK. make sure to look at the latest year provided.


http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/pdf_files/key2000i/app4.pdf
http://www.unicri.it/icvs/statistics/index_stats.htm

takea look here http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/ukimage.html

A wise old man once told me that is actually death that kills people.

Some comments and questions:

What do people consider "Millitary" weapons?

Why do some of the people on both sides insist on attacking each other?

Lets face it, furearms are a part of American culture. I own two weapons, a Millitary issued rifle from WWII that could punch through a brick wall, and a single action revolver that I enjoy shooting paper targets and tin cans with. If you do not like the idea of having a firearm I have a simple solution for you: don't buy one. Thoes who do own a firearm, you must use it responsibly or you do not deserve to have any firearm. Let Europe, England and the rest of the world dictate to their people what they can and cannot have, our country is better than that(no offense intended to any persons who are reading this from overseas, just my opnion).

Sorry, I pretty much go after Chess Squares due to all the name calling. Usually, I let everyone else go about their business.

You are right, responsibility has always been the name of the game.

Nothing like living in a country where you can tote around your AK-47.

Where are we again, Iran?

It seems that many seem to believe that a gun will protect you in a situation when you are confronted with someone else with a gun. Although I myself have no experience with wielding guns, I do know that they are not that easy to handle, especially at distances.

Personally, I train in Jiu Jitsu (and Judo) and we are trained in how to disarm people with guns. What I am trying to say is that having a gun does not mean that you are safer. Having a nuclear weapon as a nation does not make your nation any safer. It just makes sure that if you are attacked, you can take some people with you to hell.

It's easy to state that guns should be outlawed, but when they are completely banned, criminals can still obtain them (much like they gain drugs, how is that war on drugs doing anyway?). It's also easy to state that guns should not be banned, yet both solutions do not solve the problem.

At least, I believe that has been made very clear here by the various people standing on either side of this discussion. Thus, I believe that crime has little to do with guns, and that guns are merely a result of crime. Without crime, of course, there would be no need for guns (well, apart from a few intelectual challenged who believe Iraq was about to attack the US with ground-forces).
What am I trying to say? Crime is not solved by banning or leaving gun-laws.

Personally, I'm not even sure whether crime can be solved. What I do know is that it can be reduced by decreasing the intolerance between groups of society. Minorities are incredibly intolerant, because they constantly feel they have to defend themselves and their actions. A homosexual politician resigns and immediately gay rights activists jump up proclaiming it's bad. GTA San Andreas features a black person as 'protagonist' (while GTA3 and Vice City featured white people), and immediately black people are upset.

I can understand that many feel their rights are sometimes are being violated, but is that really a reason to scream up and do something about it? Is someone who gives you an aggressive push worth pulling a gun and blowing his brains out with your magnum? Is someone who gives you an aggressive push worth grappling him by his arm and leg and tossing him against a wall, breaking his neck?

Tolerance...

Mr U
The Artist Formerly Known As HomoUniversalis

A wise old man once told me that is actually death that kills people.
The argument is a lot of it comes from guns lol

Misterio
Nothing like living in a country where you can tote around your AK-47.

Where are we again, Iran?
No this is Iraq, heck the US disbands you(the army) and sends you come with your gun(usually AK 47's) loaded.
But seriously that was stupid...

Mikallah, consider this a friendly suggestion to stop making up quotes from posters here.

Nothing like living in a country where you can tote around your AK-47.

Where are we again, Iran?

We can tote around AK-47s? Last I checked, most places will cite you for disturbing the peace if you do that, since a few people will be scared and call the police.

Can't even do that with a pistol, even though it's actually LEGAL in Wisconsin to do so. Maybe in the northern half of the state, but definitely not in Madison or Milwaukee.

It seems that many seem to believe that a gun will protect you in a situation when you are confronted with someone else with a gun. Although I myself have no experience with wielding guns, I do know that they are not that easy to handle, especially at distances.

Personally, I train in Jiu Jitsu (and Judo) and we are trained in how to disarm people with guns. What I am trying to say is that having a gun does not mean that you are safer. Having a nuclear weapon as a nation does not make your nation any safer. It just makes sure that if you are attacked, you can take some people with you to hell.

It's easy to state that guns should be outlawed, but when they are completely banned, criminals can still obtain them (much like they gain drugs, how is that war on drugs doing anyway?). It's also easy to state that guns should not be banned, yet both solutions do not solve the problem.

At least, I believe that has been made very clear here by the various people standing on either side of this discussion. Thus, I believe that crime has little to do with guns, and that guns are merely a result of crime. Without crime, of course, there would be no need for guns (well, apart from a few intelectual challenged who believe Iraq was about to attack the US with ground-forces).
What am I trying to say? Crime is not solved by banning or leaving gun-laws.

Personally, I'm not even sure whether crime can be solved. What I do know is that it can be reduced by decreasing the intolerance between groups of society. Minorities are incredibly intolerant, because they constantly feel they have to defend themselves and their actions. A homosexual politician resigns and immediately gay rights activists jump up proclaiming it's bad. GTA San Andreas features a black person as 'protagonist' (while GTA3 and Vice City featured white people), and immediately black people are upset.

I can understand that many feel their rights are sometimes are being violated, but is that really a reason to scream up and do something about it? Is someone who gives you an aggressive push worth pulling a gun and blowing his brains out with your magnum? Is someone who gives you an aggressive push worth grappling him by his arm and leg and tossing him against a wall, breaking his neck?

Tolerance...

Mr U
The Artist Formerly Known As HomoUniversalis
thank god, some one intelligent here

see the fact guns arnt magical protection barriers, knows you can disarm some one with a gun with proper training, realises you cant ban all guns, doesnt sit around parroting NRA and republican rhetoric

you get a gold friggin star

i have never, and let me repeat, never suggested we ban all guns outside of any "when i rule the world" post, ever. i have repeatedly and emphatically pressed we keep military issue weaponry out of the hands of the general populace, hand em out to the police for free for all i care, but the general populace does not need them, if you cant do the job with a pistol you are either and idiot or already dead because you dont know when some one is going to shoot you

and let me reemphasize this

if it ever occurs that you can kill your gun wielding attacks before you are dead, they are either a bad shot and you are already seriously wounded or they didnt intend to kill you

and actually gta 3 stuck to the class gta stuff with a few people missing, the italian mafia and yakuza

(All Facts and Figures in this response were taken from "More Guns, Less Crime" a book written by a Legal Scholar by the name or John R. Lott who set out to prove that Guns caused crime, but discovered the opposite and was willing to publish his findings and change his views)

While the possibility of having to revolt against our Government is slim, the people need the ability to do that when it becomes necessary. That is why we need to be able to poses weapons that we can use to fight our military if that becomes necessary. The police can't be everywhere in our country at all times, so the best way to prevent crime is the armed citizen. Lets think about it, you are a criminal, what do you fear more when you are breaking into someone's house?:

A. The possibility that the Police are in that person's house at that moment having dinner or stopping in.

B. The possibility that the person who resides in that house owns a gun and is ready to defend themselves and/or their family.

The choice is simple, you are going to fear the citizen with the gun vs the chance of the police because the citizen with the gun is more likely to be home. Many people would respond to this by saying that allowing citizens to have guns at home causes just as many if not more accidental shootings of mistaken intruders as real criminals. The facts however are that only about 30 people a year are accidentally killed when mistaken for an intruder, as opposed to the Police who kill 330 innocent people annually.

When people think of Machine Guns, they think of them as weapons that are the choice of criminals. This is what lead to the 1986 ban which prohibits anyone from owning a Machine Gun that was made after 1986. The reality of these weapons, however, is far more shocking. From 1934 when the first Machine Gun licensing and recording procedures took place until the present, their has only been one crime committed with a legally owned Machine Gun, and that was by a Police officer, not a private citizen. Why then do we need to ban our citizens from possessing these Guns? On another point, almost all of the MGs that our military uses today or has used were designed and built by private individuals. This list includes but is not limited to the Browning M2 .50 caliber MG, the Browning 1919 .30 caliber MG, the Browning BAR MG, the M60 MG, the Stoner MG, the Thompson SMG, ect... Non MG weapons that are also on the verge of a Ban are the Barrett .50 Sniper Rifle(All 4 different ones), the M16(Was banned but the ban lifts today), the M4(Was banned but the ban lifts today), ect...

Another interesting fact, and while I am not saying that it is going to happen here, its just a good thing to keep in mind. Almost every major Genocide in recent history has been proceeded by Gun Control. Germany, Russia, Turkey, China, ect...., every single one of those was proceeded by the disarmament of the people who lived there. Lets face it, Dictators love unarmed subjects.

To the person who wrote on the crime rates of other countries vs ours, lets look at Switzerland. Every citizen of Switzerland is issued, let me repeat that, ISSUED a Machine Gun by their Government. Interestingly enough, they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world, as well as having the longest standing Democracy in the world. And on a side note, did anyone else notice that Germany did not invade Switzerland during WWII? Here's why, imagine every Citizen in a country hiding in the Hills or in Houses or what have you, shooting down at an invading Army. It is going to make it impossible to take over that country with having your Army severely decimated or completely wiped out. For a small example, look at the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, around 50-100 people managed to hold off the German Army for 2 weeks, and in the end the Germans just burned the whole Ghetto to the ground.

Criminals by definition are people who break the Law. Gun control laws aren't going to prevent them from acquiring weapons, just like Robbery laws aren't going to prevent them from robbing you. There is also no reason why a criminal would want to go through the process of buying a gun, whether it is a Handgun, Rifle, MG or other. They would have to go through a background check and pay far more than what they would if they were to acquire the same weapon on the streets. A perfect example of this is the AK-47 MG. If you were to privately purchase one of these, you would have to pay around $8000.00 as well as go through all the paper work necessary to own one. On the other hand, if you were to go to streets and buy one, it would run you around $200.00. Criminals may be stupid, but they aren't dumb enough to not understand the simple math involved here.

Also, a little History on how Gun Control in this country started. It was originally only for African Americans so they could not defend themselves or have the ablility to fight back against their lack of voting rights. This was the first instance of Gun Control and shows its racist beginings.


If you are going to respond to this, you have to read the whole thing, not just pull phrases and sentences out of context to make a BS point.

It seems that many seem to believe that a gun will protect you in a situation when you are confronted with someone else with a gun. Although I myself have no experience with wielding guns, I do know that they are not that easy to handle, especially at distances.


There's no guarantee of anything. It can just help your odds. There are situations where against a trained martial artist, a person with a firearm would have a tough time, definitely. The converse can be said as well.


Personally, I train in Jiu Jitsu (and Judo) and we are trained in how to disarm people with guns. What I am trying to say is that having a gun does not mean that you are safer. Having a nuclear weapon as a nation does not make your nation any safer. It just makes sure that if you are attacked, you can take some people with you to hell.


Like I said, doesn't guarantee anything, but can increase your chances--just like being trained in a martial art can help your chances.


It's easy to state that guns should be outlawed, but when they are completely banned, criminals can still obtain them (much like they gain drugs, how is that war on drugs doing anyway?). It's also easy to state that guns should not be banned, yet both solutions do not solve the problem.

At least, I believe that has been made very clear here by the various people standing on either side of this discussion. Thus, I believe that crime has little to do with guns, and that guns are merely a result of crime. Without crime, of course, there would be no need for guns (well, apart from a few intelectual challenged who believe Iraq was about to attack the US with ground-forces).
What am I trying to say? Crime is not solved by banning or leaving gun-laws.

Personally, I'm not even sure whether crime can be solved. What I do know is that it can be reduced by decreasing the intolerance between groups of society. Minorities are incredibly intolerant, because they constantly feel they have to defend themselves and their actions. A homosexual politician resigns and immediately gay rights activists jump up proclaiming it's bad. GTA San Andreas features a black person as 'protagonist' (while GTA3 and Vice City featured white people), and immediately black people are upset.

I can understand that many feel their rights are sometimes are being violated, but is that really a reason to scream up and do something about it?


You bet that is the time to bring it up.


Is someone who gives you an aggressive push worth pulling a gun and blowing his brains out with your magnum?


Of course not.


Is someone who gives you an aggressive push worth grappling him by his arm and leg and tossing him against a wall, breaking his neck?


Again, no.


Tolerance...


I try. Not always successful, but I do try.

if the situation EVER occurs that you can defend yourself with a gun against another person with a gun

1) you are in a gang and thus a criminal
2) you are drunk in a bar and shouldnt be anywhere near a gun
3) the other person is a horrible shot and you are already wounded
4) the person had no intentions of killing you


if you cant conceivably disarm the person going to shoot you, a gun wont protect you. now if you invent a shield pack thats another matter, get on it budding scientists

(this is due to previous babble coming out of Chess' mouth)
Kid, you ever try to shoot a moving target? It's not that easy. Again, gain your experience from real life, not movies or TV, or video games. They aren't like the real world.
no a moving target is NOT that hard to shoot, learn to aim. i can follow a target damn well and what are you people doing? running around in circles shooting each other a la the matrix?

thank god, some one intelligent here

see the fact guns arnt magical protection barriers, knows you can disarm some one with a gun with proper training, realises you cant ban all guns, doesnt sit around parroting NRA and republican rhetoric

you get a gold friggin star

i have never, and let me repeat, never suggested we ban all guns outside of any "when i rule the world" post, ever. i have repeatedly and emphatically pressed we keep military issue weaponry out of the hands of the general populace, hand em out to the police for free for all i care, but the general populace does not need them, if you cant do the job with a pistol you are either and idiot or already dead because you dont know when some one is going to shoot you

and let me reemphasize this

if it ever occurs that you can kill your gun wielding attacks before you are dead, they are either a bad shot and you are already seriously wounded or they didnt intend to kill you

and actually gta 3 stuck to the class gta stuff with a few people missing, the italian mafia and yakuza

(this is due to previous babble coming out of Chess' mouth)
Kid, you ever try to shoot a moving target? It's not that easy. Again, gain your experience from real life, not movies or TV, or video games. They aren't like the real world.

thank god, some one intelligent here

see the fact guns arnt magical protection barriers, knows you can disarm some one with a gun with proper training, realises you cant ban all guns, doesnt sit around parroting NRA and republican rhetoric

you get a gold friggin star

i have never, and let me repeat, never suggested we ban all guns outside of any "when i rule the world" post, ever. i have repeatedly and emphatically pressed we keep military issue weaponry out of the hands of the general populace, hand em out to the police for free for all i care, but the general populace does not need them, if you cant do the job with a pistol you are either and idiot or already dead because you dont know when some one is going to shoot you

and let me reemphasize this

if it ever occurs that you can kill your gun wielding attacks before you are dead, they are either a bad shot and you are already seriously wounded or they didnt intend to kill you

and actually gta 3 stuck to the class gta stuff with a few people missing, the italian mafia and yakuza

Self defense and need.... :rolleyes:

A gun can be a self defense tool... just as martial art training can be as well. If keeping a military issue weapon (whatever that means) makes someone feel safer than keeping a revolver, Im all for letting that person have it.

Im also all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Perhaps, Chess... you could give one reasonable suggestion that might accomplish this? So far, not a one has been raised, other than the complete ban of firearms. (not saying you, but you did)

How does this make sense? You would only be able to take guns away from LAWFUL Americans. Taking away the priveledge to drive on public roads is perfectably acceptable, but how is that the same thing as taking it away before he does anything wrong(as you are proposing with regards to guns).

The fact that cars have legit and very important uses other than killing, makes it okay for people to own one. Guns on the other hand are complex devices used only for killing. Possession means intent to use for its intended purpose. I need to drive so I own a car. I own a computer so I can surf the internet. If you weren't going to shoot someone someday for some reason, why own a gun? Even knives have dual uses and are far too simple and ubiquitous to outlaw if you wanted to (although some custom types can be outlawed).

Hell, if I wanted to I could drop a piano from a building and kill someone (if an anvil wasn't handy) but pianos have more reasonable uses so its not like they'll be outlawed even if there were a bunch of piano droppings across the country by kids copying Bugs Bunny. If I get in a car I'm not intending to kill someone so I'm not sent to jail if I get in an accident and do so (unless I'm drunk or doing something else in clear violation of the law - read: volation of the vehicle's proper use).

But killing someone with a gun IS proper use of a gun and lawful use is often filled with flimsy definitions. Which of course means you can kill someone for a dumb reason as long as it translates into the law. Like the case with that Japanese student that got blown away for entering a home uninvited. He was just looking for a party. He was certainly no danger to anyone. But he trespassed. BOOM.

Possessing something is intent to use. Not always for criminal purpose, mind you. However...

There is the fact stolen guns (stolen from lawful citizens) make up a tidy percentage of guns used in crimes. Guns are amongst a burglars' main target and any burglar worth his salt will only rob your house when no one is home to 'defend' it.

Then there is the ability for criminals (or potential criminals) to get guns 'legally'. Maybe not from stores (but then again they could) if they get a background check but if there were a criminal group transporting guns over the border and a border guard saw those guns they could do precious little. It's legal to have guns in the US. Large amounts of guns. Dodging laws in place to keep guns out of criminal hands in the US is easy and enforcement is hampered by their legality. One of the reasons the semi-auto ban that's all the rage lately isn't working.

Since Canada started its ban of firearms thousands of guns destined for the American and Canadian streets have been confiscated at the Candian border and never got in criminal hands.

What's the point of the right to own a gun to protect yourself from criminals from guns if the ability to own a gun is what got that gun in the criminal's hands in the first place?

Lunacy :sniper:

I like how no one in the pro Gun Control group here is able to respond to my post. :)

no a moving target is NOT that hard to shoot, learn to aim. i can follow a target damn well and what are you people doing? running around in circles shooting each other a la the matrix?
what do you want? a medal or something? since when is it a good thing that you are able to shoot a person when they move around?

stupid? yes
idiotic? yes

no a moving target is NOT that hard to shoot, learn to aim. i can follow a target damn well and what are you people doing? running around in circles shooting each other a la the matrix?

Uh huh, what have your scores been when you've done this? And who can verify them? What kind of firearm were you using? And what kind of moving targets were you shooting at?

I've been there, I've tried it. It's tough. And I can do 1-3" groups at 200-300 yards with still targets and a rifle.

I can do alright at 75 feet with a 3.5" barreled pistol (90% in the black).

Learn to aim indeed.

if the situation EVER occurs that you can defend yourself with a gun against another person with a gun

1) you are in a gang and thus a criminal
2) you are drunk in a bar and shouldnt be anywhere near a gun
3) the other person is a horrible shot and you are already wounded
4) the person had no intentions of killing you


if you cant conceivably disarm the person going to shoot you, a gun wont protect you. now if you invent a shield pack thats another matter, get on it budding scientists

So let me get this straight.. you are saying that if I ever find myself in a situation where I am using a gun to defend myself vs someone else with a gun I am in a gang, drunk, already wounded, or the person never intended to hurt me? Such logic there Chess....

I am not in a gang, so no joy there.
I havent been drunk since the 80's so no joy there.
He might be a bad shot, I might be wounded... (are you saying that once I get wounded I should give up the fight?)
If he shoots at me, shoots me, or simply points the thing at me I dont care what his intentions are. I am going to do my utmost to defend myself.

If someone shoots at me and misses, Im going to do my best to put 3 bullets into his center of mass.
If someone puts a gun to my head, Im going to do my best to not provoke him.
If someone points a gun at me from a distance (judgement call at the time) I will either do my best not to prokoke him, or do my best to put 3 bullets into his center of mass.
If someone pulls a gun out of his waistband while confronting me, Im going to do my best to put 3 bullets into his center of mass.
If someone has a knife in his hand, and begins to come toward me in a threatening manner, Im going to do my best to put 3 bullets into his center of mass.
If someone has a baseball hat in his hand, and begins to come toward me in a threatening manner, Im going to do my best to put 3 bullets into his center of mass.
If someone comes toward me with his fist raised, and there is no discernable difference in our relative abilities in hand to hand, I will attempt to subdue him using a variety of methods, not excluding at gun point.
If someone comes toward me with his fist raised, and there is discernable difference in our relative abilities ot hand to hand (he is unusually larger than I, I have previous knowledge of his combat abilities etc.), I will do my best to put 3 bullets into his center of mass.

no a moving target is NOT that hard to shoot, learn to aim. i can follow a target damn well and what are you people doing? running around in circles shooting each other a la the matrix?

From the way you said this I have to call BS on the play...
You cant hit a moving target by simply following a target. You have to lead it.
A moving target like car is one thing, relativly no changes in it's direction or velocity.
A moving target like a person trying not to get shot is another. You have to accurately predict where he going to be. This gets harder as the distance increases as the time difference between when your brain tells your finger to pull and the time the bullet get's the the intended location increases.

I found this....

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

And this....

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/htiuscdb.pdf

I don't thing crime stats by race breakdown are a good way to go. Usually its a race with a low class standing and poverty so naturaly the vultures are going to exploit them and more crime is going to be perpetrated by them.

Blame could be placed on a lot of people. Violence by blacks can be blamed on the low class/less-than-human status put upon then during colonialism and slavery. Its hard to look up when you have been staring down for so long.
Of course blacks are responsible for their own behaviour, like we all are.

There's plenty of blame to go around so its pointless to point fingers. We need solutions. Affirmative Action and bursaries for non-whites are a good way to start in order to close that class gap.

(I got a giggle when I saw the White-black black-white lines on the friend/acquaintance list. Guess people don't know many of the other race. Then again neither do I. Black-on-black and white-on-white crimes are most common. So its not like black-on black is a big deal white people atack each other more often too. Kill who you know I guess. I also noticed a reversal in black/black and white/white crimes when gangsta rap became mainstream.)

I'll bookmark the link anyway.

As for the other site...

Drug use goes up and so does crime. No surprise there. Its not like drugs are legal. Assholes run the market. Education about drugs/gangs and increased police crackdowns on violent gangs brought the murder rates down.

What I really needed though was a comparison between america and a similar foreign country where the statistics were taken with similar methods.

(All Facts and Figures in this response were taken from "More Guns, Less Crime" a book written by a Legal Scholar by the name or John R. Lott who set out to prove that Guns caused crime, but discovered the opposite and was willing to publish his findings and change his views)

While the possibility of having to revolt against our Government is slim, the people need the ability to do that when it becomes necessary. That is why we need to be able to poses weapons that we can use to fight our military if that becomes necessary. The police can't be everywhere in our country at all times, so the best way to prevent crime is the armed citizen. Lets think about it, you are a criminal, what do you fear more when you are breaking into someone's house?:

A. The possibility that the Police are in that person's house at that moment having dinner or stopping in.

B. The possibility that the person who resides in that house owns a gun and is ready to defend themselves and/or their family.

The choice is simple, you are going to fear the citizen with the gun vs the chance of the police because the citizen with the gun is more likely to be home. Many people would respond to this by saying that allowing citizens to have guns at home causes just as many if not more accidental shootings of mistaken intruders as real criminals. The facts however are that only about 30 people a year are accidentally killed when mistaken for an intruder, as opposed to the Police who kill 330 innocent people annually.

Burglars are less likely to enter homes with people with guns, true. BUT what will burglars do when people have guns in their houses? Right, they'll bring guns too. Now you have two parties in the house. One expecting some one else with a gun in the house and one who carries a gun (or has it somewhere in a drawer) but is not suspecting anyone. Who'll win? The burglar(s). What will the burglar do when the victim draws his/her gun? Shoot.

And the police, yes. They kill a lot of people by accident. But why? Because they must ASSUME that EVERY citizen has a gun (they must for their own safety). So whenever a suspect has his hand in his pocket and pulls it out, while holding something... what do you expect. Everyone could carry.

When people think of Machine Guns, they think of them as weapons that are the choice of criminals. This is what lead to the 1986 ban which prohibits anyone from owning a Machine Gun that was made after 1986. The reality of these weapons, however, is far more shocking. From 1934 when the first Machine Gun licensing and recording procedures took place until the present, their has only been one crime committed with a legally owned Machine Gun, and that was by a Police officer, not a private citizen. Why then do we need to ban our citizens from possessing these Guns? On another point, almost all of the MGs that our military uses today or has used were designed and built by private individuals. This list includes but is not limited to the Browning M2 .50 caliber MG, the Browning 1919 .30 caliber MG, the Browning BAR MG, the M60 MG, the Stoner MG, the Thompson SMG, ect... Non MG weapons that are also on the verge of a Ban are the Barrett .50 Sniper Rifle(All 4 different ones), the M16(Was banned but the ban lifts today), the M4(Was banned but the ban lifts today), ect...
Who cares what gun you own. You shouldn't!

And why, in God's name, would you want an MG? Protection coming from guns comes from the first shot. The rest is collateral damage. When that first shot is fired there are two options:
A) you hit the attacker, in which case you do not have to fire another bullet
B) you missed and the attacker will shoot you, and you will be wounded or dead


Another interesting fact, and while I am not saying that it is going to happen here, its just a good thing to keep in mind. Almost every major Genocide in recent history has been proceeded by Gun Control. Germany, Russia, Turkey, China, ect...., every single one of those was proceeded by the disarmament of the people who lived there. Lets face it, Dictators love unarmed subjects.

You see the USA as a dictatorship?

To the person who wrote on the crime rates of other countries vs ours, lets look at Switzerland. Every citizen of Switzerland is issued, let me repeat that, ISSUED a Machine Gun by their Government. Interestingly enough, they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world, as well as having the longest standing Democracy in the world. And on a side note, did anyone else notice that Germany did not invade Switzerland during WWII? Here's why, imagine every Citizen in a country hiding in the Hills or in Houses or what have you, shooting down at an invading Army. It is going to make it impossible to take over that country with having your Army severely decimated or completely wiped out. For a small example, look at the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, around 50-100 people managed to hold off the German Army for 2 weeks, and in the end the Germans just burned the whole Ghetto to the ground.
Holland was not attacked during WW I. Why? Because they declared themselves NEUTRAL, as did Switserland in WW II, which means that the shit will really hit the fan when you attack them. Plus there's no glory in conquering nations not even wanting to fight.

Criminals by definition are people who break the Law. Gun control laws aren't going to prevent them from acquiring weapons, just like Robbery laws aren't going to prevent them from robbing you. There is also no reason why a criminal would want to go through the process of buying a gun, whether it is a Handgun, Rifle, MG or other. They would have to go through a background check and pay far more than what they would if they were to acquire the same weapon on the streets. A perfect example of this is the AK-47 MG. If you were to privately purchase one of these, you would have to pay around $8000.00 as well as go through all the paper work necessary to own one. On the other hand, if you were to go to streets and buy one, it would run you around $200.00. Criminals may be stupid, but they aren't dumb enough to not understand the simple math involved here.
And why is the gun on the street so cheap? Because there's a high supply and a low demand (they can buy them anywhere). Outlaw guns (and destroy the current gun stockpile) and the supply will decrease and so raise the price of guns sold illegally. Criminals being able to do math will find more lucrative business when a gun costs $8000.00

Also, a little History on how Gun Control in this country started. It was originally only for African Americans so they could not defend themselves or have the ablility to fight back against their lack of voting rights. This was the first instance of Gun Control and shows its racist beginings.
Banning guns is not racist. No citizen no matter what colour, religion, social group or country can have a gun. Period.

BTW your last point is really bullsh*t.

''#Guns don't kill people, Wappas do!''

......sorry, couldnt resist(dont know if any americans will get that, but most brits should :p )

anyway...

If someone shoots at me and misses, Im going to do my best to put 3 bullets into his center of mass.
If someone puts a gun to my head, Im going to do my best to not provoke him.
If someone points a gun at me from a distance (judgement call at the time) I will either do my best not to prokoke him, or do my best to put 3 bullets into his center of mass.
If someone pulls a gun out of his waistband while confronting me, Im going to do my best to put 3 bullets into his center of mass.
If someone has a knife in his hand, and begins to come toward me in a threatening manner, Im going to do my best to put 3 bullets into his center of mass.
If someone has a baseball hat in his hand, and begins to come toward me in a threatening manner, Im going to do my best to put 3 bullets into his center of mass.
If someone comes toward me with his fist raised, and there is no discernable difference in our relative abilities in hand to hand, I will attempt to subdue him using a variety of methods, not excluding at gun point.
If someone comes toward me with his fist raised, and there is discernable difference in our relative abilities ot hand to hand (he is unusually larger than I, I have previous knowledge of his combat abilities etc.), I will do my best to put 3 bullets into his center of mass.

see, this is why i'm glad that the general population arn't allowed guns in my country, yes, this does put the only guns in the hands of the criminals, but it sevearly reduces the chances of anyone getting shot. a criminal pointing a gun at someone is a hell of a lot more likely to shoot if the guy pulls out a gun, whereas if its an unarmed person, unless they really want to kill him, he's less likely to get killed.

also, the general advice for any of the above list of yours happening, is to simply run away, much better chance of survivul in most situations

i think the danger of the gun laws in america shows when you look at the stats, the US has the highest murder rate in the western world definatly, and likly the rest of the world too.

i would also like to add to the other post

switzerland is NOT a democracy, i repeat, NOT a democracy, they are a confederation of small whatever they call its, not a democracy

Then again, in that world, I'd have my pistol with me....gotta go with the global picture when ya do that.

And they could have AK-47s instead of knives. You should expand the globalness of your picture.

But then again....YOU could have an AK-47....then its just a matter of keeping up with the Joneses.

What a long argument this could be...

Its not the bill of needs, is the bill of rights.

So...you have the RIGHT to spray a room with bullets? I do not think that was what was inteded with the BoR.

(looney)

heh, im english, so im not too sure about the bill of rights, but im sure i heard somewhere that the bill actully says that every american has the right to own a firearm in order to defend themselves against the british(after the war of independence), so its ok to spray a room with bullets, as long as you only hit british people

To the person who posted about gun disarms - how confident are you in being able to read the person's stance, close distance and successfully disarm the gun without the muzzle crossing any part of either your body or anything else you don't want shot?

What if the guy's using Speed Rock (gun held next to body in a one hand stance. The gun arm is as if it was held in place with a sling.)? Or a 2 handed stance? What if there's checkering on the gun, making it harder to twist? Can you show me a link to the sequence of moves you would do to disarm a pistol? A shotgun? A rifle?

I support gun ownership, not killing people, but I will kill somebody if I run out of every single other option (yes, including running) in order to defend my life.

i would also like to add to the other post

switzerland is NOT a democracy, i repeat, NOT a democracy, they are a confederation of small whatever they call its, not a democracy

'Democracy' is a vague word. Iraq was technically a democracy. If they have the rights to do as they please (within reason of fair laws) I don't care how a country was set up. It's the country's position on the well-being and freedoms of it citizens that matter. Freedom of Speech, Protest and the Press are probably the most important to a democracy so if they have that I say count them in as democratic.

And they could have AK-47s instead of knives. You should expand the globalness of your picture.

But then again....YOU could have an AK-47....then its just a matter of keeping up with the Joneses.

What a long argument this could be...
Ahhh, but if you have an AK, they'll have a nuke. I mean, if we're un-banning weapons, we might as well go all the way, Eh?

As long as they're not Americans I think there'd be no problem spraying them. British, Germans, French... they're all from... erm... that country next to the USSR (forgot the name)

[/sarcasm]

'Democracy' is a vague word. Iraq was technically a democracy. If they have the rights to do as they please (within reason of fair laws) I don't care how a country was set up. It's the country's position on the well-being and freedoms of it citizens that matter. Freedom of Speech, Protest and the Press are probably the most important to a democracy so if they have that I say count them in as democratic.
fuzzy logic is not very becoming of you

Some comments and questions:

What do people consider "Millitary" weapons?

Why do some of the people on both sides insist on attacking each other?

Lets face it, furearms are a part of American culture. I own two weapons, a Millitary issued rifle from WWII that could punch through a brick wall, and a single action revolver that I enjoy shooting paper targets and tin cans with. If you do not like the idea of having a firearm I have a simple solution for you: don't buy one. Thoes who do own a firearm, you must use it responsibly or you do not deserve to have any firearm. Let Europe, England and the rest of the world dictate to their people what they can and cannot have, our country is better than that(no offense intended to any persons who are reading this from overseas, just my opnion).

Lynching blacks was also part of american culture for some time. Just because its part of your culture doesn't make it moral or even SMART.

I like how no one in the pro Gun Control group here is able to respond to my post. :)


John lotts book was a great read.

My name is john and I love furry kitties.
Will do john

The fact that cars have legit and very important uses other than killing, makes it okay for people to own one. Guns on the other hand are complex devices used only for killing. Possession means intent to use for its intended purpose. I need to drive so I own a car. I own a computer so I can surf the internet. If you weren't going to shoot someone someday for some reason, why own a gun? Even knives have dual uses and are far too simple and ubiquitous to outlaw if you wanted to (although some custom types can be outlawed).

When used defensively, a gun is fired extremely rarely. Close to 90% of time, the gun is just displayed. A gun is used to kill someone in a miniscule percentage of the times it is used defensively(less than 3%). This is from Lotts book. Since Jersey has the book handy, maybe he can post the exact numbers. so there, you have a legitimate use that doesnt involve killing someone.




Hell, if I wanted to I could drop a piano from a building and kill someone (if an anvil wasn't handy) but pianos have more reasonable uses so its not like they'll be outlawed even if there were a bunch of piano droppings across the country by kids copying Bugs Bunny. If I get in a car I'm not intending to kill someone so I'm not sent to jail if I get in an accident and do so (unless I'm drunk or doing something else in clear violation of the law - read: volation of the vehicle's proper use).


Killing someone without justification is a violation of the proper use of a gun.


But killing someone with a gun IS proper use of a gun and lawful use is often filled with flimsy definitions. Which of course means you can kill someone for a dumb reason as long as it translates into the law. Like the case with that Japanese student that got blown away for entering a home uninvited. He was just looking for a party. He was certainly no danger to anyone. But he trespassed. BOOM.


bad things happen, but the good outweigs the bad.


There is the fact stolen guns (stolen from lawful citizens) make up a tidy percentage of guns used in crimes. Guns are amongst a burglars' main target and any burglar worth his salt will only rob your house when no one is home to 'defend' it.


a) Think of the volumn(in terms of physical space) that illegal drugs are imported into the US. If it started to make fiscal sense, smugglers would simply start importing some guns. Think of the TONS of marijuana that are smuggled in, think of how much less space(on a ship or truck) 1 ton of handguns would take compared to 1 ton of weed.

b) I suppose thats why 40% of burglaries in the UK are "HOT" meaning the residents are home while only 12% of US burglaries are "hot". Maybe its cause the crooks fear getting shot.



Then there is the ability for criminals (or potential criminals) to get guns 'legally'. Maybe not from stores (but then again they could) if they get a background check but if there were a criminal group transporting guns over the border and a border guard saw those guns they could do precious little. It's legal to have guns in the US. Large amounts of guns. Dodging laws in place to keep guns out of criminal hands in the US is easy and enforcement is hampered by their legality. One of the reasons the semi-auto ban that's all the rage lately isn't working.


how is enforcement hampered by their legality? Why is there little border guards can do if they saw people transporting guns? If it is because of fear of getting shot by the transporters, then that doesnt change whether guns are legal or not.


Since Canada started its ban of firearms thousands of guns destined for the American and Canadian streets have been confiscated at the Candian border and never got in criminal hands.


maybe that particular gun did not wind up in a criminals hands, but that doesnt mean a criminal did not get a gun.

The news always shows big drug seizures, but the street price of drugs hasnt changed much, it hasnt even kept up with inflation. What does that mean? it means that all those seizures havent impacted supply the least bit, assuming demand has stayed relatively stable if not increased.


What's the point of the right to own a gun to protect yourself from criminals from guns if the ability to own a gun is what got that gun in the criminal's hands in the first place?
:

No, what got the gun into the criminals hands was his desire to have an advantage over someone who wasnt armed AND the existance of a marketplace that can satisfy the criminals desires.

Burglars are less likely to enter homes with people with guns, true. BUT what will burglars do when people have guns in their houses? Right, they'll bring guns too. Now you have two parties in the house. One expecting some one else with a gun in the house and one who carries a gun (or has it somewhere in a drawer) but is not suspecting anyone. Who'll win? The burglar(s). What will the burglar do when the victim draws his/her gun? Shoot.

Burglers are going to carry guns or other weapons no matter what Controls are put out on them, the only people who follow laws are law abiding citizens, not Criminals. If they suspect that someone has a gun in their house, they are going to move on to someone who they think doesn't, do you want to be helpless against an intruder?


Who cares what gun you own. You shouldn't!

And why, in God's name, would you want an MG? Protection coming from guns comes from the first shot. The rest is collateral damage. When that first shot is fired there are two options:
A) you hit the attacker, in which case you do not have to fire another bullet
B) you missed and the attacker will shoot you, and you will be wounded or dead


This shows how luttle you know about guns, 1 bullet does not necessarily(and very rarely) takes down a target. There is a reason that the SWAT team is trained "2 in the Chest, 1 in the Head". If you missed with an MG, you have a chance for a couple of rapid fire up shots to try to hit him. And as I said, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect yourself from the Government, and to do that you need some firepower. Not to mention the fact that they are fun to shoot and there has never been a violent crime commited with a legaly owned one by a Citizen.

You see the USA as a dictatorship?

I don't see the US as a Dictatorship, All I was saying is that it was an interesting fact that every Major Genocide has been proceeded by mass Gun Control.

Holland was not attacked during WW I. Why? Because they declared themselves NEUTRAL, as did Switserland in WW II, which means that the shit will really hit the fan when you attack them. Plus there's no glory in conquering nations not even wanting to fight.

Belgium also declared themselves Neutral, but they were blown over by the German Army, so I don't think that was why Germany didn't attack Holand. Not to mention the Fact that Holand declared itself neutral in WWII as well and they got taken over too as well as many other neutral countries. Switzerland was right in the Middle of Europe and had a lot of money, it was a good target. And lets think about it, do you think Hitler cared if he pissed anyone off?

And why is the gun on the street so cheap? Because there's a high supply and a low demand (they can buy them anywhere). Outlaw guns (and destroy the current gun stockpile) and the supply will decrease and so raise the price of guns sold illegally. Criminals being able to do math will find more lucrative business when a gun costs $8000.00

What stockpile are you refering too, do you think people would buy guns in gun stores and stock pile them to sell for a lot less money to the Criminals? Or do you think that we know where the stock piles of illegal guns are in this country and don't do anything about it? Banning them won't raise the price because the illegal guns are still pouring into this country, just like drugs. Criminals will always have guns, the only way to even the playing field is to have one yourself.

Banning guns is not racist. No citizen no matter what colour, religion, social group or country can have a gun. Period.

BTW your last point is really bullsh*t.

My last point being the origins of Gun Control? All I was saying is that denying guns to the African Americans in our country was the beginging of it.

Belgium also declared themselves Neutral, but they were blown over by the German Army, so I don't think that was why Germany didn't attack Holand. Not to mention the Fact that Holand declared itself neutral in WWII as well and they got taken over too as well as many other neutral countries. Switzerland was right in the Middle of Europe and had a lot of money, it was a good target. And lets think about it, do you think Hitler cared if he pissed anyone off?

Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because they were the ones that were keeping all the money from seizure of Jewish businesses + property safe for Nazi Germany.

Isanyonehome I couldn't find that info, not that I looked that hard, sry lol. But I did find find some information on concealed carry states and crime rates.

Crime rate per 100,000 ppl


States that don't allow people to carry:

Violent Crime: 715.9
Murder: 11.6
Rape: 43.9
Aggravated Assault: 451.7
Robbery: 224.1

Property Crime: 4725.5
Auto Theft: 504
Burglary: 1111.3
Larceny: 3110.1


States with non discretionary rules or no permit reqs:

Violent Crime: 378.8
Murder: 5.1
Rape: 35
Aggravated Assault: 229.9
Robbery: 108.8

Property Crime: 3786.3
Auto Theft: 334.3
Burglary: 840.3
Larceny: 2611.8

The Percentage increase from States with non discretionary rules or no permit reqs to States that don't allow people to carry.

Violent Crime: +81%
Murder: +86%
Rape: +25%
Aggravated Assault: +82%
Robbery: +105%

Property Crime: +24%
Auto Theft: +60%
Burglary: +28%
Larceny: +18%

This Data was compiled from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.

I'm sorry guys but you can't argue with straight numbers and facts. :)
Oh and LeglessPirate, I want you to take special notice of the Burglary rate, down 105% in States that allow you to carry vs States that don't, interesting.

Hey Legless Pirates, you do realize that legal machine gun owners are by far the MOST gun-law abiding sector of the the gun owning public (with the possible exception of the 50 cal shooters)?

ONE murder was EVER committed with a legally owned machine gun.

ONE.

A Dayton, OH police officer (yes, a cop!) killed an informant in 1988 with a legal .380 Mac-11.

Funny how that works out, huh.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

This man is an idiot.

(All Facts and Figures in this response were taken from "More Guns, Less Crime" a book written by a Legal Scholar by the name or John R. Lott who set out to prove that Guns caused crime, but discovered the opposite and was willing to publish his findings and change his views)

While the possibility of having to revolt against our Government is slim, the people need the ability to do that when it becomes necessary. That is why we need to be able to poses weapons that we can use to fight our military if that becomes necessary. The police can't be everywhere in our country at all times, so the best way to prevent crime is the armed citizen. Lets think about it, you are a criminal, what do you fear more when you are breaking into someone's house?:

A. The possibility that the Police are in that person's house at that moment having dinner or stopping in.

B. The possibility that the person who resides in that house owns a gun and is ready to defend themselves and/or their family.

The choice is simple, you are going to fear the citizen with the gun vs the chance of the police because the citizen with the gun is more likely to be home. Many people would respond to this by saying that allowing citizens to have guns at home causes just as many if not more accidental shootings of mistaken intruders as real criminals. The facts however are that only about 30 people a year are accidentally killed when mistaken for an intruder, as opposed to the Police who kill 330 innocent people annually.


Friggin police, never one in your home when you need one and when they are around they kill 330 people.

This man must be a paranoid or an anarchist or both. The military will not rise up and start killing large amounts of American citizens. Come on.

An advocate of vigilante justice and he apparently think the police are a waste of taxpayer money. Looney.

He forgot to include accidental shootings not related to intruders. Gun cleaning, kids finding the gun, etc.

This man is a paranoid. Any burglar worth his salt is simply not going to break in when someone is home to defend it. Anyone else gets caught and the property returned. Then they get sent to jail where they learn how to be good burglars. Most have enough sense not to break and enter with a weapon because it nets you MUCH more jail time.


When people think of Machine Guns, they think of them as weapons that are the choice of criminals. This is what lead to the 1986 ban which prohibits anyone from owning a Machine Gun that was made after 1986. The reality of these weapons, however, is far more shocking. From 1934 when the first Machine Gun licensing and recording procedures took place until the present, their has only been one crime committed with a legally owned Machine Gun, and that was by a Police officer, not a private citizen. Why then do we need to ban our citizens from possessing these Guns? On another point, almost all of the MGs that our military uses today or has used were designed and built by private individuals. This list includes but is not limited to the Browning M2 .50 caliber MG, the Browning 1919 .30 caliber MG, the Browning BAR MG, the M60 MG, the Stoner MG, the Thompson SMG, ect... Non MG weapons that are also on the verge of a Ban are the Barrett .50 Sniper Rifle(All 4 different ones), the M16(Was banned but the ban lifts today), the M4(Was banned but the ban lifts today), ect...


I can tell this isn't even relevant. Lugging around a big ass gun is just too cumbersome to pull off a common crime or in keeping the weapon hidden. These ones aren't a cause of crime but they do make drive-bys easier. Ask the opinion of people who live in such neighborhoods and they'll tell you their opinion of these weapons.

Pistols are used in more crimes and are a whole hell of a lot cheaper. Too bad I don't have statistics. Little help? I am clueless to where to find statistics like these. We really need to ban handguns.


Another interesting fact, and while I am not saying that it is going to happen here, its just a good thing to keep in mind. Almost every major Genocide in recent history has been proceeded by Gun Control. Germany, Russia, Turkey, China, ect...., every single one of those was proceeded by the disarmament of the people who lived there. Lets face it, Dictators love unarmed subjects.


That is so right! Saddam kept guns away from his citizens...OH WAIT! No he didn't. These weapons were legal under Saddam. However, the US has made them illegal in Iraq....


To the person who wrote on the crime rates of other countries vs ours, lets look at Switzerland. Every citizen of Switzerland is issued, let me repeat that, ISSUED a Machine Gun by their Government. Interestingly enough, they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world, as well as having the longest standing Democracy in the world. And on a side note, did anyone else notice that Germany did not invade Switzerland during WWII? Here's why, imagine every Citizen in a country hiding in the Hills or in Houses or what have you, shooting down at an invading Army. It is going to make it impossible to take over that country with having your Army severely decimated or completely wiped out. For a small example, look at the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, around 50-100 people managed to hold off the German Army for 2 weeks, and in the end the Germans just burned the whole Ghetto to the ground.


Yes, and Canada and Mexico are just itchin to slaughter Americans. The ammassed at the borders and everything!

Switzerland also has a pacifist culture (neutral to a fault remember!) and have great social programs like most european nations. They have no use for those guns and have no urge to use them. That helps keep crime down. Unlike the USA where war is a hobby and social programs are a mess or non-existant.

The Germans also didn't invade because the Swiss were neutral and said they wouldn't interrupt Germany and in fact the Nazi's stored most of their loot in Switzerland. They were business partners. You don't invade your buddy. And the scenario mentioned about German decimation is imagined. They would have lost like the Polish below did against the Germans.

The Polish ended up losing after heavy losses like you said. The Soviets weren't too kind on them either. Guns didn't help them. They should have all fled. All those guns didn't do them a damn bit of good up against an army.

This whole paragraph is garbage BECAUSE NO ONE IS GOING TO INVADE THE FRIGGIN USA!


Criminals by definition are people who break the Law. Gun control laws aren't going to prevent them from acquiring weapons, just like Robbery laws aren't going to prevent them from robbing you. There is also no reason why a criminal would want to go through the process of buying a gun, whether it is a Handgun, Rifle, MG or other. They would have to go through a background check and pay far more than what they would if they were to acquire the same weapon on the streets. A perfect example of this is the AK-47 MG. If you were to privately purchase one of these, you would have to pay around $8000.00 as well as go through all the paper work necessary to own one. On the other hand, if you were to go to streets and buy one, it would run you around $200.00. Criminals may be stupid, but they aren't dumb enough to not understand the simple math involved here.


So why have rules against robbery then? Hell its not like they'll stop robbers. HEY! Lets not have any laws! That would set things straight!

I reiterate that this guy is an idiot.

This is why you need to make guns commonly used in crimes (or just unecessarily powerful) totally banned from entering or even being produced within the country. The Canadains did and have stopped thousands of guns destined for street crime from coming into Canada or the US.

The fact there are legal ways to get these guns will mean you can't tell a type of gun (or any individual gun) is illegal by looking at it since a law-abiding person can get that type of gun legally.

The assault weapon ban was flimsy. You could still get the guns supposed to be banned in a modified form.

As mentioned, background checks are inneffective and are only lip service to the gun control lobby and only inconvenience the law abiding in the end (but they do discourage potential murderers to a point). That's why bans are necessary not limitations because you can work around a limitation.


Also, a little History on how Gun Control in this country started. It was originally only for African Americans so they could not defend themselves or have the ablility to fight back against their lack of voting rights. This was the first instance of Gun Control and shows its racist beginnings.


True. And having these guns around today has helped the black community a WHOLE bunch.


If you are going to respond to this, you have to read the whole thing, not just pull phrases and sentences out of context to make a BS point.

Just did. Consider it defeated. This idiot wrote a book?

The fact that cars have legit and very important uses other than killing, makes it okay for people to own one. Guns on the other hand are complex devices used only for killing..... If you weren't going to shoot someone someday for some reason, why own a gun?

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
MY GOD!!!!


AHHHRG!
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Did you even consider what you just wrote?

Do you KNOW how many rounds are fired by shooters every year that don't kill anyone at all?

Do you KNOW how many firearm owners there are worldwide?

Do you KNOW how many firearms there are worldwide?

What a bloody stupid assertion! It flies ignorantly and proudly in the face of reality!

MILLIONS of people shoot to hunt or target shoot and will NEVER shoot another person in their life.

Ahhhhrg! :headbang:
Craig

I like how no one in the pro Gun Control group here is able to respond to my post. :)

I was compiling my answer. Give a man some time. :)

what do you want? a medal or something? since when is it a good thing that you are able to shoot a person when they move around?

stupid? yes
idiotic? yes

Well...its not like a burglar is going to stay still and let you shoot him. But then again if they are running away you can consider yourself safe.

If they run, let 'im go (legally your life is not threatened at this point and it would probably be considered murder). IF they stay PLUG 'IM! :)

Just did. Consider it defeated. This idiot wrote a book?

You are calling this guy an idiot? I think you might want to reconsider if only to maintain your credubility. and Jersey wasnt quoting directly from his book.

Professional Experience
-Senior research scholar, School of Law, Yale University,1999-2001
-Law and economics fellow, School of Law, University of Chicago, 1995-1999
-Visiting assistant professor, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago 1994-1995
-Visiting fellow, Cornell University Law School, 1994
-Assistant professor, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1991-1995
-Visiting assistant professor, Graduate School of Management, UCLA, 1989-1991
-Chief economist, U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1988-1989
-Visiting assistant professor, Department of Economics, Rice University, 1987-1988
-Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 1986-1987
-Visiting assistant professor, Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, 1984-1986

Education
Ph.D., economics, University of California at Los Angeles
B.A., University of California at Los Angeles

Ahhh, but if you have an AK, they'll have a nuke. I mean, if we're un-banning weapons, we might as well go all the way, Eh?

That's why I said it could be a LONG argument :p

To the person who posted about gun disarms - how confident are you in being able to read the person's stance, close distance and successfully disarm the gun without the muzzle crossing any part of either your body or anything else you don't want shot?

What if the guy's using Speed Rock (gun held next to body in a one hand stance. The gun arm is as if it was held in place with a sling.)? Or a 2 handed stance? What if there's checkering on the gun, making it harder to twist? Can you show me a link to the sequence of moves you would do to disarm a pistol? A shotgun? A rifle?

I support gun ownership, not killing people, but I will kill somebody if I run out of every single other option (yes, including running) in order to defend my life.

Disarming a gunman hand-to-hand is just as risky as trying to shoot him. He already has his gun out and could shoot you if you so much as bat an eye.

Oh and gun ownership and killing people are linked. You buy a gun in order to kill as you buy a computer to surf the internet. You can't have one without the other.

And if you don't have the option to run you are either about to be murdered or are not going to be able to reach for your weapon without being shot first.

here is an article he just wrote. Here is a link to a list of his articles
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/list.html

Published Friday, September 3, 2004, in Wall Street Journal Europe

Banning Guns In the U.K. Has Backfired

By John R. Lott, Jr.

Worried that even showing a starting pistol in a car ad might encourage gun crime in Britain, the British communications regulator has banned a Ford Motor Co. television spot because in it a woman is pictured holding such a "weapon." According to a report by Bloomberg News, the ad was said by regulators to "normalize" the use of guns and "must not be shown again."

What's next? Toy guns? Actually, the British government this year has been debating whether to ban toy guns. As a middle course, some unspecified number of imitation guns will be banned, and it will be illegal to take imitation guns into public places.

And in July a new debate erupted over whether those who own shotguns must now justify their continued ownership to the government before they will get a license.

The irony is that after gun laws are passed and crime rises, no one asks whether the original laws actually accomplished their purpose. Instead, it is automatically assumed that the only "problem" with past laws was they didn't go far enough. But now what is there left to do? Perhaps the country can follow Australia's recent lead and ban ceremonial swords.

Despite the attention that imitation weapons are getting, they account for a miniscule fraction of all violent crime (0.02%) and in recent years only about 6% of firearms offenses. But with crime so serious, Labor needs to be seen as doing something. The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

The high crime rates have so strained resources that 29% of the time in London it takes police longer than 12 minutes to arrive at the scene. No wonder police nearly always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has been committed.

As understandable as the desire to "do something" is, Britain seems to have already banned most weapons that can help commit a crime. Yet, it is hard to see how the latest proposals will accomplish anything.

• Banning guns that fire blanks and some imitation guns. Even if guns that fire blanks are converted to fire bullets, they would be lucky to fire one or two bullets and most likely pose more danger to the shooter than the victim. Rather than replace the barrel and the breach, it probably makes more sense to simply build a new gun.

• Making it very difficult to get a license for a shotgun and banning those under 18 from using shotguns also adds little. Ignoring the fact that shotguns make excellent self-defense weapons, they are so rarely used in crime, that the Home Office's report doesn't even provide a breakdown of crimes committed with shotguns.

Britain is not alone in its experience with banning guns. Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar to rates similar to Britain's after its 1996 Port Arthur gun control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 74%.

During the 1990s, just as Britain and Australia were more severely regulating guns, the U.S. was greatly liberalizing individuals' abilities to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have so-called right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check and pay a fee. Only half the states require some training, usually around three to five hours' worth. Yet crime has fallen even faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the states in the U.S. that have experienced the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in murder rates and other violent crimes.

Many things affect crime; the rise of drug-gang violence in Britain is an important part of the story, just as it has long been important in explaining the U.S.'s rates. Drug gangs also help explain one of the many reasons it is so difficult to stop the flow of guns into a country. Drug gangs can't simply call up the police when another gang encroaches on their turf, so they end up essentially setting up their own armies. And just as they can smuggle drugs into the country, they can smuggle in weapons to defend their turf.

Everyone wants to take guns away from criminals. The problem is that if the law-abiding citizens obey the law and the criminals don't, the rules create sitting ducks who cannot defend themselves. This is especially true for those who are physically weaker, women and the elderly.

Mr. Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Presss, 2000) and "The Bias Against Guns" (Regnery 2003).

fuzzy logic is not very becoming of you

My logic was fuzzy? Which part?

Oh and thanks for the complement. :)

Maybe I didn't use enough sarcasm...

I haven't read much of the thread but I have seen loads of threads about gun control and nobody seems to say anything new, I don't claim to be any different. I did just want to say that I find it interesting how the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people" could be generalised to make an argument whereby we should allow countries like Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Try "nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people".
Lets let Iran get the bomb - I'm sure everyone will be much safer and the crime rate is sure to drop.

I 1st want to reply to this:

I haven't read much of the thread but I have seen loads of threads about gun control and nobody seems to say anything new, I don't claim to be any different. I did just want to say that I find it interesting how the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people" could be generalised to make an argument whereby we should allow countries like Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Try "nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people".
Lets let Iran get the bomb - I'm sure everyone will be much safer and the crime rate is sure to drop.

Do you have any idea what the Quote "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" means? It means its not the gun that kills, it is the type of person who kills. So allowing unstable and potentially agressive countries and governments to have nuclear weapons would be like locking a 10 time rapist in a room with a naked woman and telling him not to do anything to her. The odds are that he will rape her just like the odds are that an unstable/agressive country will use their Nuclear Weapons.

And to Upitatanium, I expect some cited facts if you are to reply to me(ones from respected sources like the FBI too), not just petty insults. And as I said before, I don't believe our country needs a revolution, but I do believe we need the ability too when our country begins to become corrupt and/or opressive like almost every other Nation in History. Its like the boy scout Motto, "Be prepared". And don't insult facts from a man who is far more acomplished than you and has real sources to his info, not just petty insults and baseless acuesations.

I 1st want to reply to this:



Do you have any idea what the Quote "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" means? It means its not the gun that kills, it is the type of person who kills. So allowing unstable and potentially agressive countries and governments to have nuclear weapons would be like locking a 10 time rapist in a room with a naked woman and telling him not to do anything to her. The odds are that he will rape her just like the odds are that an unstable/agressive country will use their Nuclear Weapons.

And to Upitatanium, I expect some cited facts if you are to reply to me(ones from respected sources like the FBI too), not just petty insults. And as I said before, I don't believe our country needs a revolution, but I do believe we need the ability too when our country begins to become corrupt and/or opressive like almost every other Nation in History. Its like the boy scout Motto, "Be prepared". And don't insult facts from a man who is far more acomplished than you and has real sources to his info, not just petty insults and baseless acuesations.


So the difference between allowing unstable aggressive countries to have nuclear weapons and allowing unstable aggressive people to have access to firearms is...

And as for the "we need guns so we can be ready for the day of the revolution" stuff - is that not condoning terrorism? Nobody ever uses that word when talking about "the power of the people" but I do wonder what the difference would be between U.S. citizens joining organisation who decide to overthrow the government, and Saudi Arabians joining groups intent on overthrowing the Al-Saud regime, such as Al-Qaeda.

I guess it's just one of lifes gorgeous little contradictions.

When used defensively, a gun is fired extremely rarely. Close to 90% of time, the gun is just displayed. A gun is used to kill someone in a miniscule percentage of the times it is used defensively(less than 3%). This is from Lotts book. Since Jersey has the book handy, maybe he can post the exact numbers. so there, you have a legitimate use that doesnt involve killing someone.

Hey, displaying is good. Show the gun, they back down. However, we are talking about actual deaths.

Besides, I bet the criminal uses a gun for intimidation as much as a normal person would. I think the two should cancel each other out.


Killing someone without justification is a violation of the proper use of a gun.


Yup. Too bad criminals don't give a crap of what the NRA says (or society at large for that matter). We are talking about criminals here. They are doing it on purpose. Remember, without criminals there would be no point to defending yourself with a gun. Their existance must be taken not only in account but as the raison d'etre for the current gun ownership movement.

( Pardon my French ;) )

And amongst the law-abiding, justification tends to differ. As long as the person feels endangered he may very well be in the right (or at least feel that way) to shoot someone. Even if he's found to be guilty of murder and it was unjustified it doesn't change the fact that someone is now dead.

And don't get me started on accidental shootings. In that case innocent people die and no one goes to prison.


bad things happen, but the good outweigs the bad.


Then you must agree that if we have heavy-handed gun bans you might be inconvenienced (bad) but many will live (good). The good outweighs any bad. More innocent people live this way. It was rather audacious of you to say the occasional kid dying was a noble sacrifice. I don't think families of gun victims feel that way.


a) Think of the volumn(in terms of physical space) that illegal drugs are imported into the US. If it started to make fiscal sense, smugglers would simply start importing some guns. Think of the TONS of marijuana that are smuggled in, think of how much less space(on a ship or truck) 1 ton of handguns would take compared to 1 ton of weed.


True. But the higher money cost for criminals would result in a significant decrease of their presence on the street. Gun smugglers would make the same profit with less merchandise which means less guns will be on the street. Its a lower cost to the smugglers because smaller loads have a smaller chance of being seized and higher profits due to rarity. Good to be a smuggler under those conditions. I don't know why I mentioned that :D

Joe blow criminal would have no access to them since only the big time drug monkeys could afford them. Ban them outright I say (save the sensible hunting ones).

I also suggest a government-supported 'Toys for Guns' program to get them off the street faster, or that $100 per gun thing that was also going on (same thing as the TfG?).


b) I suppose thats why 40% of burglaries in the UK are "HOT" meaning the residents are home while only 12% of US burglaries are "hot". Maybe its cause the crooks fear getting shot.


Maybe, but you forget that less people get shot in Britain, too. Small price to pay for an unwelcome visitor. Still, the majority do it when no one is home.


how is enforcement hampered by their legality? Why is there little border guards can do if they saw people transporting guns? If it is because of fear of getting shot by the transporters, then that doesnt change whether guns are legal or not.


Legality hampers enforcement because you can't stop guns from entering the country and you don't know if someone is carrying an illegal weapon by looks alone (whether in a shipment or owned by a person). Without laws on banned guns, a shipment of legal gun models coming in is no alarming matter so no one questions where they are destined to go. Guards wouldn't do anything because if the guns are coming in through legal means, what right would they have to stop them or even bat an eye. As long as a private citizen claims them its all good.


maybe that particular gun did not wind up in a criminals hands, but that doesnt mean a criminal did not get a gun.


Because its so easy to get one when they are legal to possess and cheap to buy on the street. With no iron clad laws halting their availability any seisures will have little affect on availability and pricing.


The news always shows big drug seizures, but the street price of drugs hasnt changed much, it hasnt even kept up with inflation. What does that mean? it means that all those seizures havent impacted supply the least bit, assuming demand has stayed relatively stable if not increased.


Availability again. Drugs aren't rare or hard to make. As long as there is plenty to go around prices won't rise (although they can be quite expensive. They are illegal after all). But guns are also costlier to manufacture and smuggle than drugs.


No, what got the gun into the criminals hands was his desire to have an advantage over someone who wasnt armed AND the existance of a marketplace that can satisfy the criminals desires.

I forgot what I said here (although I don't remember what I said much in the above areas either) to get this response :p (I'll fudge a good answer)

A desire cannot be fulfilled if its too difficult to achieve. Existance of a market does not mean I can have something. I don't have a custom Civic in my driveway because I can't afford it. But if I had a Civic and the money I could use that market and get it customized all I want.

Its impossible for a criminal to tell if someone has a gun or not but he mugs someone anyway. The thought of do they/don't they in regards to firearm possession of a target doesn't stop them because they have the upper hand right away. Element of surprise and all that. If they feel so inclined he may even shoot a target if he looks like he's reaching for a gun.

Now I have to relog back in to post this long ass answer :p

To Genia:

Yeah, except we don't knowing and legally allow dangerous people to own Firearms(ie Criminals)

And during the Revolutionary war you didn't see Americans killing innocent people and bombing towers, they fought against the Army. I have no words to express my disbelief and anger that you would even consider comparing our founding fathers to Al-Queda and Bin Laden, shame on you.

And they could have AK-47s instead of knives. You should expand the globalness of your picture.

But then again....YOU could have an AK-47....then its just a matter of keeping up with the Joneses.

What a long argument this could be...

They could--not as easy to wield, however.

Yup.


Do you KNOW how many rounds are fired by shooters every year that don't kill anyone at all?


Who the Hell counts the ones that don't kill anyone?


Do you KNOW how many firearm owners there are worldwide?


Umm...whole bunch? That was rhetorical, right?


Do you KNOW how many firearms there are worldwide?


Likely many times more than there are gun owners.


What a bloody stupid assertion! It flies ignorantly and proudly in the face of reality!


Nahhhh...


MILLIONS of people shoot to hunt or target shoot and will NEVER shoot another person in their life.


Good for them. You forgot the ones who just let the gun rot in a storage cupboard somehere. But what about the gun owners that own guns and will be willing to kill people with them? You know...the ones who buy them for PROTECTION like I was pointing out with that statement. Buy one for protection and you better be prepared to kill someone with it someday or else it was a waste of money. Some criminals won't be scared by them, they may have grown up with them and in most cases may have theirs out first, giving them the upper hand and they will shoot you if you so much as reach for yours.

(Of course I can also go further with criminal owners using a gun for protection and/or crimes but I don't think I was pointing to them with that statement).

I'm sorry if I forgot to mention the hunters and sportsmen and how most of them wouldn't kill another person. I thought that would be too obvious to need pointing out. I'm concerned with deaths.


Craig[/QUOTE]

Hi, Craig! Sorry. I removed the excessive headbangs.

Yeah, except we don't knowing and legally allow dangerous people to own Firearms(ie Criminals)

And during the Revolutionary war you didn't see Americans killing innocent people and bombing towers, they fought against the Army. I have no words to express my disbelief and anger that you would even consider comparing our founding fathers to Al-Queda and Bin Laden, shame on you.

Do you have to actually shoot someone before you become one of these all elusive "criminals"? I guess it's okay for everyone else to have a gun because they're one of the good guys - they could never do anything stupid or lose their temper for half a second, because with a gun that's all it would take. People who put people into two camps "criminals" and "law abiding citizens" really need to be a little more reflective because life is never that simple and nor are people.

We live in a different age to the one 250 years ago, comparing modern "terrorism" to its ancestoral equivalent is hardly appropriate. Which is why I did not compare Al-Qaeda to the founding fathers, just as it would be inappropriate to compare Al-Qaeda to the army led by Muhammad which captured Mecca in the name of Allah and Islam.

I wonder why anyone hasn't posted against my post of the Findings of the FBI, maybe because it proves that more guns equal less crime. As I said before, I am waiting for facts, not just things you believe to be true, but actual data, I am waiting....

Do you have to actually shoot someone before you become one of these all elusive "criminals"? I guess it's okay for everyone else to have a gun because they're one of the good guys - they could never do anything stupid or lose their temper for half a second, because with a gun that's all it would take. People who put people into two camps "criminals" and "law abiding citizens" really need to be a little more reflective because life is never that simple and nor are people.

Look at the Statistics I posted earlier that come from the FBI, you will see if you are open minded at all that you are wrong. I am sorry, but Gun Control does not work now, and their is no reason why it will work if we have more of it. The facts show the opposite, just accept that you are wrong, and move on to a different issue.

We live in a different age to the one 250 years ago, comparing modern "terrorism" to its ancestoral equivalent is hardly appropriate.

YOU were the one comparing the 2, thats what set me off!

Do you have to actually shoot someone before you become one of these all elusive "criminals"? I guess it's okay for everyone else to have a gun because they're one of the good guys - they could never do anything stupid or lose their temper for half a second, because with a gun that's all it would take. People who put people into two camps "criminals" and "law abiding citizens" really need to be a little more reflective because life is never that simple and nor are people.

We live in a different age to the one 250 years ago, comparing modern "terrorism" to its ancestoral equivalent is hardly appropriate.

Dude seriously?
When you lose your temper, and 'do something stupid' or "lose your temper" and in that act it breaks a law. I have news for you, you are no longer a law abiding citizen but you become a criminal. Breaking laws are not feeling based lol. If you go shoot someone because you "lose your temper" in a road rage incident. I guess that guy was just having a bad day. Damn could of fooled me.

Its called being responsible for your own actions at every and any cost. You break the law then the law has a right to break you.

You are calling this guy an idiot? I think you might want to reconsider if only to maintain your credubility. and Jersey wasnt quoting directly from his book.


Thank God because that excerpt looked like it was written by an amateur.


Professional Experience
-Senior research scholar, School of Law, Yale University,1999-2001
-Law and economics fellow, School of Law, University of Chicago, 1995-1999
-Visiting assistant professor, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago 1994-1995
-Visiting fellow, Cornell University Law School, 1994
-Assistant professor, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1991-1995
-Visiting assistant professor, Graduate School of Management, UCLA, 1989-1991
-Chief economist, U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1988-1989
-Visiting assistant professor, Department of Economics, Rice University, 1987-1988
-Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 1986-1987
-Visiting assistant professor, Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, 1984-1986

Education
Ph.D., economics, University of California at Los Angeles
B.A., University of California at Los Angeles

Yup, nice credentials. Doesn't mean he's right though, but it will make him worth a listen. Too bad I have a bad track record with reading books. My procrastination is a curse.

Still, the points Jersey brought out were lousy. I'm pretty sure someone could write a book saying how not being armed makes a safe society and bring up a whole bunch of examples to prove it. I know its what the guy set out to do but from what I've seen Jersey post he seems to be an anarchist or suffering from paranoia and has a bias (or is that just Jersey :p ). It may very well depend on the country, culture and timing on whether or not having all those weapons around is a good idea.

My opinion stands. Guns, for America at least, is a bad idea.

I wonder why anyone hasn't posted against my post of the Findings of the FBI, maybe because it proves that more guns equal less crime. As I said before, I am waiting for facts, not just things you believe to be true, but actual data, I am waiting....


Perhaps it's because the data you offered was purely correlative - there could be any number of reasons why the crime rate is lower, perhaps the areas you mentioned have more tightly knit communities and so crime is lower for that reason, it could be that they are deeply moral and religious people and so it could be that reason. The town I live in has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, it also rains a lot but then again I'm not going to argue that more rain = more teenage pregnancies.

There are many pieces of research that provide information that guns lower the crime rate just as there are many pieces of research that prove the opposite. I'm not going to run off, find some survey and then shout "ah-hah" because then I'm sure that you could just go off and do the same thing.

Either way this debate will just go round and round.

No, guns do not kill people. People kill people. Anything we do, works against us, eventually killing others. To put it bluntly, we are destroying ourselves, and are not even aware that we are doing so. War does not help, it only hinders. Stop war, you stop hate, though nothing's perfect, we can get pretty close to it. Once again, guns to not kill people, people do.

Dude seriously?
When you lose your temper, and 'do something stupid' or "lose your temper" and in that act it breaks a law. I have news for you, you are no longer a law abiding citizen but you become a criminal. Breaking laws are not feeling based lol. If you go shoot someone because you "lose your temper" in a road rage incident. I guess that guy was just having a bad day. Damn could of fooled me.

Its called being responsible for your own actions at every and any cost. You break the law then the law has a right to break you.


Yesterday when I was walking home I cut across the grounds of a school, it was after dark and technically I would have been trespassing - shit I guess that makes me a criminal, better not give me a gun - I might go out and shoot somebody.

Breaking laws are not feeling based??? Pleased, how many crimes do you think are caused by jealous husbands, pissed off wives, angry drivers, lonely old men who hate the world, the list goes on. I'm not condoning this and you are right to say that people must be responsible for their actions but you can't just categorise people in terms of "criminals" and "non-criminals". People are far too complex as are the reasons for their actions - you can't split them so bluntly. A man might go out and kill somebody for raping his daughter, another man might go out and do it to steal their wallet. Are these people the same beause they have committed the same crime?

I wonder why anyone hasn't posted against my post of the Findings of the FBI, maybe because it proves that more guns equal less crime. As I said before, I am waiting for facts, not just things you believe to be true, but actual data, I am waiting....

Calm down Jersey. It's 10pm here and I'm not at all good with statistics. Besides its not like people can pull a good rebuttal out of their arses. Give them some time.

guns may not kill people, but they make it easy for people, even little children to kill adults.

No, guns do not kill people. People kill people. Anything we do, works against us, eventually killing others. To put it bluntly, we are destroying ourselves, and are not even aware that we are doing so. War does not help, it only hinders. Stop war, you stop hate, though nothing's perfect, we can get pretty close to it. Once again, guns to not kill people, people do.

It would be nice if we could have guns just laying around with no humans existing to use them for bad things.

It would be nice if we could get rid of all the people who kill people.

The "people kill people" line is illogical. Neither of the above two scenarios can exist. If you put guns and humans together someone is gonna die eventually. People will inevitably use guns to kill. Guns do not have a will of their own as the NRA may like to believe. They do not have a choice to be used. People will invariably use guns to kill people, period.

Your just pointing out a bunch of impossibilities and probabilities.

i dont think people should be free to have guns, we arent free anyway. theres laws.

Despite the attention that imitation weapons are getting, they account for a miniscule fraction of all violent crime (0.02%) and in recent years only about 6% of firearms offenses. But with crime so serious, Labor needs to be seen as doing something. The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

The high crime rates have so strained resources that 29% of the time in London it takes police longer than 12 minutes to arrive at the scene. No wonder police nearly always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has been committed.

Ahhh Statistics. Isn't it wonderful how they can be used to support arguments on both sides.
Now the statistic about 'murders up by 54%' since 1996. Extremely troubling that isn't it?
However.....
If you were to go to the Home office website to actually bother checking these stats we would find that:
• There were 1,045 deaths initially recorded as homicides in England and Wales based oncases recorded by the police in 2002/03. This includes 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman all of which relate to offences committed in previous years. The total is an increase of 21 per cent on 2001/02 (or 1% excluding the Shipman cases).
• The most common method of killing at 27 per cent (33% excluding Shipman) involved a sharp instrument. Firearms were used in eight per cent of homicides.
• Thirty-seven per cent (40% excluding Shipman) of male victims and 45 per cent (66% excluding Shipman) of female victims knew the main suspect.
• Overall the risk of being a victim of homicide was 19 per million population. Children under one year old were most at risk at 58 per million population.

So in actual fact, homicide has not significantly risen over the last few years. All that's happened is that they're caught some very evil serial Killers that artificially raised the homicide rates. Check the above stats - ignoring Shipman's 172, there were only 873 homicides in the UK last year. that's out of a population of 70 million (1/4 of the states population)

Another issue you might want to know about:
"The Home Office counting rules were revised in 1998, partly in an attempt to measure one crime per victim in more cases (and more closely equate BCS results with recorded crime). Clearly this will increase recorded crime levels, and the net effect has provisionally been estimated by police forces to be an increase of around 20% in recorded crime from next year."
(from the research paper on Homicide statistics, www.parliament.uk/commons/ lib/research/rp99/rp99-056.pdf )
And here's another quote:
"Over the past twenty years, the average annual increase in the homicide rate has been 2.1% a year, whereas for all serious offences of violence against the person the average increase has been 7.2% a year."

Now any increase is bad, but this is hardly horrific is it? A 2.1% per year increase over 20 years.

Firearm use
While the most common method of killing in 1997 was with a sharp instrument (just under a third of offences), nine per cent of the 650 homicide victims currently recorded for England and Wales in 1997 were shot.

"During the 1990s, the use of firearms as a percentage of all offences peaked in 1993 – and firearm use has decreased markedly since then, particularly so for robbery and attempted murder."

Wow, because 9% of homicides were from guns, we'd better let everyone carry one! What a great idea! :rolleyes:

One final stat, cause I have to go to work:
Homicide rates per 100,000 population, by countryCountries ranked by homicide rate in 1997
1976 1997
Norway 0.7 0.9
Japan 1.3 1.0
Eire 0.3 1.1
Switzerland n/a 1.2
Portugal n/a 1.3
England & Wales 1.1 1.4
Belgium 0.9 1.4
Germany 1.3 1.4
France 0.9 1.6
Italy 1.4 1.6
Denmark 0.7 1.7
Scotland 2.0 1.7
Netherlands 0.8 1.8
Sweden 0.9 1.8
Austria 2.0 1.8
Canada 2.4 1.9
Greece 0.7 1.9
Australia 2.0 1.9
Poland n/a 2.1
New Zealand 1.1 2.4
Northern Ireland 18.4 2.5
Spain n/a 2.6
Finland 3.3 2.8
Czech Republic n/a 2.8
Hungary n/a 2.8
USA 9.1 7.3
Russia n/a 19.9
South Africa n/a 58.9

Perhaps it's because the data you offered was purely correlative - there could be any number of reasons why the crime rate is lower, perhaps the areas you mentioned have more tightly knit communities and so crime is lower for that reason, it could be that they are deeply moral and religious people and so it could be that reason. The town I live in has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, it also rains a lot but then again I'm not going to argue that more rain = more teenage pregnancies.

There are many pieces of research that provide information that guns lower the crime rate just as there are many pieces of research that prove the opposite. I'm not going to run off, find some survey and then shout "ah-hah" because then I'm sure that you could just go off and do the same thing.

It wasnt "the areas you mentioned have more tightly knit communities and so crime is lower for that reason" The information I was giving was the Average Crime of States with the ability of its people to carry vs ones that don't, These are not findings that picked from low crime areas vs high crime ones, this is the average of these states. The Data also came from the FBI. STOP giving me speculations of what you think might be facts, or insults, give me some real info from real sources to back up your arguements. And I am tired of being called an Anarchist, nothing could be farther from the truth, I believe in our Constitution and our Nation, and that is why I feel as if it is my obligation to serve in our military(yes an organized institution, not many anarchists would survive in that) and I plan on doing so. And you say I have bias?!? Dude, look at yourself Upitatanium, I am quoting direct facts and figures from the Government, and you are making suggestions and speculations with no information to back them up. That is the definition of Bias, A leaning of the mind; propensity or prepossession toward an object or view, not leaving the mind open to the facts.

Ah yes. From 50 RPM weapons? For what reason, other than killing lots and lots of people, do you need to be able to spray a room with bullets?

Um, cool decorations?

seriously though, what are guns used for? killing. be it human or animal. get rid of guns

Yesterday when I was walking home I cut across the grounds of a school, it was after dark and technically I would have been trespassing - shit I guess that makes me a criminal, better not give me a gun - I might go out and shoot somebody.

This statement is a little muddled I think.

Its not you with the gun I'd be worried about. Its the guy whose property you're walking on I'd worry about. Doing one innocent non-violent criminal act doesn't earn someone a bullet in the head.


Breaking laws are not feeling based??? Pleased, how many crimes do you think are caused by jealous husbands, pissed off wives, angry drivers, lonely old men who hate the world, the list goes on. I'm not condoning this and you are right to say that people must be responsible for their actions but you can't just categorise people in terms of "criminals" and "non-criminals". People are far too complex as are the reasons for their actions - you can't split them so bluntly. A man might go out and kill somebody for raping his daughter, another man might go out and do it to steal their wallet. Are these people the same beause they have committed the same crime?

And of course this opens up the slippery slope of vigilante justice and what people think 'justification' is.

If someone couldn't get justice against a man who he knows for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN raped his daughter then I could imagine killing him to be okay, just not in the eyes of the law. Morally? Grey area. Sometimes justice is unfair.

If he just went out and shot him without contacting the police then I might want to ding him for being a criminal. No one is above the law. Elsewise we have anarchy.

Its similar to the "is it illegal to steal bread to feed you starving family" question.

Thank God because that excerpt looked like it was written by an amateur.



Yup, nice credentials. Doesn't mean he's right though, but it will make him worth a listen. Too bad I have a bad track record with reading books. My procrastination is a curse.

Just check out some of his op eds here. There are very quick reads.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/list.html


Still, the points Jersey brought out were lousy. I'm pretty sure someone could write a book saying how not being armed makes a safe society and bring up a whole bunch of examples to prove it. I know its what the guy set out to do but from what I've seen Jersey post he seems to be an anarchist or suffering from paranoia and has a bias (or is that just Jersey :p ). It may very well depend on the country, culture and timing on whether or not having all those weapons around is a good idea.

He actually started out with a pro gun control viewpoint(or at least he claims to have).

If you read through his book and looked at his methodology you wouldnt be saying this. He didnt just look at counties that supported his conclusions, he looked at data from all of them I think.

Also, the people who have written about dangerous guns are have been debunked(kellerman of the 43 to 1 more likely to hurt a family member fame) during the peer review process, whil J Lott has not.[/quote]


My opinion stands. Guns, for America at least, is a bad idea.

everyone is entitled to one, even if it runs counter to the available information

Well, collectors always find guns attractive, as I do.

Also, I, along with a large population of the United States, are hunters. We use rifles. As with deer hunting, I prefer venison to beef (and venison is a TON better for you), and I like to use rifles. Also, hunting limits the population of animals. This population control is necessary for the Deer species survival. There is a bag limit for a reason.


Also, rifles are cool. I enjoy shooting them for sport, hunting, and compititions.

They're just fun, I don't know how else to describe it. And they look cool, too. Especially the FNP90 and the Steyr AUG. Futuristic looking things. Great collecters items.

I'm also, along with THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION, am intelligent enough to know that I'm not supposed to shoot people, and won't shoot people.

Not that you care -- all opinions other than your own are null and void, as you are God, as far as you care. Frankly, if Hillary Clinton gets elected and tries to take away my guns and turn the USA into the Unites Soviet States of America (which she WILL try to do, via implementiong dictatorial communism, and removing our guns so we can't fight back), she will get a couple bullets in her head. They will not be from me, but I can guarentee they will be there.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed -- second amendment of the constitution

I guess that you just want to toss this part out, don't you? Same with the freedom of religion part, and freedom of press.....

I'm rambling, sorry.

It wasnt "the areas you mentioned have more tightly knit communities and so crime is lower for that reason" The information I was giving was the Average Crime of States with the ability of its people to carry vs ones that don't, These are not findings that picked from low crime areas vs high crime ones, this is the average of these states. The Data also came from the FBI. STOP giving me speculations of what you think might be facts, or insults, give me some real info from real sources to back up your arguements. And I am tired of being called an Anarchist, nothing could be farther from the truth, I believe in our Constitution and our Nation, and that is why I feel as if it is my obligation to serve in our military(yes an organized institution, not many anarchists would survive in that) and I plan on doing so. And you say I have bias?!? Dude, look at yourself Upitatanium, I am quoting direct facts and figures from the Government, and you are making suggestions and speculations with no information to back them up. That is the definition of Bias, A leaning of the mind; propensity or prepossession toward an object or view, not leaving the mind open to the facts.
i have already seen the crimes by state, i looked it up to when some one attempted to confront me with NRA fuzzy logic.

more guns does NOT equal safer; HOWEVER, it does NOT equal more dangerous EITHER

it is a RANDOM chance

new york, where im told has strict gun laws, has less gun related crimes than a state with laxer gun laws, and vice versa. ITS STATE BY STATE RANDOM STATISTIC, you can NOT use it in argument for you, for EITHER position

Just check out some of his op eds here. There are very quick reads.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/list.html



He actually started out with a pro gun control viewpoint(or at least he claims to have).

If you read through his book and looked at his methodology you wouldnt be saying this. He didnt just look at counties that supported his conclusions, he looked at data from all of them I think.

Also, the people who have written about dangerous guns are have been debunked(kellerman of the 43 to 1 more likely to hurt a family member fame) during the peer review process, whil J Lott has not.



everyone is entitled to one, even if it runs counter to the available information[/QUOTE]

can you people at least pretend you can think for yourself instead of parroting people that hold your position

have you actually ever looked at a nonpartisan straight facts chart, and looked at it past the one example that agree with you?

This statement is a little muddled I think.

Its not you with the gun I'd be worried about. Its the guy whose property you're walking on I'd worry about. Doing one innocent non-violent criminal act doesn't earn someone a bullet in the head.



And of course this opens up the slippery slope of vigilante justice and what people think 'justification' is.

If someone couldn't get justice against a man who he knows for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN raped his daughter then I could imagine killing him to be okay, just not in the eyes of the law. Morally? Grey area. Sometimes justice is unfair.

If he just went out and shot him without contacting the police then I might want to ding him for being a criminal. No one is above the law. Elsewise we have anarchy.

Its similar to the "is it illegal to steal bread to feed you starving family" question.


I think you got the wrong end of the stick, that last post was not an argument for or against guns or an attempt to justify crime under some circumstances, just against the idea that you can categorise people in terms of "criminals" and "non-criminals" or that all criminals are the same.

Not that you care -- all opinions other than your own are null and void, as you are God, as far as you care. Frankly, if Hillary Clinton gets elected and tries to take away my guns and turn the USA into the Unites Soviet States of America (which she WILL try to do, via implementiong dictatorial communism, and removing our guns so we can't fight back), she will get a couple bullets in her head. They will not be from me, but I can guarentee they will be there.
and us supposed evil liberal pinko anti-gun people commies are the fucking irrational dangerous ones? you just in one fucknig paragraph threatened the life of a senator, used your republican psychicness about at least 4 years in the future, and parroted republican assumptions about communism
and to boot, you ignore the fact the main party removing REAL rights of the people is the republican party, can you say gay people shouldnt marry, people cant have abortion, of course the beauracracy of america has the right to tell a woman what she cant do with herself and what homosexuals can or cant do with themselves. and the republicans are also the ones requiring LOYALTY oaths to attend PUBLIC speeches, well theres freedom of speech, look at the patriot act and patriot act 2, easily the most potentially dangerous documents in the country, description of terrorism is ambiguous and can be easily abused in times of fear, can you say mccarthyism? and guess whos pet it is? the hardcore right wing


pull your head out of your ass long enough to realise the right wing promise you gun nuts the ability to own whatever the fuck you want so you are distracted enough to not realise any guns you have wont stop the military of the united states and so you wont realise they are sapping away actually IMPORTANT rights

Dude, look at yourself Upitatanium, I am quoting direct facts and figures from the Government, and you are making suggestions and speculations with no information to back them up. That is the definition of Bias, A leaning of the mind; propensity or prepossession toward an object or view, not leaving the mind open to the facts.

Wow I didn't even make that message and there's my name.

And just so you know I was joking. Thats why I added the :p

Please calm down.

To come up with a decent answer I'd have to know a lot about how the stats were taken and other such details I have no interest in learning about because they are a pain and are only useful to statisticians who can interpret these things better than I. As they say, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. I try and keep my use of them to a minimum.

I am not a statistician so I shouldn't be analysing statistics. I'd just fuck it up. I prefer analysing human behaviour which I have some experience in. Its much more predictable and its more fun to see how variables can change behaviour and result in different outcomes...but I'm just rambling now...

And please don't just post something that complicated and expect an answer right away. Have some respect for the other debaters. We aren't supermen. And some of us are tired and cranky supermen.

Can someone help him with these stats? And can you post a link Jersey to where you got those stats. It would be helpful. (it wasn't a link to begin with was it? :confused: )

can you people at least pretend you can think for yourself instead of parroting people that hold your position

have you actually ever looked at a nonpartisan straight facts chart, and looked at it past the one example that agree with you?


So what is this brilliant unbiased accurate source of information that you have access to that no one else seems to have?

:sniper: :mp5: Remember: Guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do.

I haven't read much of the thread but I have seen loads of threads about gun control and nobody seems to say anything new, I don't claim to be any different. I did just want to say that I find it interesting how the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people" could be generalised to make an argument whereby we should allow countries like Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Try "nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people".
Lets let Iran get the bomb - I'm sure everyone will be much safer and the crime rate is sure to drop.

But ask yourself why does the phrase "guns dont kill people, people kill people" come up? It's usually in response to "guns kill people" aka the gun is evil argument.

Perhaps it's nonsense... but those of us on the other side feel that it's nonsense to attack inanimate objects in an effort to stem violence.

So what is this brilliant unbiased accurate source of information that you have access to that no one else seems to have?
try typing crime rates in google or something, check government and international sites

I think you got the wrong end of the stick, that last post was not an argument for or against guns or an attempt to justify crime under some circumstances, just against the idea that you can categorise people in terms of "criminals" and "non-criminals" or that all criminals are the same.

Ah.

Well the "Is it okay to steal bread to feed your starving family?" still applies.

The family could be called criminals by the guy who owns the bread but in the eyes of other starving families they would look...DeLiCiOuS!

Kidding! Kidding! :p

Just like under the rule of law: if you shoot a rapist who is getting away from justice you are a criminal. But to others who have had loved ones raped he'd be a hero.

I don't think I was far off. Maybe it was my tone?

Ah.

Well the "Is it okay to steal bread to feed your starving family?" still applies.

The family could be called criminals by the guy who owns the bread but in the eyes of other starving families they would look...DeLiCiOuS!

Kidding! Kidding! :p

Just like under the rule of law: if you shoot a rapist who is getting away from justice you are a criminal. But to others who have had loved ones raped he'd be a hero.

I don't think I was far off. Maybe it was my tone?


I believe you are able to shoot criminals who are trying to escape if they have commited some types of crimes.

For self defense purposes, you are NOT allowed to shoot someone who is running away. For that matter(except in your home) you are obligated to try and run away before you shoot someone in self defense.

I think I'll just post some random links about gun and violence and bunch of crazy statisics before I go to bed:

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm
(rather harmless anti-gun, Austrailian)

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
(examines statistic abuse)

http://www.gunblast.com/Gun_Facts.htm
(pro-gun but wildly abuses statistics)

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,546237,00.html
(a bit better anti-gun)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
(its the DOJ. Who can complain?)

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
(reasonable, not bad really, pretty fair)

Well food for thought. I'm off to bed.

BTW I haven't read them fully so I don't know if some of the above are examining statistic abuse in the hands of the pro or anti-gun groups or both. And there are plenty of statistic abuses to go around for all.

Ok. NOW I go to bed. Serious this time!

try typing crime rates in google or something, check government and international sites

I dont even know why I bother to respond to you.

Throughout these talks on guns, I have posted various sources ranging from the Un;s international crime victimization survey to FBI uniform crime reports to Department of Justice crime information.

I have yet to see you post any useful sources.

Do you live in some sort of altered state of consciousness?

edit: except for bizarre referances to the brady campaign website.

I believe you are able to shoot criminals who are trying to escape if they have commited some types of crimes.

For self defense purposes, you are NOT allowed to shoot someone who is running away. For that matter(except in your home) you are obligated to try and run away before you shoot someone in self defense.

Would have to see that one in writing. I believe that even police officers cant shoot perps who are running away. Otherwise I think we might see a few more police shootings.

Would have to see that one in writing. I believe that even police officers cant shoot perps who are running away. Otherwise I think we might see a few more police shootings.

I am getting sleepy so I will look it up when I can.

When I got my CCW in Florida, I had to review the rules for justifiable use of force(guns). That was over 3 years ago, so I might be off about the shooting someone who has committed some types of crimes, but I am positive that you are obligated to try and escape/run away before you are allowed to use a gun. This is hinged upon your reasonable belief as to whether you will succeed in escaping/running away so there is some flexibility.

It's a well documnted fact that no legally bought gun has ever been used in a crime. Don't you all know that? All legally owned guns have the magical ability to vanish from the grasp of anyone defined as a criminal, even after they are stolen from a house or the back of a vehicle. The mass of illegally owned guns in America today are all either made in backyard workshops, freighted in by Fedex from overseas or appear through sheer mental willpower of criminals. No children ever kill themselves or others with legally owned guns, because they are all, without a single exception, well versed in firearm safety, which creates an invisible barrier between them and legal guns. Any accounts your hear of children dying/killing from a legally owned gun are false - these children obviously had access to an illegally owned gun. Gang members often hand out free guns to preteens to destabilise society, in part of their master plan to wipe out legal gun owners (all criminals are aligned and think exactly the same way, in case you didn't know). No legal gun owner has ever accidentally shot himself or anyone else - such reports are invented by pinko-commie-nazis who want to undermine the constitution. Similarly, no legal gun owner has ever committed a murder/suicide on his family - they may own legal guns, but they go out especially and buy illegal guns from the criminal underground specifically for this purpose. Also, all home breakins are committed by psychotic members of the criminal movement (see above) who, without exception, are packing an illegal gun. Don't be fooled by the fact that you catch them with a DVD player in their hand on the way out the window - no doubt, this was a ruse to lull you into a false sense of security so they could slip back in and massacre you and your family later. The police are in cahoots with the criminal movement - they are secretly greenlighting all home invasions, but those lousy commmies lurking in congress keep it all hushed up! Besides, if you didn't have at least 10 guns, how can you fend off those nonstop invasion attempts and military coups that America suffers. The right to bear arms is obviously intended to allow all decent, law abiding citizens to maintain a private arsenal of military style weapons. Anything less is un-American. And, MOST IMPORTANTLY, you MUST remember that the pseudo-sexual satisfaction your derive from your guns is MORE IMPORTANT than everyone elses right to feel safe! This is what the constution was written for, dammit!

[/sarcasm]

Stands with arms out in crucifixion pose - FIRE! ;)

I believe you are able to shoot criminals who are trying to escape if they have commited some types of crimes.

Hopefully, no one will have to shoot anyone and the police are there putting him in handcuffs. Of course you mean really serious crimes (rape, murder) because I don't think its okay to kill someone over a few stolen items. The guy would have to be a proven dangerous nut to justify an impromptu death penalty.

There is such a thing as citizen's arrest isn't there or is it myth?

It does seem excessive.


For self defense purposes, you are NOT allowed to shoot someone who is running away. For that matter(except in your home) you are obligated to try and run away before you shoot someone in self defense.

We agree. A guy who is running away is no threat and you should always try to run. Unless the guy had wanted to kill you from the start you should be fine.

But I would attempt to leave my house and run to a neighbours house and call for police instead of tangling with a burglar. If I confront him I end up risking my own life even if I had a gun. Its safer to leave your house and get the cops.

OK NOW i'm going to bed :p

Hopefully, no one will have to shoot anyone and the police are there putting him in handcuffs. Of course you mean really serious crimes (rape, murder) because I don't think its okay to kill someone over a few stolen items. The guy would have to be a proven dangerous nut to justify an impromptu death penalty.

There is such a thing as citizen's arrest isn't there or is it myth?



We agree. A guy who is running away is no threat and you should always try to run. Unless the guy had wanted to kill you from the start you should be fine.

But I would attempt to leave my house and run to a neighbours house and call for police instead of tangling with a burglar. If I confront him I end up risking my own life even if I had a gun. Its safer to leave your house and get the cops.

It is always better to let the police handle it. Unfortunately, that isnt always an option.

There is a thing as a citizens arrest, and yes the crime has to be really severe to justify shooting someone who is running away.

In practical terms though, it is unwise to either perform a citizens arrest or shoot a criminal who is running away. In the very best case, you are going to be out thousands of dollars in legal fees and at the worst you will be in jail learning first hand about sodomy laws.

I dont even know why I bother to respond to you.

Throughout these talks on guns, I have posted various sources ranging from the Un;s international crime victimization survey to FBI uniform crime reports to Department of Justice crime information.

I have yet to see you post any useful sources.

Do you live in some sort of altered state of consciousness?

edit: except for bizarre referances to the brady campaign website.
ah DoJ thats it, try comparing per capita (its simple math) of violence with guns between the states, it is completely random with guns or without. states with lax gun laws will have higher per capita crime with guns than states with strict gun regulation, and vice versa, look at more than just one

As I final note...I really really can't believe I spent some 11 hours here doing nothing but typing and forum..ing(?) with you all.

I have no life. None of us might.

Night all. :headbang:

i have already seen the crimes by state, i looked it up to when some one attempted to confront me with NRA fuzzy logic.

more guns does NOT equal safer; HOWEVER, it does NOT equal more dangerous EITHER

it is a RANDOM chance

new york, where im told has strict gun laws, has less gun related crimes than a state with laxer gun laws, and vice versa. ITS STATE BY STATE RANDOM STATISTIC, you can NOT use it in argument for you, for EITHER position

There is nothing random about the average from states with the ablility to carry vs those who don't, it is just straight fact.

and us supposed evil liberal pinko anti-gun people commies are the fucking irrational dangerous ones? you just in one fucknig paragraph threatened the life of a senator, used your republican psychicness about at least 4 years in the future, and parroted republican assumptions about communism
and to boot, you ignore the fact the main party removing REAL rights of the people is the republican party, can you say gay people shouldnt marry, people cant have abortion, of course the beauracracy of america has the right to tell a woman what she cant do with herself and what homosexuals can or cant do with themselves. and the republicans are also the ones requiring LOYALTY oaths to attend PUBLIC speeches, well theres freedom of speech, look at the patriot act and patriot act 2, easily the most potentially dangerous documents in the country, description of terrorism is ambiguous and can be easily abused in times of fear, can you say mccarthyism? and guess whos pet it is? the hardcore right wing


pull your head out of your ass long enough to realise the right wing promise you gun nuts the ability to own whatever the fuck you want so you are distracted enough to not realise any guns you have wont stop the military of the united states and so you wont realise they are sapping away actually IMPORTANT rights

Umm, a couple of things before you insult all of us, who says we are Republicans? I am pro choice and pro gay marrige(or an equal contract), this all goes with my belief in limited Government involvment in my life, hence my view on Gun Control(I hate it in case anyone hadn't noticed).

Wow I didn't even make that message and there's my name.

And just so you know I was joking. Thats why I added the :p

Please calm down.

To come up with a decent answer I'd have to know a lot about how the stats were taken and other such details I have no interest in learning about because they are a pain and are only useful to statisticians who can interpret these things better than I. As they say, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. I try and keep my use of them to a minimum.

I am not a statistician so I shouldn't be analysing statistics. I'd just fuck it up. I prefer analysing human behaviour which I have some experience in. Its much more predictable and its more fun to see how variables can change behaviour and result in different outcomes...but I'm just rambling now...

And please don't just post something that complicated and expect an answer right away. Have some respect for the other debaters. We aren't supermen. And some of us are tired and cranky supermen.

Can someone help him with these stats? And can you post a link Jersey to where you got those stats. It would be helpful. (it wasn't a link to begin with was it? :confused: )

My stats were from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports that were copied into Lott's book.

Umm, a couple of things before you insult all of us, who says we are Republicans? I am pro choice and pro gay marrige(or an equal contract), this all goes with my belief in limited Government involvment in my life, hence my view on Gun Control(I hate it in case anyone hadn't noticed).
did i reply to you..

ah DoJ thats it, try comparing per capita (its simple math) of violence with guns between the states, it is completely random with guns or without. states with lax gun laws will have higher per capita crime with guns than states with strict gun regulation, and vice versa, look at more than just one

As I already said multiple times, these arn't just stats from one area vs another, they are the average between to distinct groups, the States that allow their citizens to carry, and those that don't.

As I final note...I really really can't believe I spent some 11 hours here doing nothing but typing and forum..ing(?) with you all.

I have no life. None of us might.

Night all. :headbang:

I am replying because I see this as the most important issue in our country, it makes it so all of our other rights arn't infringed. It is the people's check and balence against the Goverment.

As I already said multiple times, these arn't just stats from one area vs another, they are the average between to distinct groups, the States that allow their citizens to carry, and those that don't.
no shit

divide population from coinciding census with data with gun crimes from coinciding years in DoJ, you get per capita criems with guns

guns with stricter gun laws have higher ones than states without gun laws, and vice versa

for the third damn time, the number by themself dont mean shit if you dont take into account population comparison

Lynching blacks was also part of american culture for some time. Just because its part of your culture doesn't make it moral or even SMART.
Allow meto correct your gross overstatement. Lynching of African-americans was a part a a SUBCULTURE in American history. Not all Americans murdered blacks or other minorities during a admittidly shameful period of our history. That aside, you did not address the issue, at least not well. Please feel free to try again.

I am replying because I see this as the most important issue in our country, it makes it so all of our other rights arn't infringed. It is the people's check and balence against the Goverment.

Don't you believe that's a bit naive after the patriot act and the suspicions around Bush election? I think it's safe to say that America isn't the country Washington and the rest of your great heroes wanted it to be.

The most important issue? Doubtful. I believe healthcare, education, the justice system are much more important issues and they require a lot of time as well.

'it makes it so all of our rights arn't infringed'

Though it's hard for me to read this as I'm not a native English speaker, I presume you mean that by having guns the government can't infringe any rights, or you will rebel.

Did you know that merely discussing to rebel against the United States Government is a felony? Rather amusing considering the fact that it is your duty, not your right, to rebel after a time of oppression.

If you are looking for where your rights are being harmed, take a look at FEMA.gov and check out what they can do when they call for a national emergency. Amongst other things, they can put the entire government in a vault, assume command of the US, and literally enslave the people of the US.

These kinds of bills were passed through the last century and people like you were focused on keeping that 9mm in your closet. Earlier, over-simplification was stated to be said by dumb people. I disagree. I believe that politicians use over-simplification to make the people believe that they actually understand what is going on. The Iraq war is not merely about terrorism or about war, it's a lot more complex than those two extremes.
Yet it is so much easier for a government to have subjects who believe that paying more taxes so US corporations can build more guns will solve the Iraq question.

No offence to anyone here, but if someone here is right, and crime is indeed solved by removing guns. Why hasn't the government done that yet?
If it is due to a gun lobby only, I'd say you have enough reason to knock on the White House's doors with torches and haystags.

Back to the quote, however. Do you really believe that that 9mm will do you any good when the United States Government decides to turn to a Dictatorship? Do you even know anything about Guerilla fighting?

You see, my experience is that Navy Seals, Marines, Israeli Special Forces train damn hard to get to the level where they are so they can succesfully complete missions. This is not some action shooter or some James Bond movie. A gun won't do you any good if you are faced with heavily armed tanks running through your neighbourhood.

Do you believe that Iraq is holding back troops because people are armed? Hell no! They are holding back troops because they have got a lot of skilled fighters out there, who give civilians a bit of training specific to a mission, and than let them run amock. One person with a m16 or an AK-47 is no problem for a decent marine, let alone a navy seal.

The problem, however, lies in tolerance. We have to stimulate a return to traditional values ;).

Mr U
The Artist Formerly Known As HomoUniversalis

No offence to anyone here, but if someone here is right, and crime is indeed solved by removing guns. Why hasn't the government done that yet?
If it is due to a gun lobby only, I'd say you have enough reason to knock on the White House's doors with torches and haystags.

It doesn't work, that is the point I have been making the whole time, it never has and I see no reason why it ever will.

Back to the quote, however. Do you really believe that that 9mm will do you any good when the United States Government decides to turn to a Dictatorship? Do you even know anything about Guerilla fighting?

Well, if we are ignoring the fact that I want more than a 9mm pistol, the answer is still yes. Do you know how many people are in the US army? 1.5-2 million. Do you know how many people live in this country? 280 million. So if we had 10% of the people fighting the army they would be out numbered by a factor of 10 or more. And this is ignoring the fact the most of the people in the Army are some of the greatest Patriots you will ever meet, and they won't fight for a Dictatorship.

Well, if we are ignoring the fact that I want more than a 9mm pistol, the answer is still yes. Do you know how many people are in the US army? 1.5-2 million. Do you know how many people live in this country? 280 million. So if we had 10% of the people fighting the army they would be out numbered by a factor of 10 or more. And this is ignoring the fact the most of the people in the Army are some of the greatest Patriots you will ever meet, and they won't fight for a Dictatorship.


do you know how much better training, weaponry, fighting vehicles that army has at their disposal? tou think you and your drinknig buddies are goign to dispatch a trained and well armed force of troops coming into your town with an AK-47 each? try again bucko, and thats assuming they havnt already bombed your ass or leveled it with missiles from an Apache.

do you even know what a patriot is? the nazis with german patriots. you know why? they supported and foguht for their coutnry and its interests

being a patriot just means you are a loyal government ant. you do what it says and you do it happily

and please, you idiots wouldnt know if it turned into a dictatorship until it was too late to protest and fight back. you people are so happy you get to keep an ak in your closet that you COMPLETELY ignore any subversion of rights by the government so long as they let you have your gun to keep you passive and ignorant

Guns dont kill people....

Bullets do.

I say..make guns for everyone.
But, make the bullets REALLY exspensive.

Like 5000 dollars a bullet.

That way if you want to kill someone....you better REALLY want it.

There is no "force" involved there.

American citizens aren't forced to live in a gun-owning society? because they have the choice of suicide? Maybe you think they can go live somewhere else. What makes you think anywhere else would have them?

it's people who kill people. someone with the right knowledge can kill with their hands or with a toothpick or whatever. You can probably kill someone with any object if you know how.
But why the hell would you want to make it easier by giving them something that shoots bits of metal at a really really high speed?? what are you guys looking for? efficiency?

to the guys who want to allow gun ownership.

are you talking about hunting rifles? which i guess i can understand if you agree with hunting and such?

But i really don't understand the reason for pistols (easy to conceal) or the semis or full automatic weapons! just seems excessive to me!

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/somesee2_s.jpg

http://www.mikecaswell.com/awcountdown.gif

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/somesee2_s.jpg

interesting. only one object in that photo is meant to kill is it not?

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/somesee2_s.jpg
ignorance is your friend right?

For what reason, other than killing lots and lots of people, do you need to be able to spray a room with bullets?

In case you are a really bad shot :mp5:

In case you are a really bad shot :mp5:

shotgun would solve the problem, no?

do you know how much better training, weaponry, fighting vehicles that army has at their disposal? tou think you and your drinknig buddies are goign to dispatch a trained and well armed force of troops coming into your town with an AK-47 each? try again bucko, and thats assuming they havnt already bombed your ass or leveled it with missiles from an Apache.

If the military was gonna level a city, then there isnt anything we could do about it. but if they are goingto occupy a city then there are plenty of things to be done. guerilla wars are not fought head on. It is like what happened in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afganistan. lone patrols are picked of. Supply depots are sabotaged etc. All the while the enemy is blending into the population. We are not talking about to armies meating on the field of battle.



do you even know what a patriot is? the nazis with german patriots. you know why? they supported and foguht for their coutnry and its interests

being a patriot just means you are a loyal government ant. you do what it says and you do it happily

No, being a patriot means you fight for the ideals of your country. That is why our soldiers are obligated to disobay an illegal order. And while there will always be people like in abu gharab, there will also be people like the soldier who threatened an Iraqi with a gun to get info that saved his troops, then he went to his commander and turned himself in.


and please, you idiots wouldnt know if it turned into a dictatorship until it was too late to protest and fight back. you people are so happy you get to keep an ak in your closet that you COMPLETELY ignore any subversion of rights by the government so long as they let you have your gun to keep you passive and ignorant

Well, I am sure we will have well informed and intelligent people such as yourself to make sure that we are aware of whats going on.