NationStates Jolt Archive

Few would know that a quarter of the public-school shootings were stopped by citizens with guns before uniformed police could arrive.

In an analysis that I did during 2001 of media coverage of guns, the morning and evening national-news broadcasts on the three main television networks carried almost 200,000 words on contemporaneous gun-crime stories. By comparison, not one segment featured a civilian using a gun to stop a crime.

People's reaction to the horrific events displayed on TV such as the Minnesota attack are understandable, but the more than two million times each year that Americans use guns defensively are never discussed — even though this is five times as often as the 450,000 times that guns are used to commit crimes over the last couple of years.[quote]

[quote]Good intentions don't necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the laws ultimately save lives. Unfortunately, too many gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals.


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200503230744.asp

Read up. And if you are going to disparage John Lott, at least give a good reason.

In particular, when officer strength and size requirements are reduced because of affirmative action, each one-percent increase in the number of female officers increases the number of assaults on police by 15 to 19 percent.

I hate the underestimation of women.

Anyways, I believe guns are dangerous but in the right hands, it's a life-saver. A lot of my friends carry guns and it definitely makes me feel safer to be around them.

Guns dont kill americans, americans kill each other.

The reason you have all this gun play is not because of gun control laws or concealed weapon laws but because america is a violent society.

You can have all the guns you want but you will still have lots of gun play and violent crime. You can have all the gun control laws you want, americans are still going to blast each otehr away....

I hate the underestimation of women.


Why is that an underestimation of women as opposed to a proper statistical extrapolation?


Anyways, I believe guns are dangerous but in the right hands, it's a life-saver. A lot of my friends carry guns and it definitely makes me feel safer to be around them.


Glad to hear it. Me to.

Why is that an underestimation of women as opposed to a proper statistical extrapolation?




Glad to hear it. Me to.


:rolleyes: wow

It personally makes me feel as if someone gets in fight they are going to blast someone. No where but in the states did i feel that.

Dont see that in canada, nor Europe or even when I was in isreal where everyone carries a assult rifle...

'Anyways, I believe guns are dangerous but in the right hands, it's a life-saver. A lot of my friends carry guns and it definitely makes me feel safer to be around them.'

I have NEVER understood this US perspective. You have this insane notion that you need a lethal weapon to defend yourself aganist others with the same weapon. Here in the UK virtually no-one has a gun, thus no-one else needs one to defend themselves.

US gun crime murders: 10,000 (roughly)
UK gun crime murders: not sure, but its under 100.

that entire article sums down to an argument that we have heard time and time again:

if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns


well, i have a novel approach:

why not stop making the damn things?

seriously, if we stopped making them completely, and publicly bought and destroyed the oned already in existance, nobody would have guns, criminal or innocent alike.

then you can block imports, and all you have to worry about is smuggling, and we already have a system in place to deter drug smuggling, so why don't we beef that up and modify it slightly to include dangerous firearms?

i can hear you already: "but the second amendment! the second amendment!"

1) i doubt any of you NRA idiots even know the whole thing. no, it is not "the right to bear arms" google "constitutional amendments" and read the entire thing.

2) while you're at it, go read the twenty first amendment. i'm serious, go read it before you move on to the next bit.


see? the amendments are not set in stone. why do you think they're called 'amendments'? they're there to be changed, modified, and updated as the times move onwards.

People's reaction to the horrific events displayed on TV such as the Minnesota attack are understandable, but the more than two million times each year that Americans use guns defensively are never discussed — even though this is five times as often as the 450,000 times that guns are used to commit crimes over the last couple of years.
I would like to point out that I have learned in debate with Whisperinglegs the 2 million defenses per year statement was an average of all defenses with guns and was from 1980 something to 1992, when the average number of gun crimes, from what I gather solely from 1992 and 1993 in the government records (it only goes to 1992), was well over 1 million per year

'Anyways, I believe guns are dangerous but in the right hands, it's a life-saver. A lot of my friends carry guns and it definitely makes me feel safer to be around them.'

I have NEVER understood this US perspective. You have this insane notion that you need a lethal weapon to defend yourself aganist others with the same weapon. Here in the UK virtually no-one has a gun, thus no-one else needs one to defend themselves.

US gun crime murders: 10,000 (roughly)
UK gun crime murders: not sure, but its under 100.
I'm from Canada. I don't participate in any violence and try to stay away from anything related to violence altogether but I'd rather be with friends who can defend me against someone that wants to hurt me rather than be alone. But hey - when you lived a childhood like I did, guns can ultimately be something that can help you live... or die.

Why is that an underestimation of women as opposed to a proper statistical extrapolation?
What I mean by that is that criminals think that if a woman is in the force, then it'll be easier to break the police down.

that entire article sums down to an argument that we have heard time and time again:

if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns


well, i have a novel approach:

why not stop making the damn things?

seriously, if we stopped making them completely, and publicly bought and destroyed the oned already in existance, nobody would have guns, criminal or innocent alike.

then you can block imports, and all you have to worry about is smuggling, and we already have a system in place to deter drug smuggling, so why don't we beef that up and modify it slightly to include dangerous firearms?

i can hear you already: "but the second amendment! the second amendment!"

1) i doubt any of you NRA idiots even know the whole thing. no, it is not "the right to bear arms" google "constitutional amendments" and read the entire thing.

2) while you're at it, go read the twenty first amendment. i'm serious, go read it before you move on to the next bit.


see? the amendments are not set in stone. why do you think they're called 'amendments'? they're there to be changed, modified, and updated as the times move onwards.
If you got a war-president running your country then that's not going to happen.

'if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns'

Again, the UK is a prime example of how this is blatently not true. Guns are outlawed and although some do have them (namely fuelled by the gang culture in inner-city London) the estimated amount of guns in the UK by our chief of police is very low.
Of course if guns were just suddenly banned in the US this would not be the case, which is why a long-term solution is necessary like stopping making guns.
Also, the idea that guns are for the greater good because you can defend your home with them is bullshit. Once again, there's lower robbery in the UK than in the US. Defending yourself with a gun is merely escalating the problem, never solving it.

Personally, I have a baseball bat lying next to my bed. I know almost certainly that no-one can enter my house having a weapon with a beter reach, or one as powerful- yet almost always non-lethal. I don't mind pumelling robbers, but murder is too far.
Bats for all, guns for none!

then you can block imports, and all you have to worry about is smuggling, and we already have a system in place to deter drug smuggling, so why don't we beef that up and modify it slightly to include dangerous firearms?
And we all know that there are no drugs on the street.

Apparently I need to repost this, written 80 years ago on the subjet of banning specific items

http://www.trt-md.org/articles/THE-UPLIFTERS-TRY-IT-AGAIN.htm

THE UPLIFTERS TRY IT AGAIN

by H. L. Mencken
(Copyright, 1925, by The Evening Sun.)

I.

The eminent Nation announces with relish "the organization of a national committee of 100 to induce Congress to prohibit the inter-State traffic in revolvers," and offers the pious judgement that it is "a step forward." "Crime statistics," it appears, "show that 90% of the murders that take place are committed by the use of the pistol, and every year there are hundreds of cases of accidental homicides because someone did not know that his revolver was loaded." The new law or is it to be a constitutional amendment? will do away with all that. "It will not be easy," of course, "to draw a law that will permit exceptions for public officers and bank guards" to say nothing of Prohibition agents and other such legalized murderers. "But soon even these officials may get on without revolvers."

More than once in this place, I have lavished high praise upon the Nation. All that praise has been deserved, and I am by no means disposed to go back on it. The Nation is one of the few honest and intelligent periodicals published in the United States. It stands clear of official buncombe; it prints every week a great mass of news that the newspapers seem to miss; it interprets that news with a freedom and a sagacity that few newspaper editors can even so much as imagine. If it shut up shop then the country would plunge almost unchallenged into the lowest depths of Coolidgism, Rotarianism, Stantaquaism and other such bilge. It has been for a decade past, the chief consolation of the small and forlorn minority of civilized Americans.

But the Nation, in its days, has been a Liberal organ, and its old follies die hard. Ever and anon, in the midst of its most eloquent and effective pleas for Liberty, its eye wanders weakly toward Law. At such moments the old lust to lift 'em up overcomes it, and it makes a brilliant and melodramatic ass of itself. Such a moment was upon it when it printed the paragraph that I have quoted. Into that paragraph of not over 200 words it packed as much maudlin and nonsensical blather, as much idiotic reasoning and banal moralizing, as Dr. Coolidge gets into a speech of two hours' length.

II.

The new law that it advocated, indeed, is one of the most absurd specimens of jackass legislation ever heard of, even in this paradise of legislative donkeyism. Its single and sole effect would be to exaggerate enormously all of the evils it proposes to put down. It would not take pistols out of the hands of rogues and fools; it would simply take them out of the hands of honest men. The gunman today has great advantages everywhere. He has artillery in his pocket, and he may assume that, in the large cities, at least two-thirds of his prospective victims are unarmed. But if the Nation's proposed law (or amendment) were passed and enforced, he could assume safely that all of them were unarmed.

Here I do not indulge in theory. The hard facts are publicly on display in New York State, where a law of exactly the same tenor is already on the books the so-called Sullivan Law. In order to get it there, of course, the Second Amendment had to be severely strained, but the uplifters advocated the straining unanimously, and to the tune of loud hosannas, and the courts, as usual, were willing to sign on the dotted line. It is now a dreadful felony in New York to "have or possess" a pistol. Even if one keeps it locked in a bureau drawer at home, one may be sent to the hoosegow for ten years. More, men who have done no more are frequently bumped off. The cops, suspecting a man, say, of political heresy, raid his house and look for copies of the Nation. They find none, and are thus baffled but at the bottom of a trunk they do find a rusted and battered revolver. So he goes to trial for violating the Sullivan Law, and is presently being psycho-analyzed by the uplifters at Sing Sing.

With what result? With the general result that New York, even more than Chicago, is the heaven of footpads, hijackers, gunmen and all other such armed thugs. Their hands upon their pistols, they know they are safe. Not one citizen out of a hundred that they tackle is armed for getting a license to keep a revolver is a difficult business, and carrying one without it is more dangerous than submitting to robbery. So the gunmen flourish and give humble thanks to God. Like the bootleggers, they are hot and unanimous for Law Enforcement.

III.

To all this, of course, the uplifters have a ready answer. (At having ready answers, indeed, they always shine!) The New York thugs, they say, are armed to the teeth because New Jersey and Connecticut lack Sullivan Laws. When one of them wants a revolver all he has to do is to cross the river or take a short trolley trip. Or, to quote the Nation, he may "simply remit to one of the large firms which advertise the sale of their weapons by mail." The remedy is the usual dose: More law. Congress is besought to "prohibit the inter-State traffic in revolvers, especially to bar them from the mails."

It is all very familiar, and very depressing. Find me a man so vast an imbecile that he seriously believes that this prohibition would work. What would become of the millions of revolvers already in the hands of the American people if not in New York, then at least everywhere else? (I own two and my brother owns at least a dozen, though neither of us has fired one since the close of the Liberty Loan drives.) Would the cops at once confiscate this immense stock, or would it tend to concentrate in the hands of the criminal classes? If they attempted confiscation, how would they get my two revolvers lawfully acquired and possessed without breaking into my house? Would I wait for them docilely or would I sell out, in anticipation, to the nearest pistol bootlegger?

The first effect of the enactment of such a law, obviously, would be to make the market price of all small arms rise sharply. A pistol which is now worth, second-hand, perhaps $2, would quickly reach a value of $10 or even $20. This is not theorizing; we have had plenty of experience with gin. Well, imagining such prices to prevail, would the generality of men surrender to the Polizei, or would they sell them to the bootleggers? And if they sold them to the bootleggers, what would become of them in the end: would they fall into the hands of honest men or into the hands of rogues?

IV.

But the gunmen, I take it, would not suffer from the high cost of artillery for long. The moment the price got really attractive, the cops themselves would begin to sell their pistols, and with them the whole corps of Prohibition blacklegs, private detectives, deputy sheriffs, and other such scoundrels. And smuggling, as in the case of alcoholic beverages, would become an organized industry, large in scale and lordly in profits. Imagine the supplies that would pour over the long Canadian and Mexican borders! And into every port on every incoming ship!

Certainly, the history of the attempt to enforce Prohibition should give even uplifters pause. A case of whisky is a bulky object. It must be transported on a truck. It can not be disguised. Yet in every American city today a case of whisky may be bought almost as readily as a pair of shoes despite all the armed guards along the Canadian border, and all the guard ships off the ports, and all the raiding, snooping and murdering everywhere else. Thus the camel gets in and yet the proponents of the new anti-pistol law tell us that they will catch the gnat! Go tell it to the Marines!

Such a law, indeed, would simply make gun-toting swagger and fashionable, as Prohibition has made guzzling swagger and fashionable. When I was a youngster there were no Prohibition agents; hence I never so much as drank a glass of beer until I was nearly 19. Today, Law Enforcement is the eighth sacrament and the Methodist Board of Temperance, Prohibition and Public Morals is itself the authority for the sad news that the young of the land are full of gin. I remember, in my youth, a time when the cops tried to prohibit the game of catty. At once every boy in Baltimore consecrated his whole time and energy to it. Finally, the cops gave up their crusade. Almost instantly catty disappeared.

V.

The real victim of moral legislation is almost always the honest, law-abiding, well-meaning citizen what the late William Graham Summer called the Forgotten Man. Prohibition makes it impossible for him to take a harmless drink, cheaply and in a decent manner. In the same way the Harrison Act puts heavy burdens upon the physician who has need of prescribing narcotic drugs for a patient, honestly and for good ends. But the drunkard still gets all the alcohol that he can hold, and the drug addict is still full of morphine and cocaine. By precisely the same route the Nation's new law would deprive the reputable citizen of the arms he needs for protection, and hand them over to the rogues that he needs protection against.

Ten or fifteen years ago there was an epidemic of suicide by bichloride of mercury tablets. At once the uplifters proposed laws forbidding their sale, and such laws are now in force in many States, including New York. The consequences are classical. A New Yorker, desiring to lay in an antiseptic for household use, is deprived of the cheapest, most convenient and most effective. And the suicide rate in New York, as elsewhere, is still steadily rising.

Indeed. Fighting fire with fire is simply silly. And even if big crime gangs had guns, how many schoolkids could get their hands on them? How many people can you kill with a knife? A few, maybe. But nothing like the destruction caused through guns.

OMG ONLY TERRISTS AND EVIL PEOPLE NEED THE GUNZ, GUNZ ONLY USE TIS TO KILL PEOPLE AND ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE INFACT SENTIENT BEINGS THAT LEAP FROM THEIR CASES AND LOAD AND PRIME THEMSELVES THEN SLAY BUS FULLS OF CHILDREN AND NUNS HOLDING KITTENS AND PUPPIES BAN GUNS FOREVER OMG

SHUT THE FUCK UP. Why do people get away with multiple homicides, especially in schools? Because no one has the ability to defend themselves. The only armed people in schools are the rent-a-cops, a lot of good they do, huh?

Look at Canada too, plenty of small arms, murder rate? Obscenely low juxtaposed with the US rate. What the christ is that? We are a violent country, simple as that, without guns we'd still have stabbings and beatings. If guns were banned, bounty hunters, hitmen, and murderers would simply get more creative. Frightfully so.

To all the people that despise guns and wanted them permabanned from the states. Get the hell out.

I thought we were having a vaguely rational discussion. Come on, here in england (i lived in the us for 5 years before you say i dont no anything, and am a us citizen) we have virtually no gun crime compared to the us, despite banning guns

i havent read all the posts, but guns are no different than any other weapon or tool. it all depends on the person

Yeah, i heard about that school shooting. Didn't get much media coverage.

why not stop making the damn things?

seriously, if we stopped making them completely, and publicly bought and destroyed the oned already in existance, nobody would have guns, criminal or innocent alike.

then you can block imports, and all you have to worry about is smuggling, and we already have a system in place to deter drug smuggling, so why don't we beef that up and modify it slightly to include dangerous firearms?

.

Really, because the laws against drug importation have worked so well that in the USA drug prices actually defy inflation. I pay more for my gas, milk, sugar and cotton(all of which are legal) than I did years ago yet somehow I can buy coke for the same price as it was in high school. A better grade no less. Is this what you are trying to claim when you say we can stop smuggling?

Are you claiming prohibition in the 1920 actually worked? Do you believe that people were unable to find alcohol durng this period.

If all US guns magically disapeared. The black market would be able to replace them in just a matter of months if they were able to smuggle in the a small percentage(volume wise) of the drugs that are ALREADY being smuggeled in.

How would your policy change anything other than the fact that law abiding honest people would have access guns.

Please, explain how this would happen. Because I really dont get what you are trying to say.

winchester 76, i disagree: a gun has a mutch higher potential for destruction than "any other tool"

I have NEVER understood this US perspective. You have this insane notion that you need a lethal weapon to defend yourself aganist others with the same weapon. Here in the UK virtually no-one has a gun, thus no-one else needs one to defend themselves.There is no violent crime in the UK? If there is any, you cannot say that no one needs to defend themselves.

SHUT THE FUCK UP. Why do people get away with multiple homicides, especially in schools? Because no one has the ability to defend themselves. The only armed people in schools are the rent-a-cops, a lot of good they do, huh?

Look at Canada too, plenty of small arms, murder rate? Obscenely low juxtaposed with the US rate. What the christ is that? We are a violent country, simple as that, without guns we'd still have stabbings and beatings. If guns were banned, bounty hunters, hitmen, and murderers would simply get more creative. Frightfully so.

To all the people that despise guns and wanted them permabanned from the states. Get the hell out.

:rolleyes:

you realize that there would not be a need to defend yourself if they didn't have the guns either?

i smell some kind of warning, at the very least for that spiteful, ignorant post.



to the person with at least a bit of sense:

"something about drug blocks not working?"

yea, i noticed that, too.

1) much of it is home grown. if you can grow tulips, you can grow pot. i doubt anyone knows how to grow guns on trees

2) that's why i included the phrase "beef it up" the system is dangerously underfunded and understaffed. more people with better equipment will greatly, greatly reduce the problem

'without guns we'd still have stabbings and beatings.'

.......ok then, surely thats better than having guns still?



'If guns were banned, bounty hunters, hitmen, and murderers would simply get more creative. Frightfully so.'

Yeh, you're right. I can just imagine a bounty hunter thinking 'shit, I cant shoot the fucker, instead I'll steal a chopper and drop home made napalm on his sorry ass'

Finally
'To all the people that despise guns and wanted them permabanned from the states. Get the hell out.'

I believe my response would be (if I lived in the US), make me, you redneck repressed homo.

One way of putting it.

Indeed. Fighting fire with fire is simply silly. And even if big crime gangs had guns, how many schoolkids could get their hands on them?
Um, there are very few kids killed in schools by guns, even fewer when an adult is around that has a gun. A quarter of school shootings were stopped before the cops got there. That doesn't include the time the cops decide how to handle the situation.

Really, because the laws against drug importation have worked so well that in the USA drug prices actually defy inflation. I pay more for my gas, milk, sugar and cotton(all of which are legal) than I did years ago yet somehow I can buy coke for the same price as it was in high school. A better grade no less. Is this what you are trying to claim when you say we can stop smuggling?

the laws are there, but nobody cares enough to enforce them. underfunded and understaffed borders against drug smuggling is the problem.

Are you claiming prohibition in the 1920 actually worked? Do you believe that people were unable to find alcohol durng this period.

are you claiming that alcohol=guns?

two completely different things there.

alcohol is easy to make, guns are not.

If all US guns magically disapeared. The black market would be able to replace them in just a matter of months if they were able to smuggle in the a small percentage(volume wise) of the drugs that are ALREADY being smuggeled in.

i rebutted this in the first paragraph

How would your policy change anything other than the fact that law abiding honest people would have access guns.

perhaps the part where the majority of criminals are not rich enough to afford the few that do leak into the country?

supply and demand says that these would be so exorbantly expensive that only the righest men would have them.

quite a deterrent to the kid who takes his daddy's glock and blows away half the school

Please, explain how this would happen. Because I really dont get what you are trying to say.

the sad thing is, it won't

NRA is a huge supplier of $$$$$ to the republican party, and as long as those people have control of the government, we're going to continue to see mass shootouts like this one

that entire article sums down to an argument that we have heard time and time again:

if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns


well, i have a novel approach:

why not stop making the damn things?

seriously, if we stopped making them completely, and publicly bought and destroyed the oned already in existance, nobody would have guns, criminal or innocent alike.

then you can block imports, and all you have to worry about is smuggling, and we already have a system in place to deter drug smuggling, so why don't we beef that up and modify it slightly to include dangerous firearms?

i can hear you already: "but the second amendment! the second amendment!"

1) i doubt any of you NRA idiots even know the whole thing. no, it is not "the right to bear arms" google "constitutional amendments" and read the entire thing.

2) while you're at it, go read the twenty first amendment. i'm serious, go read it before you move on to the next bit.


see? the amendments are not set in stone. why do you think they're called 'amendments'? they're there to be changed, modified, and updated as the times move onwards.

Ok what about the military then? theyre just going to use bombs and rockets to fight an enemy? In order for this proposal to work (which i do not support) the whole world would have to stop making guns or else the nation that stops making guns will be very vunerable to attack

'There is no violent crime in the UK? If there is any, you cannot say that no one needs to defend themselves.'

Better violent crime than death via gun crime surely?

Using your logic, perhaps each person should be equipped with tazors so that if anyone ever gets touched the other person is immediately fried to hell. Or perhaps each house should be mounted with machine-guns in case anything larger than a cat steps on your property?

Ok what about the military then? theyre just going to use bombs and rockets to fight an enemy? In order for this proposal to work (which i do not support) the whole world would have to stop making guns or else the nation that stops making guns will be very vunerable to attack


the military is an exception, of course.

we let the military have tanks despite the fast that they are unavailable to citizens, why not guns too?

i'm just saying that the soldiers should not be allowed to take them off military grounds.

that entire article sums down to an argument that we have heard time and time again:

if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns


well, i have a novel approach:

why not stop making the damn things?

seriously, if we stopped making them completely, and publicly bought and destroyed the oned already in existance, nobody would have guns, criminal or innocent alike.You're right, that is novel. And tremendously stupid. In order to shut down firearm production you would need some sort of strong enforcement. Good luck getting a single law enforcement officer to participate in an effort to disarm himself. I and many others would violently resist any such effort. Getting rid of "all the guns" is a goal shared by many stupid people, but it'll never happen.


then you can block imports, and all you have to worry about is smuggling, and we already have a system in place to deter drug smuggling, so why don't we beef that up and modify it slightly to include dangerous firearms?
The war on drugs has been completely unsuccessful at it's ostensible purpose which is to stop drug smuggling. There's no reason to think a total gun import ban would be any more successful, especially if you want to "beef that up and modify it slightly."

i can hear you already: "but the second amendment! the second amendment!"

1) i doubt any of you NRA idiots even know the whole thing. no, it is not "the right to bear arms" google "constitutional amendments" and read the entire thing.
If you actually think "NRA idiots" are unfamiliar with the entire Second Amendment, you're the idiot here. It's not that long or complicated, but many people, including you, seem to have a great deal of trouble correctly parsing the english.

2) while you're at it, go read the twenty first amendment. i'm serious, go read it before you move on to the next bit.


see? the amendments are not set in stone. why do you think they're called 'amendments'? they're there to be changed, modified, and updated as the times move onwards.The 21st amendment is an example of the legal way to change the Constitution and it's amendments. The 2nd has never been legally repealed or modified.

You're right, that is novel. And tremendously stupid. In order to shut down firearm production you would need some sort of strong enforcement. Good luck getting a single law enforcement officer to participate in an effort to disarm himself. I and many others would violently resist any such effort. Getting rid of "all the guns" is a goal shared by many stupid people, but it'll never happen.

i'm guessing that your definition of 'stupid' is 'anyone that does not agree with you'

The war on drugs has been completely unsuccessful at it's ostensible purpose which is to stop drug smuggling. There's no reason to think a total gun import ban would be any more successful, especially if you want to "beef that up and modify it slightly."

it doesn't work because it is incredibly underfunded. more money and more people, and it'll run smoothly

If you actually think "NRA idiots" are unfamiliar with the entire Second Amendment, you're the idiot here. It's not that long or complicated, but many people, including you, seem to have a great deal of trouble correctly parsing the english.

sorry if you're not one of them and i have offended you, but everybody i know who is opposed to gun control only knows the second half. they seem to forget that the right to bear arms applies to private militias. now that the army has its own branches specifically made for defense, there is no need for civilians to make their oen armies and fight the invaders

The 21st amendment is an example of the legal way to change the Constitution and it's amendments.

i am entirely aware of that.

in fact, that's why i posted it.

it goes to show that a bit of editing on the 2nd is nowhere near out of reach.

that entire article sums down to an argument that we have heard time and time again:

if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns


well, i have a novel approach:

why not stop making the damn things?

seriously, if we stopped making them completely, and publicly bought and destroyed the oned already in existance, nobody would have guns, criminal or innocent alike.

then you can block imports, and all you have to worry about is smuggling, and we already have a system in place to deter drug smuggling, so why don't we beef that up and modify it slightly to include dangerous firearms?

i can hear you already: "but the second amendment! the second amendment!"

1) i doubt any of you NRA idiots even know the whole thing. no, it is not "the right to bear arms" google "constitutional amendments" and read the entire thing.

2) while you're at it, go read the twenty first amendment. i'm serious, go read it before you move on to the next bit.


see? the amendments are not set in stone. why do you think they're called 'amendments'? they're there to be changed, modified, and updated as the times move onwards.

So you are proposing to stop making guns and block all imported guns. Right, if you do that imagine what russia, germany or any other world power would do to america in a war. Not giving people the right to own a gun is against the freedom of expression(if you get the right lawyers or have a good reason). Banding guns is like me saying ban food because people choke to death on food, people use guns to shoot food, food comes from animals and therefore you must dare i say kill something (unless its fruit/honey) and some food carries diseases and other junk
I no Vegetarian

Its the media that makes thing look bad. If there was no media or more censorship then gun problems would be way down. The media gives people plans to do something and in the last school shooting the guy got the idea from a nn site.

*snip* Read up. And if you are going to disparage John Lott, at least give a good reason.

OK, beyond the self-evidence of his views, John Lott is an untrustworthy idiot because:

He claims he lost one of his most controversial studies: Another firearms scholar whose dog ate his data. (http://slate.msn.com/?id=2078084)

He pretended to be a woman called "Mary Rosh" on the internet in order to praise his own research and accuse his critics of fraud.Choose a weapon: Fudged data. False identities. No holds are barred in the academic duel over guns and violence (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/030210/10guns.htm)

He presented results purporting to show that "more guns" led to "less crime" when those results were the product of coding errors.
Double Barreled Double Standards (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/we_590_01.html)

Much more of John Lott's erroneous "studies" and unethical conduct are exposed at this website (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/) and at HCI here (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott).

So you are proposing to stop making guns and block all imported guns. Right, if you do that imagine what russia, germany or any other world power would do to america in a war. Not giving people the right to own a gun is against the freedom of expression(if you get the right lawyers or have a good reason). Banding guns is like me saying ban food because people choke to death on food, people use guns to shoot food, food comes from animals and therefore you must dare i say kill something (unless its fruit/honey) and some food carries diseases and other junk
I no Vegetarian

Its the media that makes thing look bad. If there was no media or more censorship then gun problems would be way down. The media gives people plans to do something and in the last school shooting the guy got the idea from a nn site.


i was going to respond to this in a serious manner, but then you started about censoring the media in order to keep people ignorant about the dangers of guns available to the public

What if noone could posess guns but law enforcement/military?

'There is no violent crime in the UK? If there is any, you cannot say that no one needs to defend themselves.'

Better violent crime than death via gun crime surely?

Using your logic, perhaps each person should be equipped with tazors so that if anyone ever gets touched the other person is immediately fried to hell. Or perhaps each house should be mounted with machine-guns in case anything larger than a cat steps on your property?Logic? I don't think you know what that is. I'll I said to you was that the need for self-defense exists in the UK, despite laws banning guns. Somehow you go from there to using machine guns to mow down trespassing cats and call it logic. Either think through what your saying or don't bother saying anything at all.

well, i have a novel approach:

why not stop making the damn things?

seriously, if we stopped making them completely, and publicly bought and destroyed the oned already in existance, nobody would have guns, criminal or innocent alike.


It is an interesting point. I am assuming that you subscribe to the theory that "guns kill people." If there were no guns (hypothetically) I think it is naive to assume that suddenly the United States would begin to act like Canada and Europe (fewer murders per capita, pacifists). The reason the second amendment is in the constitution is because the founding fathers of this country wanted the people to be able to defend themselves. This country was built on protest and standing up for your rights. Agreed, some people choose to take this liberty too far, and encroach on another's pursuit of life. But I don't think it is right to step in and say that you can't own a gun or a knife or a sharp pointy stick because they have potential to kill.

the military is an exception, of course.
Of course? Based on the nonsense you've spewed in this thread so far, there is nothing obvious about your position. I wouldn't be suprised if you wanted to re-arm the military with squirt guns.

Okay, maybe I'd be suprised, but I wouldn't be shocked.

i was going to respond to this in a serious manner, but then you started about censoring the media in order to keep people ignorant about the dangers of guns available to the public


I never said censor the media about gun dangers. Guns are not dangerous and are fairly easy to make. Censorship doesnt stereotype people like the media. The media implies things about people.

So america has no guns right and then any country, even the Vatican, can defeat america. What would america do, use their flower power? Guns are an important part of life. It is a painless, easy way to kill animals while hunting animals and made the way for several civilian advancements thanks to war and defense against them.

What if noone could posess guns but law enforcement/military?
If only the police/military has guns, what would stop them from becoming a totalitarian regime? No one could stand up to them, because they would just get shot, with no consequences for the police/military. And what about corruption? The government would have no reason to listen to the people. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

It is an interesting point. I am assuming that you subscribe to the theory that "guns kill people." If there were no guns (hypothetically) I think it is naive to assume that suddenly the United States would begin to act like Canada and Europe (fewer murders per capita, pacifists). The reason the second amendment is in the constitution is because the founding fathers of this country wanted the people to be able to defend themselves. This country was built on protest and standing up for your rights. Agreed, some people choose to take this liberty too far, and encroach on another's pursuit of life. But I don't think it is right to step in and say that you can't own a gun or a knife or a sharp pointy stick because they have potential to kill.


of course we're built on the idea of standing against what is wrong to ensure your rights.

does that have to include violence? guns? do i need to shoot someone to protect my rights? nowadays, the media makes sure my message gets heard, and we have laws against those sorts of things.

you also seem to agree with "guns don't kill people, people do"

yes, but guns make it so much easier

how many peoplw can you kill in five minutes with a knife?

now try it again* with a gun.

see the difference?

experiment 2:

get a pistol, pick a streetcorner, and do a driveby.

now do it again with a knife.

a lot harder, isn't it?



* don't actually try this.

Of course? Based on the nonsense you've spewed in this thread so far, there is nothing obvious about your position. I wouldn't be suprised if you wanted to re-arm the military with squirt guns.

Okay, maybe I'd be suprised, but I wouldn't be shocked.


nonsense?

how about another novel idea: let's try something called diplomacy.

i know, it's a bit hard to pronounce, since we haven't heard the word since about 2000 or so, but it's when you solve problems without fighting.


but in all seriousness, how often do you see military using their guns to commit crimes?

how about civilians?

yep, that's what i thought

i dont no if ne one has brought this up before but..

the 2nd amendment was ment to help people gaurd against british militia stationed in their houses. now that we have established its out of date, lets see wats next

ok so we need them for protection. good. how bout a hand gun? last time i checked, a hand gun is alot easier to defend urself with than an ak47. so medium sized handguns are cool.

wat we dont need are shotguns, machine guns, sub machine guns and the like
hunting rifles are fine, most of the time people use them to shoot dear. hunting people usually entails gettting an illegal sniper rifle(also illegal)

give the military and the cops wat they need. regulate guns. make illegal guns more illegal. make guns that help people (i read 2million ppl protected themselves with them some where here) legal. hunting is fine too. its part of our culture ne way.

some guns are fine, others are dumb. its not an absolute

If only the police/military has guns, what would stop them from becoming a totalitarian regime? No one could stand up to them, because they would just get shot, with no consequences for the police/military. And what about corruption? The government would have no reason to listen to the people. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.


1) you seem to be under the impression that our military is organized enough to do that sort of thing.

2) you also seem to believe that we could actually do anything about it if they actually did. can your hunting rifle take on an apache? that's what i thought


[edit] i find lord zulu's position tolerable, if only for the need to acclimate people to the idea that they do not need to kill things all the time

On the point of the US becoming a totalitarian regime without guns, most other countries seem to get along just fine (even if mr blair does think himself emperor of mankind)

I feel guns are needed because a dissarmed pop. is a very easy pop. to take over...

You know why we won our revolution against britian becuse every one had a gun.

In the town where every one carries a gun there is no crime, none.

thats why, thats why we need fire arms is for defence.. from out gov. and from each other.

That was a long time ago, mate. You surely don't believe that anyone is going to try to invade the US these days? :confused:

of course we're built on the idea of standing against what is wrong to ensure your rights.

does that have to include violence? guns? do i need to shoot someone to protect my rights? nowadays, the media makes sure my message gets heard, and we have laws against those sorts of things.

you also seem to agree with "guns don't kill people, people do"

yes, but guns make it so much easier

how many peoplw can you kill in five minutes with a knife?

now try it again* with a gun.

see the difference?

experiment 2:

get a pistol, pick a streetcorner, and do a driveby.

now do it again with a knife.

a lot harder, isn't it?



* don't actually try this.

A gun cant do squat
Fire a gun lets see what happens since it is not loaded

now a knife killes people quite painfully and stealthly. A knife stabbing someone in the lungs is a lot worse then being shot in the longs.

Now lets take this much further then your example. Lets see how much clapping kills people, yea thats right clapping and any movements like clapping and flapping. Clapping and flapping kills people through the chaos theory by tsunamies and tornadoes and hurricanes. Same with standing. That causes pressure on the earth released as earthquakes and stuff.
I think that killed more people.

Benifits of Guns:
War

Things war got humans
Better science
steel
gun powder
Submarines
Superior Boats
Planes
Parachutes
Tanks
Grendades
Dominance
Protection

Besides there is no reason to fear a gun. Swords and knives are much more effective of killing people since they inflict pain and can cause various disease cut veins, arteries and puncture organs

If it is because of the school shootings then think of what people bring to school. I thought of several ways to kill a person with a piece of paper and writing utensils resemble spears which o my it can kill some one

A gun cant do squat


ok, then


why bother having one?

Besides there is no reason to fear a gun. Swords and knives are much more effective of killing people since they inflict pain and can cause various disease cut veins, arteries and puncture organs

do you have any idea what you're saying?

if swords are more efficient, why don't we use them in war today?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh, boy. I've been going so long without getting into a debate, and I shouldn't start, but whatever.

First off, no crap the UK has less gun deaths. Maybe it's because the UK has less people? Just my five cents. (ajusted for inflation and exchange rates)

Well, for your "only armed militias can have weapons:"

If this stupid link starts responding, I'll give you the source, but according to TITLE 10 , Subtitle A , PART I , CHAPTER 13 , Sec. 311 of the US code, the militia is defined as all males above the age of 18 and under the age of forty-five that do not suffer disabilities.

Oh, and by the way, it is legal to own an automatic rifle, they just cost a lot. They are no longer produced for civilian use, and the import of them is illegal, which is why for a decent AK-47 full auto you'd spend some ten to twenty thousand dollars when its worth maybe three to seven hundred dollars. They're not produced, so the only ones on the market are those already owned.

Also, I'm getting the impression that you all think that the gun acts like a Muramasa katana. (For those of you that don't know, Muramasa was a Japaneese sword-maker that infested all his weapons with demons) This is not true. I, while not a gun owner, since I'm 14 and that's illegal, have weapons in my possession. I am trained well with these weapons, and I'm not stupid. I know that if I point and shoot, it will kill. That's what it was made for. I along with the majourity of my friends, friends' parents, my grandparents, etc, etc are responsible gunowners. The people that blast other people are one in a thousand. I ask that you not think that all gun-owners are evil because a few decided they were clinically insane and decided to go on a rampage.

ok, then


why bother having one?

Guns are useful when combined with a little shaped projectile such as a little thing called a bullet. Guns themselves arent to dangerous unless you get hit with it. The first guns were nothing but a tube with two holes.

things war got man:

atomic weapons
poison gas
organised torture
....and many many ways to kill your fellow man.

I am not in the habit of being rude in a debate, but, anyone who uses an argument with that many holes in it is either deranged or just a total idiot

Let people have their automatic rifles
Dont let them have the High Capacity magazones, dont let them have the JHP rounds.
Let them have the guns, but impose limits. Yes gun ownership should be minimally restricted. Yet we must aknowlege that this in itself will do little. Its a societal problem we have on our hands. Let us look at Canada. They have a proportionately larger amount or guns yet they have fewer gun deaths, far fewer. I personally blame the media. Not violence though, as we see Germany, the home of violent Gothic music too has very few gun deaths. It is rather an issue of fear. We are a culture that bathes in fear. Our news, media, and government all revel in it. Get rid of the fear and you will see a reduction in deaths.

Guns are useful when combined with a little shaped projectile such as a little thing called a bullet. Guns themselves arent to dangerous unless you get hit with it. The first guns were nothing but a tube with two holes.


here's a good rule to live by:

never assume that people are as stupid as you are



when you talk about guns, you talk about the ammunition. to assume that it is not the case is just retarded

:headbang:

A gun cant do squat
Fire a gun lets see what happens since it is not loaded

now a knife killes people quite painfully and stealthly. A knife stabbing someone in the lungs is a lot worse then being shot in the longs.

Now lets take this much further then your example. Lets see how much clapping kills people, yea thats right clapping and any movements like clapping and flapping. Clapping and flapping kills people through the chaos theory by tsunamies and tornadoes and hurricanes. Same with standing. That causes pressure on the earth released as earthquakes and stuff.
I think that killed more people.

Benifits of Guns:
War

Things war got humans
Better science
steel
gun powder
Submarines
Superior Boats
Planes
Parachutes
Tanks
Grendades
Dominance
Protection

Besides there is no reason to fear a gun. Swords and knives are much more effective of killing people since they inflict pain and can cause various disease cut veins, arteries and puncture organs

If it is because of the school shootings then think of what people bring to school. I thought of several ways to kill a person with a piece of paper and writing utensils resemble spears which o my it can kill some one

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Benifits of Guns:
War

Things war got humans
Better science
steel
gun powder
Submarines
Superior Boats
Planes
Parachutes
Tanks
Grendades
Dominance
Protection

Ditto.

If it is because of the school shootings then think of what people bring to school. I thought of several ways to kill a person with a piece of paper and writing utensils resemble spears which o my it can kill some one

Correct. I could kill a person at least five different ways with my bare hands, a few more with a ruler or a pencil-pen, a lot more with my knifes and or swords, but actually, I could kill more people with my katana then I could my gun. All I need is a swoop from my katana and your head is gone, while my rifle is bolt action. Granted, I can fire reload, point, and fire within three seconds, but I'd do more harm with my sword.



O_o


Why am I talking about this on an international public forum? I think I just hit a moment of complete stupidity.

Good point. But which is harder to change: the society or the amount of guns in circulation. In my opinion, it would be easier to tkae away the guns

ok, then


why bother having one?



do you have any idea what you're saying?

if swords are more efficient, why don't we use them in war today?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Swords are not used because although more lethal they have a horrible range. A sword needs no reloading, bullets and not to much maintence if any. Another efficiant way to kill an enemy in war is to nuke the whole country but why dont we do that? The answer is because humans are afraid of what they dont understand.

Humans are animals and as all animals, they are creatures of war with more emotions which is the reason why they are more dangerous (maybe the reason plays more but emotion seperates the killers from the normal people)

On the point of the US becoming a totalitarian regime without guns, most other countries seem to get along just fine (even if mr blair does think himself emperor of mankind)

Well most politicians, despite being complete bastards, are at least smart enough (doesn't take much, which is key for them) and have enough decency (see previous :D) to not establish a totalitarian regime. And although it remains a very small (almost improbable) possibility it could happen anywhere. Nobody should think themselves completely immune from it. Let enough time pass and I'm sure some sort of circumstances make the public of any country elect some jackasses that seize full control and then what are ya gonna do? I personally would rather be ready to fight.

Benifits of Guns:
War

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

that's it

i give up

there is just no reasoning with some people.


a day will come when all firearms are completely open to everyone without limit, and you will all get so happy about it that you kill eachother off and the rational people left won't have to deal with this bullshit anymore.

winchester 76, i disagree: a gun has a mutch higher potential for destruction than "any other tool"

i disagree. guns have a much quicker potential for destuction not higher

i'm guessing that your definition of 'stupid' is 'anyone that does not agree with you'Oh no. I only consider people to be stupid when the demonstrate stupidity. Even then, I tend to bite my tounge a lot. I generally find it counter-productive to insult people. However, I occaisionally feel strongly compelled to accurately label a stupid idea as stupid without regard for the feelings of the poster.



[the drug war] doesn't work because it is incredibly underfunded. more money and more people, and it'll run smoothlyYou really believe this? Are you still in high school? Are you even there yet? Who can I blame for your opinion? Your parents? BTW, are they employed by the government? Your teachers? Dan rather?

Government cannot sovle any alleged problem by simply throwing money at it. Countries with relatively relaxed drug laws (which is almost all of them) have fewer problems with drugs. You do the math.



sorry if you're not one of them and i have offended you, but everybody i know who is opposed to gun control only knows the second half. they seem to forget that the right to bear arms applies to private militias. now that the army has its own branches specifically made for defense, there is no need for civilians to make their oen armies and fight the invaders
Not everyone who supports the private ownership of firearms is a member of the NRA. I won't even get into the Second Amendment. It's time consuming, and only really comes into play regarding specific laws. It has no real bearing on this abstract debate.




[The 21st Ammendment] goes to show that a bit of editing on the 2nd is nowhere near out of reach.
No, it doesn't. It's shows that it's legally possible, but you would have to prove some level of popular support to show that it's within reach.

While I can see what you mean, and sympathise with the idea of fightinf a totalitarian government, I think the chances of the "black helicopters"
coming down and taking over is pretty miniscule, and especially considering the harm caused by keeping guns around in the meantime.

here's a good rule to live by:

never assume that people are as stupid as you are



when you talk about guns, you talk about the ammunition. to assume that it is not the case is just retarded

:headbang:

Ah but you assumed and assuming is the stupidest thing one can make. For example person 1 (you) assume person 2 (me) is stupid for not assuming because assuming is nothing more then a guess. I can assume that you are the president of the united states of ... because you can talk as most people who know me think i am a communist for antidemocratic anticapitalist beliefs. America assumed that the dominoe theory would happen so they foolishly went to war in korea and vietnam only with spreading communism as an excuse. I ask you what is bad about communism besides the fact that i am a fascist.

Ditto.



Correct. I could kill a person at least five different ways with my bare hands, a few more with a ruler or a pencil-pen, a lot more with my knifes and or swords, but actually, I could kill more people with my katana then I could my gun. All I need is a swoop from my katana and your head is gone, while my rifle is bolt action. Granted, I can fire reload, point, and fire within three seconds, but I'd do more harm with my sword.

*snip*


Why am I talking about this on an international public forum? I think I just hit a moment of complete stupidity.

There appear to be a couple of minor points in the Bible you missed:

Thou shalt not kill.

Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

do i need to shoot someone to protect my rights?
You might.

What's wrong with communism? Well, not much inherrently, but it seems us humans are just too mean to make it work. I agree that the whole communist menace thing was a load of bull, and I feel that the McArthy whitchhunts were one of the more shameful chunks of US history

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

that's it

i give up

there is just no reasoning with some people.


a day will come when all firearms are completely open to everyone without limit, and you will all get so happy about it that you kill eachother off and the rational people left won't have to deal with this bullshit anymore.

Rationality is only an opinion. I think you are being the irrational one for you think that reasoning with others could be impossible. Ill tell you this

War is good-Malthus
People are evil-Hobbes
Friends are non existant(dont remember the exact phrase)-Machiavelli

These are schools of thought with historical bases. You dont have any of that so stop insulting my schools of thought. humans kill each other anyway they can ever since they existed did you here about the war between the neanderthals and cromagnums, the latter genocided the first. You seem to be quick to anger as people such as myself remain relatively calm and slow to anger. You, I consider to be a pathetic person

What's wrong with communism? Well, not much inherrently, but it seems us humans are just too mean to make it work. I agree that the whole communist menace thing was a load of bull, and I feel that the McArthy whitchhunts were one of the more shameful chunks of US history

If i wasnt fascist i would be a communist. Similar beliefs different endings.

See he lost. If you can not convince me of your point then you have no reason to believe it

Rationality is only an opinion. I think you are being the irrational one for you think that reasoning with others could be impossible. Ill tell you this

War is good-Malthus
People are evil-Hobbes
Friends are non existant(dont remember the exact phrase)-Machiavelli

These are schools of thought with historical bases. You dont have any of that so stop insulting my schools of thought. humans kill each other anyway they can ever since they existed did you here about the war between the neanderthals and cromagnums, the latter genocided the first. You seem to be quick to anger as people such as myself remain relatively calm and slow to anger. You, I consider to be a pathetic person

You clearly haven't read Hobbes or Machiavelli.

Nor understood why Malthus is wrong.

Try again when you are older and wiser.

but in all seriousness, how often do you see military using their guns to commit crimes?

how about civilians?

I've never seen anyone commit a crime with a gun.

yep, that's what i thought
Really?

Actually, soldiers do have a nasty habit of doing what they can get away with in combat zones. And what if a whole war is illegal and therefore a crime? It's foolish to think someone will not commit violent crimes because they're employed by government, unless maybe you're using that government's definition of 'crime'.

Originally Posted by Jibea
Rationality is only an opinion. I think you are being the irrational one for you think that reasoning with others could be impossible. Ill tell you this

War is good-Malthus
People are evil-Hobbes
Friends are non existant(dont remember the exact phrase)-Machiavelli

These are schools of thought with historical bases. You dont have any of that so stop insulting my schools of thought. humans kill each other anyway they can ever since they existed did you here about the war between the neanderthals and cromagnums, the latter genocided the first. You seem to be quick to anger as people such as myself remain relatively calm and slow to anger. You, I consider to be a pathetic person

You clearly haven't read Hobbes or Machiavelli.

Nor understood why Malthus is wrong.

Try again when you are older and wiser.


Your real funny The Cat-Tribe :D :D :D . Jibea knows his philiosophers. He reads plenty of these things. Please excuse me as I hilariously laugh in the corner.....
(go to a corner and laughs hilariously) :D

You clearly haven't read Hobbes or Machiavelli.

Nor understood why Malthus is wrong.

Try again when you are older and wiser.

Machiavelli-Humans cant be trusted when most needed
Hobbes: Absolute monarchist because more rights=anarchy=evil humans
Malthus: Theory of evolution

So an opinion can be wrong. So using your belief i say you and all you people who say no guns are not right and you cant talk about guns or anything else.

That was a long time ago, mate. You surely don't believe that anyone is going to try to invade the US these days? :confused:
Of course not. Too many of us have guns. :D

See he lost. If you can not convince me of your point then you have no reason to believe it


your inability to see reason has nothing to do with the convictions behind my beliefs.

These are schools of thought with historical bases. You dont have any of that so stop insulting my schools of thought.

why is your thought safe from insult?

humans kill each other anyway they can ever since they existed did you here about the war between the neanderthals and cromagnums, the latter genocided the first.

1) i like the way you say war is good, and point to the neandarthals for proof.

2) we've been doing it forever? so what? we've had slavery forever, why stop now?

You seem to be quick to anger as people such as myself remain relatively calm and slow to anger.

1) good for you. woop-de-fuckin'-do

2) i have a short fuse, but wet. few topics get me angrier then people justifying violence.

and don't even fucking dare say that anger=violence. anger is your body telling you that you've found something that needs to be fixed immediately. the ability to use that energy in a progressive fashion is truly a sign of intelligence.


for any other questions about the needlessness of violence, look at gahndi.

a little old man ended years of opression from the most powerful nation in the world without spilling a drop of blood.

when all our problems are achieved in such a manner, we will know that we have truly achieved the pinnacle of himan civilization.


the ability to move beyond the neandarthal days is one of my goals. how about you? you seem to enjoy the times when life was nothing more than beathing the crap out of eachother with rocks.

And I wonder why I do science. At least you can prove things beyond reasonable doubt. To bad us humans are not as obliging. :headbang:

yes, but guns make it so much easier

True. There is a reason that guns are in many circles reffered to as the great equalizer. A 125 lb. woman would be hard pressed to defend herself from a 200 lb. man without extensive and continuous training if her attacker was at all alert. If she has a gun on the other hand, which takes relatively little time and training to properly learn how to handle, she is much, much more likely to come away from the incident unscathed. Actual equality in government didn't really come around until the use of guns was widespread. There is a reason for this. It no longer comes down to who is the bigger brute.

If a man wants to kill a man, he's gonna find the tool. Be it an axe, a chainsaw, a baseball bat, a knife, or, yes, a gun. Banning guns from public hands isn't going to help one damned bit.

A: It's a violation of the Bill of Rights, specifically a right that's been in place since the freaking US was made.

B: If someone wants to get a gun, he's gonna get a gun one way or another. You'd be surprised how good the black market is.

C: Taking guns out of regular people's hands is gonna make things even worse. Then innocent people wouldn't be able to defend themselves if a situation came where their owning a gun could protect them.

D: Texas. Think about it for a second. If you can't figure it out, please go see a doctor. Or read some history books.

True. There is a reason that guns are in many circles reffered to as the great equalizer. A 125 lb. woman would be hard pressed to defend herself from a 200 lb. man without extensive and continuous training if her attacker was at all alert. If she has a gun on the other hand, which takes relatively little time and training to properly learn how to handle, she is much, much more likely to come away from the incident unscathed. Actual equality in government didn't really come around until the use of guns was widespread. There is a reason for this. It no longer comes down to who is the bigger brute.

So it come down to who has the biggest gun now. Progress. Don't ya love it

you all dident lessen to all i said or dident understand i wasent refering to out side threats when i said " a dissarmed pop. is a easy to take over pop." i was talking about the U.S. gov becomeing a dictatorship. with out guns there would be no way to stop that from happening...
swords are nice and your right they can do a whole ton more damage than guns but guns have the range that swords do not...
so yea lets just step a side toss away all our rights which is what the U.S gov is currently doing takeing away our rights.
look at the patriot act.... they could arrest any one in the whole contry all you have to do is indanger other "non-combatent targets" they can allso come into your house and talk any thing they want under the cover of "nationaly security"...
you really want that do you ........
i dont ....
and i hope for all our sakes that you dont to...

Your real funny The Cat-Tribe :D :D :D . Jibea knows his philiosophers. He reads plenty of these things. Please excuse me as I hilariously laugh in the corner.....
(go to a corner and laughs hilariously) :D

I assume that was an attempt at sarcasm.

Perhaps I shouldn't have confused reading and understanding. I'll try reading Hobbes out loud to my cats and see if they can argue with Jibea.

Let people have their automatic rifles
Dont let them have the High Capacity magazones, dont let them have the JHP rounds.
Let them have the guns, but impose limits. Yes gun ownership should be minimally restricted.Why are these gun control comprimises always so
arbitrary? Why on earth would you seek to ban hollow-points? They are safer as defensive ammunition because they're less likely penetrate the body, and more likely to stop the attacker.
I'm beginning to think you're joking because fully auto weapons + lo-cap magazines is such a silly and pointless combination.

Thou shalt not kill.

Ahem, common mistake. The correct line is Thou shalt not Murder. A different meaning entirely.

I would like to bring up one thing that wass quickly put down. I know the chances of any foriegn army attacking the us is rare but what about 50 years from now? Who will stop a foriegn army after the US army is defeated. I will tell you unarmed citizens won't. To take a nation as large as the US with organized civilian resistance would be hard.

your inability to see reason has nothing to do with the convictions behind my beliefs.



why is your thought safe from insult?



1) i like the way you say war is good, and point to the neandarthals for proof.

2) we've been doing it forever? so what? we've had slavery forever, why stop now?



1) good for you. woop-de-fuckin'-do

2) i have a short fuse, but wet. few topics get me angrier then people justifying violence.

and don't even fucking dare say that anger=violence. anger is your body telling you that you've found something that needs to be fixed immediately. the ability to use that energy in a progressive fashion is truly a sign of intelligence.


for any other questions about the needlessness of violence, look at gahndi.

a little old man ended years of opression from the most powerful nation in the world without spilling a drop of blood.

when all our problems are achieved in such a manner, we will know that we have truly achieved the pinnacle of himan civilization.


the ability to move beyond the neandarthal days is one of my goals. how about you? you seem to enjoy the times when life was nothing more than beathing the crap out of eachother with rocks.

I decided not to post my other thing as you would critized me even further

Give me proof guns are bad. Killing isnt always bad now is it? If that one brit felt no sympathy and shot adolf in the wheelchair during WW1 would there be a genocide of "subhumans" by the germans? You will never be able to convince me of your beliefs as they are pathetic and ideal. Humans are innatly evil.

So what is murder as opposed to killing?

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

As those before me stated, outlawing guns will only make criminals and maniacs who are determined to get guns that much stronger.

Courtesy of http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF02.htm -->

Date:--------------------------# killed:--------#legal status of weapon
26 Apr 2002 Erfurt, Germany 16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
27 Sep 2001 Zug, Switzerland 14 + 1 Legal guns, licensed pistol owner
29 Jul 1999 Atlanta, GA, USA 12 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
20 Apr 1999 Littleton, CO, USA 13 + 2 Not legal guns
28 Apr 1996 Port Arthur, Australia 35 Not legal guns
13 Mar 1996 Dunblane, Scotland 17 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
16 Oct 1991 Killeen, TX, USA 23 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
13 Nov 1990 Aramoana, New Zealand 13 + 1 Legal guns, licensed gun owner
18 Jun 1990 Jacksonville, FL, USA 9 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
06 Dec 1989 Montreal, Canada 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
19 Aug 1987 Hungerford, England 16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
20 Aug 1986 Edmond, OK, USA 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
18 Jul 1984 San Ysidro, CA, USA 21 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
01 Aug 1966 Austin, TX, USA 16 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required

As you can see, mass gun killing are common throughout all of the Westernized modern nations. It just so happens that the U.S. has more small-scale shooting due to social problems and the diverse population of America (not to mention the much larger overall population). Perhaps banning guns is not the answer, but determining the cause of this madness and attempting to heal it is a more rational one (and this may not be purely the government's job, as all citizens of the United States should feel obligated to enhance the prosperity of the greatest nation on Earth.)

Think outside of the box. :mp5:

There appear to be a couple of minor points in the Bible you missed:

Thou shalt not kill.

Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Well, I thank you for one thing -- I now know how to indent! :D

I didn't miss those points, I know them quite well. Happens to be I follow the first one and not the second one. Why?

Well, the correct translation is "Thou Shalt not commit murder." Defending yourself is not murder. If someone is going to kill me, and I kill him in the process of defending meself, I do not see this as murder. It is self-defence. It was either me or him. I'd rather it be him.

I also know that second part. Frankly, I'll admit to you -- I don't follow it. Why? I tried that once. What happened? I tried to commit suicide at least four times because I let people trample all over me -- I was that depressed. That is why I do not follow it. Normally, I let things slide by, such as insults, etc, but if someone is attacking me in an attempt to inflict bodily harm or kill me, I'm going to fight back.

What's wrong with communism? Well, not much inherrently, but it seems us humans are just too mean to make it work. I agree that the whole communist menace thing was a load of bull, and I feel that the McArthy whitchhunts were one of the more shameful chunks of US history

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, oh me oh my! Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor, where I lie in crippling agony from the sheer hilarity of that comment.

100,000,000+ dead human beings isn't a menace? Stalin and Mao weren't menaces? Exactly WHAT standard of thought comes up with Communism = good but guns = bad?! Do you people have any grounding in reality? Or are you just like, 14? Because when I was 14 I thought in just that manner.

I swear by Our Lord Jesus Christ, I'm this close to going on a killing spree without a single firearm and prove guns are a good thing. Because I'd have been shot down after (Possibly even before) my first victim.

Here's a message for you anti-gun people; Earth is not a happy elysium. Earth is a nasty place filled with a lot of decent people and a handful of violent criminals. Until we can detect those and prevent them from being criminals, we have the necessity to be prepared for such people making attacks on ourselves, our property, or our family. I'd rather have a gun and be found guilty of murder, and put on death row, than permit my girlfriend, mother, or my female friends to be raped. (Hell, I'd do it for a total stranger.)

Nevermind of course, that millions upon millions of crimes every year are stopped by firearms. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but whilst Lott gets plenty of flak, there are barely even the rarest attempts at disproving Kleck's study. Know why? Because he's right and it's proven - you can't argue with it. It's been peer reviewed by a strong anti-gun person, who came to the conclusion that he could not find any errors in the calculations and data. And it seems for once, these people DON'T actually think they know better (I_Hate_Cows excepted.), so they try and point to the tiny minority of gun owners who do go crazy with the gun (And they'd just use a sword (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm) instead.*).

* I know that's not such a great example, as nobody died, so you can all just say that this is better than the alternative. The alternative being, of course, that someone in the church turns around and blows him away after just one or two shots are fired.

[/QUOTE]Give me proof guns are bad. Killing isnt always bad now is it? If that one brit felt no sympathy and shot adolf in the wheelchair during WW1 would there be a genocide of "subhumans" by the germans? You will never be able to convince me of your beliefs as they are pathetic and ideal. Humans are innatly evil.[/QUOTE]
You just saort of disproved yourself. The brit felt PITY. PITY is not EVIL. Most humans are not inherrently evil, but have the potential to be so

I decided not to post my other thing as you would critized me even further

Give me proof guns are bad. Killing isnt always bad now is it? If that one brit felt no sympathy and shot adolf in the wheelchair during WW1 would there be a genocide of "subhumans" by the germans?


i really like the way you excuse of violence as good because it would have ended a man who was inherently violent.

"we need violence because if we didn't, there would be even more violence"

:rolleyes:

and how much sense does that make?

humans are innately evil

well, i'm sorry you feel that way.

Machiavelli-Humans cant be trusted when most needed

Wrong. Bit more subtle. And I assume you are just referring to The Prince.

Hobbes: Absolute monarchist because more rights=anarchy=evil humans

Wrong.

You are right about the absolute monarchist -- but that part you don't agree with, right?

Malthus: Theory of evolution

Wrong. Vaguely in the ballpark. Malthus was an influence on Darwin.

So an opinion can be wrong. So using your belief i say you and all you people who say no guns are not right and you cant talk about guns or anything else.

This neither makes any sense nor follows from anything I said.

None of this response does you any favors. You could have gotten more accurate information about Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Malthus from Wikipeida.

Just move on.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, oh me oh my! Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor, where I lie in crippling agony from the sheer hilarity of that comment.

100,000,000+ dead human beings isn't a menace? Stalin and Mao weren't menaces? Exactly WHAT standard of thought comes up with Communism = good but guns = bad?! Do you people have any grounding in reality? Or are you just like, 14? Because when I was 14 I thought in just that manner.

I swear by Our Lord Jesus Christ, I'm this close to going on a killing spree without a single firearm and prove guns are a good thing. Because I'd have been shot down after (Possibly even before) my first victim.

Here's a message for you anti-gun people; Earth is not a happy elysium. Earth is a nasty place filled with a lot of decent people and a handful of violent criminals. Until we can detect those and prevent them from being criminals, we have the necessity to be prepared for such people making attacks on ourselves, our property, or our family. I'd rather have a gun and be found guilty of murder, and put on death row, than permit my girlfriend, mother, or my female friends to be raped. (Hell, I'd do it for a total stranger.)

Nevermind of course, that millions upon millions of crimes every year are stopped by firearms. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but whilst Lott gets plenty of flak, there are barely even the rarest attempts at disproving Kleck's study. Know why? Because he's right and it's proven - you can't argue with it. It's been peer reviewed by a strong anti-gun person, who came to the conclusion that he could not find any errors in the calculations and data. And it seems for once, these people DON'T actually think they know better (I_Hate_Cows excepted.), so they try and point to the tiny minority of gun owners who do go crazy with the gun (And they'd just use a sword (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm) instead.*).

* I know that's not such a great example, as nobody died, so you can all just say that this is better than the alternative. The alternative being, of course, that someone in the church turns around and blows him away after just one or two shots are fired.

No. earth is not an elysium. There are people out there who are trying to make it one. And anyway, my point is not that communism did not turn out to be evil under stalin, but that it was not inherrently so

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, oh me oh my! Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor, where I lie in crippling agony from the sheer hilarity of that comment.

100,000,000+ dead human beings isn't a menace? Stalin and Mao weren't menaces? Exactly WHAT standard of thought comes up with Communism = good but guns = bad?! Do you people have any grounding in reality? Or are you just like, 14? Because when I was 14 I thought in just that manner.

I swear by Our Lord Jesus Christ, I'm this close to going on a killing spree without a single firearm and prove guns are a good thing. Because I'd have been shot down after (Possibly even before) my first victim.

Here's a message for you anti-gun people; Earth is not a happy elysium. Earth is a nasty place filled with a lot of decent people and a handful of violent criminals. Until we can detect those and prevent them from being criminals, we have the necessity to be prepared for such people making attacks on ourselves, our property, or our family. I'd rather have a gun and be found guilty of murder, and put on death row, than permit my girlfriend, mother, or my female friends to be raped. (Hell, I'd do it for a total stranger.)

Nevermind of course, that millions upon millions of crimes every year are stopped by firearms. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but whilst Lott gets plenty of flak, there are barely even the rarest attempts at disproving Kleck's study. Know why? Because he's right and it's proven - you can't argue with it. It's been peer reviewed by a strong anti-gun person, who came to the conclusion that he could not find any errors in the calculations and data. And it seems for once, these people DON'T actually think they know better (I_Hate_Cows excepted.), so they try and point to the tiny minority of gun owners who do go crazy with the gun (And they'd just use a sword (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm) instead.*).

* I know that's not such a great example, as nobody died, so you can all just say that this is better than the alternative. The alternative being, of course, that someone in the church turns around and blows him away after just one or two shots are fired.

Calling Stalin a communist is like calling me a democrat. Stalin killed communist and everything else. Stalin invented stalinism which is similar to but not same as communism. I dont know or care about the other person.

Just thought I'd throw this at you.

This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

Remember his police? In case you forgot the Schutzstaffel, who's chief was named Reichfürher Heinrich Himmler, they were responsible for the roundup and execution of six million plus Jews, Slavs, and Christians, and many others. I wonder what would've happened if the civilian populus had firearms?

Wrong. Bit more subtle. And I assume you are just referring to The Prince.



Wrong.

You are right about the absolute monarchist -- but that part you don't agree with, right?



Wrong. Vaguely in the ballpark. Malthus was an influence on Darwin.



This neither makes any sense nor follows from anything I said.

None of this response does you any favors. You could have gotten more accurate information about Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Malthus from Wikipeida.

Just move on.

Sorry wrote wrong thing for malthus. He used the theory of evolution to say that there are more people then food so the less people the more humans. He was influenced by darwin but influenced the Ricardo and his iron law of wages

Ahem, common mistake. The correct line is Thou shalt not Murder. A different meaning entirely.

The "correct" line is disputed. Different religious sects read it differently.

But you are correct that the line is interpreted differently, that yours is one interpretation, and it has a different meaning.

Care to reinterpret turning the other cheek?

Calling Stalin a communist is like calling me a democrat. Stalin killed communist and everything else. Stalin invented stalinism which is similar to but not same as communism. I dont know or care about the other person.

Very true. He was a totalitarian dictator.
what other person?

There appear to be a couple of minor points in the Bible you missed:

Thou shalt not kill.

Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And a few you might have missed:

1. Talmud: ?If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.?

2. Roman Catholic: ?Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.? Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Thomas Aquinas).

3. The Bible: Luke 22:36 - ?He who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.?

4. Exodus 22.2 - ?If a thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so he dies, there shall be no guilt for his death.?

Just thought I'd throw this at you.



Remember his police? In case you forgot the Schutzstaffel, who's chief was named Reichfürher Heinrich Himmler, they were responsible for the roundup and execution of six million plus Jews, Slavs, and Christians, and many others. I wonder what would've happened if the civilian populus had firearms?


they would have fought back, and been shot on the spot.

they would send media footage to the rest of the world, asking for foriegn aid in a 'horrible civil war' and the rest of us, eager to stop the civil war from spreading and starting another world war (we were terribly afraid of another, having just finished the first) would have sent troops to help.

don't forget that up until he stormed poland, we were calling him and the brownshirts parading through the black forest "boy scouts" and saying that the economic improvements he brought to germany during the depression "the best thing to happen to germany"

i have no doubt in my mind that if he played it off as a civil revolt, we would have come to his side

If someone broke into my home, or assaulted my girlfriend, or tried to kill my mother or even an innocent stranger, I would pull out my Smith and Wesson and blow the criminal away.

And I would feel good doing it. And I don't see anything wrong with that. Do you?

Serious question. I'm not being sarcastic.

Communism is a very loose term. Fascism and Nazism are both types of communism

Sorry wrote wrong thing for malthus. He used the theory of evolution to say that there are more people then food so the less people the more humans. He was influenced by darwin but influenced the Ricardo and his iron law of wages

Um, you keep digging a deeper hole.

Thomas Malthus lived from 1766 to 1834. An Essay on the Principle of Population was published in 1798.

Charles Darwin lived from 1809 to 1882. The Origin of Species was published in 1859.

Malthus didn't use the theory of evolution for anything. It didn't exist yet.

Malthus wasn't influenced by Darwin. Darwin was influenced by Malthus.

Really, stop.

I apologize for doubting your honesty or insulting your intelligence.

It is my understanding you are relatively young to have read these works. Regardless, I am impressed that you have read them. They are difficult to comprehend. Philosophy majors in college struggle with them.

Communism is a very loose term. Fascism and Nazism are both types of communism


not in the slightest

did you know that the first people hitler rounded up and killed were not the jews, but the communists?

there was a very active communist party in germany after WW1, and when hitler took power, he forcefully disbanded them and sent the leaders to prison

communism is an economic belief: complete government control over all monetary matters. (think: robin hood. steal from the rich, give to the ones who need it)

fascism is all about complete control of social lives, moderate on economics, and with an unhealthy obsession with the military

Communism is a very loose term. Fascism and Nazism are both types of communism

Not true. While communism is about efficiency, fascism is about conspicous production, displays of power etc. It is essentially inneficient.

Communism is a very loose term. Fascism and Nazism are both types of communism

No.

It is possible to argue that some forms of Fascism and Nazism are forms of socialism. Most would say perversions.

Neither is a type of communism.

(It doesn't help here to confuse historical examples of facism and the Nazis in Germany with facism. But my point survives either way.)

not in the slightest

did you know that the first people hitler rounded up and killed were not the jews, but the communists?

there was a very active communist party in germany after WW1, and when hitler took power, he forcefully disbanded them and sent the leaders to prison

true but they are still very similar fascism, nazism, and communism all are dictatorship rule where people have few rights and no one can oppose the party in power. hitler and stalin, same goals slightly different methods

No.

It is possible to argue that some forms of Fascism and Nazism are forms of socialism. Most would say perversions.

not exactly.

socialism is democracy mixed with a watered down communism, that usually includes little to no government control on social issues.

fascism can exist in a democracy, as long as you get the majorty of the people to allow complete social control of the minority

they would have fought back, and been shot on the spot.

they would send media footage to the rest of the world, asking for foriegn aid in a 'horrible civil war' and the rest of us, eager to stop the civil war from spreading and starting another world war (we were terribly afraid of another, having just finished the first) would have sent troops to help.

don't forget that up until he stormed poland, we were calling him and the brownshirts parading through the black forest "boy scouts" and saying that the economic improvements he brought to germany during the depression "the best thing to happen to germany"

i have no doubt in my mind that if he played it off as a civil revolt, we would have come to his side

Yes and no. The US didn't care at this point. We weren't interested -- we had our own problems. France (as usual) capitulated at the drop of a hat, Britian also capitulated, which is unlike them. You see, you'd be correct Hitler would have played it off as a civil revolt, but most definitely someone would have wanted to know why they were revolting. The whole SS execution thing would have been uncovered, and the public would demand response, which the current governments were not giving.

As someone said earlier, Stalin was not a communist, he was a Stalinist. Communism is about equality for everyone taken to an extreme.

No.

It is possible to argue that some forms of Fascism and Nazism are forms of socialism. Most would say perversions.

Neither is a type of communism.

(It doesn't help here to confuse historical examples of facism and the Nazis in Germany with facism. But my point survives either way.)

true. but everything is based on history so historical example is usually the only example

true but they are still very similar fascism, nazism, and communism all are dictatorship rule where people have few rights and no one can oppose the party in power. hitler and stalin, same goals slightly different methods


not in the slightest.

at all.

communism has nothing to do with forms of government

you can have democratic communism (sort of socialism)

you can have authoritarian communism (as stalin and mao gratefully demonstrated)

Well, this threads devolved into another debate on the merits of communism. I'm outta here...

And a few you might have missed:

1. Talmud: ?If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.?

2. Roman Catholic: ?Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.? Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Thomas Aquinas).

3. The Bible: Luke 22:36 - ?He who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.?

4. Exodus 22.2 - ?If a thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so he dies, there shall be no guilt for his death.?

Let's see. The Talmud and the Catechism are not the Bible.

The Bible contradicts itself, so?

And ... I was being sarcastic to begin with. :rolleyes:

I don't believe in the silly ol' Bible. (I believe there are books called the Bible. I believe it is literature of varying quality. I don't believe it has any special meaning.) Got it?

Yes and no. The US didn't care at this point. We weren't interested -- we had our own problems. France (as usual) capitulated at the drop of a hat, Britian also capitulated, which is unlike them. You see, you'd be correct Hitler would have played it off as a civil revolt, but most definitely someone would have wanted to know why they were revolting. The whole SS execution thing would have been uncovered, and the public would demand response, which the current governments were not giving.


Oh yeah. Jews and communists wern't exactly popular back then, even outside of germany. Most likely the government would have hushed it up and let them get on with it, with the tacit agreement of a lot of people.

Let's see. The Talmud and the Catechism are not the Bible.

The Bible contradicts itself, so?

And ... I was being sarcastic to begin with. :rolleyes:

I don't believe in the silly ol' Bible. (I believe there are books called the Bible. I believe it is literature of varying quality. I don't believe it has any special meaning.) Got it?

the bible dosnt contradict itself its just used out of context

<sigh>

I'm not responding to any more of the drivel about communism. :headbang: It is irrelevant. :headbang: And there are so many errors in the various posts its ridiculous. :headbang:

And I am not a communist or a socialist or a fascist or a Nazi. Nor do I think any of those views have much merit.

Let's just move on -- to the extent this discussion was ever intelligent.

the bible dosnt contradict itself its just used out of context

Theold and new testament contradict each other in hundreds of ways.
Don't know well enough to say if they contradict themselves in their own books

Don't know well enough to say if they contradict themselves in their own books
they do :). Genesis itself contains two contradictory creation myths, and that's just chapter 1 of the Big Book.

Yes and no. The US didn't care at this point. We weren't interested -- we had our own problems. France (as usual) capitulated at the drop of a hat, Britian also capitulated, which is unlike them. You see, you'd be correct Hitler would have played it off as a civil revolt, but most definitely someone would have wanted to know why they were revolting. The whole SS execution thing would have been uncovered, and the public would demand response, which the current governments were not giving.


don't be sure about that.

he had his henchmen burn down the reichstag (sort of capitol building) and play it off as the communists, took the oppurtunity to seize control, and disbanded the party.

if we gave a shit about their government, that's when we would have done something.


seeing outright violence in the streets, however, would hav instigated fears that revolt would happen here.

the faster we stop it there, the less likely the people here are to see the 'revolt' and get ideas

Let's see. The Talmud and the Catechism are not the Bible.

The Bible contradicts itself, so?

And ... I was being sarcastic to begin with. :rolleyes:

I don't believe in the silly ol' Bible. (I believe there are books called the Bible. I believe it is literature of varying quality. I don't believe it has any special meaning.) Got it?

Ohh, temper. I don't believe in the theological aspects of the Judeo-Christian Bible either. They really need some sort of sarcasm markers on this board.

people who generaly say the bible contadicts itself havent really studied the bible and still quote it out of context.
i dont do warm and fuzzy, it itches

well, i have a novel approach:

why not stop making the damn things?


Anybody with a lathe and a few other simple tools can make a gun.

Well, this threads devolved into another debate on the merits of communism. I'm outta here...


sorry, but when people bash a perfectly valid, (and a hell of a lot more fair) economic system, with completely outlandish views on what it really is, i tend to want to educate them.

just because you have a built in conservative stigmata against the working class finally getting what they need and the ruling class not living on the easy side any more, doesn't mean i'm going to sit back and watch it be compared to the things it could not be farther from by ignorant blokes who have been taught all their lives by people like you.

*breathes*

people who generaly say the bible contadicts itself havent really studied the bible and still quote it out of context.
i dont do warm and fuzzy, it itches

we must have different definitions of 'study'

my study: look at from an unblocked perspective and take every part into consideration

your study: first, assume divinity. read, believing all, until you have become so brainwashed as to take it all for truth without looking at it with your own mind.



how do " if you are struck, turn the other cheek" and "if you are being attacked, chop them into little tiny pieces" not contradict eachother?

people who generaly say the bible contadicts itself havent really studied the bible and still quote it out of context.
so...about those two Genesis creation myths...how exactly do you get around how much they contradict one another?

sorry, but when people bash a perfectly valid

*collapses in paroxysms of laughter.*

*collapses in paroxysms of laughter.*


how is it not?

if your neighbor goes out of business, would you rather have them starve on the street, or would you rather have everyone in the country chip in $1 to set them back on their feet?



share the wealth. it solves an unbelievable number of societal problems.

we must have different definitions of 'study'

my study: look at from an unblocked perspective and take every part into consideration

your study: first, assume divinity. read, believing all, until you have become so brainwashed as to take it all for truth without looking at it with your own mind.



how do " if you are struck, turn the other cheek" and "if you are being attacked, chop them into little tiny pieces" not contradict eachother?

:D Yeah well, some people...

Ohh, temper. I don't believe in the theological aspects of the Judeo-Christian Bible either. They really need some sort of sarcasm markers on this board.

No temper. Just frustrated by the sad state of reading comprehension.

And tell me you really agree with those who've been going on about their own little killing sprees and how beneficial war is.

Calling Stalin a communist is like calling me a democrat. Stalin killed communist and everything else. Stalin invented stalinism which is similar to but not same as communism. I dont know or care about the other person.

You don't know or care about Mao Zedong, Communist ruler of China from 1949 until his death in 1976? You don't know or care about why the phrase 'Great Leap Forward' should make people recoil with far more horror than 'Kristallnacht'? You don't care that Mao's China was responsible for the greatest number of dead under any empire, save that of the Khan dynasty alone?

Way to display your knowledge about what communism has done for the world, and way to care about your fellow man.


sorry, but when people bash a perfectly valid, (and a hell of a lot more fair) economic system, with completely outlandish views on what it really is, i tend to want to educate them.

Fair? How is it fair for two completely different levels of ability and effort to be rewarded equally? As for completely outlandish views - you're the ones trying to claim that Stalin wasn't a Communist. (LMAOTANKDIVISION.) Stalinism is a form of Communism, just as a 'free market' is a form of Capitalism.

how is it not?
If and when a large scale version of it works, then I'll stop laughing. Small communes don't count.

*collapses in paroxysms of laughter.*

Have we ever agreed before? :D

:D Yeah well, some people...
too many people.

it is one thing to claim that the central message of the Bible is consistent (which is at least up for debate), but to claim there are no contradictions in the Bible is just plain stupid. there are huge collections of contradictions, big and small, that have been generated from various translations of the Bible. there ARE direct, irreconsilable contradictions in the Bible, and anybody who denies that hasn't read the damn thing. now, you can say that you believe the flaws are not sufficient to discredit the work as a whole, but you can't reasonably deny the flaws exist.

yet there are so very many people who try to do precisely that.

Guns kill people. Therefore pencils cause poor handwriting and mistakes?

No temper. Just frustrated by the sad state of reading comprehension.

And tell me you really agree with those who've been going on about their own little killing sprees and how beneficial war is.

Where in the world did you get that from? Come on CT, is the "you must support murder if you support guns" arguement the best you can do tonight? You know me better than that. You must not be feeling well.

Hey, maybe with decent education we'll get rid of that sort of utterly unreasonable belief in the obviously wrong in a few generations. (i wish) :headbang:

I think the better phrase would be Evil=Evil. Very simple idea. Guns in themselves are inanimate devices. They don't decide to shoot. It's the living being behind the trigger.

Now you add guns+normal well balanced person=no irrational death.

I am excluding accidents from this arguement for the sake of it.

Evil+guns=tragedy

Simple concept. Don't mask anti-gun bs with a tragic story please.

I think the better phrase would be Evil=Evil. Very simple idea. Guns in themselves are inanimate devices. They don't decide to shoot. It's the living being behind the trigger.

Now you add guns+normal well balanced person=no irrational death.

I am excluding accidents from this arguement for the sake of it.

Evil+guns=tragedy

Simple concept. Don't mask anti-gun bs with a tragic story please.

Wrong: Killing = evil

therefore - item designed to kill - evil
I include all manner of equipment in this; swords, guns, tanks whatever.

Wrong: Killing = evil

therefore - item designed to kill - evil
I include all manner of equipment in this; swords, guns, tanks whatever.


Well, I also agree with this. But do you agree we need the above mentioned to protect from people with evil intentions? They may have all those items you just listed. How would you protect your self?

Where in the world did you get that from? Come on CT, is the "you must support murder if you support guns" arguement the best you can do tonight? You know me better than that. You must not be feeling well.


I do know you better than that. Which is why I wish you would read the thread. And I would think you would give me a bit more credit.

I never equated opposition to gun control to support for murder.

Among other things, I was referring to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8512741&postcount=48).

A gun cant do squat
Fire a gun lets see what happens since it is not loaded

now a knife killes people quite painfully and stealthly. A knife stabbing someone in the lungs is a lot worse then being shot in the longs.

Now lets take this much further then your example. Lets see how much clapping kills people, yea thats right clapping and any movements like clapping and flapping. Clapping and flapping kills people through the chaos theory by tsunamies and tornadoes and hurricanes. Same with standing. That causes pressure on the earth released as earthquakes and stuff.
I think that killed more people.

Benifits of Guns:
War

Things war got humans
Better science
steel
gun powder
Submarines
Superior Boats
Planes
Parachutes
Tanks
Grendades
Dominance
Protection

Besides there is no reason to fear a gun. Swords and knives are much more effective of killing people since they inflict pain and can cause various disease cut veins, arteries and puncture organs

If it is because of the school shootings then think of what people bring to school. I thought of several ways to kill a person with a piece of paper and writing utensils resemble spears which o my it can kill some one


And this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8512832&postcount=56).

Ditto.



Correct. I could kill a person at least five different ways with my bare hands, a few more with a ruler or a pencil-pen, a lot more with my knifes and or swords, but actually, I could kill more people with my katana then I could my gun. All I need is a swoop from my katana and your head is gone, while my rifle is bolt action. Granted, I can fire reload, point, and fire within three seconds, but I'd do more harm with my sword.


*snip*


Why am I talking about this on an international public forum? I think I just hit a moment of complete stupidity.

The latter post -- which has an author who quotes the Bible in his thread -- is to what I was responding in my Bible post.

OK?

(And I don't think I've actually even argued for gun control in this entire thread.)

Wrong: Killing = evil

therefore - item designed to kill - evil
I include all manner of equipment in this; swords, guns, tanks whatever.

Does this include items designed to kill animals?

Yes, guns and other weapons kill people.

So do fists, animals, bodies of water, natural disasters, tall buildings, falling rocks, disease, drugs, and electricity. Are they all equally evil?

:confused: Well, I also agree with this. But do you agree we need the above mentioned to protect from people with evil intentions? They may have all those items you just listed. How would you protect your self?
Before I reply to that, tell me this honestly:
Are you really that afraid that someone is going to attack you?
I have managed to live a normal life without the degree of paranoia that needing to own a gun for protection? And have you no faith at all in police? I know they can't protect you 24/7, but still...

Yes, guns and other weapons kill people.

So do fists, animals, bodies of water, natural disasters, tall buildings, falling rocks, disease, drugs, and electricity. Are they all equally evil?

I said items designed to kill. Not accidents etc

'There is no violent crime in the UK? If there is any, you cannot say that no one needs to defend themselves.'

Better violent crime than death via gun crime surely?
if someone shoots you,they will probably aim for the head or the heart.you are likely to die a fairly quick and painless death.if they have to use another method,you are more likely to suffer.i'd rather get shot than stabbed to death or strangled,personally.but that's just me.

you're the ones trying to claim that Stalin wasn't a Communist.

communism is the economical personification of the belief that everyone is equal. equal people get equal money.

democracy is the societal personification of the belief that everyone is equal. equal people get equal votes.


stalin created a state that did not make everyone equal socially, and his government was rather corrupt, so money that was supposed to be redistributed from the aristocrats ended up getting stuck to a few fingers here and there.


have you ever read the communist manifesto?

I said items designed to kill. Not accidents etc
Dynamite. Explosives. They were designed for mining and construction, and yet are now used in combat.

Nuclear Reactions. Used to provide electricity, and also to power the bomb.

Many knives are designed for practical use.

Many non-weapons are also used to kill people. Heavy wrenches, for example.

I have always been in favor of promoting safe gun ownership. Face it - the majority of people who are trained (like myself) with firearms and use them for sports (like myself), would not go on a violent killing rampage as the extreme left would have you think. I believe in governmental gun regulation to some extent, but I don't accuse guns of being evil.

Instead of banning guns, why not take a more intellegent approach. Legalize drugs.

Though I don't have any statistics to back this up, I'm pretty sure that if you went to the root behind most shootings, drugs are involved. Anti-drug laws are what gave rise to gangs in America. It's anti-drug laws that keep the gangs going. If got rid of the laws, you get rid of the gangs.

Example, remember pohabition? What happened after that amendment was passed? Mobsters such as Al Capone showed up. What were they? Boot leggers. After prohabition was repealed, they all but disapeared. I mean, are mobsters still around today? Yes. But are they anywhere NEAR as numerous as they were during prohabition? No.

They same thing would happen with gangs. If drug laws were repealed, and people were able to by narcotics at grocery stores and pharmecies, most gangs would lose their main source of income; drug deals. Plus, if we stopped wasting money on the so called 'war on drugs', and started taxing the sale of drugs as we do cigarettes and other tobacco products, the government would make a hellova lot more money.

As to how legal drugs would be is a separate issue. I like my civic teacher's idea of having it somewhat like Amsterdam. Have bars and such that sell drugs. People go there, get high, and go home.

edit: Also, legalizing drugs would also help releive the already over-crowded prisions.

I have always been in favor of promoting safe gun ownership. Face it - the majority of people who are trained (like myself) with firearms and use them for sports (like myself), would not go on a violent killing rampage as the extreme left would have you think. I believe in governmental gun regulation to some extent, but I don't accuse guns of being evil.


so a kid's dad is a sport shooter. the kid knows where it's kept, because he sees him use it every day.


if you have access to the gun, other people have access to the gun. they might not be as 'safe' as you



[edit] and i agree with old norse

Dynamite. Explosives. They were designed for mining and construction, and yet are now used in combat.

Nuclear Reactions. Used to provide electricity, and also to power the bomb.

Many knives are designed for practical use.

Many non-weapons are also used to kill people. Heavy wrenches, for example.

I'd wrather not be petty, but I'll answer you:

you don't just lob a stick of dynamite etc from a mine at someone. It is adapted to kill people.

In the case of the nuclear reactor, mite I remind you that the first use of nuclear power was as a bomb anyway.

Yes, a tableknife can kill someone. So can a stick. It was not designed to kill

Guns don't kill people... But they sure do make it a whole lot easier!

Compare simple traffic fatalities with crime statistics involving firearms.
(no, I'm not going to do the math for you.)

Gun Crime makes the news, because it is infrequent, compared to such things as stabbings, beating-kids-to-death, Rape (Main force), Rape (Knife assisted), Rape (Drug assisted), brute-force robbery, muggings with knives, etc. etc.

Is there a "Gun Problem" or is there a "Violent (censored) sociopath" problem?

I live more than a half hour from the nearest police presence (this is statistically, actually it's about a ten minute walk). It took them more than an hour to arrive the last time I had to make a 911 call. I Need a gun-the criminals next door guarantee that I need it, so does the registered Level 3 down the street. (a "Level 3" is a violent rapist out on parole, in case you didn't know... they have to tell us when these human turds are moved into the area. There are four in my neighbourhood.)

My wife weighs 125 pounds, she can't lift 50 pounds consistently. She punches like a "Gurl", but she can print 5 inside a quarter at 25 yards with a .380 pistol, and she's got the sand to use it if she has to.

She takes the bus to work, you dig? in a high-crime area, having a regular pattern attracts human predators, are we tracking now?

The Police work fine-after the fact. They can draw a chalk outline and investigate a murder scene like nobody's business. The Prosecuting Attorney functions unreliably, the Judges are similarly unreliable, and the Prison system is quite unable to keep scumbags from being released.

None of these is going to be much use for her, when she's facing the 200 pound asshole down the street with a taste for skinny, scared brunettes, who's been lifting weights at Club Walla-Walla for five years.

The .380 just might- see, it will penetrate and expand through six inches of corned beef at fifteen feet (Most defensive shooting is done under ten feet), that's with a heavy wool overcoat using Hornadys. (yes, I tested this.)

It isn't "Who has the biggest gun" it's "who can use it, and who will."

I trust her to be able and willing to use it in her own defense, and that's good enough-because where I live, she needs it. We also use a 12 guage shotgun as "Household defense". I've not had to fire it, but it worked remarkably well to discourage a gentleman who thought he might step in our kitchen window whilst I was in the bath.

He found somewhere else to be-where they give you a paper jumpsuit, coloured blaze orange.

I would say, then, from experience, that Guns+reasonable people=security.

(and, I'd rather have the ability to reply if some jerkoff decides to shoot HIS gun at ME or mine. Helplessness and surrender are not an option.)

that entire article sums down to an argument that we have heard time and time again:

if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns


well, i have a novel approach:

why not stop making the damn things?

seriously, if we stopped making them completely, and publicly bought and destroyed the oned already in existance, nobody would have guns, criminal or innocent alike.

then you can block imports, and all you have to worry about is smuggling, and we already have a system in place to deter drug smuggling, so why don't we beef that up and modify it slightly to include dangerous firearms?

i can hear you already: "but the second amendment! the second amendment!"

1) i doubt any of you NRA idiots even know the whole thing. no, it is not "the right to bear arms" google "constitutional amendments" and read the entire thing.

2) while you're at it, go read the twenty first amendment. i'm serious, go read it before you move on to the next bit.


see? the amendments are not set in stone. why do you think they're called 'amendments'? they're there to be changed, modified, and updated as the times move onwards.

Are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending?

The idea that stopping gun manufacturing will eliminate guns from the country is stupid. We can restrict them all we want, you will NEVER prevent them from being smuggled in. We can't stop gun manufacturing in other countries, and stopping it in this country would cause a serious hit to our economy. Our military would become useless; we should just surrender our freedom over to whatever country wants us.

I'm so glad that idiots like you aren't running this country.

I'd wrather not be petty, but I'll answer you:

you don't just lob a stick of dynamite etc from a mine at someone. It is adapted to kill people.

In the case of the nuclear reactor, mite I remind you that the first use of nuclear power was as a bomb anyway.

Yes, a tableknife can kill someone. So can a stick. It was not designed to kill
I'd wrather spell things correctly :P

What about the use of guns in the legitimate defense of one's country? In maintaining order? In hunting game?

Banning guns will not solve the problems that accompany widespread gun ownership. Look at other things that are "banned": Firecrackers (in some places), drugs, underage drinking. Many people will violate the ban. So enforce the law better, you might say. We've been trying to enforce drug laws for decades. See how far that gets you. The gangs that have resisted drug laws will also resist gun laws. While the argument that widespread gun ownership suppresses crime is a bit farfetched, the majority of gun violence would not be stopped by outlawing guns.

so...about those two Genesis creation myths...how exactly do you get around how much they contradict one another?

They do not contradict one another. The first chapter describes the first seven days. While chapter 2 goes into DETAILS involving certain aspects of the creation, espeically into detail with Adam and Eve and the garden. Same story, different perspectives.

For example, Genesis 2:4-7 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground--the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being"

This does not contradict the first chapter. It mentions God speaking and the vegetation being there. The more detailed description in chapter 2 shows that the vegetation coming into being described in chapter one also included a watering of the ground as part of the procedure. Also keep in mind that this verse in chapter 2 does not say that Adam was created before the vegetation, it simply refers to a time before either the shrubs or man was there.

Another example that many misinterpret: Genesis 2:19
"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man (Adam) to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

This also does not contradict the first chapter. Notice how it says "Now the LORD God 'HAD FORMED' out of the ground all the beasts of the field and birds of the air", meaning that the beasts and birds had already been formed before, therefore not contradicting chapter one's assertion that the beasts and birds were created before man. In fact, how the beasts of the land were formed from the ground matches the first chapter quite specifically. The first chapter does not specifically state what the birds were formed from but this is 'clarified' in chapter 2.

If I neglected to mention any verses from the Genesis creation that you THINK are contradictory then please be kind enough to actually write it out to make my search easier.

I believe my response would be (if I lived in the US), make me, you redneck repressed homo.

Way to be "civilized" you homophobic twit.

Instead of banning guns, why not take a more intellegent approach. Legalize drugs.

Though I don't have any statistics to back this up, I'm pretty sure that if you went to the root behind most shootings, drugs are involved.

*snip*

OK. You don't have any statistics to back this up. Come back when you do.

:confused:
Before I reply to that, tell me this honestly:
Are you really that afraid that someone is going to attack you?
I have managed to live a normal life without the degree of paranoia that needing to own a gun for protection? And have you no faith at all in police? I know they can't protect you 24/7, but still...


Actually yes. Was a situation about three years ago. Was attacked in my home when I disturbed 2 "armed" people stealing things in my own home. So yes there are situations. Consider yourself lucky if you never had to defend yourself from a life threatning situation.

And to add to this.

On a national level. Countries have to be able to defend themselves. I need just to point to history to prove my point.

OMG ONLY TERRISTS AND EVIL PEOPLE NEED THE GUNZ, GUNZ ONLY USE TIS TO KILL PEOPLE AND ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE INFACT SENTIENT BEINGS THAT LEAP FROM THEIR CASES AND LOAD AND PRIME THEMSELVES THEN SLAY BUS FULLS OF CHILDREN AND NUNS HOLDING KITTENS AND PUPPIES BAN GUNS FOREVER OMG

SHUT THE FUCK UP. Why do people get away with multiple homicides, especially in schools? Because no one has the ability to defend themselves. The only armed people in schools are the rent-a-cops, a lot of good they do, huh?

Look at Canada too, plenty of small arms, murder rate? Obscenely low juxtaposed with the US rate. What the christ is that? We are a violent country, simple as that, without guns we'd still have stabbings and beatings. If guns were banned, bounty hunters, hitmen, and murderers would simply get more creative. Frightfully so.

To all the people that despise guns and wanted them permabanned from the states. Get the hell out.
[Note to other readers: "Dementedus_Yammus" was falsely quoted.]

Aeopia: You are out-of-line and bordering on an official warning for flamebait. You will keep your behavior civil. Do I make myself clear?

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

OK. You don't have any statistics to back this up. Come back when you do.
Besides, legalizing drugs wouldn't change much. People would still buy it under the table to skimp on taxes. The underground system for moving and selling drugs is well-established. You get all the problems with few of the benefits of legalization.

Way to be "civilized" you homophobic twit.
Look, he was angry, and I understand why. Yes, it was a homophobic comment, and no it wasn't civilized, but hey, those two deserved each other

I agree about banning guns. It would be next to impossible. For example, marijuana is, for all intents and purpouses, banned. And look how readily available it is? Seriously, right now, if I wanted to buy a bag of marijuana, I'd just have to make one phone call and I could get it within 10 minutes.

Anyway, banning guns, gun controls laws, etc. All that is doing is removing a person's MEANs of killing. What we should be doing is removing the REASON for killing. Obviously, if they have made up their mind that they want to kill another person, a law that says "you can't have a gun" isn't going to make them change their mind. They'll just stab the person instead, or poison them, or strangle them, or hit them with their car, etc.

In short, removing a person's MEANS of killing solves NOTHING. There will ALWAYS be another means of killing someone. If anything is to be done, you have to remove the person's reason for killing another person,

order of progression in the second myth:

1: earth&heavens
2: water
3: humans
4: plants


gen 2.8- and the lord god planted a garden in the east, in eden; and there he put the man he had formed
9- out of the ground the lord god made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food...

People's reaction to the horrific events displayed on TV such as the Minnesota attack are understandable, but the more than two million times each year that Americans use guns defensively are never discussed — even though this is five times as often as the 450,000 times that guns are used to commit crimes over the last couple of years.
I notice that the thread is well named GUNS = EVIL :eek:

Read up. And if you are going to disparage John Lott, at least give a good reason.

Well the problem with John Lott is that he stands to make tons of money selling Pro Gun books. :eek:

but theres plenty of alternative means of self defense these days, sure they dont have the intimidation factor of a gun to freeze a criminal, but i dont think they are to be ignored.


i guess in america because its so bad normal citizens should be allowed to carry guns, but not in the rest of the world where shootings are MUCH less common.

order of progression in the second myth:

1: earth&heavens
2: water
3: humans
4: plants


gen 2.8- and the lord god planted a garden in the east, in eden; and there he put the man he had formed
9- out of the ground the lord god made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food...

If you looked at my previous verse, Genesis 2:4-6 it mention the plants and man not being created yet. The plants would only come about when ground was moistened, which God did. When it says the ground was moistened by springs we can infer that the plants came about right after (as I said it goes into detail about the PROCEDURE). Only after this was man created. So the order for second chapter still holds

1.Earth and heavans
2. waters
3. plants/animals
4. humans

The Garden was the result of a special touch of detail to the world after everything else was created. The world and everything in it (water, plants, animals, man) has already been formed in the proper order. God simply created the four headwaters (simply creating four more rivers) and the Garden that had every type of plant grow out of the groun 'in the garden'. Basically creating Eden was a finishing touch. This does not mean that the plants were not already created and all over the world and it certainly doesn't mean that the order of creation does not hold.


EDIT: Actually, you can forget the part of the argument that the garden of Eden was created after the rest of the world. The verse you mentioned Genesis 2:8 is pretty clear. "Now the LORD God HAD planted a garden in the east..." meaning that the garden had been created with the rest of the plants before Adam. God merely placed his newly created man in the garden that was already there (along with all the other plants in the world).

OK. You don't have any statistics to back this up. Come back when you do.
Ah, he may not, but I do.

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

More statistics from local studies:

* Philadelphia - "[T]he tragedy of it all is that murder, in this city at least, is not exactly a mystery... A look at the homicides committed between 1996 and 1999 reveals a pattern... Virtually all alleged murderers were the same race as their victims... One killing in four was directly related to drugs, and another quarter were the result of what the police identified as 'arguments.' Most of the victims and killers probably had histories of violent crime, drug and weapons arrests. It’s possible that as many as half of the murderers were actually on probation or parole or awaiting trial or sentencing at the time they killed their victims. ...

"Our examination of the criminal and court histories of 100 randomly selected murder victims and 100 randomly selected alleged murderers showed that many have criminal backgrounds.

"Among alleged murderers, almost 9 out of 10 (86%) had criminal records. Close to half had been charged with either violent offenses and/or weapons offenses, and 57 percent had been charged with drug offenses.

"Victims were less likely to have criminal backgrounds, but still, over half (52%) had been charged with at least one offense prior to their murder. On average, those homicide victims who had criminal histories had 3.7 arrests prior to their death." (Source)

* San Francisco - In 1999, 74% of identified homicide suspects had prior criminal histories (source [pdf] [p. 176]). 67.5% of the homicide victims had a criminal history. 75% of juveniles and 48% of the adult homicide and assault victims had between 2 and 10 felony charges (source [pdf] [p.115]).

* Indianapolis/Marion County - Homicide review conducted from 1997 thru mid-1998. Victims and suspects were chronic offenders.
Among homicide suspects:
o 75% had either an adult or juvenile criminal record.
o An average of 3.7 adult arrests.
o Those with a prior record averaged 6 adult arrests and 5.5 juvenile arrests.
Among homicide victims:
o 63% had adult or juvenile criminal records.
o An average of 4.6 adult arrests.
o Those with a prior record averaged 8 adult arrests and 4.5 juvenile arrests.
o For the 206 suspects and victims:
+ 1600 total arrests
+ 500 arrests for violent crimes
+ 800 convictions
o 53% of homicide incidents were drug-related.

* Minneapolis - Data was analyzed from January 1994 through May 1997. Nearly 45 percent of all homicides appeared to be gang related. More than 40 percent of gang members who were homicide victims or suspects had been on probation and 76.8 percent had arrest histories prior to the homicide incidents, with an average of 9.5 arrests. Suspects and arrestees had 7.4 prior arrests and victims had 7.5 prior arrests. (Source)

* Tuscon - "In 2000, when domestic violence suspects are excluded, more than 70 percent of the accused had criminal records before they were charged with homicide." (Source)

* Charlotte - "In a sample of 545 adult gunshot victims, 71% had been previously arrested, and 64% had been convicted of a crime, with an average of eleven arrests among those with a prior arrest record." (Kleck, Gary. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 3. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997. Citing Lumb, Richard C., and Paul C. Friday. 1994. City of Charlotte Gunshot Study. Charlotte: Department of Criminal Justice, University of North Carolina.)

* Atlanta - "In 1997, 80% of homicide offenders and 60% of homicide victims had a criminal record of a drug violation... of homicide offenders, nearly 50% had 5 or more prior drug offenses, 20% had 3 or 4 prior drug offenses, and 10% had 1 or 2 prior drug offenses. A prior drug offense was not as prolific for homicide victims, but a high proportion of homicide victims did have prior drug-offense records. ...(P. 128)

"Toxicology reports on homicide victims indicate that nearly 40% of homicide victims tested positive for cocaine, 25% tested positive for alcohol, and 20% tested positive for alcohol and cocaine. This means that 85% of homicide victims were under the influence of cocaine, alcohol, or cocathylene. Marijuana is also present in approximately 25% of homicide victims as well. Surprisingly, virtually no other drug appears in the toxicology reports. Only 15% of homicide victims did not test positive for alcohol, cocaine, or cocathylene." (P. 131) (Rojek, Dean G. "The Homicide and Drug Connection," in Paul H. Blackman, et al,. "The Varieties of Homicide and its Research "(pdf) (Quantico, VA, FBI Academy, 2000);

Just recently finished this same argument at another board (went about the same as this one), I also went way more in depth at the other board, but since most of the arguments seem to have been covered I'll just throw in my opinion for the hell of it.

I'm pro gun... I guess, however I don't think the founding fathers meant to give every 21st century person a gun (if they had known what would happen to this country they probably would have done things a tad different), nor do I feel the 'guns for protection' argument is terribly valid.

In the end though I do like guns, but that may be skewed by the fact that I look at death, crime, etc. like any other set of numbers. The majority of guns (in this country) aren't used in anything violent or illegal, not even close. So I can't agree with removing them (I'm extremely compassionate, I know).

Regardless of what anyone thinks/feels/wants guns aren't going away, at least not until our country is no longer ruled by a group of rich men who refuse to do anything significant to large companies (of course it helps when they are led about carrot-and-donkey style, by lobbyers).

So until this 'empire' crumbles, just do whatever makes you feel safest (move to the UK, Canada, wherever/build a bunker and get an arsenal/or continue not caring). I don't have any safety concerns, but just because I can, a glock, bullet 'proof' vest and a concealed weapons permit works for me. :D

Are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending?

The idea that stopping gun manufacturing will eliminate guns from the country is stupid. We can restrict them all we want, you will NEVER prevent them from being smuggled in. We can't stop gun manufacturing in other countries, and stopping it in this country would cause a serious hit to our economy. Our military would become useless; we should just surrender our freedom over to whatever country wants us.

I'm so glad that idiots like you aren't running this country.

Agreed, I'm sick of everytime something like this happens everyone immediately cries "guns are evil", "ban guns" etc. I was thinking about this earlier today. Lets go back to the 1940's America. This sort of things didn't happen. Back then many familys had guns. Ok, not as many shootings. Hence nixes guns as being the problem. Ok, we didn't have violent video games then. Ok, well very small percentage go on a rampage for playing a FPS. Hence, violent games are out. Ok, what elce? Parents being there? Back in the 40's someone was there for the kids. Now, unfortunantly, parents don't have much time for kids or just don't give a crap. Ding! we have it. When I was in grade school I always had a parent there to show me wrong from right. Now I look on the bad side of town, kids running rampent, no one to care for em, they just do as they please. Worst case senario is they get into the business of drug dealing. Unfortunantly, everyone wants a simple scapegoat so more tragedies like this happen.

Ah, he may not, but I do.

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

Unfortunately, your source did not provide links for all the material cited. Further, the links in your source don't all work and/or lead to the original. At least a couple of the ones that did work didn't lead to information that matched your source. But most of the ones that did work did lead

Regardless, only one of all those statistics says the percentage of homicides related to drugs.

One killing in four was directly related to drugs, and another quarter were the result of what the police identified as 'arguments.'

That would be 25% are related to drugs.

Now, I will grant that they other statistics provide an inference of a correlation between drugs and shootings.

Of course, none of these statistics necessarily support the inference that the illegality of drugs, as opposed to the use of drugs, is correlated with gun violence.

To the contrary, many of these statistics directly support the inference that the use of drugs -- not the illegality of drugs -- is correlated with gun violence.

Nonetheless, the statistics are interesting. Thanks.

Unfortunately, your source did not provide links for all the material cited. Further, the links in your source don't all work and/or lead to the original. At least a couple of the ones that did work didn't lead to information that matched your source. But most of the ones that did work did lead

Regardless, only one of all those statistics says the percentage of homicides related to drugs.



That would be 25% are related to drugs.

Now, I will grant that they other statistics provide an inference of a correlation between drugs and shootings.

Of course, none of these statistics necessarily support the inference that the illegality of drugs, as opposed to the use of drugs, is correlated with gun violence.

To the contrary, many of these statistics directly support the inference that the use of drugs -- not the illegality of drugs -- is correlated with gun violence.

Nonetheless, the statistics are interesting. Thanks.

The inference I made as far as 'use' correlating to gun violence from the data he gave is this. Drug abusers (especially illegal substance abusers) are probably more prone to get themselves in debt, in trouble, or get generally mixed up with the wrong type of people i.e. pushers of illegal substances that are far more likely to kill them. But this is just an inference not really based on the statistics, but from my father's own experiences as a PO drug abusers 'tend' to associate with people (namely drug dealers) that would use violence.

why do people fear material objects? that i may never understand

That would be 25% are related to drugs.

In philidelphia. I notice how you failed to refute the rest. As for the links being bad, that webpage was last updated in 2003, it's not surprising that some of the links are bad.

In philidelphia. I notice how you failed to refute the rest. As for the links being bad, that webpage was last updated in 2003, it's not surprising that some of the links are bad.

I didn't try to refute any of it. But where does any of it show that the war on drugs causes gun violence or homicides -- let alone that it causes the majority of either?

I didn't try to refute any of it. But where does any of it show that the war on drugs causes gun violence or homicides -- let alone that it causes the majority of either.

Well if most of the victims are drug abusers they would be more prone to be victimized by drug dealers (which are more likely to use violence than the average citizen) as I mentioned earlier. Since drugs are illegal these drug dealers can profit from their illegal sale of drugs. I think the assumption the other person made was; legalizing drugs would remove this dangerous illegal trade of drugs since people could get them legally. This is only my guess at what was meant though, hope it makes some sense.

Violence is not going anywhere. Everything from the lowest insect to Human beings engage in violence. Insects go about it mechanically, for them there is no conscious recognition of what they are doing. They simply detect what they innately deem a threat and react how they are programmed to react (this of course varies from insect to insect). Higher, more biologically advanced animals get more intricate with their methods (Big Cats do it like a bloody SEAL team) but are still limited by their equipment. As animals get more complex "Nurture" gets more and more important. If infant animals are separated from their parents they are substantially more incompetent then those that are raised by a experienced adult. Cats for instance lean more towards "Nature" and as such will usually be competent under most circumstances, in contrast to this Monkeys that are separated at birth are utterly clueless but still maintain instinct to a smaller degree. This was tested in a lab with the result being rather sad, for example the Monkeys where sexually driven but utterly incompetent with intercourse (they humped the wrong end, etc, etc.) and basic interaction. The one constant in all animals however, is violence. Even the isolated Monkeys displayed aggression, their isn't a damn thing you can do about a Cat's predator instinct, and Ants will still, as mindlessly diligent as ever, fight for the swarm.

Humans by far are the most effective killers around, they are however a collective of individuals. As a collective whole humanity is defined by it's Nature, what biologically makes it Human and everything that this label entails. As individuals however, Nurture is by a extremely long stretch the dominant aspect of what makes a man or woman who he or she is (but is still strongly effected by it's more subtle Nature). A dominantly passive man is no more or less Human (both are capable of the exact same things) then a serial killer, but the two are most definitely quite different individuals. I mentioned equipment before, Humans of course don't naturally have much so as a substitute we have ingenuity creativity. As such we are consistently developing more ingenious and creative ways to kill things. We make our own tools. Now, if you declaw a cat he will still try to scratch, if you take a way the tools Nature and instinct will still remain. Such is the case with Humans, the difference of course is that we never had naturally effective tools to begin with. The reaction to being put back to "Square A" or at the very least set back one step is of course to improvise and to do so with creative ingenuity.

Certainly guns are the easiest way to kill someone but they are certainly not the best and a they are FAR from being the only. Assuming that the ambitious man with murder in mind will simply stop being who he is because you took away his tool (assuming of course you can accomplish this to begin with) does not exactly qualify as "reason" and in all honestly displays nothing but a unfirm grasp of reality (not to mention a childish view of humanity). If you want to get into alternative methods of killing I can suggest some. Garroting is a excellent choice and a very diverse one as well, poisons are good for the more sophisticated murderer, a needle in the back of the neck is a suburb choice (very mysterious), bludgeoning is always good, swords are great because they mock modern innovation, incineration is relatively easy to get away with, etc, etc, etc...

I would like to make a few more points, one is on evolution. In the context of evolution, we are the fittest, we are the top dog of, we own the food chain. With the possible exception of microorganisms we are the best at adaptation and survival, and most relevant to this "discussion" we are by FAR the most effective killers. If you think that we got as far as we have only to suddenly become pacifists, you sir have some serious reality issues. Not to mention you need to seriously reassess your beliefs. Assuming that it still works, evolution only stands to make us better at what we do best, and my good sir killing is certainly among those things.

I said items designed to kill. Not accidents etc.

What about the first weapons, sticks and stones? What about common farm implements that where adapted out of necessity to killing? What about things far too generic that can be used to harm? Are all these things evil or only the ones specifically designed to end life? Don't you think the entire concept of a inanimate being labeled as either good or evil is a little out of touch with rational thought? If not, what the hell is the matter with you?

Listen people, I can go to the hardware store two streets over from me, buy some PVC piping, some rubbing alcohol, and anything that creates a spark (lighter, switch, etc, though a stun gun is ideal) and I can fashion in under a hour something that can drive a chair leg through a car door. I made a few last Summer, not to kill someone but to drive chair legs through a car. It could kill someone quite quickly and extremely brutally, it wasn't made to but it could. Is this construct of plumbing evil?

If you want to get rid of crime totally you have two choices.

The first choice is a police state, martial law 24/7, 365 days a year. Uncompromising curfews, checkpoints every half mile in urban areas, constantly monitored surveillance, armed soldiers every where, and total and complete gun control. I'm sure some of you would love this. However, civil resistance is inevitable with this and "rebels" will wage war against it. Violence will still exist.

Your second choice, is to give everyone a weapon and teach them how to use it. Out of over two million violent crimes that are prevented merely by the presence of a gun only 3000 criminals are killed. This is self-preservation, it is in the best interest of the would be attacker to flee and that consistently over rides the supposed "culture of violence." You make it damn clear that everyone walking down the street is carrying and in the interest of self-preservation muggings will stop, you make it damn clear that every home and business is full of shooters and in the interest of self-preservation robberies will stop. Murders will still happen here and their but only by people slick enough to manage it. Ironically the exceptions to order would probably not even involve guns.

Read this<<--{Click} (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/wallstreet.html)

Anything less extreme then those two options WILL still have plenty of crime and plenty of people bitching about it.

Goodnight.

Listen people, I can go to the hardware store two streets over from me, buy some PVC piping, some rubbing alcohol, and anything that creates a spark (lighter, switch, etc, though a stun gun is ideal) and I can fashion in under a hour something that can drive a chair leg through a car door. I made a few last Summer, not to kill someone but to drive chair legs through a car. It could kill someone quite quickly and extremely brutally, it wasn't made to but it could. Is this construct of plumbing evil?



The rest of your post certainly was interesting but this just sounds so damn cool! Any hints on making something like that? Like a word to google maybe?

:confused:
Before I reply to that, tell me this honestly:
Are you really that afraid that someone is going to attack you?
I have managed to live a normal life without the degree of paranoia that needing to own a gun for protection? And have you no faith at all in police? I know they can't protect you 24/7, but still...
How "affraid" do you have to be for your own safety before you're willing to do something about it? Perhaps your world is a farily safe one. This is not the case for everyone. And even in the safest places in the world, there is still a small risk. Taking precautions does not make one paranoid. Do police carry guns because they're affraid or paranoid? And I don't know what having faith in them has to do with anything. Forget 24/7; you're lucky if police can protect 1/1 (1 hour/day 1 day/week).

communism is the economical personification of the belief that everyone is equal. equal people get equal money.

democracy is the societal personification of the belief that everyone is equal. equal people get equal votes.


stalin created a state that did not make everyone equal socially, and his government was rather corrupt, so money that was supposed to be redistributed from the aristocrats ended up getting stuck to a few fingers here and there.And what did they do with all this money?

Instead of banning guns, why not take a more intellegent approach. Legalize drugs.
YES!!! If you were a chick, ...and if I wasn't married, and if you were at least 18, and if you weren't so fat, and if you didn't live so far away... I'd be all over you.

Seriously, I can hardly believe somebody else gets it. The gun debate so often evolves into a comparison between US crime rates and those of other coutries, but the link between the war on drugs and the crime rate is rarely established. Yes, most developed have drug prohibitions, but none of them compare with the US War on Drugs. Only in America can you go to prison for 55 years for selling 3 dimebags.

Besides, legalizing drugs wouldn't change much. People would still buy it under the table to skimp on taxes. The underground system for moving and selling drugs is well-established. You get all the problems with few of the benefits of legalization.The benefit of legalization is not so much that the government would gain control, but that the risks and rewards for doing the buisness would be substantially reduced. Current drug laws are so harsh they push out all but the most desperate and ruthless from the buisness. If the legal penalties were gone, the risk would be reduced. Saner people would get involved. If more people were involved the rewards would be reduced. Even if it's still illegal, it's a much safer situation. I'm not saying that ending prohibition would end all drug violence on the first day, but it would eventually. When was the last time someone got shot for selling liquor in the wrong part of town?

The rest of your post certainly was interesting but this just sounds so damn cool! Any hints on making something like that? Like a word to google maybe?

Search for "potato gun," that is generally what they call them even though they can shoot just about anything that seals the barrel tight.

The one I made had a five inch combustion chamber necked down to a two inch barrel. The igniter was a standard stun gun strapped to the side with wires leading from the electrodes to two screws set half way into the combustion chamber. Alcohol is good because it evaporates quickly (if you are into chemistry you CAN mix your own self oxidizing fuel), just pour it into the chamber and in a few seconds it will be filled enough with gas for the spark to ignite. If you have compression, BOOM. You just have to make sure that whatever you are shooting fits tight in the barrel and seals it. Potatoes are used because they are dense and expand slightly, also if you sharpen the muzzle end of the barrel you can slam a whole potato onto the end to cut a perfect fit. Just push it down with a ramrod and away you go.

What I used were wooden chair legs wrapped in the middle with duct tape so they cause compression, like I said it went through a car door (I had a old Dodge wreck in my yard), it will also go through plywood extremely easily.

Oh and one more thing, make sure you vent it out from time to time, the explosion needs oxygen to work and the smoke is just a pain in the ass.

I think the better phrase would be Evil=Evil. Very simple idea. Guns in themselves are inanimate devices. They don't decide to shoot. It's the living being behind the trigger.

Now you add guns+normal well balanced person=no irrational death.

I am excluding accidents from this arguement for the sake of it.

Evil+guns=tragedy

Simple concept. Don't mask anti-gun bs with a tragic story please.


If you havent noticed by now, I am a very pro firearm person. Proud owner of several handguns.

The thread title was designed to grab attention .

I only read to page 4, and my original post got deleted :( , so hopefully I won't go over anything already been covered or this isn't disjointed.

In the world of today, you're always going to need guns, and yes I said need guns. Why do you ask? It works like this;

Let's go back into the Middle Ages and say enemy1 invades enemy2, now enemy1 has men with swords, horses, longbows, and composite bows. Enemy2 only has men with swords. Once seeing how easily enemy1 can take down enemy2's army, he decides to create and use the bow in his army. Now since both enemies have bows they're on a level playing field. Enemy1 still wants the upper hand so he implements the crossbow into his army. The Crossbow has somewhat of a longer range then the bow (not the longbow) and is a lot easier to train/use for combat. Enemy2 sees the power of the crossbow and creats one of his own. Level playing field again, but what does enemy1 do? Yes, he creates and builds the musket, enemy2 creates one of his own etc, etc...

Just think, this all started when we were primitive humans with stones and sticks, over time it all evolved into firearms. So when you say to disarm the US this will happen. I.e. A nation attacks the US, so we fight back with what we have; knives, pitchforks, torches. After awhile we will kill some of the invader's men and steal their weapons for a better defense. In theory, it's just going to be a big loop.

-

An opinion I have about the school shootings is this: When the people are trying to find a scapegoat, how come the parents are never mentioned? When the 16 yearold shootist (in general) was 8 months-2 yearsold, I really doubt he was playing FPS's (First Person Shooter) and listening to Rap, Heavy Metal, Rock, etc. Those things weren't teaching the kids about life and death or guns (if anything, they were saying to an impressionistic child they were good.) It's the parents duty to tell/teach the kids about those things.

Now, I've grown up with a father with 3 guns in the house (One single-barrel breachloading shotgun, bolt-action .22, and a semi-automatic .22) When I was growing up my dad taught me the proper etiquette with operation a firearm, (Keep the barrel down, never point it at a person, act like the gun is always loaded, keep the saftey on until you have a target) the consenquences, (if you shoot an animate object, it will die) and the rules (firearm handling, state laws, etc.) And through this 'training' of a sort, I have learned that a firearm is a killing weapon, not a piece of graphic that I get to score a couple of points on.

That's basically my 2 cents, sorry if you don't understand it and it's disjointed.

BTW: I don't oppose either firearms or FPS games.

So it come down to who has the biggest gun now. Progress. Don't ya love it

Ok you can just as easily kill someone with a pistol as a tec-9 in a mugging situation. you can just kill more epeople quicker with a full automatic weapon. More gang bangs and multiple assailent muggings happen than school massacres and it is easier to defend yourself with a high capacity full automatic weapon than taking on four muggers armed with blades and handguns if you had a semi auto hand gun. if anything, put restrictions on scopes and you should need a hunting licence to get one. You cant easily defend yourelf with a bolt action scoped weapon as a semi or full automatic rifle/handgun. A scoped weapon acan only be used in hunting, target shooting, and an offensive situation

I think this thread has come down to a debate about the easiest way to kill someone. I think we can all agree that using a gun is one of the easiest ways to kill a person. But I don't think removing the gun will cause people to cease killing. If one human wants to kill another human, it will happen via some method, be it gun or knife or crazy ninja sword. I think the real issue here is why do people choose to use a gun to kill? It has been brought up that with proper training and education a person learns to respect firearms and chooses other means for frustration and anger. In addition, some posts seem to imply that the abundance of firearms in the US is directly related to the homicide rate. I think it is naive to assume that because guns are available that people will use them to kill other humans. Again, it has been brought up that many things could factor into the violence in the US (namely the *war* on drugs). I think instead of irrationally blaming deaths on inanimate objects, we should look to the root of the problem.

Ah, he may not, but I do.

Thanks for the back up! :D :D

Anyways, I think everything I have to say has been pretty much covered, so I won't be adding anything else.

Oh, and Battery Charger, I AM 18, and I'm not fat in the least. But I am a guy, so....uh...keep yer hands to yer self. :p

If you looked at my previous verse, Genesis 2:4-6 it mention the plants and man not being created yet. The plants would only come about when ground was moistened, which God did. When it says the ground was moistened by springs we can infer that the plants came about right after (as I said it goes into detail about the PROCEDURE). Only after this was man created. So the order for second chapter still holds

1.Earth and heavans
2. waters
3. plants/animals
4. humans

The Garden was the result of a special touch of detail to the world after everything else was created. The world and everything in it (water, plants, animals, man) has already been formed in the proper order. God simply created the four headwaters (simply creating four more rivers) and the Garden that had every type of plant grow out of the groun 'in the garden'. Basically creating Eden was a finishing touch. This does not mean that the plants were not already created and all over the world and it certainly doesn't mean that the order of creation does not hold.


EDIT: Actually, you can forget the part of the argument that the garden of Eden was created after the rest of the world. The verse you mentioned Genesis 2:8 is pretty clear. "Now the LORD God HAD planted a garden in the east..." meaning that the garden had been created with the rest of the plants before Adam. God merely placed his newly created man in the garden that was already there (along with all the other plants in the world).


sorry, but it doesn't say that im my version.

good try, though.

And what did they do with all this money?


fought a war

so a kid's dad is a sport shooter. the kid knows where it's kept, because he sees him use it every day.


if you have access to the gun, other people have access to the gun. they might not be as 'safe' as you



[edit] and i agree with old norse



-That doesn't make any sense. It's a parents job to teach their children about proper gun safety. Are you suggesting to ban guns because of how stupid people fuck things up? Cause I'm planning on continuing on in my "sport shooting" regardless of what the anti-gun people throw at me. They can all go to hell.

the laws are there, but nobody cares enough to enforce them. underfunded and understaffed borders against drug smuggling is the problem.



are you claiming that alcohol=guns?

two completely different things there.

alcohol is easy to make, guns are not.



i rebutted this in the first paragraph



perhaps the part where the majority of criminals are not rich enough to afford the few that do leak into the country?

supply and demand says that these would be so exorbantly expensive that only the righest men would have them.

quite a deterrent to the kid who takes his daddy's glock and blows away half the school



the sad thing is, it won't

NRA is a huge supplier of $$$$$ to the republican party, and as long as those people have control of the government, we're going to continue to see mass shootouts like this one



smuggling guns especially in parts would be much easier than drugs cause guess wat dogs (the best tool in the fight against drug smuggling) cant differenciate a gun from other mechanical devices



guns are easy to make when i was 14 i couldve made a revolver in a week (dont believe me.....look for improvized weapons on the net youll find plans)


homade guns are cheaper than bought ones and yes the few kids who shot up schools would go through the trouble to make them.


and one more thing as far as those of you talking about nothing being deadlier than guns...wtf are you thinking you can make enough nitro to take out an office building for cheaper than a any gun and believe me people will..and the youve got a dead "target" plus innocent bystanders by the dosens..hundreds..

I think all of you except for mr Winchester 76 are overlooking the primary purpose of firearms. Most guns are designed for hunting and target shooting believe it or not they are tools either for fun or for getting food not for killing each other.

Guns=Tools
Some People=Evil.

Remember folks, guns don't just get up and start shooting people -- morons with guns shoot people.

I sometimes wonder why they don't go from this m.o. : Get gun. Shoot lots of people. Kill self before being taken into custody.

To this far more efficient method: Get gun. Kill self without troubling any other innocent people.

:-p

Guns=Tools
Some People=Evil.

Remember folks, guns don't just get up and start shooting people -- morons with guns shoot people.

I sometimes wonder why they don't go from this m.o. : Get gun. Shoot lots of people. Kill self before being taken into custody.

To this far more efficient method: Get gun. Kill self without troubling any other innocent people.

:-p


Katganistan is right!

Guns=Tools
Some People=Evil.

Remember folks, guns don't just get up and start shooting people -- morons with guns shoot people.

I sometimes wonder why they don't go from this m.o. : Get gun. Shoot lots of people. Kill self before being taken into custody.

To this far more efficient method: Get gun. Kill self without troubling any other innocent people.

:-p


I agree and this is correct.

I think everyone with a rationally functioning brain can understand that it isnt the gun-its the person. When someone has reached the point of desperation where they are going to kill, the weapon likely doent make a difference. I cant locate the statistic, but more people are killed in the US by sharp instruments each year than guns-knives and scizzors. Are they considered evil? Of course not-they are tools.
A whole plane full of people can be hijacked with a box cutter. Is there any movement to take away our right to cut boxes?
People that cant stop their need to kill always find a way. It would be nice if they took themselves out of the picture first, before going on a rampage.

Hi

-What would happen if you banned all guns from US territory? All guns, except those carried by Military and Police?

-I would like to know if any of you gun-loving-nut-morrons could tell me?!! (Sorry but I just had to flame you guys... after all that BS most of you wrote) :D

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

Hi

-What would happen if you banned all guns from US territory? All guns, except those carried by Military and Police?

-I would like to know if any of you gun-loving-nut-morrons could tell me?!! (Sorry but I just had to flame you guys... after all that BS most of you wrote) :D

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

We live in a country where 40 billion a year on the war on drugs has never made a dent in the availability or price of illegal drugs.

We have over 300 million firearms in active use by civilians.

If you banned them, then only criminals would have them. I don't believe for a second that you could make them go away.

As a case in point, a fully automatic weapon is highly restricted here. You can only get a permit for one in 35 US states, and then only after an FBI background check and permission from local law enforcement. Since 1934, such registered fully automatic weapons have NEVER been used in the commission of a crime.

That is, every crime you hear being committed with a silencer or fully automatic weapon is being done with a smuggled weapon. Every one.

BTW, the crime figures on Virignia, and the 33 states that have similar laws, are not bullshit. Neither is the fact that 2.5 million violent crimes are stopped each year in the US by the presence of *gasp* an armed civilian - without shooting anyone.

If you banned all guns, those 2.5 million violent crimes would take place, since there would be no one to stop them.

Hi

-What would happen if you banned all guns from US territory? All guns, except those carried by Military and Police?

-I would like to know if any of you gun-loving-nut-morrons could tell me?!! (Sorry but I just had to flame you guys... after all that BS most of you wrote) :D

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)


What would happen is some blathering jackass like you might leave the commune and become a fascist dictator here. And all your toadies and henchmen would have guns and enforce the rest of your will on us. After a while of unchallenged control, you would get really paranoid that we were trying to overthrow you, or worse evn, think badly about you. We would be picked off of the streets to be raped and tortured into confessing our crimes and then executed.
So-guns are good. Even if you had one.You'd likely just stick it in your own mouth one day.

imagine the field day thieves would have, knowing that no law abiding home owner would ever challenge them with a gun.

You do not seem to realize the cost in money and lives?

How many people are killed "pro kapita" in the US compared to ... lets say Germany?

How much does it cost the health-system each year "pro kapita" in the US compared to... lets say Germany?

How many more police men do you need on the streets of your cities "pro kapita" compared to... lets say Germany?

What is the cost?

How much did you save?! :confused:
Did any of you look at the number? DID ANY OF YOU take a careful look? Plz... dont be shy... plz show your self :rolleyes:

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

Guns are not evil. Guns are political enforcement agents. Its only the politics of the will behind the agent that makes it good or evil.

Alas since good and evil are only a matter of politics, the will behind the gun will always consider itself to be good. As such, the use of a gun can only be defined as a loving or hateful action.

As of now I have yet to be presented with a purely loving action that involves the use of a gun.

I don't even bother saying the cliche "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Guns are not evil in right hands. Almost any tool or device from cars to aeroplanes can be dangerous in wrong hands. Are aeroplanes bad things because of 9/11? I don't think so.

How much did you save?! :confused:


Here, I'll help you. In short terms, it has been proven, in a peer reviewed study (reviewed by anti-gun scholars) that we have 2.5 million violent crimes that would otherwise take place stopped by civilians using firearms.

Our violent crime and murder rates are at all time lows - yet we have had a 50 percent increase in the number of guns over the past 10 years. We have had 33 states make it possible for people to carry guns - yet murder has dropped.

By your logic, there should be more murder, and more violent crime.

Yet the opposite is true.

No airplanes are bad things because they make them so that no one over 6' can ride in them with any amount of comfort.

By your logic, there should be more murder, and more violent crime. Yet the opposite is true.

Wrong! It is a complicated matter. It is not only a matter of easy acces to weapons. Plz show me the statistics and number related to the cost of gun related crimes... and tell me how much money you saved? I think it will show you have saved no money at all... nor any lives :(

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)
PS: I have to go now... sorry... I will return later... DANG!

Wrong! It is a complicated matter. It is not only a matter of easy acces to weapons. Plz show me the statistics and number related to the cost of gun related crimes... and tell me how much money you saved? I think it will show you have saved no money at all... nor any lives :(

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)
PS: I have to go now... sorry... I will return later... DANG!

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8607777&postcount=258

There's my post on the statistics. BTW, the statistics in the Kleck study are not only supported by other studies, they are supported by the peer reviewers - who were anti-gun.

Hi

-What would happen if you banned all guns from US territory? All guns, except those carried by Military and Police?

-I would like to know if any of you gun-loving-nut-morrons could tell me?!! (Sorry but I just had to flame you guys... after all that BS most of you wrote) :D

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

I'll tell you what would happen idiot,
The same thing that just happened in Minn. The guns the kid used were his grandfathers, and the grandfather was a sheriff. He stole the guns and killed his grandfather.

Do you think a gangmember would have a problem running down a cop on foot and then taking his gun?
What about the 4 gangmembers recently sentenced for a machine gun incident in Birmingham 2003? Your laws really stopped them huh?


You socialist putzs over the pond think that inaminate objects can cause problems on thier own?
How's this one? I own over 110 firearms and carry one EVERY day. Guess how many people I have killed? NONE.

Ban all guns here and there will still be guns.
I could make a 12 gauge shotgun from a piece of 3/4" black waterpipe and a drill.
9mm handgun also can be made with pipe.


Why don't you worry about your own problems you have created on your island and leave our problems to us.

You sure didn't have a problem with our boys that were skilled in the use of firearms dying for you twice did ya?

I'll tell you what would happen idiot,
The same thing that just happened in Minn. The guns the kid used were his grandfathers, and the grandfather was a sheriff. He stole the guns and killed his grandfather.

Do you think a gangmember would have a problem running down a cop on foot and then taking his gun?
What about the 4 gangmembers recently sentenced for a machine gun incident in Birmingham 2003? Your laws really stopped them huh?


You socialist putzs over the pond think that inaminate objects can cause problems on thier own?
How's this one? I own over 110 firearms and carry one EVERY day. Guess how many people I have killed? NONE.

Ban all guns here and there will still be guns.
I could make a 12 gauge shotgun from a piece of 3/4" black waterpipe and a drill.
9mm handgun also can be made with pipe.


Why don't you worry about your own problems you have created on your island and leave our problems to us.

You sure didn't have a problem with our boys that were skilled in the use of firearms dying for you twice did ya?

I agree, but fear you might be wasting your breath on some of this crowd. A good number of them have appeasement in their genetic code. And the proud german types actually have a history of conforming and doing just what they are told by their superiors.
And dont suggest that the US assisted in WWI or II- their history has been revised and now you have to show them physical proof that American were actually on their soil during the war. You are trying to reason with the angst ridden, bored, brainwashed and self loathing.
This post will attract a lot of flack, but only because it will hit so close to home.

Even if ALL guns were eliminated-every single one- from a society. No police with guns, no military-not one gun of any type existed within the countries borders. People would be left thinking- "you know, I was going to kill that person, but without a gun, I think maybe I'll leave him be".
No- knives and pipes would become the weapon of choice. the need for an offensive weapon wouldnt disappear, it would simply shift. People would be robbed a knife point, scizzor point, box cutter point.
Then we successfully round up everything sharp and eliminate it from society. Rocks and clubs make excellent weapons, especially if the other person doesnt have one.

The subject should be about behavior, not the implement. If someone needs to kill or victimise someone else, they are going to take advantage of whatever is available. A lot of people arent going to part with their knitting needles.
Learn to address the real problem-human behavior.

I'll tell you what would happen idiot,
The same thing that just happened in Minn. The guns the kid used were his grandfathers, and the grandfather was a sheriff. He stole the guns and killed his grandfather.

Do you think a gangmember would have a problem running down a cop on foot and then taking his gun?
What about the 4 gangmembers recently sentenced for a machine gun incident in Birmingham 2003? Your laws really stopped them huh?

You socialist putzs over the pond think that inaminate objects can cause problems on thier own?
How's this one? I own over 110 firearms and carry one EVERY day. Guess how many people I have killed? NONE.

Ban all guns here and there will still be guns.
I could make a 12 gauge shotgun from a piece of 3/4" black waterpipe and a drill.
9mm handgun also can be made with pipe.

Why don't you worry about your own problems you have created on your island and leave our problems to us.

You sure didn't have a problem with our boys that were skilled in the use of firearms dying for you twice did ya?

You do not know me, so why do you feel you can insult me?

Anyway,
Recent in your opinion is 2003, two years ago.
Should I be impressed you own 110 guns? or that you are yet to shoot anyone?
The question is why do you feel the need to own these guns?
You carry them every day, Why do you feel so threatened that you feel the need to do this? (unless you are in Law enforcement/military)
You ask us to stay out of your problems. i take it that you do see gun ownership as a problem then.

Most World citizens appreciate the cost and efforts made by those that went to war. You, infer that the US was the only and/or the best fighter in both world wars. Also most participants in the fight were taught to use guns only just before going to war.

The subject should be about behavior, not the implement. If someone needs to kill or victimise someone else, they are going to take advantage of whatever is available. A lot of people arent going to part with their knitting needles.
Learn to address the real problem-human behavior.

True. If all weapons were banned, people would kill each other by pushing each other off buildings. The only thing it looks like we can do about it is encourage nonviolence in school, on TV, and in video games. Those things can have a lot of influence on people. (I can already hear people telling me not all TV and not all video games are violent. True. But many of them are. I don't have a TV in my house or any video games, and I've never killed anyone!) We can alter human behavior through popular culture.

True. If all weapons were banned, people would kill each other by pushing each other off buildings. The only thing it looks like we can do about it is encourage nonviolence in school, on TV, and in video games. Those things can have a lot of influence on people. (I can already hear people telling me not all TV and not all video games are violent. True. But many of them are. I don't have a TV in my house or any video games, and I've never killed anyone!) We can alter human behavior through popular culture.

I have a TV and, play violent games, and I've not killed anyone either.
Good for us eh? *sarcasm*

This violent behavior, if at all traceable, tends to run to patriotism. So should we ban flags and national days?
Most of Europe is not nationalistic and has lower violent crime rates, so maybe the US should consider stopping the pledge of allegence.

PS, CL your last comments were not close to home, just objectionable.

Guns |= evil
Guns = Tools
Irrisponsible Fuckers who, drunk with power, use guns to solve petty and stupid problems = evil.

Get rid of guns, then knives become the problem... get rid of knives, then you got bows/arrows, bats, boards with nails in em, chains, shivs, etc...

Getting rid of the weapon won't help. getting help to those who see violence as the first problem solving device to use and not as a last resort is the answer.

You do not know me, so why do you feel you can insult me?

Anyway,
Recent in your opinion is 2003, two years ago.
Should I be impressed you own 110 guns? or that you are yet to shoot anyone?
The question is why do you feel the need to own these guns?
You carry them every day, Why do you feel so threatened that you feel the need to do this? (unless you are in Law enforcement/military)
You ask us to stay out of your problems. i take it that you do see gun ownership as a problem then.

Most World citizens appreciate the cost and efforts made by those that went to war. You, infer that the US was the only and/or the best fighter in both world wars. Also most participants in the fight were taught to use guns only just before going to war.

Why did you feel the need to assume that all gun owners are morons?

2003 is the most recent set of stats from the Home Office of Crime Statistics for England and Wales. If the Gov't of the UK would update their site then maybe I could get something more current. Seems funny that there is talk of decreasing murder and gun crimes in the UK but the office responsible to post the statistics is so far behind.
Is murder with ball bats up?

I never suggested that you should be impressed with the amount of guns I own. Just the fact that 110 inanimate objects have not killed anyone by my owning them.

I own guns as an investment.
Many of the guns I own are from some fine manufacturers in England, sadly they are no longer in buisness.
Most of the guns I own are collectors pieces from the 1800's or of limited production. Rare models of Colts, Winchesters, Holland & Holland, Krieghoff, Mauser, ect....
You know, the kinds of works of art that the British people had no problem destroying when the gov't handed down their ruling that that citizens not be trusted with the means to protect themselves from ballbat weilding thugs looking to bust their heads open.

The only problem we have is coddling criminals instead of throwing them into jail for life, or removing them from the face of the earth altogether.

You assume that I have not shot anyone, I said, I have never killed anyone.
Some people do have reason to carry a gun every day that are not cops, people in Alaska, the Dakotas and other "wild" areas come to mind.
I never said if I was a police officer or not for a reason, it does not matter as far as the laws of my state are concerned. It is nobodies business what my profession is or how much time I may or may not have in the military.

I reffered to the US servicemen fighting in the European wars as a reminder than firearms in the hands of citizens can be an effictive tool. Your statement that our men were trained to use guns when they were drafted to war is a result of to much telly.
Alot of my ancestors(?) were killed by jackbooted thugs that didn't allow private ownership of firearms either. And alot of men from all over helped to liberate them.
I did not intend my statement to be a slam against any of the other countries that were fighting alongside the US. If it came across that way then I appoligize to any vets here.

Why did you feel the need to assume that all gun owners are morons?

i have yet to see one that is not.

i have yet to see one that is not.


Open your eyes then. Either this is an outright lie, or you live in a very small and sad world.

Open your eyes then. Either this is an outright lie, or you live in a very small and sad world.

He's just trolling with that statement.

i have yet to see one that is not.really... I've yet to personnally meet a gun owner who is a moron.

All my friends who own guns are responsible. their guns are secured, with Trigger locks that only trained members of their family have keys for.

Most of them are military so they treat their weapons with the respect it deserves, the rest went to NRA for training, and got pointers from the military people as well.

heck... I never knew they owned guns untill they told me.

He's just trolling with that statement.


actually, i'm not.

nobody in my town owns a gun (or at least is not blatant about it) so the only gun owners i ever see are the ones from here, who do not see the fact that a knife in the hands of a killer is much less deadly than a gun in the hands of a killer.

to use an analogy: if i wanted to get from coast to coast, i could drive, or i could walk. obviously, driving is the most efficient solution, because i can do it faster and with less effort than walking. i could probably make the trip multiple times in the same amount of time it takes me to walk.

now replace "going from coast to coast" with "killing someone"
replace "cars" with "guns"
replace "walking" with "stabbing"

if i wanted to kiill someone, i could use a gun, or i could use a knife. obviously, shooting is the most efficient solution, because i can do it faster and with less effort than stabbing. i could probably kill multiple people in the same amount of time it takes me to stab one.



see? removing guns is an infinitely better solution.

"but violent crimes are stopped by people with guns"

yea, but violent crimes are also caused by people with guns.

at least a woman with a can of mace has a chance against a man armed only with a knife.

leave guns with the military and the military only.

and maybe some police.

maybe.

I am quite strongly against personal gun ownership, but I feel I must pick up on one point. Some of the sanest, most level-headed, personable and intelligent people I have met also happened to own, and enjoyed owning, handguns.

I have gotten into quite a few debates with them over the years, and the arguments they put forward for gun ownership vary, but can be broken down into three main areas:-

1) "I own a gun because I need it for my job."

2) "I own a gun because I enjoy target shooting, hunting...."

3) "I own a gun for personal defence. It's a dangerous world out there!"

If I am honest, I don't object to reasons 1) or 2), they seem to me to be perfectly rational reasons for gun ownership. It is number 3) that I personally have a problem with, and number 3) that seems to be the one that gets just about every thread I see on the subject heated.

If I can divert us away from argument for one moment I would like to ask if anyone shares my views on the three points above regardless of their overall stance on the subject of gun ownership. I get the feeling that we may have consensus on 1); that those of us who are not anti-hunting would probably agree on 2), even if they can't see the point themselves; and that 3) - once again - will be where we start to diverge. Am I in the right ball park?*





* Note advanced use of American idiom despite being one of them yoo-ropeans.

actually, i'm not.

nobody in my town owns a gun (or at least is not blatant about it) so the only gun owners i ever see are the ones from here, who do not see the fact that a knife in the hands of a killer is much less deadly than a gun in the hands of a killer.



Life on Sesame Street must be pure bliss.

Why did you feel the need to assume that all gun owners are morons?

2003 is the most recent set of stats from the Home Office of Crime Statistics for England and Wales. If the Gov't of the UK would update their site then maybe I could get something more current. Seems funny that there is talk of decreasing murder and gun crimes in the UK but the office responsible to post the statistics is so far behind.
Is murder with ball bats up?

I never suggested that you should be impressed with the amount of guns I own. Just the fact that 110 inanimate objects have not killed anyone by my owning them.

I own guns as an investment.
Many of the guns I own are from some fine manufacturers in England, sadly they are no longer in buisness.
Most of the guns I own are collectors pieces from the 1800's or of limited production. Rare models of Colts, Winchesters, Holland & Holland, Krieghoff, Mauser, ect....
You know, the kinds of works of art that the British people had no problem destroying when the gov't handed down their ruling that that citizens not be trusted with the means to protect themselves from ballbat weilding thugs looking to bust their heads open.

The only problem we have is coddling criminals instead of throwing them into jail for life, or removing them from the face of the earth altogether.

You assume that I have not shot anyone, I said, I have never killed anyone.
Some people do have reason to carry a gun every day that are not cops, people in Alaska, the Dakotas and other "wild" areas come to mind.
I never said if I was a police officer or not for a reason, it does not matter as far as the laws of my state are concerned. It is nobodies business what my profession is or how much time I may or may not have in the military.

I reffered to the US servicemen fighting in the European wars as a reminder than firearms in the hands of citizens can be an effictive tool. Your statement that our men were trained to use guns when they were drafted to war is a result of to much telly.
Alot of my ancestors(?) were killed by jackbooted thugs that didn't allow private ownership of firearms either. And alot of men from all over helped to liberate them.
I did not intend my statement to be a slam against any of the other countries that were fighting alongside the US. If it came across that way then I appoligize to any vets here.

I did not make any assumptions re gun owners.

The point I was making is that I own lots of stuff that could be used to kill but hasn't been. You were emphasising the ownership of guns, almost as if you thought they should be used to kill.
I have no problem with you owning these guns, but a question, if they are collectable, would they still be works of art, decommissioned?
You are correct I assumed that you had not shot anyone, as you said you had not killed anyone. I was working on the reason to carry weapons being to defend oneself against wild creatures, not people or as self defence, being taught to shot to the body, which very often kills, unless you then arrange for medical assistance.

Re the US servicemen, I agreed that you fought well. I was making the point that the vast majority of the forces (non US) did not have training before signing up, and that the military trained them (certainly true of my grandparents and thier friends). This is a fact and so what if they use it on the TV? The point is that in times of war the populace can train to use guns quickly and well, but in times of peace it is an unnessersary skill for the vast majority of people in the first world.

This topic has been covered before and I may be guilty of reading in some previous posters arguements into your comments. Apologies.

The problem is cultural. The Canadians don't have it but they can watch your TV, What is it in the US mentality that requires general gun ownership?

Do you think that the rest of the world that does not allow guns has it wrong?
Do you think that it is safer for all to have more wepons around than less.
If you do would you allow gun booths, swipe your ID and get a gun drop out of a slot, just in case you forgot yours?

really... I've yet to personnally meet a gun owner who is a moron.

All my friends who own guns are responsible. their guns are secured, with Trigger locks that only trained members of their family have keys for.

Most of them are military so they treat their weapons with the respect it deserves, the rest went to NRA for training, and got pointers from the military people as well.

heck... I never knew they owned guns untill they told me.


I'm fairly certain that none of my neighbors are aware I have guns. Day to day life hardly warrants showing them to anyone.

I don't even bother saying the cliche "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Guns are not evil in right hands. Almost any tool or device from cars to aeroplanes can be dangerous in wrong hands. Are aeroplanes bad things because of 9/11? I don't think so.

Terrorists don't kill people, airplanes do!

while i like the way you divided the gun owners, i must say that i do not agree with you on all the points

1) "I own a gun because I need it for my job."

police and military

the police would not need them if the criminals did not have them either.

the military would not need them if were were more willing to solve world problems through diplomacy.

unfortunately, most of this is not the case, which is why the military should be allowed to have them and the police should be able to have a few. very few.

2) "I own a gun because I enjoy target shooting, hunting...."

ridiculous.

i find forms of entertainment that do not involve wanton violence and slaughter of harmless animals, why can't you?

you say video games are bad, yet you take your kid out the woods to blow small creatures to smithereens? :rolleyes:

3) "I own a gun for personal defence. It's a dangerous world out there!"

and it would not be such a dangerous world if there were no guns in it.

while i like the way you divided the gun owners, i must say that i do not agree with you on all the points



police and military

the police would not need them if the criminals did not have them either.

the military would not need them if were were more willing to solve world problems through diplomacy.

unfortunately, most of this is not the case, which is why the military should be allowed to have them and the police should be able to have a few. very few.



ridiculous.

i find forms of entertainment that do not involve wanton violence and slaughter of harmless animals, why can't you?

you say video games are bad, yet you take your kid out the woods to blow small creatures to smithereens? :rolleyes:



and it would not be such a dangerous world if there were no guns in it.

And you could continue to travel the skies in a yellow submarine. With diplomatic immunity, or course.

{Snip}
and it would not be such a dangerous world if there were no guns in it.Tell ya what DY...
You convince everyone else to give up their guns... and Gurarentee that the ONLY PEOPLE to have guns are the RESPONSIBLE and UNCORRUPTABLE police and military people, then I will join you in your crusade.

Tell ya what DY...
You convince everyone else to give up their guns... and Gurarentee that the ONLY PEOPLE to have guns are the RESPONSIBLE and UNCORRUPTABLE police and military people, then I will join you in your crusade.

if it came to everyone giving up their guns, there would be no point to the police or military having them either.

but i know that there are going to be some people who smuggle them into the country, and there are going to be other nations that are more warlike and barbaric than ours, and that is the only reason that i still believe that military and some police should be allowed them.

if we ever get to the point where no more guns are smuggled in, and all the other countries are willing to settle things in a civilized manner, then i would support the removal of guns from police and military.

Can nobody here look past their unfounded selfish ideals? Americans have the FREEDOM to bear arms because... well... we're AMERICANS. Anyone ever heared of the Revolutionary War? Americans left GB for the pursuit of our freedom from oppression. We fought (with GUNS) for these freedoms and lost many lives. Keeping with the ideals of our forefathers, we maintain unique freedoms such as the RIGHT to own a gun. It is only the bad people who misuse them. People with such stupid thoughts as the belief that they have the right to take human lives deserve to die, themselves. There are people, however, that take pride in the history of which we are born. We use these TOOLS for defense, subsistence, and sport (nonlethal, meaning we dont kill animals for fun, but rather when we need them for food). So if it is assumed that everyone who owns a gun is going to kill someone, take a look around you. Not everyone is a paranoid and pathetic child behind a computer screen. Some people have respect for the human individual and the American way of life.

And you could continue to travel the skies in a yellow submarine. With diplomatic immunity, or course.

Sorry, but are you arguing this or trolling?

Sorry, but are you arguing this or trolling?

trolling.

and i'm not going to respond to it

the police would not need them if the criminals did not have them either.

the military would not need them if were were more willing to solve world problems through diplomacy.


i find forms of entertainment that do not involve wanton violence and slaughter of harmless animals, why can't you?

The militarys job is not to do a diplomats job.
As far as entertainment goes. Shoot some skeet some time instead of playing your video games. Not only will you go outside you might enjoy yourself. Also I live Alaska where we shoot animals for food.

'if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns'

Again, the UK is a prime example of how this is blatently not true. Guns are outlawed and although some do have them (namely fuelled by the gang culture in inner-city London) the estimated amount of guns in the UK by our chief of police is very low.
Of course if guns were just suddenly banned in the US this would not be the case, which is why a long-term solution is necessary like stopping making guns.
Also, the idea that guns are for the greater good because you can defend your home with them is bullshit. Once again, there's lower robbery in the UK than in the US. Defending yourself with a gun is merely escalating the problem, never solving it.

Personally, I have a baseball bat lying next to my bed. I know almost certainly that no-one can enter my house having a weapon with a beter reach, or one as powerful- yet almost always non-lethal. I don't mind pumelling robbers, but murder is too far.
Bats for all, guns for none!

lmao

let's see how you feel when someone comes into your home carrying a gun and you're unarmed...

hmmm

you're wrong

Guns are a GREAT defense against in-home crime... if someone tried to rob me, i'd point the gun at them and they'd either run or i'd capture them and call the cops.

without the gun, i might be burglarized AND beaten or killed

hmmm, which do i want... safety or death?

also, if the US were to try to collect the guns from civilians, criminals WOULD have the guns. we wouldn't.

sorry, i don't want criminals barging into my house with a pistol while i'm unarmed. I totally disagree with your view.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8607777&postcount=258

There's my post on the statistics. BTW, the statistics in the Kleck study are not only supported by other studies, they are supported by the peer reviewers - who were anti-gun.

And, for the record, is my partial refutation and comment on those statistics.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8610078&postcount=272

This is for the well meaning albeit misguided souls.

I have briefly read some of the replies on this thread and have found some truly ridiculous remarks. It seems that many people are inclined to believe that guns are an evil device. First off a firearm is an inanimate object that cannot be rightly called good or evil but may be made to seem so by the ways in which they may be used. Next I have heard several statements that crime rates have lowered since the widespread gun bans in Great Britain and Australia. I have read statistical reports that show that all crime is up, including gun crimes, after the bans were made into law. These statistics show that homicide, armed robberies, break-ins, etc. had all risen sometimes astounding percentages(100%+). Notice also that not all of these crimes need be commited with firearm, but it would seem that criminal felt more secure in robbing or attacking a place or victim that thanks to the ban was very likely to be unarmed. Think also of how would for example a 135 lb. woman be able to ward off a 200+ lb. attacker without a distinct advantage, the advantage a properly handled firearm could provide. Also please realize that in the light of history firearms have been around a very short time...What did people kill one another with before guns then?...Answer: Whatever they could get. Humans have been killing one another for thousands of years with an astonishing array of bows and arrows, knives, swords, axes, bare hands, rocks, automobiles, etc, etc. The "art" of killing another person is probably one of the most studied "arts" in the world and is practiced somewhere on a daily basis. People will continue to find ways to kill one another regardless of firearms. Another thought is that do you truly believe that passing gun bans will prevent crime when the true criminals are not going to obey the gun bans either? I sure hope not. Lastly many people enjoy sporting with firearms such as target and skeet shooting, hunting, plinking, etc. these are pastimes that are very commonplace in Pahpahpolis and yet the extreme majority of the population and government do not feel at all threatened by this. If there are any replies or questions to this post please feel free to reply here or contact me personally.

President of the Confederation of Pahpahpolis

so let's give everyone a nuke, right?

after all, we've been killing eachother for years, might as well not stop now!

hell, i doubt any criminals would come within a mile of me if i had a nuke in a breifcase with me at all times.

right?

and for those poor people who set it of by accident, well, they just never learned how to respect the weapon, and the price they, and their neighborhood, payed for not having that respect is just the price we're all going to have to pay for that extra bit of security.

so let's give everyone a nuke, right?

after all, we've been killing eachother for years, might as well not stop now!

hell, i doubt any criminals would come within a mile of me if i had a nuke in a breifcase with me at all times.

right?

and for those poor people who set it of by accident, well, they just never learned how to respect the weapon, and the price they, and their neighborhood, payed for not having that respect is just the price we're all going to have to pay for that extra bit of security.


Sure- Thats reasonable. And whats more, its a great argument.

'Anyways, I believe guns are dangerous but in the right hands, it's a life-saver. A lot of my friends carry guns and it definitely makes me feel safer to be around them.'

I have NEVER understood this US perspective. You have this insane notion that you need a lethal weapon to defend yourself aganist others with the same weapon. Here in the UK virtually no-one has a gun, thus no-one else needs one to defend themselves.

US gun crime murders: 10,000 (roughly)
UK gun crime murders: not sure, but its under 100.


Those are some of the most bull shit statistics I have ever seen. The criminals have plenty of guns, they just never have to use them because your parlaiment passed a law a long time ago intended to disarm the chronically rebellious irish, now no one but criminals has guns because the law spread to everyone. In America the "culture of violence" you spoke of has served us well, a poll was taken in about fifty state prisons and about 70% of inmates are more afraid of an armed homeowner than the police.

Sure- Thats reasonable. And whats more, its a great argument.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8609162&postcount=218
:rolleyes:

a poll was taken in about fifty state prisons and about 70% of inmates are more afraid of an armed homeowner than the police.


so just because they fear it, it's a good thing?

the criminals are probably afraid of terrorists, too.

while i like the way you divided the gun owners, i must say that i do not agree with you on all the points



police and military

the police would not need them if the criminals did not have them either.

the military would not need them if were were more willing to solve world problems through diplomacy.

unfortunately, most of this is not the case, which is why the military should be allowed to have them and the police should be able to have a few. very few.



ridiculous.

i find forms of entertainment that do not involve wanton violence and slaughter of harmless animals, why can't you?

you say video games are bad, yet you take your kid out the woods to blow small creatures to smithereens? :rolleyes:



and it would not be such a dangerous world if there were no guns in it.


If you will move to new york city, and post a sign in your yard saying "no guns here", then I will give up my guns, not that you'll care, since the first crackhead who breaks into your house will probably kill you, and if he doesn't, one of the others will eventually.

so just because they fear it, it's a good thing?

the criminals are probably afraid of terrorists, too.


If that fear keeps them out of my house and the houses of my family and friends, then yes it is.

I feel true pity for the citizens of Dementudus_Yammus in light of their leader's views and rude comments.

On another note:
When treated properly a firearm can be very safe. Also in the hands of one who knows how and when to properly use his/her firearm it can be used to thrawt criminal activity and harm towards themselves, others, and property. However when treated improperly a firearm may be dangerous to the innocent, but then a tiger can be too.

President of the Confederation of Pahpahpolis

I feel true pity for the citizens of Dementudus_Yammus in light of their leader's views and rude comments.

On another note:
When treated properly a firearm can be very safe. Also in the hands of one who knows how and when to properly use his/her firearm it can be used to thrawt criminal activity and harm towards themselves, others, and property. However when treated improperly a firearm may be dangerous to the innocent, but then a tiger can be too.

President of the Confederation of Pahpahpolis

Dont-they are imaginary. And he lacks any validity. Dont give it another thought.

If you will move to new york city, and post a sign in your yard saying "no guns here", then I will give up my guns, not that you'll care, since the first crackhead who breaks into your house will probably kill you, and if he doesn't, one of the others will eventually.

That kind of country is USA I will then ask, then you need a gun to defend your self or get killed? In Sweden a country with 9 million people only a couple of houndred people get killed per year and in most cases the killer knows the victim. Also intersted fact that swedish police only have to fire around 30 shots a years and on average only kill around one people a year beacause there lifes is threathen. So maybee guns is not the real answer....

(sorry have no english speaking material to back it up, but you can look for your self or try to find another swed that will say the same thing)

Why did you feel the need to assume that all gun owners are morons?i have yet to see one that is not.Hey troll, hope you like being ignored!

:upyours:

That kind of country is USA I will then ask, then you need a gun to defend your self or get killed? In Sweden a country with 9 million people only a couple of houndred people get killed per year and in most cases the killer knows the victim. Also intersted fact that swedish police only have to fire around 30 shots a years and on average only kill around one people a year beacause there lifes is threathen. So maybee guns is not the real answer....

I Agree with the swedish guy... I myself live in Denmark. Too many people die because of the reckless gun laws in the US. Weapons only promote more fear amongst ordinary citizens... they buy more guns to protect them self from criminals... more death... more fear... More guns...AND WE HAVE A LOOP!?

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)