NationStates Jolt Archive

What is this stupidity with the ridiculous anti-gun laws? needless to say, there should be some restrictions, but not so many as you guys have! Guns themselves are neither good nor bad: people's uses for them are. Is there anything wrong with my wanting to own a gun for target practice or hunting or in case a criminal, who will get one anyway if they really want to, attacks me or breaks into my home?

Some European are big gun enthusiast, some arguably more than the US.

Here we go...

What is this stupidity with the ridiculous anti-gun laws?
Their governments are socialist with totalitarian wannabe tendencies. And the first thing you want to do when going totalitarian is banning guns.

And the first thing you want to do when going totalitarian is banning guns.

Explain the US then.

have you seen British police women? I know what I'm reaching for first if I'm woken in the night (LG may also understand this)

I got told off today for my wondering eyes :(

Their governments are socialist with totalitarian wannabe tendencies. And the first thing you want to do when going totalitarian is banning guns.

I refuse to beleive a British government can be that competent

have you seen British police women? I know what I'm reaching for first if I'm woken in the night (LG may also understand this)

I got told off today for my wondering eyes :(

Seriously? Good form.

Explain the US then.
One of the most libertarian countries still left?

One of the most libertarian countries still left?

Uhuh.

Regarding restriction of firearms, Britain, I think, has never enjoyed an explicit provision ensuring the right to bear arms. Generally, it has always been a privelige or power granted when necessary, not a universal right.

Their governments are socialist

[The US] One of the most libertarian countries still left?
*hands Vault 10 a political dictionary*

*hands Vault 10 a political dictionary*

You may have to add some kind of detox treatment to bring him back to the real world first.

You may have to add some kind of detox treatment to bring him back to the real world first.
Name me a European country that has more freedom, be it personal or economic.

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u291/TyDyeArt/Aw-Jeez.jpg

On a more serious note, I've become fascinated with the Swiss K-31. Eventually, I shall own one. :D

Name me a European country that has more freedom, be it personal
Sweden.

or economic.
Switzerland

The Swiss have very relaxed gun restrictions, I believe that Germany and Finland are similarly placed etc.

I'm going to go ahead and put this down as a case did not do the research.

You may have to add some kind of detox treatment to bring him back to the real world first.

Mmmm, detox...

On topic:

I think:

1. It really depends on the country.

2. I think part of it has to do with the history of Europe, what with the disarming of peasents and that's still in their culture, whereas the US has been a frontier with well-defined weaponry laws from the beginning, where at one point most people needed guns just to survive out here.

However, that's just speculation, and I'm sure plenty of the Europeans on here can prove me wrong.:$

What is this stupidity with the ridiculous anti-gun laws?
Which ones?

Name me a European country that has more freedom, be it personal or economic.

Starting at Andorra
Ending at Wales

nearly all of them.

Have you tried living anywhere else, or do you just believe what your internal propaganda tells you?

*watches Hot Fuzz*

Starting at Andorra
Ending at Wales

nearly all of them.

Have you tried living anywhere else, or do you just believe what your internal propaganda tells you?

Is Albania that bad that it gets left out?

le sigh

What is this stupidity with the ridiculous anti-gun laws? needless to say, there should be some restrictions, but not so many as you guys have! Guns themselves are neither good nor bad: people's uses for them are. Is there anything wrong with my wanting to own a gun for target practice or hunting or in case a criminal, who will get one anyway if they really want to, attacks me or breaks into my home?

because we tend to view the tool as without much use, bar violence. most people in europe don't go hunting, and for the most part if someone comes into your home they won't have a gun, meaning you can defend yourself without one too.

if you want to go shooting targets, you can usually find places nearby that have a licence.


edit: but, of course, iirc sweden (or somewhere scandinavian) have more guns per capita than the USA...

Sweden.


Switzerland
Switzerland: Yes

Sweden: I'm not too familiar with.

Europeans generally don't seem to be into guns that much so they don't care. I think hunting and target competitions are fine in most countries there, so what's the big deal. The US has too many guns floating around in too big of an open space, that's why it's probably futile to have draconian gun laws. The circumstances between the two territories are different and that has to be taken into consideration.

Starting at Andorra
Ending at Wales

nearly all of them.

Have you tried living anywhere else, or do you just believe what your internal propaganda tells you?

Now, I wouldn't say nearly all of them...

because we tend to view the tool as without much use, bar violence. most people in europe don't go hunting, and for the most part if someone comes into your home they won't have a gun, meaning you can defend yourself without one too.

if you want to go shooting targets, you can usually find places nearby that have a licence.

Wouldn't it be easier to defend yourself with a gun? I view gun bans the same way I would if every army in the world suddenly traded their guns in for crossbows: Awesome in theory, but a sign of technological backwardness and an extreme loss of efficiency. That being said, Crossbows are still incredibly awesome.

Is Albania that bad that it gets left out?

In terms of economic and personal freedoms - yes. I am sorry to say.

Wouldn't it be easier to defend yourself with a gun? I view gun bans the same way I would if every army in the world suddenly traded their guns in for crossbows: Awesome in theory, but a sign of technological backwardness and an extreme loss of efficiency. That being said, Crossbows are still incredibly awesome.

Crossbows could be fun, but they're only legal to hunt with in CT, if you're handicapped.

Crossbows could be fun, but they're only legal to hunt with in CT, if you're handicapped.

Poor Connecticut... Of course, Crossbow hunting would probably replace most of the 'normal' season.

because we tend to view the tool as without much use, bar violence. most people in europe don't go hunting, and for the most part if someone comes into your home they won't have a gun, meaning you can defend yourself without one too.


The best reasons for owning a gun I've heard in the US are from people who live in rural areas. I know Europe's not completely urbanized, but it makes sense that someone living in a city would need one less than someone living on a ranch in Montana.

Starting at Andorra
Ending at Wales
So the business in Wales is less regulated and the taxes are lower?

How much cheaper is gasoline in Wales compared to Virginia?

How much less do I pay for the same car in Wales than I would in US?

Wouldn't it be easier to defend yourself with a gun? I view gun bans the same way I would if every army in the world suddenly traded their guns in for crossbows: Awesome in theory, but a sign of technological backwardness and an extreme loss of efficiency. That being said, Crossbows are still incredibly awesome.

of course its easier to defend yourself if you have a gun and they don't

but conversely, its easier for them to rob/harm you if they have a gun and you don't

however, to me, the situation where nobody has a gun seems preferable to risking the latter situtation, and outweighs the benefit of the former. put simply, i'd rather nobody had guns, including criminals, than everybody requiring guns to be safe.

that said, in reality, some criminals do have guns... which is why the police work hard on stamping out black market gun trade. it is quite worrying, but until i'm convinced most criminals round here have them, i'm not going to worry too much. gun crime is a problem in london and some of the big cities here, but not most places.
crime isn't also that much of a problem. we live in a medium sized city here and we've been burgled once in 10 years. once in 10 years in our previous town, too. when my folks lived in london, it was almost once a week, however :-S

Starting at Andorra
Ending at Wales
So what personal freedoms do I get in Wales that I don't get in US?

Maybe I get to legally own something that I can't legally own in US?

Maybe I'm free to move around without carrying a passport?

So the business in Wales is less regulated and the taxes are lower?

How much cheaper is gasoline in Wales compared to Virginia?

How much less do I pay for the same car in Wales than I would in US?

Economic freedom =/= cheaper

I think you need to read that dictionary now.

of course its easier to defend yourself if you have a gun and they don't

but conversely, its easier for them to rob/harm you if they have a gun and you don't

however, to me, the situation where nobody has a gun seems preferable to risking the latter situtation, and outweighs the benefit of the former. put simply, i'd rather nobody had guns, including criminals, than everybody requiring guns to be safe.

that said, in reality, some criminals do have guns... which is why the police work hard on stamping out black market gun trade. it is quite worrying, but until i'm convinced most criminals round here have them, i'm not going to worry too much. gun crime is a problem in london and some of the big cities here, but not most places...

But surely law should be conditioned by the worst possible contingency, which, in the UK, would be large conurbations.

Economic freedom =/= cheaper
No, economic freedom is not just about low taxes. It INCLUDES reasonable taxes, however, because you can't run free business with deterrent tax rates, when most of the product's price is tax.

It's mostly about lack of regulation, though. So how specifically is business in Wales less regulated than in US?

of course its easier to defend yourself if you have a gun and they don't

but conversely, its easier for them to rob/harm you if they have a gun and you don't

however, to me, the situation where nobody has a gun seems preferable to risking the latter situtation, and outweighs the benefit of the former. put simply, i'd rather nobody had guns, including criminals, than everybody requiring guns to be safe.

that said, in reality, some criminals do have guns... which is why the police work hard on stamping out black market gun trade. it is quite worrying, but until i'm convinced most criminals round here have them, i'm not going to worry too much. gun crime is a problem in london and some of the big cities here, but not most places...
The problem is that the police are not going to be able to wipe out the black market gun trade without stamping out everyone's privacy. Maybe not even then. All gun bans do is keep guns out the hands of law-abiding people. Let's face it, guns are here, and they're here to stay. We might as well make the best of the situation. After all, you can't 'uninvent' guns (I believe this is a paraphrase on nuclear weaponry).

Here in Russia we have Diffrent Laws Based on the Type
well Maybe Its Just My City

But surely law should be conditioned by the worst possible contingency, which, in the UK, would be large conurbations.

what proportion of people in the UK live in the large cities? why should i have to start worrying about guns round here if they're not a problem here?

i'd simply say the cities need more policing to get gun crime under control, but there's no surprise there.

The problem is that the police are not going to be able to wipe out the black market gun trade without stamping out everyone's privacy. Maybe not even then. All gun bans do is keep guns out the hands of law-abiding people. Let's face it, guns are here, and they're here to stay. We might as well make the best of the situation. After all, you can't 'uninvent' guns (I believe this is a paraphrase on nuclear weaponry).
but that's my point. for most people in the UK, guns aren't 'here' or here to stay. and i don't want them to come here, which they would for certain without continuing their regulation.

guns are only a problem for some in the UK. but i can't see londoners or people in manchester being allowed guns while the rest of the country aren't. i suppose it could work... its not something i've ever considered before TBH

what proportion of people in the UK live in the large cities? why should i have to start worrying about guns round here if they're not a problem here?

i'd simply say the cities need more policing to get gun crime under control, but there's no surprise there.

But what would the police have? If they have guns, a single power-abusing police officer can be just a dangerous as a crook. What about the army? Unless you disarm EVERYONE, and not just ordinary people, gun crime will remain a problem. I'm not saying that the police in your area are corrupt, but that being one of a small group of people with guns gives people power, and some people just can't resist the temptation.

Why the hell does the average member of the public in Europe need a gun?

Murder rates are generally lower in western Europe than the US, with the exception of France, where I think they're far more relaxed about firearms.

I like guns. Guns are fun, I love to go shooting at controlled clubs and hunts. Do I need to own a semi-automatic assault rifle or concealable pistol? No, and I'd rather every other wacko couldn't walk out and buy these either.

but that's my point. for most people in the UK, guns aren't 'here' or here to stay. and i don't want them to come here, which they would for certain without continuing their regulation.

guns are only a problem for some in the UK. but i can't see londoners or people in manchester being allowed guns while the rest of the country aren't. i suppose it could work... its not something i've ever considered before TBH

As I mentioned before, guns have a nasty habit of slipping through the cracks. And don't forget that almost anything can replace a gun. A knife, a chain, a crossbow.;)

But getting rid of guns won't decrease crime, just change what the criminals are using, and getting rid of guns is a task in itself.

What is this stupidity with the ridiculous anti-gun laws? needless to say, there should be some restrictions, but not so many as you guys have! Guns themselves are neither good nor bad: people's uses for them are. Is there anything wrong with my wanting to own a gun for target practice or hunting or in case a criminal, who will get one anyway if they really want to, attacks me or breaks into my home?

Because Europeans are generally mature enough to be able to resolve their difference without resorting to utilising their own personal AK-47. Honestly, armed forces and special police units aside, who the f*ck can justify having firearms?

"Hi, my names John. I'm a single person who lives in the city and works in retail, so naturally I need a 600 round per minute assault rifle stashed in a holdall with me at all times!"

Just as much as you need a damn humvee to take the kids to school :rolleyes:

Sorry, I'm tired. I'm going to bed now.

Honestly, armed forces and special police units aside, who the f*ck can justify having firearms?
Me. Unfortunately, I can't afford to pay a special police unit to defend me at all times.

Why the hell does the average member of the public in Europe need a gun?

Murder rates are generally lower in western Europe than the US, with the exception of France, where I think they're far more relaxed about firearms.

I like guns. Guns are fun, I love to go shooting at controlled clubs and hunts. Do I need to own a semi-automatic assault rifle or concealable pistol? No.

Ah, but you speak only for where you are. You might not need a concealable pistol, but what about a man living in a slummy part of the city? What if he's attacked by knife wielding thugs? Or even a bunch of thugs with illeggally acquired guns? What if all hell where to break loose, a riot that wasn't completely contained? LA in 1991 had something of the sort.

Because Europeans are generally mature enough to be able to resolve their difference without resorting to utilising their own personal AK-47. Honestly, armed forces and special police units aside, who the f*ck can justify having firearms?

"Hi, my names John. I'm a single person who lives in the city and works in retail, so naturally I need a 600 round per minute assault rifle stashed in a holdall with me at all times!"

Just as much as you need a damn humvee to take the kids to school :rolleyes:

Sorry, I'm tired. I'm going to bed now.
Really? Those men in the army, are holy paragons of virtue, aren't they? They would never abuse their power against a next-to-helpless population, not one of them. Nope, never. And tell me, how many Americans do you know who drive a humvee? I've seen maybe six in my town of twenty-thousand or so. Or even how many own 600 round per minute assault rifles? Or own assault rifles at all? Are you just making this up off the top of your head, jumping on every stereotype you've heard about people in the US?

Me. Unfortunately, I can't afford to pay a special police unit to defend me at all times.

Defend you from what? The Vietcong?

Defend you from what? The Vietcong?
I so wish every other person in the nation was law-abiding and could never think about causing harm to me or taking things from me without my consent.

Ah, but you speak only for where you are. You might not need a concealable pistol, but what about a man living in a slummy part of the city? What if he's attacked by knife wielding thugs? Or even a bunch of thugs with illeggally acquired guns? What if all hell where to break loose, a riot that wasn't completely contained? LA in 1991 had something of the sort.

So you can either:

A: Legalize guns, in which case it's ridiculously easy for these maniac perps to get their hands on firearms. What's more dangerous, a knife or a gun?

B: Well, you know what B is. Fact is, the murder rate here is far lower, and the US' murder rate is popularly attributed to the ease of acquiring firearms.

I so wish every other person in the nation was law-abiding and could never think about causing harm to me or taking things from me without my consent.

So they now have a firearm, thanks to them being legal and therefore far more readily available. How are you safer? In fact has anything changed except that every criminal doesn't need to have ties to the underground to obtain a gun?

Everyone's put in more danger by making it easier to kill one another.

The undeniable fact, however, despite all the hand wringing about "we need guns to defend ourselves!" is this. The United States has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the world, higher than ANY non soviet European country

A: Legalize guns, in which case it's ridiculously easy for these maniac perps to get their hands on firearms. What's more dangerous, a knife or a gun?
A knife kills just as dead, only silently. Murder is premeditated killing, so the murderer has all the freedom of choosing the right time.


B: Well, you know what B is. Fact is, the murder rate here is far lower, and the US' murder rate is popularly attributed to the ease of acquiring firearms.
Popularly misattributed.

You're forgetting the number of illegal immigrants in US and "Harlem districts", where crime and murder rate is tens (if not hundreds) times higher than elsewhere.

The undeniable fact, however, despite all the hand wringing about "we need guns to defend ourselves!" is this. The United States has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the world, higher than ANY non soviet European country

But we have guns, we can defend ourselves!:rolleyes:

So you can either:

A: Legalize guns, in which case it's ridiculously easy for these maniac perps to get their hands on firearms. What's more dangerous, a knife or a gun?

B: Well, you know what B is. Fact is, the murder rate here is far lower, and the US' murder rate is popularly attributed to the ease of acquiring firearms.
So you believe:

A. That by legalizing guns you're 'giving' guns to criminals, while even in the UK criminals still get their hands on guns. By making guns illegal, the only people you're stopping from getting a gun, are normal, law-abiding citizens.

B. Just because something is popular doesn't make it true. I note that we're a lot more strict on drugs, which makes drugs profitable, which leads to gangs, which leads to a higher murder rate. Also, if you'll notice, states here in the US that have concealed carry laws have a lower violent crime rate when compared to other states.

You guys have guns. We don't. What's the problem. You can have fun with your guns, the majority of people over here just don't give a shit.

So you believe:

A. That by legalizing guns you're 'giving' guns to criminals, while even in the UK criminals still get their hands on guns. By making guns illegal, the only people you're stopping from getting a gun, are normal, law-abiding citizens.

0.042802 per 1,000 people

0.0140633 per 1,000 people

you can, I assume, do simple math?

What is this stupidity with the ridiculous anti-gun laws? needless to say, there should be some restrictions, but not so many as you guys have! Guns themselves are neither good nor bad: people's uses for them are. Is there anything wrong with my wanting to own a gun for target practice or hunting or in case a criminal, who will get one anyway if they really want to, attacks me or breaks into my home?

look at Greece then imagine if they had guns. Europeans aren't mature enough for an armed society.

So they now have a firearm, thanks to them being legal The criminals don't need guns to be legal to have them. In countries where guns are illegal, they are just as readily available if you want to take some risk. And they regularly find weapon smugglers, guns stolen from cops or army depots, illegal gun workshops.


In fact has anything changed except that every criminal doesn't need to have ties to the underground to obtain a gun?
Ties to the underground my ass. What are you, a schoolboy? *I* know guys who can hook me up to buy illegal weapons and parts (silencers, SMG), and I have never contemplated committing a violent crime.

Ask your local crack supplier, he'll be able to hook you up too if you're serious.

The undeniable fact, however, despite all the hand wringing about "we need guns to defend ourselves!" is this. The United States has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the world, higher than ANY non soviet European country
And yet you still fail to blame the real reason for our high crime rate: The war on drugs. Tell me, how would gangs make money, and therefore be appealing to some, if say, marijuana alone was legalized? Hmm? And don't forget, the gangs, who break the law on a regular basis, reduce respect for the law, which encourages people who normally wouldn't break the law, do so. Why? Because, for many people, if they see that not hundreds but thousands break the law and get away from it, they no longer respect the law, at least not as much as they did. And hell, if they got away from it why can't I?
But we have guns, we can defend ourselves!:rolleyes:

Indeed we can. Point?

0.042802 per 1,000 people

0.0140633 per 1,000 people

you can, I assume, do simple math?

Indeed I can. You can, I assume, give a source?

One of the most libertarian countries still left?

The US imprisons more of its population than any other country in the world.

You guys have guns. We don't. What's the problem. You can have fun with your guns, the majority of people over here just don't give a shit.

Yap, I give up with these guys. Let's see how safe they are when their average break-in gang are armed with pistols and are confronted with a home-owner with a rifle. Let's see if they're going to flee the scene as normally expected or blow each other to bits.

Also, if you'll notice, states here in the US that have concealed carry laws have a lower violent crime rate when compared to other states.

Louisiana--Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 19.04 per 100,000.

Alaska--Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 60.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.49 per 100,000.

Montana--Rank: 3; Household Gun Ownership: 61.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.22 per 100,000.

Tennessee--Rank: 4; Household Gun Ownership: 46.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.39 per 100,000.

Alabama--Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.18 per 100,000.

States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Hawaii--Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 2.20 per 100,000.

Massachusetts--Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.48 per 100,000.

Rhode Island--Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 13.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.63 per 100,000.

New Jersey--Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 11.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.99 per 100,000.

New York--Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 5.28 per 100,000.

Indeed I can. You can, I assume, give a source?

'course (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita)

I think he means CCW license laws and violent crime deaths...

*refuses to enter debate*

Ties to the underground my ass. What are you, a schoolboy? *I* know guys who can hook me up to buy illegal weapons and parts (silencers, SMG), and I have never contemplated committing a violent crime.


You actually made the other poster's point for them, there, by the way.

I so wish every other person in the nation was law-abiding and could never think about causing harm to me or taking things from me without my consent.

Which is, of course, made easier by the ease of access to guns...

Louisiana--Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 19.04 per 100,000.

Alaska--Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 60.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.49 per 100,000.

Montana--Rank: 3; Household Gun Ownership: 61.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.22 per 100,000.

Tennessee--Rank: 4; Household Gun Ownership: 46.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.39 per 100,000.

Alabama--Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.18 per 100,000.

States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Hawaii--Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 2.20 per 100,000.

Massachusetts--Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.48 per 100,000.

Rhode Island--Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 13.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.63 per 100,000.

New Jersey--Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 11.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.99 per 100,000.

New York--Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 5.28 per 100,000.
"ZOMG! STATES WITH MORE GUNS HAVE MORE DEATHS RELATED TO GUNS!"
It's so very surprising.:rolleyes:

What's the overall violent crime rate, not just by guns. And you haven't given a source, which I would very much prefer.

And yet you still fail to blame the real reason for our high crime rate: The war on drugs. Tell me, how would gangs make money, and therefore be appealing to some, if say, marijuana alone was legalized? Hmm? And don't forget, the gangs, who break the law on a regular basis, reduce respect for the law, which encourages people who normally wouldn't break the law, do so. Why? Because, for many people, if they see that not hundreds but thousands break the law and get away from it, they no longer respect the law, at least not as much as they did. And hell, if they got away from it why can't I?


Indeed we can. Point?

How many European countries do you think have legalized drugs? You're not good at this whole "logic" thing, are you?

Louisiana--Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 19.04 per 100,000.
Why are you quoting 1) Gun, and 2) death rate , instead of 1) overall and 2) murder rate?


It's like saying that countries with fewer cars have lower car death rate, yes, they do, it's obvious, but what about deaths on bikes, scooters and motorcycles.

A knife kills just as dead, only silently. Murder is premeditated killing, so the murderer has all the freedom of choosing the right time.


Areas where there are less guns, even where there are higher reports of violent crimes with knives (for example)... still have lower fatality rates.

So, your argument that ' a knife kills just as dead' is obviously bullshit.


You're forgetting the number of illegal immigrants in US and "Harlem districts", where crime and murder rate is tens (if not hundreds) times higher than elsewhere.

So, what you're saying is, 'guns don't kill people, wetbacks do'...?

You actually made the other poster's point for them, there, by the way.

I know, right? It's beautiful. While he was flaimbating, no less xD

Which is, of course, made easier by the ease of access to guns...

But is just as easy with an illegal gun instead of a legal obtained one...

You actually made the other poster's point for them, there, by the way.
I also know guys that can point me where to buy any kind of drug imaginable. Is that because soft drugs are legal in US?


Oh wait...

"ZOMG! STATES WITH MORE GUNS HAVE MORE DEATHS RELATED TO GUNS!"
It's so very surprising.:rolleyes:

What's the overall violent crime rate, not just by guns. And you haven't given a source, which I would very much prefer.

Actually, the simple fact that more guns equates to more gundeaths is a searing indictment. If guns made people safer, more guns would equal less deaths - even less gun deaths.

Yap, I give up with these guys. Let's see how safe they are when their average break-in gang are armed with pistols and are confronted with a home-owner with a rifle.
Ohayo.

What do you think your average break-in gang is armed with, bull penises?

How many European countries do you think have legalized drugs? You're not good at this whole "logic" thing, are you?

Cut the flaming. I'm saying we're tougher on drugs, here meaning stomping all over the ninth amendment in the sake of getting rid of those ebil nasty drugs. It's not pursued as vigorously in most European countries.

But is just as easy with an illegal gun instead of a legal obtained one...

Which is irrelevent.

The gun makes the crime easier. Thus the argument that you 'need' a gun for 'protection' - thereby making it easier for EVERYONE to gain access to firearms - is obviously hotcrap.

I also know guys that can point me where to buy any kind of drug imaginable. Is that because soft drugs are legal in US?


Oh wait...

Still making the other poster's point....

But is just as easy with an illegal gun instead of a legal obtained one...

Yet your average brake-in in Europe wont involve guns, and the robbers are more likely to simply run if the home owner wakes.

In the US, the whole 'personal protection' mentality means the break-in gang are armed, and so is the home owner. Stand-off ensues, both parties shoot each other.

Scenario one: Some property is damaged/stolen and probably recovered.

Scenario two: The home-owner is probably dead.

Ohayo.

What do you think your average break-in gang is armed with, bull penises?

I unfortunately grew up in a less than desirable area, and can confirm that at least in my experiences of living there, robbers weren't armed with guns and stand-offs didn't ensue. They'd simply run if found.

I doubt they'd run in the US if the home-owner came out with a gun pointed/shooting at their party. They'd probably shoot first/back.

"ZOMG! STATES WITH MORE GUNS HAVE MORE DEATHS RELATED TO GUNS!"
It's so very surprising.:rolleyes:

It's like saying that countries with fewer cars have lower car death rate, yes, they do, it's obvious, but what about deaths on bikes, scooters and motorcycles.

You are right, of course, that pointing out that states that have high gun control also have fewer deaths related to guns. You're right, of course, that that's exactly like saying that countries where cars are illegal will have less people killed by cars. It's an extremely obvious proposition that when you have LESS OF SOMETHING DANGEROUS that LESS PEOPLE WILL DIE FROM IT.

And thank you for pointing out that it's very, very obvious. The problem is *I* am not the one making the argument of "criminals will get guns whether they're legal or not!" You two are. So thank you then, for conceding the stupid argument about how gun control won't affect criminals, since, as we can see, in states where guns are more restricted, those criminals who are supposed to be getting all those guns....aren't. Because, after all, if criminals could get guns just as easily with or without gun control, then we'd see criminal death by hand gun rates be roughly the same in states with, and without, restrictive measures. And as you two quite plainly point out, they're not. So I guess that means those violent and dangerous criminals really aren't getting all that many guns in gun control states after all, are they?

I guess you didn't mean to wreck your own argument, but thanks for that.

Actually, the simple fact that more guns equates to more gundeaths is a searing indictment. If guns made people safer, more guns would equal less deaths - even less gun deaths.
Not necessarily. It never specifies whether 'gun death' counts as accidents or crimes. Not only that, but which states have the highest gun ownership rates? If my memory is correct, Vermont has the highest gun ownership rate. It's not on there (On either side, I'll grant you).

Which is irrelevent.

The gun makes the crime easier. Thus the argument that you 'need' a gun for 'protection' - thereby making it easier for EVERYONE to gain access to firearms - is obviously hotcrap.

a man and a woman both armed with guns are on equal footing.

a man and a woman armed with knives in general the man is more dangerous.


likewise an office worker is likely on lower standing in a fight against a recently unemployed factory worker. Society generally puts those more likely to commit a violent crime(or any crime the office worker can likely get away with fraud easier.) in a better position to commit that crime.

Yet your average brake-in in Europe wont involve guns, and the robbers are more likely to simply run if the home owner wakes.

In the US, the whole 'personal protection' mentality means the break-in gang are armed, and so is the home owner. Stand-off ensues, both parties shoot each other.

Scenario one: Some property is damaged/stolen and probably recovered.

Scenario two: The home-owner is probably dead.
Really? Do you have a link, or are you going on your own personal experiences?

Really? Those men in the army, are holy paragons of virtue, aren't they? They would never abuse their power against a next-to-helpless population, not one of them. Nope, never. And tell me, how many Americans do you know who drive a humvee? I've seen maybe six in my town of twenty-thousand or so. Or even how many own 600 round per minute assault rifles? Or own assault rifles at all? Are you just making this up off the top of your head, jumping on every stereotype you've heard about people in the US?

It was a logical extreme. They're useful in debates. Regardless, I live in the south (I hate it) and my neighbors alone have two Hummers. More of my friends have trucks than not, and even more have SUVs than cars. And this is just for their personal transportation. They're not transporting people anything that would require a truck or going off-roading. It's sad.

I wish that people who bought firearms would have to go through actual training on how to properly handle and store it...

It's incredible, the number of people that store firearms that are loaded and prepped to fire immediately without realizing how pointless and dangerous it is to store it this way. I mean, hell, someone at my high school died because his father was cleaning the firearm when it was loaded.

A lot of accidental discharges are caused this way, and the one way to combat it is a little education and some common sense.

This topic has an amazingly high number of strawmen.

And Conserative, you need to keep in mind that for every criminal who successfully gets an illegal gun, there are a half-dozen who go up to a cop and ask to borrow his gun so they can shoot the neighbor's dog.

Really? Do you have a link, or are you going on your own personal experiences?

Yeah, I'll link you to a robbery in progress, shall I? :rolleyes:

Out of interest, how would you suppose these scenarios would unfold?

Which is irrelevent.

The gun makes the crime easier. Thus the argument that you 'need' a gun for 'protection' - thereby making it easier for EVERYONE to gain access to firearms - is obviously hotcrap.

I don't 'need' a gun for protection, it's just easier then a crossbow. Or a knife. Of course the gun makes crime easier. Guns also make war easier. Should we force every army on the face of the Earth to trade in their guns for, say crossbows? (I know, I'm obsessed with crossbows, but the point still stands)

Not necessarily. It never specifies whether 'gun death' counts as accidents or crimes. Not only that, but which states have the highest gun ownership rates? If my memory is correct, Vermont has the highest gun ownership rate. It's not on there (On either side, I'll grant you).

Which states have the highest gun ownership rates? Wouldn't that be the ones listed in the top 5 in that source already presented?

And - I don't see how it's important if it's accident or crimes. If more guns equals more gun DEATHS... even if they're ALL accidents... then guns are a liability.

Also. I felt it deserves a separate reply.

[...]when their average break-in gang are armed with pistols and are confronted with a home-owner with a rifle. Let's see if they're going to flee the scene as normally expected or blow each other to bits.
The very fact that the home-owners regularly have firearms discourages such activity. Your average criminal isn't a hero wannabe, he's a guy looking to make some good money quick. He wants to live just as much as you do.


In my neighborhood with near-100% gun ownership rate and mostly military and veteran residents, such things don't happen. Everyone knows that people here won't hesitate to shoot dead someone trying to break into a house. And we know our cops well, we know they'll be on our side. There hasn't been any gang crime in a very long time if ever.

This topic has an amazingly high number of strawmen.

And Conserative, you need to keep in mind that for every criminal who successfully gets an illegal gun, there are a half-dozen who go up to a cop and ask to borrow his gun so they can shoot the neighbor's dog.
Erm.. I'm not getting the point.

Yeah, I'll link you to a robbery in progress, shall I? :rolleyes:

Out of interest, how would you suppose these scenarios would unfold?

1. You're telling me that the police around there don't keep statistics? Just
'Oh let's see, there were two robberies last week.'
'Any idea how they happen?'
'Yeah, but let's not record to show those bureaucratic bastards what for!'
'Aye.'

2. I'd think it could unfold a number of ways. Anything from someone dying, as opposed to the robber being scared away before the guy even gets downstairs. However, if you've got a desperate criminal already ready to kill, merely waking up and checking what's happening without a gun could spook him/her and you would still end up dead or in need of hospitalization. So being without a gun doesn't help matters.

I don't 'need' a gun for protection, it's just easier then a crossbow. Or a knife. Of course the gun makes crime easier. Guns also make war easier. Should we force every army on the face of the Earth to trade in their guns for, say crossbows? (I know, I'm obsessed with crossbows, but the point still stands)

So, you DON'T need a gun for self-defence?

You just shot the gun-lobby's biggest excuse down in flames.

As to the whole 'war' thing... are you REALLY wanting to make that argument? You need guns because war with crossbows is silly? What has 'war' got to do with civil protection or personal defence?

Also. I felt it deserves a separate reply.


The very fact that the home-owners regularly have firearms discourages such activity. Your average criminal isn't a hero wannabe, he's a guy looking to make some good money quick. He wants to live just as much as you do.


In my neighborhood with near-100% gun ownership rate and mostly military and veteran residents, such things don't happen. Everyone knows that people here won't hesitate to shoot dead someone trying to break into a house. And we know our cops well, we know they'll be on our side. There hasn't been any gang crime in a very long time if ever.

Well best of luck to both you and CM. Let's not forget the poster's question is "What do Europeans have against guns?". The answer: Our daily criminal isn't armed with guns, despite claims of "Zomg crims still can get illegal firearms", and we feel a lot safer that way. In fact the basic statistics (homicide rate, firearm related deaths), although argued over in this thread, immediately point towards gun controlled Western Europe being generally safer.

What do Europeans have against guns? It's safer from our perspective [in Europe].

a man and a woman both armed with guns are on equal footing.

a man and a woman armed with knives in general the man is more dangerous.


The old 'equaliser' excuse?

Of course, it DOESN'T actually make them equal, even giving them a handgun each. It just makes the physical differences between the two less of a factor in a fight.

Which... I'm not convinced is a good reason to do anything. But if it IS... surely we should ONLY be arming women with guns, and men with knives?


likewise an office worker is likely on lower standing in a fight against a recently unemployed factory worker. Society generally puts those more likely to commit a violent crime(or any crime the office worker can likely get away with fraud easier.) in a better position to commit that crime.

I have no idea what point you think you are making here.

In my neighborhood with near-100% gun ownership rate and mostly military and veteran residents, such things don't happen. Everyone knows that people here won't hesitate to shoot dead someone trying to break into a house. And we know our cops well, we know they'll be on our side. There hasn't been any gang crime in a very long time if ever.
What a coincidence. In my neighborhood with a near-0% gun ownership rate and almost no military and veteran residents, such things don't happen. Everyone knows that people here won't shoot dead someone trying to break into a house, yet it still doesn't seem to happen. And we don't know our cops all that well, we don't even know if they'll show up if called. Yet there hasn't been any gang crime in a very long time if ever.

1. You're telling me that the police around there don't keep statistics? Just
'Oh let's see, there were two robberies last week.'
'Any idea how they happen?'
'Yeah, but let's not record to show those bureaucratic bastards what for!'
'Aye.'

Well if they do, I can't really be bothered to look them up to satisfy an American's odd discontent with our choice to keep ourselves safer.

2. I'd think it could unfold a number of ways. Anything from someone dying, as opposed to the robber being scared away before the guy even gets downstairs. However, if you've got a desperate criminal already ready to kill, merely waking up and checking what's happening without a gun could spook him/her and you would still end up dead or in need of hospitalization. So being without a gun doesn't help matters.

Or aliens could abduct all the perps. I'm looking at what's most likely, and I'm fairly certain it's more likely to lean towards death if both sides are armed with contraptions that can instantly kill from distances, and are pointing these at each other instinctively.

Which states have the highest gun ownership rates? Wouldn't that be the ones listed in the top 5 in that source already presented?

And - I don't see how it's important if it's accident or crimes. If more guns equals more gun DEATHS... even if they're ALL accidents... then guns are a liability.
It's not in order (http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1003599), but there are several states on there with lower gun death rates and higher gun ownership statistics.

Oh, and did you know that people can die from childbirth? So if more pregnancies equals more pregnancy DEATHS... even if they're ALL accidents... then pregnancies are a liability.

Erm.. I'm not getting the point.

The point is that claiming any criminal can get an illegal gun even if they're banned has more holes than a swiss cheese convention.

It's not in order (http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1003599), but there are several states on there with lower gun death rates and higher gun ownership statistics.

Oh, and did you know that people can die from childbirth? So if more pregnancies equals more pregnancy DEATHS... even if they're ALL accidents... then pregnancies are a liability.

again, I don't think you're good at this whole "logic" thing.

What do Europeans have against guns? It's safer from our perspective [in Europe].

That's the European perspective - but surely the scots are an exception? They're simply just too darn stingy and cheap to shell out big bucks for a gun! :wink:


(I noticed your location :p)

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u291/TyDyeArt/Aw-Jeez.jpg

On a more serious note, I've become fascinated with the Swiss K-31. Eventually, I shall own one. :D

It's a decent rifle, too bad there aren't more suppliers of ammunition for it in the U.S., though. (although, on the upside, the lack of ammo makes it cheaper than the quality of the rifle would otherwise demand).

7.5 Swiss is hard to find good components for as a reloading round, too...most of the stuff on the market is berdan primed, and those're a royal pain to re-load.

It's not in order (http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1003599),


You're expecting sympathy or something? The data is there, though?


...but there are several states on there with lower gun death rates and higher gun ownership statistics.


And yet, the strong correlation is that the higher the number of gun deaths, the higher the proportion of gun ownsership?


Oh, and did you know that people can die from childbirth? So if more pregnancies equals more pregnancy DEATHS... even if they're ALL accidents... then pregnancies are a liability.

And, if we could 'opt out' of pregnancy, you might have a point.

Guns are optional.

Also, of course, pregnancy serves the main purpose, and has the unfortunate side-effect that sometimes it kills people. Guns are designed to kill people, and have the fully intentional deliberate effect of often killing people.

No parallel.

The old 'equaliser' excuse?

Of course, it DOESN'T actually make them equal, even giving them a handgun each. It just makes the physical differences between the two less of a factor in a fight.

Which... I'm not convinced is a good reason to do anything. But if it IS... surely we should ONLY be arming women with guns, and men with knives?



I have no idea what point you think you are making here.

equality lad. a woman with a gun can likely shoot a man with a knife.

Though we shouldn't arm so much as allow people to choose for themselves to be armed or not.

So, you DON'T need a gun for self-defence?

You just shot the gun-lobby's biggest excuse down in flames.

I said you don't need a gun for self-protection, just like you don't need factories to createcomputers. It just makes the task at hand easier.

As to the whole 'war' thing... are you REALLY wanting to make that argument? You need guns because war with crossbows is silly? What has 'war' got to do with civil protection or personal defence?
1. War with crossbows is not silly, it's still dangerous. All we've done is turn the clock back a few hundred years, as complete gun bans will do.

2. It's the same concept, just on a larger scale. Imagine nations as individuals and armies as their weapons.
Well best of luck to both you and CM. Let's not forget the poster's question is "What do Europeans have against guns?". The answer: Our daily criminal isn't armed with guns, despite claims of "Zomg crims still can get illegal firearms", and we feel a lot safer that way. In fact the basic statistics (homicide rate, firearm related deaths), although argued over in this thread, immediately point towards gun controlled Western Europe being generally safer.

What do Europeans have against guns? It's safer from our perspective [in Europe].
But you don't add up all the factors. If I walk into a room with large numbers of people and fruitcake, and say "I think that people make fruitcake!" is that a definite answer? If, however, I also note the number of ovens, the materials at hand, and what those people do for a living, I can honestly find out what makes a fruitcake, and it isn't just humans.
Well if they do, I can't really be bothered to look them up to satisfy an American's odd discontent with our choice to keep ourselves safer.

Ah yes, you can't be bothered to support your claims. How convenient.

Or aliens could abduct all the perps. I'm looking at what's most likely, and I'm fairly certain it's more likely to lean towards death if both sides are armed with contraptions that can instantly kill from distances, and are pointing these at each other instinctively.
As opposed to death if only one side has said contraption and is pointing at the other party instinctively?

That's the European perspective - but surely the scots are an exception? They're simply just too darn stingy and cheap to shell out big bucks for a gun! :wink:


(I noticed your location :p)

Scots? Stingy? this is the MOST GLORIOUS SOCIALIST REPUBLIK OF ALBA my friend, we love to share! :p

In all serious I live in Edinburgh, which is about as European as it gets.

But you don't add up all the factors. If I walk into a room with large numbers of people and fruitcake, and say "I think that people make fruitcake!" is that a definite answer? If, however, I also note the number of ovens, the materials at hand, and what those people do for a living, I can honestly find out what makes a fruitcake, and it isn't just humans.

Then what is it? Your ludicrous "war on drugs" argument? Which, I note, you haven't actually provided a statistic for

equality lad. a woman with a gun can likely shoot a man with a knife.


Which grants equality - because women are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than men.

In order to make it 'equal', the girls need to be BETTER armed, to offset the advantage inherent in the knife-wielding male, and the greater statistical probability of being attacked.


Though we shouldn't arm so much as allow people to choose for themselves to be armed or not.

Nope. We should be DISarming people, and NOT allowing them the choice to be armed or not.

Most often I notice that the people I hear making the most noise about needing guns... are the very sort of people that I don't think have the capacity to use them safely.

What a coincidence. In my neighborhood with a near-0% gun ownership rate and almost no military and veteran residents, such things don't happen. Everyone knows that people here won't shoot dead someone trying to break into a house, yet it still doesn't seem to happen. And we don't know our cops all that well, we don't even know if they'll show up if called. Yet there hasn't been any gang crime in a very long time if ever.
So you see? Let's round this up.

You don't have any gang crime, however you can't go to the woods and shoot yourself some duck for the supper.

We don't have any gang crime, plus we can go to the woods and shoot ourselves some duck for the supper.

We're both free from gang crime, but I also can have some good fun and good supper - thus, I'm better off.

The point is that claiming any criminal can get an illegal gun even if they're banned has more holes than a swiss cheese convention.
How so? Most criminals could.
again, I don't think you're good at this whole "logic" thing.
Cut the flaming Neo Art.
You're expecting sympathy or something? The data is there, though?

Sympathy? What are you talking about?

And yet, the strong correlation is that the higher the number of gun deaths, the higher the proportion of gun ownsership?

Yet you have these states where gun ownership is five, ten percent higher and yet gun death is lower?

And, if we could 'opt out' of pregnancy, you might have a point.

Abortion.

Guns are optional.

So is pregnancy.

Also, of course, pregnancy serves the main purpose, and has the unfortunate side-effect that sometimes it kills people. Guns are designed to kill people, and have the fully intentional deliberate effect of often killing people.

No parallel.
I concede here.

Even so, knives have the distinct purpose of killing people. Should we ban them?

I'm afraid I must get off. I'll be back later tonight to join in stimulating debate with you GnI.(If you're still on) :D

I said you don't need a gun for self-protection, just like you don't need factories to createcomputers. It just makes the task at hand easier.


And, if the 'job' that 'needs' doing, is KILLING people - you've got a point.

But since gun lobbyists constantly point out that they don't WANT to kill anyone - either they're lying... or you are.


1. War with crossbows is not silly, it's still dangerous. All we've done is turn the clock back a few hundred years, as complete gun bans will do.


Removing guns wouldn't turn back the clock a few hundred years. We'd still be cooking with microwaves, and microprocessing our data. All it would do is stop people shooting each other.

If that's what you mean, well - for once, turning the clock back would be progress.


2. It's the same concept, just on a larger scale. Imagine nations as individuals and armies as their weapons.


Except you and I aren't at war with one another, now, are we?

Then what is it? Your ludicrous "war on drugs" argument? Which, I note, you haven't actually provided a statistic for
If this isn't what you were talking about, I'll respond when I get back on. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm)

But you don't add up all the factors. If I walk into a room with large numbers of people and fruitcake, and say "I think that people make fruitcake!" is that a definite answer? If, however, I also note the number of ovens, the materials at hand, and what those people do for a living, I can honestly find out what makes a fruitcake, and it isn't just humans.

Umm, what?

Ah yes, you can't be bothered to support your claims. How convenient.

It's sort of common sense really, I'm not sure how else to put it...

As opposed to death if only one side has said contraption and is pointing at the other party instinctively?

I watch quite a lot of those "Crime caught on camera" shows, and I've never seen any gangs with guns, nor have I seen personally, heard about from gossip or in everyday news with the exception of a handful of incidents in the entire country. It's a popular misconception that illegal firearms are so easy to get.

So you see? Let's round this up.

You don't have any gang crime, however you can't go to the woods and shoot yourself some duck for the supper.

We don't have any gang crime, plus we can go to the woods and shoot ourselves some duck for the supper.

We're both free from gang crime, but I also can have some good fun and good supper - thus, I'm better off.

And nobody's ever been shot! Owait...

Which grants equality - because women are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than men.

In order to make it 'equal', the girls need to be BETTER armed, to offset the advantage inherent in the knife-wielding male, and the greater statistical probability of being attacked.


I prefer equality of chance to equality of outcome.


Nope. We should be DISarming people, and NOT allowing them the choice to be armed or not.

Most often I notice that the people I hear making the most noise about needing guns... are the very sort of people that I don't think have the capacity to use them safely.

Don't oppress me with this talk of taking my guns.

Sympathy? What are you talking about?


You seem to be complaining that the data IS present, but not in user-friendly form..?


Yet you have these states where gun ownership is five, ten percent higher and yet gun death is lower?


The general trend shows that such would be statistical blips.


Abortion.


Ah, you misunderstand. If we had the capacity to remove pregnancy COMPLETELY, it wouldn't kill anyone. But, we'd all die out in a generation.

We don't have any way ROUND the problem inherent in pregnancy. We DO in the case of guns - we could just stop making them.


So is pregnancy.


Not really.

(And, even in the case of abortion, which is what I think you mean - many people are seeking to remove that option).


Even so, knives have the distinct purpose of killing people. Should we ban them?


Knives are fairly multipurpose tools. You could even shave with a sharp one. Guns are for shooting stuff or... well, that's it.


I'm afraid I must get off. I'll be back later tonight to join in stimulating debate with you GnI.(If you're still on) :D

If I'm on, I'll look forward to it. :)

Let's all bring this to a personal level in the area's you live. How many incidents have you heard of where someone has pulled out a gun and threatened someone/ tried to rob someone/has robbed someone/killed or injured someone. I'm talking personal experience.

In all my life I've only heard of 1 incident where a firearm was shot at someone. The person missed, and was caught by police. That actually makes me feel incredibly safe, that I have only heard of 1 gun related crime in my area.

This isn't for argument's sake, but it could bring some perspective into this thread.

If this isn't what you were talking about, I'll respond when I get back on. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm)

I'm well aware of the war on drugs. I'm well aware it exists, I'm well aware that it causes a lot of crime.

I am also aware that most of the drugs that are illegal here...are illegal pretty much throughout Europe too.

If you're having difficulty following your own logic train, allow me to spell this argument flow out in simple terms:

argument: increasing gun control will result in violent gun deaths and an increase in crime, as criminals will still have access to guns, however innocent law abiding people will not have the means to defend themselves

counterargument: European countries, as well as states with stricter gun control, have less violent crime, and less gun related fatalities and homicides than developed with lesser gun control, this suggests that criminals are NOT arming themselves, and that gun control does reduce, overall and per capita, the amount of guns held and used by criminals

response: we have a war on drugs that increases crime, the presence of this war on drugs is a precipitating cause of violent crime in the US, and the results that we see in Europe would NOT be mirrored here, as a result of a higher criminal element

Counter response: European countries have, for the most part, the same legal and illegal drugs we do.

So...your move, I guess.

I prefer equality of chance to equality of outcome.

It's not really equality of chance. You're probably more likely to be killed outright if you were suddenly shot (that is of course, unless you are in a constant state of omniscient armed-readiness) rather than charged at with a guy with a knife (despite what CM believes, not every thug here has an illegal firearm, in fact I doubt more than a handful do).

I prefer equality of chance to equality of outcome.


I don't.

I prefer no one getting shot and no one getting raped - but you want there t be some 'balance'. Except you don't - you want a special KIND of balance which is not balanced, but means you get guns.


Don't oppress me with this talk of taking my guns.

Why? Weren't you JUST saying you thought we should let people be armed with guns? So - I'm not allowed to dissent? What is this - a new fascist regime?

Ah, you misunderstand. If we had the capacity to remove pregnancy COMPLETELY, it wouldn't kill anyone. But, we'd all die out in a generation.
We don't have any way ROUND the problem inherent in pregnancy.
Nonsense. In vitro fertilization and artificial womb technologies today are advanced enough to easily reproduce without any pregnancies whatsoever, and at even higher rate if we want so.

Nonsense. In vitro fertilization and artificial womb technologies today are advanced enough to easily reproduce without any pregnancies whatsoever, and at even higher rate if we want so.

No, they're not.

Let's all bring this to a personal level in the area's you live. How many incidents have you heard of where someone has pulled out a gun and threatened someone/ tried to rob someone/has robbed someone/killed or injured someone. I'm talking personal experience.

In all my life I've only heard of 1 incident where a firearm was shot at someone. The person missed, and was caught by police. That actually makes me feel incredibly safe, that I have only heard of 1 gun related crime in my area.

This isn't for argument's sake, but it could bring some perspective into this thread.

No gun crime in my area, some brake-ins, no related deaths that I've heard of.

No gun crime in my area, some brake-ins, no related deaths that I've heard of.

So far, this is from the European side. Now I wish to hear the US's side.

No, they're not.
Yes they are. In vitro fertilization has been successfully and reliably used for a very long time already. The only reasons artificial wombs haven't been tested with humans to full development are legislative ones.

So you see? Let's round this up.

You don't have any gang crime, however you can't go to the woods and shoot yourself some duck for the supper.

We don't have any gang crime, plus we can go to the woods and shoot ourselves some duck for the supper.

We're both free from gang crime, but I also can have some good fun and good supper - thus, I'm better off.
In your mind, maybe. But your logic is still flawed. Why would I want to go into the woods and shoot a duck? Fuck, if I wanted a duck so badly I'd just pick one up from the duck pond down in the park. But I usually get my supper at the grocery store...

And I'm happy to blow your mind by telling you that if I got a sudden urge to go out into the woods to hunt, that wouldn't be a problem either. ('course, it would have to be hunting season, something which you seem to not be affected by.)

But hell, I'd rather walk through the city to the CinePlex and watch a movie. Which I can do. While feeling safe.

Let's all bring this to a personal level in the area's you live. How many incidents have you heard of where someone has pulled out a gun and threatened someone/ tried to rob someone/has robbed someone/killed or injured someone. I'm talking personal experience.

In all my life I've only heard of 1 incident where a firearm was shot at someone. The person missed, and was caught by police. That actually makes me feel incredibly safe, that I have only heard of 1 gun related crime in my area.

This isn't for argument's sake, but it could bring some perspective into this thread.

In the area where I live, there was (albeit a few years ago) quite a bit of both gang and non-gang related crime, including strongarm robberies and break-ins.

I caught someone breaking in while I was in the bath. I met them in the kitchen with a shotgun. While I didn't have to shoot, (he ran away when he heard, then saw the armed person with a towel and a gun) the story might have turned out a bit differently. (a few days earlier, someone up the street had been beaten and stabbed by an intruder.)

A gun makes a ninety pound woman the equal of a three hundered pound bodybuilder in terms of raw force available.

The only reasons artificial wombs haven't been tested with humans to full development are legislative ones.

...so to the contrary of what you said above, it's not really advanced enough to easily reproduce without any pregnancies whatsoever, since it has yet to be tested with humans (past a few days). Righty-o :)

Why would I want to go into the woods and shoot a duck?
Well, shoot beer cans, whatever suits your fancy. Take your pistol, rifle or shotgun, whichever feels best, I prefer pistols for cans.


Fuck, if I wanted a duck so badly I'd just pick one up from the duck pond down in the park.
With bare hands? You're cool.


('course, it would have to be hunting season, something which you seem to not be affected by.)
I remember most of them by heart, both official and effective. But pretty much every time of the year there's a season for something. Fun and quality food, in one package, for almost no cost! Talk about bargains.

...so to the contrary of what you said above, it's not really advanced enough to easily reproduce without any pregnancies whatsoever, since it has yet to be tested with humans (past a few days).
It's advanced enough. I didn't say it's sufficiently tested, just sufficiently advanced.
As for testing, we just need to remove these silly bans and it will be done quickly.

It's not really equality of chance. You're probably more likely to be killed outright if you were suddenly shot (that is of course, unless you are in a constant state of omniscient armed-readiness) rather than charged at with a guy with a knife (despite what CM believes, not every thug here has an illegal firearm, in fact I doubt more than a handful do).

i was referring to Men Vs women. a man and a woman with guns have equal chance in a confrontation. My opponent was trying to argue that only women should be allowed to have guns since they are more likely to be a victim of crime etc.... he was trying to produce equal outcome via guns and i was trying to produce equal chance to defend self via guns.

So far, this is from the European side. Now I wish to hear the US's side.

okay. never had a gun crime. well unless you count hearing people shoot in the air on the 4th of July.
However Ex Gf lived next door and became a drug addict. Her new room mates sold drugs (crack though i don't think she used that*I hope*). they were down right hostile to me. see as there were 6 of them I elected to buy a firearm in the event they decided to break in while i was at home.

never came to that. most they did was loosen the lug nuts on my car and the maintenance guys car. about a month later she was evicted.

Y'know here you can just tip off the police and they'll raid the place and arrest and subsequently evict them both - Not even a chance of firearm related deaths as they're long gone.

Doesn't Switzerland require all male citizens to own a rifle or something like that?

Western European countries value a person's right to life more so than the U.S. The same cannot be said of the ex-Soviet countries.

Doesn't Switzerland require all male citizens to own a rifle or something like that?

No, but sort of. Every fit male is enlisted for military training and then discharged into a sort of 'national militia' where they can be called-up for service in the case of a national emergency. They are permitted to keep their rifle and firearm from basic, however they are sealed and regularly inspected, and above all not accompanied with ammunition.

I think.

European countries value a person's right to life more so than the U.S.

Events in Greece make me doubt that.

needless to say, there should be some restrictions

Incorrect.

Regarding restriction of firearms, Britain, I think, has never enjoyed an explicit provision ensuring the right to bear arms. Generally, it has always been a privelige or power granted when necessary, not a universal right.

It IS a universal right, regardless of what the government says.

Since the source of our rights is not the fiat of a government or a document, but the mere fact of our existence as human beings, all individuals everywhere possess the exact same, complete, set of rights.

That a given government may refuse to recognize a given right does not mean people living under that government lack that right; it means that government is illegitimate for refusing to recognize certain sacred natural individual rights.

I think that they are just a bunch of wimps (exempting eastern europe and the French)

If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns! Whats to say that they won't go to anotehr country, get a gun, then murder a bunch of people who cant defend temselves. Guns are also a deterant, like the nuke. using them is awful, but if people know that you have em, they won't touch you unless they are stupid are suicidal. Same with a gun. Show to the world that you got a big gun by going to a shooting range occasionally and no one will touch you. What should be and is outlawed, are making rifles automatic. Im not against having an assault rifle, but in order to be safe, they shouldn't be able to be automatic.

So owning a deadly weapon, which for defensive purposes or not solely exists to inflict damage upon another, is a Human Right?

I fail to see how this is a "sacred natural individual right" anymore so than say, legalising personal fighter jets.

European countries value a person's right to life more so than the U.S.

lol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Belarus) o (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ukraine) rly? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Balkans)

well think like this. in the last 100 years how many times have the gunless country of France been invaded.
In the last 100 years how many times has the Gun toting country of the US been invaded. (pearl harbor is not an invasion but an attack)

so a few more violent crime deaths versus getting taken over by Germany ever couple of decades. I chose the former.

So owning a deadly weapon, which for defensive purposes or not solely exists to inflict damage upon another, is a Human Right?

I fail to see how this is a "sacred natural individual right" anymore so than say, legalising personal fighter jets.

The whole point for civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can mount an effective revolt against government.

Therefore, any government restriction against civilian ownership of weapons of any sort is patently absurd and wholly illegitimate.

There is, quite simply, nothing that trumps this.

Furthermore, as a general principle I have the right to own whatever I want, and no concern can ever trump that, either. Punish me when I actually use it to hurt someone unjustly; until then, leave me alone. Nothing justifies violating the sacred natural rights of those who have hurt no one--absolutely nothing at all.

So owning a deadly weapon, which for defensive purposes or not solely exists to inflict damage upon another, is a Human Right?
Owning ANYTHING is a natural human right. It can only be restricted in extreme circumstances.


I fail to see how this is a "sacred natural individual right" anymore so than say, legalising personal fighter jets.
They are legal in US.

I think that they are just a bunch of wimps (exempting eastern europe and the French)

OK, go get yourself shot, and then see how you feel about throwing the whole "we're tougher than you" line. I don't mean this maliciously, I mean to point out that this is a serious topic as it involves thousands of deaths a year, and cannot be justified by labelling those who make this decision as "wimps".

If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns!

This seems to be the basis of the OPs argument, and is in fact grossly oversimplified. It's not that easy to get a gun, and your average criminal that would be armed in the US is not western Europe.

Whats to say that they won't go to anotehr country, get a gun, then murder a bunch of people who cant defend temselves.

Customs

Guns are also a deterant, like the nuke. using them is awful, but if people know that you have em, they won't touch you unless they are stupid are suicidal.

I don't imagine this to be the case, as I've stated many times before. Someone's far more likely to shoot you if you're pointing a gun at them yourself, and are probably thinking the same thing. Again, you've over simplified it.

Im not against having an assault rifle, but in order to be safe, they shouldn't be able to be automatic.

I can't, for the love of god figure out why anyone would need an assault rifle for personal uses anyway. It's absolutely ridiculous.

I don't mean this maliciously, I mean to point out that this is a serious topic as it involves thousands of deaths a year, and cannot be justified by labelling those who make this decision as "wimps".
Cars involve tens and hundreds thousands of deaths per year.



It's not that easy to get a gun, and your average criminal that would be armed in the US is not western Europe.
It's that easy. All you need is a few hundred bucks. Guns can be smuggled, stolen from the army and police storage, manufactured.

Guns are no more difficult to get than drugs, anywhere.

The whole point for civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can mount an effective revolt against government.

Interesting. I thought the point of the right to bear arms was to prevent foreign invasion?

Furthermore, as a general principle I have the right to own whatever I want, and no concern can ever trump that, either. Punish me when I actually use it to hurt someone unjustly; until then, leave me alone. Nothing justifies violating the sacred natural rights of those who have hurt no one--absolutely nothing at all.

Unfortunately you can be punished as much as we'd like, however your target is still dead, and when you're deciding whether or not you should shoot first I doubt the potential punishments worry you much. It's a precaution.

Owning ANYTHING is a natural human right. It can only be restricted in extreme circumstances.

I'd say the deaths of thousands was pretty extreme.

They [fighter jets for public purchase] are legal in US.

Once again, presuming you're not being sarcastic (I really hope you're not), you've proved my point.

Guns are no more difficult to get than drugs, anywhere.

Have you ever tried to buy an illegal firearm in Britain (or western Europe)? They are not easier to purchase than drugs.

Cars involve tens and hundreds thousands of deaths per year.

they're mostly accidental.

Interesting. I thought the point of the right to bear arms was to prevent foreign invasion?
Nope.

Unfortunately you can be punished as much as we'd like, however your target is still dead, and when you're deciding whether or not you should shoot first I doubt the potential punishments worry you much. It's a precaution.
Precautions do not justify violating the rights of those who, quite simply, have yet to hurt anyone.

The end does not justify the means.

The sanctity of individual rights is infinitely more important than safety. Nothing EVER trumps it.

[...]however your target is still dead, and when you're deciding whether or not you should shoot first I doubt the potential punishments worry you much. It's a precaution.
Precaution against what? Death of burglars? Good riddance, the shooter should get a reward and a clearance for a higher level gun license.


I'd say the deaths of thousands was pretty extreme.
It's not as long as guns are not bound to cause deaths and don't require special qualifications to handle. They're just tools. Tools which also have legal uses - hunting and self-defense.


Once again, presuming you're not being sarcastic (I really hope you're not), you've proved my point.
I'm not. It's legal, and people with enough money do it. However, it's illegal for private citizens to own guided missiles, and it's illegal to fly at supersonic speed over populated areas.

Because Europeans are generally mature enough to be able to resolve their difference without resorting to utilising their own personal AK-47. Honestly, armed forces and special police units aside, who the f*ck can justify having firearms?

"Hi, my names John. I'm a single person who lives in the city and works in retail, so naturally I need a 600 round per minute assault rifle stashed in a holdall with me at all times!"

Just as much as you need a damn humvee to take the kids to school :rolleyes:

Sorry, I'm tired. I'm going to bed now.

Seeing as I live in the US, I don't have to justify why I own an AR-15. But I will say that target shooting is fun, and the bullets go a lot farther and a lot more accurately from my rifle than if I were to throw them.

Interesting. I thought the point of the right to bear arms was to prevent foreign invasion?
[quote] all enemies foreign and domestic. [quote]


Unfortunately you can be punished as much as we'd like, however your target is still dead, and when you're deciding whether or not you should shoot first I doubt the potential punishments worry you much. It's a precaution.



I'd say the deaths of thousands was pretty extreme.
how does me owning a gun kill thousands of people ???
Has this gun been sneaking out in the middle of the night to kill people while i am asleep ???


Once again, presuming you're not being sarcastic (I really hope you're not), you've proved my point.

whats wrong with owning a fighter jet. given the classified technology is still restricted but buying some of the first or 2nd generation fighters has been done by the wealthy. Nothing wrong with people being able to do what the government can as long as they can afford to pay for it.

Precaution against what? Death of burglars? Good riddance, the shooter should get a reward and a clearance for a higher level gun license.

If you have a gun, burglars will arm themselves, then you get shot. Simple as.

It's not as long as guns are not bound to cause deaths and don't require special qualifications to handle. They're just tools. Tools which also have legal uses - hunting and self-defense.

I still fail to see this American paranoia that always boils down to 'self-defence'. You claim that if guns were illegal [like in Europe] then only criminals would have them and citizens would be left undefended. Well that's really not the case! I've lived in near enough every corner of Scotland and have only heard of one gun crime which was a drive-by, where the man shot couldn't have done anything about it even if he did have a gun. And we can still go hunting with licensed firearms if we wish, I do so for our turkey shoot.

You seem to be complaining that the data IS present, but not in user-friendly form..?

More of an apology, for both the site and my laziness. :tongue:

The general trend shows that such would be statistical blips.

I'll look into it when I find a good long list. I'll post it when I find it.

Ah, you misunderstand. If we had the capacity to remove pregnancy COMPLETELY, it wouldn't kill anyone. But, we'd all die out in a generation.

We don't have any way ROUND the problem inherent in pregnancy. We DO in the case of guns - we could just stop making them.

Like I said, I conceded the pregnancy point. However, while we can stop making guns, what are the chances of that happening? As long as there's money to be made, someone will step in.

Knives are fairly multipurpose tools. You could even shave with a sharp one. Guns are for shooting stuff or... well, that's it.

*Tries shaving with his pocket knife* OH GOD! The pain!

I kid.:wink:

But what about hunting? And I'm sure you could shave, if you had REALLY tiny bullets and a great aim.:p

how does me owning a gun kill thousands of people ???
Has this gun been sneaking out in the middle of the night to kill people while i am asleep ???

Don't be so naive. You're taking the action of one individual placing it against my claim to make it look absurd, and I've already explained numerous times how owning a firearm for self-defence leads to a greater likelihood of homicide.

whats wrong with owning a fighter jet. given the classified technology is still restricted but buying some of the first or 2nd generation fighters has been done by the wealthy. Nothing wrong with people being able to do what the government can as long as they can afford to pay for it.

This is obviously some sort of blind local mentality. Fighter Jets are designed to kill. You see the link?

If you have a gun, burglars will arm themselves, then you get shot.
No, more likely the burglars get shot. Me and my neighbors have training, they don't. I'm in my house, so I know its layout, and with infrared alarm I know first when they're coming. I have the upper ground.

But more importantly, you're missing the difference between burglars and marine assault teams. Burglars are not looking for heroic firefights, they're looking for some easy money. They are not interested in shootouts. They want to live just as much as anyone else, not to get into a firefight.


I still fail to see this American paranoia that always boils down to 'self-defence'.
It's not paranoia. We the people believe in ourselves, and we believe it's up to each of us to decide if we feel safe or not, if want to have means of self-defense or not. It's not up to you to declare that I'm safe because you think so. It's up to me and me only to decide when I'm safe enough not to need a gun.

If you have a gun, burglars will arm themselves, then you get shot. Simple as.


If you don't have a gun, burglars will arm themselves anyway. Think about it, if you were going to break into someone's house who doesn't have a weapon, you'll want to arm yourself so that the person in question will be completely defenseless. And there's always the chance that they'll be shot, or scared off by your bad aim.;)

I still fail to see this American paranoia that always boils down to 'self-defence'. You claim that if guns were illegal [like in Europe] then only criminals would have them and citizens would be left undefended. Well that's really not the case! I've lived in near enough every corner of Scotland and have only heard of one gun crime which was a drive-by, where the man shot couldn't have done anything about it even if he did have a gun. And we can still go hunting with licensed firearms if we wish, I do so for our turkey shoot.
But you're still relying on personal experience. Look at your national news, aren't there ever any shootings? And don't forget about these yahoos (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/gun-crime-law.html). Face it, every modern country has gun crime, European countries are no different. Relaxing gun laws would allow some of these to be averted.

OK, go get yourself shot, and then see how you feel about throwing the whole "we're tougher than you" line. I don't mean this maliciously, I mean to point out that this is a serious topic as it involves thousands of deaths a year, and cannot be justified by labelling those who make this decision as "wimps".



This seems to be the basis of the OPs argument, and is in fact grossly oversimplified. It's not that easy to get a gun, and your average criminal that would be armed in the US is not western Europe.



Customs



I don't imagine this to be the case, as I've stated many times before. Someone's far more likely to shoot you if you're pointing a gun at them yourself, and are probably thinking the same thing. Again, you've over simplified it.



I can't, for the love of god figure out why anyone would need an assault rifle for personal uses anyway. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Assault rifle-you're using the technical definition, or the Media definition?

Under the Technical definition, an Assault Rifle is a compact shoulder arm chambering a medium-power round (that is, a reduced charge rifle caliber, individually less powerful) that is capable of select-fire (that is, fully automatic or burst fire, either one) fitted with a large capacity ammunition magazine and intended to serve three roles:
1. Submachine-gun
2. Rifle
3. Light machine gun(squad automatic weapon)

Assault rifles are notable for poor accuracy and eating lots of ammunition. Governments and Militaries prefer them to Submachineguns and non-assault rifles because they're technically "lighter" than full-on rifles, and fire a more powerful round than a Submachinegun (which fires pistol rounds at high rates of speed).

The Media definition of "Assault Rifle" is anything that looks like it came off a hollywood lot where they were shooting the next installment of Die Hard or Rambo. Especially if it's scary looking, black, and has lots of things sticking out of it in a threatening manner.

Lawyers and Politicians like to use the Hollywood definition, because it resonates with the ignorant and easily manipulated majority of the population.

Hint: most Gun crimes are committed with handguns, being that most criminals don't want to get caught, and rifles (or even Assault rifles) are non-concealable, somewhat heavy, and unweildy at close distances where most gun-crimes occur. (The bulk of shootings, deliberate or otherwise, occur at less than seven meters Per FBI statistics. Since most criminals are untrained and most civilians are scared, only about a third of rounds fired under those conditions actually hit anyone, and out of those, only a small percentage hit the victim somewhere that it will kill them. People under pressure are terrible shots.)

"Accidental" shootings are actually more often the result of Negligence. People fooling around with firearms in an unsafe manner, (waving them about, for instance, or shooting with no idea where their backstop is, along with parents or other negligent individuals leaving their firearm laying out where the kids can find it, loaded, without teaching the kid the proper way to handle and treat the weapon.)

Negligent shootings and Suicides are the bulk of "Gun Deaths" statistics. Guns are a favoured means of self-termination among American Males-and it's easy to understand why: They're very efficient tools for self-termination, more modern ones are very user-friendly in terms of ergonomics, a near-miss is, at suicide distances, still usually fatal, and they're relatively quick (unlike poison or jumping off of buildings/out windows. Very few people who eat a bullet live to regret it in a crippled condition.)

"Juvenile" death statistics are also often misleading-VPC/Handgun Control Inc. uses a broad definition of "Juvenile" that reaches up into the early twenties age bracket. This is primarily to pump the numbers up to levels intended to shock the ignorant for purposes of political manipulation.

Since arguing is somewhat fruitless, especially since CM still seems convinced that Scotland is rife with illegal firearms in the wrong hands that are used in daily burglaries...

I'll throw in a final personal perspective on these scenarios and then I'll leave you too your guns, but for future reference to avoid this kind of argument it might just be worth noting that this is just how we [Europeans] want to live, and there's not much you can do about it but moan.

No, more likely the burglars get shot. Me and my neighbors have training, they don't. I'm in my house, so I know its layout, and with infrared alarm I know first when they're coming. I have the upper ground.

But more importantly, you're missing the difference between burglars and marine assault teams. Burglars are not looking for heroic firefights, they're looking for some easy money. They are not interested in shootouts. They want to live just as much as anyone else, not to get into a firefight.

In al honesty, I'd rather just let them nick my stuff rather than exposing myself to getting shot, call the police, claim my insurance and subsequently get new stuff. They might even get caught and my stuff returned. Here, guns are mostly illegal, and subsequently you don't see armed burglars. That's right CM, not even with those illegal firearms you claim are everywhere.



It's not paranoia. We the people believe in ourselves, and we believe it's up to each of us to decide if we feel safe or not, if want to have means of self-defense or not. It's not up to you to declare that I'm safe because you think so. It's up to me and me only to decide when I'm safe enough not to need a gun.

Well here we concentrate more on collective defence, community and state centred. That way nobody gets shot, and ultimately if you're insured no harm's done and the burglars don't have guns to ward of potentially armed home owners with.

Precaution against what? Death of burglars? Good riddance, the shooter should get a reward and a clearance for a higher level gun license.


Good riddance? Good riddance? The killing of a fellow human being, is good?

Don't be so naive. You're taking the action of one individual placing it against my claim to make it look absurd, and I've already explained numerous times how owning a firearm for self-defence leads to a greater likelihood of homicide.
and pools lead to a greater likelihood of drowning. In fact according to freakanomics by Steven Levitt page 136 your 10 times more likely to drown in a pool then get shot in the US.
Shall we out law pools then? Or can we agree it is absurd to restrict freedom solely on probability of something bad might happen?


This is obviously some sort of blind local mentality. Fighter Jets are designed to kill. You see the link?

no fighter jets are designed to destroy equipment they fly to fast to effectively target a human. now people do die as a result of the destruction of the equipment but that's not always needed. Also the intent of the pilot to kill and destroy must be there or the fighter jet does neither. Maybe the rich buying said jet just like zooming around at speeds faster then Mach 2.

Since arguing is somewhat fruitless, especially since CM still seems convinced that Scotland is rife with illegal firearms in the wrong hands that are used in daily burglaries...

I'll throw in a final personal perspective on these scenarios and then I'll leave you too your guns, but for future reference to avoid this kind of argument it might just be worth noting that this is just how we [Europeans] want to live, and there's not much you can do about it but moan.

I can deal with that. Besides, I like moaning. Here on NSG, we call it 'debate'.:D

Good riddance? Good riddance? The killing of a fellow human being, is good?

When that human being makes the choice to prey on other human beings? yes. Crime is not an accident, it's a Choice.

Being honest, most people in the UK don't want a gun.

And you can legally get a Shotgun or a Bolt Action/Under lever rifle anyway.

I think Semi's are legal on certain ranges if the gun has a 3 round limiter on it (I.E 3 rounds in a magazine)

claim my insurance What, you have all your property insured? Your plasma, computers, cash?


In al honesty, I'd rather just let them nick my stuff rather than exposing myself to getting shot, call the police, claim my insurance and subsequently get new stuff. They might even get caught and my stuff returned.
Oh, it's not that I'd expose myself if the gang is likely to resist. Id try to hide while possible, calling cops and every neighbor on cell to get sure they're outnumbered. Only shoot when I have an advantage. Then if the cops arrive in time, have them come in and shoot the perps for resisting arrest. If possible. But if it's not possible, I can defend myself.

And if the worst comes to worst, I at least die on my feet in a shootout after taking out the first perp, not on my knees begging to be spared. And if they get me, they're still leaving in body bags. Knowing that in itself is worth a lot.


Well here we concentrate more on collective defence, community and state centred. That way nobody gets shot, and ultimately if you're ensured no harm's done.
Community centered defense? It sounds cool, but explain please how does it work with an unarmed community. I know how my community defense works, we all are friends with our neighbors, everyone has guns, people want to keep the place crime-clean, we know we'll help each other. How does yours work?

woah this thread moved on fast... :eek:

But what would the police have? If they have guns, a single power-abusing police officer can be just a dangerous as a crook. What about the army? Unless you disarm EVERYONE, and not just ordinary people, gun crime will remain a problem. I'm not saying that the police in your area are corrupt, but that being one of a small group of people with guns gives people power, and some people just can't resist the temptation.
i guess i'm more trusting of our police and think more of the average person :P
oh, and round here most police don't have guns anyway. again, its only in the major cities that they need them.... and even then its relatively rare (apart from in London, from my experience)
As I mentioned before, guns have a nasty habit of slipping through the cracks. And don't forget that almost anything can replace a gun. A knife, a chain, a crossbow.;)

But getting rid of guns won't decrease crime, just change what the criminals are using, and getting rid of guns is a task in itself.

ah, but see... i have a knife ;) no crossbow though

i agree that criminals will use whatever is available. knife crime is certainly bad enough, but why add more violent weapons (guns) to the mix when they aren't already?

anyhoo, off to sleep... 20 past 1 is late enough for me. i'll try to catch up with this thread in the morning lol :P

Being honest, most people in the UK don't want a gun.


Given the intellect and intelligence of the average British voter, that's hardly the most valid indication of the validity of a policy.

What is this stupidity with the ridiculous anti-gun laws?
And this has something to do with Europeans as a whole? :p

Okay, whatever floats your boat. We don't have nor generally want guns, and as I've already said, I can't really be bothered to continue this, so best of luck if you "die on [your] feet in a shoot out".

woah this thread moved on fast... :eek:


i guess i'm more trusting of our police and think more of the average person :P



I'm less trusting of people with power, I believe that power corrupts. Quickly.

ah, but see... i have a knife ;) no crossbow though

i agree that criminals will use whatever is available. knife crime is certainly bad enough, but why add more violent weapons (guns) to the mix when they aren't already?

anyhoo, off to sleep... 20 past 1 is late enough for me. i'll try to catch up with this thread in the morning lol :P
Well, my view on things is that they're already there, and that they aren't going away.

Okay, whatever floats your boat. We don't have nor generally want guns, and as I've already said, I can't really be bothered to continue this, so best of luck if you "die on [your] feet in a shoot out".

Best of luck if you die helpless and without a chance, nothing but a butterknife in your hand.;)

Best of luck if you die helpless and without a chance, nothing but a butterknife in your hand.;)

Jason Bourne can kill u w/ a butterknife.

Best of luck if you die helpless and without a chance, nothing but a butterknife in your hand.;)

'Scool, at worst here the burglar will have a butterknife too, and we can duel until one of us is ultimately buttered.

Jason Bourne can kill u w/ a butterknife.
Jason Bourne could kill me with a teddy bear.
'Scool, at worst the burglar will have a butterknife too, and we can duel until one of us is ultimately buttered.

But what if he has a steak knife? He could carve you a nice steak, and take everything you have while you enjoy that steak! Except the steak, of course.

Criminals can be gentlemen too.:D

Okay, whatever floats your boat. We don't have nor generally want guns, and as I've already said, I can't really be bothered to continue this, so best of luck if you "die on [your] feet in a shoot out".
It's at least a 99.9% chance that the guys will simply get away after a warning shot.

Because once the warning shot has been fired, EVERYONE around is awake, grabbing their guns and coming out. Cops are swarmed with calls and their teams are on the way. Once the warning shot has been fired, the perps have no chance to complete the burglary and get away with it. Their only chance to stay alive and free is to slip out immediately. Which is what they will do.

The rest 0.1% are insane or junkies on high, and are no threat.
So there's no real risk involved, actually, no more than in driving a bike.

'Scool, at worst here the burglar will have a butterknife too, and we can duel until one of us is ultimately buttered.

That's hardly the case, though, is it?

I wish they would make guns illegal here (em-ER-i-ca), even if it meant that only criminals had them. They'd be harder to get, for one, and for two, because I never intend to carry a gun with me to pick up groceries, the criminals with guns would have me... out-gunned... anyway.

Besides, if nobody had guns, I'd be much harder to kill. I'm pretty fast, and could escape some hooligan in baggy pants with a knife chasing me down the street.

What is this stupidity with the ridiculous anti-gun laws? needless to say, there should be some restrictions, but not so many as you guys have! Guns themselves are neither good nor bad: people's uses for them are. Is there anything wrong with my wanting to own a gun for target practice or hunting or in case a criminal, who will get one anyway if they really want to, attacks me or breaks into my home?

Why would I want a gun? Too many children in America have killed or wounded themselves or others by playing with their parents' guns.
:confused:

Besides, if nobody had guns, I'd be much harder to kill.
So how do you propose uninventing gunpowder?



Although note that it's impossible to uninvent guns and have USA at the same time. America would be still ruled by the Indians.

Europeans don't have anything against guns, they just have a different attitude to them, in general, than Americans, in general. Call me crazy, but it could have something to do with the different cultures and different histories. Fuck, sometimes I think America and Europe are different places populated by different people........

What, you have all your property insured? Your plasma, computers, cash?
You don't?

And if the worst comes to worst, I at least die on my feet in a shootout after taking out the first perp, not on my knees begging to be spared. And if they get me, they're still leaving in body bags. Knowing that in itself is worth a lot.
So your pride and desire for vengeance overrides your desire to continue living? You'd rather ensure your own death by fighting a superior enemy than surrender and at least have a chance of surviving?
Although note that it's impossible to uninvent guns and have USA at the same time. America would be still ruled by the Indians.

It'd be different, but chances are it'd still be called America.

Hmm, I'd wouldn't say that Europeans from what I know are against guns per say than that the cultures are very different. Being an American I don't have anything against someone owning rifles, shotguns and handguns, semiauto or not. People have the right to hunt and to protect themselves after all.

What I have an problem with is people being able to buy assault rifles or submachine guns which aren't nessary for either self defense or to hunt. Still the second amendment didn't take into acount the invention of such weapons, though does seem aimed at allowing people to arm themselves to protect themselves from others and possiblely the government itself.

No, more likely the burglars get shot. Me and my neighbors have training, they don't. I'm in my house, so I know its layout, and with infrared alarm I know first when they're coming. I have the upper ground.

Because remember kids, on the internet, everybody's a cowboy.

If you don't have a gun, burglars will arm themselves anyway. Think about it, if you were going to break into someone's house who doesn't have a weapon, you'll want to arm yourself so that the person in question will be completely defenseless. And there's always the chance that they'll be shot, or scared off by your bad aim.;)

are you still harping on this? I noticed you never answered the question. Why are gun fatalities less in more restrictive states, if criminals can so easily always get guns? Why are nations with tighter gun control showing such a lower incidence of armed crime, if criminals can so easily get guns?

It's the fallacy of the gun lobby that criminals will some how magically, mystically spirit up guns from nowhere, and that in every suburb in america, all you need is 20 bucks and knowledge of the right street corner and you can round yourself up a Saturday Night Special, no questions asked.

Hmm, I'd wouldn't say that Europeans from what I know are against guns per say than that the cultures are very different. Being an American I don't have anything against someone owning rifles, shotguns and handguns, semiauto or not. People have the right to hunt and to protect themselves after all.

What I have an problem with is people being able to buy assault rifles or submachine guns which aren't nessary for either self defense or to hunt. Still the second amendment didn't take into acount the invention of such weapons, though does seem aimed at allowing people to arm themselves to protect themselves from others and possiblely the government itself.

Unfortunately you' seem to have fallen for the classic spin. Very few people own real assault rifles or submachine guns as they cost over $5K for the cheapest. And that's not even including licensing and background checks.

So how do you propose uninventing gunpowder?



Although note that it's impossible to uninvent guns and have USA at the same time. America would be still ruled by the Indians.

I really doubt that concidering, European arms and armor even without gunpower was vastly superiour to the rather stone age weaponary the indians not to mention the Europeans were more organized. Now its would had made the revolution a tad harder however.

Yes they are. In vitro fertilization has been successfully and reliably used for a very long time already. The only reasons artificial wombs haven't been tested with humans to full development are legislative ones.

IVF isn't as reliable as you like to pretend, and artificial wobs are an untried technology at best.

Lying to pretend your argument was valid and that there is a parallel... doesn't prove anything. Except that you're willing to ignore the truth to try to prove a point.

Jason Bourne could kill me with a teddy bear.


So you see, you dont need guns to defend yourself with. Just that special CIA training.

Oh, it's not that I'd expose myself if the gang is likely to resist. Id try to hide while possible, calling cops and every neighbor on cell to get sure they're outnumbered. Only shoot when I have an advantage. Then if the cops arrive in time, have them come in and shoot the perps for resisting arrest. If possible. But if it's not possible, I can defend myself.

And if the worst comes to worst, I at least die on my feet in a shootout after taking out the first perp, not on my knees begging to be spared. And if they get me, they're still leaving in body bags. Knowing that in itself is worth a lot.

Community centered defense? It sounds cool, but explain please how does it work with an unarmed community. I know how my community defense works, we all are friends with our neighbors, everyone has guns, people want to keep the place crime-clean, we know we'll help each other. How does yours work?

I can't help but wonder if your gun fetish is some sort of compensation for your alleged gender confusion? :p

It IS a universal right, regardless of what the government says.

Since the source of our rights is not the fiat of a government or a document, but the mere fact of our existence as human beings, all individuals everywhere possess the exact same, complete, set of rights.

That a given government may refuse to recognize a given right does not mean people living under that government lack that right; it means that government is illegitimate for refusing to recognize certain sacred natural individual rights.

There are no 'sacred' rights. That's wishful thinking to cover for the fact there's no REAL argument for rights EXCEPT as granted by the societies into which we are born/migrated.

Nothing is inherent in our existence as human beings except our existence, and that is inherent only for as long as it lasts.

If your government is elected by the population, then your rights are determined by your government at your consent. If your government is NOT elected by the population, then your rights are determined by your government at THEIR consent. Any argument for 'rights' that are 'innate', 'inherent' or 'universal' is a crock of shit.

Unfortunately you' seem to have fallen for the classic spin. Very few people own real assault rifles or submachine guns as they cost over $5K for the cheapest. And that's not even including licensing and background checks.


That is true, on the other hand, its evident'ly its easy for criminals to do so however. Maybe its changed, but it used to be five minutes to get one off the black market in the US. I doubt the average criminals and minor gangs would since the use of such weapons tend to draw unwanted attention. Larger gangs such as the bloods and multinational crime organizations such as the Costa Nostra on the other hand I wouldn't want to bet on.

well think like this. in the last 100 years how many times have the gunless country of France been invaded.
In the last 100 years how many times has the Gun toting country of the US been invaded. (pearl harbor is not an invasion but an attack)

so a few more violent crime deaths versus getting taken over by Germany ever couple of decades. I chose the former.

I think that the large common borders with aggressor nations might be a slightly more important factor in France's recent history... than it's access to personal firearms. If Germany had rolled tank columns across the US, your .38 special wouldn't have made a whole lot of difference to the results.

Our gun laws are strange.


All of my guns save for one I've bought from a cop, so I sorta worked around it.

Furthermore, as a general principle I have the right to own whatever I want, and no concern can ever trump that, either. Punish me when I actually use it to hurt someone unjustly; until then, leave me alone. Nothing justifies violating the sacred natural rights of those who have hurt no one--absolutely nothing at all.

In the anarchic little world you've constructed, this, perhaps, is true.

Unfortunately, here in 'reality', you're part of a society... and that grants you 'rights'.... and demands certain 'responsibilities' from you.

Owning ANYTHING is a natural human right. It can only be restricted in extreme circumstances.


You're going to have to do better than that. There are no 'natural human rights'.

are you still harping on this? I noticed you never answered the question. Why are gun fatalities less in more restrictive states, if criminals can so easily always get guns? Why are nations with tighter gun control showing such a lower incidence of armed crime, if criminals can so easily get guns?

It's the fallacy of the gun lobby that criminals will some how magically, mystically spirit up guns from nowhere, and that in every suburb in america, all you need is 20 bucks and knowledge of the right street corner and you can round yourself up a Saturday Night Special, no questions asked.
*sigh* Neo Art, you are one of the few people I thoroughly dislike debating with.

Let's go over this piece by piece.
Why are gun fatalities less in more restrictive states, if criminals can so easily always get guns?
I said criminals would still have guns and commit crimes with or without them. They can still get guns, but it just isn't as cheap. A determined criminal will still find a gun, one way or another. And thus, the restrictive gun laws disarm you, instead of the criminal. And of course, there's the ever-present gun accident. Whether it's a mistake while hunting, and caused by sheer stupidity, gun accidents will happen, like knife accidents. (To be fair, they don't turn out to be lethal as often)
Why are nations with tighter gun control showing such a lower incidence of armed crime, if criminals can so easily get guns?
Perhaps my last analogy didn't get through. Let me try it another way.
You have to examine each part of something before making assumptions. For one, if you'll notice, from the 40's to the mid 60's our crime rate was very low. During the sixties, several things have happened, so no one is really sure why our crime rate is so low. However, gun laws were far more lax in the 40's, 50's and early 60's. This suggests that guns are not the cause of our high crime rate. Also, when probation was enacted, crime saw a similar rise. This also suggests that the cause is not guns getting into the hands of criminals, but rather, that by outlawing such popular substances, it creates a breeding place for crime. Why? because it makes smuggling such things profitable. And if you break one law, why not two? or three? Or four? And thus, our homicide, gun death, and violent crime rate skyrockets.

That's my take on things. If you have evidence to the contrary, please, let me hear it.

Guns are no more difficult to get than drugs, anywhere.

That's rubbish. Which I'm pretty sure you can't back up, because there is no way to back up such a ridiculous claim.

So you see, you dont need guns to defend yourself with. Just that special CIA training.

Sounds good. When do I start? *Strangles entire family with a phone cord*

The sanctity of individual rights is infinitely more important than safety. Nothing EVER trumps it.

Nope. Safety is more important than the imagined 'sanctity of individual rights'. Nothing ever trumps it.

Sounds good. When do I start? *Strangles entire family with a phone cord*

Don't forget to blowup the house with a toaster!

You don't?
No, I don't. How do you insure the cash you have at home?


So your pride and desire for vengeance overrides your desire to continue living? You'd rather ensure your own death by fighting a superior enemy than surrender and at least have a chance of surviving?
"Superior enemy?" What, the burglars now are some sort of assault teams? Probably in armor and with M4s?

Maybe in your universe, but out here burglars are just guys who have broken in to steal some stuff. If they didn't get away after a warning shot, probably also either clinically insane or junkies.

Yes, I would much rather take chances at shooting them than at surrendering and begging to be spared.

Nope.

Precautions do not justify violating the rights of those who, quite simply, have yet to hurt anyone.

The end does not justify the means.

The sanctity of individual rights is infinitely more important than safety. Nothing EVER trumps it.

The whole point for civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can mount an effective revolt against government.

Therefore, any government restriction against civilian ownership of weapons of any sort is patently absurd and wholly illegitimate.

There is, quite simply, nothing that trumps this.

Furthermore, as a general principle I have the right to own whatever I want, and no concern can ever trump that, either. Punish me when I actually use it to hurt someone unjustly; until then, leave me alone. Nothing justifies violating the sacred natural rights of those who have hurt no one--absolutely nothing at all.

Owning ANYTHING is a natural human right. It can only be restricted in extreme circumstances.

They are legal in US.

Luckily we don't live in this Hobbesian state of nature where you have such absolute rights:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

--Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html)

On the other hand, we don't sacrifice all rights to the altar of safety as G_n_I argues. In fact, we institute government to protect our rights within reasonable parameters.

That is true, on the other hand, its evident'ly its easy for criminals to do so however. Maybe its changed, but it used to be five minutes to get one off the black market in the US. I doubt the average criminals and minor gangs would since the use of such weapons tend to draw unwanted attention. Larger gangs such as the bloods and multinational crime organizations such as the Costa Nostra on the other hand I wouldn't want to bet on.

Full auto's are almost never used in crimes in the US. Legally owned ones used in crime are usually be LEO's gone bad.

When you hear about "AK-47's" or "Uzi's" being used, they're usually just semi-autos that look like military firearms.

Nope. Safety is more important than the imagined 'sanctity of individual rights'. Nothing ever trumps it.
I disagree. I'd rather die a free man then live without rights.
Don't forget to blowup the house with a toaster!

But they have one of those newfangled toasters! I can't figure out how to wire it to blow!:mad:

Why are gun fatalities less in more restrictive states, if criminals can so easily always get guns? Why are nations with tighter gun control showing such a lower incidence of armed crime, if criminals can so easily get guns?



Besides the fact that this is not universally true.

Furthermore, as a general principle I have the right to own whatever I want, and no concern can ever trump that, either. Punish me when I actually use it to hurt someone unjustly; until then, leave me alone. Nothing justifies violating the sacred natural rights of those who have hurt no one--absolutely nothing at all.What is this 'sacred natural right' of which you speak? You mean the rights provided to you by the society to which you belong? Because there's nothing sacred or natural about them.

What happened to "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."?

I disagree. I'd rather die a free man then live without rights.Balancing security and rights must be a difficult job. :(

IVF isn't as reliable as you like to pretend, and artificial wobs are an untried technology at best.
IVF is reliable. It's even more reliable than unprotected sex. Yes, everything fails sometimes. That doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Artificial wombs have yet to be tested on humans, but the technology is all there. The only issue is red tape. Hello, we can even do cloning now, and IVF and AW are a lot easier, pretty much just assisted natural processes.



You're going to have to do better than that. There are no 'natural human rights'.
In your world where you want everyone to have to file a hundred forms for every step, there aren't.

Elsewhere in the First World, there are.

Balancing security and rights must be a difficult job. :(

I feel bad for the politicians trying to do their jobs.:(

In your world where you want everyone to have to file a hundred forms for every step, there aren't.

Elsewhere in the First World, there are.There's nothing natural about them. They're given to you by the governments of the 'first world'. That means they aren't natural, and if the government is giving them to you, they sure as hell aren't sacred.

I feel bad for the politicians trying to do their jobs. :(So do I, man, so do I.

What happened to "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."?

Most people would rather be "safe" (whatever that is) than Free. Liberty is too difficult for the majority of people, as it requires taking responsibility and accepting consequences. People would rather be taken care of, told what to do, what to wear, where to go, and when to go to bed, than make those decisions (and accept the consequences of those choices) themselves.

No, more likely the burglars get shot. Me and my neighbors have training, they don't.


Well, obviously. I mean - if you've got trainging, it stands to reason that no one else can have any...


I'm in my house, so I know its layout, and with infrared alarm I know first when they're coming. I have the upper ground.


Which is why they scope out your IR, and break in while you're either asleep, or out. In which case - your gun would just be something else for them to steal. Good job on arming criminals.


But more importantly, you're missing the difference between burglars and marine assault teams. Burglars are not looking for heroic firefights,


Here in 'reality', marines are not looking for 'heroic firefights' either.


...they're looking for some easy money. They are not interested in shootouts. They want to live just as much as anyone else, not to get into a firefight.


Which is why, if they find you awake and/or armed, they'll shoot you dead, to avoid one.


It's not paranoia.


You're talking about imaginary people forcing a home invasion as an excuse for why you need lethal armaments.

It's almost definitely 'paranoia'.


We the people believe in ourselves, and we believe it's up to each of us to decide if we feel safe or not, if want to have means of self-defense or not. It's not up to you to declare that I'm safe because you think so. It's up to me and me only to decide when I'm safe enough not to need a gun.

And that strikes me as evidence....

There's nothing natural about them. They're given to you by the governments of the 'first world'. That means they aren't natural, and if the government is giving them to you, they sure as hell aren't sacred.

They are natural. The governments merely recognize them. When they didn't, we kicked the old government out and established a new one that did.

and pools lead to a greater likelihood of drowning. In fact according to freakanomics by Steven Levitt page 136 your 10 times more likely to drown in a pool then get shot in the US.
Shall we out law pools then?

I think this a little dishonest - pools are not designed to kill. If it happens, it's an unfortunate accident.

Guns, on the other hand... if it kills, that's because it's doing EXACTLY what it was designed for.

There's nothing natural about them. They're given to you by the governments of the 'first world'. That means they aren't natural, and if the government is giving them to you, they sure as hell aren't sacred.

I don't want to start a long philosophical debate about "rights" and where they come from, but I respectfully disagree. Governments gain legitimate power only from our consent. We concede some authority over our rights to the government in order to protect our rights.

When that human being makes the choice to prey on other human beings? yes. Crime is not an accident, it's a Choice.

And you're arguing that even minor crimes against property deserve a lethal punishment.

I think this a little dishonest - pools are not designed to kill. If it happens, it's an unfortunate accident.

Guns, on the other hand... if it kills, that's because it's doing EXACTLY what it was designed for.

Just out of curiosity, since I am, after all, obsessed with crossbows, what do you think on crossbow ownership? They are designed to kill, and they have a nice range, if I do say so myself.;)

Most people would rather be "safe" (whatever that is) than Free. Liberty is too difficult for the majority of people, as it requires taking responsibility and accepting consequences. People would rather be taken care of, told what to do, what to wear, where to go, and when to go to bed, than make those decisions (and accept the consequences of those choices) themselves.

good thing us sheeple have superior beings such as yourself to defend liberty.

And you're arguing that even minor crimes against property deserve a lethal punishment.

So one is to assume that someone breaking into your home is 'only' going to commit a 'minor crime against property'?

Id try to hide while possible...


In which case, a gun is irrelevent.


And if the worst comes to worst, I at least die on my feet

Dead is still dead.

Anyone that kills someone else to protect a video player should be charged with premeditated murder.

They are natural. The governments merely recognize them. When they didn't, we kicked the old government out and established a new one that did.I think you'll find that you're wrong. The 'absolute' right which you claim to have is a one way claim. The rights you claim that a 'sacred and natural' are, in fact, conditional rights. You have to meet certain conditions stated and enforced by society to be provided them by the society of which you are a member.

It's at least a 99.9% chance that the guys will simply get away after a warning shot.

Bullshit.

On the other hand, we don't sacrifice all rights to the altar of safety as G_n_I argues.

I didn't argue we do... I argued we should.

I don't want to start a long philosophical debate about "rights" and where they come from, but I respectfully disagree. Governments gain legitimate power only from our consent. We concede some authority over our rights to the government in order to protect our rights.And I understand your disagreement, but I am simply saying that rights provided to you are only provided to you as long as you meet standards provided to you by the society of which you are part.

I disagree. I'd rather die a free man then live without rights.


Meaningless rhetoric, I'm afraid.

You do not have the 'right' to run for President, right now - will you die to prove your point?

What happened to "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."?

They died for a lie.

IVF is reliable. It's even more reliable than unprotected sex. Yes, everything fails sometimes. That doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Artificial wombs have yet to be tested on humans, but the technology is all there. The only issue is red tape. Hello, we can even do cloning now, and IVF and AW are a lot easier, pretty much just assisted natural processes.


That's an awful lot of words to use to admit that your argument was horseshit.


Elsewhere in the First World, there are.

No, there aren't.

I didn't argue we do... I argued we should.

Define 'safety'.

Are you saying the Gov't should be 100% responsible and accountable?

They can still get guns, but it just isn't as cheap. A determined criminal will still find a gun, one way or another.
And in trying to get a gun illegally, creates more opportunities for the police to arrest him/her before anyone is actually injured.
No, I don't. How do you insure the cash you have at home?
An advantage of living with my parents and not owning a car is that I don't actually insure anything.

Cash might be difficult to insure, but not plasmas or computers or anything else a burglar might grab.



"Superior enemy?" What, the burglars now are some sort of assault teams? Probably in armor and with M4s?

Maybe in your universe, but out here burglars are just guys who have broken in to steal some stuff. If they didn't get away after a warning shot, probably also either clinically insane or junkies.

Yes, I would much rather take chances at shooting them than at surrendering and begging to be spared.
You said that if worse comes to worse you'd rather fight and die than beg for mercy. Burglars being better able to kill you than you are them sounds about right to me.
What happened to "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."?

We stopped bothering with that once we realised that "[a] witty saying proves nothing".

They are natural. The governments merely recognize them. When they didn't, we kicked the old government out and established a new one that did.

Nothing 'natural' about them.

Your 'rights' are granted to you, in totality, by your society. Those your society cares to grant you, you have. Those it does not care to grant you, you don't have. Welcome to the real world.

Just out of curiosity, since I am, after all, obsessed with crossbows, what do you think on crossbow ownership? They are designed to kill, and they have a nice range, if I do say so myself.;)

In general, they are less immediately lethal, and require more skill to operate. Thus, I prefer them over guns. On the other hand, I prefer strongly worded letters over both.

So one is to assume that someone breaking into your home is 'only' going to commit a 'minor crime against property'?

Isn't that the argument being used as for why it's okay for random dipshits to have guns?

"You can't take my guns away, I never hurt anyone".

Well, in this case, you're apparently prejudging the 'burglar', and executing him for it... which is a harsher punishment than just taking someone's guns away, no?

*sigh* Neo Art, you are one of the few people I thoroughly dislike debating with.

Probably because anyone who actually has an ounce of experience and training in debate recognizes how bad you are at it?

I said criminals would still have guns and commit crimes with or without them. They can still get guns, but it just isn't as cheap. A determined criminal will still find a gun, one way or another. And thus, the restrictive gun laws disarm you, instead of the criminal.

Well sure, criminals will always commit crimes, I don't think anyone here disagrees. But the fact is, as you admit, that restricted ownership will prevent everyone but determined criminals with the most resources from getting guns. In fact, this is pretty well demonstrative by just looking at crime statistics in nations that have restricted gun control, per capital gun violence goes down as a general trend.

Now, while you are correct that in restricted gun ownership, the ratio of armed criminals to armed innocents will go up, the overall numbers of armed criminals will go down. And so, yes, while there will probably, per capita, be more instances of an armed criminal harming or killing a person who would have been armed, but for restriction, however, the overal instance of criminals harming people with guns will go down, and we see this as demonstrated earlier.

If your interest is maintaining some dillusional fantasy world where someday you hope to wake up to a crash in your den, grab your trusted friend, and gun down those nasty nerdowells robbing you blind, sure, free gun ownership is the way to go.

My interest, however, is in preserving human life. And I recognize that real life isn't the internet, and as much as we'd all love to believe we're some super soldier who can kill a criminal at 50 paces, that's simply not true. All evidence seems to suggest that, as a general rule, if we reduce restrictions on guns, more innocent people will die, as a result of more criminals having guns.

So sure, if you want to maintain some fantasy about whacking some crook right between the eyes, fine. I'm more concerned about preserving innocent life.

That's my take on things. If you have evidence to the contrary, please, let me hear it.

I think at this point you're more or less ignoring everything I've posted, considering I have already.

Well, obviously. I mean - if you've got trainging, it stands to reason that no one else can have any...
People with normal lives don't go breaking into others' houses to steal possessions and sell them for a tenth of their cost. They have normal jobs that pay without such risk. And vets have normal lives, it's very easy to get a job if you are one.


Which is why they scope out your IR, and break in while you're either asleep, or out.
My alarm is sufficiently good, don't worry about it. I'd have more if the neighborhood wasn't that safe that I doubt I even need this one. So I'd be awake.

If I'm out, I'm in no danger either way.


In which case - your gun would just be something else for them to steal.
Yeah, big catch. Remember that guns are legal and not intended.


Here in 'reality', marines are not looking for 'heroic firefights' either.
Here in reality, people get seriously pissed off at crime in their very tight community. I have seen what happens at a false alarm. A lot of people take their guns and come out.
I know for one that I wouldn't hide under the fucking bed, burying my head in cat litter, while my friend next door is being robbed. I know others feel a similar way.


Which is why, if they find you awake and/or armed, they'll shoot you dead, to avoid one.
Or I shoot them. It's up to luck. And I'd better bet on luck than on mercy.

And no. In reality, they don't go all "shoot him first". They simply don't break in. At least that's how it happens in the real world.


You're talking about imaginary people forcing a home invasion as an excuse for why you need lethal armaments.
No, the reason I need to have guns is because I want to. For all purposes, it's a reason enough.

The rest is merely additional benefits.

Define 'safety'.

Are you saying the Gov't should be 100% responsible and accountable?

Sure.

What I'm actually saying, is that the claim we should surrender all safety for an amorphous concept, is nonsensical. It's almost as nonsensical to claim the exact reverse... but only almost.

Isn't that the argument being used as for why it's okay for random dipshits to have guns?

"You can't take my guns away, I never hurt anyone".

Well, in this case, you're apparently prejudging the 'burglar', and executing him for it... which is a harsher punishment than just taking someone's guns away, no?

Ah, so you're equating someone who hasn't broken any laws w/ someone who is.

They are natural. The governments merely recognize them. When they didn't, we kicked the old government out and established a new one that did.

What property of the universe grants you the right to own things?

*sigh* Neo Art, you are one of the few people I thoroughly dislike debating with.

Let's go over this piece by piece.

I said criminals would still have guns and commit crimes with or without them. They can still get guns, but it just isn't as cheap. A determined criminal will still find a gun, one way or another. And thus, the restrictive gun laws disarm you, instead of the criminal..

So you're saying that only determined criminals would still have guns. Meaning casual ones won't and thereby gun control laws do actually reduce the numbers of criminals with guns?

Damn, what am I doing back in here? *runs*

Sure.

What I'm actually saying, is that the claim we should surrender all safety for an amorphous concept, is nonsensical. It's almost as nonsensical to claim the exact reverse... but only almost.

No, that's not what you said. You stated that we 'should' sacrifice all rights to the alter of safety.

Now define 'safety'.

Probably because anyone who actually has an ounce of experience and training in debate recognizes how bad you are at it?



Well sure, criminals will always commit crimes, I don't think anyone here disagrees. But the fact is, as you admit, that restricted ownership will prevent everyone but determined criminals with the most resources from getting guns. In fact, this is pretty well demonstrative by just looking at crime statistics in nations that have restricted gun control, per capital gun violence goes down as a general trend.

Now, while you are correct that in restricted gun ownership, the ratio of armed criminals to armed innocents will go up, the overall numbers of armed criminals will go down. And so, yes, while there will probably, per capita, be more instances of an armed criminal harming or killing a person who would have been armed, but for restriction, however, the overal instance of criminals harming people with guns will go down, and we see this as demonstrated earlier.

If your interest is maintaining some dillusional fantasy world where someday you hope to wake up to a crash in your den, grab your trusted friend, and gun down those nasty nerdowells robbing you blind, sure, free gun ownership is the way to go.

My interest, however, is in preserving human life. And I recognize that real life isn't the internet, and as much as we'd all love to believe we're some super soldier who can kill a criminal at 50 paces, that's simply not true. All evidence seems to suggest that, as a general rule, if we reduce restrictions on guns, more innocent people will die, as a result of more criminals having guns.

So sure, if you want to maintain some fantasy about whacking some crook right between the eyes, fine. I'm more concerned about preserving innocent life.



I think at this point you're more or less ignoring everything I've posted, considering I have already.

*sigh* No Neo Art, the reason I hate debating with you is because you believe that your word is holy and final. That your opinions are not mere opinion, but fact. And quite frankly, it bores me. You can talk all you want about preserving innocent life, but, as you said, there will be more criminals killing people who would be unarmed. So while your interest is preserving human life, mine is preserving innocent human life.

And that's all I have to say to you.

So you're saying that only determined criminals would still have guns. Meaning casual ones won't and thereby gun control laws do actually reduce the numbers of criminals with guns?

Damn, what am I doing back in here? *runs*
They do reduce the number of criminals with guns, the only problem is that they reduce the amount of innocent citizens with guns by a larger percentage. Which means that, in my opinion, the end result will be that the criminals have the upper hand in most situations.

Anyone that kills someone else to protect a video player should be charged with premeditated murder.
It's not killing a law-abiding citizen. It's killing an antisocial violent criminal. He has voluntarily renounced his right to life and recognition as an equal human being the moment he started committing the crime.

People with normal lives don't go breaking into others' houses to steal possessions and sell them for a tenth of their cost. They have normal jobs that pay without such risk. And vets have normal lives, it's very easy to get a job if you are one.


Wow. What an absolute boatload of crap.

Even more so as we head towards 10% unemployment. But crap anyway, because it makes ridiculous assumptions.. like the idea that ex-military people (for example) never end up involved in crime. Never get mixed up in drugs.


My alarm is sufficiently good, don't worry about it. I'd have more if the neighborhood wasn't that safe that I doubt I even need this one. So I'd be awake.


No, you wouldn't. Because criminals aren't colelctively as stupid as you wish they were. If you have an IR at the front of your house, they'll come in at the back. You'll be caught asleep DREAMING you were safe.


If I'm out, I'm in no danger either way.


So your gun is irrelevent... and, as mentioned, just more crap to steal.


Yeah, big catch. Remember that guns are legal and not intended.


That isn't even a complete sentence.


Here in reality, people get seriously pissed off at crime in their very tight community. I have seen what happens at a false alarm. A lot of people take their guns and come out.


Awesome. This is how innocent people get killed.


I know for one that I wouldn't hide under the fucking bed, burying my head in cat litter, while my friend next door is being robbed. I know others feel a similar way.


So, now you're shooting people in the house next door?


Or I shoot them. It's up to luck.


No, it's up to them being prepared to commit the crime, and you being caught cold.


And I'd better bet on luck than on mercy.

And no. In reality, they don't go all "shoot him first". They simply don't break in. At least that's how it happens in the real world.


Yes. In the real world, there are no burglaries.

Oh wait.


No, the reason I need to have guns is because I want to. For all purposes, it's a reason enough.


A good enough reason why you shouldn't be allowed to own one.

'I want it' isn't a good enough reason to put lethal firepower in the hands of random people.


The rest is merely additional benefits.

Yes. The killing is a 'benefit'.

Illinois Factoids 2007according to the 2007 IL UCR.

The state actually had a pretty good year.

Illinois had a population of 12.83 million w/ a murder rate of 5.9/100K (752) in comparison to 6.2/100K last year.

Chicago had 22.1% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 58.9% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 15.64/100K. A slight drop from last year in both population and murders.

Cook County had 41.2% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 69.5% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 9.9/100K. It also had population and murder drops.

The Cook County murders in raw number/per capita decreased 9.7 and 9.2% respectively while arrest numbers and rates increased over 6.8% from '06 to '07. 2006 however, had an 18% drop.

If Chicago were to fall into Lake Michigan, the Illinois murder rate would drop to 3.09 .

Were the rest of Cook County to follow suit, the rate would drop to 3.03 .

So Chicago still accounts for 5x the murder rate of the rest of the state with it's "Model Gun Laws". Currently though, they are slated to break 500 murders this year, more than at any time in the last four years.

Why?

*sigh* No Neo Art, the reason I hate debating with you is because you believe that your word is holy and final. That your opinions are not mere opinion, but fact.

There's a reason for that. And that reason is...I tend not to make up my mind about something until I'm damn sure I know what I'm talking about. I research. I consider. I question, I evaluate my position and think it over, considering alternative answers and possible ways to defeat it. It's what I do, it's in the very nature of my profession.

And as such, I tend not to form those opinions until I'm pretty damned sure I'm right. Therefore, when I do have an opinion, yeah, you're correct, I'm pretty certain it's the accurate one. Now, of course, you can try to dissuade me from it by showing me how I'm incorrect.

You've done an utterly piss poor job at that, considering:

You can talk all you want about preserving innocent life, but, as you said, there will be more criminals killing people who would be unarmed.

that you obviously didn't even read what I said because that's the fundamental opposite of my main contention. Basic understanding of the nuances of the language are a fundamental requirement of any debate, especially in a text based medium. If you can't even take five minutes to read and understand what I said how can you possibly hope to debate it?

If this were a real debate, you would have already lost, for failure to address the points raised, due to either your unwillingness, or inability to comprehend basic statements and logical constructs.

And that's all I have to say to you.

Here's a hint, when you want to actually debate someone, make "all you have to say" your actual ARGUMENT in response to the one given.