http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21224357/
:no: Sad
Printable View
Well, I'd give him an F or an incomplete. 5 wounded and the only death is yourself? What a loser.
*looks around*
Where is Crazed Rabbit?
Oh wait, here he comes....
No doubt. A black day for disgruntled, gun-toting Americans everywhere. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
well that just goes to show....
you have the right to bear arms...or arm bears or whatever...
but that doesn´t mean you can shoot straight :laugh4:
If you are going to go postal, you do it like the Wisconsin deputy did a few days ago. 6 killed, and then 3 shots to head for the suicide.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/10/wis...ing/index.html
It's too early in the school year for this kind of crap. The pressure is supposed to build up over the whole term, culminating in the rampage around prom or finals. ~:rolleyes: Obviously the lack of cold, focused, rage affected his aim.
*disclaimer - I, in no way, support or condone shooting sprees. They only lead to more restrictive knee-jerk gun laws that do nothing to solve the underlying problem. I also have nothing but the utmost respect for our US Postal Service employees, no offense is meant.
Hello there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Let's take a look at the info:
Good job with taking preemptive action...or not.Quote:
Student Doneisha LeVert, who hid in a closet with two other students after she heard a "Code Blue" alert over the loudspeaker, said the shooter had threatened students Friday.
"He's crazy. He threatened to blow up our school. He threatened to stab everybody," she said.
Did you know recently a cop in Wisconsin killed 6 people after getting dumped by his girlfriend? How can you support those 'kill-bot factories' known as police academies?*
CR
*In jest.
Again!?!?!?!?!
well ever since virginia tech school shooting havent been getting much attention...
btw I know some people "like" that too. ussually emo but one I know and I am friend with.
I am guaranteed to be spared in the future.
Im not surprised and every time one of these happens I care less and less
Well to be fair he didn't stab everybody or blow up the school so the pre emtive strike of kcking him out of school certainly worked on that account:yes:Quote:
Good job with taking preemptive action...or not.
Its not like there's been anyothers. I have to agree with the again, 2 in a year seems like to manyQuote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
You do relize that most emo kids arn't sucidal manics right? Its more the loners that you need to watch out for.Quote:
btw I know some people "like" that too. ussually emo but one I know and I am friend with.
I am guaranteed to be spared in the future.
Congratulations! We're Now Installing A Free Chip in every person that prevents you from doing harm to yourself or anyone else. This of course will be mandatory during any background checks and/or Licensing.
ah. Welcome to the Glorious Future.
I got the same feeling.Quote:
Originally Posted by SFTS
AFAIK suspension isn't kicking him out Tribes but I'd say if someone already has a lot of problems, creating more problems for him without locking him up is quite counterproductive. :dizzy2:
Well done.:2thumbsup:
But they had locked him up , they also had put him in care , on probation , through therapy and on drugs to treat his mental disorder .Quote:
AFAIK suspension isn't kicking him out Tribes but I'd say if someone already has a lot of problems, creating more problems for him without locking him up is quite counterproductive.
What, the rampage season starts early this year or something ?
Mm... the right to bear arms... mm... (drools)
Didn't get that from the link in the OP. If you're right, they obviously failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
forget the guns , it is kids who like wearing trenchcoats that are the problem .Quote:
Mm... the right to bear arms... mm... (drools)
edit to add...try the local and state newspapers .Quote:
Didn't get that from the link in the OP. If you're right, they obviously failed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Extacly Tribes. Guns aren't the ones who killing people. It's just a tool Kids get their hands on to put holes in people heads.
It could have been worse at Colombine, because if those Bombs went off in the Cafternia... THe Bar would have been raised alot higher for someone to outdo them.
But Yea, More and more... I just happen to care less. I mean, It's sad that kids get shot and injured in this case, but after since 99, it seems like School shootings been going up and well, if I hear one on the news, I hurry and turn CNN/MSNBC on just so I can see how many people died, and see how well it will turn out to be in a nice talk here at .org.
Yes it isn't guns , its suicidal nutcases with guns who get upset when they lose a fight .Quote:
Extacly Tribes. Guns aren't the ones who killing people. It's just a tool Kids get their hands on to put holes in people heads.
Though of course he may have had a bit of a problem shooting people with an axe .
Let me put it like this: How many people can a homocidal maniac kill with a trenchcoat, and how many people can a homocidal maniac kill with a gun?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Guns don't kill people, people kill people (using guns).
If he quietly strangles them with the trenchcoat he can porbably kill more because noone will be alarmed. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
The article seemed to put a lot of emphasis on him being goth. It mentioned how he was dressed 3 times. Whatever, I've lost interest in these sort of things. Horrible people will always find ways to harm others. It isn't going to end any time soon.
I'd have to say the security is at fault here firstly. Secondly the fact they knew he was aggressive and socially awkward and yet did nothing.
In this case guns aren't the problem, it's the failure to learn from previous events that's the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
But Can you kill someone with a Axe? Yes
Or Kill Someone with a Sword.............
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253029/
True , but that wouldn't be a school shooting would it , since there have been60 school shootings in the last decade can you provide any evidence of school axings to make a comparrison .Quote:
But Can you kill someone with a Axe? Yes
Or a kitchen knife or a spade, or a screwdriver for that matter. You could even kill them with your bare hands, that's not the point. The point is that a gun, unlike the aformentioned implements, is actually a lethal, often concealable, ranged, rapid firing high velocity projectile weapon, that is actually fundamentally designed to kill people or animals.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
A person that goes on the rampage with a knife can be pinned down and disarmed and is only a threat to the people in his/her immediate vicinity, a gunman is quite obviously something else altogether. The issue is not simply the risk of "madmen" getting their hands on a gun either. Any individual that is otherwise sound of mind can simply lose control in certain circumstances, having a gun handy at such a time could prove fatal to both the individual concerned and others. If you hear noises in your house at night you may think you've been broken into and shoot the intruder dead in a panic. When the intruder turns out to be your husband/wife/son/daughter/father/mother that had got up during the night for whatever reason, it would probably change your ideas about gun ownership and availability somewhat.
IMHO guns have no place in any civilised society. If a particular community gets to the stage where it's residents feel compelled to bear any kind of arms for their own protection then there's obviously something else fundamentally wrong with it.
So are bows/crossbows and arrows. I mean, those were fundamentally designed to kill animals and people, right? Look what those horrid Mongols did with them hundreds of years ago, I'm surprised we haven't all banned those yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
I call bull and strawman. Someone who knows how to use a knife is going to be just as dangerous if not moreso deadly than someone with a gun. A gun has a finite number of bullets, and one can only carry so many clips. A person with a knife and a reasonable amount of skill has a weapon just as deadly that doesn't require reloading. And the part about "blocking" or "disarming" is utter bunk. I don't care if you get 4 football linemen to charge someone wielding a razor sharp axe, but at least one of them is going to get seriously maimed/injured/outright killed. The same goes for a proficient martial artist with a knife or other stabbing/slashing weapon, in fact it'd probably just about impossible to disarm him physically without several people getting outright killed/wounded. People are shot all the time and live to tell about, some even with head wounds and other vital places. Saying a gun is by definition more deadly or "easy" to use is tripe. I'm going to make a guess by your statements that you've both never handled a gun before, nor have you taken any kind of martial art.Quote:
A person that goes on the rampage with a knife can be pinned down and disarmed and is only a threat to the people in his/her immediate vicinity, a gunman is quite obviously something else altogether.
So would having a pocketknife. Guess we should ban those too. You'd have to be trying REAL hard to kill someone with a .22 or a lower calibre gun, whereas if I had a 1" bladed knife, unless one know some serious martial arts, I and a few others on this forum could kill a normal individual quite easily. On second thought let's ban martial arts to, because the only purpose of those is to kill, amirite?Quote:
The issue is not simply the risk of "madmen" getting their hands on a gun either. Any individual that is otherwise sound of mind can simply lose control in certain circumstances, having a gun handy at such a time could prove fatal to both the individual concerned and others.
Strawman again. Hundreds of accidents like this happen all the time, compared to millions of people who own firearms and never have this kind of problem. Common sense is in order here, and it's more common than people think it to be. The people who've killed family members in this manner are perfect examples of people who've not exercised this.Quote:
If you hear noises in your house at night you may think you've been broken into and shoot the intruder dead in a panic. When the intruder turns out to be your husband/wife/son/daughter/father/mother that had got up during the night for whatever reason, it would probably change your ideas about gun ownership and availability somewhat.
VIOLENT CRIME has no place in civilized society, you're purposefully singling out firearms for this as a scapegoat, which in terms of human history are a new invention. Mankind has been violent all throughout it's past, and will continue to be so for all time. People have slaughtered eachother constantly using whatever means they could get their hands on, bladed weapons, bows, fire, whatever, they use it. Singling out firearms as "enablement" is again pure tripe, it's no easier, harder, more or less deadly than any other personal weapon we've been using for the past millenia.Quote:
IMHO guns have no place in any civilised society. If a particular community gets to the stage where it's residents feel compelled to bear any kind of arms for their own protection then there's obviously something else fundamentally wrong with it.
are you telling me that an average person with a gun is no more dangerous than an average person with a knife? (and I mean average in like not a special forces commando that was trained to kill an entire batallion with a knife....you know most people don´t have those skills).Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
then it´s me who´s calling bull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
Quote:
f you hear noises in your house at night you may think you've been broken into and shoot the intruder dead in a panic. When the intruder turns out to be your husband/wife/son/daughter/father/mother that had got up during the night for whatever reason, it would probably change your ideas about gun ownership and availability somewIhat.
Well you don't shoot the person when you first see him. Easy as that. Plus why would your Husband,kid,etc, be out 3 in the morning.....:inquisitive:
IMO, GUns should be allowed. Just not assault rifles and such.
How about Bow and Arrows? Someone who is good with that can always go into a school. Won't be easy to conceal, but if the School has no Guards or anything, or some dinky Rent-A-Cops with only Pepper Sprary, then. you know.
Mongols Killed Hundreds of Thousands of people with Bows and Arrows, and their Swords in their deceades of rule. Think someone today who is good enough with one or more of them can't take out 5-10 kids? Come on now guys. Go ahead and Ban Guns, or Seveley Limited them, and see what Kids do next. :shame:
edit: Ronin, Yes they are. Go ahead and fight someone with a long Knife. unless you trained to disarm him, it's going to be hard.
Read my last sentence in what you quoted, obviously you've never handled a gun either or taken any martial art. First off, try shooting a handgun sometime for accuracy, even a little one. Try a target maybe 5, 10 feet away. It's not easy at all. Care of a gun, loading it, transporting it (I can't imagine carrying a loaded weapon around), proper respect of it. People who don't know how to use a weapon are more dangerous to themselves than to others around them. Even someone with some experience and training isn't going to be a sniper like people are seeming to claim, but they will in theory be more deadly with the weapon. Second, even a NORMAL person with a knife is going to be dangerous, you don't need your "special forces" training to be able to seriously injure someone. And if you've ever seen or tried to train under even moderately skilled individuals with close action weapons, you'll rapidly learn to appreciate how scary and deadly it can be if it were real life, and again this is with little to moderate skill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Only because I saw this while reading this thread.
Report: School Shootings Help Prepare Students For Being Shot In Real World
I would recomment you to check your local laws about that, because they're usually quite restricted nowadays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Stabbing only works well in close combat vs one or a few targets (and preferbly with the element of surprice), if someone is planning to go down in a blaze of murder, guns will work better. The bullets will run out eventually, but I'm quite certain that you won't volounteer to be the bullet wasting target.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
The modern gun is better than a musket, yet the musket replaced the knife (well not reallly, but that ranged warfare did mostly replace the melee by some odd reason).
Well if you have to disarm someone with a knife, you're supposed to make him stab you were it matters less (like your left arm if righthanded). And you can often get something in the environment to even the odds a bit. Convincing the dude with a gun to only shot you in the arm can be slightly trickier and they are often such poor sportman, that they fire upon you when you flee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
And getting touched by a knife causes instant death right? ~:rolleyes: Anybody got statistics on wounding vs killing for knives and guns btw?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
To get an easy kill after that people have noticed your intensions are a bit easier with a gun than using a nice martial art killing move (or a knife for that matter).Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Sure, guns doesn't cause mass killings, but they make them a lot easier. If you wanna refute that, I'll content with some nice camparations of mass stabbings vs mass shootings, especially at more open environments like schools.
I never said it would be easy.....I said that disarming a normal person with a knife is a lot harder than disarming a normal person with a gun.......with a knife it´s dangerous but you have a chance......with a gun you´re just screwed...Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
and to the point were you said "if you take away guns kids will find some other way"....if you look at countries that don´t have legalized gun ownership I don´t see news about kids walking into schools and killing 10-20 of their classmates with knifes....so why doesn´t it happen?....are foreign kids just not commited enough to kill? "damn modern slacker kids! when I was your age I had to walk across the snow to get to school and kill someone! think that stopped me???"
the truth is that a gun present a ready made, easy solution if you want to produce a lot of damage.....sure you could do lots of damage in other ways....but not with any other tool that presents the same advantages in ease of use, portability, being easily concealed, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
I have taken marcial arts classes and I have shoot a gun yes...I still call bull..
If I had the choice between having to fight a guy armed with a knife or one armed with a gun (considering he has the same level of skill with both of them) I would have to pick the knife guy every day of the week and twice on sunday.
once again I never claimed that the normal guy with the knife isn´t dangerous...he still is.....but much less than the same moron with a gun....like I said before I don´t see the news crazy knife-rampages going on in non-gun countries so something tells me your theory is full of holes.
Well you don't need a perfect shot to wound someone, human targets are a bit larger than that. And due to the semi-automatic nature, it will usually come more than one shot in your direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Two questions:Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
1) If you were being attacked by 10 people, what would you rather have in your hand: a knife, or a Glock?
2) If knives are, as you said earlier, more deadly and advantageous to have than guns, then why is one of the pillars of the pro-gun argument that guns are absolutely necessary for home defence? As you say, every home in America already has an entire kitchen full of much more efficient killing tools than guns.
Add me on to the list of people calling "bull" on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beirut_...rsity_shooting
Beirut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre
Germany
Others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings
Most of them are US yes, but it failed to list that, In Japan, a ADULT Killed EIGHT Small Children in a School with a....
Knife
Heard it on 20/20. if I find the source, you will get it. 20/20 also said most school violence in Europe/Asia is done by adults, with guns or knives, and in US mostly kids with Guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootingsQuote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...elated_attacks
I think "most" is not the right word to compare the differences, LOL!
Oh, so police in your country have no guns available to them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
I've heard this tripe about 'something fundamentally wrong' before and it always seems so smug. Do you live in a utopia where no crime is committed? Or are you ruled by angels who would never oppress you?
Oh, you don't? So maybe it isn't crazy to want to defend yourself? And just maybe there's not anything fundamentally wrong with us, but with a refusal to face reality.
Bah. Arguments that aren't made up out of thin air, please.Quote:
If you hear noises in your house at night you may think you've been broken into and shoot the intruder dead in a panic. When the intruder turns out to be your husband/wife/son/daughter/father/mother that had got up during the night for whatever reason, it would probably change your ideas about gun ownership and availability somewhat.
CR
wow....so you know of one such attack with a knife compared with the dozens of cases involving guns?..Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
wow..just wow...
what more can I say other than...
thanks for proving my point!:yes:
This must be the lamest pro-gun argument ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
And given that the pro-gun crowd is more often than not also the pro-Bush crowd, I find this kind of comment especially hilarious.
It's not as if Gitmo did not exist I guess, heh ? Oh, and there's the NSA thingy aswell. And the whole "You're either with us or against us" theory. While we're at it, let's not forget the whole anti-gays, anti-abortion, pro-creationism and overall anti-"anythingthatdoesntfitwithouropinion" crew that is trying to impose its values upon the american society.
What about currently using your guns to overthrow your current governement ? Cause AFAIK, I doubt we could find anything worse in the whole western world.
Nice try, but cops aren't residents of a society, nor do they are a specific community. They're just people paid by the state to enforce the law, with guns, staffs, tazzers or whatever else. When the leave their job, they leave their weapons aswell and become another average Joe. And the average Joe shouldn't have to bear arms, because :Quote:
Oh, so police in your country have no guns available to them?
Nothing else to add. If you feel that guns are needed to protect yourself, then you're already doomed. Basically, it means that your civilizing process got screwed up at some point.Quote:
IMHO guns have no place in any civilised society. If a particular community gets to the stage where it's residents feel compelled to bear any kind of arms for their own protection then there's obviously something else fundamentally wrong with it.
It might happen that at some point, everyone will have to bear a gun to protect his life. But it is by no means a solution. It's just a way to hidde the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
And thanks for proving my point of, that you must be Anti-Gun. :yes:
yes I am...and proud of it...Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
I live in a civilized society with a functioning police force...no need for guns....so why should I be pro-gun?
nice attempt to step around the fact that your own research proved my point about guns being more dangerous than knifes tough.
This is clearly a cultural phenomenon and nothing more. Most US citizens have obviously been brought up with moderate exposure to firearms and many are probably convinced of their necessity as a security measure. Europeans, for the most part, have not and apart from a small minority, some of which inevitably criminal, have no desire to either possess or use a firearm for any purpose be it legal or otherwise.
Really? Our country was forged in such a manner. You bring up the alleged evils of the Bush administration; what if he actually was a tyrant, and the US populace as docile as certain others?Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Cops aren't part of society? What madness is this? They are how society enforces its laws. A civilization is not part of a people or a fraction of a nation; it is the whole. And since all countries have police, and you say that civilized people don't use guns, then your countries are obviously uncivilized by your own admission.Quote:
Nice try, but cops aren't residents of a society, nor do they are a specific community.
If they have no place, then police should not have them, or you are uncivilized.
Funny, since I already addressed that. Crime happens in all nations - that reasoning therefore, holds that even your socialist European countries are fundamentally flawed.Quote:
Nothing else to add. If you feel that guns are needed to protect yourself, then you're already doomed.
No, it means that concept of civilization is wrong, an ugly product of modern liberal thought rejects the foundation of modern government, more akin to feudalism than liberty.Quote:
Basically, it means that your civilizing process got screwed up at some point.
What issue? Crime? How then is allowing people to defend themselves 'hiding' an issue? It is the very absolute opposite - it is gun control that hides the real issues of crime behind mindless demands for more controls and regulations on guns, ignoring the operator of the tool for what he uses. Take a glance at Britain and it is obvious.Quote:
It might happen that at some point, everyone will have to bear a gun to protect his life. But it is by no means a solution. It's just a way to hidde the issue.
CR
lol no no destroyer....Quote:
Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope
they're most definitly like that :sweatdrop:
{BHC}KingWarman888, in response to your "evidence", I thought I'd post it here so people can decide for themselves. (Note: Israeli "shootings" removed as they are actually terrorist attacks).
I don't know if my eyes are deceiving me, but it looks like there are a lot more in the USA.Quote:
United States
* University of Texas at Austin massacre - Austin, Texas, United States; August 1, 1966
* Orangeburg Massacre - Orangeburg, South Carolina, United States; February 8, 1968
* Kent State shootings - Kent, Ohio, United States; May 4, 1970
* Jackson State killings - Jackson, Mississippi, United States; May 14-15, 1970
* California State University, Fullerton Library Massacre - Fullerton, California, United States; July 12, 1976
* Brenda Ann Spencer, Cleveland Elementary School - January 29, 1979
* Parkway South Junior High School shooting - Saint Louis, Missouri, United States; January 20, 1983
* Stockton massacre - Stockton, California, United States; January 17, 1989
* University of Iowa shooting - Iowa City, Iowa, United States; November 1, 1991
* Simon's Rock College of Bard shooting - Great Barrington, Massachusetts, United States; December 14, 1992
* East Carter High School shooting - Grayson, Kentucky, United States; January 18, 1993
* Richland High School shooting - Lynnville, Tennessee, United States; November 15, 1995.
* Frontier Junior High shooting - Moses Lake, Washington, United States; February 2, 1996
* Pearl High School shooting, Pearl, Mississippi, United States; October 1, 1997
* Heath High School shooting, West Paducah, Kentucky, United States; December 1, 1997
* Jonesboro massacre - Jonesboro, Arkansas, United States; March 24, 1998
* Thurston High School shooting - Springfield, Oregon, United States; May 21, 1998
* Columbine High School massacre - near Littleton, Colorado, United States; April 20, 1999
* Heritage High School shooting - Conyers, Georgia, United States; May 20, 1999
* Santana High School - Santee, California, United States; March 5, 2001
* Appalachian School of Law shooting - Grundy, Virginia, United States; January 16, 2002
* Rocori High School shootings - Cold Spring, Minnesota, United States; September 24, 2003
* Red Lake High School massacre - Red Lake, Minnesota, United States; March 21, 2005
* Campbell County High School - Jacksboro, Tennessee: November 8, 2005
* Platte Canyon High School shooting - Bailey, Colorado, United States; September 27, 2006
* Weston High School shooting, Cazenovia, Wisconsin September 29, 2006
* Amish school shooting - Nickel Mines, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, United States; October 2, 2006
* Henry Foss High School - Tacoma, Washington, United States January 3, 2007
* Virginia Tech massacre - Blacksburg, Virginia, United States; April 16, 2007
* SuccessTech Academy shooting - Cleveland, Ohio, United States; October 10, 2007
Canada
* Brampton Centennial Secondary School, Ontario, Canada - May, 1975
* École Polytechnique Massacre - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; December 6, 1989
* Concordia University massacre - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; August 24, 1992
* W. R. Myers High School shooting - Taber, Alberta, Canada; April 28, 1999
* Dawson College shooting - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; September 13, 2006
* C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting - Toronto, Ontario, Canada; May 23, 2007
Other countries
* Raumanmeri's High School Shooting - Rauma, Finland, January 24, 1989
* Dunblane massacre - Dunblane, Scotland, United Kingdom; March 13, 1996
* Sanaa massacre - Sanaa, Yemen; March 30, 1997
* Erfurt massacre - Erfurt, Germany; April 26, 2002
* Monash University shooting - Melbourne, Australia; October 21, 2002
* Beirut Arab University shooting - Beirut, Lebanon; January 25, 2007
Really ? I thought your country was forged by having the advantage of being far away from the government and having major world powers fighting against that government .Quote:
Really? Our country was forged in such a manner.
I would say that it's the idea of a gun as security, as hunters isn't that uncommon and that most of the male population have been shooting quite a bit with assult rifles (that draft thingy). Admittably it's local conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
It's rather the issue of crimes were you carrying a gun would've made a difference. But sure, theft, muggings, beatings, murder etc doesn't have place in civilization. That's why the laws against it appeared in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
:laugh4: Feudalism :laugh4: ? You're aware that it's a non-centralized system where powers are granted on the idea of decentralized defense, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I do grant you that in a fully liberal (as in free) system whatever you carry a gun or not shouldn't be an issue... but the idea of a civilization also gives that you shouldn't really need to use the gun for defense in the first place.
Hiding the issue is to get yourself a shotgun/gun to protect yourself against home invasions or school shootings and not ask yourself why they occur often enough to be something to worry about at your place, but not in other places (if you're unlucky enough to live in that spot, best thing is probably to do both though).Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
It was forged in the name of freedom!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
And yet they still exist; being 'civilized' doesn't make crime go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
And based on giving up your freedom for protection.Quote:
:laugh4: Feudalism :laugh4: ? You're aware that it's a non-centralized system where powers are granted on the idea of decentralized defense, right?
Yes, the idea of a civilization. But it's like the 2nd law of thermodynamics; ideas never fully become reality (as heat never fully converts to work). There is no perfect civilization, after all.Quote:
I do grant you that in a fully liberal (as in free) system whatever you carry a gun or not shouldn't be an issue... but the idea of a civilization also gives that you shouldn't really need to use the gun for defense in the first place.
Oh, I think we should do what we can to combat crime before it begins. But we can never stop it all, and it doesn't hurt to be prepared. And like I said; look at Britain, and that boy who was killed riding his bike. Instead of soul searching in society, we hear the familiar refrain 'more gun control!'Quote:
Hiding the issue is to get yourself a shotgun/gun to protect yourself against home invasions or school shootings and not ask yourself why they occur often enough to be something to worry about at your place, but not in other places (if you're unlucky enough to live in that spot, best thing is probably to do both though).
CR
I have yet to see a persuasive argument for the gun laws in the US.
Heres how i see it, in Britain, you can buy a rifle or shotgun, you can shoot a rifle or shotgun, but first you must have insurance or certification or a qualified instructor thats all i can concieve a person reasonably wanting.
Handguns are banned because their purpose is only to kill people. Now you say they are nessisary for self defence? well in England you are not likely to be faced with a gun due to gun control, so training in martial arts or even simple commeon sense can allow you to avoid a lot of dangerous situations.
Here is my indepth analysis of the effectiveness of handguns as self defence in a society where they are obviously freely available.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
To be honest i think that most of the desire for handguns or semiautomatics comes from wanting a feeling of power which whilst i understand, i think is the wrong reason to want to have a gun.
So its a forgery then.Quote:
It was forged in the name of freedom!!
How about hearing "more effective gun control" , after all the guns that end up with criminals all start off as legally manufactured and sold guns .Quote:
we hear the familiar refrain 'more gun control!'
For examle how does a Dutch drug dealer end up buying a batch of Belgian assault rifles in Switzerland that were sold to the crown prince of Jordan ?
Or how does a wanted American murderer kill a british policeman with a Croatian pistol that was sold to a non-existant company in the Virgin Islands ?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
That was great!
only if it was a signature:sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
How's about this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
Roughly 2 million plus people in the USA use a gun each year to defend themselves from criminals. Gun control laws show no decrease in crime, and criminals get around such laws just as they did prohibition laws. The main effect is to disarm the law abiding.
While it's nice to strive for the perfect society, we shouldn't forget we've always been in an imperfect one, where self defense is sometimes necessary. In the USA at least, the right to bear arms is the last resort against a tyrannical government, a way to prevent a government from ruling through oppressive force.
Regarding handguns, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people permitted to carry concealed handguns in states across this nation. Every time a state passes a law allowing this, anti-rights people scream about 'wild west bloodbaths'. But in the many states that passed laws allowing concealed carry, not once has this happened. Why? Simple - good people will handle guns in a responsible manner.
That is completely wrong.Quote:
Now if you were to be allowed handguns then so would the attacker and as they have likely chosen such an avenue in life they would no doubt insure they were proficient in a guns use.
Now as some here have said, a gun in the hands of an untrained person is as much a danger to them as others.
In the US, we have no such training program, but the most effective way to resist a mugging (ie you are less injured and don't get robbed) is with a weapon. Once again, facts beat assumptions.Quote:
Therefore without a nationwide training program in the use of guns the victim would still carry a dissadvantage i.e surprise and not being as skilled in the weapons use.
Heck, the rest of your analysis is based on false assumptions. For a cure, I recommend a 1000cc injection of reality.
If by that you mean made in a forge you'd be right.Quote:
So its a forgery then.
CR
Same crap again :dizzy2:Quote:
How's about this:
Roughly 2 million plus people in the USA use a gun each year to defend themselves from criminals.
Bollox , since it was drawn up be people who were opposed to standing armies and wanted a militia , since there is a standing army it is now irrelevant .Quote:
In the USA at least, the right to bear arms is the last resort against a tyrannical government, a way to prevent a government from ruling through oppressive force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
And I disargee with everything you are Saying. But We all have our own opnions....
First off, if you want to Bann All guns, How you going to get them off the Street. So Then, when that Gangbanger breaks into your house, with a gun the government failed to get, and you have nothing, What you going to do? Cry and Beg for you life and call 911 :inquisitive: ? Yeah, if you don't get killed....
Plus, how will you take care of Hunting? Population control for Animals is important you know. So if you Anti-Gun, you must be a Animal Right Activisit also? Because No Guns = No Hunting = Animal numbers go up and destroy crops,etc....
Plus No One Likes a Deer running into their car.....
And to Comment you.....
Quote:
If you hear noises in your house at night you may think you've been broken into and shoot the intruder dead in a panic. When the intruder turns out to be your husband/wife/son/daughter/father/mother that had got up during the night for whatever reason, it would probably change your ideas about gun ownership and availability somewhat.
Please Answer this Question:
Why would they be out early in the morning when the Home Invasions proably take place at most of the time? Plus Why would you Shoot the Second you see someone in your house?
This must make america one of the lowest crime countries in the world then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
USA 1998 1999
02.01 Grand total of recorded crimes 8,922.76 8,517.19
02.02 Total recorded intentional homicide, completed 5.19 4.55
02.04 Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm 3.37 2.97
02.06 Total recorded major assaults 355.12 329.63
02.07 Total recorded assaults 841.96 805.21
02.08 Total recorded rapes 33.87 32.05
02.09 Total recorded robberies 162.61 147.36
02.11 Total recorded thefts 2,682.29 2,502.66
02.12 Total recorded automobile theft 451.93 412.70
02.13 Total recorded burglaries 848.25 755.29
02.14 Total recorded frauds 43.49 133.74
02.15 Total recorded embezzlements 6.22 6.22
02.16 Total recorded drug offenses 566.95 560.11
England and Wales 1998 1999 2000
02.01 Grand total of recorded crimes 9,744.98 10,061.11 9,766.73
02.02 Total recorded intentional homicide, completed 1.43 1.45 1.61
02.03 Total recorded intentional homicide, attempted 1.29 1.42 1.34
02.04 Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm 0.09 0.12
02.06 Total recorded major assaults 26.71 28.72 29.58
02.07 Total recorded assaults 731.90 833.72 851.60
02.08 Total recorded rapes 14.56 15.96 16.23
02.09 Total recorded robberies 127.48 159.95 179.73
02.11 Total recorded thefts 3,288.09 3,357.60 3,257.52
02.12 Total recorded automobile theft 747.33 711.12 639.92
02.13 Total recorded burglaries 1,818.09 1,721.33 1,579.10
02.14 Total recorded frauds 533.12 635.36 603.14
02.16 Total recorded drug offenses 259.30 231.29 214.30
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf
Well in two countries with similar levels of criminality, the US has more Homicide, major assaults, and rape...
I also notice that England and wales has a higher if anything number of thefts, and more fraud (but less drugs) now maybe this is because criminals in America are more scared of a gun owning public?
So at the cost of increased Homicide, major assaults, and rape you can have less thefts and fraud and more drugs?...
So you may have a point if crimes are clearly prevented, i would apreciate the source of your 2 million statistic...
Anyone who has been in the army would tell you, a handgun is well outranged by a standard issue soldiers gun, never mind the armoured vehicles and air support they can call upon...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Have i not just shown in my source in this post that more open access to guns increases homicides? i mean yeah they dont wear cowboy hats so its not a wild west bloodbath...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Yes good people can handel guns ok (which is why my country lets people have rifles or shotguns for which there are legitimate purposes) but bad people wont, can you tell the difference :inquisitive:
where are these ''facts'' then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
oh a few news stories? indicative of a trend that leaves america with less homicides?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
no...
In England they would be less likely to have acess to a gun so this would be less likely to happen...Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
yeah that situation would be bad, the same as if a crafty crim attacked your house with a tank, heck thats why we should all have tanks... cus if that happened and i had a tank id be fine...
Well there are two different stances, no guns and no handguns and even those who say no guns (i don't) would probably allow farmers or at least rangers them...Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
So, since they viewed standing armies as a threat to freedom, and we have a standing army now, thus making the government more dangerous, we should give up this safeguard of freedom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
:dizzy2: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Did I say that? Nope. But the state that allows people to buy a pistol, and conceal it on themselves without any permits has some of the lowest crime in the nation. Indeed, most of the crime comes from places where guns are very regulated or banned (Chicago, NYC, Washington DC, LA)Quote:
This must make america one of the lowest crime countries in the world then?
And that's why we don't just have handguns.Quote:
Anyone who has been in the army would tell you, a handgun is well outranged by a standard issue soldiers gun, never mind the armoured vehicles and air support they can call upon...
You've shown nothing of the sort. Britain has always had lower crime, even when gun laws in the US and Britain were similar. In fact, you've completely missed the point; states that allowed concealed carry of guns did not show increases in crime.Quote:
Have i not just shown in my source in this post that more open access to guns increases homicides? i mean yeah they dont wear cowboy hats so its not a wild west bloodbath...
Do you really think criminals will stop using guns because the law says so?Quote:
Yes good people can handel guns ok (which is why my country lets people have rifles or shotguns for which there are legitimate purposes) but bad people wont, can you tell the difference
Again, missing the point. It shows that the nonsensical scenarios you were talking of earlier are, well, nonsensical.Quote:
oh a few news stories? indicative of a trend that leaves america with less homicides?
Against an unarmed family, you don't need guns.Quote:
In England they would be less likely to have acess to a gun so this would be less likely to happen...
Sources: 2 million defensive gun uses a year:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
Resisting with weapons helps keep you safe from muggings:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html
That is all.
CR
omg CR got his hands full, why such looong posts, cant we all just get to a certain piont so it is easier for you and me to read??:dizzy2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
Yea, might need more then a few farmers and rangers in one state to control the animal popluation.....
I doubt it, if your going to cull animals to save money you'd do one big cull just before they start getting really over-populated. In which case you bring in Rangers from numerous places to do the culling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warman
School shooters just aren't creative enough these days. They become more pathetic each time. I wonder when someone will finally show some originality and use some explosives. Or perhaps poison the lunch meat.
Of course, they wouldn't be shooters then...
Meh, this old argument is simply dumb. The government can fear the people, but not just the guns. The French government is probably a lot more scared of the people than the US government, them being armed or not. If cops in pretty much any European country did half the stuff the US cops do 'legally' there would probably be rioting in the streets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
The only way to 'oppose' a tyrannical government would be en masse, as long as that doesn't happen all those 'excercising their right to overthrow a tyrannical government' will just be considered terrorists. And since there is no clear point that tells everyone the government has turned tyrannical you'll never find the support you need to overthrow them (in time anyway).
EDIT: and just for the record, I'm not really pro or against gun control. I just don't care all that much.
Byznatine If you look at the "facts" Rabbit supplied in the links from the next post you will find that the first is a fundamentaly flawed survey which took a small numberand multiplied it by a big number without ensuring that the small number was in any way correct , in fact in their ranting reply to challenges about their figures they unwittingly highlight the flaws in the survey regarding their approach to false positves .Quote:
where are these ''facts'' then?
The second link you will note Rabbit correctly identifies "weapons" not "guns" (he does learn from his mistakes sometimes) .
So from the time of the formation of the United States to the present how many years has there not been a standing army ? ...we have a standing army now .:inquisitive: For the government to be more dangerous you should be able to show a time when it was less dangerous eh ?Quote:
So, since they viewed standing armies as a threat to freedom, and we have a standing army now, thus making the government more dangerous, we should give up this safeguard of freedom?
How many times since the formation of the United States have citizens or States rebelled against the tyranny of the government ?
How many times have they got rid of that government through armed rebellion ?
Face it Rabbit it is not a safeguard of freedom , it is an illusion of a safeguard of freedom .
Clinging to an illusion is rather irrational isn't it ? :yes:
As the Org decided to die on me when I was supposed to post this one, it's a bit late.
No, but crime shouldn't be needed to be higher than what it is in the least crime infested areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Huh? :inquisitive: Feudalism are a top down system were the highest power don't feel that it can control the entire owned territory properly and thus delegating power to the nobility. The peasant's situation (when their taxes are extorted by mafia methods), or possibly city-states relinquishing power to a larger nation for protection aren't directly related to feudalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
There's prepared and over prepared (=half-paranoid). Here, guns end mostly up in the second category. And as the world has a tendency to go towards what you perceive the world to look like...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
To put it simple, to reach the point were getting a gun for protection is a valid defence and not some one in a million happening for your average citizen, is a sign of a society being dysfunctional due to violent crimes here.
Now I know what your point is - but the illusion is more of a reality then your arguement is attempting to point out. Is it as strong as Crazed Rabbit's arguement - no, but does the reality between his arguement exist, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
it wont work as a safeguard of freedom though, the army has more then guns...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
oh heck i would expect that if guns are freely available in other parts of the country then the criminals will have a better supply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
So if guns are commonly available to them and not potential victims then it probably would be worse then both having guns, it just shows the states with less gun controls are not only ruining it for the rest but also get to brag at how much better they are...
what they have aircraft, hellicopters, battleships, APCs, tanks, Cruise missiles, and hundreds of thousands of trained fighters? if so then i would say that these guys would be a bigger threat then any army as they have no restrictions on them. And if they arnt that strong then they would have no chance against the US armed forces...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
...did i not just show you that England and Wales have similar crime levels to the US? now while i think its real lovely that in EDWARDIAN times gun crime was NOT RECORDED as a problem in almost a hundred years Britain has changed Britain is not some archaic haven with scones where everything stops for tea...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
i also didn't miss the point, i accepted some of it (shock horror)
and challenged the restQuote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
no but if supply decreases with decent border control most will not be able to get hold of oneQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
this is realy your level of refutation? come on give me somthing to respond to apart from ''your wrong''...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
what i said was that a few lucky or unlucky senarios dont mean much
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Really? There are some hundreds of millions of guns in private hands in the states. What people arguing against this don't seem to realize is that you wouldn't have or need a bunch of citizens beating the US army in open battle - you need enough to form a serious deterrent to trying to start a dictatorship.Quote:
it wont work as a safeguard of freedom though, the army has more then guns...
Oh? Can you prove the criminals in NYC are getting guns from outside that state (which is illegal, btw)?Quote:
oh heck i would expect that if guns are freely available in other parts of the country then the criminals will have a better supply.
So if guns are commonly available to them and not potential victims then it probably would be worse then both having guns, it just shows the states with less gun controls are not only ruining it for the rest
Ha! Britain is an island and can't keep guns out of the country. The US can't keep drugs out of its country. What makes you think guns will be different?Quote:
no but if supply decreases with decent border control most will not be able to get hold of one
Ha! You miss the point; gun availability does not affect crime.Quote:
''I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U[nited] S[tates]''
and even he does not agree with you...
The US has always had a higher rate. Don't worry though, if trends continue Britain will overtake us in that too.Quote:
then why does the US have a higher rate of homicide then the UK? our police don't even all have guns?
we are just culturally less violent? i don't think so...
CR
So plenty of guns = no dictators? what about all the dictators in countries flooded with guns then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Well apparently criminals can magic guns from anywhere to anywhere im just assuming that they currently take what would seem to be the easiest route.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
do we have as many handguns as the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
indeed any increase recently is partly due to increased smuggling, all we need to do is crack down on it a bit more
Er i think you are missing the point he is saying that gun availability has no benefit too...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
But anyway...
If a criminal can't get a gun they can't use it, if its hard for them to get a gun they have to realy want one and likely go to a lot of trouble, if its easy well they will probably get one on the offchance
49 people were killed by guns in 1999, 58 in 2007 (estimated) an 18% increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I did a rough calculation, if that increase holds our number of deaths due to gun crime per 100 000 will be the same as yours was in 1999, by the year 2287... im not worried :beam:
my sources:
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...images/282.pdf
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf
History makes a nonsense of the idea of a gun owning population being a deterrent to anyone wanting to 'start a dictatorship'.
Show me a significant number of dictatorships that haven't been backed up by armed civilian militias. The Brownshirts, Zimbabwe's National Youth Service to name a couple.
Dictatorships are not formed by (as many conspiracy theorists like to theorise) a small group of ultra-powerful politicians who one day decide to oppress thousands. That's generally how they end up, but they are usually crowned by armed civilians.
I live in the UK. I shoot rifles as a sport. I don't own a gun, and any rifle I do use never leaves the range. If I wanted to own a gun, I'd need a Firearms certificate.
What would I need to obtain such a certificate? Would a government official question me on wether or not I support their policies? What a nonsense!
I would however need my criminal record checked, two referees, a note from my doctor and an inspection of where I'll be keeping my gun.
I'd be more than willing to undergo that inspection, in the knowledge that people with criminal records, or who are mentally unstable, or who aren't prepared to be careful with the storage of their gun, will be turned down.
So what's the big deal CR? You enjoy firing you gun, so do I. You're allowed to, so am I. But Mr Postal living down my street can't walk into the local gun shop and blow his boss' head off.
I can't see any substance to the argument that gun restrictions are an oppression of freedom, nor can I see any substance to the argument of guns as a means of a barrier to dictatorships.
Gawd, is this really what Brits need to own a gun? OK, I gotta pick this one apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Criminal record check I agree should be mandatory before a gun can be purchased, BUT there needs to be limits on what would preclude an individual from ownership. I've had more than a few speeding tickets, but that's it. Should a certain number or threshold prevent me from owning a gun? Hell no I say. What about other types of crimes? There are quite often more than a few people who make honest mistakes in life, so what type of crimes would preclude ownership? Some types like murder/rape I'd say should be a permanant deal, but some types, say for example a theft in childhood, should not come back to bite someone in the long term, hence there should be expirations or maximum limits.
Second, two referals. So what? I understand that in Britain the laws are different, but what does this accomplish actually? Get two buddies (I'm assuming from the gun club, if not then in general makes it even more worthless) to vouch for them, regardless of one's ability to handle a weapon or not, and problem solved.
Third, doctor's note? Again, so what? A family doctor is in no way shape or form to make a qualified psychological opinion, which is what I'm guessing is the gist of this. Physical fitness has nothing to do with proper gun care and ownership, I've known wheelchair occupants who are excellent marksmen. As for my doc making a psych eval, no way. I've visited our current doc whom I've had for 6+ years a grand total of 3 times. Think he knows me well enough to 'send a note'? Either way, there's no way someone is going to know one's mental health except a trained psychologist after multiple interviews, and even then odds are one could lie their way through it.
Fourth, inspection? None of the government's damn business, period. What I do with my property in my house is my own business. "But it's for the children!" I can hear people screaming already. Awesome, great point. Let's make it mandatory before one can reproduce that the goverment inspects the house for any unprotected outlets, un-childproofed cubbards and doors, kitchen cutlery not locked away tight, and other sharp pointy and stabby things and poisons that they will obviously kill themselves with immediately. :rolleyes:
No way in hell I would, for the above reasons.Quote:
I'd be more than willing to undergo that inspection, in the knowledge that people with criminal records, or who are mentally unstable, or who aren't prepared to be careful with the storage of their gun, will be turned down.
Far too many assumptions made here, I can see dozens of holes in the British gun control policy. And if someone wants to go out and get a gun illegally, they're going to be able to do it quite easily. Even if it's a normal person who has a gun, makes no difference, as under extreme amounts of stress, pressure, or anger, even normally rational and calm individuals can be driven to violence. A gun is no more going to enable them than going downstairs and getting the huge 5 star Henkels butcher knife, or the axe in the garage.Quote:
So what's the big deal CR? You enjoy firing you gun, so do I. You're allowed to, so am I. But Mr Postal living down my street can't walk into the local gun shop and blow his boss' head off.
While I don't want to speak for CR, but I don't think that what's being suggested is that "all gun control is bad". Some gun control is good, like criminal background checks. But most of what the Brit requirements are, are utter tripe. Something like passing a written gun safety test would also be a good thing to be mandatory, just like driving a car. In the US we don't have to until we hit a certain age, but I think it should be mandatory that one must re-take the written driving test every renewal, and that seniors above 65 should have to take the practical examination with a reviewer as well.Quote:
I can't see any substance to the argument that gun restrictions are an oppression of freedom,
IMO, etc
/shrug
well if you want to try and pick it apart you have a bloody hell of a long way to go ...perhaps you would be best to turn round and start again since a large part of your post definately falls into the bollox category .Quote:
OK, I gotta pick this one apart.
However you do raise some valid points , if you could build on them and drop the tripe it would be a advancement .
Now I didhave a rather lengthyrespopnse toe parts of your post thatI considered tripe , but in my inebreated stayte I pressed the wong button , so in the interest ofme not being arsed to rewrite it at the momentcould you yourself reflct on yourpost n see the flaws ?
It's an argument I see used all over the place, and it runs along the lines of:
"Your way of doing X isn't perfect, hence we're not going to bother doing X"
Of course the set of rules that define British gun control aren't perfect, no set of rules that would attempt to control gun ownership could be.
By focusing entirely on the minor flaws with British policy, you've completely sidestepped the issue I was trying to raise:
- Do these gun controls help achieve the purpose [of restricting guns to those who can safely handle them]?
- Do they have consequences that are damaging to society or to an individuals 'right' to participate in firearms related sports?
- Is the trade-off worth it?
So forget about wether a doctor is a perfect judge of my sanity, how pointless two referee's is, and tell me: Does it help prevent the wrong people getting hold of guns: It might, and in some cases it definitely will. Does it have consequences that are damaging to society or to my rights: No, not at all. Is the trade off worth it: Clearly yes.
So if you want to pick apart my post, pick it into every statement I made, and apply those three points to them.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
If we go back to the original argument which (I think) is; should the US have tighter gun control?
The ideal of guns not getting in the wrong hands is one thing (possibly the only thing :wink:) that we can all agree is right in this thread. That said, another way of asking the same question might be: Could the US have tighter gun controls without negative consequences which outweigh the benefits?
Well the answer is yes. Even if you don't like all the controls I have to pass in the UK, I can't possibly see you arguing against each and every one of them in turn.
Essentially the gun lobby are suffering from an excessive knee jerk reaction. Any mention of gun controls, and they fall back to the same arguments: The right to bear arms, the need of armed militia's should the government try to kill us all!, and home security.
You don't stop and think about wether gun controls would actually affect any of this at all.
Have some kind of firearms certificate in the US, and do you think suddenly no one would have guns? Not at all.
Just set up a system whereby you can't walk into a shop and buy a gun without a firearms certificate. Set up a system whereby to own automatic weapons and weapons only designed to kill you need a more thorough test and you can't but help the situation. Surely?
There is a whole other debate we could have along the lines of gun culture as opposed to gun restrictions. Is a culture in which a large proportion of the populace own such high powered weapons a good society? It's a different kettle of fish, and one which (although very linked) shouldn't be confused with this argument on gun controls.
Surely not. A firearms certificate is a way of making it harder for people to purchase guns. The only thing I support is an instant background check of any possible criminal record on any and all types of guns.Quote:
Just set up a system whereby you can't walk into a shop and buy a gun without a firearms certificate. Set up a system whereby to own automatic weapons and weapons only designed to kill you need a more thorough test and you can't but help the situation. Surely?
The British system is a disgusting, in that you must beg for the kindly generosity of the government when you've done nothing wrong - like you're guilty until proven innocent.
I have, and guess what? I did more than think about it, I looked at various government research that showed:Quote:
You don't stop and think about wether gun controls would actually affect any of this at all.
bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomeshttp://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
No evidence such controls reduce crime. When you see that, what then is the motivation for passing all these laws? It's simply to discourage and prevent people from getting a gun by piling up obstacles in their path.
Also, seeing as there are no empirical benefits to gun laws, the negative effects must obviously outweigh the (nonexistent) positive effects.
You mean the countries who's armies loyal to said dictators are flooded with guns?Quote:
So plenty of guns = no dictators? what about all the dictators in countries flooded with guns then?
Perhaps you should keep in mind 'common sense' ideas about gun control are often wrong (see above), and not come to assumptions without evidence.Quote:
Well apparently criminals can magic guns from anywhere to anywhere im just assuming that they currently take what would seem to be the easiest route.
And what did the Nazis due after coming to power? They banned private possession of firearms as [the public]"having arms did not serve the state".Quote:
Show me a significant number of dictatorships that haven't been backed up by armed civilian militias. The Brownshirts, Zimbabwe's National Youth Service to name a couple.
Heck, let's take a look at what Hitler said about it:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."
-Edict of March 18, 1938, H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944 (London: Widenfeld and Nicolson, 1953, p. 425-426).
http://hitlernews.cloudworth.com/quo...olf-hitler.php
CR
Like I said, that's how they end up, but the Nazi's like so many were supported by armed civilians when they came to power. You're not contradicting anything I said there.
Before I have a good read of that research link, these are three thoughts I have:
You seem persuaded that gun restrictions in the UK mean I have to beg and be accused of doing something wrong. That's definitely wrong. Take my word for it, I live in that situation.
This bit struck me "Also, seeing as there are no empirical benefits to gun laws, the negative effects must obviously outweigh the (nonexistent) positive effects."
You're focussed now on how small the benefits of gun restrictions are. I don't know much about that (reading to come :smile:), but earlier you were concentrating on the negative effects of gun restrictions, which to my mind are the part that's nonexistent.
My attitude in my first post was along the lines of; seeing as there are no downsides to gun laws, the positive effects must obviously outweigh the (nonexistent) negative effects.
So my last thought is that; assuming your info about the effects of gun restrictions is correct, I'm tending to think the issue is not so much about the mechanics of the laws enforced.
As I alluded too in my first post in this thread, there are two dimensions to this issue; gun regulations and 'gun culture'. I think the gun culture in the US is perhaps a more critical issue than the restrictions applied.
Hmm Hmm Hmm
CR, please don't misrepresent quotes by only giving half the sentence. I hope that this debate is about working out a decent solution to a problem (at least amongst ourselves) and not to 'beat' each other at debate. :no: Here is 'that quote' in full:
Looks like both you and I will have to look elsewhere for any definitive expert opinion...Quote:
The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)
EDIT: I just read through that report. Essentially it said - the existing research is not adequate or appropriate for making a judgment. We need more money. What did you do? Google it?
pfff I'm very dissapointed
It's a little bit too late to join the debate for me, but after reading much of the thread, I'd like to say this to the pro-gun side: Would you please stop using master suppression techniques?
All your arguments seem to be based on these, at least to a degree, where you ridicule the anti-gun side and claim that you have the greater knowledge. Also, just because a person hasn't fired a gun does not mean that disqualifies him, or his opinion on the lethality of guns, in a discussion. And, for heaven's sake, don't refer to the nazis. That has to be the oldest and worst excuse for a lack of a proper argument: "Look, this is what the nazis did. Do you want to do the same? Are you a nazi? Are you, huh?".
I'm still a child by legal standards, and most of you are probably (and sadly) 30 or above, so stop acting like children.
I misrepresented nothing. I said there is "No evidence such controls reduce crime." So if you're arguing for more gun control, you can't say 'it will reduce crime' honestly. You could, I suppose, say we should do it because some watery tart told you too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Twasn't I who brought up the Nazis, or the pro-gun side.Quote:
And, for heaven's sake, don't refer to the nazis. That has to be the oldest and worst excuse for a lack of a proper argument: "Look, this is what the nazis did. Do you want to do the same? Are you a nazi? Are you, huh?".
Gee, maybe because I get a wee bit tired of endless assumptions from people who have hardly, if ever, handled a gun, yet making sweeping declarations about guns ands situations involving them. And also because I do have the facts on my side - why should I not bring them to bear?Quote:
All your arguments seem to be based on these, at least to a degree, where you ridicule the anti-gun side and claim that you have the greater knowledge.
And what significant armed group opposed them? And who could after they implemented laws to disarm potential dissidents?Quote:
Like I said, that's how they end up, but the Nazi's like so many were supported by armed civilians when they came to power
Nonexistent? I would say self defense is a very big benefit. Of course, you guys in Britain wouldn't see much of that with the extreme regulation you have.Quote:
but earlier you were concentrating on the negative effects of gun restrictions, which to my mind are the part that's nonexistent.
CR