NationStates Jolt Archive

Mind-blowing. Now, considering that was never in dispute....why are you here again?

Because maybe it's pointless, but gun control is better then nothing.

It wouldn't stop it from doubling because the mafia was still growing along with the death rate. As well as the genral amount of criminals about. However, as i said before, the damage is done and it's too late to do anything about it now.


well here's the thing..you claimed the GOVERNMENT said there was no Mafia..

That is not true ...a person who worked for the government and should have known better , said " there's no proof such an 'THING " exist...but the GOVERNMENT ..took that under advisment and held congressional hearings and exposed the Mafia to the country .

Big difference .

The US has all sorts of different criminal organizations or " Mafia " We are a nation of immigrants ...and some are criminal or criminal associates.
Its like the criminal version of a McDonalds franchise to open up shop in the US .

Cripes in Philadelphia alone we have a Greek and Russian and Jewish and all types of different asian ...along with Black and Italian mafia's ...some Columbian gangs and Jamacans ..along with your Dominicans...all operating alongside your normal motorcycle types..Pagans and Hells angels ...and regular gangs ..:D

no shortage of criminal types here... :rolleyes:

Try New York for a better variety ..

LALALALALALALALALALALALA UK IS LOWER LALALALALALALALA

For goddess's sake! for the infinity time, it's always been lower than the US and has nothing to do w/ legal ownership.

Because maybe it's pointless, but gun control is better then nothing.

Right. Disarm the citizens so the criminals and government (redundant I know) can ride roughshod over them.

Prove it.

You agree that the murder rate is going up yes? You agree that the amount of guns getting imported into the uk is going up yes?

Because maybe it's pointless, but gun control is better then nothing.

Unfortunately, it's not. Show gun control reducing crime. That means crime starting at point A, gun control being implemented, then crime going to point B, A being more than B, and the decrease not being contributable to anything else.

You agree that the murder rate is going up yes? You agree that the amount of guns getting imported into the uk is going up yes?

And that is CAUSED by firearms? Or by criminals?

You agree that the murder rate in the US is dropping? That the number of firearms has increased?

And that is CAUSED by firearms? Or by criminals?

You agree that the murder rate in the US is dropping? That the number of firearms has increased?

Criminals WITH firearms.

You agree that the murder rate is going up yes? You agree that the amount of guns getting imported into the uk is going up yes?

Yeah. I also agree that the number of cancelled televison shows, number of people, number of hurricanes, and number of spotted bunnies are all going up. You haven't shown causation, two totally unrelated things can happen at the same time.

Criminals WITH firearms.

The firearms CAUSED the criminals?

Why do you ignore the second point?

I think we are straying off the point here. The fact is, if you make it much easier for criminals to get guns. Then more murders are going to be commited because guns make it so much easier, you can't deny that.

I think we are straying off the point here. The fact is, if you make it much easier for criminals to get guns. Then more murders are going to be commited because guns make it so much easier, you can't deny that.

Then why has it gone up in the UK? Is it because of the firearms, the incompetant Gov't, or the criminals?

There are more firearms in the US and it's easier for those who follow the law to get them and more crime control. Crime has dropped. You're arguement that there are more guns so there should be more crime is false.

I think we are straying off the point here. The fact is, if you make it much easier for criminals to get guns. Then more murders are going to be commited because guns make it so much easier, you can't deny that.

Actually, I can, considering you've brouight no evidence for it, and I know there are many occasions where guns have detered a criminal, by simply showing the handgun, or hearing the sound of a shotgun.

Then why has it gone up in the UK? Is it because of the firearms, the incompetant Gov't, or the criminals?


It has nothing to do with lack of guns, thats for sure.


There are more firearms in the US and it's easier for those who follow the law to get them and more crime control. Crime has dropped. You're arguement that there are more guns so there should be more crime is false.

Just because it's dropping doesn't stop it from being incredibly high.

It has nothing to do with lack of guns, thats for sure.



Just because it's dropping doesn't stop it from being incredibly high.

It has nothing to do w/ firearms period.

The United States was founded on the premise that GOVERNMENTS can be just as dangerous as CRIMINALS .;)

again an attempt to get back on the OP's band wagon .

Just because it's dropping doesn't stop it from being incredibly high.

For all we know (all you've given evidence for) It's because of Hollywood, or the Illuminati and the. fnords

It has nothing to do w/ firearms period.

Oh, and thats why 2 thirds of the murders are from firearms?

Oh, and thats why 2 thirds of the murders are from firearms?

Only if the people were posessed by the firearms and influenced into murdering by them, otherwise, no, the firearms did not cause the crime.

Oh, and thats why 2 thirds of the murders are from firearms?

So the firearm is emitting subsonic waves that are making the people commit crimes? Mine must be broken then.

Only if the people were posessed by the firearms and influenced into murdering by them, otherwise, no, the firearms did not cause the crime.

If there was no firearm, the crime would have more likely not happened.

If there was no firearm, the crime would have more likely not happened.

Prove it.

[QUOTE=Golgothastan] unique and valuable check to government power, then they must be distinct from a car or a knife.

Certainly not unique although possible more effective as a detterent.

Prove it.

You can run away from a knife, not a bullet.

You can run away from a knife, not a bullet.

No, he asked you to prove it. The firearm did not cause the crime. It is an inanimate object with no will of its own. Kind of like your arguement.

No, he asked you to prove it. The firearm did not cause the crime. It is an inanimate object with no will of its own. Kind of like your arguement.

Prove what exactly, that guns are more dangorouse then knives?

Bombs don't kill people, people kill people. So lets allow people to plant landmines in their backgarden, and anti-personnelle mines inside every entrace to their home, and keep grenades under their pillow, they won't use them except in self defence.


Also, YOU DO NOT NEED A BLANKET POLICY ON GUN CONTROL. All the world is not the same, different cultures react differently to guns, horses for courses, etc. The same policy does not work in all places at all times regardless of the culture it is in:headbang:

The main problem with gun control in the US is that because the borders are effectively open, criminals can very easily get their hands on guns, hence leading to the scenario where only criminals have guns. Conversely in the UK, there's a much tighter control over the borders, and hence gun control works better there, in an ideal situation for supporters of gun control is NOT that only people who want to break the law will have guns. It's that people who want to break the law cannot get hold of guns.

To repeat, you cannot make a judgement without looking at the society that it would be implemented in, for some it'd work, for some it wouldn't, it's that simple :)

That is all/

You can run away from a knife, not a bullet.

http://www.bmuschool.org/student_pages/mdana/images/bullet.gif

What? It's more evidence than I ever got from you.

Prove what exactly, that guns are more dangorouse then knives?

Well, you'd also have to prove the only other thing the criminal would have used was a knife, and the increase caused be removing the power of detterence is compensated for by all those crimes you can prove wouldn't happen.

Prove what exactly, that guns are more dangorouse then knives?

You said the crime would most likely have not have happened had there not been a firearm. He asked you to prove that. Can't you keep up w/ your own arguement.

If there was no firearm, the crime would have more likely not happened.

Right, because nobody was ever murdered by anything other than a firearm. :rolleyes:

You seem to be under the impression that firearms commit crimes. Firearms are inanimate objects that do nothing until someone picks them up and pulls the trigger.

You can run away from a knife, not a bullet.

Really? What if someone attacks another person from behind with a knife, and stabs them before they can do anything about it? What if they try to run, and the attacker knocks them down before stabbing them? What if the victim can't run?

Bombs don't kill people, people kill people. So lets allow people to plant landmines in their backgarden, and anti-personnelle mines inside every entrace to their home, and keep grenades under their pillow, they won't use them except in self defence.


Also, YOU DO NOT NEED A BLANKET POLICY ON GUN CONTROL. All the world is not the same, different cultures react differently to guns, horses for courses, etc. The same policy does not work in all places at all times regardless of the culture it is in:headbang:

The main problem with gun control in the US is that because the borders are effectively open, criminals can very easily get their hands on guns, hence leading to the scenario where only criminals have guns. Conversely in the UK, there's a much tighter control over the borders, and hence gun control works better there, in an ideal situation for supporters of gun control is NOT that only people who want to break the law will have guns. It's that people who want to break the law cannot get hold of guns.

To repeat, you cannot make a judgement without looking at the society that it would be implemented in, for some it'd work, for some it wouldn't, it's that simple :)

That is all/

Thats true.

You said the crime would most likely have not have happened had there not been a firearm. He asked you to prove that. Can't you keep up w/ your own arguement.

Are you so stupid that you need proof! What causes more deaths a lunatic with a gun inside a shopping mall spraying at everyone, or a lunatic with a knife running after certain people whilst everyone else is escaping. Repeat this thousands of times and your death toll goes down.

A firearm is, in effect, a tool.

It is a tool to help keep governments in check.
It is a tool to help protect oneself.
...

Some choose to misuse the tool to commit crimes.
...

Your people needs firearms "to keep your government in check"?
What kind of a poor nation would that be?
Have you ever tried free elections?
You could ask the United Nations to observe elections in your country to make sure they are fair.
Your country might even try democracy for a change.

What causes more deaths a lunatic with a gun inside a shopping mall spraying at everyone, or...A drunk guy in a car

A drunk guy in a car

I still think some guy with an uzi spraying in every direction will cause more deaths.

I still think some guy with an uzi spraying in every direction will cause more deaths.

Prove it.

Your people needs firearms "to keep your government in check"?

Yes, because our FF's recognized that power corrupts.


One that has remained free for over 200 years.
[QUOTE=Pagan Nerds]Have you ever tried free elections?

Every two years.
You could ask the United Nations to observe elections in your country to make sure they are fair.

Right. Because they're reliable.
Your country might even try democracy for a change.

Tyranny by the majority? No thanks. I like the republic.

I still think some guy with an uzi spraying in every direction will cause more deaths.

And Uzi's are commonplace in the US?

Care to try any more stupid movie cliches that have already been beaten into the dust?

Prove it.

:rolleyes: ...... How many people in the mall? A thousand two thousand? How many on the street, at most about 10. With one or two people in the car.

I've come to realize that guns are part of society and will always be with us. But, we can do something to try and keep certain weapons off the streets. Like sub machine guns and assault rifles. I don't see the point of private citizens owning those kinds of guns.

Give me one plausible reason why you should own any sort of gun.

Once again, I'm not claiming absolute causality. Please try and keep up. I've shown examples where it's easy to get guns legally and low crime, where it's hard to get guns LEGALLY and high crime. There are opposites as well.

And I've pointed out to you how crappy your example was.

Personally, I don't like authoritarianism, but I've read that the worst place for murder in the UK (no guns) has about 10% the number of murders of some places in the US (lots o' guns).

True, the problem with the arguement is that gun murders have risen since the ban of guns.

Are you so stupid that you need proof! What causes more deaths a lunatic with a gun inside a shopping mall spraying at everyone, or a lunatic with a knife running after certain people whilst everyone else is escaping. Repeat this thousands of times and your death toll goes down.

Seems I'm the one providing all the evidence.

Care to tell me what firearm can "spray" bullets that can be legally owned or even easily obtained?

:rolleyes: ...... Howmany people in the mall? A thousand two thousand? How many on the street, at most about 10. With one or two people in the car.

Obviously you've never seen this thing called a pile-up.

http://www.carchaos.com/car_crash_pictures/turkey_pileup/bad_crash.jpg

And Uzi's are commonplace in the US?

Care to try any more stupid movie cliches that have already been beaten into the dust?

Ok then fine, just a normal gun. It will still equal tonnes of deaths. Also have you ever seen a hostage situation with more then 5 people with just a knife?

And I've pointed out to you how crappy your example was.

No, you took part of my example. Not the whole thing.

Give me one plausible reason why you should own any sort of gun.

Hunting.

Obviously you've never seen this thing called a pile-up.

http://www.carchaos.com/car_crash_pictures/turkey_pileup/bad_crash.jpg

You can controll that too. When did i say your not allowed to try and do something about that?

Give me one plausible reason why you should own any sort of gun.

Home defense
Self defense
Hunting
target shooting
varmint control
collection
enjoyment
historical reenactments


There's eight.

Now I'm sure you will try and deny any of these are "plausible".

You can controll that too. When did i say your not allowed to try and do something about that?

Bwa? This was in reference to your statment on how many people could be killed on a road.

Ok then fine, just a normal gun. It will still equal tonnes of deaths. Also have you ever seen a hostage situation with more then 5 people with just a knife?

Provide some sources. Now what if one of those five had a CC license?

Should I start citing newspaper accounts of people who have defended themselves and others w/ firearms?

Provide some sources. Now what if one of those five had a CC license?

Should I start citing newspaper accounts of people who have defended themselves and others w/ firearms?

You don't need to defend yourself with a gun.

You don't need to defend yourself with a gun.

Funny that it works so well though.

You don't need to defend yourself with a gun.

Prove it. Or are you saying we should rely on the police which you have claimed are restricted?

Now bring up the "defend yourself w/ kung-fu" arguement.

I've already given a hypothetical.

:rolleyes: ...... How many people in the mall? A thousand two thousand? How many on the street, at most about 10. With one or two people in the car.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

16,694 deaths in 2004 due to alcohol.

Provide some sources. Now what if one of those five had a CC license?

Should I start citing newspaper accounts of people who have defended themselves and others w/ firearms?

Ok, the colombine shootings: instead replace the guys with guns with guys with knives. Now 30 or so people with chairds and tables against 2 guys with a knife. Much less, if no deaths.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

16,694 deaths in 2004 due to alcohol.

Funny how that number is higher than criminal firearm deaths.

ban alcohol.

Ow wait. We tried that. It didn't work either.

Ok, the colombine shootings: instead replace the guys with guns with guys with knives. Now 30 or so people with chairds and tables against 2 guys with a knife. Much less, if no deaths.

Considering that this would still amount to anecdotal evidence...What about the 16 other people who couldn't defend themselves because they did have a handgun? Now the number of deaths would be tipped against you.

Ok, the colombine shootings: instead replace the guys with guns with guys with knives. Now 30 or so people with chairds and tables against 2 guys with a knife. Much less, if no deaths.

That was not a case of legal ownership. They stole those firearms.

Ok, the colombine shootings: instead replace the guys with guns with guys with knives. Now 30 or so people with chairds and tables against 2 guys with a knife. Much less, if no deaths.

More illegal firearms in an area where firearms are restricted.

Now add in a teacher w/ a CC license.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

16,694 deaths in 2004 due to alcohol.

So gun control will cause more of this then?

No, you took part of my example. Not the whole thing.
You gave me two examples. Russia and Mexico. I know Russia, but I don't know much about Mexico.
Ergo: One example. A bad one.

I'd still be interested to see you pull weird statistics and mangled factoids out of your bum that show that somehow guns were vital to the recent revolution in Russia.

So gun control will cause more of this then?

It's showing how a guy with a gun is the most destructive thing ever. *coughhoplophobiccough*

That was not a case of legal ownership. They stole those firearms.

They shouldn't have been available to steal in the first place.

So gun control will cause more of this then?

No. It was a response to your statement that a drunk behind the wheel wasn't as dangerous as a criminal with a firearm.

Funny how that number is higher than criminal firearm deaths.

ban alcohol.

Ow wait. We tried that. It didn't work either.
Though I have always wondered whenever I saw this stat (the alchahol) are they counting accidents caused by it?

If so there has to be some deffinate overlap between alchahol and vehicle deaths

They shouldn't have been available to steal in the first place.

If they weren't, they could have made some.

You gave me two examples. Russia and Mexico. I know Russia, but I don't know much about Mexico.
Ergo: One example. A bad one.

I'd still be interested to see you pull weird statistics and mangled factoids out of your bum that show that somehow guns were vital to the recent revolution in Russia.

Now pull your own head out of your own ass and repeat after me:

I'M NOT CLAIMING CAUSALITY!!!!

If they weren't, they could have made some.

:rolleyes:

No. It was a response to your statement that a drunk behind the wheel wasn't as dangerous as a criminal with a firearm.
What about a drunk behind the wheel, with a firearm in the glove compartment?

They shouldn't have been available to steal in the first place.

So people should have thier property restricted based on the illegal actions of a small minority?

Now pull your own head out of your own ass and repeat after me:

I'M NOT CLAIMING CAUSALITY!!!!

So what are you saying then? Nothing?

So what are you saying then? Nothing?

Ummm...Yeah. Guns don't affect crime.

:rolleyes:

Do that too much, your face may stick that way.

So people should have thier property restricted based on the illegal actions of a small minority?

It's not just them is it. It's two thirds of the murderers.

So what are you saying then? Nothing?

What I'm saying is that "gun control" and ownership levels do not crime levels make.

I've said this several times. Perhaps one of your cheeks was in the way.

It's not just them isn't it. It's two thirds of the murderers.

So you'll only take the guns from the murderers then?

It's not just them isn't it. It's two thirds of the murderers.

And what percentage of the population is that? Can we say overwhelmingly small minority?

So you'll only take the guns from the murderers then?

Since well over 50% of murders are committed by previous murderers, aren't they supposed to not own firearms in the first place?

Oh wait, they're breaking the law again. Right , I forgot.

So you'll only take the guns from the murderers then?

Farmers can have guns. As well as clay shooters. Everyone else should not have guns. If the criminals didn't have guns, then the law abiding citizens wouldn't need them either.

What about a drunk behind the wheel, with a firearm in the glove compartment?

I'd have to say that would fall under the drunk behind the wheel group, as the firearm is in the glove compartment, and not in use (while the car is).

Farmers can have guns. As well as clay shooters. Everyone else should not have guns. If the criminals didn't have guns, then the law abiding citizens wouldn't need them either.

And, suprisingly enoguh, there are already laws against criminals having guns that get broken cuz...well, they're criminals. Surely another layer of laws will make people who don't obey the laws in the first place more obedient.

What I'm saying is that "gun control" and ownership levels do not crime levels make.

I've said this several times. Perhaps one of your cheeks was in the way.

You're right...There are more factors.
But your examples are still total crap.

Farmers can have guns. As well as clay shooters. Everyone else should not have guns. If the criminals didn't have guns, then the law abiding citizens wouldn't need them either.

What a load of BS.

The Modesto Bee, Modesto, CA, 08/07/04
Candy Mitchell of Waterford, California, started losing sleep after she learned that her ex-boyfriend was released from jail. He had served only two months of a six-month sentence for physically abusing her, so it did not seem like a coincidence when, night after night, she heard strange noises in her back yard and banging on her bedroom walls. Despite repeated calls to the police, no prowler was ever found. But the night Mitchell heard someone enter her home, she grabbed the gun she kept next to her bed and, when she saw a man heading for her daughter's room, fired several times. Her ex-boyfriend, John 'Bud' Russell, stumbled outside. When police arrived, they found Russell dead in his truck. Mitchell later said, "I could not imagine any reason he'd be in my house but to kill me."

The Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, Calif., 10/16/01
A 32-year-old man was shot and killed in North Hollywood when he slashed through a door screen with a knife and threatened to kill everyone inside. The man, identified as Tony Saucedo, allegedly had assaulted his ex-girlfriend in her home. She then ran to a neighbor's home. A witness said Saucedo, knife in hand, began searching for her. He approached the wrong house and was shot once in the chest as he cut through the screen and attempted to force his way inside.


I guess you would rather them not own firearms?

And, suprisingly enoguh, there are already laws against criminals having guns that get broken cuz...well, they're criminals. Surely another layer of laws will make people who don't obey the laws in the first place more obedient.

Well that proves my point now doesn't it, the damage has been done.

Farmers can have guns. As well as clay shooters. Everyone else should not have guns. If the criminals didn't have guns, then the law abiding citizens wouldn't need them either.

Why are farmers and clay shooters more trustworthy than someone like me? I've never been convicted of a crime, pay my taxes, and hold the door open for other people. Why am I not trustworthy enough to own a firearm?

Well that proves my point now doesn't it, the damage has been done.

...and makes things you've argued for pointless, along with your presence in general. (not like, this subforum General, but like...general general)

Why are farmers and clay shooters more trustworthy than someone like me? I've never been convicted of a crime, pay my taxes, and hold the door open for other people. Why am I not trustworthy enough to own a firearm?

They would have to go through lots of initiation first etc...

Well that proves my point now doesn't it, the damage has been done.

And yet there hasn't been a point made. More laws have not effected anything.Even in places where crime is historically low.

Why are farmers and clay shooters more trustworthy than someone like me? I've never been convicted of a crime, pay my taxes, and hold the door open for other people. Why am I not trustworthy enough to own a firearm?

Why because of Pre-Crime silly. And the fact that guns can posess you and force you to kill people. THat's how you know they're evil.

They would have to go through lots of initiation first etc...

So giving the gov't (which you have claimed restricts the police from preventing crime) MORE control over you and preventing you from defending yourself.

Good plan. Sure seems to be working well to lower crime.

:rolleyes:

And yet there hasn't been a point made. More laws have not effected anything.Even in places where crime is historically low.

Im sorry i didn't understand that.

Im sorry i didn't understand that.

Shock.

They would have to go through lots of initiation first etc...

But I wouldn't be allowed to own a firearm, even though I'm not a criminal? That is wrong, as it discriminates against me because of my job and my hobbies.

So giving the gov't (which you have claimed restricts the police from preventing crime) MORE control over you and preventing you from defending yourself.

Good plan. Sure seems to be working well to lower crime.

:rolleyes:

When did i say that the gov't restricts police from preventing crime?

When did i say that the gov't restricts police from preventing crime?

Oy, losing track of things now it seems. This has gone on too long...

But I wouldn't be allowed to own a firearm, even though I'm not a criminal? That is wrong, as it discriminates against me because of my job and my hobbies.

Since we're being discriminatory, why don't we just prevent ownership of the demographic that commits the most crimes?

Since we're being discriminatory, why don't we just prevent ownership of the demographic that commits the most crimes?

Err it's not about weather you would or wouldn't commit crimes with the gun. It's about weather or not you actually need one.

Since we're being discriminatory, why don't we just prevent ownership of the demographic that commits the most crimes?

Maybe send all us black people to pre-prison. Chances are we'll end up there anyways.

Err it's not about weather you would or wouldn't commit crimes with the gun. It's about weather or not you actually need one.

*shrug* Does anyone actually need a hot tub? Restrict those.

Maybe send all us black people to pre-prison. Chances are we'll end up there anyways.

what about the hispanics?

It may be the people that pull the trigger, but the gun makes the job so much easier. If we take away guns, sure you may say that people will still want to kill. Sure, they may start using knives. But people can learn self-defense to defend themselves against knives. It won't guarantee safety, but it will greatly reduce the number of successful murders. Premeditated murder can't be stopped. But impulse killings can be avoided by tightening gun control.

When all else fails....

blame the gun manufacturers. *dies of laughter*

What a load of BS.

The Modesto Bee, Modesto, CA, 08/07/04
Candy Mitchell of Waterford, California, started losing sleep after she learned that her ex-boyfriend was released from jail. He had served only two months of a six-month sentence for physically abusing her, so it did not seem like a coincidence when, night after night, she heard strange noises in her back yard and banging on her bedroom walls. Despite repeated calls to the police, no prowler was ever found. But the night Mitchell heard someone enter her home, she grabbed the gun she kept next to her bed and, when she saw a man heading for her daughter's room, fired several times. Her ex-boyfriend, John 'Bud' Russell, stumbled outside. When police arrived, they found Russell dead in his truck. Mitchell later said, "I could not imagine any reason he'd be in my house but to kill me."

The Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, Calif., 10/16/01
A 32-year-old man was shot and killed in North Hollywood when he slashed through a door screen with a knife and threatened to kill everyone inside. The man, identified as Tony Saucedo, allegedly had assaulted his ex-girlfriend in her home. She then ran to a neighbor's home. A witness said Saucedo, knife in hand, began searching for her. He approached the wrong house and was shot once in the chest as he cut through the screen and attempted to force his way inside.


I guess you would rather them not own firearms?

You know...Anyone could google "man shot dead" and copypaste all the articles on murders and get banned for flooding.

Err it's not about weather you would or wouldn't commit crimes with the gun. It's about weather or not you actually need one.

Who is to decide who needs a firearm? The government? You?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...gasp...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

what about the hispanics?

Nah, proportionally more black guys in prison.

*shrug* Does anyone actually need a hot tub? Restrict those.

Ok then we will allow the sale of grenades and landmines to people. They don't need them but it's against human rights for people to be denied them.

When all else fails....

blame the gun manufacturers. *dies of laughter*

What? But I hold the door for other people! :(

Err it's not about weather you would or wouldn't commit crimes with the gun. It's about weather or not you actually need one.

The "need" arguement.

Do you really want the gov't or various lobbys deciding what you can own based on what they think you need?

I think it's time to pass on the wisdom of my Maths teacher, Mr Jeffery:

"Guns don't kill people.....Bullets do. Give them as many guns as they like, just don't give them any bullets."

You know...Anyone could google "man shot dead" and copypaste all the articles on murders and get banned for flooding.

That's nice. Go along and play now.

... defend themselves?
You don't see anyone in Germany running around with guns to defend themselves.

Look, owning a gun is good for self defense and all, but my problem with it is that we shouldnt have to.

I absolutely agree with you.
Every nut thinks he/she needs to have a gun to defend him/herself against criminals.
You should disarm the people AND take care of the crime rate.

Ok then we will allow the sale of grenades and landmines to people. They don't need them but it's against human rights for people to be denied them.

And now a slippery-slope. Going to bring up Nukes next?

That's nice. Go along and play now.

Simply pointing out that your sob stories are crap too.

I think it's time to pass on the wisdom of my Maths teacher, Mr Jeffery:

"Guns don't kill people.....Bullets do. Give them as many guns as they like, just don't give them any bullets."

Just so you're aware, people can manufacture their own ammunition. It isn't impossible.

I absolutely agree with you.
Every nut thinks he/she needs to have a gun to defend him/herself against criminals.
You should disarm the people AND take care of the crime rate.

You can have the gun after crime is gone.

... defend themselves?
You don't see anyone in Germany running around with guns to defend themselves.



I absolutely agree with you.
Every nut thinks he/she needs to have a gun to defend him/herself against criminals.
You should disarm the people AND take care of the crime rate.

And what fantasy world do you live in?

Simply pointing out that your sob stories are crap too.

"sob stories" ?

How nice. I give examples of people who defended themselves w/ firearms to counter a post saying noone "needs" to.

From your view of the world, you must see a lot of crap.

http://www.lifeisajoke.com/pictures388_html.htm

Just so you're aware, people can manufacture their own ammunition. It isn't impossible.


....... SILENCE!!!!!

....... SILENCE!!!!!

Um, no. :D

The only argument ive seen for guns is self defence. However it's the lesser of the two evils to not be able to have a gun in self defence.

The only argument ive seen for guns is self defence. However it's the lesser of the two evils to not be able to have a gun in self defence.

But earlier you said farmers and skeet shooting.

You may "feel" it's the lesser of the evils. The evidence does not support you.

The only argument ive seen for guns is self defence. However it's the lesser of the two evils to not be able to have a gun in self defence.

Huh? How is that?

But earlier you said farmers and skeet shooting.

You may "feel" it's the lesser of the evils. The evidence does not support you.

Probably around 90% of murders with guns are not in self defence, look it up.

You can have the gun after crime is gone.

and the coyotes
and collecting
and governments
and all those cans w/o holes in them (yet)

The only argument ive seen for guns is self defence. However it's the lesser of the two evils to not be able to have a gun in self defence.

Really? What about the hunters (I like venison)? What about the target shooters (good sports even for overweight people that can't run)? What about the collectors (like the guy that owns the MP-40, Mauser, etc that his grandfather brought back from WWII)?

Probably around 90% of murders with guns are not in self defence, look it up.

and over 90% of defensive gun uses do not involve even discharging the weapon but merely displaying it. Look it up.

Really? What about the hunters (I like venison)? What about the target shooters (good sports even for overweight people that can't run)? What about the collectors (like the guy that owns the MP-40, Mauser, etc that his grandfather brought back from WWII)?

I already said that i don't mind those people having guns, as long as it's strictly regulated. More then it is now.

Probably around 90% of murders with guns are not in self defence, look it up.

Well, yeah. You don't need to kill them. A majority of the time you don't even need to fire.

I already said that i don't mind those people having guns, as long as it's strictly regulated. More then it is now.

Regulated? As in the gov't deciding who "needs" what even though those people have never committed a crime.

Punish the innocent.

and over 90% of defensive gun uses do not involve even discharging the weapon but merely displaying it. Look it up.

That doesn't stop millions of criminals from getting guns.

I already said that i don't mind those people having guns, as long as it's strictly regulated. More then it is now.

But after that, you said this:

The only argument ive seen for guns is self defence. However it's the lesser of the two evils to not be able to have a gun in self defence.

That doesn't stop millions of criminals from getting guns.

Stops a heck of a lot of crime though. And your laws aren't about to stop criminals from getting guns either.

That doesn't stop millions of criminals from getting guns.

Millions now? Have any proof?

I can show millions of DGU's /year. Can you show millions of gun crimes/year?

But after that, you said this:

I meant the only argument for people having guns other then hunting etc..

Millions now? Have any proof?

I can show millions of DGU's /year. Can you show millions of gun crimes/year?

DGU's?

"sob stories" ?

How nice. I give examples of people who defended themselves w/ firearms to counter a post saying noone "needs" to.

From your view of the world, you must see a lot of crap.

So? I post the story of Mike the headless chicken to back up my claim that beheadings are not harmful? It doesn't mean anything.

DGU's?

defensive gun uses.

The thing you said people don't need to do.

DGU's?

Defensive gun uses.

So? I post the story of Mike the headless chicken to back up my claim that beheadings are not harmful? It doesn't mean anything.

False analogy and a red herring.

defensive gun uses.

The thing you said people don't need to do.

Well yeah, you can defend yourselves with other things.

Well yeah, you can defend your selves with other things.

In every case? Why should they when they legally own a firearm?

As Family Guy once said

"I'm Petey the pistol. If you squeeze me, I make bad things go away"

not sure what that has to do with the topic...but whatever

Well yeah, you can defend yourselves with other things.

Because you can easily stick a baseball bat in your purse.

In every case? Why should they when they legally own a firearm?

The point is, they shouldn't. It's still the lesser of two evils.

Because you can easily stick a baseball bat in your purse.

No but you can stick a knife in your purse.

Well yeah, you can defend yourselves with other things.

If you were attacked by 2 guys with knives, pulling out a knife of your own wouldn't probably intimidate them into leaving. If you pull out a pistol, you could probably track them by the trail of urine they'd leave on the sidewalk (and it's doubtful you'd even need to fire it).

The point is, they shouldn't. It's still the lesser of two evils.


In your opinion. You've shown no evidence to support that.

False analogy and a red herring.

Chain-letteresque copy/paste of something you got from an NRA site, right?

If you were attacked by 2 guys with knives, pulling out a knife of your own wouldn't probably intimidate them into leaving. If you pull out a pistol, you could probably track them by the trail of urine they'd leave on the sidewalk (and it's doubtful you'd even need to fire it).

Those two guys would probably have guns anyway.

Those two guys would probably have guns anyway.

Wrong again. The majority of crime is NOT committed w/ firearms.

Try again.

In your opinion. You've shown no evidence to support that.

Yes i have, two thirds of the murders with guns. Against, a few hundred self defences with guns.

Those two guys would probably have guns anyway.

And they'd be more likely to have firearms regardless of any gun control laws. But since this is my hypothetical situation, they have knives.

Wrong again. The majority of crime is NOT committed w/ firearms.

Try again.

The majority of murders are.

Chain-letteresque copy/paste of something you got from an NRA site, right?

Nice way to ad hominem. Translation: I've got no other defense against it but to attack the source.

Yes, I'm an NRA member. These are the same people that run youth safety education and train thousands of LEA's every year. You know, those programs that the anti-gun groups oppose.

Yes i have, two thirds of the murders with guns. Against, a few hundred self defences with guns.

Try millions of DGU's per year. Even the anti-gun pundits recognize tens of thousands.

Try again.

Try millions of DGU's per year. Even the anti-gun pundits recognize tens of thousands.

Try again.

As you would say: prove it.

The majority of murders are.

All crimes = murders now?

Hell, even the majority of violent crimes don't use firearms.

arent those murder rates also done by ILLEGALLY OWNED GUNS? In other words...crook on crook?

All crimes = murders now?

Hell, even the majority of violent crimes don't use firearms.

Were not talking about crimes, we are talking about murders.

If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns.

Thank God for unfettered access to guns. It's all that's stopping the government from eroding our civil rights. If not for the guns, right now our government might be doing goodness what -- like maybe tapping our phones.

As you would say: prove it.

Here, do some reading:

http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

Now I want proof of the millions of criminals armed/year.

I want proof of the increase in the mafia.

Show something.

Were not talking about crimes, we are talking about murders.

And murder isn't a crime?

Thank God for unfettered access to guns. It's all that's stopping the government from eroding our civil rights. If not for the guns, right now our government might be doing goodness what -- like maybe tapping our phones.

Which they aren't doing but that's ok.

Were not talking about crimes, we are talking about murders.

Murder isn't a crime?

And murder isn't a crime?

Let me rephrase that, im not talking about all types of crime, just murderous crime.

Let me rephrase that, im not talking about all types of crime, just murderous crime.

Why? What reasoning is there to cut out all other crimes?

Here, do some reading:

http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

Now I want proof of the millions of criminals armed/year.

I want proof of the increase in the mafia.

Show something.

Ok the 2 thirds of murders with firearms were proved way back. THe mafia is decreasing now but 50 years ago it was on a massive increase, again some guy showed us a link to that.

Let me rephrase that, im not talking about all types of crime, just murderous crime.

Which are done by guns not legally owned in the majority of the time.

Which are done by guns not legally owned in the majority of the time.

I know, this has been discussed look back in the thread.

Nice way to ad hominem. Translation: I've got no other defense against it but to attack the source.

Yes, I'm an NRA member. These are the same people that run youth safety education and train thousands of LEA's every year. You know, those programs that the anti-gun groups oppose.

LEA? No, I don't know... We don't have the gun problem over here, and therefore no anti-gun groups either.

Let me rephrase that, im not talking about all types of crime, just murderous crime.

and we're talking about people defending themselves from crimes (including murders) using firearms.

Even if you only have 1 million DGU's/year and only 1% is an attempted murder, thats still 10,000 murders prevented by legally owned firearms. Not to mention the rapes, beatings, etc.

I don't get it. So people want laws to control guns, when most of the guns used in crimes are bought/got ilegally?

What's wrong with a "moderate" gun control? If people want to buy a gun, let him. If he's faced with having to register his gun, i'm guessing he ain't planning to go robbing banks with it. On the other hand, if he tries to procure a gun through other means, in order to rob that bank, he might find it harder, considering that everyone else in it (as in: not robbing it) might have a gun too.


I say, take care of the crime. Then, and only then, get rid of the guns. Of course, since crime is never gonna be "taken care" of, people should have the means to defend themselves from it. A lesser of two evils, but a necessary one.

LEA? No, I don't know... We don't have the gun problem over here, and therefore no anti-gun groups either.

Law Enforcement Agent.

and we're talking about people defending themselves from crimes (including murders) using firearms.

Even if you only have 1 million DGU's/year and only 1% is an attempted murder, thats still 10,000 murders prevented by legally owned firearms. Not to mention the rapes, beatings, etc.

Look at the site you got that from, it's called gunsite. Not very reliable.

I know, this has been discussed look back in the thread.

Then why do you keep bringing it up? Its been proven that those who legally own guns use them responsibility while those that don't own them legally do terrible things with them.

Ok the 2 thirds of murders with firearms were proved way back. THe mafia is decreasing now but 50 years ago it was on a massive increase, again some guy showed us a link to that.

So that was 50 years ago. source something.

Then why do you keep bringing it up? Its been proven that those who legally own guns use them responsibility while those that don't own them legally do terrible things with them.

If thousands upon thousands of guns weren't getting produced in the USA then the criminals would have a much, much, much harder time getting them which would mean way less criminals with guns.

If thousands upon thousands of guns weren't getting produced in the USA then the criminals would have a much, much, much harder time getting them which would mean way less criminals with guns.

Oh stop bringing up the gun manufacturers. They don't kill people.

So that was 50 years ago. source something.

I cant be bothered to venture back and find it, but if your so desperate i think its on page 8 or something.

Look at the site you got that from, it's called gunsite. Not very reliable.

More Ad Hominems.

Try reading the sources.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.

Time/CNN


Mauser


Gallup


Gallup


L.A. Times


Tarrance

Field


Bordua


Cambridge Reports


DMIa


DMIb


Hart


Ohio

I cant be bothered to venture back and find it, but if your so desperate i think its on page 8 or something.

You so far haven't bothered to find anything.

Law Enforcement Agent.
So the NRA people train cops? Will they aid you when the time comes for an armed uprising against the evil oppressive communist government?

Im going to bed now, it's been a fun debate. Good night.

So the NRA people train cops? Will they aid you when the time comes for an armed uprising against the evil oppressive communist government?

Shove yourself in a little deeper.

Guns don't kill people.....Bullets do.

Technically, it is the kinetic force carried by the bullet that causes trauma and death.;)

As for gun control...

Best firearms for hunting = rifles and shotguns
Best firearms for maintaining "the security of a free state" = rifles and shotguns
Best firearm vs. home invasion = shotgun

Firearms most often used in violent crime = handguns

Of the the three, only the handgun was designed primarily for use against humans.

Handgun ownership should require a license and some degree of safety training. Many "pro-gun" individuals grew up around firearms, and they sometimes don't appreciate just how ignorant some people are in regards to handling a weapon.

All crimes = murders now?

Hell, even the majority of violent crimes don't use firearms.

baseball bats, fists & feet, cars, knives.

Shove yourself in a little deeper.

I'm just trying to understand the american way of thinking. Which seems to be: "Guns are only used to protect women in their bedrooms and stop communist presidents".

If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns.
And if chocolate is outlawed, only outlaws will have chocolate.

Mmm... Chocolate :fluffle:

I'm just trying to understand the american way of thinking. Which seems to be: "Guns are only used to protect women in their bedrooms and stop communist presidents".

No you're not. You're just having fun making stupid comments and generalizations.

Technically, it is the kinetic force carried by the bullet that causes trauma and death.;)

As for gun control...

Best firearms for hunting = rifles and shotguns
Best firearms for maintaining "the security of a free state" = rifles and shotguns
Best firearm vs. home invasion = shotgun

Firearms most often used in violent crime = handguns

Of the the three, only the handgun was designed primarily for use against humans.

Handgun ownership should require a license and some degree of safety training. Many "pro-gun" individuals grew up around firearms, and they sometimes don't appreciate just how ignorant some people are in regards to handling a weapon.

In the state of Connecticut, you need to have a pistol permit to buy a pistol. To get a pistol permit, you need to take a course (mine was an NRA basic pistol course). It's about a 10 hour course (a little less if there's a small class), and it goes over the safe handling of a pistol, learning how to check the chamber, passing the pistol to another person, storage, etc. It also involves shooting at the range (the day I took my course, there were only 3 of us, and we shot a total of 25 rounds of various caliber ammo through 5 different firearms). You also need to pass a state and federal background check before you can get your pistol permit.

And they'd be more likely to have firearms regardless of any gun control laws. But since this is my hypothetical situation, they have knives.
Not true. The point of Gun control laws is not a sort of Government announcement saying you're not allowed to buy guns, properly it should be actual government control over guns, eg their manufacture and import, so criminals can't get guns either. The reason this wouldn't work well in the US is that the borders are so wide open and guns so easily available.

In short, horse for courses, you can't make laws regardless of the society they're being implemented in, and there are widely varying societies around the world, a blanket one way or the other is not the answer:headbang:

(Yes I'm going to keep posting the same thing with the same smiley, have a nice day :))

Not true. The point of Gun control laws is not a sort of Government announcement saying you're not allowed to buy guns, properly it should be actual government control over guns, eg their manufacture and import, so criminals can't get guns either. The reason this wouldn't work well in the US is that the borders are so wide open and guns so easily available.

In short, horse for courses, you can't make laws regardless of the society they're being implemented in, and there are widely varying societies around the world, a blanket one way or the other is not the answer:headbang:

(Yes I'm going to keep posting the same thing with the same smiley, have a nice day :))

Another reason government manufacure of firearms won't work is the fact that as of now, some people make their own firearms (it's currently legal for someone to make their own firearms for their own use, assuming they're allowed to have them in the first place). To truly be able to stop people from making their own firearms, all manufacturing equipment (including hand tools) would have to be banned/regulated as well.

All claptrap aside (30 pages in one day :rolleyes: ) every human has the basic right to self defense.

The colt pistol was once called the great equalizer. Ones physical condition was not a great factor in the effective using of a gun for personal protection.

A gun is a tool for self defense.

Therefor every human should have the right to own/use a gun if they so choose, for self defense.

All claptrap aside (30 pages in one day :rolleyes: ) every human has the basic right to self defense.

The colt pistol was once called the great equalizer. Ones physical condition was not a great factor in the effective using of a gun for personal protection.

A gun is a tool for self defense.

Therefor every human should have the right to own/use a gun if they so choose, for self defense.


The logic fu is strong with the one...better shutup quick otherwise the lefties here will jump on you as a stark raving bloodthirsty lunatic.