Gun Control Debate - For or Against? [Archive]

Patuman

09-29-2008, 10:20 AM

How rough is the area you live in?
You make it sound like a war-torn African hell-hole. Why would you need to carry that level of weaponry?

Whilst I myself have somewhat of a fascination with weapons, I don't think I should be allowed to carry anything - knives, pistols, whatever.

I've never run into any trouble, even when walking alone in my city at 0300, Summer or Winter. I carry nothing.

I carry a small amount of cash with me, sometimes nothing, there is very little to gain from robbing me. Anything over a few pounds is paid for in plastic and all cashpoints are either well lit, equipped with CCTV or both, so trying to get me to withdraw money would be an exercise in futility.

I don't see how me carrying a firearm would make the situation better. I don't know about you, but my state of mind is not usually "I'm ready to kill a man right here and now". I'm not going to gun someone down over a matter of £20, that's just nuts.

If I'm not willing to use a weapon I'm carrying, that makes me a target. A threat. Generally I would reckon a criminal willing to attack me is going to be more aggressive than me and making an idle threat is likely to hurt me a lot more than it'll hurt them.

Firearms aren't magical shields that protect you from harm. I still don't understand the logic of carrying a weapon for protection, it's like carrying matches to prevent fires.

A very very good post, Flamekebab.

I agree with you and everyone else on this thread about gun control being a good thing.

Like you may have heard, we had a new school shooting incident here in Finland and after the first one (there has been 2 major shootings) there were a ton of plans to change the laws so small caliber pistols would be harder to get.

Nothing never changed... Now after the second one they are going headfirst into the matter and have plans on banning some types of pistols and making others harder to obtain.

Now the thing that I don't understand is, if the gun owners say that the reason they need .22 pistols is to practice shooting on a shooting range, then why is there a need to be able to take them home?

Shouldn't the guns be kept at the shooting club if the only purpose of using them is there?
And shouldn't you be a longtime member of a club and be mentally evaluated before given the chance to purchase a weapon/membership?

Before you would get a gun of your own, you would use the clubs guns therefore eliminating the change of a wacko going on a school rampage.

I believe there is a law in Great Britain banning handguns?
So if it worked in a country many times bigger, then why wouldn't it work here?
They hunt here too but that is not a good excuse to own pistols.

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 10:25 AM

Flamekebab

09-29-2008, 10:32 AM

All this talk of "good, honest citizens" confuses me. I don't think I've ever met one. They seem to exist in some sort of political fantasy land that I've never been to.

Giving everyone weapons sounds like an excellent way to create an arms race effect. Should I have to wear kevlar when I leave the house to buy groceries, just in case someone pulls a piece on someone else and I'm caught in the cross-fire?

No, wait, no, I'm getting it wrong, I should return fire, that'll get that pesky hollow-point out of my stomach.

Patuman

09-29-2008, 10:32 AM

And if people in the school he attacked had been armed too, there'd be one casualty instead of eight. The gunman.

Britain has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world, but it doesnt stop criminals and terrorists getting hold of them. Where theres a will, theres a way.

That no excuse, it would not make the situation any better if people could carry guns for self defense. There would not be a reason for a firearm to defend yourself if your threat would not have a gun either.

Were not talking about terrorism here, the guy was not a terrorist, the guy was a miserable prick that got the gun because the other shooter a year ago did too.
He was a copy-cat, this would not have happened if he hadn't got a pistol.
He would never have got a shotgun or any other weapon because they're very very hard to get.

Now, you can say that he could of got a illegal firearm but do you think that he would of spend all the money and effort for getting one? Illegal firearms sale is really rare in Finland

And what comes to terrorism, the major terrorist attacks around the world have not been done with firearms but with bombs. So, for example, UK laws have worked pretty good.

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 10:33 AM

How rough is the area you live in?
You make it sound like a war-torn African hell-hole. Why would you need to carry that level of weaponry?

Whilst I myself have somewhat of a fascination with weapons, I don't think I should be allowed to carry anything - knives, pistols, whatever.

I've never run into any trouble, even when walking alone in my city at 0300, Summer or Winter. I carry nothing.

I carry a small amount of cash with me, sometimes nothing, there is very little to gain from robbing me. Anything over a few pounds is paid for in plastic and all cashpoints are either well lit, equipped with CCTV or both, so trying to get me to withdraw money would be an exercise in futility.

I don't see how me carrying a firearm would make the situation better. I don't know about you, but my state of mind is not usually "I'm ready to kill a man right here and now". I'm not going to gun someone down over a matter of £20, that's just nuts.

If I'm not willing to use a weapon I'm carrying, that makes me a target. A threat. Generally I would reckon a criminal willing to attack me is going to be more aggressive than me and making an idle threat is likely to hurt me a lot more than it'll hurt them.

Firearms aren't magical shields that protect you from harm. I still don't understand the logic of carrying a weapon for protection, it's like carrying matches to prevent fires.

First off, personally, I grew up in a neighborhood filled with crack heads and junkies. When I was younger, if I knew I was going to come home late, I would carry a machete with me to walk home from where ever I was.

Your argument about being able to walk around at 3 a.m. is also because of CCTV, so that should be included with your ATM argument.

In my Concealed Handgun class, one of the first things the instructors said was that if you do not feel comfortable carrying a loaded gun, or think you have the mental capacity to use it, then the class and license weren't for you.

Also, where I grew up, and where my parents still live, if someone calls the cops, they generally take about an hour to respond, even though police are always patrolling the area.

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 10:37 AM

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 10:38 AM

And it also allows their intended victims to carry them freely too. Which is going to be more effective in stopping a mugger/rapist/murderer? Asking nicely for him to stop? Or a .45 lobotomy?

Yea, shoot a mugger...I'm sure the cops won't arrest you.

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 10:39 AM

That no excuse, it would not make the situation any better if people could carry guns for self defense. There would not be a reason for a firearm to defend yourself if your threat would not have a gun either.

And where do you think criminals get their guns from? The local gun shop, after filling in all appropriate paperwork with the police and registering their new purchase with the local government. Or their drug dealer?

If you really really really really want to go and kill a whole bunch of people, your going to do it, if you have a gun or a pointy stick. Take This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1376982.stm) case in Japan. Eight dead by knife wound.

Sure, if every gun in the world suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke, it'd be great. But its not going to happen. Criminals will always have guns, therefore the honest citizen need one to defend themselves.

I'm sure I'll be arrested after shooting a mugger. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 10:40 AM

Yea, shoot a mugger...I'm sure the cops won't arrest you.
In Texas, if you have a license, most of the time, you will not be arrested.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 10:41 AM

All this talk of "good, honest citizens" confuses me. I don't think I've ever met one. They seem to exist in some sort of political fantasy land that I've never been to.

QFT.

I also think that by dealing out weapons to "good, honest" people, you are pushing people into situations where they will probably make bad decisions. Which is VERY easy to do.

Though I do think the right to own a gun is necessary, at this point...but a concealed weapon...just foolish.

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 10:43 AM

QFT.

I also think that by dealing out weapons to "good, honest" people, you are pushing people into situations where they will probably make bad decisions. Which is VERY easy to do.

Though I do think the right to own a gun is necessary, at this point...but a concealed weapon...just foolish.

In your case Steve, especially after your subway incident, I can see why you would feel this way. I'm sure if you were carrying, even legally, you would have had issues.

Flamekebab

09-29-2008, 10:55 AM

Your argument about being able to walk around at 3 a.m. is also because of CCTV, so that should be included with your ATM argument.Nope, the two are not one and the same.

Whilst yes, there are many cameras in the city, Edinburgh, much like most British cities, is of an organic layout, rather than a grid-based one. What this means is that there's winding roads, alleys and a hell of a lot of places not covered by CCTV.

ATMs tend to be though, which is why it is relevant as by attempting to coerce money from at an ATM is more than a bit daft.

But yes, I suppose that given a neighbourhood like that. It occurs to me that that is more of an exception than an argument for total tolerance on handgun ownership.

AaronHeld

09-29-2008, 10:56 AM

whats wrong with a concealed weapon? if there were undercover on airplanes subways, schools, places of interest we wouldn't have to worry to much about a criminal killing people. if we have people to protect us and take down the criminal before he kills then it's a little bit safer.

my dad who carries has been in situations where just having a gun was enough to stop a crime he didn't even have to take it out, you don't always need to shoot, fear factor works just as good, to have an upper hand or equal.

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 10:59 AM

Why do massacres take place in schools and malls? The same reason they don't take place in army bases and firing ranges.

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 11:01 AM

Todd

09-29-2008, 11:09 AM

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee82/Dayanx/gun_control_works2.jpg

If you think Gun Control is a modern or free-society oriented ideal, please refer yourself to the history of the Tokogawa Shogunate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokugawa_Shogunate), especially the point at which Samurai were all stripped of their weapons, and history's most elite smithys stripped of their rights to manufacture the worlds finest swords. Gun Control is and always has been a totalitarian society's first step towards military rule.

However, given the mountain of other pertinent issues surrounding this election, I hardly think this one in particular should sway someone's vote.

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 11:16 AM

http://steelturman.typepad.com/thesteeldeal/images/no_gun_control.JPG
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3217/2322842458_3fe210df55.jpg?v=0

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 11:38 AM

I agree with 311 on this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lUlxrgqcxg

I have never owned a gun and probably never will. I know of too many cases of parents who kept them at home and ended up having their kids find them and kill themselves. So, that's not reason enough for me.

I would never carry around a concealed weapon, because well...you're just asking for trouble by doing that. Would you ALWAYS have it on you? No. So, what are the chances that the one time you're in a gun fight you happen to have it on you?

If I decide to revolt against the government, I'd rather follow the lead of Gandhi than gun-toting extremists. Because you can't be too level headed if you must use a gun to get our point across.

And finally, to get back to 311, I think guns are just plain weak. But I also only have myself to watch out for.

But that's just my outlook, I have respect for people who treat it the subject with a lot of thought...regardless of their side.

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 12:10 PM

I think the reason some kids shoot themselves or others when they find their parents guns is because the parents don't take the time to educate them about firearms. I was introduced to guns at a very young age, (and also taught to wipe the gun down after handling it, but that's an entirely different discussion), and I always had respect for the firearm. My dad taught me very quickly that guns are not toys and he had his only for defense. He taught me how to slap a clip in and cock it back in case anything ever called for a situation where I would need to protect my family. The first time he showed me a shotgun, (unloaded of course), I looked down the barrel. He grounded me for a month, which told me he was serious when he said he wanted me to be safe when handling guns.

Flamingo With A Spoon Productions

09-29-2008, 12:17 PM

And where do you think criminals get their guns from? The local gun shop, after filling in all appropriate paperwork with the police and registering their new purchase with the local government. Or their drug dealer?

You mean the small amount of paperwork which is easy to lie on and the small waiting period? Most muggers would get their guns form gun shops, drug dealers don't have stashes of guns they hand out.

I agree with Steve about the revolution thing. Gun control isn't a fascist move just a safety precaution. You know Nazi Germany was against litter, does that mean since the rest of the world is against it to that we're turning into a dictatorship?

Its rather funny. You claim weilding guns stops a dictatorship yet you slowly become more right wing weilding them.

Of course there will be cases where people will be held at gunpoint but that will happen whether people are allowed or banned from owning guns.

And who here could shoot somebody if they were mugging you? I sure as hell couldn't.

Finally whats with all this crap about "honest citizens"? How to you judge how "honest" a person is? Are they only allowed if they believe in the "Holy Trinity": guns, God and government.

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 12:24 PM

I'd shoot somebody if they attempted to mug me and if I felt my life was in danger.

Here in the states, to buy a gun legally, an FBI background check is done. Since I am licensed, I can just go into a gun store and make a same day purchase, but I still have to fill out the paperwork. Oh, and the drug dealers I know, are able to easily get a gun and are more than willing to sell it to someone.

Flamingo With A Spoon Productions

09-29-2008, 12:27 PM

What do you mean by "the drug dealers I know"? You don't seem to be the kind of person that would associate with people like that.

chainedflesh

09-29-2008, 12:35 PM

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 12:36 PM

What do you mean by "the drug dealers I know"? You don't seem to be the kind of person that would associate with people like that.

Family is family. I'm not the type to disassociate myself with them.

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 12:39 PM

Gun control isn't a fascist move just a safety precaution.

Which is why every dictator in history has tried to disarm their subjects right?

Flamingo With A Spoon Productions

09-29-2008, 12:44 PM

Ever dictator in history has also been against litter but don't worry if we dump our trash on the streets there will be no chance of a dictatorship ;)

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 12:45 PM

Its kinda hard to get rid of a brutal despot with empty coke cans and used condoms.

Jacob-ne-a

09-29-2008, 12:50 PM

I'd shoot somebody if they attempted to mug me and if I felt my life was in danger
That might just be the problem

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 12:52 PM

Well, I have found that debating gun control is pointless, since there are some people who are so afraid of guns that no matter how cogent or logical your argument, they will always be ruled by blind fear.

I'm not afraid of guns. You wouldn't own a gun UNLESS you were afraid of other people, so, don't go putting your troubles on me.

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 12:55 PM

That might just be the problem

How is that the problem? I didn't say that I would shoot someone if they cut me off in traffic or threw me the finger. I wouldn't shoot someone because I don't feel like working, but I still need money. I will protect my life and the lives of my friends and family.

chainedflesh

09-29-2008, 12:56 PM

I'm not afraid of guns. You wouldn't own a gun UNLESS you were afraid of other people, so, don't go putting your troubles on me.

I use mine for target shooting and hunting.

You wouldn't automatically assume that they were for use against people if you weren't afraid of them. It is your trouble.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 01:07 PM

I use mine for target shooting and hunting.

You wouldn't automatically assume that they were for use against people if you weren't afraid of them. It is your trouble.

Guns ARE used for that purpose more than any other purpose. You just proliferate them for pointless reasons.

chainedflesh

09-29-2008, 01:20 PM

Guns ARE used for that purpose more than any other purpose. You just proliferate them for pointless reasons.

Uhhhh.... I don't know what you have been smoking but it must be GREAT.

Guns are used more for legal sporting than for crimes by magnitudes.

You say that my reasons for owning guns are pointless, I say that statement is just as valid as saying filmmaking is pointless. In other words it just isn't true.

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 01:44 PM

This (http://www.expressandstar.com/2008/09/29/two-shot-in-high-street-horror/) happened last night. Yep, our harsh firearms laws really keep weapons out of the hands of criminals...

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 01:47 PM

Uhhhh.... I don't know what you have been smoking but it must be GREAT.

Guns are used more for legal sporting than for crimes by magnitudes.

You say that my reasons for owning guns are pointless, I say that statement is just as valid as saying filmmaking is pointless. In other words it just isn't true.

That's foolish and you know it. The difference between a camera and a gun is cameras don't kill people. So, I don't think having them around is directly going to hurt anyone. Cameras are also used as a medium through which to create art. Guns are not.

Did I ever say for crimes? No. I was referring to people who arm themselves against other people. And there are WAYYY more of them. Criminals, Cops, Military, Regular Folk, Terrorists, etc.

God forbid you have to give up sport hunting.

elscottomagnifico

09-29-2008, 01:48 PM

Its kinda hard to get rid of a brutal despot with empty coke cans and used condoms.
Macgyver could do it. Throw in a couple paper clips and he'd be a one man army.

Honestly though, gun control is ineffective in preventing gun crimes. Take D.C. for instance, which had a handgun ban for 30 years (up until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional recently). Did D.C. have a lower crime rate during that time?

The answer is no. Violent crimes actually peaked during the gun control (it isn't just gun crime, but overall violent crime - so not an exact science, but still fairly straight forward).

Criminals will get ahold of guns regardless of laws. They can go to a neighboring area/state with lower gun control, buy them from a local dealer or get them from outside the country (harder to do, but it happens). I'm not saying that everyone should carry a gun and have good ol' fashion wild west shoot outs because traffic was a bitch today. Everyone should have the opportunity to purchase and own a gun if they wish to do so (background checks and records are necessary though).

Concealed weapons and open carried weapons should be available to everyone, but strictly as licenses/permits (everyone can't be walking around with a gun and a possible trigger finger issue) - you'd have to go to be gun educated and evaluated as to whether you are capable of being responsible with a gun around town (if the person running the class feels anything strange about a person, they should be dropped from the group and not allowed to get a permit - it should be available, but not as easy as getting a drivers license).

elscottomagnifico

09-29-2008, 01:54 PM

That's foolish and you know it. The difference between a camera and a gun is cameras don't kill people. So, I don't think having them around is directly going to hurt anyone. Cameras are also used as a medium through which to create art. Guns are not.

Did I ever say for crimes? No. I was referring to people who arm themselves against other people. And there are WAYYY more of them. Criminals, Cops, Military, Regular Folk, Terrorists, etc.Anything can kill someone. Sure, a camera isn't a typical murder weapon, but piss a psycho off enough while he's shooting some footage and you very well may have your skull caved in by a camera. Before guns there were swords, knives, clubs, rocks, fists, etc. No one object "kills people" (until sentient robots are created, I'll give you that) - the person holding the object makes a choice to kill a person (regardless of the object they use).

Having a gun around won't directly hurt anyone, but the ignorance of the danger of it can. Everyone should have to take a class before owning a gun (at the least), so as to make sure that they are at least taken somewhat seriously.

And have you ever seen lethal weapon? Mel Gibson's character shoots a happy face into a target - it's archaic and simple, but art nonetheless (one could argue).

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 01:56 PM

This (http://www.expressandstar.com/2008/09/29/two-shot-in-high-street-horror/) happened last night. Yep, our harsh firearms laws really keep weapons out of the hands of criminals...

Do you have any respect for dead people or do you just use them as tools to prove your point?

Where does it say these people wanted to own guns? You don't know them, so, don't shove your beliefs into their story. It's disrespectful, and frankly, you make me sick.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 01:57 PM

Anything can kill someone. Sure, a camera isn't a typical murder weapon, but piss a psycho off enough while he's shooting some footage and you very well may have your skull caved in by a camera. Before guns there were swords, knives, clubs, rocks, fists, etc. No one object "kills people" (until sentient robots are created, I'll give you that) - the person holding the object makes a choice to kill a person (regardless of the object they use).

Having a gun around won't directly hurt anyone, but the ignorance of the danger of it can. Everyone should have to take a class before owning a gun (at the least), so as to make sure that they are at least taken somewhat seriously.

Tell me something a gun does other than destroy and you might have a point.

At least with all the weapons which preceded the gun, you at least had a chance to fight back...even with your bare hands. Guns are a cheap way of fighting.

And have you ever seen lethal weapon? Mel Gibson's character shoots a happy face into a target - it's archaic and simple, but art nonetheless (one could argue).

Yes, if one wants to argue for the sake of arguing, but doesn't actually have a reason or a logistical end in mind.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 02:08 PM

Tell me something a gun does other than destroy and you might have a point.

Sporting purposes, Hunting purposes, self-defense purposes, etc.

But of course, guns in the first place don't simply "destroy". I mean approximately 2 million crimes are prevented every year by civilians simply brandishing guns, without any bullet fired, and no one hurt.

Also, if someone is shot, they don't simply die. There are far more places to shoot someone and they NOT die, than places you can shoot someone that will actually kill them.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 02:10 PM

At least with all the weapons which preceded the gun, you at least had a chance to fight back...even with your bare hands. Guns are a cheap way of fighting.

If it's the difference between surviving or being killed, I don't care how cheap or unfair my gun is.

It's a matter of LIVING. I'll be as cheap and unfair as necessary if it means protecting myself or people I care about.

The Gun is an equalizer, now the weak can fight on an equal level with the strong.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 02:10 PM

Sporting purposes, Hunting purposes, self-defense purposes, etc.

But of course, guns in the first place don't simply "destroy". I mean approximately 2 million crimes are prevented every year by civilians simply brandishing guns, without any bullet fired, and no one hurt.

Also, if someone is shot, they don't simply die. There are far more places to shoot someone and they NOT die, than places you can shoot someone that will actually kill them.

Other than using a gun to ward people off (which could be done with a fake gun), all your other points are examples of destruction...it's not like injuries from guns can't be horrifying, even if they don't cause death.

NOTE: Being a mod is tough, I went to quote you and accidentally edited your post!

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 02:13 PM

It's a matter of LIVING. I'll be as cheap and unfair as necessary if it means protecting myself or people I care about

And that is why the cycle continues.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 02:16 PM

Other than using a gun to ward people off (which could be done with a fake gun), all your other points are examples of destruction.

NOTE: Being a mod is tough, I went to quote you and accidentally edited your post!

If I am hunting, and I shoot and kill something, that isn't a matter of simple destruction. If I use that meat to feed myself or my family, that is a matter of creation, that's the food chain.

As for skeet shooting, or precision shooting, and other shooting games and competitive sports, I don't think anyone could see those as destruction anymore than football is simply "destruction". It's a game, it's an art form, it's something bigger than the surface level activity.

And if someone tries to stab me, and I shoot them in the arm, who cares if that's an act of "destruction" (very localized destruction that the man will recover from), I mean it can save my life.

Also, the idea of using a fake gun to protect yourself, I think is a terrible idea, what happens if someone calls your bluff, and you have to fire up into the air, or into the ground to prove yourself? Or if they are so wonked out that they don't care that you have a gun?

WesScog

09-29-2008, 02:22 PM

And that is why the cycle continues.

Or perhaps why the cycle is dropping through the bottom of the floor.

With the massive increase in the concealed carry permits given out in the last 30 years, violent crime rates have dropped through the floor.

The current violent crime rates are a minuscule fraction of what they were 30 or 20 years ago.

I mean there are of course other things that people have attributed to this, such as welfare reform, improved policing, and programs to improve the standard of inner city education, and reduce drop-out rates.

And while I can't prove any correlation between increased gun ownership rates, and the simultaneous decrease in violent crime, in my personal experience they are connected, and more guns have not, in the very least, inflamed the situation. .

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 02:32 PM

If I am hunting, and I shoot and kill something, that isn't a matter of simple destruction. If I use that meat to feed myself or my family, that is a matter of creation, that's the food chain.

There are plenty of other ways to kill an animal; there was a time before guns.

As for skeet shooting, or precision shooting, and other shooting games and competitive sports, I don't think anyone could see those as destruction anymore than football is simply "destruction". It's a game, it's an art form, it's something bigger than the surface level activity.

They are unnecessary. The negatives outweigh the positives. The same cannot be said for football or videocameras.

And if someone tries to stab me, and I shoot them in the arm, who cares if that's an act of "destruction" (very localized destruction that the man will recover from), I mean it can save my life.

That's a perfect scenario. The truth is it rarely happens like that. But you could just as easily use martial arts as a less dangerous and perhaps more effective form of self defense.

Also, the idea of using a fake gun to protect yourself, I think is a terrible idea, what happens if someone calls your bluff, and you have to fire up into the air, or into the ground to prove yourself? Or if they are so wonked out that they don't care that you have a gun?

If you have enough time to prove you have a real gun, I'm sure you have enough time to kick this guys ass.

Todd

09-29-2008, 02:32 PM

Guns can be representative in nature. They dont have to be used at all, except to represent an individual's separation from a governing body, and moreso, that the individual has the right to make choices for his or her self. They represent that a governing body does not make choices for the individual, but choice is made the other way around.

Personally, I feel the issue has nothing to do with defense, violence, crime or the prevention thereof, sporting, or any other surface excuse to be for or against such an issue. Its solely about rights of the individual, and the American power of choice. Destroying the American power of choice is destroying what is fundamentally America.

I would fight just as strongly against a proposal to remove the rights to wear argyle orange socks with plaid purple pants. An atrocity of an existence, yes, but still, the individual has the right to choose to own such an adornment or not.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 02:36 PM

Or perhaps why the cycle is dropping through the bottom of the floor.

With the massive increase in the concealed carry permits given out in the last 30 years, violent crime rates have dropped through the floor.

The current violent crime rates are a minuscule fraction of what they were 30 or 20 years ago.

I mean there are of course other things that people have attributed to this, such as welfare reform, improved policing, and programs to improve the standard of inner city education, and reduce drop-out rates.

And while I can't prove any correlation between increased gun ownership rates, and the simultaneous decrease in violent crime, in my personal experience they are connected, and more guns have not, in the very least, inflamed the situation. .

Yes, and imagine if the situation here in America turns sour. Let's say we get stuck in an unending war and our economy takes a huge plummet. Having tons of people running around at a time like that with guns is just stupid.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 02:37 PM

Guns can be representative in nature. They dont have to be used at all, except to represent an individual's separation from a governing body, and moreso, that the individual has the right to make choices for his or her self. They represent that a governing body does not make choices for the individual, but choice is made the other way around.

You don't need a gun to prove that.

Look at the people who have stuck to the man the most. MLK Jr., Gandhi, John Lennon, Jesus...all these dudes did it without resorting to guns or violence.

If more people realized that they could do that, LESS people would become dependent on guns. Adding more guns to the equation won't make it better and I really can't believe there are people on here that honestly believe this to be a solution.

Do you want your children growing up in a world where it's necessary to carry a gun to stay alive?

WesScog

09-29-2008, 02:43 PM

There are plenty of other ways to kill an animal; there was a time before guns.

Yes, but guns are one of the simplest and cheapest ways for an individual to kill an animal. People shouldn't have to step backwards and make their lives more difficult so other people MIGHT feel safer.

They are unnecessary. The negatives outweigh the positives. The same cannot be said for football or videocameras.

Approximately 2 million crimes prevented is far far more than the total amount of crimes committed with guns.

That's a perfect scenario. The truth is it rarely happens like that. But you could just as easily use martial arts as a less dangerous and perhaps more effective form of self defense.

Against someone with a knife? No thank you.

If you have enough time to prove you have a real gun, I'm sure you have enough time to kick this guys ass.

Unless the guy is bigger than me, and better trained. I mean highly unlikely, but if the guy has a weapon, I am going to have a problem, it's POSSIBLY I could disarm him, but most likely I will fail, and then die.

And I don't like the idea of dying, my obligation in any kind of self-defense situation is to survive by whatever means necessary, everything else is secondary.

AaronHeld

09-29-2008, 02:43 PM

I have never owned a gun and probably never will. I know of too many cases of parents who kept them at home and ended up having their kids find them and kill themselves. So, that's not reason enough for me.

There needs to be responsibility, it needs to be locked up and out of reach of children, i would consider the parents who don't lock up their weapons criminals because if you have kids or if someone robs you, you can be charged with a crime if your gun is used or at least will have a hard time saying it wasn't you. even with concealed weapons it needs to be concealed, it can be easy to scare people if you have your gun in view of everyone, you need to be responsible to own a gun. guns don't kill people, people kill people!

WesScog

09-29-2008, 02:44 PM

Yes, and imagine if the situation here in America turns sour. Let's say we get stuck in an unending war and our economy takes a huge plummet. Having tons of people running around at a time like that with guns is just stupid.

Why? If social order breaks down, it'll be up to the individual to defend himself.

Not to mention a similar kind of event resulted in the American Revolution, so perhaps what emerges from such a situation (if it really collapses) won't be all bad.

Todd

09-29-2008, 02:46 PM

Youve (Steve...sorry im slow to post) missed the point entirely. The issue is not about guns themselves, its about rights. My previous post also raised another point that no one seems to want to address - stripping the serfs of their rights to bear arms is one of the first steps towards totalitarianisms many forms. History repeats itself, and alas, the human race continuously fails to heed its past mistakes.

So all in all, the more power we give our government over us, the sooner we kiss goodbye all things that have separated our system of government from those (governments) less evolved. Compromising on the 2nd amendment is a massive step backwards in political ideology and thinking. Its regressive. What comes next, quartering of troops in the name of some moral and patriotic appeal? Heck, with what has happened during this current presidential campaign, were already (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF_OzzUlCwE) seeing our (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/republican-national-convention-riot) rights to peaceably assemble disappear without defense (http://justin.tumblr.com/post/48573402/marco-this-is-the-raw-footage-of-the-st-paul).

I am in no hurry to engage in "socio-political de-evolvement."

WesScog

09-29-2008, 02:47 PM

If more people realized that they could do that, LESS people would become dependent on guns. Adding more guns to the equation won't make it better and I really can't believe there are people on here that honestly believe this to be a solution.

Do you want your children growing up in a world where it's necessary to carry a gun to stay alive?

It was a solution to the foundation of our nation. We didn't sit around and wait for the British to give us our freedom, we snatched it away from the jaws of a monarchy that was ready and willing to stomp our ideas of democracy into the the ground.

More people have been killed by governments in the 20th century than anything else.

So excuse me if I think that they don't necessarily need a monopoly on force.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 02:48 PM

Why? If social order breaks down, it'll be up to the individual to defend himself.

Not to mention a similar kind of event resulted in the American Revolution, so perhaps what emerges from such a situation (if it really collapses) won't be all bad.

LOL, I don't want to be put into a situation where I'm surrounded by tons of people with guns and nothing to lose by firing them. The country is also many, many, many, many, many, many, many times larger than it was in 1776.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 02:50 PM

And many many many times overdue for a revolution.

AaronHeld

09-29-2008, 02:50 PM

You don't need a gun to prove that.

Look at the people who have stuck to the man the most. MLK Jr., Gandhi, John Lennon, Jesus...all these dudes did it without resorting to guns or violence.

If more people realized that they could do that, LESS people would become dependent on guns. Adding more guns to the equation won't make it better and I really can't believe there are people on here that honestly believe this to be a solution.

Do you want your children growing up in a world where it's necessary to carry a gun to stay alive?

violence won't end with gun control they will only start doing crimes with other objects, you can't blame guns for violence, anythings can be a weapon, just because it was used for horrible things, can't even begin to mention all bad situations guns were in they can't be the blame only the violent people holding them!

I am all for peace, anti-war, I personally wouldn't carry a gun unless i lived in a city or place with a lot of violence, and i don't hunt, i grew up around guns, and i support the need for guns for self-defense and protection agaisnt a broken government, or invading countries.

Spleg

09-29-2008, 02:50 PM

This (http://www.expressandstar.com/2008/09/29/two-shot-in-high-street-horror/) happened last night. Yep, our harsh firearms laws really keep weapons out of the hands of criminals...
Arguments, plus alcohol, plus guns is an explosive mixture, and in a place such as the UK where carrying a weapon is illegal this sort of event is very rare. However, if everyone had a concealed gun, occurrence would likely increase dramatically. For instance, in the US, there are on average 5x more gun homicides per 100,000 population than in the UK.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 02:53 PM

And many many many times overdue for a revolution.

Why does it have to be violent?

WesScog

09-29-2008, 02:53 PM

Arguments, plus alcohol, plus guns is an explosive mixture, and in a place such as the UK where carrying a weapon is illegal this sort of event is very rare. However, if everyone had a concealed gun, occurrence would likely increase dramatically. For instance, in the US, there are on average 5x more gun homicides per 100,000 population than in the UK.

The vast majority of which are committed by criminals, against other criminals, utilizing illegally obtained firearms.

Remove all of those, and we are almost on levels equal to the UK.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 02:55 PM

Why does it have to be violent?

Because the government has shown a reluctance to change otherwise.

Also, i'd rather have guns and it not get violent, rather than it get violent and not have guns. Having guns are an insurance policy, not a statement of what will happen.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 02:56 PM

If anyone here believes violence solves any situation, other than momentary problems (which just makes larger problems worse), I recommend exploring this show (http://hotzone.yahoo.com/) and purchasing the book (http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Zone-Year-Twenty-Wars/dp/0061228753/).

AaronHeld

09-29-2008, 02:57 PM

doesn't seem like anyone's doing it a peaceful way or any way at all, let sit back and wait for obama!....yeahhh

WesScog

09-29-2008, 02:57 PM

Violence solved the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War 2. Wars and Violence have ended the Monarchy, freed the Slaves, and defeated Fascism.

Todd

09-29-2008, 02:58 PM

Also, are all of those who claim gun control will alleviate violence aware of the amount of such weapons produced and sold on a (daily/monthly) yearly basis? Are you aware how easy it is to acquire weapons on the black market? Are you aware that gun control is going to have a similar effect as that of prohibition in the 30s? Guns will be no more difficult for criminals to acquire than they are now. In fact, they may be easier to acquire, as all the large weapons manufacturers may have a surplus to get rid of. The only people without guns with be those whom are not criminals, those of us who believe in proper procedure to engage in such operations and acquisitions.

So, in fearing a breakdown of social order (as you should, given I strongly state that history often repeats itself), do you realize that gun control ensures that only criminals have access to guns?

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 03:00 PM

The vast majority of which are committed by criminals, against other criminals, utilizing illegally obtained firearms.

Remove all of those, and we are almost on levels equal to the UK.

Yeah that. Also bear in mind that in the US suicides and accidents are counted amongst gun crime statistics, where as in the UK they are not.

Also, noone died in last nights shooting. I just find it very interesting that this thread started not 24 hours after there was a shooting in a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 03:01 PM

Also, are all of those who claim gun control will alleviate violence aware of the amount of such weapons produced and sold on a (daily/monthly) yearly basis? Are you aware how easy it is to acquire weapons on the black market? Are you aware that gun control is going to have a similar effect as that of prohibition in the 30s? Guns will be no more difficult for criminals to acquire than they are now. In fact, they may be easier to acquire, as all the large weapons manufacturers may have a surplus to get rid of.

So, in fearing a breakdown of social order (as you should, given I strongly state that history often repeats itself), do you realize that gun control ensures that only criminals have access to guns?

That depends on the approach taken to gun control. Why are there so many weapons on the black market and how do we stop THAT?

Spleg

09-29-2008, 03:03 PM

Yeah that. Also bear in mind that in the US suicides and accidents are counted amongst gun crime, where as in the UK they are not.
The source I referenced was of gun murders per 100,000.

Todd

09-29-2008, 03:07 PM

Become world police and force everyone into a united fascist totalitarian state!

If you would like to surrender (our) individual rights, prepare to enforce your system with fear and violence of your own.

What is to stop a 3rd world country from buying a mass of arms from the USA (which happens every day), and then selling them to tribal leaders within their own country, who sells them to insurgent leaders in foreign countries, who sell them in unregulated black market sales around the world?

Force. No room for democracy here.

I see this as an undesirable solution. Id prefer to maintain my own rights, and not have my chance of making a bad decision babysat and forced away.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 03:09 PM

DocHoliday8403

09-29-2008, 03:13 PM

I am on of the people that turned the realistic gun thread into a debate my bad...

I have my conceal and carry license but I don't carry my gun around everywhere I go...I'm not that paranoid:paranoid: but I do like that I have the option to carry it if I ever feel the need too.

In regards to the classes that you have to take they are very detailed and if you pay attention they do help to properly inform you on gun safety, storage and handling. If you are a private citizen in order to conceal and carry you must take these classes it is not an option.

Also in regards to the background check you cannot lie on the forms because each person is subejct to an FBI background check and if the person does not pass the background check they are denied purchase of the gun.

If a person has the intentions to commit a crime then they will find a means to acquire a weapon which will more than likely be acquired illegally because it will be far more easier for them to get it.

On a lighter note...
I don't know about all of you but when the zombie apocalypse hits I will be thankful for all of the guns that I own and that will be the time when people who don't own guns will be thankful for the people that do.:D

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 03:13 PM

Violence solved the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War 2. Wars and Violence have ended the Monarchy, freed the Slaves, and defeated Fascism.

And yet, here we are now....somehow, in a less stable world. THANK YOU GUNS AND VIOLENCE!

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 03:15 PM

In regards to the classes that you have to take they are very detailed and if you pay attention they do help to properly inform you on gun safety, storage and handling.

And if you don't pay attention?

Todd

09-29-2008, 03:16 PM

but I do like that I have the option to carry it if I ever feel the need too.

Summed my several paragraphs up in one sentence. I can not stress the dangers of surrendering the American power of choice more.

uzi1951

09-29-2008, 03:16 PM

That depends on the approach taken to gun control. Why are there so many weapons on the black market and how do we stop THAT?

You don't stop it, it's the black market. Guns aren't the only thing for sale on the black market.

When I was held at gun point by 2 masked guys with guns and made to open a safe where they made off with $100,000 worth of silver bars, you can bet I got my concealed carry permit right quick after that.

And I DO carry everyday, every, every, everyday.

Old saying, I WOULD RATHER BE JUDGED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6.

AaronHeld

09-29-2008, 03:17 PM

And yet, here we are now....somehow, in a less stable world. THANK YOU GUNS AND VIOLENCE!

violence and stupidity! We don't want everyday citizen to pick up a gun we want more trained and experienced people carrying guns for protection.

there one thing more powerful/deadlier then a gun it's money!

DocHoliday8403

09-29-2008, 03:18 PM

And if you don't pay attention?

you do not pass the class are and are not certified to conceal and carry the weapon.

EnipProductions

09-29-2008, 03:19 PM

If everyone has a gun on them it causes shootouts.

The majority of muggers won't carry guns because there not legal, many don't want to take the risk! I have been told this by many people.

Also, you think your safe just becuaseyour carring a gun ? Its like me carring a knife and saying "I am now safe". If someone tries to mug you with a gun and you try and get yours, were back in the wild west with the fastest finger first.

When will people learn, Guns don't solve problems, they make them.

chainedflesh

09-29-2008, 03:23 PM

That's foolish and you know it. The difference between a camera and a gun is cameras don't kill people. So, I don't think having them around is directly going to hurt anyone. Cameras are also used as a medium through which to create art. Guns are not.

You said it was pointless, and I say it is not. The activity istself is on par with filmmaking in terms of personal meaning. According to the logic you promote, then martial arts should be banned because it can be used to hurt people, and baseeball should be banned because bats can be used to hurt someone, because according to you the activities are pointless.

Did I ever say for crimes? No. I was referring to people who arm themselves against other people. And there are WAYYY more of them. Criminals, Cops, Military, Regular Folk, Terrorists, etc.

Noooo... there are approximately 15 million hunting permits issued per year, and there are approximately 4.7 million guns sold per year. Do the math.

http://www.fws.gov/news/newsreleases/R9/A2D9B201-0350-4BD4-A73477A70A25FC69.html?CFID=4953030&CFTOKEN=86571869

http://www.nssf.org/share/BP2/2006/060506.htm?AoI=media

God forbid you have to give up sport hunting.

Sport hunting is different than what I (and most other hunters) do. I hunt for food, and I don't take trophies.

I do sport shoot for targets though.

As for the rest of your fear ridden way of looking at things, in terms of self defense... why should a woman have to give up her right to defend herrself from a rapist? Why should an old man have to give up his right to defend himself from a home invasion robbery? Why should others give up their right to defend themselves to give you a seecurity blanket?

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 03:25 PM

You don't stop it, it's the black market. Guns aren't the only thing for sale on the black market.

When I was held at gun point by 2 masked guys with guns and made to open a safe where they made off with $100,000 worth of silver bars, you can bet I got my concealed carry permit right quick after that.

And I DO carry everyday, every, every, everyday.

Old saying, I WOULD RATHER BE JUDGED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6.

Dude, are you kidding me? If you pull out a gun on two dudes with a gun...you're dead. Considering, you didn't get harmed in this situation...whipping out a gun would just make things worse.

DocHoliday8403

09-29-2008, 03:28 PM

Also, you think your safe just becuaseyour carring a gun ? Its like me carring a knife and saying "I am now safe". If someone tries to mug you with a gun and you try and get yours, were back in the wild west with the fastest finger first.

No one is saying that you are guaranteed safety when carrying a gun...a gun is more like a security blanket, it makes you feel safe but doesn't necessarily make you safe.

But that does not mean that carrying a gun will not help you out. If I was in a situation where someone had a gun on me and I just happened to be carrying that day would I try and do something to take control of the situation?

Yes I would because first you do not know what the intentions of the criminal brandishing the weapon are there is no guaranteeing that I am walking out of there alive if I do not do something. Also if the situation took place in an area with several people whether I knew them or not I would not want to see any of them hurt so, If I knew that there was a possibility that I could stop the criminal I would.

chainedflesh

09-29-2008, 03:28 PM

And yet, here we are now....somehow, in a less stable world. THANK YOU GUNS AND VIOLENCE!

Guns were banned in Britain and yet their use in violent crimes skyrocketed after the ban.
http://www.gunblast.com/British_Crime_Soars.htm

On the other hand the rise violent crimes using knives has also increased dramatically since the ban.

This is what happens when you take away individuals ability to defend themselves.

EnipProductions

09-29-2008, 03:29 PM

Uzi unless you can whip out a pistol out and aim and fire it off before either one pulls the trigger your dead.
Old saying, I would rather have lost my money then lost my life ;)

Chainedflesh, Guns in Britian are very minute. I know people who have them but purly for protection of there home.

Guns have been banned for about 40 years or something, Knife crime has only just started rising thanks to the youths today and there gang mentality

uzi1951

09-29-2008, 03:31 PM

Dude, are you kidding me? If you pull out a gun on two dudes with a gun...you're dead. Considering, you didn't get harmed in this situation...whipping out a gun would just make things worse.

Dude you weren't there. You don't know how it went down. You weren't told to lay face down on the floor with the security guards, (which I wouldn't do, I knelt on one knee and planned on if they were going to start shooting people in the back of the head, I planned on at least being a moving target).

I knew I could bet my last dollar that this would be your stance on guns.

DocHoliday8403

09-29-2008, 03:31 PM

Uzi unless you can whip out a pistol out and aim and fire it off before either one pulls the trigger your dead.

Old saying, I would rather have lost my money then lost my life ;)

But given that situation you do not know whether you are going to get out of that situation alive. Thankfully he did but I am sure at the time that it happened that was not what he was thinking.

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 03:32 PM

The majority of muggers won't carry guns because there not legal, many don't want to take the risk! I have been told this by many people.
And mugging is legal? Self defense is legal.

EnipProductions

09-29-2008, 03:35 PM

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 03:36 PM

You said it was pointless, and I say it is not. The activity istself is on par with filmmaking in terms of personal meaning. According to the logic you promote, then martial arts should be banned because it can be used to hurt people, and baseeball should be banned because bats can be used to hurt someone, because according to you the activities are pointless.

Yea, alright man...when cameras, baseball bats, and martial arts are considered serious threats in the hands of criminals on a global level...I'll think about what you're saying. Until then, it's in one ear and out the other.

Noooo... there are approximately 15 million hunting permits issued per year, and there are approximately 4.7 million guns sold per year. Do the math.

http://www.fws.gov/news/newsreleases/R9/A2D9B201-0350-4BD4-A73477A70A25FC69.html?CFID=4953030&CFTOKEN=86571869

http://www.nssf.org/share/BP2/2006/060506.htm?AoI=media

That is the most inconclusive evidence I've ever seen brought up. You don't even take into account how long a hunting license lasts for.

Sport hunting is different than what I (and most other hunters) do. I hunt for food, and I don't take trophies.

I do sport shoot for targets though.

Well, good for you. But as I stated before...you don't need a gun to kill an animal. And if you're going to be like Wes and bring up it being the easiest way...then why don't you just go buy your meat?

As for the rest of your fear ridden way of looking at things, in terms of self defense... why should a woman have to give up her right to defend herrself from a rapist? Why should an old man have to give up his right to defend himself from a home invasion robbery? Why should others give up their right to defend themselves to give you a seecurity blanket?

My fear ridden way of looking at things? You're the one who has to carry a gun.

uzi1951

09-29-2008, 03:36 PM

But given that situation you do not know whether you are going to get out of that situation alive. Thankfully he did but I am sure at the time that it happened that was not what he was thinking.

Thank you.

I planned that if it does happen again, my chances are much better.

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 03:38 PM

Would there really be a rise? Or would muggers be a little more cautious because citizens would then be able to arm themselves?

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 03:38 PM

Dude you weren't there. You don't know how it went down. You weren't told to lay face down on the floor with the security guards, (which I wouldn't do, I knelt on one knee and planned on if they were going to start shooting people in the back of the head, I planned on at least being a moving target).

I'm not saying that isn't a bad situation to be in. But you certainly would've been killed if you tried to shoot them.

I knew I could bet my last dollar that this would be your stance on guns.

Should I be impressed?

EnipProductions

09-29-2008, 03:38 PM

Good luck. Pull a gun on a criminal whos already pointing one at you and I garrenty you will be shot first.

Sonny there would be a horific rise. You don't know your gonna get muged, until you are being muged by that time the guns in your face and its too late to get yours.

If someone is following me, I can't just turn round and point a gun at him and claim he was going to mug me.

Unless you can see in the future, you never know who is going to mug you.

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 03:39 PM

Yes but Muggers don't carry them BECAUSE if they are caught the sentence is 10 years and thats just for carrying it! If you mug someone with your fists its about 2 and with a knife its about 6 if you mug someone with a gun i think its 12 years

See what I am getting at, If guns became legal here in the UK, there would be such a rise in violence it would be catastropic. People would put down there knifes and pick up guns insted.

I would rather be mugged with a knife then a gun anyday

Funny you should mention that as when guns were legal here without restrictions of any kind, the violent crime rate was practically non existent. There's a story of police having to ask nearby citizens for their revolvers so they can chase down a pair of anarchists, with many other armed citizens helping in the chase. I'll try and dig it up.

EnipProductions

09-29-2008, 03:46 PM

WHen there were legal, back then we didn't have the sorts of kids we have to day.

I just can't see why you need to carry a gun on your person. Like I said, If guns were banned from being carried and had harsh sentence behind them only the hardcore criminals would keep carring them and I doubt you would be able to shoot one of them anyway

uzi1951

09-29-2008, 03:48 PM

Maybe some of us live 3 minutes from our gun range and practice, as opposed to some knucklehead that might not know Jack about his weapon. The gunmen split up to capture other employees and herd us into a caged area. I was left alone long enough that if I were armed I could have easily picked them off, or give it one hell of a try. Or I might have gotten other people shot. I want the chance to save myself, thank you. They did discharge their weapons as they left to keep us on the floor. So they were loaded.
Steve should you be impressed, no, by no means.

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 03:51 PM

And thats the trouble. Hardcore criminals are carrying them and using them to shoot people for seemingly no reason whatsoever.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 03:54 PM

Or I might have gotten other people shot.

See, and I would rather live then have someone like you try to act like a hero and end up getting me killed. Especially, in a case like that when no one was harmed.

EnipProductions

09-29-2008, 03:54 PM

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 03:56 PM

EnipProductions

09-29-2008, 03:57 PM

So if one guy shoots one of out say 4 bank robbers, it going to make the situation better... hmm think not. Will it make the situation worst... think so.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 03:58 PM

And thats the trouble. Hardcore criminals are carrying them and using them to shoot people for seemingly no reason whatsoever.

I'm sure they do have reasons. Perhaps you just don't want to accept them.

uzi1951

09-29-2008, 04:00 PM

So if one guy shoots one of out say 4 bank robbers, it going to make the situation better... hmm think not. Will it make the situation worst... think so.

OK, let's all wear sundresses and be static targets for the bad guys.

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 04:00 PM

You pick one off, what about the other one. Is he just going to stand there. No, he'll either shootback at shoot somebody in the crowd.

I think it would be a stupid approch. Most bankrobberies only afew get shot within the bank. The majority of them are what we call "Hero's" who try to save the day but meet there fate. When it would of just been easier to let the robbers get away with the cash and nobody hopefully gets hurt.

Keygee, there are only afew hardcore criminals around in the UK carring guns. You having a gun isn't going to make it any worse for them, it will just make it worse for you

I'm not going to put much stock in hoping those armed, hardened criminals robbing the place are going to be merciful.

Why will it make it worse for me? I'm already disarmed and surrounded by criminals who wouldn't think twice about killing me for a fiver. How is me being armed and able to defend myself going to be worse than calling 999 and tackling my assailant with a viciously sharp and deadly crime number?

I'm sure they do have reasons. Perhaps you just don't want to accept them.

What reason could somebody have for shooting a 9 year old out riding his bike with his dad?

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 04:03 PM

So if one guy shoots one of out say 4 bank robbers, it going to make the situation better... hmm think not. Will it make the situation worst... think so.
All I know is, legally, I can shoot someone in self defense. In my handgun class, the instructor said that most muggers won't shoot against a victim who is carrying for the simple fact that if the mugger shoots, it now becomes attempted murder. If the victim shoots, it is called self defense, and the mugger will still see prison time for attempted robbery and for carrying a deadly weapon.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 04:03 PM

I'm not going to put much stock in hoping those armed, hardened criminals robbing the place are going to be merciful.

Why will it make it worse for me? I'm disarmed and surrounded by criminals who wouldn't think twice about killing me for a fiver. How is me being armed and able to defend myself going to be worse than calling 999 and tackling my assailant with a viciously sharp and deadly crime number?

Because dude, you're opening up a can of worms that you as one person with a gun cannot feasibly handle...unless you're James Bond. And, no offense, but I doubt you are.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 04:11 PM

What reason could somebody have for shooting a 9 year old out riding his bike with his dad?

Why are you asking me? But if you want an answer, I'll make one up for you.

The FBI goes into the home of a drug dealer and kills his entire family, except they realize after the slaughter, the father isn't there and there are no drugs in the apartment. They plant some cocaine under the floor boards and claim the father used his family to push drugs (a lie to cover up their horrible mistake).

The father had a 9 year old son and the only reason he sold drugs was to get enough money to get his son an education, so, he could leave the projects.

Disillusioned, the drug dealer easily gets his hands on a gun. He researches into the personal life of the FBI agent who killed his family and covered up the crime, finding out that he too has a son.

With his gun in hand, he pays a visit to the FBI agent's neighborhood. He sees the father pushing his son on a bike. He aims carefully and pulls the trigger.

JackLawrence

09-29-2008, 04:30 PM

The second amendment sounds ridiculous

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 04:37 PM

Why are you asking me? But if you want an answer, I'll make one up for you.

The FBI goes into the home of a drug dealer and kills his entire family, except they realize after the slaughter, the father isn't there and there are no drugs in the apartment. They plant some cocaine under the floor boards and claim the father used his family to push drugs (a lie to cover up their horrible mistake).

The father had a 9 year old son and the only reason he sold drugs was to get enough money to get his son an education, so, he could leave the projects.

Disillusioned, the drug dealer easily gets his hands on a gun. He researches into the personal life of the FBI agent who killed his family and covered up the crime, finding out that he too has a son.

With his gun in hand, he pays a visit to the FBI agent's neighborhood. He sees the father pushing his son on a bike. He aims carefully and pulls the trigger.
Sounds like The Punisher to me.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 04:37 PM

The second amendment sounds ridiculous

Well, I surely wouldn't want it gone right now. If more were done about the black market, then I'd be down with changing things.

uzi1951

09-29-2008, 04:38 PM

The second amendment sounds ridiculous

Wes, where are you?

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 04:38 PM

Sounds like The Punisher to me.

Haha, it was kind of a backwards version of "The Professional".

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 04:38 PM

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

sonnyfromda02

09-29-2008, 04:39 PM

Haha, it was kind of a backwards version of "The Professional".
Wow, I can't believe I didn't catch that. The Professional is one of my favorite movies.

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 04:40 PM

Because dude, you're opening up a can of worms that you as one person with a gun cannot feasibly handle...unless you're James Bond. And, no offense, but I doubt you are.

None of these people (http://www.totse.com/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/armcit.html) are James Bond but their guns kept them and others safe.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 04:41 PM

You all want more guns in the hands of everyday Americans. That way we can defend ourselves against those dreaded "bad guys" we hear so much about (and of course, you are a "good guy").

Now, this isn't too different than the Cold War. Russia gathered a large arsenal of nuclear weapons to defend against America, the "bad guys". Unfortunately, for Russia, America came out on top and Russia didn't fare so well. What has happened since? Their nuclear materials have gotten onto the black market and are in danger of entering the hands of those crazy Iranians!

Do you see how this relates to our situation? By adding more guns to the mix, you don't make anyone or anything safer. In fact, you make it more dangerous. How about you try and solve a problem instead of just feeding it to satisfy it for another day?

More nukes created MAD, which resulted in a nuclear exchange not occurring. The fact that we are still here, is testament to the effectiveness of the Mexican Stand-off approach to weapons control.

Eventually everyone gets sick of holding up the guns, and everyones arms get tired. We stocked up massive amounts of weapons, and so we never fired them at one another, now that the war is ending, we're reducing out stockpiles.

The equalization of destruction and force had a positive effect on the situation.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 04:43 PM

And yet, here we are now....somehow, in a less stable world. THANK YOU GUNS AND VIOLENCE!

Actually, it depends on when you start counting. If you start counting from a century ago, the world is far safer, and far more stable than a century ago.

Things can get worse over a 5 or 10 year period, but if you stretch out the graph far enough, and look at the big picture, taking decades, or centuries into account, the world is getting steadily better.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 04:43 PM

And if you don't pay attention?

You don't get your license.

speekerphone

09-29-2008, 04:48 PM

If you want a gun, then get a friken gun.....

as long if you don't shoot me

JackLawrence

09-29-2008, 04:50 PM

More nukes created MAD, which resulted in a nuclear exchange not occurring. The fact that we are still here, is testament to the effectiveness of the Mexican Stand-off approach to weapons control.

Eventually everyone gets sick of holding up the guns, and everyones arms get tired. We stocked up massive amounts of weapons, and so we never fired them at one another, now that the war is ending, we're reducing out stockpiles.

The equalization of destruction and force had a positive effect on the situation.

Thats not Wargames taught me

WesScog

09-29-2008, 04:52 PM

If everyone has a gun on them it causes shootouts.

Unequivocally untrue. As I have stated previously, as gun ownership rates have increased, violent crime has DRAMATICALLY decreased.

The majority of muggers won't carry guns because there not legal, many don't want to take the risk! I have been told this by many people.

Not true. They are criminals, they are breaking the law, gun laws are meaningless to them, especially when they can get a pistol from Mexico with the serial number filed off for 30 bucks (and have to pay 10 times that just in taxes to get a legal pistol).

Also, you think your safe just becuaseyour carring a gun ? Its like me carring a knife and saying "I am now safe". If someone tries to mug you with a gun and you try and get yours, were back in the wild west with the fastest finger first.

It makes me safer. With a gun I have the potential to defend myself on equal grounds with a mugger. Without a gun, it's a matter of who is willing to be more brutal, and who is luckier.

If I don't have a gun, and he has a gun, it becomes a matter of me being extraordinarily lucky, and being able to get close enough to maybe grab it.

But then I have to worry about getting shot during the struggle.

With a gun, all I have to do is pull, and duck and have a gun on him before he knows whats going on.

FAR easier than having to engage in greco-roman wrestling with a gun going off between us while we scuffle.

When will people learn, Guns don't solve problems, they make them.

Wrong. Guns are a tool, nothing more.

HUMANS cause problems, HUMANS solve problems. The guns are just a means of solving or causing problems.

The Nazis killed far more of my relatives without the use of firearms, than with the use of firearms.

Yet one of the first things they did was take guns away from Jews, because when we have guns, you get the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Without guns, you get a far cleaner action of genocide.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 04:56 PM

Well, good for you. But as I stated before...you don't need a gun to kill an animal. And if you're going to be like Wes and bring up it being the easiest way...then why don't you just go buy your meat?

Why should you be forced to change how you live because society dictates that they don't like it?

If I don't want to eat processed meat that's been genetically engineered, and been sprayed with chemicals, and sitting in a freezer for a month, I shouldn't have to eat it.

I should be allowed to hunt my own food, and me hunting shouldn't be more difficult simply because some people are paranoid that i'll use my gun to hurt someone. (Even though hunting rifles are almost unknown in utilization during crimes.)

WesScog

09-29-2008, 04:58 PM

Because dude, you're opening up a can of worms that you as one person with a gun cannot feasibly handle...unless you're James Bond. And, no offense, but I doubt you are.

With a gun, it makes the situation easier to handle, than without a gun.

It's a matter of equalization, having a gun makes things a little more fair.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 04:59 PM

The second amendment sounds ridiculous

How so?

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 04:59 PM

None of these people (http://www.totse.com/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/armcit.html) are James Bond but their guns kept them and others safe.

You're right, only one of them was. If you can copy and paste which one it was in here, I'll be able to see that you actually read what you respond to.

uzi1951

09-29-2008, 05:03 PM

"God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal,"

uzi1951

09-29-2008, 05:08 PM

With a gun, it makes the situation easier to handle, than without a gun.

It's a matter of equalization, having a gun makes things a little more fair.

I think Wes is really BRAINIAC in disguise!

tambrm1016

09-29-2008, 05:23 PM

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 05:25 PM

Actually, it depends on when you start counting. If you start counting from a century ago, the world is far safer, and far more stable than a century ago.

Things can get worse over a 5 or 10 year period, but if you stretch out the graph far enough, and look at the big picture, taking decades, or centuries into account, the world is getting steadily better.

No, because centuries ago they couldn't nuke each other.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 05:27 PM

With a gun, it makes the situation easier to handle, than without a gun.

It's a matter of equalization, having a gun makes things a little more fair.

That doesn't make them safer.

tambrm1016

09-29-2008, 05:29 PM

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 05:31 PM

Wow, I go to sleep and when I wake up I see that people have really taken an interest in this topic.

Here's a little more fuel for the fire

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

--------------------------------------------------

As much as I don't agree with guns, I think that is horrible what they did.

Though I find it ironic when people say, "I had my Bible and I had my gun".

WesScog

09-29-2008, 05:32 PM

That doesn't make them safer.

Yes it does. Without a gun, he has no recourse, he is simply a victim, with a gun he has an option to respond, he can protect himself rather than be helpless against the face of brutality.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 05:36 PM

Steve, you might find this interesting.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

I own the book, but instead of asking people to go out and buy it, this interview sums up the conclusions of the research.

Enjoy!!

It seemed like it was going somewhere until the guy went into that "good guys" vs. "bad guys" spiel. Which isn't how the world really is.

tambrm1016

09-29-2008, 05:37 PM

Here's some more information that you all might find interesting.

http://books.google.com/books?id=koJWw1r5l2MC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=Point+Blank:+Guns+and+Violence+in+America&source=web&ots=qF7xPg1Zaz&sig=c0g94vg4a3fxaeAghsUSGKAThX8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA64,M1

WesScog

09-29-2008, 05:39 PM

No, because centuries ago they couldn't nuke each other.

And? Nukes have killed a very small number of people, if you take into consideration the amount of people that have been killed in wars.

More people died in First Jewish-Roman War, than died from the Use of Nukes.

The Roman Legion killed MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people during their centuries of operation, without the use of a single modern explosive, or nuclear weapon, or even a simple handgun.

Nukes have IMPROVED world stability, the United States and the Soviet Union backed down, because they couldn't hold up the Mexican Stand-off, we eventually dropped our hands.

We've still got nukes, but we don't have nearly as many, and mutually assured destruction made sure that we never fired them at one another.

It made things safer, because we both didn't want to die.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 05:40 PM

Though I find it ironic when people say, "I had my Bible and I had my gun".

Why?

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 05:40 PM

Yes it does. Without a gun, he has no recourse, he is simply a victim, with a gun he has an option to respond, he can protect himself rather than be helpless against the face of brutality.

Yes, but guess what? The robbers never shot at anyone. And if he shot at them, he would've likely made things worse; possibly injuring himself or other innocent people.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 05:44 PM

Yes, but guess what? The robbers never shot at anyone. And if he shot at them, he would've likely made things worse; possibly injuring himself or other innocent people.

As far as I am aware, he was alone. Also, there are ways to minimize the possibility of injuring by-standers (which are rare anyway, it hardly every happens).

Not to mention, they escaped, they were criminals who showed they were willing to murder for cash, who knows who else they hurt, or what other terrible things they've done now that they have a budget.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 05:46 PM

Why?

It's kind of contradictory to how he lived his life, and I would imagine anyone with a Bible would be trying to live their life like Jesus.

Nonsensical studios

09-29-2008, 05:49 PM

Unequivocally untrue. As I have stated previously, as gun ownership rates have increased, violent crime has DRAMATICALLY decreased.

Ever read the Book Freakonomics?

You'll see that gun ownership isn't causing crime to decrease.

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 05:52 PM

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 05:56 PM

Yes, I see the word "sword"...mind adding a little context?

chainedflesh

09-29-2008, 06:08 PM

Yea, alright man...when cameras, baseball bats, and martial arts are considered serious threats in the hands of criminals on a global level...I'll think about what you're saying. Until then, it's in one ear and out the other.

A camera can be as dangerous as a gun in the right hands. That is why in dictatorships all media is state run.

If you think a baseball bat is not a serious threat when someone is swinging it at you, then you need to have your head examined.

And "in one ear, out the other" is the problem, you are only willing to see one half of the equation.

That is the most inconclusive evidence I've ever seen brought up. You don't even take into account how long a hunting license lasts for.

It lasts for one season and since there is one season per year I think it is pretty conclusive. It is only inconclusive if you are being willfully obtuse.

Well, good for you. But as I stated before...you don't need a gun to kill an animal. And if you're going to be like Wes and bring up it being the easiest way...then why don't you just go buy your meat?

Let me know when you find a supermarket that stocks deer steaks.

My fear ridden way of looking at things? You're the one who has to carry a gun.

And you are the one who is so terrified of them that you want to take away my constitutional rights. How am I trying to take away your right to not carry a gun?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Benjamin Franklin.

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 06:18 PM

Yes, I see the word "sword"...mind adding a little context?

Remember when the bible was written, the sword was the pinnacle of weapons development. An axe can be used to cut down trees, a bow can be used for hunting, a spear likewise but a sword only has one purpose, war. Luke 22:36 suggests the Christ told his followers they should sell the clothes on their back to buy weapons. Sword in this context is interchangeable with pretty much any weaponry of the day.

elscottomagnifico

09-29-2008, 06:19 PM

Yea, alright man...when cameras, baseball bats, and martial arts are considered serious threats in the hands of criminals on a global level...I'll think about what you're saying. Until then, it's in one ear and out the other.
This is the main problem with many of these types of discussions. Everyone refuses to open their mind to proof/opinions of others - trying not only to refute their beliefs, but to discredit them (or the ol' "nanana I'm not listening" routine). No extreme (take away all guns vs. everyone carries guns for example) is the answer, it's somewhere in the middle.

Everyone should not be simply allowed to carry guns on the street - that is asking for trouble. Everyone, however, should be given the option to own a gun if they choose to do so. The ability to carry the gun in public should be controlled and permitted, such that everyone must be approved to carry the gun (anyone that gives off one negative vibe or seems dangerous is denied).

Before guns there were knives, swords, stones and fists. There were village burnings and massacres prior to nuclear weapons. There is always something that will make things unequal (saying guns are the easy way out in a fight is foolish - someone is always stronger, a better fighter, has more friends, has a bigger stick, etc.). If a guy is going to shoot you, you won't be able to just say "hey pal, let's make it fisticuffs. Weapons are totally unfair" - a buddy of mine tried that and got the crap knocked out of him with a pipe (another one got stabbed - lucky for them, they were both able to get away, just a bit thrashed - I know you'll try to argue that if it had been a gun they'd be dead, but the idea is that, no matter what, there is always a weapon making it unfair).

A camera in the hand of a desperate or psychotic person does alot of damage. Think about the videos of beheadings posted by terrorist groups for example. The sword kills him, but the video itself harms others around the world (mentally or emotionly, but it's still harm).

happyhands man

09-29-2008, 06:20 PM

another reason to vote for McCain, if there was a law that kept us from having guns my family would have a big problem, but my dads a cop so he could still legally own his.
but i think this is more of a decision a state should make, a person that lives in Texas or Florida might have better reasons to carry guns than someone who lives in the north

WesScog

09-29-2008, 06:35 PM

It's kind of contradictory to how he lived his life, and I would imagine anyone with a Bible would be trying to live their life like Jesus.

The bible is a big book.

As a Jew, I have a moral obligation to self-defense. A Jew who doesn't defend himself against the violence of others is not living his way according to the book. Slow to violence, but when your life is on the line, you react with necessary force.

Jesus on the other hand, said himself for his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword.

No where does it say that violence is never permissible, but Christians who live as Christ, should take any and all precautions to defeat someone trying to hurt them non-lethally.

It says you should love your enemies, it never says that you should surrender to them.

I can still feel love and compassion towards someone, yet fight them to prevent them from hurting me.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 06:38 PM

Ever read the Book Freakonomics?

You'll see that gun ownership isn't causing crime to decrease.

They never determine what is or is not causing crime to decrease in that book.

Their ideas are just as much conjecture as anyone elses, but the fact remains that more guns have not lead to an increase in crime, it simply hasn't happened.

Flamekebab

09-29-2008, 08:21 PM

I'm getting tired of debating anything on this forum. I want to be more tolerant but as hard as I try, every debate on here reminds me why I hold a dim view of America and its citizens.

With regards to this debate - I'm glad I live in a country where firearms are illegal. If they became legal I would consider moving. I don't want to live in a country where I could realistically get shot or would need to shoot anyone.

I disagree with Christianity, republicanism, creationism, democracy and capitalism to some extent. Many of these seem to be fundamental to the attitudes of so many Americans. The fact that this influences my daily life irritates me, well, no, it makes me angry. This world where there is this utterly illogical fear of terrorism that has been so catalysed by US-led blunders makes me angry.

The fact that so many of you are so egotistical and selfish that the very idea of sharing a portion of your income to make a community better offends frightens me as to your nations future.

Hopefully when you eventually tear each other apart the rest of the world won't be dragged into your squabbles, but I fear we will eventually.

There are no honest, innocent people. There are frightened people, angry people, impulsive people and drunk people. The idea that any one of them could be armed does not make me feel safe. It makes me think that I have to walk on eggshells around people lest I anger them and they resort to violence.
It makes me think that threats and emotion will be the first port of call, disregarding logic, rationale or reason.

It's about having faith though, isn't it?
If you believe hard enough it'll be true!

Ah, the American dream.

No, I haven't been drinking, I've just had enough of this bullshit.

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 08:26 PM

I don't want to live in a country where I could realistically get shot

Better get on the next plane out then because it can happen here now. Its two years old admittedly but according to this Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/sep/03/youthjustice.gunviolence) article, Home Office figures claim 30 firearms offenses occur every day in the UK.

For a run down of current British gun law, AR15.com (http://www.ar15.com/content/page.html?id=235) has a pretty good section.

Flamekebab

09-29-2008, 08:32 PM

30 firearms offences per day amongst a population of approximately 60 million seems fairly reasonable to me.

When I say "realistically" I mean actually likely, you know, somewhere in the probability of being hit by a car crossing the street. Not as in "in theory, if you're in a rough part of Glasgow".

What are the laws like in New Zealand?
Things seemed fairly safe when I was there last.

I wasn't joking or using it as rhetoric, I honestly don't want to live in a society where it's normal and acceptable for people to be carrying loaded firearms about their person on a daily basis.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 08:39 PM

A camera can be as dangerous as a gun in the right hands. That is why in dictatorships all media is state run.

See, but we are talking about the harm of "direct" violence.

And "in one ear, out the other" is the problem, you are only willing to see one half of the equation.

No, you just refuse to accept that guns are made to hurt living objects and video cameras are not.

It lasts for one season and since there is one season per year I think it is pretty conclusive. It is only inconclusive if you are being willfully obtuse.

Hmmm, and how long does a gun last for? If guns were only good for 4 years, there would already be more guns than hunting licenses. But I have a feeling guns last a while.

Let me know when you find a supermarket that stocks deer steaks.

I honestly could care less if you get your deer or not. Kill it with your bare hands if you want it so bad.

And you are the one who is so terrified of them that you want to take away my constitutional rights. How am I trying to take away your right to not carry a gun?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Benjamin Franklin.

If I had my way, I would not live around people like you. But anytime people try to made advancements in their areas to save their communities from gun violence. The NRA comes in and pours dollars and dollars to stop it. And look what is happening in Philly, they are simply trying to pass legislature to stop assult rifles and limit people to 1 gun a month! Are you kidding me!?!?!? You people need to rethink your priorities.

Yes, use an anti-fascist quote on me, cool! Wouldn't it be easier just to shoot me?

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 08:46 PM

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 08:53 PM

A camera in the hand of a desperate or psychotic person does alot of damage. Think about the videos of beheadings posted by terrorist groups for example. The sword kills him, but the video itself harms others around the world (mentally or emotionly, but it's still harm).

My point is if you were to get two groups of people together, one out to get rid of guns because of the amount of people they hurt and another to get rid of cameras because of the inherent danger that comes with; I think the turnout would be drastically different.

And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt, considering the dude talk about using cameras to kill people.

Are you really going to say I'm being close minded by not giving a proper to ear to someone claiming guns are like baseball bats or video cameras? You've got to be kidding me. Everyone knows what guns are for and everyone knows what bats and cameras are for. That's a cheap point.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 09:02 PM

I'll be sure to let all those families who's survival depends on hunting know they now have to chase down and strangle their dinner with their bare hands before they can eat. Yes, such people do still exist in the United States.

The Native Americans didn't seem to have much trouble getting the job done with the bow & arrow, or perhaps they be interested in developing a green thumb? Yes, such people who survive simply by growing their own food still exist in the United States.

The point was made by someone who brought up not being able to buy deer at a grocery. Don't try to add different meaning to it to save face.

uzi1951

09-29-2008, 09:08 PM

http://video.aol.com/video/sex-offender-killed-in-teens-bedroom/2258938

Outlaw everyones hands while you are at it.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 09:15 PM

I'm getting tired of debating anything on this forum. I want to be more tolerant but as hard as I try, every debate on here reminds me why I hold a dim view of America and its citizens.

What in this discussion has led to a reinforcement of a "dim view" of America and its citizens? I've seen a lot of rather polite discussion on a rather complicated topic, that has been discussed rather soberly by almost everyone involved.

Nothing in this thread has struck me as particularly wrong or "stupid". I mean even though I disagree with some of Steve's ideas, I still understand exactly where he is coming from, and it doesn't change my perception of Steve at all.

Steve is a great guy who I respect a lot, and who I love talking with because he always comes up with great questions, and is a good debater.

I believe that even in a disagreement, you can still hold your opponent to a high regard. It's not Steve's idea that I judge, so much as WHY.

If you have a good explanation or logic, I can respect ALMOST any idea even if I disagree with it.

With regards to this debate - I'm glad I live in a country where firearms are illegal. If they became legal I would consider moving. I don't want to live in a country where I could realistically get shot or would need to shoot anyone.The chances of getting shot is less than getting into a car crash, it's not a legitimate concern for the vast majority of Americans, especially if they are not involved with organized crime. It's not a realistic concern to be worried about getting shot. Even here in Mississippi which has some of the highest gun ownership rates in the Union, I RARELY see guns, yet we have almost no real gun crime.

Like I said, not something to be particularly worried about.

I disagree with Christianity,"Christianity" is a rather broad topic to disagree with. Do you mean any and all Christianity? Or any and all Christian concepts? If you're against all Christian concepts (which are shared by almost every major religion and moral system) then you're against the sanctity of human life, you're anti-pacifist, anti-peace, anti-love, anti-forgiveness. So it's a hard idea to say you are simply Anti-Christian in all respects.

republicanism,Why? Republics have been a traditionally great way to organize a government. What is wrong with republicanism?

creationism,Well do you mean any and all creationism? Because I mean creation has been proven. SOMETHING Created the Universe.

Whether it was some kind of "Inanimate" Quantum Fluctuation that created a singularity point that the Universe exploded from, or if it was some kind of meta-universal intelligence, we don't know.

But we know that SOMETHING created the Universe since it's here right now. It's really just a matter of trying to conceptualize exactly WHAT created the universe, and whether it's "alive" or just a force of nature.

democracyWhy? Democracy has traditionally been one of the best ways to organize a government. Giving power to the people to make decisions about how things should be handled I think is a good idea.

I mean, I understand being against PURE Democracy on a Macroscopic scale, with Nations as large as us, a PURE Democracy is simply unrealistic, we can't get everyone together to vote on EVERYTHING, that's why there is a republican element to our democracy.

and capitalism to some extent.Why? Capitalism has created a great deal of wealth and opportunity in the world.

Generally, when most people say they are against "Capitalism" (which is a VERY BROAD concept), they are thinking of being against CORPORATISM. Which in of itself is a system unique from just Capitalism.

Capitalism in it's purest form is allowing people to make their own livelihood, and to leave them alone to do so.

Let me explain a little. Pure Capitalism is 10 farmers sitting in a market, and all trying to sell their produce to people. And since they want to get the most people buying their produce, they try to sell it as cheaply as possible. And they are not bothered, they are allowed to do so.

Corporatism is 3 supermarkets owned by multi-national corporations who mass produce goods to try to sell them for even cheaper than the 10 farmers could, and who follow a standard of economics of scale to accomplish mass production and mass sell.

They are both involved in selling for profit, BUT that is where the similarities end. The thing is Corporations can be owned, controlled, and directed by governments, either by direct ownership, or by regulation.

The Nazis had "Corporate-like" organizations controlling almost everything, but they are Anti-Capitalist, since they believed everything should be centralized and directed for the betterment of the National and Racial identity of Germany.

And in modern times, Venezuela national corporations own and operate all of the nations Oil supplies, and Venezuela under Hugo Chavez has been unabashedly anti-Capitalist.

So you see, Corporatism and Capitalism don't go hand-in-hand, and are unique organizational structures.

Being for the Free-Market does not mean being for Corporations, and sometimes it means being AGAINST some corporations.

Many of these seem to be fundamental to the attitudes of so many Americans.Well a lot of these ideas have been very important to our culture identity.

The fact that this influences my daily life irritates me, well, no, it makes me angry. This world where there is this utterly illogical fear of terrorism that has been so catalysed by US-led blunders makes me angry.Living in a country that suffered the 7/7 attacks you think that a fear of terrorism is completely illogical? But you think a fear of legal gun owners is logical?

I'm not saying Terrorism is something to be particularly worried about, i'm more likely to die from HIV or Ebola than Terrorism. But you have to admit that it exists and it's there and we can do something about it.

And many American's disagree with much of whats happened overseas, so how does the actions of the Government reflect on your perception of the American people, even when so many of them agree with you?

The fact that so many of you are so egotistical and selfish that the very idea of sharing a portion of your income to make a community better offends frightens me as to your nations future.Who has said anything about being unwilling to share their income? As far as I am aware this was a gun control debate thread, not a thread about Welfare.

But while we're on the topic, I have nothing at all against sharing and helping people, I just think I can do a much better job at it than the government can.

Government programs are notorious for waste and corruption, but me using the 10 dollars they were going to take out of my paycheck, and buying a sandwich for a homeless guy, no waste, and no corruption, I directly help someone.

Or even better yet, I can take the money and donate it directly to a local shelter, whose effects I can directly see, instead of getting it taken and it going to a program whose effectiveness I have no knowledge of.

Also, being able to directly help people is far more satisfying, since I can see the difference i'm making.

Frankly, I think people should be allowed to make a choice. Either tax me directly, or allow me to do community service on my own time, and give me the money back.

If more people were offered tax-based incentives to help out in their community, I think you'd see a lot more done to help people, than bloated bureaucracies who stumble around and have no idea what specific communities need.

Localized community organizations can help out far more efficiently than government level agencies, simply because they know exactly what their community needs most, while a larger organization is simply passing down mandates, they are to big and to disconnected to know what specific communities need on a local level.

Hopefully when you eventually tear each other apart the rest of the world won't be dragged into your squabbles, but I fear we will eventually.Wow, that is a bitter, and frankly disgusting viewpoint. You don't care if we murder one another, you just don't want to be involved?

How "caring".

There are no honest, innocent people.What a load of crock. While it's true that i've never met someone who has NEVER lied, or has NEVER done anything wrong, the vast majority of mankind are good people, even with their faults and flaws.

Having lied once doesn't make you a dishonest person, and having done a few bad things doesn't make you guilty forever.

There are frightened people, angry people, impulsive people and drunk people. The idea that any one of them could be armed does not make me feel safe.I think that is a very misanthropic perspective that is disconnected from reality, and not informed with the knowledge of being in communities with high gun ownership rates.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 09:15 PM

It makes me think that I have to walk on eggshells around people lest I anger them and they resort to violence.Maybe that's not a bad thing? Maybe if everybody showed a little extra restraint and politness we'd have less problems in the world.

It makes me think that threats and emotion will be the first port of call, disregarding logic, rationale or reason.In my personal experience, that's not true at all.

It's about having faith though, isn't it?Not really. I have personal experiences backing up my ideas and perspectives on the matter.

If you believe hard enough it'll be true!

Ah, the American dream.It's not a matter of simple belief, but also of WORK. You can't just hold a dream, you've got to aim for it and fight for it.

No, I haven't been drinking, I've just had enough of this bullshit.I don't think anything in this thread particularly deserves the label of "bullshit", even the points that I disagree with.

Maybe you should just take a break from the thread, perhaps?

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 09:23 PM

The chances of getting shot is less than getting into a car crash

Well, considering I've been in 3 major car accidents (2 not my fault, 1 mine), I would say it is a legitimate concern.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 09:25 PM

No, you just refuse to accept that guns are made to hurt living objects and video cameras are not.

Guns aren't only utilized to hurt living things though. Clay Pigeons and Target Boards aren't alive (unless i've been lied to, and Clay Pigons and Target Boards just happen to have an extraordinarily high tolerance for pain.

I honestly could care less if you get your deer or not. Kill it with your bare hands if you want it so bad.So people should only be allowed to eat what they can get from corporations?

People should have a right to obtain their own food as long as they aren't hurting anyone else, and they should be allowed to eat what they what, when they want, how they want it, and they shouldn't have to be told that they have to have this become more difficult for them, simply because someone is afraid of their utilization of their firearm in some violent way (which is doubly rare, as I said previously, guns are hardly ever utilized in illegal ways by law abiding citizens, and hunting rifles are almost unknown in their utilization in crimes.)

So I think hunting implements are not something anyone should be concerned about.

If I had my way, I would not live around people like you. But anytime people try to made advancements in their areas to save their communities from gun violence. The NRA comes in and pours dollars and dollars to stop it. And look what is happening in Philly, they are simply trying to pass legislature to stop assult rifles and limit people to 1 gun a month! Are you kidding me!?!?!? You people need to rethink your priorities.

Yes, use an anti-fascist quote on me, cool! Wouldn't it be easier just to shoot me?Yes, it would be far easier. But frankly, that would be the cheap way out wouldn't it?

It might be easy to shoot a man, but to defend your viewpoints with logic and calmness, that is the tricky business sir.

The thing is, fascists and authoritarian like controlling people, and they like having a monopoly on force.

I believe that a duality should exist, the government cannot be trusted with a monopoly on the ability to utilize force, they need to be balanced with an armed populace or there is nothing to check them.

Everything must be checks and balances, it's the only way to mitigate any one side dominating and controlling everything. When the people have absolute control, you get mob rule and chaos, when the government has absolute control you get totalitarianism. Neither is ideal for a stable society.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 09:29 PM

Well, considering I've been in 3 major car accidents (2 not my fault, 1 mine), I would say it is a legitimate concern.

Car crashes are, yes. I just don't think cars should be illegal because a drunk person can kill a dozen people after he dozes off behind the wheel.

The world is a complicated place, and banning everything that is dangerous isn't going to help anything.

It just creates a black market, and fuels chaos and makes crime (and violence) worse.

But frankly, if you remove all Criminal vs. Criminal deaths, the chances of getting shot starts approaching "Chances of getting hit by Lightening" or "Eaten by Bears" numbers.

The fear of getting hit in my car doesn't stop me from driving to school, the fear of getting shot shouldn't stop someone from living their life, especially if they aren't involved in organized crime.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 09:36 PM

Guns aren't only utilized to hurt living things though. Clay Pigeons and Target Boards aren't alive (unless i've been lied to, and Clay Pigons and Target Boards just happen to have an extraordinarily high tolerance for pain.

Allow me to change my wording to make my point more clear, guns were INVENTED to harm others.

So people should only be allowed to eat what they can get from corporations?

People should have a right to obtain their own food as long as they aren't hurting anyone else, and they should be allowed to eat what they what, when they want, how they want it, and they shouldn't have to be told that they have to have this become more difficult for them, simply because someone is afraid of their utilization of their firearm in some violent way (which is doubly rare, as I said previously, guns are hardly ever utilized in illegal ways by law abiding citizens, and hunting rifles are almost unknown in their utilization in crimes.)

You don't need a gun for cattle. You don't even REALLY need a gun for any animal. And if you want to talk about guns giving equality, it sure as hell doesn't give an animal a fair chance.

The thing is, fascists and authoritarian like controlling people, and they like having a monopoly on force.

I believe that a duality should exist, the government cannot be trusted with a monopoly on the ability to utilize force, they need to be balanced with an armed populace or there is nothing to check them.

Everything must be checks and balances, it's the only way to slow down the stomping boots of control.

Well, I never said I would support revoking the 2nd amendment while the government had a monopoly on force. I never even said I want the 2nd ammendment revoked, but I do believe people in their respective communities should be able to restrict themselves to the purchase of 1 gun purchase per citizen...a month.

Flamekebab

09-29-2008, 09:37 PM

I don't recall to have claimed to be caring. I don't care if you murder each other, me caring or not caring will effectively have no bearing on your actions. Me feeling bad about something won't do anything to stop it.

I am honest though and you are quite welcome to hate me for it.

The bit about belief and faith was sarcasm. I find that a lot of people claim to believe in things but aren't willing to put their figurative money where their mouths are. To me that is lying.

I don't pretend to care so that you'll like me. I do not care about the victims of any given disaster any more than I care about the bacteria I wipe off the countertop in my kitchen. This isn't to say they're not worth caring about, but subjectively, they're meaningless to me. If I really cared I'd be sending money, blankets, whatever I could spare to them. I'm not though and so to say I care would be lying, from my point of view.

Cynical and misanthropic. Sure, why not.

As for justifying why I think democracy is a waste of time, amongst all the other things, I would, if I didn't have to sit here and type it all, knowing full well that it wouldn't change a damn thing any of you believe.

If I could speak to you, as in with my voice, so it would be easier to convey my thoughts, I would. I'm just too tired of typing up words that will be ignored.

I will say this about terrorism - statistically it's just not going to happen to any of us. If you're frightened of terrorism, you're already a victim. The goal of terror is to intimidate. If you fear terrorism, it has succeeded. I may be killed by terrorism, I probably won't, but I might, but I refuse to be frightened. It makes no sense to fear something so much when the chances are so low.

I look both ways before crossing the street though. Every time. Without fail.
Being hit by a car is a realistic danger, given the concentration of cars in Edinburgh's city centre, so I am careful.

I am already careful when talking to people in person to avoid offending them, I may not succeed, but I try. I don't think the background threat of lethal force should be what motivates me to be friendly.

I don't remember when I last met an honest person. I consider honesty very important. I am honest though, especially when it would be easier to lie. I don't want others to lie to me, although I expect them to.

Be the change you want to see.

uzi1951

09-29-2008, 09:39 PM

I'm getting tired of debating anything on this forum. I want to be more tolerant but as hard as I try, every debate on here reminds me why I hold a dim view of America and its citizens.
No, I haven't been drinking, I've just had enough of this bullshit.

Wes thanks again for keeping me from ending up like trimm. I had written a response that was fueled with emotion, not thought. Cooler heads prevail when you think first.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 09:39 PM

Car crashes are, yes. I just don't think cars should be illegal because a drunk person can kill a dozen people after he dozes off behind the wheel.

Yes, but I hardly doubt you would be against restrictions on driving while intoxicated or talking on a cell phone and driving at the same time.

WesScog

09-29-2008, 09:40 PM

To Flame: Well if you don't care about people, then why do you care if people shoot one another or not?

If you don't care, then why do you want the government to help poor people out?

WesScog

09-29-2008, 09:42 PM

Yes, but I hardly doubt you would be against restrictions on driving while intoxicated or talking on a cell phone and driving at the same time.

No, I agree with those restrictions, just like I agree with certain restrictions on firearm ownership, and severe penalties for their misuse.

But my belief that certain restrictions are allowable doesn't take away from my belief that they are an important tool in an imperfect world.

Steve Nelson

09-29-2008, 09:44 PM

No, I agree with those restrictions, just like I agree with certain restrictions on firearm ownership, and severe penalties for their misuse.

But my belief that certain restrictions are allowable doesn't take away from my belief that they are an important tool in an imperfect world.

Well, the NRA isn't quite as level headed as you are. Philly is going crazy and they're blocking legislation to restrict automatic weapons and gun-ownership-gluttony.

Mattageddon

09-29-2008, 09:47 PM

Guns aren't only utilized to hurt living things though. Clay Pigeons and Target Boards aren't alive (unless i've been lied to, and Clay Pigons and Target Boards just happen to have an extraordinarily high tolerance for pain.

If you're gonna argue the clay pidgeon and target boards agianstusing a gun to hurt a living thing... lemme ask you this... what are those things intended for? Accuracy... What good is accuracy? Bragging rights? I think not. To shoot at living things.

uzi1951

09-29-2008, 09:49 PM

happyhands man

09-29-2008, 09:51 PM

guys, even if you were to make it illegal to own a gun, there would still be people with illegal guns shooting people, so taking away the good peoples guns isnt gonna change anything

Flamekebab

09-29-2008, 09:52 PM

To Flame: Well if you don't care about people, then why do you care if people shoot one another or not?

If you don't care, then why do you want the government to help poor people out?Not what I said.

I can't change whether you murder each other or not by caring. Me believing it to be right or me believing it to be wrong will have no bearing on the situation, so why bother caring?

However, if it is something I can and want to do something about, then I will do something and will care. Caring without doing something is surely an exercise in time wasting?

Whenever I earn enough to be taxed, I don't complain that a portion of it goes to the NHS. I rarely require the services of the NHS but I know others will benefit. I myself have benefited in the past. Currently I'm not ill, but if I was, it'd be there.

I can't bring myself to start trying to explain why I feel democracy is an exercise in "who can afford the best PR campaign", but I think it indicates a small starting point that might give a few clues.

Kaygee

09-29-2008, 09:52 PM

Thats stretching it a bit isnt it? Thats like saying "Whats hurdling intended for? Bragging rights? I think not. To avoiding objects in the street after you snatch a old ladies purse"

WesScog

09-29-2008, 09:54 PM

If you're gonna argue the clay pidgeon and target boards agianstusing a gun to hurt a living thing... lemme ask you this... what are those things intended for? Accuracy... What good is accuracy? Bragging rights? I think not. To shoot at living things.

No, I would say it's DEFINITELY for bragging rights.

Same reason people compete to be the best at Tetris, or have the highest score on Pac-Man ever?

I am proud of my personal marksmanship skills, yet i've never wanted to shoot anyone who wasn't a shambling brain hungry corpse, and/or Lava Monster.

Although i'm not sure how effective bullets would be against Lava Monsters.

Mattageddon

09-29-2008, 10:30 PM

No, I would say it's DEFINITELY for bragging rights.

Same reason people compete to be the best at Tetris, or have the highest score on Pac-Man ever?

I see your point... but I must say I've never heard about anyone except the person playing getting injured or killed and I haven't heard about any injuries or deaths from stray arms flailing about and whapping the on-lookers. =P

WesScog

09-29-2008, 10:41 PM

I see your point... but I must say I've never heard about anyone except the person playing getting injured or killed and I haven't heard about any injuries or deaths from stray arms flailing about and whapping the on-lookers. =P

I can assure you that more people die in football than professional shooting.

Professional shooting competitions take safety VERY seriously, at any shooting range i've ever been to, they have been downright paranoid about it.

AaronHeld

09-29-2008, 10:47 PM

You don't need a gun for cattle. You don't even REALLY need a gun for any animal. And if you want to talk about guns giving equality, it sure as hell doesn't give an animal a fair chance.

steve if your worried about the animals getting a fair chance, or if its anything about killing an animal with a gun. how do you think you get your meat(assuming you eat meat) someone has to kill it in order for you to eat it, and it's in my opinion more brutal, they raise it up feed it when it's all ready they usually end up shooting it then slaughtering it i think that's a lot worse then if a hunter was out taking out a few squirrels a turkey or some deer, and know that most hunters will only shoot the older deer which will die off soon anyway, or squirrels/chipmunks because they are over populated up where i live so i mean if your point is that guns are violent toward animals and we should be fair and try to kill a huge ass buck with there bare hands, then that's kinda ridiculous because hunters don't kill a fraction of what farmers and slaughter houses kill for every ones precious mickey dee's!

just think hunting a deer, or any animal with a knife your most likely not gonna kill your first go, which would cause more suffering, most shots for hunters are to kill, not to let it bleed and suffer they want it to go down quick, i know it sounds sad, but its nowhere near touches how much animals are brutally killed for our meats each day.

elscottomagnifico

09-29-2008, 11:21 PM

My point is if you were to get two groups of people together, one out to get rid of guns because of the amount of people they hurt and another to get rid of cameras because of the inherent danger that comes with; I think the turnout would be drastically different.

And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt, considering the dude talk about using cameras to kill people.

Are you really going to say I'm being close minded by not giving a proper to ear to someone claiming guns are like baseball bats or video cameras? You've got to be kidding me. Everyone knows what guns are for and everyone knows what bats and cameras are for. That's a cheap point.It's not a cheap shot, as I'm arguing logically and I am not saying that you are closed minded simply because you don't think cameras, bats and guns have equivalent killability. You have just refused to see that violence exists regardless of weaponry. Unequal fights exist regardless of available technology. Getting rid of guns and nuclear weapons in a puff of smoke, so to speak, would stop gun violence and nuclear threats - yes. However, people would still kill other people (guns aren't blood thirsty or uncaring, people are). People would still pull out a knife when another person raises their fists. There have always been mass killings and slaughters (and most don't use guns - they either didn't exist or another method was cheaper. Gotta watch the bottom line when you're up to despicable acts.).

Nice that you're going for the discredit move now though (saying I'm making cheap points like I have no basis for argument - which would make you out to be the good guy, being bashed by the evil/ruthless gun supporter).

Mattageddon

09-29-2008, 11:39 PM

I can assure you that more people die in football than professional shooting.

Or some twisted combination of the two... with the porfessional part on the football... (Did you hear about the Jacksonville guy?)

WesScog

09-30-2008, 12:01 AM

I don't believe so.

Mattageddon

09-30-2008, 12:25 AM

Some loon shot a Jacksonville Jag player 14 times. It left him paralyzed from the waist down cause one of the bullets severed his spine... but that;s someone who's not level headed. There should be like... a "I'm not too fucking stupid to know not to shoot people" test. And make it incredibly hard. It would be a situational test. Like "There are hoards of the undead... there is a shot gun next you and your buddy. What do you do?"

Blast those zombified heads off
Kill yourself
Kill your buddy
Throw your buddy in to eaten by the zombies and then run away.

The correct answer would be kill the zombies becasue the other ones make you look insensitive. That's what we need. That combined with criminal background check would work wonders.

WesScog

09-30-2008, 12:36 AM

Mattageddon

09-30-2008, 01:07 AM

Well I think there need to be severe penalties for the misuse of firearms, just like the misuse of cars (drunk driving, running people over randomly, etc.).

And some kind of licensing requirements is not a bad idea, we need ways to make it more difficult for violent psychotics and criminals from obtaining firearms.

Meanwhile, they're trying to get rid of the death penalty. I say keep the death penalty.... AND as an added bonus... they have to die the same way they killed others... the law with be Theseus! So You shoot someone 14 times... you get shot 14 times. You run someone over... you get run over. Some people would pay to see that. Hello, cruel and unusual tax dollars.

Unfortunetly, no one has devised a good enough system. Either that or politicians are lazy. "It's either no guns or too many guns" seems to be their policy.

tambrm1016

09-30-2008, 05:42 AM

Here is an interesting essay written by a retired U.S. Marine that explains the logic behind those who support the right of U.S. Citizens to carry firearms for self defense. Please read it and comment.

Thank you.

The Gun is Civilization
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

EnipProductions

09-30-2008, 08:34 AM

I don't see why people cannot just keep guns on there land or somebody elses who has invited them to use them there. Why do you need to bring it into the public ?

I also think you are way to paranoid to think that having a gun next to you will make you safe. Its just fighting fire with fire.

Micheal Moore was right, some americans are pumped so full of fear that they think they need guns

sonnyfromda02

09-30-2008, 09:28 AM

I carry a gun for protection, not because I am afraid. Stating that fear is the reason to carry a gun is dumb. I've known people who were shot in drive bys, but fear did not keep me from hanging out with them, nor was it the reason I bought a gun.

Having a gun does make me feel safer. If some of you weren't, "afraid," of carrying a gun, you would notice the stride in your step getting a little bigger now that you would somewhat equal the playing field with someone attacking you.

As for baseball bats, it is illegal to carry just a baseball bat in your car. Why? Obviously, if you do not have any other baseball equipment, the intention is violence towards someone else. My friend got a ticket and his baseball bat taken away when he was pulled over for speeding since he only had the bat and no other gear.

And Enip, your argument about keeping guns on your land or anyone who has invited you to use them there, that's why we have gun laws. If a public place does not want you to carry a firearm, there is proper signing that can be put up to let the law abiding citizens know that they cannot bring weapons.

As for the laws keeping mentally unstable people from obtaining guns, they are there. When I got my license, there are questions regarding your mental stability. If you have ever taken anti-depressants or anything related to mental health, you are denied access to a firearm.

If someone who is legally carrying a firearm commits a crime with a firearm, the penalties are much more harsh for them since they have been educated on the subject.

And for anyone who brings in the Bible, you are supposed to protect yourself however possible, which is one reason I don't understand why it is illegal to carry in any house of worship.

AaronHeld

09-30-2008, 09:53 AM

That's what it should be settled at local areas, state laws. so gun owners can flock to certain states that it's legal, and the ones who want gun control go to the states or town who support gun control. but what our government and special interest do is want to ban it on a federal level, banning it from all states that just wrong, why should everyone be punished for what "criminals" have done with guns, it doesn't make sense to be yes or no for all Americans, that's not how our country is suppose to work, it's suppose to work on a state level. that's how it's been, it's how it should stay i know my dad has a hard time going into certain states with his gun, cause of gun laws.

but one thing is you cannot get rid of all the guns cause as long as there is arms makers, armies, black markets there will be guns we can't get rid of them all: this is a quote from a movie 'There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?'

guns will not go away, violence will not go away, weapons will not go away. gun control only controls the ones who obey the law! if you want to stop the killing we got make living environments better, and life better for people, and get along(dream-on), banning firearms is just taring us apart.

Todd

09-30-2008, 10:03 AM

Steve Nelson tried to shoot me while I was merely trying to recycle my juice bottles yesterday.

sonnyfromda02

09-30-2008, 10:08 AM

Steve Nelson tried to shoot me while I was merely trying to recycle my juice bottles yesterday.

HA.

That's what it should be settled at local areas, state laws. so gun owners can flock to certain states that it's legal, and the ones who want gun control go to the states or town who support gun control. but what our government and special interest do is want to ban it on a federal level, banning it from all states that just wrong, why should everyone be punished for what "criminals" have done with guns, it doesn't make sense to be yes or no for all Americans, that's not how our country is suppose to work, it's suppose to work on a state level. that's how it's been, it's how it should stay i know my dad has a hard time going into certain states with his gun, cause of gun laws.

Yeah, you have to research which states have reciprocating laws.

EnipProductions

09-30-2008, 11:06 AM

I'm glad we don't allow guns in england, god forbig what would happen if we did. Knife crime would decress, shootings would increase

Kaygee

09-30-2008, 11:21 AM

We do allow guns in England. Its just not the legal, registered guns that are doing the shootings.

Cheese Hat

09-30-2008, 11:29 AM

Kaygee

09-30-2008, 11:35 AM

You think drug dealers and gangbangers are going to drop their pieces off at a gun amnesty? Criminals dont obey the law, not matter how many of them are made. All it would do is take them out of the hands of the law abiding and leave them in the hands of thugs, murderers and deviants.

sonnyfromda02

09-30-2008, 11:37 AM

I don't know much about gun control, but since most shootings are using small arms, how would restricting small arms, but a bit more relaxed on rifles (as they are mainly used for hunting and are harder to conceal) work?

Do you mean handguns in general? Handguns come in different sizes. If you mean restricting compact and semi compact, that wouldn't really do anything. I myself carry a full size. All that would do is make a lot of females mad since females tend to like the smaller handguns to conceal in their purses. I'm not saying all females do, but a good majority of them do.

Kaygee

09-30-2008, 11:44 AM

Technically, these are handguns too
http://www.companie-of-st-george.ch/images/pictures/gun_shoot.jpg

;)

Cheese Hat

09-30-2008, 12:08 PM

Crap, well you know what I meant (I actually said small arms but that's even more inaccurate).

Flamingo With A Spoon Productions

09-30-2008, 12:14 PM

If a person has the intentions to commit a crime then they will find a means to acquire a weapon which will more than likely be acquired illegally because it will be far more easier for them to get it.

Very few crimes are planned out. Most of them are spur of the moment. If people couldn't get access to a gun straight away a lot of these crimes wouldn't be commited.

You also need to seperate what makes you patriotic and what is old fashioned. Guns were included in the amendment when America was a very unstable place, not to mention the threat of wildlife. Nowadays its kind of silly though its far from perfect it is a far safer place.

The people that own guns would never take part in a revoloution anyway its all very much "me against everyone else". If the government became a dictatorship then owning guns would make no difference, the government would still have the military.

And just for the record the government isn't some big bad boogeyman that could turn into a dictaorship in a second, the government is the people.

Kaygee

09-30-2008, 12:23 PM

The governments of the US, UK and pretty much most of the world havent been the people for a very very long time.

Flamingo With A Spoon Productions

09-30-2008, 12:26 PM

Kaygee

09-30-2008, 12:37 PM

Plenty. Police wages strike, post office wages strike, teachers strike, fuel tanker strike and undoubtedly plenty more to follow in the wake of current events.

I also cant recall ever having voted for Brown or any of his lackeys. I do however recall that he was going to call a general election until he found out the polls had shifted in favor of the Tories, after which he lost enthusiasm for the idea.

Its going to be difficult to find someone working minimum wage who can afford two Jags, a second home and eats as well a Prescott can.

And just for the record the government isn't some big bad boogeyman that could turn into a dictaorship in a second, the government is the people.

I'd also like to counter that with Kristallnacht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristalnacht#Kristallnacht_as_a_turning_point), when Nazi Germany went from simply being utter bastards to the Jews to outright murdering them them.

EnipProductions

09-30-2008, 01:18 PM

We do allow guns in England. Its just not the legal, registered guns that are doing the shootings.

We have outright banned automatic weapons and handguns

You can get shotguns but its very dificult legally, I use to own one when I lived on a farm.

There is a miniscule amount of shootings compared to stabbings, do you know why ? becuase GUNS ARE ILLEGAL

WesScog

09-30-2008, 01:31 PM

WesScog

09-30-2008, 01:40 PM

Very few crimes are planned out. Most of them are spur of the moment. If people couldn't get access to a gun straight away a lot of these crimes wouldn't be commited.

Thats not true. Even if people couldn't get guns, crimes are still committed. Even with few guns, and CCTV, London is still more dangerous than any place in Mississippi, (even out big cities), which is a place overflowing with guns.

I mean of course our entire state which is thousands of times larger than London has about a third of the population, so maybe that has something to do with it.

You also need to seperate what makes you patriotic and what is old fashioned. Guns were included in the amendment when America was a very unstable place, not to mention the threat of wildlife. Nowadays its kind of silly though its far from perfect it is a far safer place.

We were actually pretty stable back then, it was mostly the British running around trying to steal our guns so we wouldn't be able to revolt that made us include it, not the threat of crime.

The people that own guns would never take part in a revoloution anyway its all very much "me against everyone else". If the government became a dictatorship then owning guns would make no difference, the government would still have the military.

Thats one again not true, Gun owners were the ones who organized the first revolution, and most of my buddies in the military said that if they were ordered to fire on Americans, there would be mass revolts, and coups within the military, and massive defections to the "Civilian" side.

Plus, this is about apporaching equalization. Having a gun doesn't make me equal to a trained military force, but it makes me MORE EQUAL.

A dedicated guerrilla movement, utilizing "civilian" weaponry has proven time and time again that they can effectively defeat a larger better equipped military, so our guns being unequal has little to do with a revolution being successful or not.

In the end it all comes down to ideas, whose idea is more compelling.

And just for the record the government isn't some big bad boogeyman that could turn into a dictaorship in a second, the government is the people.

That's why Democide was the prevalent form of murder during the 20th century right?

The government isn't the people, the government is an entity, people change once they become part of a system, conformity messes with their heads.

I don't care if it's unlikely that the government is going to commit another holocaust, the first one was pretty damned unlikely to, no one thought that something like that could happen in an "enlightened" age.

Better to be prepared and nothing occur, than for something to occur and you be unprepared, that's how you end up a victim, Sir.

WesScog

09-30-2008, 01:41 PM

Not true. The problem is that so very few people vote then grumble about what state the government is in. They would never go out of the way to do anything about it. How many protest marches have there been about the state of the economy?

Several.

It's untrue that people aren't involved, the people of the United States are just as, if not more involved than any other nation.

The reason our voting numbers are so low, is that unlikely other countries, our voting period is very very short, while in nations where they get over 80% the voting lasts for a full weekend, or even for a full week.

DocHoliday8403

09-30-2008, 01:56 PM

Technically, these are handguns too
http://www.companie-of-st-george.ch/images/pictures/gun_shoot.jpg

;)

Sorry but you are wrong the above pictures is of a rifle not a handgun

A handgun is a firearm designed to be held in the hand when used. This characteristic differentiates handguns as a general class of firearms from their larger counterparts: long guns such as rifles and shotguns.

a long gun is designed to be fired braced against the shoulder. So the picture above displays the use of long guns (rifles), not handguns.

Kaygee

09-30-2008, 02:12 PM

Edit: Double post

Kaygee

09-30-2008, 02:17 PM

We have outright banned automatic weapons and handguns

You can get shotguns but its very dificult legally, I use to own one when I lived on a farm.

There is a miniscule amount of shootings compared to stabbings, do you know why ? becuase GUNS ARE ILLEGAL

Handguns can still be legally owned, however they require a firearms liscense and have to be kept at the shooting club you wish to use it at. Handguns for self defense are also issued, but only to government agents and others deemed to be at risk from terrorism (the fact we're all at risk from terrorism apparently didn't cross their minds). The best part however is that some of those deemd at risk from terror are former terrorists themselves. Oh yeah. If you happen to be a ex IRA member who squealed on your mates, the British government will fall over themselves to get you a handgun.

Bolt action rifles and semi-automatic rifles are also available with a firearms liscense though they can only be chambered in the puny .22 .

The two men in my last picture are armed with "handgonnes". Hench why I said technically. In the modern age they would be considered rifles but back then any gun you didnt need a pair of wheels to move was considered a handgun.

Wra1th13

09-30-2008, 03:33 PM

I personally think that handguns and ALL guns should be allowed. I mean there are plenty of arsonists (spelling?) and we dont make matches illegal.

tambrm1016

09-30-2008, 05:14 PM

Here is a strange little story that happened in 2006.......

(Had this happened in California the ACLU would be out in force lining up to sue this heroic little 11 year old girl.)

Shotgun preteen vs. Illegal Alien home Invaders

NRA files
Butte Montana
November 5, 2006

Home invasion gone wrong for criminals.

Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez 23 and Enrico Garza 26, probably
believed they would easily overpower a home alone 11 year old Patricia
Harrington after her father had left their two story home.

It seems the two crooks never learned two things, they were in Montana
and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.
Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the
front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and
grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.

Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the
first to catch a near point blank blast of buck shot from the 11 year
olds knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and
genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to
the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to
death before medical help could arrive.

It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber
handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year
old David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab wounds to the
chest.

tambrm1016

09-30-2008, 05:22 PM

GUN HISTORY

Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history.

Something to think about...
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. >From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. >From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th

Century because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Aus tralia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!)

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

Note, that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has
changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a
loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such,monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president,governors or other politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

*Note- These statistics are not recent. This is old information. For current statistics in Australia more research would be required

tambrm1016

09-30-2008, 05:31 PM

More interesting information for everyone interested in this topic

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/12/shooting_at_new_1.php

Kaygee

09-30-2008, 05:52 PM

Whilst we're chucking links around, I've found A Human Right (http://www.a-human-right.com/) and Gunfacts (http://www.gunfacts.info/) to be invaluable.

Fisherking

09-30-2008, 06:14 PM

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

[blah, blah, blah]

*Note- These statistics are not recent. This is old information. For current statistics in Australia more research would be required

Hell, more research should be required for those claims. Snopes link (http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp), fully cited, including links to the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

This claim is bullshit.

The NRA paint a false picture of firearms and firearm ownership in Australia, and I resent the use of my country in your propaganda.

The funny part? I'm actually a strong supporter of individual gun ownership. It pisses me off, however, that the NRA and other pro-gun organisations in America have to distort, spin and down-right lie to make there case.

You reflect poorly on your case, as your argument consists of nothing more than regurgitating information (and dis-information) from pro-gun groups. Argue based on the constitution, argue based on the need for greater liberty, argue based on history... but for god's sake, don't regurgitate NRA talking-points verbatum. You obviously didn't put any effort into it, and so shouldn't expect people to put any effort in their response.

uzi1951

09-30-2008, 06:40 PM

Shotgun preteen vs. Illegal Alien home Invaders

NRA files

Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez 23 and Enrico Garza 26, probably
believed they would easily overpower a home alone 11 year old Patricia
Harrington after her father had left their two story home.

Steves gonna get mad about the illegal aliens, they are just here to prey on 11 year old girls to feed their families.
You KNOW I had to say it.

chainedflesh

10-01-2008, 12:26 AM

See, but we are talking about the harm of "direct" violence.[quote]

So direct harming someone is somehow worse than inciting others to do harm?

[quote]No, you just refuse to accept that guns are made to hurt living objects and video cameras are not.

It's not about what they are made for, it is about how they are used. In the end they are inanimate objects that neeed a person to give them purpose.

Hmmm, and how long does a gun last for? If guns were only good for 4 years, there would already be more guns than hunting licenses. But I have a feeling guns last a while.

They do, and they also wear out and get resold. Hunting licenses can't be resold. Some people buy two per year, some are for new hunters etc. You are insinuating that the majority of firearms are bought by maniacal killers. Which just is not true.

I honestly could care less if you get your deer or not. Kill it with your bare hands if you want it so bad.

I'll do that the day you forge your own kitchen knives and build your own electronics from scratch. If the technology is there, it is stupid not to use it.

If I had my way, I would not live around people like you. But anytime people try to made advancements in their areas to save their communities from gun violence. The NRA comes in and pours dollars and dollars to stop it. And look what is happening in Philly, they are simply trying to pass legislature to stop assult rifles and limit people to 1 gun a month! Are you kidding me!?!?!? You people need to rethink your priorities.

I'm not NRA, I just believe that a man or woman has the right to be able to defend themselves with the tools that pose the least risk to themselves, and that a person who wants to use them for sporting and hunting purposes should be able to. I fail to see what is wrong with that.

Yes, use an anti-fascist quote on me, cool! Wouldn't it be easier just to shoot me?

If that is the way you think of things, then I am glad that I am the one who owns guns and not you. You see I understand them, and respect them and know exactly what they can do. It is why I would never use one on another human unless my life was on the line. But after seeing what you just typed it makes me wonder if you are not just projecting your own fear of how you would handle gun ownership onto others.

You are starting to make me afraid for you.

chainedflesh

10-01-2008, 12:29 AM

The Native Americans didn't seem to have much trouble getting the job done with the bow & arrow, or perhaps they be interested in developing a green thumb? Yes, such people who survive simply by growing their own food still exist in the United States.

The point was made by someone who brought up not being able to buy deer at a grocery. Don't try to add different meaning to it to save face.

Yes, and they adopted firearms whenever they could get a hold of them.

Yet they still could not aquire them in any significant numbers. You see what that got them.

professor devlin

10-01-2008, 01:06 AM

Anyone who is for gun control, is against personal freedom, and personal responsibility.

I encourage everyone to take their anti-gun friends outside, and ask them about their right to defend themselves. Then punch the living shit out of them. Ask them again about their right to defend themselves. Then when they go to hit you, explain to them by their rationale they would be wrong, because they don't have a right to defend themselves.

Then knock their teeth out. You're doing your friend a favor by bringing them around to your way of thinking. The only polite society, is an armed society. It's also an EQUAL society.

EnipProductions

10-01-2008, 04:02 AM

. The only polite society, is an armed society. It's also an EQUAL society.

Let me correct you on that.

The only dangerous society, is an armed society. It's also a PARANOID society.

Yes, you do have the right to defene yourself but shooting somebody is too far. Two wrongs rarly equal a right.

If I ran you over with my car, is it then right to run me over with your car ?

ANd when your walking down the street, you cannot tell who is going to mug you and who is not. You can assume its the guy in thw hoodie but you can't just point a gun at him if he follows you.
You don't know your being mugged until you are being mugged by that time its too late.

Keeping guns in your house i agree with becuase least you can tell if somebodies robbing you downstairs and scare them away. But on the street problems can arise very easlily.

You may think you can control yourself as a human but primal instints can take over very easily.

Say you come home and find your friend cheating with your wife. Now if you have a gun next to you the situation can go horrible wrong.

Carrying guns on the street, is no better then a youth carring a knife on the street. Do you know why youths carry knifes on the street ? to mug? to fight? Nope. For protection.

Ironicly carring no knife means more protection becuase its less lickly to turn on you and if your being mugged and try to get your knife out there is no doubt you will be stabbed first.

Carrying guns for protection is like carring mathes to prevent a fire. The mugger/criminal is more likly to shoot you first

EnipProductions

10-01-2008, 04:07 AM

GUN HISTORY
Something to think about

Hahhaha. Did you realise that guns wouldn't of saved them from the ARMY who rounded them up.

Also I don't know about you but in America theres not that many people being rounded up and executed in the millions daliy.

Please in future make decent points that are relevent today and not looking at mass genocides

WesScog

10-01-2008, 04:36 AM

The only dangerous society, is an armed society. It's also a PARANOID society.

It's impossible to "disarm" society. You can kill someone with a heavy rock, so until you find a way to coat the world in foam rubber, the world will always be "armed".

And people that are scared of armed people are being just as paranoid as they claim people who carry guns for protection are.

If you lack any paranoia, then why do you care if I have a gun or not?

If you're fearless then what does it matter what i'm carrying on my body as long as i'm not pointing it at you?

Yes, you do have the right to defene yourself but shooting somebody is too far. Two wrongs rarly equal a right.

If someone is trying to kill me, I have a moral obligation to respond with the proper amount of force to defeat them.

Shooting out the knee cap of someone that wants to stab me, while a terrifying idea, is not something that I think is "too far".

If I ran you over with my car, is it then right to run me over with your car ?

If you're trying to hit me with a car, it would only be fair that I had a car to, so I could be protected, and respond with equal force, yes.

ANd when your walking down the street, you cannot tell who is going to mug you and who is not. You can assume its the guy in thw hoodie but you can't just point a gun at him if he follows you.
You don't know your being mugged until you are being mugged by that time its too late.

Right, that's why you get your gun while you're being mugged. It's what most people who conceal carry do, a mugger is generally not expecting for someone to pull a gun out on them, so just reach into your jacket and act like you're pulling out your wallet to hand it over, then surprise, you draw on them, and hopefully they just run off without any shots being fired.

You may think you can control yourself as a human but primal instints can take over very easily.

Say you come home and find your friend cheating with your wife. Now if you have a gun next to you the situation can go horrible wrong.

The situations go wrong all of the time without a gun being involved. People have stabbed and beaten people to death for those kind of situations without a gun ever being involved.

The gun isn't the issue, bad impulse control is.

Carrying guns on the street, is no better then a youth carring a knife on the street. Do you know why youths carry knifes on the street ? to mug? to fight? Nope. For protection.

Ironicly carring no knife means more protection becuase its less lickly to turn on you and if your being mugged and try to get your knife out there is no doubt you will be stabbed first.

Carrying guns for protection is like carring mathes to prevent a fire. The mugger/criminal is more likly to shoot you first

Well an estimated 2 million mugging are stopped and prevented every year, while very few gun shot wounds or deaths are attributed to muggings, so apparently drawing your gun is far more likely to stop the crime than to simply get you shot.

But past that, it's a matter of principle. Do you want to be a victim or do you want to be able to protect yourself?

WesScog

10-01-2008, 04:43 AM

Hahhaha. Did you realise that guns wouldn't of saved them from the ARMY who rounded them up.

Also I don't know about you but in America theres not that many people being rounded up and executed in the millions daliy.

Please in future make decent points that are relevent today and not looking at mass genocides

1. Guns would have allowed them some recourse rather than simple compliance. I once again point to my previous statement on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. That's what happens when Jews were able to get guns, they could respond, even if they can't defeat elite German troops, it's still better than being murdered like rabbits.

If the SS were coming for me, it's rather kill a couple and injury a few before they dragged me off to be shot, rather than for them to just kick in my door and drag me off without a challenge. I would want to make the jackbooted thugs fight and die for every INCH they walk, I want them to scrape and struggle for every person they oppressed and murdered. I would want to make it as difficult and time consuming as possible for them even if in the end I lose.

2. No, it isn't happening, but need I remind you that the Holocaust was seen as something that simply could not happen? Before the World Wars, many commentators stated that the world had become enlightened, that we'd moved past brutality, and that those kind of things simply couldn't happen in developed western nations.

But what we seem to forget, is that it's easy to whip people up into frenzies, it's easy to manipulate them, people fundamentally change when they start conforming.

To say it simply can't happen again is naive, and as i've said before, it's better to be prepared and nothing happen (and people to perceive you as a paranoid fool) rather than to be unprepared and end up as a statistic.

I would rather people think I was insane, and I be ready for a worst case scenario, rather than be seen as "normal" and not have a back-up plan.

Dead Iris

10-01-2008, 05:27 AM

The government is not supposed to be here to control us. They are here to protect our freedom from those who wish to take it away.

We are slowly losing sight of this. It is all too human to think the only way to stop something is to control it. When really, that will only rattle a cage. Trying too hard to control something will inevitably release something worse than the problem we were fighting against in the first place. (Example: More people become victimized because they can't defend themselves.)

People who legally carry guns are not the criminals. The people who have to get them illegally are.

We can compare this to the new "Human Rights Commission" in the United Nations. They want to prevent any criticism of Islam. Under this veil of "accepting" people for their beliefs is a sinister attempt to pick apart our freedom of speech.

I tell ya, America and the UK just love throwing bricks in the air, waiting to see which one is going to knock them unconscious first. Anyone wanna take bets?

EnipProductions

10-01-2008, 06:40 AM

1. Guns would have allowed them some recourse rather than simple compliance. I once again point to my previous statement on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. That's what happens when Jews were able to get guns, they could respond, even if they can't defeat elite German troops, it's still better than being murdered like rabbits.

You got to remember Wes, they thought they where being taken to "Work Camps" and being "Relocated" to begin with so guns wouldn't of saved them then.

But the point made was that it would of helped the Jews if they still had guns, which it wouldn't.

And like I have said I think people should keep guns at home in a cuboard only taken out at extream situations.Just keep them off the streets and thats what Obama wants and I think its very sensible

And If a person came home and saw his wife cheating with his friend. If he didn't have a gun at hand he would most likly beat him to a pulp! Though if he does have a gun he could shoot them. Ill take a beating over a shooting anyday.

Violence is a mostly spur of the moment thing, if a gun is there at that moment then the chances are it could be used and we shouldn't take thoses chances.

Dead Iris

10-01-2008, 06:46 AM

You got to remember Wes, they thought they where being taken to "Work Camps" and being "Relocated" to begin with so guns wouldn't of saved them then.

But the point made was that it would of helped the Jews if they still had guns, which it wouldn't.

And like I have said I think people should keep guns at home in a cuboard only taken out at extream situations.Just keep them off the streets and thats what Obama wants and I think its very sensible

And If a person came home and saw his wife cheating with his friend. If he didn't have a gun at hand he would most likly beat him to a pulp! Though if he does have a gun he could shoot them. Ill take a beating over a shooting anyday.

Violence is a mostly spur of the moment thing, if a gun is there at that moment then the chances are it could be used and we shouldn't take thoses chances.

A gun ban on law-abiding citizens won't keep guns off the streets. Your taking them out of the hands of people who want to defend themselves, not criminals.

Your just repeating the same crap over and over. Ever tried thinking? It can be fun.

sonnyfromda02

10-01-2008, 08:04 AM

And If a person came home and saw his wife cheating with his friend. If he didn't have a gun at hand he would most likly beat him to a pulp! Though if he does have a gun he could shoot them. Ill take a beating over a shooting anyday.

Violence is a mostly spur of the moment thing, if a gun is there at that moment then the chances are it could be used and we shouldn't take thoses chances.
You're not speaking from experience. I carry a gun. People have made me mad. I haven't shot anyone. I have a stable mind to know the difference, which is why I am qualified to carry concealed. Background checks are done. If you have any history of violence, you most likely will not be allowed to have a CHL. Bringing that argument up is dumb. What you are saying is that if a baseball player came home from a game and found his wife cheating on him, and he still had his bat in hand, is that he would beat the guy to death with the bat because it's what he was carrying at the time. You are trying to make it seem like the people who have a CHL are merciless killers that can't control their temper.

uzi1951

10-01-2008, 08:23 AM

You got to remember Wes, they thought they where being taken to "Work Camps" and being "Relocated" to begin with so guns wouldn't of saved them then.

But the point made was that it would of helped the Jews if they still had guns, which it wouldn't.

And like I have said I think people should keep guns at home in a cuboard only taken out at extream situations.Just keep them off the streets and thats what Obama wants and I think its very sensible

And If a person came home and saw his wife cheating with his friend. If he didn't have a gun at hand he would most likly beat him to a pulp! Though if he does have a gun he could shoot them. Ill take a beating over a shooting anyday.

Violence is a mostly spur of the moment thing, if a gun is there at that moment then the chances are it could be used and we shouldn't take thoses chances.

Do you actually believe what you are saying?
Have you ever had someone sneak up behind you from the woods on your property at 4 AM. My 357 mag surprised him enough to keep him until the police arrived and took him away. And I learned in that situation, I almost shit myself realizing how much I still felt unprotected. But I am glad that I had a gun.

Fisherking

10-01-2008, 09:36 AM

I encourage everyone to take their anti-gun friends outside, and ask them about their right to defend themselves. Then punch the living shit out of them. Ask them again about their right to defend themselves. Then when they go to hit you, explain to them by their rationale they would be wrong, because they don't have a right to defend themselves.

Then knock their teeth out. You're doing your friend a favor by bringing them around to your way of thinking.

So, you encourage beating people you disagree with?

I suppose, similarly, you would re-educate Christians by beating them? If they responded, then, they would be not in-keeping with Christ's comment that 'if your cheek is smote, turn to them your other.'

I suspect when the Nazis come, you'll not be taking arms against them, but with them.

AaronHeld

10-01-2008, 10:08 AM

people who are pro-gun control need to think why should everyone be punished for the stupidity of criminals?

alcohol kills many people in accidents, shootings, fights, etc. But i do not want it banned from everyone, it all comes to the responsibility of the people, alcohol can be a controlled and alright thing to drink, but it also can be dangerous, just like guns it's safe in the right hands, but if a criminal has a gun it's a bad thing so we can come to the conclusion that it's not the objects it's the people who abuse the privileges.

would you want to give up drinking(if you drink) because some idiots got drunk and ruined it for everyone, no it just doesn't make sense to punish everyone, for the irresponsibility of idiots and criminals.

sonnyfromda02

10-01-2008, 10:33 AM

Let people keep alcohol in their stomachs and let me keep my gun on my waist. I don't drink, and I do see a lot of alcohol related accidents, but I wouldn't say take away alcohol. I've heard of binge drinking from people who are qualified and licensed, (21 years of age), but I've never heard of binge shooting people from those who are qualified and licensed.

tambrm1016

10-01-2008, 11:29 AM

I started this thread because I was genuinely interested in my neighbors opinions on this controversial issue. I have seen many well thought out opinions from both sides and am gratified to see that so many people with strong ideals have taken the time to communicate with each other and exchange ideas in a (for the most part) friendly way. I have spent the last 20+ years researching this subject, as well as the history of firearms, and believe that at this point in my life I am sufficiently educated on the subject that I know what I'm talking about. Although it is my opinion that a total ban on the individual right to carry firearms for self defense has a negative effect on people's safety world wide, my emphasis is on the debate as it relates to America. There are interesting comparisons to be had when studying the gun laws of Switzerland and Israel, however both of these countries have cultures that are far different than America, so I don't believe that comparing these countries to ours is really fair. Those of you who believe that individual citizens should not be allowed to carry firearms for self defense are (As far as I have seen here)intelligent, well intentioned, and caring people who want the world they live in to be a safe place You genuinely believe that making, or having laws in place that ban the carrying of firearms will help to accomplish this goal. I'm not going to say what the laws should be in other countries, that's for you and your fellow citizens to decide. I am however going to tell you what I think the laws should be in my country and why.

I am a professional firearms certified law enforcement officer with the rank of Sergeant. I have worked both custody and enforcement. (Jail and the streets) Carrying a gun is part of my job. I have over 300 hours of firearms training. I am also a certified law enforcement firearms instructor. I have been training other law enforcement officers for 11+ years in the use of pistols, rifles, and shotguns. In this time I have trained hundreds of people in the use of firearms, tactics, and the laws pertaining to use of force. I am also an NRA certified basic handgun instructor, personal protection instructor, shotgun instructor, and rifle instructor. I'm a member of the NRA because I support the right of individuals to own and carry firearms for self defense and believe they are the organization that does the best job, and works hardest to preserve this right.

Up to now I have just provided links and other people's writings. I have posted these and watched to see how people responded and what they thought and had to say about them. What follows will be my own thoughts and opinions based on my own experience and research.

This will probably take several posts so please be patient. I have read every word you have written. I hope you will do the same for me.

tambrm1016

10-01-2008, 11:31 AM

I have seen several opinions voiced against carrying guns for self defense. They usually break down into a few key points. These points have historically appeared time and time again in the debate over gun control for 2 primary reasons. They are the conclusions that an intelligent and thoughtful person without knowledge of the facts might logically come to. They are also points that the American media, who are for the most part anti gun in their political point of view, frequently site in their reporting.

If more people carry guns, there will be more violence, innocent loss of life, murder etc...

This is not true in America and has been proven by statistical research. In the 1990's there was a surge of states in a short span of time that adjusted their laws to allow citizens to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons on a shall issue basis. Research Scientist John Lott, in his book “More Guns, Less Crime” (University of Chicago Press 1998) concluded that there was a dramatic reduction in violent crime in the states that allowed concealed carry. His research was the most extensive and wide based into the subject that had ever been done. His research has been criticized by many on the anti gun side of the debate, but in chapter 7 of his latest edition he defends his methods. The Chronicle of higher Education reported that “while most researchers support Lott's findings that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, some researchers doubt that concealed carry laws have any impact on violent crime”, saying that however "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime.

It's interesting to note that before beginning his research He says that his home was a “gun free zone” he now owns a gun. I highly recommend that people on both sides of the debate buy this book. I will be quoting the research findings of Mr. Lott again.

Please see next post

tambrm1016

10-01-2008, 11:32 AM

The Second Amendment was only meant to apply to militias. We have the National guard. The founding Fathers did not mean for individual citizens to own guns.

This is simply not true. The founding fathers did mean for individual citizens to have the right to own and carry firearms. The Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment of the constitution correctly in their recent ruling. You can argue that you do not like the second amendment, that you would like to see it repealed, or that on moral grounds you disagree with it. But you can not argue that the founding fathers didn't mean that it guaranteed an individual right to be armed. There are many historical quotes that prove this to be true.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

JAMES MADISON
"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms."

SAMUEL ADAMS
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . . ."

RICHARD HENRY LEE
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..."

GEORGE WASHINGTON
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."
"A free people ought not only to be armed..."

PATRICK HENRY
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

Please see next post

tambrm1016

10-01-2008, 11:34 AM

The second amendment was not meant to say that people should be allowed to have assault weapons, military small arms, high capacity magazines, etc...

At the time our constitution was written, the preeminent military small arm was the smooth bore flintlock musket. In spite of the fame of rifle carrying sharpshooters in the American Revolution, most weapons used by both sides were muskets. A rifle has grooves in the barrel that impart a spin on the lead ball being fired from it. This gives it greater range and accuracy. This makes it ideal for hunting and long range sharp shooting. However, because it can only be loaded about 1 time in a minute, it was impracticable for the set piece battles of the time. The smooth bore musket however could be loaded and fired about 3 times a minute. This was because the ball being fired had a diameter smaller than the bore of the weapon. The down side was that the smooth bore musket was only accurate to ranges of approximately 50 yards. Because of this it was not the gun of choice for hunting (although they were used for that by individuals who, for whatever reason, did not own a rifle) The smooth bore flintlock musket was the high capacity military assault weapon of the day. Their only real purpose was use in battle. They were legal to own in America at the time the constitution was written and were covered by the second amendment.

Individual citizens have no need to own high capacity semi automatic pistols or assault weapons, they have no legitimate hunting purpose, they are not necessary for self defense, individual citizens should not be allowed to own assault weapons or high capacity pistols, etc...

First of all, this isn't about hunting, it's about self defense against evil people and totalitarianism. Contrary to what you see in the movies, it can take many rounds to disable an assailant, especially if they are on drugs, alcohol, or have a high degree of focus and will power. It is also possible to be in a tactical situation that involves multiple attackers. As for so called “Assault weapons” (A term that was invented by the Anti gun movement in America, it is not an actual category of firearm) Weapons like the AR15 or Ruger Mini14 that fire the .223/5.56mm round are ideal for home defense. They are shoulder fired which gives them greater accuracy. They have large capacity magazines which allow the operator to solve complex and overwhelming tactical problems. Also, believe it or not, the 55grn hollow point round in .223/5.56mm actually has less penetration in drywall and other building materials. There were many people in the Hurricane Katrina anarchy and L.A. Riots who found themselves in defensive situations that either did, or potentially could have, indicated the need for a high capacity firearm. There is a reason why police arm themselves with high capacity semi automatic pistols and rifles. They are the best choice for self defense.

Please see next post

tambrm1016

10-01-2008, 11:39 AM

You are more likely to be injured or killed if you resist, you are more likely to be shot if you own a gun, etc...

It's true that statistically, when all forms of resistance are compared to people who did not resist an attacker, you have a greater danger of being killed or injured. When you break it down to the type of resistance used, we find that people who defend themselves with bare fists, knives, and impact weapons are more frequently killed or injured. However, people who defend themselves with firearms are statistically less likely to be killed or seriously injured then people who do not attempt to defend themselves. The figures on death among gun owners includes gang members shot by other gang members, as well as criminals shot in self defense by police and armed citizens. Law abiding citizens who own guns are not more likely to be killed by a gun.

If people are allowed to carry guns for self defense, more innocent people will be hurt, people will get angry and use their guns in a fit of rage, people will shoot each other over traffic accidents, etc...

This was one of the arguments given by people who were against concealed weapons permits when the laws were changed in the 1990s. It didn't happen. This was proved in John Lott's research. Gary Kleck, a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University and author of “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America” (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991) found that there are approximately 2.5 million defensive firearms uses each year in America. He also found that in the vast majority of these incidents people do not actually fire their weapon they simply display it. This disproves the theory that an increase in people carrying firearms will result in more victims caught in a cross fire. Gary Kleck is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization. Before starting his research he was an advocate of strict gun control. Now he is not. In order to obtain a concealed weapons permit a person must subject themselves to an FBI background check and attend a class in gun safety and the laws pertaining to use of force. John Lott found in his research that all types of criminal behavior is statistically very low for Concealed weapons permit holders.

tambrm1016

10-01-2008, 11:40 AM

People carrying guns will result in more mass shootings in public places, more gun control will stop people from being able to commit mass shootings, etc...

If you look at the trend of mass shootings you will find that most of them occur in places that are, or are perceived to be “gun free zones” like schools, malls, and churches. It has been pointed out that these types of shootings do not take place in police stations or at shooting ranges. There at least 3 incidents that I'm aware of where shooters were stopped by people carrying concealed weapons. I can't find the story but one of the first school shootings was stopped by a teacher who ran to his car, retrieved a pistol (He parked off campus purposely so as not to violate the federal law banning guns on school grounds) and confronted the student who had opened fire on other student. (I'm not sure, but I think it was the kid who did it at an after school religious meeting of some type) this part of the story was hardly reported at all by the American media. In February 2007 an off duty police officer in Utah who was carrying his weapon in fanny pack confronted a shooter in a mall and exchanged fire with him after he had shot 5 people. The moment this happened the shooter stopped killing people and was focused on fighting the officer until another uniformed officer who responded helped him corner the shooter until the SWAT team arrived and finished the job. In December of 2007 a member of a church in Arvada Colorado who was carrying a concealed weapon confronted and shot a man that had wounded 3 people and and killed 2 others. After being wounded he stopped his attack, retreated, and committed suicide with his own weapon. Increased gun restriction might have stopped some of the shooters in these public shooting from obtaining guns, but it wouldn't have stopped all of them. Restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons do however prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves and others. If you find yourself in a public place when a mass shooting occurs you are not going to call the fire department, the post office, or the electric company. You are going to call the police. Why? Because they have firearms and that is what is needed to stop someone who commits this type of crime.

OK, I'm tired and need to get some sleep before work. I'll try to continue this tomorrow if I can find the time. I have my promotional exam for lieutenant Thursday morning. wish me luck.

chainedflesh

10-01-2008, 12:08 PM

Back in 2001, I lived in a two story house with my roomate, I lived upstairs and he lived downstairs with his girlfriend. It was night and I was upstairs doing a bit of gaming on my computer.

I heard the door downstairs slam open and remember thinking: "Is Mike in a bad mood?" So I stood up to go downstairs to talk to him. Then I heard some voices come from downstairs, and they were no-one I knew. I remember thinking, "Oh no... where is Mike and where is Amber?". I had more than myself to worry about in that situation. For all I knew Mike or Amber or both could have been stabbed in those few seconds. I popped open my gun cabinet, and grabbed my Taurus pt99. I rushed down the steps to get to their position. Halfway down the steps I saw Mike emerge from his bedroom around the corner (He and Amber had been talking by the bathroom when the door slammed open and he shoved Amber in the bedroom and followed to get his gun). Now the living room wasn't in view yet so we both stopped there for just a moment and apparently had the same idea to send them a message.

I pulled back the slide on my gun and chambered a round, Mike did likewise a moment later. So you know, the sound of a slide sliding a cartridge into a chamber is the loudest thing in a house when a situation is tense. And those boys heard it. The sound of two guns coming from two different places in the house. I heard the sounds of them RUNNING to get out the door.

I advanced to the door to secure it while Mike swept the downstairs to make sure we were safe. I saw three large college age kids running across the street at a diagonal to disappear between some houses.

We called the police, they came to the house to take a report and everything was ok after that (The officers were a great couple of guys too). What is important is that we defused a dangerous situation using firearms and never had to fire a shot. (And I thank my lucky stars that it never came to that, I probably would have needed years of therapy if I were forced to take another person's life)

I had always been pro-ownership and right to carry, and this situation just reinforced it for me. I mean... what would have happened in there if we weren't gun owners? Would Mike or I be dead right now? Would Amber have been raped and /or killed? I can say that if I didn't own a firearm I would have put myself at great unneccessary personal risk to defend my friends and myself from an unwarranted invasion of my home.

This is not storytelling and this is not a hypothetical situation. This is a real world occurancethat had real world consequences. I want the anti-ownership crowd to think about that for a few moments instead of kneejerk replying.