How much gun control?
- Thread starter Jerrek
- Start date
- Status
Look, if I gotta go, I'd much rather a bullet than a blunt instrument. With a bullet there's a good chance you're gone before you know what happened, possibly before you hear the shot. With a rock it is much slower and damned painful, not to say messy, but if your gone who cares `bout the carpet?
On the Poll stats, they've become meaningless with all the input from outlanders. But the percentage/number of of Control Nuts is still smaller than the number of mentally challenged in the population. I guess freedom lurks even in mini-minds.
If you had the power you'd not be panicked into rash acts, and you'd, with a gun, be free to avoid the lifelong conscience problem of having taken a life. Of course it is brain related and there are fools to whom that would not apply, If there was a way of protecting fools from themselves and others I'd be for it, but NOT at the expense of giving government that power. Good government is small and weak, it cleans the streets and collects the garbage"." Of all the things you can safely trust government is the least, close to the Cobra.
BTW: Why don't we Disarm governments? Holding the death tolls side-by-side should make it abundantly clear the individual is the better bet for entrusting with firearms. Even the abominable UN would disarm civilians and leave tyrants and kings armed. Doesn't that tell you something about what these wannabe dictators are up to, and isn't it time you Control Freaks wised up to who the hazard REALLY is!?! Had alway admired the Brits for their unarmed `Bobbies'. Have you noticed though that as they have disarmed their citizens they are now more likely to be armed themselves? Kind of relates to what `Sparks' just said.
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
a country has to be willing to enforce its own laws. if that statistic about london tripling its gun crime is true. then the government is simplynot allocating the proper resources to remove guns.
do you have any documentation for this claim? if so i would liek to see it.
the gun companies should have some culpability in regards to guns being distributed to the black market. they shouldnt be allowd to lose track of guns that magically appear on the black market. im guessing they are aware of how many guns they make end up on the black market. they probably receice shady compensation as well. as we have seen american corporations dont hve many scruples
do you have any documentation for this claim? if so i would liek to see it.
the gun companies should have some culpability in regards to guns being distributed to the black market. they shouldnt be allowd to lose track of guns that magically appear on the black market. im guessing they are aware of how many guns they make end up on the black market. they probably receice shady compensation as well. as we have seen american corporations dont hve many scruples
shrubby,
http://www.google.com/
Search for "english gun crime levels"
I'm getting tired of this. I post an assertion, someone comes back with an innane statement or a personal insult or some random gibberish and I'm supposed to go and perform a search to recover what was a major news story less than a year ago?
If it was a contraversial point, that'd be one thing. But having to go and post tracts from international conventions because someone isn't willing to go do their own reading, or finding major news stories that are not that old, or find basic information that anyone could check on their own? That's just wasting my time.
http://www.google.com/
Search for "english gun crime levels"
I'm getting tired of this. I post an assertion, someone comes back with an innane statement or a personal insult or some random gibberish and I'm supposed to go and perform a search to recover what was a major news story less than a year ago?
If it was a contraversial point, that'd be one thing. But having to go and post tracts from international conventions because someone isn't willing to go do their own reading, or finding major news stories that are not that old, or find basic information that anyone could check on their own? That's just wasting my time.
That's a pretty good idea, in these times when entire nations are none to friendly toward not just the American government, but to American citizens, what kind of defense have we got against entire nations? Private citizens owning nukes would be the best answer, I think.
On, another note, how should one feel about so many nations in the world community having atomic weapons? If, on a personal level, we are all safer if everyone has a gun (an armed society is a polite one after all), maybe it would be for the benefit of us all if every nation had atomic weapons. Maybe mutually assured destruction isn't such a bad way to live at all, suddenly I'm beginning to understand why republican so often romanticize the cold war era as the good old days.
Try to remember that in a formal argument or debate, it's always the burden of the one making the claims to back them up. You can't expect your opponents to go out and prove your points for you. If you want to be more effective in justifying your position, then you must back up your claims when others ask for clarification, or more information. If this isn't to your liking you are free to go argue with middle schoolers on AOL chat rooms.
As I said,
"If it was a contraversial point, that'd be one thing. But having to go and post tracts from international conventions because someone isn't willing to go do their own reading, or finding major news stories that are not that old, or find basic information that anyone could check on their own? That's just wasting my time."
Posting proof of contraversial points is one thing - being made responsible for another person's lack of education or diligence is quite another.
Which would imply that I'm talking here to high schoolers perhaps?
Well it may not be fun, but it's part of a debate. Remember, just because you know it doesn't mean that everyone knows it, or should know it. You're going to have to accept that not everyone is as up to date on the specific issues that you are, and as such you are going to need to provide clarification for them if you try to use a point relating to such an issue in your argument.
The threads about this topic are giving me the impression that you really can not know if gun control is applicable until you know the context of the place you want it to apply in.
E.g. i live in the most densily populated country in Europe where 16 million people are crawling over eachother on an area only slightly less than twice the size of New Jersey. Introducing free access to guns seems like a bad idea in such a populated area, especially in a time when conflicts between different ethnic groups are mounting. I am not suggesting that adding a bunch of guns would turn the place into a shooting arena by definition, but i do think that it could be a catalyst to a worsening scenario.
However, if i had grown up in a little forgotten village in Siberia (to take an extreme example), i am sure i would have taken an whole different view on the matter and would regard a gun more as an essential tool for survival than a potential danger.
Between these two poles there is a huge gray area where the use of gun control can be debated with many pro and con arguments, although a few passed on this thread do not hold out in my opinion:
- Guns are necessary to protect yourself from the government.
If one is that afraid of the local or federal government something is either seriously wrong with the country of residence or with one's perception of reality.
- Guns should be banned because countries with gun control have lower crime rates.
I do not think one can compare different countries or regions, with entirely different cultures, to eachother on one topic. Crime and murder rates are influenced by many factors, and gun control alone may not be the most significant.
- Banning guns is a serious infringement on the freedom of the individual.
This is a subjective argument. With the same success i can argue that i do not feel that my freedom is severly restricted by controlled access to guns. Seems to me that the threshold between feeling controlled or feeling free is a different one in every person.
- It is a constitutional right.
And what? If so, does that make it by definition a good thing? I am not suggesting that all constitutional rights are rubbish, as with most i would passionately agree... just the fact that it is in a constitution does not make it a given truth, per se.
EDIT: added last paragraph.
E.g. i live in the most densily populated country in Europe where 16 million people are crawling over eachother on an area only slightly less than twice the size of New Jersey. Introducing free access to guns seems like a bad idea in such a populated area, especially in a time when conflicts between different ethnic groups are mounting. I am not suggesting that adding a bunch of guns would turn the place into a shooting arena by definition, but i do think that it could be a catalyst to a worsening scenario.
However, if i had grown up in a little forgotten village in Siberia (to take an extreme example), i am sure i would have taken an whole different view on the matter and would regard a gun more as an essential tool for survival than a potential danger.
Between these two poles there is a huge gray area where the use of gun control can be debated with many pro and con arguments, although a few passed on this thread do not hold out in my opinion:
- Guns are necessary to protect yourself from the government.
If one is that afraid of the local or federal government something is either seriously wrong with the country of residence or with one's perception of reality.
- Guns should be banned because countries with gun control have lower crime rates.
I do not think one can compare different countries or regions, with entirely different cultures, to eachother on one topic. Crime and murder rates are influenced by many factors, and gun control alone may not be the most significant.
- Banning guns is a serious infringement on the freedom of the individual.
This is a subjective argument. With the same success i can argue that i do not feel that my freedom is severly restricted by controlled access to guns. Seems to me that the threshold between feeling controlled or feeling free is a different one in every person.
- It is a constitutional right.
And what? If so, does that make it by definition a good thing? I am not suggesting that all constitutional rights are rubbish, as with most i would passionately agree... just the fact that it is in a constitution does not make it a given truth, per se.
EDIT: added last paragraph.
Last edited:
The fact is that there is a certain level of education assumed in a debate. Otherwise, I'd have to give you english lessons at that start of the debate, because of the burden of proof....
Besides, the matter at hand (english gun crime levels before and after the banning of handguns) was not only a major news story in england, and publicised widely by the NRA in the states; but it is also available to you in less than thirty seconds from an incredibly well-known source.
So frankly, I don't need to provide it for you.
Mouse,
If it is the former, and you don't have access to weapons for self-defence, you're rather screwed, aren't you?
Besides, what if you're female and someone breaks into your house to rape you? (believe it or not, that's not a rare occourance. Look at the statistics for rape in the US. Every year, there are more rapes than took place in the rape camps in Bosnia by an order of magnitude.
Besides which, the most extensive study I am aware of proved conclusively that (for the USA), the only measure to reduce crime that only ever worked, was the introduction of concealed-carry permits for handguns.
Ban guns and my two rifles (which are used for olympic sport, not hunting or self-defence) are illegal. Who's going to compensate me for the loss of my chosen sport and for the cost of the equipment related to it?
If you can take away one right, you can take away any right.
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
sparks ive come to the conclusion you are an idiot. the burden of proof is on you. that is how it works. someone makes a claim, it is not my responsibility to prove it for you. you speak of ignorance but you only see the information that backs your claims. everything else is either pansy liberal bias a have truth. i could speak all day about facts you are not familiar with. simply because you have not heard this fact does make you ignorant or lazy. last time a checked there was too much information in this world for any one person to know it all. so you can take your anger and hate somewhere else. i hope you dont shoot yourself in the foot when you are trying to carry all of your guns on your vigilante crusade
i dont read NRA propaganda. in my opinion that is one of the most evil oragnizations that exists in the country
i dont read NRA propaganda. in my opinion that is one of the most evil oragnizations that exists in the country
'k shrubby, I'm not going to respond to personal insults, inane arguments and personal attacks. Instead, I've hit the "report" button. Saves me time and it's what you're meant to do, according to site rules. So I think I'll just make that my policy from now on.
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
yeah okay. do what ever you want. your post was an insult. be as high minded as you see fit. i made my insult more direct just in case you did not read it diligently enough or if you were to ignorant to understand it in more complex terms
grimreaper
Registered Senior Member
Funny Thing
It seams that the countrys with the lowest viloent crime rates are the ones that require
A) All citizans apon reaching the age of consent must join the military and apon relief take their issued arms home with them and are requiered to own and have military compatable wepons available at all times.
with respect
It seams that the countrys with the lowest viloent crime rates are the ones that require
A) All citizans apon reaching the age of consent must join the military and apon relief take their issued arms home with them and are requiered to own and have military compatable wepons available at all times.
with respect
Xev:
<i>...guns would be readily available on the black market.</i>
Yes, but your average joe doesn't have black market connections. The disgruntled high school kid who wants to shoot up the school won't be able to get a gun by simply taking it out of Dad's pool room cabinet. The disgruntled ex-McDonald's employee who thinks he was unfairly dismissed is very unlikely to go looking for the Mafia to get a gun.
<i>Well no, since I'm not a dipshit blonde who doesn't know how to handle a gun.
...I don't have kids. I have a pet cat and some mold growing in a coffee cup, but I don't think I'm in danger from either.
Even if I had kids, I don't think I'd raise anti-social monsters who try to kill people, so the point is moot.</i>
This is a disingenuous response, Xev. Once again, I raise a general issue and you try to dismiss my point by personalising it. I'm afraid that doesn't cut the mustard. Personally, you may be the world's greatest markswoman, as well as being the sanest, most well-balanced and intelligent person, but the fact is: you are only one person. What applies to you personally cannot necessarily be generalised to the rest of the population, which, like it or not, does contain dipshit blondes and people with children.
CounslerCoffee:
<i>They could have perfectly legal box cutters. Lawn Gnomes, if unable to get a gun, will use box cutters. Now, had Xev been able to use a gun against the Lawn Gnomes that had box cutters, then she might have survived. But unfortunately she got stabbed and cut to death, with box cutters.</i>
Box cutters are much more up-close-and-personal than guns. It is much harder and takes more determination to kill somebody with box cutters than it does to shoot them from a distance.
<i>Not if she shoots the little bastards. Lawn Gnomes may be hard to target, but I doubt that they could seriously get her gun away from her if she shot first.</i>
Well, the facts are against you there, I think. Often, intruders <b>do</b> take the guns away from would-be home defenders.
(Aside: most shootings are by somebody the victim knows very well, rather than complete strangers.)
<i>The kid is a moron and thus deserved to die. We all warned him about the dangers of guns, but he ignored it. It's Darwinism at it's finest.</i>
No. You set the example that guns are desirable by having so many of them in your house. You can't blame the kid for wanting to play with your beloved toys.
<i>...guns would be readily available on the black market.</i>
Yes, but your average joe doesn't have black market connections. The disgruntled high school kid who wants to shoot up the school won't be able to get a gun by simply taking it out of Dad's pool room cabinet. The disgruntled ex-McDonald's employee who thinks he was unfairly dismissed is very unlikely to go looking for the Mafia to get a gun.
<i>Well no, since I'm not a dipshit blonde who doesn't know how to handle a gun.
...I don't have kids. I have a pet cat and some mold growing in a coffee cup, but I don't think I'm in danger from either.
Even if I had kids, I don't think I'd raise anti-social monsters who try to kill people, so the point is moot.</i>
This is a disingenuous response, Xev. Once again, I raise a general issue and you try to dismiss my point by personalising it. I'm afraid that doesn't cut the mustard. Personally, you may be the world's greatest markswoman, as well as being the sanest, most well-balanced and intelligent person, but the fact is: you are only one person. What applies to you personally cannot necessarily be generalised to the rest of the population, which, like it or not, does contain dipshit blondes and people with children.
CounslerCoffee:
<i>They could have perfectly legal box cutters. Lawn Gnomes, if unable to get a gun, will use box cutters. Now, had Xev been able to use a gun against the Lawn Gnomes that had box cutters, then she might have survived. But unfortunately she got stabbed and cut to death, with box cutters.</i>
Box cutters are much more up-close-and-personal than guns. It is much harder and takes more determination to kill somebody with box cutters than it does to shoot them from a distance.
<i>Not if she shoots the little bastards. Lawn Gnomes may be hard to target, but I doubt that they could seriously get her gun away from her if she shot first.</i>
Well, the facts are against you there, I think. Often, intruders <b>do</b> take the guns away from would-be home defenders.
(Aside: most shootings are by somebody the victim knows very well, rather than complete strangers.)
<i>The kid is a moron and thus deserved to die. We all warned him about the dangers of guns, but he ignored it. It's Darwinism at it's finest.</i>
No. You set the example that guns are desirable by having so many of them in your house. You can't blame the kid for wanting to play with your beloved toys.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Tell that to those people on those one planes that crashed into those really big buildings.
Box cutters can be just as dangerous as a gun. Knife someone in the throat and they'll bleed to death. Stab someone in the stomach and watch em' fall. Aim for the eye and watch em' die! Not everyone knows kung fu ways to take box cutters away from people.
I wanna see some statistics before I jump into this "The guns that are used to kill people are always taken from the people who own the guns" debate.
The parents are idiots then. You take your child and you smack the hell outta him for even looking at it. Then you tell him that it's not a toy and not to be played with. If it's a guy tell him to masturbate. If it's a girl give her a doll and let her learn how to masturbate with it.
This is my belief:
- No automatic weapons.
- No nukes.
- Yes to gun locks.
- Yes to gun training for everyone who owns a gun.
- No to gun shows where guns can be bought.
- Yes to me having sex with women who have big guns.
All in all I think it's safe to say that Im right. Now Im going to go eat some ice cream.
That whole masturbation thing was creepy. WTF is wrong with me nowadays?
CounslerCoffee:
<i>Box cutters can be just as dangerous as a gun.</i>
Yes, but only in the hands of somebody really committed and willing to get up close to their intended victim - which was my point. Also, a person attacked with box cutters is FAR more likely to fight back than somebody shot in the head with a gun, so things are far more risky for a would-be attacker.
<i>I wanna see some statistics before I jump into this "The guns that are used to kill people are always taken from the people who own the guns" debate.</i>
Before I give you the stats, think about it for a minute.
Imagine a TV gnome breaks into your house to get your TV set. You meet him in the hallway with your loaded .44 Magnum. What happens next? You shoot him in cold blood? I don't think so. Chances are, you are a decent person (despite your penchant for guns), so you don't actually want to kill the TV-stealing guy. So you threaten him with your gun.
The problem with this is that the situation can quickly escalate. The guy feels threatened (and rightly so), but you're giving no signs of following through on your threat. So, he has a go at overpowering you. Two possible outcomes: (1) He gets your gun and is propbably now angry enough to use it on you; or (2) You actually shoot him and are now on a murder charge yourself (which admittedly you might get off due to self-defence if you're lucky).
If the gun wasn't there, the guy would simply take your TV, you'd claim the insurance, and nobody would get hurt.
<i>The parents are idiots then. You take your child and you smack the hell outta him for even looking at it.</i>
Do you smack him with your gun? What a big man you are.
<i>[*]No automatic weapons.</i>
Why draw the line there?
<i>[*]No nukes.</i>
I don't think many individuals have nukes.
<i>[*]Yes to gun locks.
[*]Yes to gun training for everyone who owns a gun.</i>
Wouldn't want them to miss, would we?
<i>[*]No to gun shows where guns can be bought.</i>
Why not?
<i>[*]Yes to me having sex with women who have big guns.</i>
Better hope it is as good for them as it is for you.
<i>Box cutters can be just as dangerous as a gun.</i>
Yes, but only in the hands of somebody really committed and willing to get up close to their intended victim - which was my point. Also, a person attacked with box cutters is FAR more likely to fight back than somebody shot in the head with a gun, so things are far more risky for a would-be attacker.
<i>I wanna see some statistics before I jump into this "The guns that are used to kill people are always taken from the people who own the guns" debate.</i>
Before I give you the stats, think about it for a minute.
Imagine a TV gnome breaks into your house to get your TV set. You meet him in the hallway with your loaded .44 Magnum. What happens next? You shoot him in cold blood? I don't think so. Chances are, you are a decent person (despite your penchant for guns), so you don't actually want to kill the TV-stealing guy. So you threaten him with your gun.
The problem with this is that the situation can quickly escalate. The guy feels threatened (and rightly so), but you're giving no signs of following through on your threat. So, he has a go at overpowering you. Two possible outcomes: (1) He gets your gun and is propbably now angry enough to use it on you; or (2) You actually shoot him and are now on a murder charge yourself (which admittedly you might get off due to self-defence if you're lucky).
If the gun wasn't there, the guy would simply take your TV, you'd claim the insurance, and nobody would get hurt.
<i>The parents are idiots then. You take your child and you smack the hell outta him for even looking at it.</i>
Do you smack him with your gun? What a big man you are.
<i>[*]No automatic weapons.</i>
Why draw the line there?
<i>[*]No nukes.</i>
I don't think many individuals have nukes.
<i>[*]Yes to gun locks.
[*]Yes to gun training for everyone who owns a gun.</i>
Wouldn't want them to miss, would we?
<i>[*]No to gun shows where guns can be bought.</i>
Why not?
<i>[*]Yes to me having sex with women who have big guns.</i>
Better hope it is as good for them as it is for you.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
James R,
Those kids at that one school were pretty committed when they shot the place up. Now, if they were psycho enough they would of done it with knives. The individual that wants to kill will find a way to kill no matter what. Those kids could have easily knifed five people before they got toppled.
You never gave me the stats. Besides, I just wanted to hear you talk about lawn Gnomes and TV theft. A growing problem in these United States.
No, that's abuse. Me yelling at him and sending him to his room is not. I will punish my children in any non-barbaric way that I can. Like making them eat an entire jar of peanut butter followed by a rigorous run through the woods. This thread is about gun laws, not how I punish my kids. (I don't have kids, I don't want kids)
You might be right about the situation that you described. But what about all the other situations that are just unrealized reality's? Not all events unfold like that. The Gnome could of easily taken the blender by the window!
Automatic weapons are not needed by the average man to hunt deer or kill the so-called super deer. Automatic weapons are normally used by criminals. The police only use automatic weapons when a SWAT team is called up. Other then that it's just pistol whipping Sally. Automatic weapons are just unnecessary. All people need are hunting rifles and handguns. Not UZI's and Bazooka's.
Gun shows are where most illegal purchases are made. Background checks are never ran either.
When I say training I don't just mean target practice. I mean these people are taught how to lock and secure a gun, how to use the safety, and how to use gun locks. Also they should be trained in mortal combat. After the guns are all gone were going to need some way to kill each other.
/CounslerCoffee
Those kids at that one school were pretty committed when they shot the place up. Now, if they were psycho enough they would of done it with knives. The individual that wants to kill will find a way to kill no matter what. Those kids could have easily knifed five people before they got toppled.
You never gave me the stats. Besides, I just wanted to hear you talk about lawn Gnomes and TV theft. A growing problem in these United States.
No, that's abuse. Me yelling at him and sending him to his room is not. I will punish my children in any non-barbaric way that I can. Like making them eat an entire jar of peanut butter followed by a rigorous run through the woods. This thread is about gun laws, not how I punish my kids. (I don't have kids, I don't want kids)
You might be right about the situation that you described. But what about all the other situations that are just unrealized reality's? Not all events unfold like that. The Gnome could of easily taken the blender by the window!
Automatic weapons are not needed by the average man to hunt deer or kill the so-called super deer. Automatic weapons are normally used by criminals. The police only use automatic weapons when a SWAT team is called up. Other then that it's just pistol whipping Sally. Automatic weapons are just unnecessary. All people need are hunting rifles and handguns. Not UZI's and Bazooka's.
Gun shows are where most illegal purchases are made. Background checks are never ran either.
When I say training I don't just mean target practice. I mean these people are taught how to lock and secure a gun, how to use the safety, and how to use gun locks. Also they should be trained in mortal combat. After the guns are all gone were going to need some way to kill each other.
/CounslerCoffee
- Status