Gun Control [Archive] - Page 2

Riverratt

05-04-2008, 10:13 AM

Ytterbium;

It saddens me to hear how you speak of turning away, when you or your loved ones are violated. I read on your profile, that you are of Finnish decent..

I wonder, what would have happened to them if they had turned the other cheek, when the Soviet Union rolled into Finland, in 1939 for the "Winter War"???

Would they have "walked away"? As a government (whom you say is a legitimate user of guns) took away EVERYTHING THEY HAD???

Actually, I know the answer to that question, they not only did NOT walk away, but they took up their rifles and skis, and turned on the Red Army like a cornered tiger, and ripped it too pieces. But poor Finland still lost about 10% of its land in the end, but the rest of the nation stayed free. Stalin had wanted it all, but only got a small portion. Lets see, weren't Finland's casualties about 25,000 men, BUT, the Soviet Union lost almost 130,000 men....Yea... Guns are no good... A soviet general was quoted as saying, that they only captured enough land, to bury their dead on.

Here are a few rifles from YOUR HISTORY... On top is a Finnish Civil Guards (Suojeluskunta) M 24 "Lotta" Rifle ( a very rare, and VERY collectible rifle in the US)... On the bottom, is a FINNISH CAPTURED Mosin Nagant M91-30...A Rifle that was TAKEN from the Soviets, and used by the hard press Finnish army, complete with all the markings. :thumbsup:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

These rifles, especially the M24, whose owners where required, to purchase them and own them, played an immeasurably important part in Finland's History....DO NOT THROW them, and the men who carried them into combat for their homelands under the bus with "Only governments should have guns" and "Why would you need a gun?" bullshit. The main reason you "don't need a gun" now, is because these men fought and died for the peace you partake of so flippantly...

One day, their will be new tyrants, their will be NEW challenges to freedom, it is our duty, as a peaceful people, to stay ready for the challenge. If we give up the power to resist........I don't even want to talk about it...

BTW, those rifles, are FULLY FUNCTIONAL, and they, along with many others, are ready to defend life, limb and property, at a moments notice... Also, for the history buffs among us, the Capture rifle, has shrapnel still embedded in the stock.

Ytterbium

05-04-2008, 02:42 PM

It has been statistically proven.
Things might be safer if nobody had weapons (though there are factors that might make things more dangerous). The point on this thread is that banning weapons does not make them go away; it just ensures that the law-abiding citizens, who are not the violent ones, will not have methods of self defense. The criminals, meanwhile, will hang onto their weapons and be more likely to use them, since they know that the victims cannot fight back. That makes the rates of violent crime increase.Yes the weapons create the problem itself. Which means people will feel unsafe and therefore buy more weapons. If you stop the flood of new weapons and start to desctruct all the busted criminals' weapons it will sooner or later drain them out. Not all, it's impossible but it will be a big amount.

You never mentioned the option of leaving. If I could leave, I probably would, unless I had a special interest in staying. If I was on my own property, I would probably not leave.It was just an example. You have to admit that it can escalade fairly ease with guns. Without guns, what would you do but ask them to leave? You could go berserk with a spade but I'll guess few would. With a gun it's just to pull the trigger, then it's over and someone would probably be very sorry. If a human being is frightened they will probably not think very clear, they just want to escape the situation quickly taking the easiest route.

The majority of criminals will chicken when they see a gun. They are in it for cash, and usually not willing to risk their lives like that.
The homicidal maniacs are of course the exception, but at that point they are going to kill you no matter what you do.But what would they do being armed with a knife instead?

Do you really mean that even the criminals have no firearms? How was that accompished, and how do you know?
You would often not be close enough to use those.No not every criminal have a firearm. I don't have any figures though. But reading the news etc it's not unusal that robbers arms of choice is axes and crowbars.

Ytterbium;

It saddens me to hear how you speak of turning away, when you or your loved ones are violated. I read on your profile, that you are of Finnish decent..

I wonder, what would have happened to them if they had turned the other cheek, when the Soviet Union rolled into Finland, in 1939 for the "Winter War"???

Would they have "walked away"? As a government (whom you say is a legitimate user of guns) took away EVERYTHING THEY HAD???

Actually, I know the answer to that question, they not only did NOT walk away, but they took up their rifles and skis, and turned on the Red Army like a cornered tiger, and ripped it too pieces. But poor Finland still lost about 10% of its land in the end, but the rest of the nation stayed free. Stalin had wanted it all, but only got a small portion. Lets see, weren't Finland's casualties about 25,000 men, BUT, the Soviet Union lost almost 130,000 men....Yea... Guns are no good... A soviet general was quoted as saying, that they only captured enough land, to bury their dead on.It saddens me to read that you think I'm turning away. I'm not, see how it works (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). I favor a large conscript forces which all Nordic countries utilize (except Iceland which don't have any armed forces). I'm born in Sweden and lived here all my life. My mother is from Finland. I speak Finnish though and have a lot of relatives there.
My relatives live not to far from the Russian border in the Finnish Lapland. That part of Finland, that municipality they live in lost a lot of land and the local capital which the municipality was named after. So after the war they renamed another place (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) with the old town name which was ceded to Russia. The rail road track which went to that town is now cut of by a fence with barbed wire. My grandfather said that anyone crossing the clear cut no mans land will be shot on the spot. On a clear day you can see the Russian watchtowers from their place.
Finns don't like Russians. If you confuse these two in a crowded bar. You wish that they have guns, so your death will be quick and painless.
As always Sweden was neutral but alot of volunteers came from Sweden. There were even a Swedish Air regiment (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) all volunteers, supported by the state. As it were said "Finlands matter is the matter of Sweden" losely translated.

Here are a few rifles from YOUR HISTORY... On top is a Finnish Civil Guards (Suojeluskunta) M 24 "Lotta" Rifle ( a very rare, and VERY collectible rifle in the US)... On the bottom, is a FINNISH CAPTURED Mosin Nagant M91-30...A Rifle that was TAKEN from the Soviets, and used by the hard press Finnish army, complete with all the markings. :thumbsup:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

These rifles, especially the M24, whose owners where required, to purchase them and own them, played an immeasurably important part in Finland's History....DO NOT THROW them, and the men who carried them into combat for their homelands under the bus with "Only governments should have guns" and "Why would you need a gun?" bullshit. The main reason you "don't need a gun" now, is because these men fought and died for the peace you partake of so flippantly...

One day, their will be new tyrants, their will be NEW challenges to freedom, it is our duty, as a peaceful people, to stay ready for the challenge. If we give up the power to resist........I don't even want to talk about it...

BTW, those rifles, are FULLY FUNCTIONAL, and they, along with many others, are ready to defend life, limb and property, at a moments notice... Also, for the history buffs among us, the Capture rifle, has shrapnel still embedded in the stock.I am the goverment, a very small part of it anyway. Somewhere in this country there's a rifle (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) waiting for me. I'm not a member of the home guard which have their rifles (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) at home. Me defending my country has nothing to do with carrying gun around in daily life. As I have the luck of living where I do. I don't feel unsafe fearing a nutjobs running a around with hand guns and I like to keep it that way.

blueback

05-04-2008, 02:59 PM

Riverratt

05-04-2008, 03:44 PM

That is the thing about Guns....Even the most adamant gun control advocate, can find themselves preying for one...

Problem is, when a situation happens, that requires a sidearm, you need it NOW, "the situation" will not wait for you to get one.

Just think of all those innocent people, who where led to the gas chambers by their government, in the 1940's....I bet many of those folk, WISHED they had a gun.

But alas, they allowed the goverment to disarm them.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ytterbium

05-04-2008, 04:33 PM

Try thinking about it in a purely theoretical sense. If you needed a gun, would you rather have it or not have it?

If you find yourself pushed into a dark alley by a mugger who's holding a gun on you and he says he's going to kill you would you be thinking "I really wish I had a gun right now" or would you be thinking "well, if someone had to be murdered I'm glad it's me and not some other innocent person". Would all the time you'd spent feeling safe because you didn't have a gun make up for the one time you didn't have a gun and weren't safe?If I "need" I could certainly get a permit to own one as I'm clean in the police registers. Or I could just ask my father to lend me one of his hunting rifles.
If I'm held at gun point it don't matter if I have a gun or not. I'm to slow pulling it and aim for that matter. If the criminal spots my gun, he will either shoot me on the spot or ask me to throw it away. The risk of getting mugged in a dark alley with a gun is severly increased, if guns are easy to obtain. It might even be so that the mugging in dark alleys increases as it's so easy to do with a gun.
So to answer your theoretical question yes I rather take that risk. There's nothing saying that I die the next day in a car crash for instance, no matter how safe the roads are.

Ytterbium added to this post, 44 minutes and 29 seconds later...

That is the thing about Guns....Even the most adamant gun control advocate, can find themselves preying for one...

Problem is, when a situation happens, that requires a sidearm, you need it NOW, "the situation" will not wait for you to get one.

Just think of all those innocent people, who where led to the gas chambers by their government, in the 1940's....I bet many of those folk, WISHED they had a gun.

But alas, they allowed the goverment to disarm them.In Norway on Svalbard people carry rifles to protect themselves from polar bears. Do I need to when I walk the streets where I live?

When the situation happens it doesn't mean I have a gun available. It means that I have to defend myself in other ways. Just like I would do now because I don't own a gun.

Do you think they knocked on the door and said we are going to kill you? It doesn't matter if you have a gun or not. Everyone can get lured and disarmed in the process. If we both had guns and enjoyed tea together. I could just suddently shoot you. Which would have been harder to accomplish without guns.
How often do you use your guns against your goverment?
"Your drivers license have expired, sir"
"Hell no!" *ratatatata*

Riverratt

05-04-2008, 05:01 PM

If I "need" I could certainly get a permit to own one as I'm clean in the police registers. Or I could just ask my father to lend me one of his hunting rifles.
If I'm held at gun point it don't matter if I have a gun or not. I'm to slow pulling it and aim for that matter. If the criminal spots my gun, he will either shoot me on the spot or ask me to throw it away. The risk of getting mugged in a dark alley with a gun is severly increased, if guns are easy to obtain. It might even be so that the mugging in dark alleys increases as it's so easy to do with a gun.
So to answer your theoretical question yes I rather take that risk. There's nothing saying that I die the next day in a car crash for instance, no matter how safe the roads are.

Ytterbium added to this post, 44 minutes and 29 seconds later...

In Norway on Svalbard people carry rifles to protect themselves from polar bears. Do I need to when I walk the streets where I live?

When the situation happens it doesn't mean I have a gun available. It means that I have to defend myself in other ways. Just like I would do now because I don't own a gun.

Do you think they knocked on the door and said we are going to kill you? It doesn't matter if you have a gun or not. Everyone can get lured and disarmed in the process. If we both had guns and enjoyed tea together. I could just suddenly shoot you. Which would have been harder to accomplish without guns.
How often do you use your guns against your goverment?
"Your drivers license have expired, sir"
"Hell no!" *ratatatata*

I don't understand why you think, every disagreement, ends in gunfire?? It does not..My wife and I, both have carried guns for years, we never have shot anyone...Several years ago, I got assaulted at a gas pump, by a drunk....I knocked him slap out, with an punch, after he walked up to me and hit me.

I had a .45 in my jacket....I never even thought of reaching for it, after all, his fists, are not a deadly weapon to me...had he pulled a knife, or picked up a rock...I would have drawn, and gave him a choice of life or death, his decision....Actually, if you want to know the truth, when my wife and I carry, it makes us extremely vigilant, and careful. I am much more likely to get into a confrontation with someone, if I don't have my sidearm on me. I know, that if I am forced to use it (and if I do, it will be because I was forced to use it) I will be put under the legal microscope, and every step I took, will be scrutinized. If I just get into a fist fight, it is just a "$50 fine and Mr Riverratt, don't let it happen again" sort of deal.

All my neighbors are armed to the teeth, most carry guns in their cars as well...I my community, a rape, or murder, is extremely uncommon., the last time someone got killed here, was about 6 years ago.

We sleep with our doors unlocked and keys are in the ignition of our cars.

I honestly don't understand the idea that "If you have a gun, you will use it at the drop of a hat.

That idea, you keep exposing, just does not happen in the "real world".

To those of us, that CHOSE to carry defensively, it means just that....DEFENCE of LIFE.

EDIT, NO, I have not used my arms in defence of freedom, but they stand ready.....

blueback

05-04-2008, 09:36 PM

Ytterbium, you seem to be having trouble with a core idea. I'll try to make it simple and obvious.

1) The vast majority of people in developed countries are law-abiding, we'll call them citizens.
2) A small minority is not law-abiding, they are called criminals.
3) The citizens will obey pretty much any law handed down from the government.
4) The criminals will disobey any law that gets in their way.

Now, lets say you actually distributed handguns to every single person in the country (hypothetically). You would have armed every criminal and every citizen. Lets say that as part of this initiative you trained every person in the country in the basics of firearm safety and use and required everyone to carry a firearm on themselves whenever practical.

At this point everyone in this country is armed and knows how to use their gun.

Now, pretend you're a criminal. You are trying to plan out a crime of some sort. You know, for a fact, that anyone you try to take advantage of in some way is going to be armed. That means that, at a minimum, you have to wait until they're alone and hopefully far from help. Every citizen knows that every other citizen is armed and, therefore, a call for help is likely to attract one or more people from nearby who will have guns. What this does is it raises the stakes considerably. As a criminal you have to be very careful to not seem in any way threatening or your target will make an effort to have their gun at the ready and stay in populated areas.

Try to imagine, for example, a group of criminals robbing a bank in which every single person in the bank is armed. What that does is it raises the barrier to entry for crime. To even attempt a crime you have to be confident of your ability to deal with the fallout, in this case a group of armed enemies. That means that you have to plan better, you have to be better equipped, and you have to carry out crimes in a much more disciplined and professional manner. Even if you are incredibly careful and only attack people who are isolated in their homes you can't be sure that they don't have their gun in hand when you enter the house.

Sure, criminals will still take advantage of citizens, but the volume of crime will be greatly reduced.

Or, if you disagree, feel free to explain why I'm wrong.

md21017md

05-05-2008, 07:48 AM

You guys keep missing the point. You think the only way to kill someone is with a gun, and if guns are removed all the problems will end. Until you can change the hearts of man, we will simply use another tool. If it were as simple as take away guns, I’d be all for it, but it’s not that simple. The gun is not the problem, it’s simply a tool to man’s end. I also think too many NON Americans watch too damn much TV/movies which gives an unfair impression of the US. A vast majority of the murders in the US are drug related – fights over drug turf, or killings for drugs not paid for, or robberies to get drug money. These people are not going to let a little thing like laws of lack of a gun stop them.
You all are also looking at this as a 1 on 1 issue – he mugs me and I’ll shoot him, another fallacy. In Europe, I could feel pretty much free to pull a club, knife or, heaven forbid an illegally owned gun, and rape, rob, kill or what ever knowing I would not face any kind of weapon from the victim. In the states, you never know who is going to have a gun, so it provides a deterrence of sorts.
The second part of this, I don’t carry a gun. If attacked, the attacker not only has to worry about me, but anyone else around could be armed and shoot his ass. There have been many cases where an attacker was stopped, not by the victim but by another person. This is never reported in our liberal press because it would take some wind out of the antigun sails.
As I said, the anti gun crowd is trying to change the hearts of man by removing a tool. We evolved by being innovative, and letting little stand in our way. If you take 1 tool from us, we’ll simply find another. The only deaths removing guns will stop are those where someone unintended is hit by a stray bullet.
To those of you in Europe on this anti-gun crusade, I truly wish you could have lived in Nazi German, or endured the Finn-Russo war mentioned. I wish you could have been a Cambodian in the 70’s, or lived in Rwanda, or Darfur or any other area where you could have seen the effects of a 100% ban on guns. Everyone blames guns, and thinks the US is so violent, but if you look at the OVERALL murder rates, the US is not even in the top 10.
Those of you that have mentioned the police protecting you, I am not sure about the rest of the world, but in the US, the police have no duty to protect an individual. By their very nature they are a reactionary force – they can not do anything till a crime has been committed. So until you are attacked, they can’t do a thing to the wood be attacker, including searching him – they need probably cause and in many cases a search warrant.

Ok, so bam, you have utopia, all guns have been removed from the world, they never existed.
What about a knife? How well do you think you can deal with an attacker coming after you with a knife? In the US, most police are more worked up over a knife than a gun (most educated one’s anyway). Within 21 feet, a knife if considered more dangerous to a police officer. This is considered the distance a person with a knife can cover and stab a police officer who has his gun holstered – in the time it takes the office to un-holster, aim and shoot, the average person can cover 21 feet.
Keep in mind, most people who were cut or stabbed never saw the knife. Most people that carry a knife and get in a fight are far more likely to use it than those that carry a gun. A knife used in an attack can not be traced, requires no training or permit. A knife never jams, never runs out of ammo. A knife is easily cancelable, can be made at home with little skill. There is no age requirement to buy a knife (for the most part) I spent 10 years studying martial arts (this is part of the reason I stopped legally carrying a gun) and it was pretty much agreed by all that a knife in the hands of an untrained idiot negated 5 to 10 years of training. Contrary to what TV and the movies show you, it’s pretty damn hard to deal with someone that has a knife even if you have one. We’d routinely give a new guy a training knife, and have him go after people that had been training for years. It’s just about impossible not to get cut, and harder still to do enough damage to him before he can latch on and stab away.
If anyone saw “The Hunted” with Tommy lee jones, then knife scene in the end while cool to watch was so far fetched. Both would have looked hamburger.
Statistically, most people attacked with a knife are stabbed multiple times, and rarely realize they are being stabbed.
We can debate this for ever, but the reality is that taking a tool away will never stop a human from accomplishing the task they set out to. I will admit that a gun does give a certain class of people a sense of superiority that they may not feel if they had to resort to a knife or club. I think it’s hard to compare murder rates between someplace like Japan and the US, because there is so much more to the problem. We are 2 different societies with differing viewpoint, morals, drug problems etc etc.

Ytterbium

05-05-2008, 11:49 AM

I don't understand why you think, every disagreement, ends in gunfire?? It does not..My wife and I, both have carried guns for years, we never have shot anyone...Several years ago, I got assaulted at a gas pump, by a drunk....I knocked him slap out, with an punch, after he walked up to me and hit me.It don't have to. But the risk that happening is severly increased if people had guns around them. Just like car accidents are more likely to happen because there're cars.
So what did you need your gun for?

I had a .45 in my jacket....I never even thought of reaching for it, after all, his fists, are not a deadly weapon to me...had he pulled a knife, or picked up a rock...I would have drawn, and gave him a choice of life or death, his decision....Actually, if you want to know the truth, when my wife and I carry, it makes us extremely vigilant, and careful. I am much more likely to get into a confrontation with someone, if I don't have my sidearm on me. I know, that if I am forced to use it (and if I do, it will be because I was forced to use it) I will be put under the legal microscope, and every step I took, will be scrutinized. If I just get into a fist fight, it is just a "$50 fine and Mr Riverratt, don't let it happen again" sort of deal.Smart move. But everyone aren't, right? Then no matter how you think it's your decision in the end to shoot him or not. You and your wife may be the best gun owners in the world. That don't stop those who aren't to be gun owners too.

All my neighbors are armed to the teeth, most carry guns in their cars as well...I my community, a rape, or murder, is extremely uncommon., the last time someone got killed here, was about 6 years ago.

We sleep with our doors unlocked and keys are in the ignition of our cars.

I honestly don't understand the idea that "If you have a gun, you will use it at the drop of a hat.

That idea, you keep exposing, just does not happen in the "real world".

To those of us, that CHOSE to carry defensively, it means just that....DEFENCE of LIFE.

EDIT, NO, I have not used my arms in defence of freedom, but they stand ready.....I would say such things which you mentioned are quite non-existent where I live too. My neighbours aren't armed to their teeth because there's no need for that. No need for you either really, as it seems.

Ytterbium, you seem to be having trouble with a core idea. I'll try to make it simple and obvious.

1) The vast majority of people in developed countries are law-abiding, we'll call them citizens.
2) A small minority is not law-abiding, they are called criminals.
3) The citizens will obey pretty much any law handed down from the government.
4) The criminals will disobey any law that gets in their way.

Now, lets say you actually distributed handguns to every single person in the country (hypothetically). You would have armed every criminal and every citizen. Lets say that as part of this initiative you trained every person in the country in the basics of firearm safety and use and required everyone to carry a firearm on themselves whenever practical.

At this point everyone in this country is armed and knows how to use their gun.Well most men are trained to handle guns. As most of them have done compulsory military service. That doesn't mean all should be equipped with a gun. Why do you need a gun walking around in the street? Why do you have to walk around dressed like a chicken, carrying a hammer in the subway?
You may think I'm the one missing the point here. If you look into it deeper you may find out that the guns are contributing factor for gun advocates. If there were close to zero guns it wouldn't be wild west nor would guns be necessary at all.

Now, pretend you're a criminal. You are trying to plan out a crime of some sort. You know, for a fact, that anyone you try to take advantage of in some way is going to be armed. That means that, at a minimum, you have to wait until they're alone and hopefully far from help. Every citizen knows that every other citizen is armed and, therefore, a call for help is likely to attract one or more people from nearby who will have guns. What this does is it raises the stakes considerably. As a criminal you have to be very careful to not seem in any way threatening or your target will make an effort to have their gun at the ready and stay in populated areas.If I'm a serious criminal there're more things than guns that have to be considered. Then as mentioned before, if I'm high on drugs and want money fast I wouldn't care, it just will be a frenzy.

Try to imagine, for example, a group of criminals robbing a bank in which every single person in the bank is armed. What that does is it raises the barrier to entry for crime. To even attempt a crime you have to be confident of your ability to deal with the fallout, in this case a group of armed enemies. That means that you have to plan better, you have to be better equipped, and you have to carry out crimes in a much more disciplined and professional manner. Even if you are incredibly careful and only attack people who are isolated in their homes you can't be sure that they don't have their gun in hand when you enter the house.

Sure, criminals will still take advantage of citizens, but the volume of crime will be greatly reduced.

Or, if you disagree, feel free to explain why I'm wrong.Well here the bank robberies are more pro than just walk in and ask for money. A robbery have to be pro no matter if guns are involved or not, to succeed. There're will always be work-arounds for all problems that can be encountered.
So yes I disagree with you. If you don't still get it then ask.

md21017md

05-05-2008, 12:29 PM

If there were close to zero guns it wouldn't be wild west nor would guns be necessary at all.

It's not the wild west in the US, and even the wild west was more hype that TV makes it out to be.

"My neighbours aren't armed to their teeth because there's no need for that. No need for you either really, as it seems. "

So are you saying there is zero crime in your country?

Ytterbium

05-05-2008, 12:51 PM

It's not the wild west in the US, and even the wild west was more hype that TV makes it out to be.It's certainly more wild west than on other places on the earth.

So are you saying there is zero crime in your country?No. I say my community is free from murders etc. Not bike thefts or similar.

blueback

05-05-2008, 01:33 PM

md21017md

05-05-2008, 01:42 PM

No. I say my community is free from murders etc. Not bike thefts or similar.

You are telling me your country has no murders? Then why when Ilook up the homocide stats do I not see 0 per thousand for Sweeden or Finland?

It's certainly more wild west than on other places on the earth.

Is that so, then how do you explain the fact that there are at least 23 other countries (considering there are what about 170 countries world wide) with a higher murder rate than the US. The US isn't even close to the top 10. You need to look at the facts.

You are supposed to be a fact driven INTJ aren't you? Yet you are going with what you feel, totally ignoring the facts, or skewing them to fit your cause.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Strangely enough, this from a UN report shows over all crime in Sweeden twice that of the US, so don't give me that crap about the US is the wild west, and gun control works. Looks like Your eutopian European gunless soceity has far more criminal activity.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The real irony, far more people die in the US from auto related deaths, but I don't see anyone trying to outlaw cars. Cars are a priveledge, not a right.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

41,611 people killed in auto accidents in 1999

more than 20,000 people die from the flu - maybe we should outlaw the flu

Strangely enough, on this chart, gun deaths are far less than many benign daily activities.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes I am making fun of this a bit, because it's that stupid of an issue. Everyone dies, and there are far more people dying from things other than guns. Unfortunately a certain segment of soceity seems to like jumping on the antigun band wagon. It means votes for appearing to do something; it's a topic one will never win, nor be expected to win, but appearing to do SOMETHING makes the politician look like he cares, he's doing something. The UN is made up of countries with out the same liberties as the US, and the UN seeks to go into an area of conflict and solve issues with no concern to the local countries existing rights. Generally when the UN enters a country, it's in such a mess that they can do as the please to restore order - even trounce on local rights in the name of order. The UN is not concerned with rights of an individual country per se, and they wield extensive influence over European opinion; rhetoric to which you are following, totally ignorant of the statistics staring you in the face.

So you are an INTJ, show me the money. Show me the stats that show the US as the most violent. Show me the stats that show any credance to the fact that banning guns decreases crime. Show me the stats that shows the US as having more crime period than any other country? Can you?

Lets take emotion out of this, and stick to the facts. Man isn't that funny, and ExFP telling an INTJ to leave emotion out of an arguement.

md21017md added to this post, 7 minutes and 45 seconds later...

If you were a druggie and you knew that everyone around you was most definitely armed you wouldn't rob anyone.

Not even everyone, say 1 in 20. So The person you are going to rob, rape what ever, is this person the 1 or the 19, what about others in the area? Ok, you picked 1 of the 19, but what about the 3 other people on the corner, what are they? The 1 or 1 of the 19? That is the point, you never know. You don't have to carry a gun to benifit from the ability to carry one. Just having a criminal know that someone around has a gun it a mitigating factor - you never know if you'll "win" the "lottery". If no one has a gun, then you know you are 100% safe attacking anyone you want.

By the way, have you ever been to the US? What are you basing all your "the us is the wild west " attitude on? Movies? TV? Liberal European rheteric?

Ytterbium

05-05-2008, 04:16 PM

Ytterbium, I'm not going to try to talk to you anymore because, while you've responded to some of the things I've said you haven't responded to any of the points.

Normally I'm okay with having to restate points over and over again, but right now I'm buys and tired. Therefore, this will be the last time I try to help you understand this.I tried the best I can. I don't know what you're after. Since I try answer your questions you still ramble another subjects. Without any feedback on what I've written, it's a one way flow.
You're discussing this completely voluntarily and may leave anytime you want. But things won't become clearer if you did, I guess.

Q: "Why do you need a gun walking around in the street?"
A: You don't need a gun to walk around in the street. The only time you need a gun is when you are in danger of losing life, liberty, or property. If you happen to be walking in the street when someone tries to take away your life, liberty, or property then it would have been a good idea to have brought the gun with you.Yes which means it will be carried all time, right? Because you need that gun when walking on the streets, in case someone assaults you. As it probably can happen everywhere? That's your argument for carrying guns, to be ready when it happens?

It's got to be a cultural thing. The reason many Americans carry guns is that they take personal responsibility for their own safety and the safety of their family. Your culture must be different in that you don't take persoanl responsibility. If an average American saw a crime happening right in front of them they would want to have the ability to stop it. That is personal responsibility. If you saw a crime happening right in front of you, what would you want to do?So I nor my compatriots don't take responsibility? Because we don't walk around with guns? So I would do nothing to prevent a crime? Do you think I'm and all other people are complete screw ups because we don't have guns? There're absolute no other ways of defending myself or the people around me without a gun? (Keep in mind that probably not even the criminals have guns).
With everyone having a gun would be more wild western. Why? Because guns shoots projectiles in high speeds. Which can cause more harm to innocent people than two guys wrestling on the floor. Back to the bank robbery, people panic and starts shooting everywhere. They can't steer their bullets they will stop where they stop. They may go through walls, roofs and kill innocent people for instance. Bank robbers in places where guns are hard to get ahold of. Will likely reconsider if it's worth the risk to rob a bank. Robbing banks without guns is not unheard of though. Even if it can be seen as medieval to rob a bank with axes. There were actually a bank robbery in april where an 78 year old man walked towards the AK-47 armed robber, took a photo of him and then knocked the robber cold blood. The old man said that they would probably not shoot an old man, he was right appearantly.

Q: "If I'm a serious criminal there're more things than guns that have to be considered."
A: Yeah. That was my point. If you're a SERIOUS criminal. If no one in your country is armed then you can commit crimes as a hobby. If everyone in your country is armed then you won't commit crimes on a whim, and if you do you'll only commit one crime ever.Why do you think crimes would be a hobby because we don't walk around with guns? If you're serious, guns ain't everything. There're so much more in a robbery planning. You just don't get in there do your thing and run away. That's not how they work here anyway.
Again why would it be a hobby to rob people because we don't have a gun planted on us 24h? I rather see it as natural that armed persons see their chance than unnarmed ones.

Seriously, dude, step out of your box. You seem to be incapable of imagining any situation you aren't in right now.

Q: "if I'm high on drugs and want money fast I wouldn't care, it just will be a frenzy"
A: Again with the inability to imagine what other people are like. Not many people commit crimes while they are completely stoned out of their mind. The druggies commit crimes while they are completely not high and need money to get high again. If you were a druggie, and you knew that no one around you was armed, you wouldn't have any problem at all robbing someone. Just corner them, pull a knife, and they'll give up their money immediately. If you were a druggie and you knew that everyone around you was most definitely armed you wouldn't rob anyone. You'd break into a house while its owners were away and steal stuff to pawn. That means that violence is kept away from people, a good thing.

Are you even thinking about this?Maybe I can't imagine your everyday life where you have to protect yourself with a gun. As that fear is non-existent here. At the very same time it may be hard for you to see that you don't have to carry a gun here to be safe.
Maybe high is the wrong word, what about desperate? I think all crimials would be very picky about their targets. Even if they had a knife, they never know what their target would do. A female could spray them a male could kick their ass. My view on drugusers is that they seem quite "lost" most of the time. My right to carry a gun means that everyone else also have that right too. I rather defend myself against a knife holding robber than a gun holding one.

Ytterbium added to this post, 49 minutes and 11 seconds later...

You are telling me your country has no murders? Then why when Ilook up the homocide stats do I not see 0 per thousand for Sweeden or Finland?No I'm not, read again. Community does that equals country to you?

Is that so, then how do you explain the fact that there are at least 23 other countries (considering there are what about 170 countries world wide) with a higher murder rate than the US. The US isn't even close to the top 10. You need to look at the facts.Don't ask me, ask those who thinks it's so unsafe they need a gun.
Keep in mind it reads murders, not everyone is murdered by guns.

You are supposed to be a fact driven INTJ aren't you? Yet you are going with what you feel, totally ignoring the facts, or skewing them to fit your cause.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Strangely enough, this from a UN report shows over all crime in Sweeden twice that of the US, so don't give me that crap about the US is the wild west, and gun control works. Looks like Your eutopian European gunless soceity has far more criminal activity.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. am I supposed to be fact driven. I'm not a SJ. I make rational judgements.
You know in my 21 year life expericence the only crime that has been done to me. Is that my bike got stolen, it was lying on the front lawn unlocked. I had got it for free a couple years earlier, so it wasn't a great loss. I'll guess someone tired of walking saw their chance. This is also a crime. What about the other crimes in your nice little list? What are they? You might blindly following the almighty list but I'm a bit more skeptical. Statistic is a great way to distort information.
I could not find Sweden in the murder list and please do not stamp us as Europeans.

The real irony, far more people die in the US from auto related deaths, but I don't see anyone trying to outlaw cars. Cars are a priveledge, not a right.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

41,611 people killed in auto accidents in 1999

more than 20,000 people die from the flu - maybe we should outlaw the flu

Strangely enough, on this chart, gun deaths are far less than many benign daily activities.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes I am making fun of this a bit, because it's that stupid of an issue. Everyone dies, and there are far more people dying from things other than guns. Unfortunately a certain segment of soceity seems to like jumping on the antigun band wagon. It means votes for appearing to do something; it's a topic one will never win, nor be expected to win, but appearing to do SOMETHING makes the politician look like he cares, he's doing something. The UN is made up of countries with out the same liberties as the US, and the UN seeks to go into an area of conflict and solve issues with no concern to the local countries existing rights. Generally when the UN enters a country, it's in such a mess that they can do as the please to restore order - even trounce on local rights in the name of order. The UN is not concerned with rights of an individual country per se, and they wield extensive influence over European opinion; rhetoric to which you are following, totally ignorant of the statistics staring you in the face.It's not how many people die. It's about people dying unnessarily. Cars are transport equipment, guns are used to kill beings. In what way am I ignorant?

So you are an INTJ, show me the money. Show me the stats that show the US as the most violent. Show me the stats that show any credance to the fact that banning guns decreases crime. Show me the stats that shows the US as having more crime period than any other country? Can you?

Lets take emotion out of this, and stick to the facts. Man isn't that funny, and ExFP telling an INTJ to leave emotion out of an arguement.I never written that US of A is the most violent. It's your friends implying that they can't be safe without guns. They want to defend themselves for a reason and guns is the only way doing that appearantly.
I say that we don't need guns here. So if the statistic says there're X times more crime in Sweden than in the USA. What if all the Swedish crimes consists of bike theft and the American crimes of drive by shootings? Who is then better of? This is highly theoretical but think about it. I can't deliver statics showing that at the moment, I don't know if there're any research on the subject. So it's up to you to find that guns decrease crimes instead.

Not even everyone, say 1 in 20. So The person you are going to rob, rape what ever, is this person the 1 or the 19, what about others in the area? Ok, you picked 1 of the 19, but what about the 3 other people on the corner, what are they? The 1 or 1 of the 19? That is the point, you never know. You don't have to carry a gun to benifit from the ability to carry one. Just having a criminal know that someone around has a gun it a mitigating factor - you never know if you'll "win" the "lottery". If no one has a gun, then you know you are 100% safe attacking anyone you want.

By the way, have you ever been to the US? What are you basing all your "the us is the wild west " attitude on? Movies? TV? Liberal European rheteric?I think I answered this question further up.
One thing is quite sure, your pretty screwed if you're second, i.e being ambushed for instance. Even if you have a gun.

No i have never been to the USA. The wild west connection is something you've done. I say the act of shooting in a bank can be quite wild west. So please read what I write properly.
Anyway time for bed it's already past midnight.

md21017md

05-06-2008, 08:06 AM

No I'm not, read again. Community does that equals country to you?

So your little hole in the world is safe? So you think that means the rest of the world is and because your neighborhood is safe the entire world should give up gun ownership? That sounds pretty self centered to me.

Keep in mind it reads murders, not everyone is murdered by guns.

That is exaclty my point. What does it matter how you are killed? Dead is dead. You are just as dead shot as you are stabbed. Your point is that the US is so dangerous, yet there are at least 23 other countries with higher murder rates.

I live in a fairly safe community, though the city in which my g/f lives has one of the highest murder rates in the US. I personally do not feel the need to carry a gun; I just don't go into the bad neighborhoods, and don't get into drugs. That said, I do not feel the need to deny others the right to protect them self how they see fit, and I do like having a gun at home in the event trouble comes to my house. There are a lot of americans that share this view. Owning a gun doesn't necesarily mean you have to carry it 24x7.

I could not find Sweden in the murder list and please do not stamp us as Europeans.

Ten you need to look again, it's right there in alphabetical order, right before switzerland. Forgive me, I didn't realize Sweden was in a different continent.

Why am I supposed to be fact driven. I'm not a SJ. I make rational judgements.

You do read, speak and understand english? I stated that you were an INTJ (that is what you have in your profile) and Intj's are supposed to be fact driven.

You know in my 21 year life expericence the only crime that has been done to me. Is that my bike got stolen, it was lying on the front lawn unlocked. I had got it for free a couple years earlier, so it wasn't a great loss. I'll guess someone tired of walking saw their chance. This is also a crime. What about the other crimes in your nice little list? What are they? You might blindly following the almighty list but I'm a bit more skeptical. Statistic is a great way to distort information.

md21017md added to this post, 21 minutes and 2 seconds later...

So you live in a nice safe neighborhood, great for you, what about the rest of the world, not everyone lives in your neighboorhood, so why should we abide by your ideals? Unfortunately, there is a lot of crime in the rest of the world.

It's not how many people die. It's about people dying unnessarily.
You mean people dying in car wrecks are dying necesarily?

Cars are transport equipment, guns are used to kill beings.
A gun is a tool just the same as a car. A car can be used to kill just as easily as a gun, and a gun can be used for pleasure (competional shooting) or to keep you alive (hunting). It is simply a tool, nothing more. You continue to miss the point. If you removed guns, people would use something else.

How many people died in wars before guns? Just as many as wars now, and maybe even more so.

In what way am I ignorant?

Well that is the nature of the discussion here isn't it?

So if the statistic says there're X times more crime in Sweden than in the USA. What if all the Swedish crimes consists of bike theft and the American crimes of drive by shootings? Who is then better of?

My point is that your safe and orderly little home (Sweden) is not as safe and orderly as you make it. Sweeden does have murders, maybe not as high as the US, but there are many other factors going on to blindly say "oh it's guns". The US is a much larger country, so of course we will have more big cities which attract crime. I cam bet that is we compared the crime rate with some place like North Dakota and Sweden, I bet Sweden would come out with a higher crime rate. Conversly, comparing New York to many other places, NY will come out worse. You can't accurately say a smaller average compares to a larger average i.e., 1 in 10 while statistically equalls 100 out of 1000, it's not exactly the same because the sample is smaller (1 in 10 that is). The US has 300,000,000 people, what is the population of Europe as a whole? I'd love to see a murder stat for Europe as a whole, I bet the nubmers would be closer to the US, maybe even worse.

According to Statics I sent, sweden has more crime than bike theft, maybe not in your neighborhood, but then how much have you been out of your neighborhood.

No i have never been to the USA.

So you have never been to the US, you have no understanding of our culture? Yet you presume to be expert enough to come on here and throw your opinion around like it is THE perfect answer? You've are 21? And lived in a community where the only crime is petty larceny? Dude, you need to crawl out of your hole and see how the rest of the world is. You have some rather utopian ideals, that while nice in theory, humans once place in the mix totally screw up that idea.

I've said it 100 times on here, the fact is, removing guns will not stop murders. Hell look at jail, there are no guns in there, but people kill each other all the time.

The wild west connection is something you've done.

I never said the US was the wild west, that was you or another on here, I was disputing that fact.

I say the act of shooting in a bank can be quite wild west.

I won't argue this poin, but then that is not something that happens with any frequency here.

So please read what I write properly.

I read it as you write it, maybe you are not writing it properly?

Ytterbium

05-07-2008, 12:34 PM

So your little hole in the world is safe? So you think that means the rest of the world is and because your neighborhood is safe the entire world should give up gun ownership? That sounds pretty self centered to me.Yes it's quite safe. If you read my post further up where I mentioned Svalbard.

That is exaclty my point. What does it matter how you are killed? Dead is dead. You are just as dead shot as you are stabbed. Your point is that the US is so dangerous, yet there are at least 23 other countries with higher murder rates.Yes dead is dead. But having people unarmed makes it harder to kill, than with a gun. Murder will always exist but the methods will vary. Easy methods, easy kills. No my point have never been that the USA have higher murder rates, I don't know the rates.

I live in a fairly safe community, though the city in which my g/f lives has one of the highest murder rates in the US. I personally do not feel the need to carry a gun; I just don't go into the bad neighborhoods, and don't get into drugs. That said, I do not feel the need to deny others the right to protect them self how they see fit, and I do like having a gun at home in the event trouble comes to my house. There are a lot of americans that share this view. Owning a gun doesn't necesarily mean you have to carry it 24x7.

Ten you need to look again, it's right there in alphabetical order, right before switzerland. Forgive me, I didn't realize Sweden was in a different continent.

You do read, speak and understand english? I stated that you were an INTJ (that is what you have in your profile) and Intj's are supposed to be fact driven.You see you don't need a gun either. I don't want people to do what ever they want because that can intrude on my freedom. Making it legal carrying guns, knifes whatever weapon in the out in the society. Means that those who shouldn't carry guns will do too. As they even are allowed by law. Restricting hand gun usage cuts of most people from it even the criminals. Yes they might find a gun somewhere else, but it's harder to get, and illegal to carry even more than knifes.
You don't need to carry it 24h you don't even need one really. But the scenario of being attacked and be able to defend yourself with a gun as blueback wrote. Requires that you carry it alltime, because you can never really be sure when the danger pops up.
Why I asked was because I couldn't find Sweden in the murder statistics. Can you? Not the crime statistics.

Why do I have to fact driven? Why do I have to be anything which is written somewhere about INTJs? We humans aren't from the same mold you know.

So you live in a nice safe neighborhood, great for you, what about the rest of the world, not everyone lives in your neighboorhood, so why should we abide by your ideals? Unfortunately, there is a lot of crime in the rest of the world.Yes it's great. I know that not everyone is privileged as I am. I have said they should abide my view on it? Can't I just write here what I think? It wouldn't be a discussion if there were only gun loving Americans here.
"Guns are great!"
"Yes"
"Seconded"
"I have a colt :P"
Would that have been better?

You mean people dying in car wrecks are dying necesarily?
A gun is a tool just the same as a car. A car can be used to kill just as easily as a gun, and a gun can be used for pleasure (competional shooting) or to keep you alive (hunting). It is simply a tool, nothing more. You continue to miss the point. If you removed guns, people would use something else.

How many people died in wars before guns? Just as many as wars now, and maybe even more so.No they don't.
Yes a gun, a rifle can be a tool. As I written before. A gun is used to kill beings, it's done in wars for instance. Why do we have to do this in the society then? As defence, yeah right. The problem is that, for what? It looks like no one of us have experienced any need for it any way. Why do we need guns for then, as they're unnessary obviously. So why are they legal then if they're not needed, it means that those who aren't law abiding can get one too.

My point is that your safe and orderly little home (Sweden) is not as safe and orderly as you make it. Sweeden does have murders, maybe not as high as the US, but there are many other factors going on to blindly say "oh it's guns". The US is a much larger country, so of course we will have more big cities which attract crime. I cam bet that is we compared the crime rate with some place like North Dakota and Sweden, I bet Sweden would come out with a higher crime rate. Conversly, comparing New York to many other places, NY will come out worse. You can't accurately say a smaller average compares to a larger average i.e., 1 in 10 while statistically equalls 100 out of 1000, it's not exactly the same because the sample is smaller (1 in 10 that is). The US has 300,000,000 people, what is the population of Europe as a whole? I'd love to see a murder stat for Europe as a whole, I bet the nubmers would be closer to the US, maybe even worse.

According to Statics I sent, sweden has more crime than bike theft, maybe not in your neighborhood, but then how much have you been out of your neighborhood.Countries with alot of murders seem rather unstable ones. Guns are just a thing which makes killing easier.
There're some sort of EU statistics. Whether the EU has more murders then US I don't know. So seem to like statistics so you can try to check it out.

So you have never been to the US, you have no understanding of our culture? Yet you presume to be expert enough to come on here and throw your opinion around like it is THE perfect answer? You've are 21? And lived in a community where the only crime is petty larceny? Dude, you need to crawl out of your hole and see how the rest of the world is. You have some rather utopian ideals, that while nice in theory, humans once place in the mix totally screw up that idea.

I've said it 100 times on here, the fact is, removing guns will not stop murders. Hell look at jail, there are no guns in there, but people kill each other all the time.

I never said the US was the wild west, that was you or another on here, I was disputing that fact.

I won't argue this poin, but then that is not something that happens with any frequency here.

I read it as you write it, maybe you are not writing it properly?What understanding of culture? You say that these other people have no understanding of culture either? I'm an expert on my opinion and you on yours. You, I and everyone else here "throws their opinions" here. It's a forum you know. I feel free to walk where I want not risking getting a gun pointed at me. I'm aware that many people don't have the same possibilities as I. Why do you say I live in a hole then? Because I don't have the same opinion as you don't mean that I'm narrowminded. This forum isn't US centered in anyway it's an English speaking forum, English is a world language. I say how things works here and I don't want everyone to have access to guns. While you others say the opposite. Because I write this in "your" language it doesn't mean that I discuss your country or culture. It's up to you if you want to respect my culture and my view on the subject.

blueback

05-09-2008, 10:18 PM

I think you are having trouble translating. So I'll make this as straight forward as I can.

You have an opinion.
Everyone else in the world has an opinion.
None of those opinions are correct simply because they exist.
That means that your opinion can be wrong.
Loving your own opinion doesn't make it right.
If you want to prove your opinion is right, then use evidence.
You stated explicitely that you don't need evidence to prove your opinion.
We tried to explain to you where we saw errors in your opinion.
You continue to claim that your opinion is correct simply because it's yours.
Doing that is not INTJ.

Ytterbium

05-10-2008, 06:26 AM

I think you are having trouble translating. So I'll make this as straight forward as I can.

You have an opinion.
Everyone else in the world has an opinion.Yes x2

None of those opinions are correct simply because they exist.
That means that your opinion can be wrong.
Loving your own opinion doesn't make it right.True x3

If you want to prove your opinion is right, then use evidence.
You stated explicitely that you don't need evidence to prove your opinion.
We tried to explain to you where we saw errors in your opinion.What evidence? I've seen no evidence from your side either. I can't point at "evidence" for you if you don't want to accept it. In other way around if you want evidence then show some that guns makes your society a safer place. How would you do that? How can I show that without guns in the society it will be safer? Haven't we done that already? Told eachother how it works in our different enviroments. No matter if you find any "facts" about guns in the society. It will be biased as all societies and cultures are different. All that I can tell you is how it works here. And with logic try to show how it will be with guns. Letting all having guns than restrict them is for me obvious that gun violence will increase. High speed race cars and long straight roads will increase speeding, don't you think? In my opinion it's not worth having this "freedom".
In peace there's no need for anyone here having a gun. If the war is coming the goverment will give me arms just like the Finnish winter war. Why would I need a gun to defend myself against the goverment or my compatriots, for that matter?

You continue to claim that your opinion is correct simply because it's yours.
Doing that is not INTJ.Ofcourse I claim my opinion is best. Just like you claim your is better. Start argue my arguments instead of this lingering all the time.
I try to answer and argue your arguments the best I can and that's not INTJ?
So what is it I don't get?

Beery Swine

05-12-2008, 10:01 PM

Having almost never seen weapons in my life. I feel different when sitting in a room with a rifle in it, an object made purposely to kill.

Not to get too philosophical, but the gun is there so it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE USED, kind of like learning some martial arts is so you don't have to fight. Bottom line is it's a civil liberty, and governments only take rights away, so if you're a law-abiding tax payer, if they come for your guns give them your bullets.

Kas Ka

05-13-2008, 09:15 PM

Not to get too philosophical, but the gun is there so it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE USED, kind of like learning some martial arts is so you don't have to fight. Bottom line is it's a civil liberty, and governments only take rights away, so if you're a law-abiding tax payer, if they come for your guns give them your bullets.

In addition to that, guns can be a wonderful hobby that teach people responsibility and respect.

As a hunter and reenactor, guns fascinate me. At their core, they are a tool, nothing more. I'm also into archery and bowhunting.

Does anyone have a problem with a bow, a tool who's purpose is also to kill?

(actually, historians believe that the bow was originally invented as a toy for children)

merid

05-14-2008, 03:37 AM

Moriarty

05-14-2008, 04:13 AM

That's a great question and one I've often wondered about. I'm still not sure what the answer might be.

I see guns as a technological evolution in the human need to have an advantage over a perceived threat or adversary. It's a situation that is certainly not unique to guns or in any way new. As toolmakers, we humans have long applied our mindpower towards giving ourselves the greatest advantage possible when confronted.

In the beginning, a stick or a stone > empty hands and teeth.

The next step in the progression was to starpen the stick or stone.

Sharp stick > ordinary stick, and so on until the development of the first projectile weapons which represented a huge advantage over weapons requiring direct contact. Since then, it's been a steady process of developing advantages to counter disadvantages.

Bow > knife.
Hand Gonne > bow
Cannon > Hand Gonne, etc, ad nauseum.

The more technologically sophisticated the weapon, the greater the advantage and the greater number of people it can be applied to in the shortest amount of time. Recent history is rife with examples of people "wigging out" and committing mass murder. In some of those cases, the offender offed themselves and in others the offender was brought down by an equal or greater amount of force (more or bigger guns), which effectively neutralised the advantage they had.

So, gun = gun, but Guns > gun.

In the end, I think we would be made safer without the need to develop an offensive advantage towards one another in the first place, but I don't personally think that's possible. I don't trust people, so I like to make myself as advantaged as possible.

The whole thing is a catch-22. The only way to make people safe from other people is to neutralise other people as potential threats.

Ool

05-14-2008, 05:42 AM

Not from meteors, it wouldn’t…

Ool added to this post, 0 minutes and 49 seconds later...

Nor climate change for that matter…

Jakalwarrior

05-14-2008, 06:10 AM

The world would be safer without cars too. You can't uninvent things though so its a bit too late.

Tuesday

05-14-2008, 06:30 AM

The world would be safer if we didn't have people in it, people with the intent to do harm. A gun is an inanimate object that cannot act of it's own accord. It takes a sentient, human being to use that inanimate object, imposing their own intent on it.

It would be nice to think that we could fix the world's problems by taking away the tools used to enact such evil/bad intent. But it's not realistic to think that will fix the problem. I've said before on the Gun Control Thread, you can't legislate evil/bad intent. Can you look at the underlying causes for that intent, sure, but even then you can't guarantee a positive outcome.

Unfortunately, there will always be people with the mindset to do harm to others, they will find a way, even if there are no guns, knives, bow & arrows, etc.

knock7

05-14-2008, 07:10 AM

guardian789

05-14-2008, 07:18 AM

Exactly, knock7, guns are tools they cannot fire themselves, they must be picked up by some idoit and fired.

Ool

05-14-2008, 07:53 AM

Exactly, knock7, guns are tools they cannot fire themselves, they must be picked up by some idoit and fired.

I was young, and I needed the other guy's money...

Antares

05-14-2008, 07:59 AM

Killing is much easier with guns than without... I know that much.

Riverratt

05-14-2008, 08:55 AM

Killing is much easier with guns than without... I know that much.

Driving drunk, is much easier with a car than without....I know that much

Drowning is much easier with a pool than without....I know that much...

Stabbing is much easier with a knife than without....I know that much

Clubbing is much easier with a club than without....I know that much

I could go on and and on, but I wont, such simplistic argument...next thing that we will be hearing in here, is "it's for the children"

sriv

05-14-2008, 08:57 AM

Jakalwarrior

05-14-2008, 09:16 AM

If guns were wiped off the face of the planet, the world would definitely be a safer place.

Was the world safer before the advent of the gun? Are the most armed countries in the world the most dangerous? Are the places without guns the safest? Removing guns from the equation does reduce the chances of being hit in a crossfire, but what % of people killed in crime were innocent bystanders hit by crossfire.

Ool

05-14-2008, 09:19 AM

Clubbing is much easier with a club than without....I know that much

And much, much easier with a club without a bouncer. I know that much.

You ever hear the joke that starts with: "A baby seal walks into a club..."

Riverratt

05-14-2008, 09:27 AM

You know, all the "wishful thinking" about ridding the world of guns, is just that...a wish..

Frankly, I don't care what laws are passed, I plan to keep mine.. As does most of the folks I know. I even have my grandfathers pistol, that he carried during WWII....No government pin head is going to touch that gun.

You can wish in one hand, and crap in the other, and see which gets filled first.

Riverratt added to this post, 5 minutes and 44 seconds later...

And much, much easier with a club without a bouncer. I know that much.

You ever hear the joke that starts with: "A baby seal walks into a club..."

:laugh: Good one!!

Plane Stress

05-14-2008, 10:20 AM

Perhaps not the world, but isolated populations would be safer if everyone were armed. If everyone had guns, the population would police itself since anyone with a criminal intent would be in the minority. Unless the whole population was some kind of gang but the problem with this is that a. communism doesn't work and b. US Military>guns.

Mozzes

05-14-2008, 10:27 AM

Science can be pointed out as the root of many of society's problems. It is hard for us progressives to accept, but an argument can be made for it.

If guns were wiped off the face of the planet, the world would definitely be a safer place.

The opposing argument is that the gun is "The Great Equalizer" letting a small man defend against a large man.

To be specific it's not science that's the problem. Science is merely knowledge and to state that knowledge of the root many problems is not something with which I agree. I think that it would be closer to the truth to state that the application of science (ie technology) causes problems.

But even technology isn't the root cause of many of society's problems. As others have already stated - technology is merely a tool. The real root cause of these problems is human nature. As much as we like to deny it and ignore the truth - violence, avarice, and xenophobia are general aspects of human nature.

I do not think the elimination of fire arms would create greater "safety" even though there may be fewer violent deaths.

thod

05-14-2008, 11:53 AM

The opposing argument is that the gun is "The Great Equalizer" letting a small man defend against a large man.

This is assuming the unarmed large man is attacking the armed small man. Yet if the armed small man is attacking the large man, the mans largeness is no advantage.

You simply change the equation to the advantage going to he who draws his gun first. If someone is pointing a gun at you, then you have very little chance of drawing your own. Without a gun he knows you are no threat so doesn't shoot you, if he thinks you have a gun then its about who shoots first.

Guns are not defensive, their nature is offensive. They are of far more use to someone intending to kill someone than to someone wanting to avoid being shot. Thus the criminal who initiates the attack has the advantage of the peaceful citizen.

rwyatt365

05-14-2008, 12:26 PM

Without guns people would take longer, and it would be more difficult and personal to kill someone (or something). Guns are just tools that accelerate the opportunity for mayhem, or death. So, as (self-proclaimed) ultimate tool users, we have created an "Ultimate Death Tool".

Will the absence of said tool make things "safer"? No, becuase mankind will always find a way to impinge upon the safety of another - by any means necessary.

Ytterbium

05-14-2008, 01:06 PM

All this talk about overthrowing goverments. I think it seems really primitive to do that and somewhat revolutionary/communistic. Think about all gerillas, should they have weapons legally? Or should their "freedom" be restricted by the very goverment some of you seem to hate?

Aronnax

05-14-2008, 02:13 PM

Revolution has no real connection to being "primitive" or "communist", your arguement would be better served if you left that part out.

blueback

05-14-2008, 02:28 PM

What's more primitive, to endure slavery or to fight for freedom? Animals don't fight for their freedom, are they less primitive then men?

It is everyone's responsibility as a human to maintain their ability to act on their own decisions. If you disarm yourself, you greatly decrease your ability to make your own decisions. Why would you do that? That is like using lottery tickets as your retirement planning.

blueback

05-14-2008, 02:46 PM

I think it's kind of funny when people claim that the world would be a better place if only we could undo some of this progress.

Lets think about it, if you go all the way back to the period in history before guns what do you have? You have an awful lot of people who enjoy killing each other. Public executions were standard entertainment, most children died before their parents bothered naming them, etc. If they had a message board like this one back then they wouldn't be arguing over whether or not guns should be outlawed they'd be laughing about how that last guy hung on the rope twitching for half an hour. And then they'd sign off and beat their wife for a while.

The reason everyone thinks the world is dangerous is because the media makes it possible for us to hear about every single crime that happens anywhere in the world. One person gets shot in an alley and all of a sudden we forget that not only are we 1000 miles away from where that happened but that was 1 person out of 300 million (in America). There are plenty of people scared of terrorism but they have a greater chance of drowning in their own bathtub.

No, if all the guns in the world disappeard tomorrow people would immediately start building new guns, that's all. They are practical tools. The fact that they are good at what they do in no way blocks anyone from misusing them. Hell, you could kill someone with a nail gun if you wanted to, should all the nail guns disappear too?

Guns are a tool based on the simple idea that ultimately, eventually, an argument will boil down to who is more afraid of dying. Like nuclear bombs, guns raise the stakes. They are a tool of focused destruction that ensures that the people involved think much harder about their choices. The sort of people who use guns regularly are either the enforcers of the law or those who have decided that the law is optional. Those two aren't going to get into the sorts of fights that can be settled with a game of chess and a handshake.

As Dogbert says, if everyone else in the world was disarmed he could conquer the world with just a butter knife. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ytterbium

05-14-2008, 03:28 PM

Revolution has no real connection to being "primitive" or "communist", your arguement would be better served if you left that part out.It has just as much as proclaiming to overthrow the goverment for "good" reasons. As seen earlier in this thread.
Don't you think that violence is primitive? I would say that in a civilized community people discuss things through spoken or written word.

What's more primitive, to endure slavery or to fight for freedom? Animals don't fight for their freedom, are they less primitive then men?

It is everyone's responsibility as a human to maintain their ability to act on their own decisions. If you disarm yourself, you greatly decrease your ability to make your own decisions. Why would you do that? That is like using lottery tickets as your retirement planning.It would be good if you actually started to answer my questions. Instead of ignoring them and then proclaim I don't get it.

Kas Ka

05-14-2008, 04:12 PM

It has just as much as proclaiming to overthrow the goverment for "good" reasons. As seen earlier in this thread.
Don't you think that violence is primitive? I would say that in a civilized community people discuss things through spoken or written word.

Well that's what we're doing now, talking. But talking doesn't always work. There are some people that you can't reason with. Such as the Muslim fanatics in the Middle East. They believe a certain thing and no one will change their minds. I'm not going to get into a political debate concerning the war and our involvement in it. I'm just using the fanatical groups over there as an example of people that you cannot reason with through negotiation.

When negotiation fails, then force is sometimes neccessary. I think the whole "violence is primitive and uncivilized" thing is a cliche.

Just for fun, explain why its primitive and uncivilized to defend yourself by means of force. In America, its the politically correct way to assume this. Its almost gotten to the point where its been ingrained in us and we don't even question it. Just another example of the domestication of the American people.

TheLastMohican

05-14-2008, 04:17 PM

Just for fun, explain why its primitive and uncivilized to defend yourself by means of force. In America, its the politically correct way to assume this. Its almost gotten to the point where its been ingrained in us and we don't even question it. Just another example of the domestication of the American people.

*resisting domestication*

sriv

05-14-2008, 05:16 PM

Was the world safer before the advent of the gun? Are the most armed countries in the world the most dangerous? Are the places without guns the safest? Removing guns from the equation does reduce the chances of being hit in a crossfire, but what % of people killed in crime were innocent bystanders hit by crossfire.

No, because basic human rights were not established.
They have great potential energy, but are not as volatile.
Not having guns implies that the region is not technologically advanced, or that the region it is illegal to carry firearms. The illegal importation of firearms into places like this would make the situation extremely dangerous.
A surprisingly large percent. The percent may drop as guns become more user-friendly, but the population will also rise.

To be specific it's not science that's the problem. Science is merely knowledge and to state that knowledge of the root many problems is not something with which I agree. I think that it would be closer to the truth to state that the application of science (ie technology) causes problems.

But even technology isn't the root cause of many of society's problems. As others have already stated - technology is merely a tool. The real root cause of these problems is human nature. As much as we like to deny it and ignore the truth - violence, avarice, and xenophobia are general aspects of human nature.

I do not think the elimination of fire arms would create greater "safety" even though there may be fewer violent deaths.

Yes, I know. I said that an argument can be made that science is the root of many evils. Knowledge is power. An imbalance of power in the wrong hands can be detrimental. Yeah, I know. I didn't expand earlier.

True. Technology only makes tools more powerful and more accessible, but it is human nature that uses them improperly. Forget my earlier point.

Aronnax

05-14-2008, 06:12 PM

It has just as much as proclaiming to overthrow the goverment for "good" reasons. As seen earlier in this thread.

Revolution has no political identity, it's a replacement mechanism. Arguing revolution is "communist" or "democratic" or "fascist" is an invalid arguement, don't waste your time attempting to connect them.

Don't you think that violence is primitive? I would say that in a civilized community people discuss things through spoken or written word.

Talking and writing is good but what happens if they don't want to listen to you? Do you lay down and become their slave? A pacifist can only survive in a society where others are willing to fight to protect his right to be a pacifist.

Like I said earlier, avoid these points, they weaken your arguement. Stick with levels of gun death, there are plenty of statistics out there to support that point.

blueback

05-14-2008, 06:51 PM

Kas Ka

05-14-2008, 11:49 PM

*resisting domestication*

Same. :cool:

Vortex

05-15-2008, 02:18 AM

If only there was some sort of positive correlation between guns and crime....

If only there was some sort of positive correlation between increased knowledge and increased death rates...

Blaming science is laughable. You could increase the number of deaths to the millions / year and your STILL better off in a technological society with guns than the famines, plagues, and ignorance of the dark ages.

People hurt people. This is the truth of the world: deal with it. It won't matter if theres a gun, a knife, a club, or just a pissed off 250lb guy. Death is death, destruction is destruction. The tool is irrelevant.

Finally - a gun is nowhere near as likley to be used than being portrayed. Pulling a gun freezes the situation: you don't need to fire it to gain compliance. You don't waste everybody in the bank, you simply pull a gun out. Similarly, the "cha-chunk" of a 12ga's action will get the would be intruder out of your house faster than should be physically possible.

Antares

05-15-2008, 05:41 AM

knock7

05-15-2008, 08:45 AM

I've read a psychology article and it says that a gun in the room causes uneasiness and sometimes hostility, even if the gun itself is not used. Fights start easier (verbal or otherwise) with a gun in the room.

You aren't providing enough information about the study for a rational person to consider how valid the results are.

What is the bias of the person who ran the study?

Was the person holding the gun a police officer or a criminal or a minority? I hate to think it by racism, could be involved.

Does the study look at how people would feel, if everyone in the room had a gun?

Does the study consider a room where half the room is law abiding citizens with guns and half the room with violent criminals without guns? How much crime would there be?

This is a no brainer situation to legislate, if America really had the courage to address the issue. Why do all the laws have to be so complicated and convoluted.
1.) Law abiding citizens can have any gun they want, including military grade weapons.
2.) Felons get no guns and much stiffer penalties if they are caught with guns.

Ytterbium

05-15-2008, 09:08 AM

Well that's what we're doing now, talking. But talking doesn't always work. There are some people that you can't reason with. Such as the Muslim fanatics in the Middle East. They believe a certain thing and no one will change their minds. I'm not going to get into a political debate concerning the war and our involvement in it. I'm just using the fanatical groups over there as an example of people that you cannot reason with through negotiation.

When negotiation fails, then force is sometimes neccessary. I think the whole "violence is primitive and uncivilized" thing is a cliche.Yes. So is it fair and civilized for me to kill those who don't think like me and can't reason? Isn't that a base for extremism too? I can claim I can't reason with you and then kill you, civilized?
When the goverment in the shape of a police officer gives you a ticket for speeding. You can't reason this with him because it's the law. What are you going to do? Shoot him? Will he shoot you because you don't listen?

You see it's hard, ain't it? What's good, what's bad? You don't trust your compatriots or your society in general so you need a handgun? But at the same time trust them letting them have guns too?
If you then meet your muslim fanatic in a dark scary alley. He think's he can't reason with you because "you don't get it" and keeps you at gunpoint. Would you then like magic be able to grab your gun, shoot him and then live happy ever after? Or is it so you always have your gun ready when there're someone that looks like a "muslim fanatic"?

Just for fun, explain why its primitive and uncivilized to defend yourself by means of force. In America, its the politically correct way to assume this. Its almost gotten to the point where its been ingrained in us and we don't even question it. Just another example of the domestication of the American people.Do I have to?

Revolution has no political identity, it's a replacement mechanism. Arguing revolution is "communist" or "democratic" or "fascist" is an invalid arguement, don't waste your time attempting to connect them.Yes that was my point.
It's a counter weight to what written on previous page. Overthrowing goverments necessarily don't have to be good.

Talking and writing is good but what happens if they don't want to listen to you? Do you lay down and become their slave? A pacifist can only survive in a society where others are willing to fight to protect his right to be a pacifist.Yes that's why there's police and defence. As I've written earlier, I like conscription.
Why should people be able to walk around and shoot those whom they don't like? Do people really need that in a well functioning society?
Guns should be pointed at the attacking enemy in war not your compatriots in peace time. If there're "traitors" among my compatriots I don't want them to have the ability to by handguns.

Like I said earlier, avoid these points, they weaken your arguement. Stick with levels of gun death, there are plenty of statistics out there to support that point.Blueback likes statistics, it's up to him.

You know why there aren't any revolutionaries in America? Because most of us are too busy enjoying the fruits of being the most successful country in the world to give revolution a second thought. We don't need revolution. Our system works phenomenally well, the majority of the country is middle class, we have more military influence than any other two countries combined, and so far we haven't run into a prolem big enough to overshadow all that.Then why do Americans here use that argument then, if it's clearly not needed?

However, the principles that made our country so successful also require us to realize that no civilization lasts forever. The odds are good that the US government will eventually be successfully attacked from either the outside or the inside, and when that happens it is up to each individual to decide where their allegiances lie. It is also up to them to fight for what they think is right.Apocalypse now?
Does it happen in a foreseeable future so you need to carry handguns now? What's wrong with the Finnish system, give rifles to the people in case of war? I think it's strange that the "best, most successful country in the world" etc. suddently would be in flames and thank god everyone has a revolver so people can live happy ever after.

Not to mention that when citizens are armed, the crime rate drops. So there's that too. Basically, I figure that our citizenry are more grown up than yours. We, for the most part, trust each other with toys that you are scared even exist on the planet.So you whine about me not showing any figures. What about you?

Karamazov

05-15-2008, 09:15 AM

You know why there aren't any revolutionaries in America? Because most of us are too busy enjoying the fruits of being the most successful country in the world to give revolution a second thought. We don't need revolution. Our system works phenomenally well, the majority of the country is middle class, we have more military influence than any other two countries combined, and so far we haven't run into a prolem big enough to overshadow all that.

However, the principles that made our country so successful also require us to realize that no civilization lasts forever. The odds are good that the US government will eventually be successfully attacked from either the outside or the inside, and when that happens it is up to each individual to decide where their allegiances lie. It is also up to them to fight for what they think is right.

Not to mention that when citizens are armed, the crime rate drops. So there's that too. Basically, I figure that our citizenry are more grown up than yours. We, for the most part, trust each other with toys that you are scared even exist on the planet.

Greatness is subjective to any citizen of any country. Military might is only a fraction of what may constitute a country's "greatness". Great because of power alone means nothing when you rank behind other less powerful country's in terms of healthcare, education and etc. Plus, we still lead in muders per capita compared to other "civilized and developed" countries. Turns out not so many people are reaping the "fruits" of the most "succesful" country in the world. Then again they could all be just lazy, right? Pull up your bootstraps and all that....

I believe in letting states decide for themselves regarding fire arms. Personally, I am against opressive gun control but realize some control is needed since wanton proliferation of guns in lower income areas does increase violence, or anywhere else for that matter.

No revolution is needed, just massive reform. Outlawing guns, among other useless pieces of legislation, solve decidedly nothing to a nations problems but neither does arming every man, woman and child.

thod

05-15-2008, 09:39 AM

Well guns are heavy pieces of iron. If I was carrying one at my side for the rest of my life, it would be because I expect to need it. I would be looking for situations to use it, situations that were not appropriate become gun situations. I need endorsements of my decision to carry a gun. In other situations I would draw my gun simply because I am not sure. It is not different to carrying a sword, very inconvenient, yet there have never been any situations where I think "I wish I had a sword now".

What is the problem with the US that every bedroom is full of violent criminals? I never any encounters with violent criminals in a non gun country. If I was ever mugged, then I would pay the contents of my wallets to avoid having to tow around a piece of iron all my life. I don't want to kill the mugger, I want to get away unharmed. You see, even if I was to kill him, his brother would come looking for me, and I wouldnt get a chance to draw first.

Dreamer

05-15-2008, 10:53 AM

I submit that a non-gun society is the safest society of them all. I submit that we can magically make all guns disappear except those in the hands of authorithy figures(whom we know we can ALWAYS rely on for support,since they have secret teleporters).

Also,I submit that because a stranger on an internet forum has never been mugged at gunpoint in his life, I will never be mugged at gunpoint,that none of my friends will be mugged at gunpoint and that there are no guns in the UK.

I'm also certain that every two-bit thief or mugger is a member of the mafia has an extensive network of connections which would allow to track down anybody on the planet,thus making self-defense a hazardous matter at best, a dealdy cul-de-sac at worse.

After all,you can run,but you can't hide

Rei

05-15-2008, 11:14 AM

Driving drunk, is much easier with a car than without....I know that much

Drowning is much easier with a pool than without....I know that much...

Stabbing is much easier with a knife than without....I know that much

Clubbing is much easier with a club than without....I know that much

I could go on and and on, but I wont, such simplistic argument...next thing that we will be hearing in here, is "it's for the children"

Which is why drunk people should be kept away from the driver's seat. And it is also why there are lifeguards. And also why people who don't know how to swim should not jump into the deep end of the pool, and why people who are prone to falling asleep without warning should not take a bubble bath.

The problem with guns is when they're in the hands of people who are not 'qualified' to use them. Only people who have been trained to know when the use of guns is absolutely necessary (and it SHOULD ONLY be used when absolutely necessary) should have access to guns. (given these people do not abuse their power) It gets dangerous when people with explosive tempers/anger management problems to have access to guns.

If the community is safe, there is no need for anyone to have guns.
If the community is not safe, guns becoming available to its' citizens will not solve the problem.

Things cannot be uninvented, but the use of weapons should always be strictly controlled because it seems that not all people have learned how to resolve problems without violence. And when people have learned this, there is no need for weapons.

I think we should all learn kung fu for self defense :thumbsup:

Antares

05-15-2008, 11:19 AM

blueback

05-15-2008, 11:56 AM

Karamazov: I said "successful" not "great." So, you know, have fun talking to yourself.

Ytterbium: You are the most emotional and least coherent INTJ I've ever conversed with. Are you sure you got typed correctly? Did you really say "do I have to" in response to a request that you explain why it is primitive to use force in self defence? That was part of your argument, but you don't want to explain it. . .I don't think you're an INTJ.

Did you ever hear of the Roman Empire? If not, I'm sure you can google it or something. Anyway, the Romans were pretty successful at one point in time. Some people would even say they were the most successful empire in history, although that is open for debate. So, if they were so successful, why isn't the Roman Empire still around? Well, I'll do you a solid and explain so that you don't have to actually think about it. You see, the Roman Empire failed. Their system gradually became corrupted and broke down. So all the people who had relied on the Roman Empire for organization and protection suddenly found themselves all alone with barbarians on the front lawn.

No two civilizations break down exactly the same way, but they usually end up in the same place. The people who previously were free to not take care of themselves, because the government did it, suddenly have to take care of themselves. Now, if those people were completely disarmed, they'd have a much harder time taking care of themselves then if they were armed. Basically, if you disarm your citizens they won't be able to take care of themselves.

There. Did that help you understand a relatively simple idea? Oh, feel free to string together some english words incoherently, that part is fun.

Karamazov

05-15-2008, 12:11 PM

Your definition of "success", that is, "the most succesful" (a state of good fortune) above all other existing nations, denoted the idea of being great, as well as your proclimation of military superiority, usually associated with being great. We could play around with the semantics of it all day long if you'd like.

Talking to myself, well thats happens anyways, regardless of who I'm conversing with....

Which of course, you never tried to refute my original statement. You only, instead, focused on a 5 letter word.

blueback

05-15-2008, 12:17 PM

What statement? You put quotes around the word great which means you thought you were quoting me and then you rambled for a while. Feel free to make a statement that you want me to respond to.

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987
Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
_______________________Florida_________United States
homicide rate____________-36%____________-0.4%
firearm homicide rate___-37%____________+15%
handgun homicide rate__-41%____________+24%

221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms

As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense

As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life

blueback

05-15-2008, 12:19 PM

Has anyone else noticed that we are going around in circles? None of us has provided the slightest piece of evidence to support our ideas (including me) so we just keep restating our ideas over and over again.

I suggest that we all go out and find at least one piece of evidence, something concrete and respectable, whether or not it supports our conclusion. Then we can bring them all together here and see if we can't find some sort of pattern.

blueback added to this post, 42 minutes and 10 seconds later...

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987
Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
_______________________Florida_________United States
homicide rate____________-36%____________-0.4%
firearm homicide rate___-37%____________+15%
handgun homicide rate__-41%____________+24%

221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms

As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense

As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life

Karamazov

05-15-2008, 12:23 PM

My use of quotations weren't used to directly quote you at all, but simply for the sake of argument, since others who made the same argument usually trot out "successful" and "great" hand in hand. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't stop most people from addressing the rest of the paragraph..?

I hope you'll understand when I don't take numbers thrown out there without any sources to back it up. Even so...I've stated I'm not against gun ownership at all.

Ytterbium

05-15-2008, 02:07 PM

Ytterbium: You are the most emotional and least coherent INTJ I've ever conversed with. Are you sure you got typed correctly? Did you really say "do I have to" in response to a request that you explain why it is primitive to use force in self defence? That was part of your argument, but you don't want to explain it. . .I don't think you're an INTJ.Why? If you really seem to think it's more interesting to talk about how much I am an INTJ, instead of debating the topic. So ok my J is my weakest letter INT are the stable ones. That's what the test says.
Don't you want to answer my questions because you don't think I'm an INTJ? Ain't that quite anal?

Yes aren't that quite annoying? "Do I have to" Yes you have to Blueback, now when you had a chance to taste your own medicine. Stop being so annoying and start to answer my questions.

Did you ever hear of the Roman Empire? If not, I'm sure you can google it or something. Anyway, the Romans were pretty successful at one point in time. Some people would even say they were the most successful empire in history, although that is open for debate. So, if they were so successful, why isn't the Roman Empire still around? Well, I'll do you a solid and explain so that you don't have to actually think about it. You see, the Roman Empire failed. Their system gradually became corrupted and broke down. So all the people who had relied on the Roman Empire for organization and protection suddenly found themselves all alone with barbarians on the front lawn.Nothing is really forever, things change, morph and so on for ages, it's natural. Then if they had barbarians on their front lawn how could they keep them away? The Romans will probably run out of supplies, as it's already a complete anarchy as the empire have fallen. Which means they will defenceless anyway.
You know in wars you often attack food transports as it's an easy way to make the warriors to surrender. No matter if you've got a gun or not there's other factors in the game.

No two civilizations break down exactly the same way, but they usually end up in the same place. The people who previously were free to not take care of themselves, because the government did it, suddenly have to take care of themselves. Now, if those people were completely disarmed, they'd have a much harder time taking care of themselves then if they were armed. Basically, if you disarm your citizens they won't be able to take care of themselves.Why can't they take care of themselves without weapons? You know great ideas are spawned when in great need. So you're still implying that without a gun your useless? I can survive without a gun, it would be sad if you couldn't.

There. Did that help you understand a relatively simple idea? Oh, feel free to string together some english words incoherently, that part is fun.If you think my English is bad, fine. Why would that make any difference? We can have this discussion in another language if you want. What languages do you speak more than English?

knock7

05-15-2008, 04:16 PM

knock: I read it on Facebook; although it might have been Anti-Gun.

I still find it slightly unnerving if people can just pull a gun on you when they're angry. Like when you're faced with a mugger; it'd be better if he doesn't have a gun. It'd be much safer if burglars don't have guns; you won't find yourself at gunpoint at least.

Which is why it makes sense to legislate not allowing felons to carry guns. It is unfair to punish law abiding citizens from carrying guns.

knock7 added to this post, 0 minutes and 55 seconds later...

If I was ever mugged, then I would pay the contents of my wallets to avoid having to tow around a piece of iron all my life. I don't want to kill the mugger, I want to get away unharmed. You see, even if I was to kill him, his brother would come looking for me, and I wouldnt get a chance to draw first.

Whether I have $5 or $5,000 my life is on the line and I will use deadly force if necessary. I have been unsuccessfully mugged several times, because I was prepared to make the decisions necessary to defend my life. If you aren't, you could end up handing over much more than a wallet.

sriv

05-15-2008, 04:35 PM

Police are developing nonlethal, stunning, paralyzing guns. Are you [all] willing to accept the concept as a substitute for deadly force?

Kas Ka

05-15-2008, 05:21 PM

Yes. So is it fair and civilized for me to kill those who don't think like me and can't reason? Isn't that a base for extremism too? I can claim I can't reason with you and then kill you, civilized?

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that killing someone just because they disagree with you is just. The Muslim fanatics however believe its just to kill because of their religious beliefs. When reasoning fails with someone like that, you have no choice to defend yourself.

When the goverment in the shape of a police officer gives you a ticket for speeding. You can't reason this with him because it's the law. What are you going to do? Shoot him? Will he shoot you because you don't listen?

Ok, this may just be the dumbest example I've ever heard. If I'm speeding, I'm infringing on the rights of other drivers. So it is just that I got the ticket, even though its annoying as hell.

If I disagree with the officer and feel I'm being treated unfairly, then I'll try to reason with him as best I can in a CIVILIZED way. He is the law and worthy of respect, even if he's wrong. If negotiation fails, then I have no choice but to fight the ticket in court.

You don't trust your compatriots or your society in general so you need a handgun?

In general, no.

But at the same time trust them letting them have guns too?

If its people like me, who obey the law and the laws regarding firearms, then absolutely.

But the people I'm protecting myself from by carrying a handgun are the criminals who will carry a firearm regardless of those laws. Whereas I will go about getting a handgun legally, which means a FBI background check and a CCR permit, criminals won't care.

If you then meet your muslim fanatic in a dark scary alley. He think's he can't reason with you because "you don't get it" and keeps you at gunpoint. Would you then like magic be able to grab your gun, shoot him and then live happy ever after?

Ok, in this scenario, he already has ME at gunpoint. He's already made the violent act. So yes, I would feel the need to defend myself.

Or is it so you always have your gun ready when there're someone that looks like a "muslim fanatic"?

What the hell are you talking about? The Muslim comment was just an example of a group of people who can't be reasoned with. I already explained that in the initial post.

I mean, hypothetically, if "Muslim fanatics" are in great number in the country and pose a threat to my safety (such as in the middle east), then yes, I would feel more comfortable with something to defend myself with.

But there are other dangers in this country. There are those who feel its right to take what doesn't belong to them by gunpoint. Why just about a year ago, a man in my town was killed in the Walmart parking lot by some skinheads because they wanted his truck. They forced themselves into his truck by gunpoint, then stripped his clothes off and left him dead under a bridge.

How can you hear stories like that and not feel its right for people to be able to defend themselves. Because the people like I've mentioned above will get guns no matter what. It can only be prevented to a point, but never eradicated completely.

Do I have to?

Only if you can. ;)

Beery Swine

05-15-2008, 05:58 PM

This reply has more to do with the content of other replies I've seen on here. Almost every side seems to be straw-manning every other sides' arguments. That's not at all constructive. I'm not gonna take sides either; I've seen many posts do this.

Straw men fail every time. Please, at least avoid logical fallacies. Otherwise, this is a fun thread.

blueback

05-15-2008, 09:28 PM

blueback

05-15-2008, 09:29 PM

Genuine

05-16-2008, 01:11 AM

Without guns, if guns never existed, People would still make a weapon as equally harmful as guns to "defend" themselves. Paranoia + human instinct + technological advancement + population increase = weapons!
Without guns, the world would still be as unsafe as today.

yet, There is no way to determine if putting laws on guns (banning it, likely) will make the world a safer place,
because I'm pretty sure people are aware that guns can be easily made. It will likely to end up in the hands of criminals...

so population war between regular citizens vs criminals? That's a bit uncertain.

and when I mean regular citizens I mean ones who don't kill/brutally injure another human being with a gun for themselves. Unless they are the police who are punishing them in an ironic way.

Homini Lupus

05-16-2008, 01:37 AM

The "without gun" statement would need to be refined a bit.

If it means all national armies without guns it would lead to the use of other strategical and tactical weapons. It would change the battlefield but not eliminate it.

If it means one national army without guns that nation would loose its state (given that state holds the monopoly of violence in Weber's terms) and woul be at other states' mercy.

If it means all nations without modern weapons it would lead to a world where war is a mix of cyber attacks and medieval warfare.

I have less ideas about the problem of regulating guns INSIDE a state but I'm quite sure the rules in Italy are too strict about the idea of "fair" self defense (I'm likely to be condemned if I kill with a gun somebody who is trying to kill me with a knife) but things are changing with the perceived growth of criminal violence and the reappearance of private patrols wich are more and more accepted by the government. In Neaples there have been riots against gipsy camps. And they didn't need guns, just stones and Molotov cocktails.

As long as there will be men there will be conflict and violence will always be perceived as a solution. Guns are a response to that problem. giving more alternative solutions may help reducing violence, reducing guns may just reduce the effects of that violence (I get maimed by an axe instead of getting killed by a gun).

Karamazov

05-16-2008, 06:12 AM

oops. Here's the link where I found those stats To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and here's the sources they cite
"1998 NRA Fact Card." Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pages 1, 11, 43
, Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96.

The NRA? Come on now...

John Lott is a well known gun rights activist, so Im not sure about objectivity here not to mention out of date and only in one state (not factoring in straw purchases made from surrounding areas by states with lax gun control) , but you've made your point well, for the most part. I get turned off the minute someone injects emotion into it ("But what if YOUR baby was shot by a gun?!)

This reply has more to do with the content of other replies I've seen on here. Almost every side seems to be straw-manning every other sides' arguments. That's not at all constructive. I'm not gonna take sides either; I've seen many posts do this.

Well, at least, I don't think I'm making that mistake. I agree that gun ownership showed instances of curbing violence, I just disagree as to the extent with which it would curb crime without it actually increasing gun crimes.

I'll post some of what i've found later...

Riverratt

05-16-2008, 08:24 AM

Hmm, look at what Gun Control did to Washington DC..

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

md21017md

05-16-2008, 09:02 AM

Don't you think that violence is primitive? I would say that in a civilized community people discuss things through spoken or written word.

Ok, why don't you take that logic to myanmar or Saudi Arabia and see how far it gets you.

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 48 seconds later...

Yes. So is it fair and civilized for me to kill those who don't think like me and can't reason? Isn't that a base for extremism too? I can claim I can't reason with you and then kill you, civilized?
When the goverment in the shape of a police officer gives you a ticket for speeding. You can't reason this with him because it's the law. What are you going to do? Shoot him? Will he shoot you because you don't listen?

You are grasping at straws in a weak and feeble attempt to make your point. A ticket is not the same. Maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are in with Iraq had the Iraqi people had a means to resist. Maybe the people in Myanmar would be getting the aid they desire had they a means to resist thier governments iron fist.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 58 seconds later...

Yes that's why there's police and defence.

Wrong wrong wrong. The police have no obligitation to provide individual protection. Thier job is to protect soceity as a whole. By there very nature they can do nothing till a crime is committed. If I threaten to kill you there is nothing they can do. They can't arrest me for what I might do; only for what I have done.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 32 seconds later...

"Then why do Americans here use that argument then, if it's clearly not needed?

Because it might be needed one day. Why do you have car insurance? Do you PLAN on wrecking your car? No but it's nice to have when you need it

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 17 seconds later...

'Apocalypse now?
Does it happen in a foreseeable future so you need to carry handguns now? What's wrong with the Finnish system, give rifles to the people in case of war? I think it's strange that the "best, most successful country in the world" etc. suddently would be in flames and thank god everyone has a revolver so people can live happy ever after.

There are many other reason beside war. That is narrow minded thinking. What happens when there are natural disasters and the police force ceases to function? Remember the LA riots about 15 years ago? Many of the stores that weren't burned because thier korean owners were there with guns to protect thier lives. Remember they in the tractor trailer - Denny something or other? I bet he wished he had a gun when he was drug out of the truck and almost beaten to death simply because he was white.

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 12 seconds later...

I can survive without a gun, it would be sad if you couldn't.

Let me see you walk through Watts or Compton at night without a gun. Let me see 2-3 guys jump you for your wallett and see you take care of your self. Let me see a guy break into your house with a knife or a bat and see you take care of your self. You are basing what the rest of the world should do based on your very limited experiance. You by your own description grew up and live in a very safe middle or upperclass neighborhood. Well great for you, but the rest of the world is not like that.

By the way, where was all that governmental help, and all the locals with guns when Hitler went on his hissy fit? If it were not for Us coming to save your asses you'd all be speaking German right now.

md21017md

05-16-2008, 09:26 AM

I never any encounters with violent criminals in a non gun country.

Really? There are no murders in England? There are no rapes? No assults? My UK friends tell me you guys have a huge issue with break-ins because the criminals know no one will face a gun, and as I understand it, you must flee your house; that if you kill or injure an intruder in your house with out attempting to leave then you are guilty and he or his family could sue you. With that logic what deterrance is there? Hell I'll just stroll in to your house and help my self, even if you are there you can't do anything.

If I was ever mugged, then I would pay the contents of my wallets to avoid having to tow around a piece of iron all my life.

What if it's not your wallett he wants? What if you are female and he wants to rape you? Contrary to what most people will say, it is very dificult for a woman to defend against a man.

I don't want to kill the mugger, I want to get away unharmed.

But what if you don't have the choice, what if he wants to kill you so you can't id him? Your only choice is to fight and maybe live or die, which do you choose?

You see, even if I was to kill him, his brother would come looking for me, and I wouldnt get a chance to draw first.

I'll take my chances, and even so I will get to live a few more days.

md21017md added to this post, 6 minutes and 53 seconds later...

It gets dangerous when people with explosive tempers/anger management problems to have access to guns.

But it's ok if they have access to a knife? A gun is just a tool, man has killed for thousands of years before the invention of the gun. Japan had 500 years of civil war. It was not unusual for 20-30,000 people to die in a battle. It was not unusual for the losing side; for thousands of samurai to line up and commit ritualistic suicide. What ended all this? The importation of guns and thier use by 1 Daimyo (war lord) who was able to take over all the others and unite the country. The very next thing he did was ban guns all together.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 56 seconds later...

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987
Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
_______________________Florida_________United States
homicide rate____________-36%____________-0.4%
firearm homicide rate___-37%____________+15%
handgun homicide rate__-41%____________+24%

221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms

As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense

As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life

Come on, stop confusing everyone's feelings with facts. How are they supposed to continue feeling they are right?

Riverratt

05-16-2008, 10:17 AM

.
Don't you think that violence is primitive? I would say that in a civilized community people discuss things through spoken or written word.

Sometimes spoken words, and ballot boxes fail. Even in civilized nations this happens.

Can you honestly predict what the world will be like in 10 years?? Do you know what the future will bring our children, and our children's children??

Think about it, in the early 1930's who could have foreseen what "Civilized Germany" would be doing in a mere 10 years.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ytterbium

05-16-2008, 12:22 PM

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that killing someone just because they disagree with you is just. The Muslim fanatics however believe its just to kill because of their religious beliefs. When reasoning fails with someone like that, you have no choice to defend yourself.Thanks for answering. It wasn't my intentetion to put words in your mouth. It was just an example. If you have the right to bear arms, other people have that right too. Including those who may be a bit tempered. You never really know what people really are on the inside no matter how civilized, well behaved or law abiding they may look like. Maybe they start hearing voices, become religiously obessed what ever. Having people walking around with handguns, whom of these might be a fanatic? We don't know. What I do know is that I don't want to meet these armed people, claiming they know better.
Ok, this may just be the dumbest example I've ever heard. If I'm speeding, I'm infringing on the rights of other drivers. So it is just that I got the ticket, even though its annoying as hell.Yes ain't it? That's why I find it strangely amusing when people in this thread claim they need their guns to protect them from the goverment. Woot!? Then it's claimed in the next line that they live in a very safe place. In a great country with a working system.
This is one of many things I don't get if the system is great and working. Why the need for a gun to protect yourself from it?

If I disagree with the officer and feel I'm being treated unfairly, then I'll try to reason with him as best I can in a CIVILIZED way. He is the law and worthy of respect, even if he's wrong. If negotiation fails, then I have no choice but to fight the ticket in court.Yes this is what I would do too! There's no need for guns if it works like this.

In general, no.

If its people like me, who obey the law and the laws regarding firearms, then absolutely.

But the people I'm protecting myself from by carrying a handgun are the criminals who will carry a firearm regardless of those laws. Whereas I will go about getting a handgun legally, which means a FBI background check and a CCR permit, criminals won't care.What a paradise if everyone were like yourself. Now that's not the case though. I'm clean in the registers too, like many other people aswell. That don't mean I never done anything criminal or that I'm not a shady person. Just like everone else you never know what's lurking.
As you say many criminals don't care. But if it's just made easier for them to get a gun they won't mind.

Ok, in this scenario, he already has ME at gunpoint. He's already made the violent act. So yes, I would feel the need to defend myself.How? I don't know what your experiences are with guns. I however think one are pretty screwed when being second. Which you probably are when mugged. If you have been exercising that you know it's hard/impossible. I guess very few could handle it.
I would try to defend myself to or atleast try somehow depending on the situation. Where I live muggers/robbers rarely/never use guns but knifes. But if they used guns I would be pretty screwed if I tried do something. During my military service we tried these type of things. So it would be some kind of magic and luck if I walk out as the "winner" of it.

What the hell are you talking about? The Muslim comment was just an example of a group of people who can't be reasoned with. I already explained that in the initial post.

I mean, hypothetically, if "Muslim fanatics" are in great number in the country and pose a threat to my safety (such as in the middle east), then yes, I would feel more comfortable with something to defend myself with.Yes, so I thought too.
These citizens, if clean will have the same possibility to buy weapons as you. As I mentioned further up you don't know who's your enemy. You'll know when you are at gunpoint.

But there are other dangers in this country. There are those who feel its right to take what doesn't belong to them by gunpoint. Why just about a year ago, a man in my town was killed in the Walmart parking lot by some skinheads because they wanted his truck. They forced themselves into his truck by gunpoint, then stripped his clothes off and left him dead under a bridge.

How can you hear stories like that and not feel its right for people to be able to defend themselves. Because the people like I've mentioned above will get guns no matter what. It can only be prevented to a point, but never eradicated completely.Dangers are everywhere but there are ways to reduce the impact of them. How did these people get ahold of the gun? Were they "law abiding" people in the police registers? I wonder because such crimes rarely involves guns here, that type of crime itself is quite rare here.

I will defend myself in a uncivilized way if I have to. But I don't want to defend myself against a gun. That's very hard to do no matter if I have a gun or not. So I don't want to make it easier for people to get guns.
Guns will always exist more or less like you say. Although access and availability to them can be restricted.

Only if you can. ;)It was a bait and the fish took it.
Yes I can explain my point if you want. Ask if it's not clear.
Just for fun, explain why its primitive and uncivilized to defend yourself by means of force. In America, its the politically correct way to assume this. Its almost gotten to the point where its been ingrained in us and we don't even question it. Just another example of the domestication of the American people.Brute force is a last resort. But you don't have to be uncivilized and go there straight away. Showing of your arms and so on is nothing more than primitive gesture than an civilized argument. The problem is that all people don't get this or have this logic built in. To equip them with handguns would in my eyes be an unsmart move.

Ok, why don't you take that logic to myanmar or Saudi Arabia and see how far it gets you.Why should I? It's on the net now so everyone can argument it. :rolleyes:

You are grasping at straws in a weak and feeble attempt to make your point. A ticket is not the same. Maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are in with Iraq had the Iraqi people had a means to resist. Maybe the people in Myanmar would be getting the aid they desire had they a means to resist thier governments iron fist.Maybe, maybe not. Do you need guns against your goverment?

Wrong wrong wrong. The police have no obligitation to provide individual protection. Thier job is to protect soceity as a whole. By there very nature they can do nothing till a crime is committed. If I threaten to kill you there is nothing they can do. They can't arrest me for what I might do; only for what I have done.If you threaten to kill me they will protect me and investigate why someone want to harm me. I don't know how the laws are where you live. But here it's an offence to threat someone. I would rather say they can't do anything without proof.

Because it might be needed one day. Why do you have car insurance? Do you PLAN on wrecking your car? No but it's nice to have when you need itBecause the law tells me to. I won't be road legal otherwise, it's an offence and I'll have to pay a hefty fine if they stop me. My insurance do not cover my car only the other vehicles involved, that said if I'm the one responsible. If I wreck my car. I'll have a wrecked car, tuff luck.
The irony is that you will always find things which you might need in certain situations. Even if you have a own gun when you need it, it may be out of reach or you're at that famous robbers' gunpoint.

There are many other reason beside war. That is narrow minded thinking. What happens when there are natural disasters and the police force ceases to function? Remember the LA riots about 15 years ago? Many of the stores that weren't burned because thier korean owners were there with guns to protect thier lives. Remember they in the tractor trailer - Denny something or other? I bet he wished he had a gun when he was drug out of the truck and almost beaten to death simply because he was white.Why is it narrowminded? I'm not American so I don't remember what you remember. I can say so much that there have been natural disasters here too. The Police did not stop working, people didn't start looting.
If you look at it from another perspective. What if they were hungry and had no food, no house left etc. The food will get spoilt anyhow, so why not distrobute it for those who need it? Or are you expecting to get paid in non existing money? Who can think about money in a such situation even? I think it actually tells more about that fragile society, lack of readiness and bad infrastructure.

Let me see you walk through Watts or Compton at night without a gun. Let me see 2-3 guys jump you for your wallett and see you take care of your self. Let me see a guy break into your house with a knife or a bat and see you take care of your self. You are basing what the rest of the world should do based on your very limited experiance. You by your own description grew up and live in a very safe middle or upperclass neighborhood. Well great for you, but the rest of the world is not like that.

By the way, where was all that governmental help, and all the locals with guns when Hitler went on his hissy fit? If it were not for Us coming to save your asses you'd all be speaking German right now.I have no idea what those places are. It won't work, probably not even with a gun in my hand.
Ok this is the second time I write this. I'm not saying how it should be in your world, with my experience. I say this is how it could work, as it works here. Am I not allowed to do that?

O rly? And if the Finns didn't stop the Soviet, you would be speaking Russian?

md21017md

05-16-2008, 05:19 PM

The reality is very simple, if you could take away all guns in the world people with the desire to kill would find another way.

There are probably only 2 classes of deaths that you could eliminate by doing so

1 Dumb asses that shoot them self or another accidentally.
2 People that walk into a place and kill many people.

That is it, beyond that if one has the desire to kill they will use what ever means is available. Prison is a perfect example. There are no guns, yet they quite frequently kill each other.

Now I will agree it would be hard to walk into a school and kill 20 students with a club or a knife, but I bet I could with a few gallons of gas - that was done in a New York night club years ago, killing 70 people - no gun involved.

Antares

05-16-2008, 10:44 PM

Which is why it makes sense to legislate not allowing felons to carry guns. It is unfair to punish law abiding citizens from carrying guns.

How do you know who's a felon? How do we know the nice, grandfatherly Josef Fritzl raped his own daughter? How do you know which law-abiding citizen may turn 'felon'? Instead of everyone having a weapon to defend themselves, how about no weapons for everyone? I'm sure shooting someone would be easier if you want to kill someone. If you only have kitchen knives, you'd still have to chase the person down. Shooting is meant for long-range killing. It allows the victim a little chance of escape.

blueback

05-16-2008, 11:20 PM

How do you know who's a felon?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. . .ha. . .

Oh wait, you were joking right?

How do we know the nice, grandfatherly Josef Fritzl raped his own daughter?

I'm pretty sure that was fun to think up but it doesn't have anything to do with gun crimes. The laws ban all felons from owning one simply because it's easier then figuring out which felons tend to misuse guns. If he kept his non-gung-non-murder-crime a secret then I don't think anyone could come up with a way to keep him from doing it again.

How do you know which law-abiding citizen may turn 'felon'?

. . . . .did you seriously just ask that question?

Even the people who are against gun ownership haven't claimed to be able to tell who is going to commit a crime. Where did you get the idea that anyone had brought up the idea of hiring psychics to screen prospective gun owners?

Instead of everyone having a weapon to defend themselves, how about no weapons for everyone?

Yeah, that is the debate. Congratulations for restating it again.

I'm sure shooting someone would be easier if you want to kill someone.

Depends. I'm assuming you've never actually fired a gun before. They can be damned hard to aim sometimes, especially handguns. Throw in a little adrenaline and accuracy goes right out the window.

Shooting is meant for long-range killing. It allows the victim a little chance of escape.

That's a new one on me. I was under the impression that shooting worked no matter how close the target was.

You must have never taken a gun safety course either. The commonly accepted rule is that you never point the gun at anyone you don't intend to kill, let alone actually try to shoot at anyone you don't intend to kill. Therefore, if someone is shooting at someone else, they are trying to kill them. I can't speak for anyone else, but once I've made the decision to kill someone I'm going to try to maximize the probability that I am successful. That's just the kind of guy I am. Why would I "allow the victim a little chance of escape?" If it's worth killing them it's worth doing it well.

Antares

05-17-2008, 12:22 AM

. . . . .did you seriously just ask that question?

Even the people who are against gun ownership haven't claimed to be able to tell who is going to commit a crime. Where did you get the idea that anyone had brought up the idea of hiring psychics to screen prospective gun owners?

Yes, I seriously did ask this question. you don't know who's a 'felon', therefore you can't just say: "We'll give guns to non-felons."

I'm pretty sure that was fun to think up but it doesn't have anything to do with gun crimes. The laws ban all felons from owning one simply because it's easier then figuring out which felons tend to misuse guns. If he kept his non-gung-non-murder-crime a secret then I don't think anyone could come up with a way to keep him from doing it again.

My point here is you don't know who you should trust to own guns; people who are benign and paternal on the surface may be a criminal, then why should you trust anyone to own guns at all? What's the harm of NOT owning guns?

That's a new one on me. I was under the impression that shooting worked no matter how close the target was.

You must have never taken a gun safety course either. The commonly accepted rule is that you never point the gun at anyone you don't intend to kill, let alone actually try to shoot at anyone you don't intend to kill. Therefore, if someone is shooting at someone else, they are trying to kill them. I can't speak for anyone else, but once I've made the decision to kill someone I'm going to try to maximize the probability that I am successful. That's just the kind of guy I am. Why would I "allow the victim a little chance of escape?" If it's worth killing them it's worth doing it well.

Long-range killing was invented along with spear-throwers and bow and arrows. It was difficult for our ancestors to stab every prey up close; it's dangerous too. Along comes spear-thrower, which allows you to kill a victim at a distance. Of course it would still work on closer targets. If I fire an arrow at your head from 1 foot away, you'd still be dead or seriously injured.

I'm not asking you to try *not* to kill someone when you are actually trying to. My point is if the closest to a lethal weapon anyone owns is kitchen knives, then it allows potential victims far from the potential murderer a chance of escape. It'd reduce the probability of death than if a person can kill you 50 meters out. I'm not talking about unintentional killings, so I don't know why you brought up the safety issue. Close up, both weapons (knives and guns) can kill, but farther away, unless the person is very good with knife aiming (and even then, if the potential victim is out of range, it's impossible), killing with guns is almost always easier. But outside of knife throwing range, guns are still quite effective. Harder, but possible. I'm not seeing things from the shooter's point of view; but from a larger perspective of the community. For us, it's less murder the better, so I didn't bring up the point so that killers can try not to kill their victim, but it reduces the amount of deaths caused by attempted murder.

blueback

05-17-2008, 01:02 AM

So you want to restrict the tools people are allowed to own because that will limit their ability to cause damage.

Should we lower the speed limit to 35 mph?

Should we outlaw all screwdrivers longer than one inch?

Should we restrict the number of hamburgers someone is allowed to buy?

Should we place a zoning statute on how deep pools and bathtubs are allowed to be?

Anywho, I noticed that you didn't say we should limit the maximum effective range of guns, you just jumped straight to outlawing them entirely. Why is that?

Ytterbium

05-17-2008, 01:54 AM

Dude, you live in your own little fantasy land, beyond reason. I think you are beyond reason until you grow up a bit and see some of the world outside your little bubble.Leave your gun home and pay a visit. Maybe you'll become narrow-minded like me.
All this inside of the box etc. I've been reading here couple of times now. I've already had this discussion before. You don't either answer my questions, you just say I'm narrow-minded and don't get it. How about you? Do you get it? Can you answer my questions? Can you think outside your box and see how it's here?

The reality is very simple, if you could take away all guns in the world people with the desire to kill would find another way.

There are probably only 2 classes of deaths that you could eliminate by doing so

1 Dumb asses that shoot them self or another accidentally.
2 People that walk into a place and kill many people.This is what I wan't to avoid amongst others. I don't think these "positive" defence arguments win over that. You don't need to have a gun unless the mugger has one. The mugger having a gun is quite nonexistent here. Liberal gun laws means most people can arm themselves, including muggers. Who will get a gun first, the shady ones or the general law abiding ones?

That is it, beyond that if one has the desire to kill they will use what ever means is available. Prison is a perfect example. There are no guns, yet they quite frequently kill each other.People killing eachother will always exist no matter how illegal it is. The questions is shall we make it easy for them to suceed? My answer is no. What if we gave handguns for the inmates to defend themselves would that be a great idea?
Inmates killing eachother is something I've never heard anything about here. Although fights and assaults have happened.

Now I will agree it would be hard to walk into a school and kill 20 students with a club or a knife, but I bet I could with a few gallons of gas - that was done in a New York night club years ago, killing 70 people - no gun involved.Yes right on. Similar night club arson happened in Gothenburg couple a years ago. It wasn't a regular night club so there were no fire exits. The building wasn't made to house so many people at the same time.

md21017md

05-17-2008, 08:14 AM

Leave your gun home and pay a visit. Maybe you'll become narrow-minded like me.
All this inside of the box etc. I've been reading here couple of times now. I've already had this discussion before. You don't either answer my questions, you just say I'm narrow-minded and don't get it. How about you? Do you get it? Can you answer my questions? Can you think outside your box and see how it's here?

Your arguement is that if we get rid of guns people will stop killing each other. That is a false line of reasoning. The gun doesn't make someone kill another. It's simply a tool. Nothing more. A person can kill another just as easily with a knife as he can with a gun.

I will see if I can find the statistics I had, I don't remember the exact numbers, but the gist was that (at least in the US) comparing a knife to a gun

A knife introduced into a fight (i.e., someone carrying a knife) it is far more likely to be used once pulled vs. a gun.

I believe the reason is that a gun is often used as intimidation, generally pulling on introduces fear. Most people cut or stabbed in a fight never saw the knife, there is no such intimidation factor. By the very nature a nife has to be kept conceled to be effective and then used, and gun by it's very nature has to be brandished - and then may or may not be used.

Statistically if shot in the comission of a crime, a vast majority are shot once, and non fatally. Most knifing victims are stabbed and cut multiple time, most report never knowing they were cut.

This is a very interesting read on what I have been saying

PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL WILL FIND ANOTHER WAY
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL WILL FIND ANOTHER WAY
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL WILL FIND ANOTHER WAY
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL WILL FIND ANOTHER WAY
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL WILL FIND ANOTHER WAY

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think this quite clearly shows the same thing (from the above web page

Homicides
(incl. murder / manslaughter / infanticides)
1,045
Recorded Crime Statistics
- Homicides with sharp implement
27%
Recorded Crime Statistics
- Homicides with guns
8%
Recorded Crime Statistics
- Homicides increase since 1965
more than tripled
Recorded Crime Statistics
Incidents involving edged weapon attacks (London Only)
54,000+
British National Martial Arts Association
Firearm incidents involving violence
7,133
Recorded Crime Statistics
Statistics re. Youths Carrying Knives:-
(note: the figures below do not necessarily reflect youths carrying knives every day)
.

- 11-12 year olds carrying knives last year
10%
Youth at risk?
- 15-17 year olds admitting to carrying knives for self defence
46%
Ian Johnston - Chief Constable British Transport Police
- Pupils in London Schools carrying knives
(in many surveys, around 30-35% of pupils admit to carrying a knife - but it should be stressed, that does not mean every day! However misguidedly, many pupils only carry a knife when they feel they may be particularly at risk)
29%
Youth Justice Board / Mori 2003
- Excluded Pupils carrying knives
62%
Youth Justice Board / Mori 2003
- 16 year old boys admitting attacking someone with a knife - intent on causing serious injury
1 in 5
Youth Justice Board / Mori 2003

This was a canadian only statistic, and once again, no or little gun ownership, so the murders still there are committed with another tool

md21017md added to this post, 9 minutes and 23 seconds later...

This is what I wan't to avoid amongst others. I don't think these "positive" defence arguments win over that.

Problem is that is a very small percentage of the murders and at least in the american mind doesn't outweigh the benifits, it's like punishing the majority for sins of the minority.

You don't need to have a gun unless the mugger has one. The mugger having a gun is quite nonexistent here.

No but you have muggers with knives don't you? Think you can successfully defend against a knife?

People killing eachother will always exist no matter how illegal it is. The questions is shall we make it easy for them to suceed? My answer is no.

Then get off the gun arguement. The fact is that if criminals know law abiding people can not have access to a gun they will have no fear of attacking people or breaking in. In the US I don't need to own a gun for this deterance to work. The criminal looking for a victim; he doesn't know if I am carrying a gun, or the next guy. The criminal looking to break into a house, he doesn't know which one has a gun.

This deterance also must impact (not that it is a threat now but who knows in the future) of any foreign power invading the US. Japan was on her knees in 1945, all but done. The US evaluated the effect of having to invade Japan; facing old women with pitchforks and old men with left over weapons. The math was that Japan would have lost over 1,000,000 and the us 100,000 if I remember correctly. That was enough for us not to invade even though we would have succeeded.

What if we gave handguns for the inmates to defend themselves would that be a great idea?

Liberal gun laws means most people can arm themselves, including muggers. Who will get a gun first, the shady ones or the general law abiding ones?

The shady ones will always get gun. Even if only the military has guns, people will figure a way to steal them and get them on the street.

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 51 seconds later...

What if we gave handguns for the inmates to defend themselves would that be a great idea?

This isn't even worth a reply.

Inmates killing eachother is something I've never heard anything about here. Although fights and assaults have happened.

Well, they kill each other here all the time. They make a "shank" some type of icepick like weapon. It could be a sharpenes toothbrush (the handle part), a stolen tool what ever they can get. The prison guard have searches all the time, find all kind of crap, but people are still able to get enough to kill anytime they want. This is the most tightly controlled environment - prisoners have no right to illegal searches. They have no privacy. That are living in a fish bowl, yet are still able to kill each other. I have a friend that works in a prison, and he tells me it is not unusual for the victim (or the guards) to have never seen the attacker.

md21017md added to this post, 11 minutes and 46 seconds later...

Yes right on. Similar night club arson happened in Gothenburg couple a years ago. It wasn't a regular night club so there were no fire exits. The building wasn't made to house so many people at the same time.

How many people died? I bet had he killed 1/10 with a gun it would have made 10x the news - at least that is how it is in the US.

I think the real root of the problem is escaping you. I don't know the laws of your country, or for that matter any of the rest of the world. We have freedoms here that most of the world doesn't enjoy. For example, the police can not just come to your house and demand to search with out probably cause and a search warrant issued by a judge. The police can not pull you in for questioning unless they have reason. We have the righ to not answer self incriminating questions during a trial or interigation. Our police can not beat confessions out of someone. These freedoms have a price though. It means there are criminals that will use this to thier advantage. I think that higher crime rates in the US speak to that as well as the drug culture. By outlawing drugs we have created a huge black market; basically the same thing that bread Al Capone during prohibitation. I think a lot of Europe has a much liberal view towars drugs, at least marijuna anyway. I think legalizing drugs in the US would do far more to stop murders than outlawing guns.

md21017md added to this post, 7 minutes and 37 seconds later...

My point to the above was that so many countries in the rest of the world have not much more freedom than prisoners in jail. With out these freedoms, gun control may work I don't know. We in the US are not willing to give up freedoms out ancestors died for, so the only one's that would obey any laws are the law abiding, and there is no way for police to target and eliminate guns from the criminals till they are used.

The second part of this, again I do not know how your (or the rest of the worlds ) judges are. Here in the US we have such a liberal mediaand some very stupid ideas. People will want blood for a mass murder, but at the 11th hour when he's to be executed everyone will rally to save him. Anytime someone is caught, it was everyone else's fault but his; he was beaten as a kid - he was mollested so he HAD to rape that person. It goes on and on. The point is, we are too soft on criminal when caught. Finally our prisoners have far too many rights in prison - many live better in jail than they do out of jail. In jail they get education, cable TV, 3 meals - there is little fear of going to jail for many in this country.

Freedom has a price

Ytterbium

05-18-2008, 07:04 AM

Your arguement is that if we get rid of guns people will stop killing each other. That is a false line of reasoning. The gun doesn't make someone kill another. It's simply a tool. Nothing more. A person can kill another just as easily with a knife as he can with a gun.No read again. Murders will exist no matter how illegal it is.
Then why isn't a knife enough for you then? As they're the same? They're not the same and you know that. If I hade long fast gadget arms and holding a knife. It would be the same, now that's not the case. Not for you or anyone else.
A handgun is a tool to kill beings. A knife as many other uses. I use a knife to cut bread. Is that something you do with a handgun? You see a handgun has a very limited use.

I will see if I can find the statistics I had, I don't remember the exact numbers, but the gist was that (at least in the US) comparing a knife to a gun

A knife introduced into a fight (i.e., someone carrying a knife) it is far more likely to be used once pulled vs. a gun.

I believe the reason is that a gun is often used as intimidation, generally pulling on introduces fear. Most people cut or stabbed in a fight never saw the knife, there is no such intimidation factor. By the very nature a nife has to be kept conceled to be effective and then used, and gun by it's very nature has to be brandished - and then may or may not be used.It's obvious, to use a gun it have to be shown and pointed at the target. A knife is used as a "supprise", when the fists aren't enough. It lies in their very nature to be used differently. So they aren't the same as you wrote before.

Statistically if shot in the comission of a crime, a vast majority are shot once, and non fatally. Most knifing victims are stabbed and cut multiple time, most report never knowing they were cut.

This is a very interesting read on what I have been saying

PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL WILL FIND ANOTHER WAY
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL WILL FIND ANOTHER WAY
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL WILL FIND ANOTHER WAY
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL WILL FIND ANOTHER WAY
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL WILL FIND ANOTHER WAYSo you're debating that you want to make knifes illegal and have guns legal?
How big is the majority then? How many of these people had been alive if there had been no weapons involved?
Let's equip everyone with a knife then as it's better than getting run over by car and so on. Wouldn't it be better just to defend yourself against a drunk and his fists? Carrying any type of "weapon" here is illegal. I can't carry a knife or a hammer, if there's no reason for it. There's no reason walk on a aircraft armed, just in case you have to defend yourself against a hijacker.

Like I said before I know that, I even wrote it myself.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think this quite clearly shows the same thing (from the above web page

Homicides
(incl. murder / manslaughter / infanticides)
1,045
Recorded Crime Statistics
- Homicides with sharp implement
27%
Recorded Crime Statistics
- Homicides with guns
8%
Recorded Crime Statistics
- Homicides increase since 1965
more than tripled
Recorded Crime Statistics
Incidents involving edged weapon attacks (London Only)
54,000+
British National Martial Arts Association
Firearm incidents involving violence
7,133
Recorded Crime Statistics
Statistics re. Youths Carrying Knives:-
(note: the figures below do not necessarily reflect youths carrying knives every day)
.

- 11-12 year olds carrying knives last year
10%
Youth at risk?
- 15-17 year olds admitting to carrying knives for self defence
46%
Ian Johnston - Chief Constable British Transport Police
- Pupils in London Schools carrying knives
(in many surveys, around 30-35% of pupils admit to carrying a knife - but it should be stressed, that does not mean every day! However misguidedly, many pupils only carry a knife when they feel they may be particularly at risk)
29%
Youth Justice Board / Mori 2003
- Excluded Pupils carrying knives
62%
Youth Justice Board / Mori 2003
- 16 year old boys admitting attacking someone with a knife - intent on causing serious injury
1 in 5
Youth Justice Board / Mori 2003

This was a canadian only statistic, and once again, no or little gun ownership, so the murders still there are committed with another toolYes ofcourse if I really hate someone and want to kill him/her. I don't really want to get caught presumably. So I will get myself an alibi, lend my cell phone and credit card to a friend. Sneak up the victim from behind whack him/her in the head with a lump of wood. Then steal the wallet or something so it looks like a robbery gone wrong. No one will presume I did, unless everybody knew we two hated eachothers. It don't have to be like this all depending on the situation.

If you want statistics here are some (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). This for the whole kingdom under the year 2007.
According to it there were 258 murders, manslaughters and assaults in which the victim died. This means 3 per 100.000 citizens according to the statistics.

Problem is that is a very small percentage of the murders and at least in the american mind doesn't outweigh the benifits, it's like punishing the majority for sins of the minority.Yes it looks pretty fucked up, if I'll take your word for it.

No but you have muggers with knives don't you? Think you can successfully defend against a knife?I think most people thinks so. Including me, a knife is used in close combat. So people, iincluding me probably see a slight chance of "winning" that fight. This is seen in your statistics too. Otherwise you can run away. If the mugger had a gun instead, you or I haven't the quickness of pulling a gun and shoot the mugger and if we run away the mugger can shoot us in the back.
With guns your pretty much dead if supprised, that say second. That's why you you sneak on people, that's why there's camoflage, stealth tactics and so on.

Then get off the gun arguement. The fact is that if criminals know law abiding people can not have access to a gun they will have no fear of attacking people or breaking in. In the US I don't need to own a gun for this deterance to work. The criminal looking for a victim; he doesn't know if I am carrying a gun, or the next guy. The criminal looking to break into a house, he doesn't know which one has a gun.That's why most burglars look for empty houses. While people are away on vacation etc. Burglars in a virtually gun free country don't want to get knocked out by the house owner either. Then there's this phsycological thing too. I don't think the burglars want to have contact the the people living there. Just like during an execution by firing squad, you share the burden so no one actually "does it". Neutralizing the target or something instead of killing a family father.

This deterance also must impact (not that it is a threat now but who knows in the future) of any foreign power invading the US. Japan was on her knees in 1945, all but done. The US evaluated the effect of having to invade Japan; facing old women with pitchforks and old men with left over weapons. The math was that Japan would have lost over 1,000,000 and the us 100,000 if I remember correctly. That was enough for us not to invade even though we would have succeeded.That's why you utilize conscription. Who actually know that these free gun owners in your country actually are on your side?

The shady ones will always get gun. Even if only the military has guns, people will figure a way to steal them and get them on the street.Yes ofcourse. That's why you figure out better ways to stop them.

Well, they kill each other here all the time. They make a "shank" some type of icepick like weapon. It could be a sharpenes toothbrush (the handle part), a stolen tool what ever they can get. The prison guard have searches all the time, find all kind of crap, but people are still able to get enough to kill anytime they want. This is the most tightly controlled environment - prisoners have no right to illegal searches. They have no privacy. That are living in a fish bowl, yet are still able to kill each other. I have a friend that works in a prison, and he tells me it is not unusual for the victim (or the guards) to have never seen the attacker.Sound really bad.
I think it's logic that the victim never seen the attacker. If he survives someone else going to pay. If no one is seen doing it, they all can blame eachother.

How many people died? I bet had he killed 1/10 with a gun it would have made 10x the news - at least that is how it is in the US.According to a wikipedia article. There were 400 people there, 200 of these were injured and 63 people died.
If someone want to kill as many as possible there're different ways which suits better in different situations.

I think the real root of the problem is escaping you. I don't know the laws of your country, or for that matter any of the rest of the world. We have freedoms here that most of the world doesn't enjoy. For example, the police can not just come to your house and demand to search with out probably cause and a search warrant issued by a judge. The police can not pull you in for questioning unless they have reason. We have the righ to not answer self incriminating questions during a trial or interigation. Our police can not beat confessions out of someone. These freedoms have a price though. It means there are criminals that will use this to thier advantage. I think that higher crime rates in the US speak to that as well as the drug culture. By outlawing drugs we have created a huge black market; basically the same thing that bread Al Capone during prohibitation. I think a lot of Europe has a much liberal view towars drugs, at least marijuna anyway. I think legalizing drugs in the US would do far more to stop murders than outlawing guns.Well we have freedoms here too. The police can't crash through your roof and search your house unless they have an order to do so. The police can't make you do crimes either, it's illegal. So they can't dress like hookers to set you up.

My point to the above was that so many countries in the rest of the world have not much more freedom than prisoners in jail. With out these freedoms, gun control may work I don't know. We in the US are not willing to give up freedoms out ancestors died for, so the only one's that would obey any laws are the law abiding, and there is no way for police to target and eliminate guns from the criminals till they are used.

The second part of this, again I do not know how your (or the rest of the worlds ) judges are. Here in the US we have such a liberal mediaand some very stupid ideas. People will want blood for a mass murder, but at the 11th hour when he's to be executed everyone will rally to save him. Anytime someone is caught, it was everyone else's fault but his; he was beaten as a kid - he was mollested so he HAD to rape that person. It goes on and on. The point is, we are too soft on criminal when caught. Finally our prisoners have far too many rights in prison - many live better in jail than they do out of jail. In jail they get education, cable TV, 3 meals - there is little fear of going to jail for many in this country.

Freedom has a priceYou do what ever you in your country. I can't whine unless it hurts some other country. What I want to do here is showing another viewpoint on the subject. We don't need guns to protect us from the goverment or burglars. If the war comes in the future the goverment will supply us with arms. That's how it worked in Finland, it's conscription. Which means that every citizen is not only a father, son, electrician, ornithologist in the spare time but also a soldier.

md21017md

05-18-2008, 08:10 AM

No read again. Murders will exist no matter how illegal it is.

Then what is the point? You are punnishing the honest for the deeds of the guilty.

Then why isn't a knife enough for you then? As they're the same? They're not the same and you know that.

Because I can't hunt with a knife, I cant target shoot with a knife. Ultimately, a gun serves a purpose of deterance - to governments and individuals.

A handgun is a tool to kill beings.

A gun of any type is a mechanical tool for launching a small piece of metal at high speed. I guess you could argue that some (such as military weapons) are built to kill, but the reality is that any gun can be used for any purpose - hunting, war or target/competition.

A knife as many other uses. I use a knife to cut bread.

So does a gun as mentioned above.

Is that something you do with a handgun? You see a handgun has a very limited use.

Why are you now basing your arguement on handguns? I thought you wanted ALL guns gone? Guns have far more purpose than killing, and in fact, even including war, guns have been used for far more usefull purposes - feeding one's self, target/competition

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 29 seconds later...

It's obvious, to use a gun it have to be shown and pointed at the target. A knife is used as a "supprise", when the fists aren't enough. It lies in their very nature to be used differently. So they aren't the same as you wrote before.

My point is that a person carrying a knife is more likely to use it in a fight. I think the reason is that a gun pulled tends to have a bit of a shock effect. Someone carrying a knife feels he has to use it. I also think that a knife pulled and seen by the other often causes them to try to lunge and "fight the knife" if you will.

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 4 seconds later...

So you're debating that you want to make knifes illegal and have guns legal?

Are you haveing a problem with English or are you just missing my point that much? What I am saying for the 3rd time is that outlawing guns will do nothing and people will just find another way.

How big is the majority then? How many of these people had been alive if there had been no weapons involved?

What you really mean is no gun. People will always have access to a knife, and a knife is more likely to be used if carried. So no one can answer your question, but statistics might indicate more.
Let's equip everyone with a knife then as it's better than getting run over by car and so on. Wouldn't it be better just to defend yourself against a drunk and his fists? Carrying any type of "weapon" here is illegal. I can't carry a knife or a hammer, if there's no reason for it. There's no reason walk on a aircraft armed, just in case you have to defend yourself against a hijacker.

Like I said before I know that, I even wrote it myself.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 7 seconds later...

We can't carry a hammer, screwdriver etc either - without reason. Reason is easy to justify. A friend of mine always carried a baseball bat and glove. He never played a day in his life, but if anyone asked he was at a game, practice or what ever and heading hom, he was going to a friends for a game tomorrow - what ever worked.

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 27 seconds later...

Yes of course if I really hate someone and want to kill him/her. I don't really want to get caught presumably. So I will get myself an alibi, lend my cell phone and credit card to a friend. Sneak up the victim from behind whack him/her in the head with a lump of wood. Then steal the wallet or something so it looks like a robbery gone wrong. No one will presume I did, unless everybody knew we two hated eachothers. It don't have to be like this all depending on the situation.

What the hell does this have to do with what I wrote?

If you want statistics here are some. This for the whole kingdom under the year 2007.
According to it there were 258 murders, manslaughters and assaults in which the victim died. This means 3 per 100.000 citizens according to the statistics.

The UK is a different country than the US with different freedoms. As I have though of this, you are using a failed logic. You are in essence saying if A = B then not A = Not B

If A (gun posession) = B (murder) then not A (ban guns) = not B (no murders)

This is a simple logic problem and is simply not true. Problem is there are too many variables between countries (i.e., different laws, morals etc.)

md21017md added to this post, 8 minutes and 18 seconds later...

I think most people thinks so. Including me, a knife is used in close combat. So people, iincluding me probably see a slight chance of "winning" that fight.

Good luck with that one. I spent 10 years studying martial arts. The overwhelming consensus was that a knife negates 5 - 10 years of hard training. Despite what the movies show it is very hard to deal with a knife. We'd use the body armor like the prison guards use - suit a guy up and give him a training knife. Even a new guy against someone who'd been training for a long time, the odds were with the knife. It's simply too hard to do enough damage before getting stuck several times. That is against an idiot with no training. someone who has played with a knife - forget it.

This is seen in your statistics too.

Where?

If the mugger had a gun instead,

See that is the problem, if I mug you with a knife, I almost have to supprise you and stab the hell out of you - much like an animal does to prey.

you or I haven't the quickness of pulling a gun and shoot the mugger and if we run away the mugger can shoot us in the back.

Maybe, but most muggers don't practice, most are not "good shots" hence the number of people shot accidentally - again, the one area of gun fatalities I will agree will go down if there are no guns, but see my point above. Most muggers with a gun, pull it to intimidate, get what they want and get the hell out.

With guns your pretty much dead if supprised, that say second. That's why you you sneak on people, that's why there's camoflage, stealth tactics and so on.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 6 seconds later...

That's why most burglars look for empty houses.

That is not what my UK friends tell me.

While people are away on vacation etc. Burglars in a virtually gun free country don't want to get knocked out by the house owner either.

Again, my understanding of the UK is that if someone breaks into your house and you attack them before trying to flee you can be charged.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 6 seconds later...

That's why you utilize conscription. Who actually know that these free gun owners in your country actually are on your side?

Problem is then the conscripts can only support the existing government. This is what hitler did if you recall. Maybe if enough people had guns (Chancelor Hitler banned guns before his move) WW2 would have never happened.

md21017md added to this post, 0 minutes and 48 seconds later...

Yes ofcourse. That's why you figure out better ways to stop them.

And what would that be?

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 36 seconds later...

Sound really bad.
I think it's logic that the victim never seen the attacker. If he survives someone else going to pay. If no one is seen doing it, they all can blame eachother.

Yes it sounds really bad. I have no idea what you are saying as it relates to my comments. You also are missing my point. Prison has the strictest gun control - no guns at all - and people still are able to murder at will.

md21017md added to this post, 0 minutes and 58 seconds later...

According to a wikipedia article. There were 400 people there, 200 of these were injured and 63 people died.
If someone want to kill as many as possible there're different ways which suits better in different situations.

And who knows, maybe someone legally carrying could have shot him before he killed 63 people.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 32 seconds later...

"Well we have freedoms here too. The police can't crash through your roof and search your house unless they have an order to do so. The police can't make you do crimes either, it's illegal. So they can't dress like hookers to set you up.

I am not speaking specifically of your country - after all you are 1 of what 130-170 other countries. In many countries the cops can bust into your house or stop you on the road and search you.

md21017md added to this post, 5 minutes and 22 seconds later...

We don't need guns to protect us from the goverment

History would prove you wrong. The US would still be a colony of England had we not had guns. Afganastan would have fallen to the soviets had the Afgans not had guns. There are many more examples.

or burglars.

Ok, I break in your house, your wife and kids are there (assume you are married) What are you gonna do?

If the war comes in the future the goverment will supply us with arms.
You again are missing the point. What if the war is your own government? Maybe not finland, but there are plenty of other borderline governments.

That's how it worked in Finland, it's conscription.
Assuming they can hand out the guns in time. This is fine for external enemies. Look how many military coups there have been that might have been averted had citizens been able to interveen as opposed to hiding like sheep.

Ytterbium

05-18-2008, 10:24 AM

Then what is the point? You are punnishing the honest for the deeds of the guilty.No I protect the most people from themselves and others. For me it's something natural that everything isn't legal. Everyone will get "punished" no matter what.

Because I can't hunt with a knife, I cant target shoot with a knife. Ultimately, a gun serves a purpose of deterance - to governments and individuals.How did they hunt before the guns were invented? Yes you can throw knifes, axes etc and see how you hit. They will however not cover the distance a gun would.
Hunting rifles then are quite hard to hide and pull when mugging someone, unlike handguns. They're not used for hunting either.

A gun of any type is a mechanical tool for launching a small piece of metal at high speed. I guess you could argue that some (such as military weapons) are built to kill, but the reality is that any gun can be used for any purpose - hunting, war or target/competition.If guns ain't made for killing then why target shooting/practice? In my eyes it would be like saying cars aren't a made for transportation. Only to learn them drive, then what for?
Anti-tank guns, rockets can also be used for target shooting. It doesn't mean they have to be legal. It's a matter of where you draw the line.

Why are you now basing your arguement on handguns? I thought you wanted ALL guns gone? Guns have far more purpose than killing, and in fact, even including war, guns have been used for far more useful purposes - feeding one's self, target/competitionBecause handguns, knifes and whatever, weapons in general should be kept out from the society.
A hunting rifle, is used to kill animals during hunting season. By hunters which have passed exams, tests and check ups to use their rifles. They must always be placed in a safe when not used. To own a target shooting weapon such as a handgun. You have to be a member of an authorized club and be there for practice shooting to be able to claim you need this handgun for that activity.
It's more than "he's clean" and then may buy a gun. If you don't want to do this, then get a soft air gun to target shoot with.

Either you have a comprehension problem or are just missing the point. My point is that a person carrying a knife is more likely to use it in a fight. I think the reason is that a gun pulled tends to have a bit of a shock effect. Someone carrying a knife feels he has to use it. I also think that a knife pulled and seen by the other often causes them to try to lunge and "fight the knife" if you will.Yes that's what I wrote too. But it's illegal to carry knifes here as I already written. I want to keep it that way. Ofcourse a small crook you don't care. Atleast he have a hard time to get ahold of a handgun.

Are you haveing a problem with English or are you just missing my point that much? What I am saying for the 3rd time is that outlawing guns will do nothing and people will just find another way.No I was just teasing you. I don't think I "haveing" a problem with English.

What you really mean is no gun. People will always have access to a knife, and a knife is more likely to be used if carried. So no one can answer your question, but statistics might indicate more.People will always have access to many things. You take what ever you have handy when you have a burglar in the house for instance. I guess my Model M keyboard can cause alot of harm to a stupid burglar.

We can't carry a hammer, screwdriver etc either - without reason. Reason is easy to justify. A friend of mine always carried a baseball bat and glove. He never played a day in his life, but if anyone asked he was at a game, practice or what ever and heading hom, he was going to a friends for a game tomorrow - what ever worked.But you're allowed to bear arms but not hammers etc? I depends of how hard it would be to explain yourself, then there's the fact if the police believes you, how likely it is or it's a smart move in general. The baseball bat is great excuse, but I'm not sure if it would work so well here.

What the hell does this have to do with what I wrote?I think it makes perfectly sense. As there's more than gun vs. no guns. It's all about planning in the end.

The UK is a different country than the US with different freedoms. As I have though of this, you are using a failed logic. You are in essence saying if A = B then not A = Not B

If A (gun posession) = B (murder) then not A (ban guns) = not B (no murders)How many times do I have to write this. I don't say that. There're plenty of places on this page and others. Where I say there will always be, no matter how illegal it is.

This is a simple logic problem and is simply not true. Problem is there are too many variables between countries (i.e., different laws, morals etc.)YES! Finally you've got it. That's why I found it was no good of comparing statistics.

Ytterbium added to this post, 67 minutes and 49 seconds later...

Good luck with that one. I spent 10 years studying martial arts. The overwhelming consensus was that a knife negates 5 - 10 years of hard training. Despite what the movies show it is very hard to deal with a knife. We'd use the body armor like the prison guards use - suit a guy up and give him a training knife. Even a new guy against someone who'd been training for a long time, the odds were with the knife. It's simply too hard to do enough damage before getting stuck several times. That is against an idiot with no training. someone who has played with a knife - forget it.Yes ofcourse it's harder than without a knife. It's still more manageble than someone with a gun. If you attack the attacker, he will stab you as "defence". If you attack him and he's holding a gun, he will probably shoot you too. That rarely happens because most people have a great respect for a gun. They know that trying to fight it results in pain or death. You will lose your wallet no matter what, dead or alive. Mugged by a knife dude you still can keep your wallet and run away.

Where?I think it was written everywhere, people have more respect for a gun than a knife.

See that is the problem, if I mug you with a knife, I almost have to supprise you and stab the hell out of you - much like an animal does to prey.Not necessarily. Here where you don't use guns to rob people. You have to use something else that's intimidating, a knife for instance.

Maybe, but most muggers don't practice, most are not "good shots" hence the number of people shot accidentally - again, the one area of gun fatalities I will agree will go down if there are no guns, but see my point above. Most muggers with a gun, pull it to intimidate, get what they want and get the hell out.How do you know? Do you think every robbed person is a good shooter? Also I don't think muggers want to stab people unessarily. They just wan't the money away with a small effort as possible.

That is not what my UK friends tell me.Well that's what your Swedish "friend" tell you now.

Again, my understanding of the UK is that if someone breaks into your house and you attack them before trying to flee you can be charged.Let's think a step further. If I here someone in my house for instance, they don't have to be burglars. They're maybe hikers which got lost in the bad weather and saw my house as place to seek refuge.
I will sneak up on the look what their are doing. Be ready to defend myself. Shout at them, if the intruder starts running at me with my DVD player under his arm. It's an attack and I will stop that.

Problem is then the conscripts can only support the existing government. This is what hitler did if you recall. Maybe if enough people had guns (Chancelor Hitler banned guns before his move) WW2 would have never happened.As every citizen is a soldier. They won't fight if it's not in their interests. Let's say the goverment says "Let's attack Poland" for no particular reason. The People/soldiers wouldn't do that.

And what would that be?Concrete, steel, alarm systems. You know the regular stuff.

Yes it sounds really bad. I have no idea what you are saying as it relates to my comments. You also are missing my point. Prison has the strictest gun control - no guns at all - and people still are able to murder at will.How come people don't murder eachother in prisons here?
Yes my joke then. No it wouldn't be a great idea to arm the inmates.

And who knows, maybe someone legally carrying could have shot him before he killed 63 people.I doubt it. Especially the way it happened. They got thrown out. Decided for revenge and started a fire in the emergency exit stairway.

I am not speaking specifically of your country - after all you are 1 of what 130-170 other countries. In many countries the cops can bust into your house or stop you on the road and search you.Yes ofcourse. But my country aren't one of them.

History would prove you wrong. The US would still be a colony of England had we not had guns. Afganastan would have fallen to the soviets had the Afgans not had guns. There are many more examples.They question is if it had been better if the Russians took Afghanistan. Instead the talibans took a hold of the country.
There're many examples which revolutions and overthrowing goverments which leads to bad things too. Those people shouldn't have guns.

Ok, I break in your house, your wife and kids are there (assume you are married) What are you gonna do?I partly mentioned this further up. I don't have a wife or children I'm only assuming. I would let them stay in one room. While I go checking what's happening.

You again are missing the point. What if the war is your own government? Maybe not finland, but there are plenty of other borderline governments.Well there're many of unstable countries in the world with coups etc. Generally I think the arms belong to the goverment. If that country is bad then there's the UN etc.

Assuming they can hand out the guns in time. This is fine for external enemies. Look how many military coups there have been that might have been averted had citizens been able to interveen as opposed to hiding like sheep.Hopefully they can. The rifles are stored throughout the country with various other supplies.
You have these civil defence/air raid sirens. Which will sound, then I'm on my way.

md21017md

05-18-2008, 12:06 PM

No I protect the most people from themselves and others. For me it's something natural that everything isn't legal. Everyone will get "punished" no matter what.

But you will not accomplish your goal. Prison quickly proves this. There are no guns in prison, and they readily kill each other. Removing the tool doesn't change the desire, only the method.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 16 seconds later...

How did they hunt before the guns were invented? Yes you can throw knifes, axes etc and see how you hit. They will however not cover the distance a gun would.

Very few people have the skill to hunt with a knife. Most people do not hunt everyday for survival, so they do not have the skills of hunters of the past.

Hunting rifles then are quite hard to hide and pull when mugging someone, unlike handguns. They're not used for hunting either.

depends, I can cut the barrell down, cut the stock down. Agree'd not the same as a pistol, but wasn't your arguement for all guns?

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 55 seconds later...

If guns ain't made for killing then why target shooting/practice?

Why not, it can be competition like any other sport

In my eyes it would be like saying cars aren't a made for transportation. Only to learn them drive, then what for?

Why do all antigunners try to compare cars to guns? The 2 are not in any way alike

Anti-tank guns, rockets can also be used for target shooting. It doesn't mean they have to be legal. It's a matter of where you draw the line.

Why do all antigunners have to go to extreams to try to prove a point?

md21017md added to this post, 7 minutes and 20 seconds later...

Because handguns, knifes and whatever, weapons in general should be kept out from the society.

Ok, then how does one defend them self? How does a woman stop a rapist? How does a man defend against a bigger man? What do people do when soceity breaks down? Keep in mind, in most major cities of the world, there is only a few days supply of food. New York for example, if there were some sort of disaster, terroist attach that shut down transportation of goods, the city (this from officials) would be out of food in days. People - like it or not - revert to animals when in a crisis. There is evidence of this all over the world and throught history.

A hunting rifle, is used to kill animals during hunting season. By hunters which have passed exams, tests and check ups to use their rifles.

Here you only have to take a basic hunter safety course which varies by area.

They must always be placed in a safe when not used.

Not in the US

To own a target shooting weapon such as a handgun. You have to be a member of an authorized club and be there for practice shooting to be able to claim you need this handgun for that activity.

Again, not in the US

It's more than "he's clean" and then may buy a gun.

This is where the US is different. Unless you are a fellon or a mental patient you are allowed to buy a gun. The problem is that we have laws that say a fellon is not allowed to buy a gun, or possess one. Unfortunately when caught the liberal court system does little.

If you don't want to do this, then get a soft air gun to target shoot with.

It's not the same

md21017md added to this post, 7 minutes and 1 seconds later...

But you're allowed to bear arms but not hammers etc?

If you have a legitimate reason to carry a hammer yes, but you can not carry one as a weapon. Carry laws vary by state, even by city. The biggest difference - to legally carry a gun it has to be registered and you must undergo a background check. Furthermore, the gun has a serial number, and a bullett from a gun can be matched to the gun. If I stab you with a knife, there is no proof I ever owned it, there is no record of it, there is no way to trace it to the exact wound.

I depends of how hard it would be to explain yourself, then there's the fact if the police believes you, how likely it is or it's a smart move in general.

It's the same here.

The baseball bat is great excuse, but I'm not sure if it would work so well here.

Maybe not, but 1 of the greatest weapons of all time is universaly accepted world wide and can not be taken away - anywhere in the wold. A cane. Take a stick, put a rubber stopper on it and it is now a medical device - legally.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 32 seconds later...

Not necessarily. Here where you don't use guns to rob people. You have to use something else that's intimidating, a knife for instance.

A knife is more of an offensive weapon - you have to use it, and generally must supprise your victim, by this very act intimidation is low. The person can run so the intimidation factor is low.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 34 seconds later...

How many times do I have to write this. I don't say that. There're plenty of places on this page and others. Where I say there will always be, no matter how illegal it is.

Well then why do it? You are stating here that it will not stop murders so why do it?

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 52 seconds later...

How do you know? Do you think every robbed person is a good shooter?

I think more people that go through the effort to legally carry a gun make the effort to know how to safely use it, and do practice so yes.

Also I don't think muggers want to stab people unessarily. They just wan't the money away with a small effort as possible.

Yes, but see with a knife there is more risk - in this country he could pull a gun on your knife and justifiably kill you. He could fight back. Someone else seeing what was happening could shoot him

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 21 seconds later...

Let's think a step further. If I here someone in my house for instance, they don't have to be burglars. They're maybe hikers which got lost in the bad weather and saw my house as place to seek refuge.

I am not sure what you are saying. I think your point is someone goes in your house when you are gone for refuge?

I will sneak up on the look what their are doing. Be ready to defend myself.

And how are you going to do that with no weapon

Shout at them,

Ok, that will be really successfull.

if the intruder starts running at me with my DVD player under his arm. It's an attack and I will stop that.

Ok, in the US if I break in and am stealing property that is not an attack, and it would not be justifiable to defend. You can't shoot someone for stealing your DVD player.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 29 seconds later...

How come people don't murder eachother in prisons here?

I have no idea about your counrty, probably more a cultural thing, maybe there are more than you know? Maybe they just are not reported.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 26 seconds later...

I doubt it. Especially the way it happened. They got thrown out. Decided for revenge and started a fire in the emergency exit stairway.

You have a hard time getting the point don't you? My point was maybe not in this specific instance, but if someone were to try to set a night club on fire to kill people it is possible for someone to shoot him to stop him yes?

md21017md added to this post, 8 minutes and 31 seconds later...

They question is if it had been better if the Russians took Afghanistan.

Maybe Finlad would have been better had the russians taken over

Instead the talibans took a hold of the country.

And immediatly banned guns so the citizens had no way to "overthrow them" A perfect example of why an armed populace not under government control works.

There're many examples which revolutions and overthrowing goverments which leads to bad things too. Those people shouldn't have guns.

Yes, but there are far more people who have been killed by thier governments in which the people had no ability to fight back

Germany - 6,000,000+
Cambodia - 200,000
Rwanda - 800,000 -1,000,000+
Bosnia - 200,000
Rape of Nanking: 1937-1938 - 300,000 Deaths
Stalin's Forced Famine: 1932-1933 - 7,000,000 Deaths
Armenians in Turkey: 1915-1918 - 1,500,000 Deaths

How many millions died at the hand of thier government with no way to fight back? Far more than gun control would ever stop.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 15 seconds later...

While I go checking what's happening.

You check out what's happening and find someone hel bent on killing you and your family, what are you going to do, shout at him?

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 9 seconds later...

Well there're many of unstable countries in the world with coups etc. Generally I think the arms belong to the goverment. If that country is bad then there's the UN etc.

And who will control the UN?

md21017md added to this post, 5 minutes and 38 seconds later...

Hopefully they can. The rifles are stored throughout the country with various other supplies.
You have these civil defence/air raid sirens. Which will sound, then I'm on my way.

You still miss the point. What if your government is the problem. What if they decide to adopt a police of killing all homless people? Or people of a certain ethnic or religion?

Had guns been more readily available in the 30's Hitle may have never risen to power.

If you think a governemnt will not turn on it's people, go here and look at how many have died at the hands of their government just in the past 100 "modern" years

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ytterbium

05-19-2008, 01:02 PM

But you will not accomplish your goal. Prison quickly proves this. There are no guns in prison, and they readily kill each other. Removing the tool doesn't change the desire, only the method.Have said it will? My society proves this. While guns aren't available everywhere, people still kill eachother. You did not want to answer on my question about giving guns to the inmates. Yes, you think that's a stupid idea. Just like I think it's stupid to give everyone guns out in the society where people kills eachother.

Very few people have the skill to hunt with a knife. Most people do not hunt everyday for survival, so they do not have the skills of hunters of the past.Exactly why would they need the guns at all then? People rarely hunt so it's just to leave the rifle locked in a safe.

depends, I can cut the barrell down, cut the stock down. Agree'd not the same as a pistol, but wasn't your arguement for all guns?No I want restricted gun access and strict enforcement of gun laws.

Why not, it can be competition like any other sportThen you have to live with the safety precautions.

Why do all antigunners try to compare cars to guns? The 2 are not in any way alikeWhy not. You come up with strange arguments too, so why not?

Why do all antigunners have to go to extreams to try to prove a point?It might help you see how I look at it. Why do you need handguns to protect you from the goverment but not the heavier things?

Ok, then how does one defend them self? How does a woman stop a rapist? How does a man defend against a bigger man? What do people do when soceity breaks down? Keep in mind, in most major cities of the world, there is only a few days supply of food. New York for example, if there were some sort of disaster, terroist attach that shut down transportation of goods, the city (this from officials) would be out of food in days. People - like it or not - revert to animals when in a crisis. There is evidence of this all over the world and throught history.Would it then be good to hand them guns in such situations? So the citizens can have an outright war?

Here you only have to take a basic hunter safety course which varies by area.
Not in the US
Again, not in the USThis is the great difference. It's easier to steal a gun laying on a table than locked up one.

This is where the US is different. Unless you are a fellon or a mental patient you are allowed to buy a gun. The problem is that we have laws that say a fellon is not allowed to buy a gun, or possess one. Unfortunately when caught the liberal court system does little.Then you have to get harder on that point.

It's not the sameGreat.

If you have a legitimate reason to carry a hammer yes, but you can not carry one as a weapon. Carry laws vary by state, even by city. The biggest difference - to legally carry a gun it has to be registered and you must undergo a background check. Furthermore, the gun has a serial number, and a bullett from a gun can be matched to the gun. If I stab you with a knife, there is no proof I ever owned it, there is no record of it, there is no way to trace it to the exact wound.No but you can still see what type if knife it was depending on the injuries.
The goverment is still watching the gun user, i.e being registered etc. What do you think about that aspect?

Maybe not, but 1 of the greatest weapons of all time is universaly accepted world wide and can not be taken away - anywhere in the wold. A cane. Take a stick, put a rubber stopper on it and it is now a medical device - legally.Yes that's what I've written before. Any object can be used as a weapon. The question is does the object have any other better main uses aswell? Yes the keyboard is used to input text to a computer, the lump of wood is used as firewood and so on. The handgun, practice shooting come on? You don't legalize every drug available, because it's fun to build small pyramids with the pills?

A knife is more of an offensive weapon - you have to use it, and generally must supprise your victim, by this very act intimidation is low. The person can run so the intimidation factor is low.So you rather want to be robbed at gun point than with a knife?

Well then why do it? You are stating here that it will not stop murders so why do it?Do you think the murders will decrease with more guns, less regulation?

I think more people that go through the effort to legally carry a gun make the effort to know how to safely use it, and do practice so yes.But not everyone will do that right? Not everyone drives car or have a license to do that. Should people be forced to do it?

Yes, but see with a knife there is more risk - in this country he could pull a gun on your knife and justifiably kill you. He could fight back. Someone else seeing what was happening could shoot himThat's the glorified best case scenario. So how often will that happen? I could become the richest man in the world, but will it happen, what's the odds?

I am not sure what you are saying. I think your point is someone goes in your house when you are gone for refuge?Do you think everyone who enters your house is a burglar?

And how are you going to do that with no weaponLook further up where we agreed on that many objects are weapons.

Ok, that will be really successfull.Yes, it maight freak the burglars out so they run away. Otherwise if they're burglars and want to pick a fight then I will have something heavy ready. They might tourists and answer "We got lost in the snow storm, we need help".

Ok, in the US if I break in and am stealing property that is not an attack, and it would not be justifiable to defend. You can't shoot someone for stealing your DVD player.No I wouln't do that either.

I have no idea about your counrty, probably more a cultural thing, maybe there are more than you know? Maybe they just are not reported.Maybe it could be so. But if a fight, an uproar etc makes it to the news. I think a murder in the prison would make that too.

You have a hard time getting the point don't you? My point was maybe not in this specific instance, but if someone were to try to set a night club on fire to kill people it is possible for someone to shoot him to stop him yes?Yes or you hit him/her witha blunt object. Kick the arson in the groin etc. Why do you have to shoot at everything?

Maybe Finlad would have been better had the russians taken overThat looks like English, but I still can't figure out what you want to express.

And immediatly banned guns so the citizens had no way to "overthrow them" A perfect example of why an armed populace not under government control works.Actually it was a "populace" which fought against the Russian. It got help from the USA and they just said thanks by crashing aeroplanes into the WTC.

Yes, but there are far more people who have been killed by thier governments in which the people had no ability to fight back

Germany - 6,000,000+
Cambodia - 200,000
Rwanda - 800,000 -1,000,000+
Bosnia - 200,000
Rape of Nanking: 1937-1938 - 300,000 Deaths
Stalin's Forced Famine: 1932-1933 - 7,000,000 Deaths
Armenians in Turkey: 1915-1918 - 1,500,000 Deaths

How many millions died at the hand of thier government with no way to fight back? Far more than gun control would ever stop.How many people have died because of the citizens?

You check out what's happening and find someone hel bent on killing you and your family, what are you going to do, shout at him?Fight back.

And who will control the UN?The members.

You still miss the point. What if your government is the problem. What if they decide to adopt a police of killing all homless people? Or people of a certain ethnic or religion?

Had guns been more readily available in the 30's Hitle may have never risen to power.Again this is something which don't exist in our countries. Then I can ask you why not give them nuclear war head so they can protect themselves from the goverment? You can't possibly think you can win over the regime with your little handgun.

If you think a governemnt will not turn on it's people, go here and look at how many have died at the hands of their government just in the past 100 "modern" years

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. again how many people have died because of their friends and foes the last 100 years?

Ool

05-19-2008, 02:29 PM

How many millions died at the hand of thier government with no way to fight back? Far more than gun control would ever stop.

The problem is, while those deaths are tragic, they are spikes of violence within decades of an otherwise peaceful life.

When you have everyone armed, however, including the lunatics, then your entire life is a low-level war. It isn’t just during those times of chaos that you have to fear for your life. It is every day.

Who would you rather be? Someone who lives a life in blissful happiness and one day suddenly burns to death or someone who receives painful burn marks every day for a long, long, painful life?

They say that an ending in terror is better than unending terror. When Iraqis were polled whether they would rather live under their former terror regime or the present chaos, where death can lurk behind every corner in the form of any thug with an AK-47, a lot of them replied that they’d prefer the former.

So even if your claim is true that Americans all have their risk-taking gene switched on and love the danger, once you try to export your Dodge City culture to places that don’t want it you’ve clearly overstepped the line…

Wapiti

05-19-2008, 03:10 PM

.... once you try to export your Dodge City culture to places that don’t want it you’ve clearly overstepped the line…

Hmmm, I don't see MD# trying to export Dodge City culture anywhere but rather trying to defend the "hand guns are bad and you shouldn't have them because we don't have them, see it works culture" from being exported to the USA. At least that is what I see going on in this thread.

Are you trying to export Dodge City culture MD?

Kas Ka

05-19-2008, 05:49 PM

Thank If you have the right to bear arms, other people have that right too. Including those who may be a bit tempered. You never really know what people really are on the inside no matter how civilized, well behaved or law abiding they may look like. Maybe they start hearing voices, become religiously obessed what ever. Having people walking around with handguns, whom of these might be a fanatic? We don't know. What I do know is that I don't want to meet these armed people, claiming they know better.

This is true. You don't know the personal history of everyone else. But it isn't right to take away rights just because people are unpredictable. You can't control people. If a healthy man buys a firearm and then years later goes crazy and kills someone, that couldn't be predicted.

But the same would go for a goverment that all of a sudden starts to abuse its power. You never know. A cop or a soldier could go just as crazy.

This is one of many things I don't get if the system is great and working. Why the need for a gun to protect yourself from it?

Read above. lol

Yes this is what I would do too! There's no need for guns if it works like this.

Not in this particular case, but other situations could warrant it.

What a paradise if everyone were like yourself.

I know, right?

I'm clean in the registers too, like many other people aswell. That don't mean I never done anything criminal or that I'm not a shady person. Just like everone else you never know what's lurking.
As you say many criminals don't care. But if it's just made easier for them to get a gun they won't mind.

How is it easier. Legally, they have to buy it for retail price (which is usually more expensive), then to legally carry it, they have to get a CCR permit by taking a course (which they have to pass), and that isn't even counting the FBI background check before they can even purchase it (unless they buy it at a Gun Show). If they have any priors, they can't buy one.

I think its actually easier to just buy it illegally.

I don't know what your experiences are with guns.

I've been raised around guns.

I would try to defend myself to or atleast try somehow depending on the situation. Where I live muggers/robbers rarely/never use guns but knifes. But if they used guns I would be pretty screwed if I tried do something. During my military service we tried these type of things. So it would be some kind of magic and luck if I walk out as the "winner" of it.

Where do you live if I may be so bold? I live in Texas. LOL

These citizens, if clean will have the same possibility to buy weapons as you. As I mentioned further up you don't know who's your enemy. You'll know when you are at gunpoint.

But they don't know who has a gun either. Fear will balance it out. Fear is the deterrant.

I will defend myself in a uncivilized way if I have to. But I don't want to defend myself against a gun. That's very hard to do no matter if I have a gun or not.

If you have a gun, its easier to defend yourself against a gun. If you don't, then I suggest learning Krav Maga. lol

Brute force is a last resort. But you don't have to be uncivilized and go there straight away. Showing of your arms and so on is nothing more than primitive gesture than an civilized argument. The problem is that all people don't get this or have this logic built in. To equip them with handguns would in my eyes be an unsmart move.

I agree. Brute force is a last resort, but it is sometimes necessary, like it or not.

In my opinion, threatening with my gun is a lot more civilized than just blasting away (although, legally, you can get the shaft for using your weapon as a detterant: this i disagree with).

I've already addressed the issue of people in general. The government should trust its citizens just as the citizens more or less trust their government not to abuse each other's power. Once that trust is abused, that's when the law takes effect. The 2nd Amendment is a right that balances out the power a little more than not having any. As has been said before: a government is the bureacracy that has a monopoly on violence. So while it may not be that big of a difference, hypothetically, it is needed. As for me, I'm not worried about my government just yet. Its more about protecting my loved ones and myself from the horrors of the world. These horrors are not cause by firearms, they are caused by people. Making guns illegal would just created one more illegal trade in this country. Prohibition didn't work. Making drugs illegal doesn't work. And making guns illegal would ONLY ensure that the ONLY people who got them would be those who do not respect the law, and therefore, feel no need to follow it.

md21017md

05-19-2008, 08:47 PM

Have said it will? My society proves this. While guns aren't available everywhere, people still kill eachother. You did not want to answer on my question about giving guns to the inmates. Yes, you think that's a stupid idea. Just like I think it's stupid to give everyone guns out in the society where people kills eachother.

Good lord dude, you are comparing convicted criminal to soceity at large

It might help you see how I look at it. Why do you need handguns to protect you from the goverment but not the heavier things?

Stated before, 40,000,000+ were killed by thier government durring the 20th century. How many would have lived had the populace had a means to rebel against the government.

Do you think the murders will decrease with more guns, less regulation?

It did in FLA, and when gun control was introduced in DC crime went up

That looks like English, but I still can't figure out what you want to express.

You said maybe Afganastan would have been better off had the russians taken over. I said that the same could have been said of Finland, maybe the russians should have taken you over.

md21017md added to this post, 123 minutes and 38 seconds later...

That's the glorified best case scenario. So how often will that happen? I could become the richest man in the world, but will it happen, what's the odds?

But you miss the point as usuall - you don't know who has the gun(s). That is the point of a deterance.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 19 seconds later...

Do you think everyone who enters your house is a burglar?

It doesn't matter. If they enter my house uninvited they committed a crime. If they've done so at night when I am asleep especially if my children are present - then I am going to assume the person is dangerous and will react as such.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 26 seconds later...

Actually it was a "populace" which fought against the Russian. It got help from the USA and they just said thanks by crashing aeroplanes into the WTC.

That is a political issue - the US has to stop thinking the enemy of our enemy is our friend. That has nothing to do with guns. And damn, while we are on the subject, 9/11 how many thousands died? Not 1 damn gun in sight, and an entire plane full of people held at bay by a couple jack asses with box cutters

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 18 seconds later...

Originally Posted by md21017md
You check out what's happening and find someone hel bent on killing you and your family, what are you going to do, shout at him?

Fight back.

So you think you can take someone with a knife? Or a club? I want to see that.

md21017md added to this post, 0 minutes and 58 seconds later...

Originally Posted by md21017md
And who will control the UN?

The members.

And how might they do that if the leaders of the UN become overbearing?

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 31 seconds later...

Again this is something which don't exist in our countries. Then I can ask you why not give them nuclear war head so they can protect themselves from the goverment? You can't possibly think you can win over the regime with your little handgun.

But it does exist in the worl. It doesn't exist in Germany but it did 60 years ago. It existed in Bosnia 10 years ago, it exists in darfur now, it existed in Rwanda, should I go on?

Maybe you need to see your loved ones hacked to death by your neighbors with machette's and have to stand thier helpless to do anything

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 4 seconds later...

Originally Posted by md21017md
If you think a governemnt will not turn on it's people, go here and look at how many have died at the hands of their government just in the past 100 "modern" years

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Then again how many people have died because of their friends and foes the last 100 years?

A hell of a lot less

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 34 seconds later...

Quote:
Originally Posted by md21017md
How many millions died at the hand of thier government with no way to fight back? Far more than gun control would ever stop.

The problem is, while those deaths are tragic, they are spikes of violence within decades of an otherwise peaceful life.

When you have everyone armed, however, including the lunatics, then your entire life is a low-level war. It isn’t just during those times of chaos that you have to fear for your life. It is every day.

Who would you rather be? Someone who lives a life in blissful happiness and one day suddenly burns to death or someone who receives painful burn marks every day for a long, long, painful life?

They say that an ending in terror is better than unending terror. When Iraqis were polled whether they would rather live under their former terror regime or the present chaos, where death can lurk behind every corner in the form of any thug with an AK-47, a lot of them replied that they’d prefer the former.

So even if your claim is true that Americans all have their risk-taking gene switched on and love the danger, once you try to export your Dodge City culture to places that don’t want it you’ve clearly overstepped the line…

You too are missing the point. I don't fear that the US government will drag me out of bed in the middle of the night, I don't fear that my neighbors will kill me or my family. I don't fear that the government will kill me because I worsjip the wrong religon (or at all) or am from the wrong ethnic group.

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 55 seconds later...

whyme I am not trying to export anything. I am simply saying this

Removing gun to eliminate deaths will not work except in 2 specific instances (read a few pages ago)

1 - some dumbass shoots and kills himself (in which case maybe Darwin won out) or another accidentally.

2 - Some dumbass walks into a place of a lot of people and kills a lot of people at once. Of course, I can do the same with a gallon of gas.

Taking guns away will not stop murders, it will only allow those that would kill do so with no resistance.

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 47 seconds later...

I would try to defend myself to or atleast try somehow depending on the situation. Where I live muggers/robbers rarely/never use guns but knifes. But if they used guns I would be pretty screwed if I tried do something. During my military service we tried these type of things. So it would be some kind of magic and luck if I walk out as the "winner" of it.

Where do you live if I may be so bold? I live in Texas. LOL

A gun your are screwed? You really think you can take someone with a knife? I would beg you to try. Give a rubber training knife to a friend and see if you can touch him before he can cut you. Realize a touch (lets assume this is a good hard punch) you would probably need more than 1, while he is cutting and stabbing away. I've done this, even with a lot of training it is hard as hell not to get cut

md21017md added to this post, 0 minutes and 50 seconds later...

I will defend myself in a uncivilized way if I have to. But I don't want to defend myself against a gun. That's very hard to do no matter if I have a gun or not.

If you have a gun, its easier to defend yourself against a gun. If you don't, then I suggest learning Krav Maga. lol

good luck there too

lnb203

05-20-2008, 05:55 AM

Antares

05-20-2008, 06:08 AM

Guns have only one purpose (you may disagree with me and say it starts races, but that's not really relevant), to harm. Cars are meant for travel; screwdrivers are meant to secure screws. We don't need guns in our everyday lives, do we? Seriously; what is the necessity of guns? Guns can't provide transport. Guns can't drive screws. Guns aren't a cooking utensil. Guns don't mow lawns.

On the other hand, guns are used for hunting (harm), killing (harm), law enforcement (harm). What's wrong with outlawing something that is unnecessary but only exists to cause harm? Why limit the range? Why do we need it at all?

Riverratt

05-20-2008, 08:11 AM

A few interesting studies on gun control, gun ownership and links to homicide.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (Guns in the home increase likelyhood of homicide by family members and intimate acquintances)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
('The analysis provides support for the position that restricting the availability of firearms as a lethal means of committing suicide and homicide may help reduce the numbers of suicides and homicides')

There are a number of other reports which find that there is no correlation between gun control and violent crime. However, it is thought that this is may be because of the large numbers of guns already in circulation. In other words, the damage done by USA's relatively unrestricted gun policy may be largely irreversible. They've shot themselves in the foot, so to speak.

What a load of cow manure.. You mean some idiots spent money, to say that BS statement??

YES, if their are guns in the home, they are MORE likely to be used by family members.

Lets change a few words, and you will see how silly that sounds, when you think about it..

(food in the home increase likelihood of eating by family members and intimate acquaintances)

That is one of those "obvious" statements made by anti-civil rights advocates, that once you think about it really don't mean a damn thing.

What do you mean "unrestricted" access in the US??? Their is more than 20,000 gun laws on the books

Problem is, they don't apply to criminals, they ONLY apply to law abiding folks.

BTW, I have a small arsenal at my home...if you ban them, WHO are you going to get to come and get them from me??

Riverratt added to this post, 2 minutes and 28 seconds later...

Guns have only one purpose (you may disagree with me and say it starts races, but that's not really relevant), to harm. Cars are meant for travel; screwdrivers are meant to secure screws. We don't need guns in our everyday lives, do we? Seriously; what is the necessity of guns? Guns can't provide transport. Guns can't drive screws. Guns aren't a cooking utensil. Guns don't mow lawns.

On the other hand, guns are used for hunting (harm), killing (harm), law enforcement (harm). What's wrong with outlawing something that is unnecessary but only exists to cause harm? Why limit the range? Why do we need it at all?

The US Bill of Rights, is NOT a bill of needs...it is a Bill of Rights....

And if you do mange to outlaw them....how do you intend to deal with massive non-compliance??

Just like amazing bad attempts to outlaw ANYTHING that there is a demand for....Alcohol, drugs, it just does not work.

fictionsmosaic

05-20-2008, 08:32 AM

I have a small arsenal underneath my bed. I like the protection it gives me. Each year a bear ends up breaking through someone's door (Good thing that in many of these encounters, that the bear ended up walking out after several minutes), I'd rather have something to defend against something like that. I'd like to go out hunting at the end of this year, there's always a chance that the bridge out of town can go out during a flood, or share it with family members such as my grandparents. They, like several members of my family don't live inside the city, and should they get in some sort of trouble, let's say the road is out for x amount of weeks, I like the idea of them of having a pantry filled with food to last.

I have pistols for those moments where if someone or something would break in, that having something to defend myself in close quarters combat be more substantial then a knife. In many circumstances, such encounters could be avoided by appropriate measures taken beforehand. But I'd like to consider some what ifs, such as what if whatever broke in will not be deterred by warnings.

md21017md

05-20-2008, 09:41 AM

On the other hand, guns are used for hunting (harm), killing (harm), law enforcement (harm). What's wrong with outlawing something that is unnecessary but only exists to cause harm? Why limit the range? Why do we need it at all?

Guns have a very legit purpose.

Guns can be used to put food on the table. Who are you to decide how I feed my family?

Guns can be used for recreation. Who are you to decide how I entertain myself.

Guns can be used for self defense. Who are you to take away my right to defend my self? Every animal on this planet has the means to defend its self except 1 class of animal - livestock. When you remove an animals ability to defend its self (wither surgically or through breeding) it becomes a pet or livestock.

Finally, in the US the 2nd ammendment was to make sure our government could never become a dictorial government, and to provide a last ditch defense to the country.

If you think this is not valid in the 21st centruy, I would remind you that over the past 100 years, governments have murdered more people than any random crime. I am not talking war between countries, but concerted efforts of an existing government to kill segments of its soceity.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You are talking over 100,000,000 people killed by thier government for no other reason than they didn't fit, and had no way to defend them self. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather die fighting than die kneeling before someone with a pistol, die watching my children being executed seconds before me, die of starvation, or die in a shower like the jews did.

You think guns have no place, then I challeng you to live in some of these shit holes around the world where the reigning government routienly kills off it's citizens and tell me guns have no place.

md21017md added to this post, 12 minutes and 43 seconds later...

Antares you live in China? How well could the communists oppress your people if everyone could own a gun? How would Tieneman square have been had all the demonstrators been able to be armed? Not sure how old you are, but I m guessing you only know communist rule? I am guessin you have never lived in a free soceity?

Freedom has a price. One of those prices is that people are free to make choices - good or bad. You can't take the choices away from the good to stop the bad, you can only try to mitigate the damage done by the bad choices. Freedom by it's very definition mean having the ability (and responsibility) to make choices. Most, but not all people make the right choice. The question is, how do you want to live? Do you want the freedom and responsibility over your life, or do you want to trust that to the government? Hostory will show that eventrually all governments become corrupt unless there is some system of check and balances.

lnb203

05-20-2008, 10:03 AM

What a load of cow manure.. You mean some idiots spent money, to say that BS statement??

YES, if their are guns in the home, they are MORE likely to be used by family members.

Lets change a few words, and you will see how silly that sounds, when you think about it..

That is one of those "obvious" statements made by anti-civil rights advocates, that once you think about it really don't mean a damn thing.

What do you mean "unrestricted" access in the US??? Their is more than 20,000 gun laws on the books

Problem is, they don't apply to criminals, they ONLY apply to law abiding folks.

BTW, I have a small arsenal at my home...if you ban them, WHO are you going to get to come and get them from me??

Firstly, your claim that the article is biased or corrupt is seems pretty unfounded. I'd be the first to concede that these biases may exist to a degree in certain academic writing, but being published in a peer reviewed journal such as the NEJM is as close as you're likely to get to objectivity. I could quote that article in a dissertation, and as such, I think its fair game to qoute it in an online discussion forum. You may call it BS, I call it empirical evidence. Out of interest, did you even read it? Or even open the link? The study seems to have taken into account a pretty wide range of control measures...

As you say, the finding that guns in a household is closely linked to increased rates of homicide and suicide appears somewhat logical and obvious. But surely that is the point of the discussion? Surely by agreeing that the article's findings are obvious, you also agree that guns in the home is likely increase the chance of gun related homicide? I don't understand why you would be so keen to keep your 'small arsenal' of guns after conceding this point. Perhaps for protection, which is somewhat ironic considering that the need for protection ultimately arises from criminals also having guns. And why do criminals have guns? Because of lax governmental control of their sale and (I presume) import.

Furthermore, you'll notice that I used the word 'relatively' before unrestricted. I stand by that statement. Compared to most developed countries, the gun market in the US is extremely open. And your final point pretty much sums up why gun control in the US will not work. People such as yourselves would be very unwilling to turn in your guns. Therefore there remains a large number of guns in circulation, and it remains exremely easy for those with violent intentions to obtain and use them. For gun restrictions to be effective, there also needs to a exist a widespread removal of the weapons from society. This deosn't appear realistic in the context of America.

I'd just like to add that I don't currently live in the US, and don't really have strong opinions on gun control either way. I don't particularly like them, but nor do I see them as inherently evil or wrong. I've merely done some objective reading on the subject, something which your predisposition towards guns clearly prevents you from doing.

lnb203 added to this post, 8 minutes and 54 seconds later...

?

You think guns have no place, then I challeng you to live in some of these shit holes around the world where the reigning government routienly kills off it's citizens and tell me guns have no place.

Comparing the need for guns in politically and socially unstable nations (think Rwanda, DRC etc) and the need for guns in the USA is pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Tell me honestly, do you own a gun in order to prepare for the likelyhood of attack by goverment death squads? I think deep down, you know that it is just not going to happen. If you genuinely DO believe in this threat, then all I can suggest is a reality check.

Riverratt

05-20-2008, 10:31 AM

Namly, you missed the whole point...

This statement...

(Guns in the home increase likelihood of homicide by family members and intimate acquaintances)

Is a obvious statement...if their is NO gun in the home, their there is ZERO chance of a family member using it.

Just like this statement...

(Food in the home increase likelihood of eating by family members and intimate acquaintances)

that is another obvious statement as well, Their could BE no eating, if their was NO food in the home...

Step back, look at what your posting, and you will see what I am pointing out..

Like this statement as well..

(The lack of Guns in the home increase likelihood of homicide by Criminal acts of others)

Well that is obvious as well, if their is no means to effectively fight back, you are powerless against those that have already decided that they are going to hurt you.....

(Cars in the driveway at home increase likelihood of drunk driving by family members and intimate acquaintances)

Well, that is a no brainer as well,...

(Books in the home increase likelihood of reading by family members and intimate acquaintances)
Maybe soon that light will go on for you... :idea: But don't feel too bad, many politicians fall for simplistic arguments too.

lnb203

05-20-2008, 11:19 AM

I perfectly understood what you were saying. While you may find the statement obvious, I posted it as EVIDENCE that guns lead to domestic homicides (something that other posters seemed to dispute). You'll notice that plenty of posters are under the impression that if you want to kill someone it is easy to do so with fists/knives etc, and that those who want to kill do so whether or not there are guns present. The article you hate so much casts this assertation into doubt by EMPIRICALLY finding that the presence of guns leads to an increase in homicides.

Call my argument simplistic if you will, but I fear it is you and not me who is missing the point. Don't forget, I said that I (and numerous researchers) don't believe tighter gun control in USA would be effective. I assume you actually agree with me on this point?

I have to say, statements such as 'BTW, I have a small arsenal at my home...if you ban them, WHO are you going to get to come and get them from me??' really make your posts lose credibilty. Especially when they are in reply to my previous post which said 'There are a number of other reports which find that there is no correlation between gun control and violent crime. However, it is thought that this is may be because of the large numbers of guns already in circulation. In other words, the damage done by USA's relatively unrestricted gun policy may be largely irreversible'. Despite the rude, abrupt nature of your post, you were actually AGREEING with me.

By the way, do you have any proof that 'The lack of guns in a household increases the likelyhood of homicide by criminal acts of others'. I've never read anything along those lines but I would be (genuinely) interested if you happened to have any such articles to hand...

Ytterbium

05-20-2008, 12:34 PM

This is true. You don't know the personal history of everyone else. But it isn't right to take away rights just because people are unpredictable. You can't control people. If a healthy man buys a firearm and then years later goes crazy and kills someone, that couldn't be predicted.If we take this and let it stand against the pro gun arguments. How big are the risks? That people accidently or planned kill eachother for different reason than the goverment starts doing that.
How do we know which gun related death could be avoided if there were no guns available? We don't know how many lives were "saved" by the gun either. What we may conclude is that people can "defend" themselves with guns. No matter if their opinions are good or reasonable. So we shall give the people right to start shooting people if they don't like it they way it is? If president Bush gets re-elected and someone shoots him. Because the killer don't want a warmonger as president. Right or wrong? He thinks it's justified and so does his friends. He don't want the people suffering because of the goverment. The goverment don't share this view and going to get them anyway no matter what. md21017md brought the Afghanistan subject up in this thread. Where they fought the Russian goverment, then when they became "free" under the Talibans instead of the Russian "oppression".

But the same would go for a goverment that all of a sudden starts to abuse its power. You never know. A cop or a soldier could go just as crazy.Like what?
Yes that have happened too. Soldiers have quite restricted access to guns aswell, here atleast.

Read above. lolIt works great here aswell, we don't need guns to protect our self from the goverment. It will never happen either, unless your mentally ill and think everyone is against you.

Not in this particular case, but other situations could warrant it.There're situations for everything you know.

I know, right?I don't know about you. But if they all were like me, that would be great.

How is it easier. Legally, they have to buy it for retail price (which is usually more expensive), then to legally carry it, they have to get a CCR permit by taking a course (which they have to pass), and that isn't even counting the FBI background check before they can even purchase it (unless they buy it at a Gun Show). If they have any priors, they can't buy one.That's about buying nothing about obtaining a gun.

I think its actually easier to just buy it illegally.Yes or smash a window on a car and 2 seconds later, voila a handgun.

I've been raised around guns.My father is a hunter and has a couple of rifles. He was also a member of the home guard when I was young. The guns are locked in a safe all year round until elk hunting season. I don't see the need of being armed.

Where do you live if I may be so bold? I live in Texas. LOLHere (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), east of this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

But they don't know who has a gun either. Fear will balance it out. Fear is the deterrant.Like I mentioned before he's not going to say it's a robbery, he'll point a gun at you then say it's a robbery. How are going to solve this? No, no put your hands where I can see them.

If you have a gun, its easier to defend yourself against a gun. If you don't, then I suggest learning Krav Maga. lolThat's close combat. What if there's a distance between you and the pointing gun? You can't pull your gun before you're shot.

I agree. Brute force is a last resort, but it is sometimes necessary, like it or not.Yes but what type of brute force do you rather be attacked by? A gun, a knife or a fist?

In my opinion, threatening with my gun is a lot more civilized than just blasting away (although, legally, you can get the shaft for using your weapon as a detterant: this i disagree with).Well I don't disagree with it. You only use what's necessary.
You said you were from Texas. Let's say we plan to meet, you've given me instructions how to drive. I'm lost I pull in on a farm to ask for directions. Out from the house steps a fat old guy with rifle as "detterant" as you call it. "Get out from my property" "I was just won..." "Get out" I turn around and get to the car, the dude thinks I pull a gun or something and shoots me. The chance of this happening is more likely than your country/world falls apart. So the guy did everything right I was on his property, he thought I was about to pull a gun on him and he defended himself. Great?

I've already addressed the issue of people in general. The government should trust its citizens just as the citizens more or less trust their government not to abuse each other's power. Once that trust is abused, that's when the law takes effect. The 2nd Amendment is a right that balances out the power a little more than not having any. As has been said before: a government is the bureacracy that has a monopoly on violence. So while it may not be that big of a difference, hypothetically, it is needed. As for me, I'm not worried about my government just yet. Its more about protecting my loved ones and myself from the horrors of the world. These horrors are not cause by firearms, they are caused by people. Making guns illegal would just created one more illegal trade in this country. Prohibition didn't work. Making drugs illegal doesn't work. And making guns illegal would ONLY ensure that the ONLY people who got them would be those who do not respect the law, and therefore, feel no need to follow it.I know you live with another type of system and goverment. Here the goverment is supposed to be "see through" so everyone can see what the do with your money.
What can I say, you know how people are and you still can't see why I don't want them to have handguns?

Good lord dude, you are comparing convicted criminal to soceity at largeCorrect. Prisons are housing all kinds of people. People of all kind commits "mistakes" even without going to jail. You have probably done something illegal yourself?

Stated before, 40,000,000+ were killed by thier government durring the 20th century. How many would have lived had the populace had a means to rebel against the government.How many people have been murdered (not by the goverment) through out the these years in every country?

It did in FLA, and when gun control was introduced in DC crime went upYes this gives the criminals advantages as the others don't have guns. The criminals can get guns from another state, city and there's no "border control" inbetween.
That's harder here, as the whole country has these laws and regulations. Which makes it harder/near impossible to get a handgun other than the right way.

You said maybe Afganastan would have been better off had the russians taken over. I said that the same could have been said of Finland, maybe the russians should have taken you over.We can agree on that a Lada (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is better than a Trabant (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). But is this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) better than the Lada? Go figure.

But you miss the point as usuall - you don't know who has the gun(s). That is the point of a deterance.Who cares when no one's around?

It doesn't matter. If they enter my house uninvited they committed a crime. If they've done so at night when I am asleep especially if my children are present - then I am going to assume the person is dangerous and will react as such.If I "kill" you it's a crime alright. But if you attacked me I fought back, you fell badly and died of your injuries. It's not a crime anymore.
Well I will not act as you. I don't think all people have good intentions nor bad. I will shout a question what the hell they do in my house. They don't even have to see me. I give them a chance to flee and I'm still "safe". I just don't run towards them with a samurai sword with my killing war face. As they will see it as an attack, no matter what it's an instinct. It might backfire, as for my own safety I wouldn't intimidate to much. As for the robber and the famous gunpoint, he would think you grab something else than your wallet. When you put your hand in there.

That is a political issue - the US has to stop thinking the enemy of our enemy is our friend. That has nothing to do with guns. And damn, while we are on the subject, 9/11 how many thousands died? Not 1 damn gun in sight, and an entire plane full of people held at bay by a couple jack asses with box cuttersYou brought it up. So it was natural to continue. Appearantly that's something which is a result of what can happen if you arm the "people".

So you think you can take someone with a knife? Or a club? I want to see that.It depends on the situation and what I have in my hand. Knife vs. knife is very hard. Me and a collegue of mine used whiteboard markers. I don't know who won but we all were colourful.

And how might they do that if the leaders of the UN become overbearing?Ignore them, American style.

But it does exist in the worl. It doesn't exist in Germany but it did 60 years ago. It existed in Bosnia 10 years ago, it exists in darfur now, it existed in Rwanda, should I go on?

Maybe you need to see your loved ones hacked to death by your neighbors with machette's and have to stand thier helpless to do anythingDo you think these people are gun advocates? Also in the Balkans it wasn't just the "goverment". This can still be seen between Kosovo Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo. Although it's very different today, more calm than before.

A hell of a lot lessHow many?

You too are missing the point. I don't fear that the US government will drag me out of bed in the middle of the night, I don't fear that my neighbors will kill me or my family. I don't fear that the government will kill me because I worsjip the wrong religon (or at all) or am from the wrong ethnic group.You think it will in your lifetime?

whyme I am not trying to export anything. I am simply saying this

Removing gun to eliminate deaths will not work except in 2 specific instances (read a few pages ago)

1 - some dumbass shoots and kills himself (in which case maybe Darwin won out) or another accidentally.

2 - Some dumbass walks into a place of a lot of people and kills a lot of people at once. Of course, I can do the same with a gallon of gas.

Taking guns away will not stop murders, it will only allow those that would kill do so with no resistance.Yes I know you already written that. So you think it's fair some more people die in these types of situations. So it would be easier for you to get a gun? Is it worth it?

A gun your are screwed? You really think you can take someone with a knife? I would beg you to try. Give a rubber training knife to a friend and see if you can touch him before he can cut you. Realize a touch (lets assume this is a good hard punch) you would probably need more than 1, while he is cutting and stabbing away. I've done this, even with a lot of training it is hard as hell not to get cutI've tried this I know how hard it is. Fighting a handgun is easier? Hell no.

good luck there tooExactly!

Kas Ka

05-20-2008, 01:42 PM

If we take this and let it stand against the pro gun arguments. How big are the risks? That people accidently or planned kill eachother for different reason than the goverment starts doing that.
How do we know which gun related death could be avoided if there were no guns available? We don't know how many lives were "saved" by the gun either. What we may conclude is that people can "defend" themselves with guns. No matter if their opinions are good or reasonable. So we shall give the people right to start shooting people if they don't like it they way it is? If president Bush gets re-elected and someone shoots him. Because the killer don't want a warmonger as president. Right or wrong? He thinks it's justified and so does his friends. He don't want the people suffering because of the goverment. The goverment don't share this view and going to get them anyway no matter what. md21017md brought the Afghanistan subject up in this thread. Where they fought the Russian goverment, then when they became "free" under the Talibans instead of the Russian "oppression".

I think your logic is warped. You're thinking in the present. Maybe in a certain circumstance, killing a president would be considered just. Like the assassination attempt on Hitler, maybe?

It works great here aswell, we don't need guns to protect our self from the goverment. It will never happen either, unless your mentally ill and think everyone is against you.

Ok, protection from the government is just one thing. But I'm a hunter AND a reenactor, both of which guns are an essential part. Here's the thing you must look at. Out of all the murders, with which guns have been used, its 100 times smaller than the number of people killed in cars everyday.

But look, when the 2nd Amendment was written, the founding fathers intended it to be so that the people who live on the frontier would have something to protect themselves with and a tool for survival. And even though the country has changed significantly, the reasons for keeping it are still obvious.

There're situations for everything you know.

Um....yeah, so lets just pick all of the ones you choose to see. :huh:

That's about buying nothing about obtaining a gun.

:huh: I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Legally, that's what someone has to do to obtain a firearm and the legal right to carry it.

Yes or smash a window on a car and 2 seconds later, voila a handgun.

You've been watching too many movies. How many cars have guns in them?

My father is a hunter and has a couple of rifles. He was also a member of the home guard when I was young. The guns are locked in a safe all year round until elk hunting season. I don't see the need of being armed.

Everyone in my family hunts. We keep our arms locked up as well, except for the ones in my room, which are on a wall hanger. Maybe in your country, you don't need to be armed. But here, I think you're stupid if you're not.

Like it or not, making guns illegal won't change anything. At least not in this country.

Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), east of this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Figures.

Like I mentioned before he's not going to say it's a robbery, he'll point a gun at you then say it's a robbery. How are going to solve this? No, no put your hands where I can see them.

There have been several instances in this country where this situation has been solved by the victim having a firearm. I've seen it with my own eyes. You don't know what you're talking about.

That's close combat. What if there's a distance between you and the pointing gun? You can't pull your gun before you're shot.

Uh.....yes you can. Hanguns (assuming its a handgun) are very very inaccurate. I don't know about other people, but I would feel I had a pretty good chance. And chances are (in the case of a common mugging), that the perpetrators aren't that effective with a gun anyway. Whereas I've competed in shooting competitions. Its like shooting fish in a barrel.

Yes but what type of brute force do you rather be attacked by? A gun, a knife or a fist?

Can I say neither? If guns are illegal, then the criminals are going to be the ONLY ones to have guns, leaving me to get attacked with a gun anyway. Would you want to make knives illegal next? Its the same scenario. Fists.....please. The point isn't what they have to attack someone with, its the fact that they ARE attacking someone. Its the people, not the tools they use to commit the crime.

I can't change history. And quite frankly I wouldn't want to. But the 2nd Amendment was needed when it was written and its needed now. You can't change it now, so all you can do is look at how society is in this country, and see a way to improve the situation.

Well I don't disagree with it. You only use what's necessary.
You said you were from Texas. Let's say we plan to meet, you've given me instructions how to drive. I'm lost I pull in on a farm to ask for directions. Out from the house steps a fat old guy with rifle as "detterant" as you call it. "Get out from my property" "I was just won..." "Get out" I turn around and get to the car, the dude thinks I pull a gun or something and shoots me. The chance of this happening is more likely than your country/world falls apart. So the guy did everything right I was on his property, he thought I was about to pull a gun on him and he defended himself. Great?

Its a simple misunderstanding, that's all. The same types of misunderstandings have happened with cops, soldiers, etc.

But you're wanting to punish the entire population by taking away a right just because there are a few rotten apples in the barrel. Why should everyone get punished when such a small population are the trouble makers? That's a pretty screwed up logic.

What can I say, you know how people are and you still can't see why I don't want them to have handguns?

Yes, I know how people are. And yet, you would feel fine trusting their judgement on our highways, where the most fatalaties occur.

Just handguns, or firearms in general?

Have you listened to anything I've said about the illegal gun trade? Are you blind? Making guns illegal would make crime in this country worse.

Hypothetically, if every law abiding citizen legally purchased a handgun and took the required handgun course to obtain their CCR permit, crime would go down.

I'm not saying crime wouldn't happen. I'm not saying accidents wouldn't happen. But most definitely less than they happen now. And like I said, car accidents kill more people in this country every day than any crimes committed with a firearm.

Does that mean we should make cars illegal?

I understand the initial "logic" behind making guns illegal, especially from someone not living in the US. Many people don't have hobbies doing with firearms, so they're not losing anything. Many don't live in a society with high crime rates, so they don't need protection. And let me reiterate on that point and I want you to let this sink in: IN THIS COUNTRY, IF YOU MAKE GUNS ILLEGAL, THEN THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE THEM ARE THE CRIMINALS!!!! THE COPS HAVE NO OBLIGATION IN THIS COUNTRY TO PROTECT US.

This is the country that WE live in, not you. We enjoy guns, and for the most part, they haven't cause a huge problem. As far as those who have abused that right, my answer is simple. You cannot control people. A government/society should consider everyone of its citizens trustworthy until they abuse that trust. When they do, that's what the law is for. I know that logically, it doesn't seem sound, but its just as sound as another of our rights: That all suspects are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. Think of it as a way to draw out the people who WOULD abuse that right.

You can only prevent crime so much without infringing on the civil liberties of a person. And making guns illegal would infringe on civil liberties. And yes, I have some libertarian beliefs.

Ytterbium

05-20-2008, 04:05 PM

I think your logic is warped. You're thinking in the present. Maybe in a certain circumstance, killing a president would be considered just. Like the assassination attempt on Hitler, maybe?No, I'm not thinking in present. It's an issue we'll allways have. Who's more right than others? Shall it be solved with guns?

Ok, protection from the government is just one thing. But I'm a hunter AND a reenactor, both of which guns are an essential part. Here's the thing you must look at. Out of all the murders, with which guns have been used, its 100 times smaller than the number of people killed in cars everyday.But how many of these would be alive if there had been no guns there at the moment? We don't know. I can claim guns are dangerous because people die more often of gunshot wounds than slipping in the bathroom. But I don't because that would be stupid and make no sense. Just like guns are good because more people die on the road. I can place Hitler and Stalin next to eachother and say see how nice he is. He only killed this and that many people.

But look, when the 2nd Amendment was written, the founding fathers intended it to be so that the people who live on the frontier would have something to protect themselves with and a tool for survival. And even though the country has changed significantly, the reasons for keeping it are still obvious.For me it's not obvious. But then I don't have to be afraid and armed to feel safe.

Um....yeah, so lets just pick all of the ones you choose to see. :huh:You can't just use one situation and think that's the most common. There're other ways. It would be like if I proclaimed the greatness of the sponge, just think about if I stumble over car that needs to be washed.

:huh: I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.What I mean is that if guns are available everywhere. Means that I will likely get ahold of an "illegal" gun easier.

You've been watching too many movies. How many cars have guns in them?Riverratt on previous pages told he and his neighbours were armed to their teeths. They had guns pretty much everywhere. Then md21017md told you don't need to protect the guns from theft or similar. So what are your conclusion then? I watch to much movies?

Everyone in my family hunts. We keep our arms locked up as well, except for the ones in my room, which are on a wall hanger. Maybe in your country, you don't need to be armed. But here, I think you're stupid if you're not.Correct.
I think there're other problems that need to be taken into account first before the gun laws, in your country.

Like it or not, making guns illegal won't change anything. At least not in this country.Appearantly.

Figures.Of what?

There have been several instances in this country where this situation has been solved by the victim having a firearm. I've seen it with my own eyes. You don't know what you're talking about.I certainly know what I talking about. Ask md21017md too if you don't believe me.

Uh.....yes you can. Hanguns (assuming its a handgun) are very very inaccurate. I don't know about other people, but I would feel I had a pretty good chance. And chances are (in the case of a common mugging), that the perpetrators aren't that effective with a gun anyway. Whereas I've competed in shooting competitions. Its like shooting fish in a barrel.Can you grab your gun and shoot him before he shoots you? You know this takes som time, depending on where you carry your gun.

Can I say neither? If guns are illegal, then the criminals are going to be the ONLY ones to have guns, leaving me to get attacked with a gun anyway. Would you want to make knives illegal next? Its the same scenario. Fists.....please. The point isn't what they have to attack someone with, its the fact that they ARE attacking someone. Its the people, not the tools they use to commit the crime.No they're the only ones, law enforcement has too. Remember that criminals here don't use firearms for smaller crimes such as robbery or mugging. They can't get ahold of one. As written earlier crimes will always exist the methods will vary.

I can't change history. And quite frankly I wouldn't want to. But the 2nd Amendment was needed when it was written and its needed now. You can't change it now, so all you can do is look at how society is in this country, and see a way to improve the situation.You can't change the past but you can change now or in the future and perhaps make it to the history books.

Its a simple misunderstanding, that's all. The same types of misunderstandings have happened with cops, soldiers, etc.I wouldn't call it a simple misunderstanding, what an understatement. I don't want to live in a society where this is a simple misunderstanding and then life goes on like it always done.

But you're wanting to punish the entire population by taking away a right just because there are a few rotten apples in the barrel. Why should everyone get punished when such a small population are the trouble makers? That's a pretty screwed up logic.It's not screwed up logic. There're many things like this where you punish the whole population. Why are there even laws, they infringe on my rights.

Yes, I know how people are. And yet, you would feel fine trusting their judgement on our highways, where the most fatalaties occur. No I don't trust people in general. That said I try to not have any prejudice against people. Just like on the highway I would trust any of those whom "drive" there. Keeping distance, planning ahead, seeing patterns so that I can avoid unpleasant things. I just don't cling myself against the horn, speeding down the road because I have a bigger vehicle than them. If there's some unknown person in my house at night I wouldn't just walk over to them and intimidate them with a gun. It would be more thought through, like I've already written before.

Just handguns, or firearms in general?Everything should be restricted. If you can't prove you "need" it somehow then you don't need one either. If you don't pass the test tuff luck. In general handguns are more dangerous than rifles in their very nature. Handguns don't have any purpose in the society I live either.

Have you listened to anything I've said about the illegal gun trade? Are you blind? Making guns illegal would make crime in this country worse.That's in your country. Not here.

Hypothetically, if every law abiding citizen legally purchased a handgun and took the required handgun course to obtain their CCR permit, crime would go down.If people had harder driving exams there will be better drivers too. But everybody don't drive car. Nor wouldn't everybode be interested in guns.

I'm not saying crime wouldn't happen. I'm not saying accidents wouldn't happen. But most definitely less than they happen now. And like I said, car accidents kill more people in this country every day than any crimes committed with a firearm.If we're still talking cars. Then it still won't stop me from borrowing a handgun. Before I got my driving license, I drove anyway in my fathers car. You can't get away from this completely.

Does that mean we should make cars illegal?Certainly some people shall be restrained from driving. If they screw up, to bad now live without a car. Then there's another factor which you don't seem to get. Cars aren't used for the sole reason of target practicing.

I understand the initial "logic" behind making guns illegal, especially from someone not living in the US. Many people don't have hobbies doing with firearms, so they're not losing anything. Many don't live in a society with high crime rates, so they don't need protection. And let me reiterate on that point and I want you to let this sink in: IN THIS COUNTRY, IF YOU MAKE GUNS ILLEGAL, THEN THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE THEM ARE THE CRIMINALS!!!! THE COPS HAVE NO OBLIGATION IN THIS COUNTRY TO PROTECT US.Yes, great then you understood everything I've written so far. The cops then, make a change. Why even have a police force if it's not there to protect?

This is the country that WE live in, not you. We enjoy guns, and for the most part, they haven't cause a huge problem. As far as those who have abused that right, my answer is simple. You cannot control people. A government/society should consider everyone of its citizens trustworthy until they abuse that trust. When they do, that's what the law is for. I know that logically, it doesn't seem sound, but its just as sound as another of our rights: That all suspects are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. Think of it as a way to draw out the people who WOULD abuse that right.People here like rifles and hunting too. They accept the fact that weapons isn't just something you throw around like empty milk cartons. They use it and live with the check ups, it's something natural. The goverment assumes their population is trustworth aswell. But the population needs to show they can be relied upon. Things exist for a reason. Murder is illegal because some smartass long ago though it was a good idea.

You can only prevent crime so much without infringing on the civil liberties of a person. And making guns illegal would infringe on civil liberties. And yes, I have some libertarian beliefs.This world is full of infriging of peoples rights.

Antares

05-20-2008, 04:49 PM

The US Bill of Rights, is NOT a bill of needs...it is a Bill of Rights....

And if you do mange to outlaw them....how do you intend to deal with massive non-compliance??

Just like amazing bad attempts to outlaw ANYTHING that there is a demand for....Alcohol, drugs, it just does not work.

A bill that contains unnecessary and potentially harmful rights. I'm sure. I haven't proposed to go about outlawing anything. Just debating.

Antares you live in China? How well could the communists oppress your people if everyone could own a gun? How would Tieneman square have been had all the demonstrators been able to be armed? Not sure how old you are, but I m guessing you only know communist rule? I am guessin you have never lived in a free soceity?

Freedom has a price. One of those prices is that people are free to make choices - good or bad. You can't take the choices away from the good to stop the bad, you can only try to mitigate the damage done by the bad choices. Freedom by it's very definition mean having the ability (and responsibility) to make choices. Most, but not all people make the right choice. The question is, how do you want to live? Do you want the freedom and responsibility over your life, or do you want to trust that to the government? Hostory will show that eventrually all governments become corrupt unless there is some system of check and balances.

I'm not sure why this relates to where *I* live, but yes, I live in China. I've actually lived in Singapore and Hong Kong, but don't see how that's relevant. I maintain it's an unnecessary choice. Plenty of countries have guns outlawed. I've never seen Chinese policemen with guns either. Sure, I support the freedom of Speech, and it may have consequences. But guns? Is it all that necessary? Tiananmen square would have still happened. They have tanks. Now guns are very useful against these.

Look at the mass riots in China these days. Would you wish them all have guns too? Enough people died.

onlyparallel

05-20-2008, 06:12 PM

The way I see it is the only justification for carrying a gun is if someone else has a gun. If no one had guns well, no one would have a reason to carry a gun. there would be no gun violence. A world without gun violence is safer.

Octavianus Caesar

05-20-2008, 10:19 PM

I live in England, where guns are legal in certain situations. Ever increasingly though gangs are getting hold of guns and with that violent crime is on the rise. If attackers have guns, then the argument would be that defenders should also have guns.

However would everyone be safer with guns or without?

If Guns were never invented, the argument would be based on something else.

Bows and Arrows or Knives or other sharp objects.

The problem with prohibiting the use of guns in all situations, then all it takes is one man to control the gun to control the city or nation.

Governments are the ones who confiscate guns, therefore, the government is trying to control the people and protect itself from the people.

The most dangerous threat to a government is a free people with a weapon.

Kas Ka

05-21-2008, 02:28 AM

No, I'm not thinking in present. It's an issue we'll allways have. Who's more right than others? Shall it be solved with guns?

Sometimes, if that's the case. Look at it this way. In our country, we had a revolution. If the British had made guns illegal, we would have never been able to win. Hell, the only reason we did win is because they got tired of fighting. We lost the majority of the battles, and we HAD guns!!!!

But how many of these would be alive if there had been no guns there at the moment? We don't know. I can claim guns are dangerous because people die more often of gunshot wounds than slipping in the bathroom.

Oh really? Can you prove that?

I can place Hitler and Stalin next to eachother and say see how nice he is. He only killed this and that many people.

Two perfect examples. Both leaders who believed in gun control.

For me it's not obvious. But then I don't have to be afraid and armed to feel safe.

And that's why you can't understand.

What I mean is that if guns are available everywhere. Means that I will likely get ahold of an "illegal" gun easier.

You'll get ahold of an illegal gun easier either way if you're a criminal.

Riverratt on previous pages told he and his neighbours were armed to their teeths. They had guns pretty much everywhere.

Sound like my kind of guys. ;)

Of what?

Its easy to say things about our country when you don't have to live in it.

I certainly know what I talking about. Ask md21017md too if you don't believe me.

Yeah, I don't believe you. md21017md, you wanna take it? I mean, if you can prove that I'm wrong about not seeing it with my own eyes, you can take the cake. ;)

Can you grab your gun and shoot him before he shoots you? You know this takes som time, depending on where you carry your gun.

Yes, I can.

Remember that criminals here don't use firearms for smaller crimes such as robbery or mugging. They can't get ahold of one. As written earlier crimes will always exist the methods will vary.

But what you don't realize is, that because of our history, we're a gun culture. Here, criminals can and will get ahold of guns and use them in robberies or mugging. And if guns were made illegal, then they'd still get them. End of story. Maybe gun control works in some countries, where culturally its not an issue. But here its different.

You can't change the past but you can change now or in the future and perhaps make it to the history books.

I would never want to make history for that. I'd shoot myself if there were any guns left. lol

I wouldn't call it a simple misunderstanding, what an understatement. I don't want to live in a society where this is a simple misunderstanding and then life goes on like it always done.

What would you call it then? I mean, I guess simple is the wrong word for it. But you should have got off his property. I think it was a case of poor judgement, but I've never heard of any situation like that and I think its pretty farfetched. Come up with more realistic scenarios.

It's not screwed up logic. There're many things like this where you punish the whole population. Why are there even laws, they infringe on my rights.

Exactly. Every time a law is passed, a right is taken away. Laws should protect citizens from their rights being infringed on by other citizens. The government in my opinion should be there for national defense, civil service, and policing.

If there's some unknown person in my house at night I wouldn't just walk over to them and intimidate them with a gun.

What would you do? Offer to help them take your shit? Please.

Everything should be restricted.

No. Everything should be regulated, not restricted.

In general handguns are more dangerous than rifles in their very nature. Handguns don't have any purpose in the society I live either.

Not necessarily true. Long guns are more accurate. And with a sawed off barrel, concealable as well. And there are those who hunt with high caliber handguns.

That's in your country. Not here.

Well we're talking about what works in this country. Not yours. In yours, it may work. In ours, it doesn't. So don't presume to tell us how to live.

Nor wouldn't everybode be interested in guns.

True. Hypothetically was the key word there.

The cops then, make a change. Why even have a police force if it's not there to protect?

Good question. I can look after myself anyway. lol. Although I'm planning on becoming a U.S. Marshal, so........lol. Cops can't be everywhere at once. Its impossible.

People here like rifles and hunting too. They accept the fact that weapons isn't just something you throw around like empty milk cartons.

Yeah. I was just throwing my guns around the other day. :huh:

This world is full of infriging of peoples rights.

And that's why I hate the world. I'm just too individualistic for my own good. lol

Antares

05-21-2008, 03:59 AM

If Guns were never invented, the argument would be based on something else.

Bows and Arrows or Knives or other sharp objects.

The problem with prohibiting the use of guns in all situations, then all it takes is one man to control the gun to control the city or nation.

Governments are the ones who confiscate guns, therefore, the government is trying to control the people and protect itself from the people.

The most dangerous threat to a government is a free people with a weapon.

Yes, bows and arrows would have to be outlawed. Knives, being the only efficient way to cut something, cannot be outlawed because it would create major inconveniences for most people; but then again, so would cars. But I don't see how not owning a gun, or no one owning a gun would create major inconveniences for anyone.

Octavianus Caesar

05-21-2008, 06:46 AM

Yes, bows and arrows would have to be outlawed. Knives, being the only efficient way to cut something, cannot be outlawed because it would create major inconveniences for most people; but then again, so would cars. But I don't see how not owning a gun, or no one owning a gun would create major inconveniences for anyone.

Simply, because it is not the gun that is being outlawed, but the means of self-defense.

We can not simply unwish something, just because someone does not like it. If we banned Guns in the western world, that would mean anyone from any place else would or could just enter in and take over, because they have a gun and we would defend ourselves how? Stick and stones?

The technology is there, no one can now just unwish it, because someone will continue to build a better gun, till something better (I say that relatively) comes along.

Riverratt

05-21-2008, 06:56 AM

But I don't see how not owning a gun, or no one owning a gun would create major inconveniences for anyone.

WOW...It is like teaching Helen Keller...

Taking away, from me, a father, and a husband, the means to defend my family....is out of the question...get over it. :whip: Firearms are the most effective means of doing that.

water...WATER...WATER, feel it Helen!!!

md21017md

05-21-2008, 08:44 AM

Riverrat I am beginning to like you

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 13 seconds later...

but nor do I see them as inherently evil or wrong.

How can good or evil exist in an inanimate object?

How can right or wrong exist in an inamite object?

How can a gun be more right or wrong, more or less evil than any other object? A gun can do nothing without a person to operate it.

I will be $1,000,000 that if you lay a loaded gun in a room full of people no one will get shot if the gun is untouched.

md21017md added to this post, 10 minutes and 57 seconds later...

Comparing the need for guns in politically and socially unstable nations (think Rwanda, DRC etc) and the need for guns in the USA is pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Tell me honestly, do you own a gun in order to prepare for the likelyhood of attack by goverment death squads? I think deep down, you know that it is just not going to happen. If you genuinely DO believe in this threat, then all I can suggest is a reality check.

Oh really?

Just in the past 100 years in the US

4 Students were killed by National Guard troops at Kent state for exercizing thier right to protest the Vietnam war.

1930's Bonus march - 2 were killed and US troops were used againt American citizens - something forbidden by the constitution; but it happened.

1940's US citizens of Japenese decent were removed from thier homes, thier property taken, thier business' lost and inturned in prison camps. How easy wouldit have been to have supported extermination of them? Suppose Japan managed to Invade Hawaii or CA? Or developed the bomb and were able to use it? What night have happened?

On the other hand, how many now politically unstable nations were once stable?

What do you think will happen if the world runs out of oil?

What happens in the US when there is a loss of police from a natural disaster, riot or what ever?

md21017md added to this post, 5 minutes and 0 seconds later...

LNB regarless of your opinion, had the US not had "LAX" gun gontrol we'd still be a British colony. Man despite what you think has not changed in the past 200 or 2000 years. The same state of affairs - governments opressing thier citizens - exists now in the world just as much as it did then.

Fortunately, a small group of verey intelligent men were foreseeing enough to do something about it for at least 1 piece of the world.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 30 seconds later...

A bill that contains unnecessary and potentially harmful rights. I'm sure. I haven't proposed to go about outlawing anything. Just debating.

That is your opinion, and fortunately was not the opinion of the founders of this nation

md21017md added to this post, 7 minutes and 47 seconds later...

I'm not sure why this relates to where *I* live, but yes, I live in China. I've actually lived in Singapore and Hong Kong, but don't see how that's relevant. I maintain it's an unnecessary choice. Plenty of countries have guns outlawed. I've never seen Chinese policemen with guns either. Sure, I support the freedom of Speech, and it may have consequences. But guns? Is it all that necessary? Tiananmen square would have still happened. They have tanks. Now guns are very useful against these.

Look at the mass riots in China these days. Would you wish them all have guns too? Enough people died.

Sometimes great change requires great sacrifice. Again, fortunately, my ancestors were not afraid to die to free this nation from England. Fortuanty my fellow countrymen were not afraid to die to save this and many other nations (yours included).

It's funny how so many other nations want to be passifists, cry about guns, talk about how the US is corrupt, violent, what ever. What happens though when they have a proble, who is the first one they call? The US.

If not for us gun owners,

Japan would have decimated China
Europe would now be a german state
Quaite would now be part of Iraq
The Soviet Union would probably have gone to war with the post WW2 German controlled Europe
S Korea would have been taken over by the North

I could go forever.

My point is sometime you have to fight, no one wants to do so.

So the Chinese had tanks. So did the Soviets and the Afgans pushed them back. The Viet Cong pushed the US out of vietnam.

md21017md added to this post, 5 minutes and 45 seconds later...

A world without gun violence is safer.

Parallel, so you are saying knife violence is safer? Come on, this is liberal hogwash. If you are killed with a gun or a rock you are just as dead.

Humans have have killed and made war as long as we existed.

I posted in another thread on here:

For 500+ years Japan had a civil war. It was not uncommon for a battle to claim tens of thousand dead. It was not uncommon for thousands on the losing side to line up and commit ritual suicide. This went on with no end in sight for 500 years. There was 1 thing credited with ending this war - the introduction of guns and thier use by 1 warlord. By using guns he was able to unify Japan. Once he succeeded the very first thing he did was outlaw guns so no one else could overthrow him.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 50 seconds later...

But I don't see how not owning a gun, or no one owning a gun would create major inconveniences for anyone.

Why don't you go ask the people living in Myanmar? I bet if all the citizens there were allowed to have a gun they wouldn't be going weeks without aid.

md21017md

05-21-2008, 09:13 AM

It works great here aswell, we don't need guns to protect our self from the goverment. It will never happen either, unless your mentally ill and think everyone is against you.

How do you know? What about the other 130-70 countries in the world? Should the entire world base gun ownership on your tiny little country?

Originally Posted by Kas Ka
But look, when the 2nd Amendment was written, the founding fathers intended it to be so that the people who live on the frontier would have something to protect themselves with and a tool for survival. And even though the country has changed significantly, the reasons for keeping it are still obvious.

For me it's not obvious. But then I don't have to be afraid and armed to feel safe.

Kas I have to call you on this one. The 2nd ammendment was purely about having an armed populace to deter against governmental oppression. At the time, hunting was seen as an inhiernt right. There was really no way they could envision living without hunting.

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 23 seconds later...

Riverratt on previous pages told he and his neighbours were armed to their teeths. They had guns pretty much everywhere. Then md21017md told you don't need to protect the guns from theft or similar. So what are your conclusion then? I watch to much movies?

I am not sure what you are saying about my quote? What I have said is that I own guns, but where I live and most of my travels I do not feel the need to carry a gun, and unfortunately in the liberal assed state in which I live I could not get a cary permit.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 42 seconds later...

Originally Posted by Kas Ka
There have been several instances in this country where this situation has been solved by the victim having a firearm. I've seen it with my own eyes. You don't know what you're talking about.

I certainly know what I talking about. Ask md21017md too if you don't believe me.

Not sure why you are pulling me into this one, I agree with Kas. There are plenty of people that successfully defend them self in the US. Problem is you never hear about it, because it would mess up the liberal gun grabbing agenda, and since the media in the US is very liberal - well you get the idea.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 20 seconds later...

Can you grab your gun and shoot him before he shoots you? You know this takes som time, depending on where you carry your gun.

Plenty of people in this country have when the need arose

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 42 seconds later...

No they're the only ones, law enforcement has too.

So the cops will be the only ones with the ability to defend thier self

Remember that criminals here don't use firearms for smaller crimes such as robbery or mugging. They can't get ahold of one. As written earlier crimes will always exist the methods will vary.

You again are talking about sweeden. Big F'ing deal - 1 little country out of the world. Well dude the rest of the world is not so lucky.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 20 seconds later...

Yes, great then you understood everything I've written so far. The cops then, make a change. Why even have a police force if it's not there to protect?

The police in most countries (ok, minus the extreme opressive ones) can not act until a crime has been committed. Can you call the cops in your country and ask them for an escort to the bank because you have a large deposit? The police are to protect soceity in general not a specific individual.

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 40 seconds later...

Everything should be restricted. If you can't prove you "need" it somehow then you don't need one either.

Really? Do you need to play tennis, watch TV, drink a glass of wine? Do you need a designer wardrobe? Do you need a DVD player?

See you keep forgetting - in the US gun ownership is a RIGHT. A RIGHT superceeds a need. End of story, debate over.

In general handguns are more dangerous than rifles in their very nature.

This just proves your ignorance. By it's very nature a handgun is far less powerfull than a the smallest of rifles. Yes there are exception and I am being generic but as a whole a handgun, having a far shorter barrell and being hand held can not generate the power and accuracy or a rifle.

md21017md added to this post, 5 minutes and 38 seconds later...

Ybit,

Why is it you answer everyone points except the one I posted stating the fact that more people in the past 100 years have been killed by thier government not other citizens?

Why, I bet because it totally kills your arguement.

So answer my point. Over 100,000,000 people have been killed by thier governemnt over the past 100 years. This is not including wars - this is simply a government killing a segment of its people because they don't fit.

How many of those 100,000,000 would have died had they access to a gun?

You didn't answer this point when I asked how many jews would have died in WW@ had they a gun.

You didn't answer my point when I asked how likely would hitler have come to power had Germans had guns (he banned guns shortly before taking over Germany).

Answer these points and stop repeating pointless attempts as you have.

This is why we have guns, the rest is liberal rhetoric.

Antares

05-21-2008, 10:16 AM

Why don't you go ask the people living in Myanmar? I bet if all the citizens there were allowed to have a gun they wouldn't be going weeks without aid.

Right... They start firing the bullets? They start threatening other people to give up their food? Or they threaten a riot with firearms if aid does not arrive? What happened to non-violence?

WOW...It is like teaching Helen Keller...

Taking away, from me, a father, and a husband, the means to defend my family....is out of the question...get over it. :whip: Firearms are the most effective means of doing that.

water...WATER...WATER, feel it Helen!!!

Why don't you get over the dogma and actually debate something? I'm not the legislation; I'm outlawing nothing. So can you brush up your debate manners? And show me why it's a convenience? If the most lethal thing anyone has is a kitchen knife, would you still need the gun to protect your family? Not many murders happen here in Shanghai, at least not that I know of. In many cases, potential victims escape because they outrun the potential murderer and called for help in time. With a gun, one well-placed shot and they're done.

On a side note, I do not appreciate being belittled and implied that I'm blind and can't read. Please save your insults for a blog and not a debate.

Sometimes great change requires great sacrifice. Again, fortunately, my ancestors were not afraid to die to free this nation from England. Fortuanty my fellow countrymen were not afraid to die to save this and many other nations (yours included).

It's funny how so many other nations want to be passifists, cry about guns, talk about how the US is corrupt, violent, what ever. What happens though when they have a proble, who is the first one they call? The US.

If not for us gun owners,

Japan would have decimated China
Europe would now be a german state
Quaite would now be part of Iraq
The Soviet Union would probably have gone to war with the post WW2 German controlled Europe
S Korea would have been taken over by the North

I could go forever.

My point is sometime you have to fight, no one wants to do so.

So the Chinese had tanks. So did the Soviets and the Afgans pushed them back. The Viet Cong pushed the US out of vietnam.

Psh. And you're trying to associate gun ownership with the fact that the US grounded Japan in WWII. Pray tell, how did individual ownership of guns accomplish that? Did they assassinate JFK? I don't see a connection. Did they hold Roosevelt at gun point and told him that he'd better get involved in the war? No, they did not do that. Please read a book or two about logical fallacies before using them in debates.

That is your opinion, and fortunately was not the opinion of the founders of this nation

And you're implying what? Their infallibility?

md21017md

05-21-2008, 11:08 AM

Right... They start firing the bullets? They start threatening other people to give up their food? Or they threaten a riot with firearms if aid does not arrive? What happened to non-violence?

How well is non violence working for them now?

My point is the government - had the citizens had access to firearms to this point - the government would not now have such control and would not have 1,000.000+ people in critical conditions refusing to allow outside aid while people die.

Non violence works - sometimes, but there are times when violence is required

lnb203

05-21-2008, 11:27 AM

'How can good or evil exist in an inanimate object?

How can right or wrong exist in an inamite object?

How can a gun be more right or wrong, more or less evil than any other object? A gun can do nothing without a person to operate it.

I will be $1,000,000 that if you lay a loaded gun in a room full of people no one will get shot if the gun is untouched.'

Uh... Well, I agree. Which is why I wrote 'NOR do I see them as inherently evil or wrong'. However, I do believe they make life a lot easier for those intent on evil and wrong doing.

If you're going to play the 'inaminate object' card, I could argue that atomic bombs and long range missiles are also essentially inaminate. Just because they can't kill anyone without them being utilised by people doesn't mean they aren't able to do more harm than good.

'Just in the past 100 years in the US

4 Students were killed by National Guard troops at Kent state for exercizing thier right to protest the Vietnam war.

1930's Bonus march - 2 were killed and US troops were used againt American citizens - something forbidden by the constitution; but it happened.

1940's US citizens of Japenese decent were removed from thier homes, thier property taken, thier business' lost and inturned in prison camps. How easy wouldit have been to have supported extermination of them? Suppose Japan managed to Invade Hawaii or CA? Or developed the bomb and were able to use it? What night have happened?'

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of these incidents. But I will point out that they are hardly large scale events. Hardly the government 'routinely killing off its civilians' that you talked of in your first post. Nor are they likely to have been prevented by civilians being armed with lethal weapons. Judging on on recent events, it doesn't seem that firing on the US military is likely to prevent you getting killed. Quite the contrary in fact. Similarly, it seems even having the illusion of being armed in the US may be enough to legally warrant you own shooting (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Furthermore, the events you described are hardly recent, and I maintain they are highly unlikely to happen again anytime in the near future.

I'll counter your argument by looking at a incidents which occured in the last 10 to 15 years. Say, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Thurston High School, Red Lake High School, Northern Illinois Uni etc etc etc. Spin it anyway you want, but the vast majority of the deaths in these incidents can be directly attributed to the ease of access to guns. Could Klybold and Harris have killed so many with a knife? I think probably not. Would most of those people still be alive if the US didn't have some many guns in its society? Quite probably. Those numbers alone outweigh the casualties described in your post.

lnb203 added to this post, 7 minutes and 20 seconds later...

Why don't you get over the dogma and actually debate something? I'm not the legislation; I'm outlawing nothing. So can you brush up your debate manners?

On a side note, I do not appreciate being belittled and implied that I'm blind and can't read. Please save your insults for a blog and not a debate.

Totally with you on this one. Riverrat, you really need to learn some manners. While I may not agree with everything md21017md says, at least he/she raises some interesting points and does so without insulting anyone.

md21017md

05-21-2008, 12:31 PM

If the most lethal thing anyone has is a kitchen knife, would you still need the gun to protect your family?

Yes, again ask any of the 100,000,000 (stange since your government has killed about 75,000,000 you are antigun) killed by thier government. Would china have the control it has over it's citizens if every citizen could (read could dot necesarily does) own a gun?

Why is it that in all these debates no one answers these types of questions, or answers the fact that more murders have been commited in not only the 20th centry but human history by government - the very entity you and every other antiguner wants us to trus our lives.

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 11 seconds later...

And you're trying to associate gun ownership with the fact that the US grounded Japan in WWII.

Absolutely I am. Had all the Chinese had guns in the 1920-30's when Japan was raping your women and killing your people left and right, how well would they have done had they faces 100,000,000 chinese armed with guns?

A little tiny assed nation like Japan was tearing your (China) ass up, and only by intervention of the US were you save - of course not before how many Chinese were killed? How many women raped, how many seny to Japan to be prostitutes. How well did non violence work then for your people?

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 17 seconds later...

Please read a book or two about logical fallacies before using them in debates.

Why don't you read a book or 2. Have you ever lived in a free country? Or have you lived your entire life under communist brainwashing? See I can critize your leaders, you can't. I can critize mine as well. Know why? Because my gun owning ancestors fought and died so I'd have that privledge.

I do not know what fallacies you speak of, nor do I see your connection of a gun to JFK's head.

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 12 seconds later...

Uh... Well, I agree. Which is why I wrote 'NOR do I see them as inherently evil or wrong'.

Finally!!!! Someone see's the light

However, I do believe they make life a lot easier for those intent on evil and wrong doing.

Bullshit, I can kill just as many people with a gallon of gas - start a fire in a building, blocking exits out. One of the largets mass murders (at 1 shot) was a night club in Ney York city. They guy set the place on fire, killing 70+ people. Of course the antigun liberal media will never sensationalize it.

I can stab someone just as easily as I can shoot them, and I would argue be more likely to get away with it. A gun can be traced, a bullet from a gun can be positively associated with a specific gun. A knife makes no noise, never runs out of ammo and never fails to cut or stab.

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 9 seconds later...

If you're going to play the 'inaminate object' card, I could argue that atomic bombs and long range missiles are also essentially inaminate. Just because they can't kill anyone without them being utilised by people doesn't mean they aren't able to do more harm than good.

And you are going to play the extreme card. I think comparing a gun to a nuke is stretching things just a bit. A nuke has but 1 purpose and can't be slightly used. A nuke is also a tool of a government. A nuke also makes it easy to kill 100,00 people with the push of a button.

I will argue in response that a gun might make it slightly easier to kill thatn the alternatives, but not much. 9/11 went down - how many thousand were killed? Not 1 gun in sight, and had they used guns insted of planes they could not have killed as many.

Now I am by no means advocating that people should be able to carry guns on a plane, but maybe had the pilots been allowed 9/11 would have never happened.

md21017md added to this post, 11 minutes and 29 seconds later...

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of these incidents.

Of course not, few people are, because our liberal gun grabbing medai isn't about to confuse facts with the truth.

But I will point out that they are hardly large scale events.

You don't call putting 120,000 US citizens in jail with out a trial large scale?

What about the 100,000,000 worldwide during the 20th century executed by their government? That is not large scale?

Hardly the government 'routinely killing off its civilians' that you talked of in your first post.

What do you call the execution of 100,000,00 people?

Nor are they likely to have been prevented by civilians being armed with lethal weapons.

Really? How do you figure? What do you think would happen in the US is our government decided it was going to kill all people from a particular race or religon? I will grant you it would end in civil war of some sort, but people would not line up like sheep for slaughter.

Had the Jew in the Ghettos had guns how many would have died? Maybe all of them, but I bet they would have taken a lot of germans along.

Judging on on recent events, it doesn't seem that firing on the US military is likely to prevent you getting killed.

Maybe but isn't it better than being a lamb led to slaughter?

Maybe that is the real question. Maybe the antigunners of the world are just that, lambs that if it comes to it will just quietly line up for the butcher.

I remember a sceene in Schinder's list. The German hand 10 or 20 Jews lined up on thier knees. They knelt there as the guy walked by 1 at a time and shot them in the head. This one poor bastard had to hear the german walk behind him, the gun click as he pulled the trigger, the sigh of frustration as the german stood behind him fumbling with the gun, click again. Then had to listen to him reload it as he continued to kneel there while the gun was reloaded before he was shot.

I will never die like that. If you want to endure that so be it, but I gaurentte that had the how ever many hundred thousands in the ghettos had guns - maybe they would have died anyway - but the germans would have paid a price.

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 50 seconds later...

Similarly, it seems even having the illusion of being armed in the US may be enough to legally warrant you own shooting (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

I don't know what this is trying to prove. Put your self in the cops shoes. They have someone telling them they have a gun, and once they see something they have a split second to react. Do you want to put your life in that position? Were you there to see what they saw?

Again, liberal momday morning quarterbacking without first hand facts.

md21017md added to this post, 5 minutes and 31 seconds later...

Furthermore, the events you described are hardly recent, and I maintain they are highly unlikely to happen again anytime in the near future.

That a fact? What is it about the heart of man that has changed to no longer allow him to be greedy or corrupt?

Not recent? Bosnia? Darfur? Is that recent enough for you?

Didn't Myanmar just have a bloody put down of a protest by monks?

Don't I remember something like this in Venezualla recently also?

Should I keep going?

That was the same logic that let Hitler walk through Europe

"I only want to Annex Austria" And the european passifists watched

"I only need to save poland from them self" And the european passifists watched

"Once I gain control of france that is it" And the european passifists watched

"Really, just let me add Belguim hack to France and I am all done" And the european passifists watched

Get my point? Europe has a history of passifisim, a history of turning a cheek to neighbors in need and a history of expecting someone else to bail them out.

lnb203

05-21-2008, 12:33 PM

'Finally!!!! Someone see's the light'

Well no, I was just pointing out what I wrote in my first post (before I started getting rinsed by people who have clearly just skim read my posts anyway).

'Bullshit, I can kill just as many people with a gallon of gas - start a fire in a building, blocking exits out. One of the largets mass murders (at 1 shot) was a night club in Ney York city. They guy set the place on fire, killing 70+ people. Of course the antigun liberal media will never sensationalize it.

I can stab someone just as easily as I can shoot them, and I would argue be more likely to get away with it. A gun can be traced, a bullet from a gun can be positively associated with a specific gun. A knife makes no noise, never runs out of ammo and never fails to cut or stab.'

So what are you saying? If its so easy to kill people without a gun, why would anyone bother using one? Just accept what we all know, guns facilitate death much more effectively than any other weapon.

'And you are going to play the extreme card. I think comparing a gun to a nuke is stretching things just a bit. A nuke has but 1 purpose and can't be slightly used. A nuke is also a tool of a government. A nuke also makes it easy to kill 100,00 people with the push of a button.

I will argue in response that a gun might make it slightly easier to kill thatn the alternatives, but not much. 9/11 went down - how many thousand were killed? Not 1 gun in sight, and had they used guns insted of planes they could not have killed as many.

Now I am by no means advocating that people should be able to carry guns on a plane, but maybe had the pilots been allowed 9/11 would have never happened.'

Yes, it's an extreme example. I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to say something isn't potentially harmful just because it needs to be operated by a human. A nuke may kill 100,000 people with one push of a button, a gun can kill someone with one push of a button. Same result on a different scale. The inanimate object argument just holds no weight with me.

'I don't know what this is trying to prove. Put your self in the cops shoes. They have someone telling them they have a gun, and once they see something they have a split second to react. Do you want to put your life in that position? Were you there to see what they saw?

Again, liberal momday morning quarterbacking without first hand facts.'

You have repeatedly implied that civilians having guns protects them from military/police brutality etc. I was providing evidence of the opposite, that in fact, even the illusion of being armed in public can get you killed.

And if you must know, disliking guns does not make me liberal. I am a conservative.

'Not recent? Bosnia? Darfur? Is that recent enough for you?

Didn't Myanmar just have a bloody put down of a protest by monks?

Don't I remember something like this in Venezualla recently also?

Should I keep going?'

No, please don't. Again, your reply is out of context. Look back at my old posts, I said comparing modern US to politically unstable third world nations lacked credibilty. I maintain that viewpoint, you will not be needed your guns to protect yourself from the American government anytime soon.

I'm sorry if this is poor form, but I am going to leave this discussion here. I don't see the point of continuing to defend my posts against misguided criticism. Lets face it, we aren't like to change each others minds are we!

md21017md

05-21-2008, 12:48 PM

Say, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Thurston High School, Red Lake High School, Northern Illinois Uni etc etc etc.

How many people are we talking? 100-200 you think that justifys removing a deterance that has saved thousands?

Spin it anyway you want, but the vast majority of the deaths in these incidents can be directly attributed to the ease of access to guns.

No, they were attributed to an individual that wanted to kill. The 9/11 terrorist killed far more without the use of a gun, and one could argue that had the pilots been allowed to carry a gun, 9/11 would never have happened.

Of course the liberals would have persecuted the pilots for killing poor visitors to our country that were misguided, mentally ill and were only armed with a little knife. So you are right, we should get rid of guns.

You are using a few extreme examples which the liberal US press sensationalizes and not seeing the incidents where people defend them self with the use of a gun, many times with out having to fire it - because out press will not publish that.

Could Klybold and Harris have killed so many with a knife?

Absolutely, maybe not all at once. There are plenty of serial killers that on their own have killed more than all the recent shooting you cite combined. Of course it's not as sensational for the media so it gets little fan fare.

md21017md added to this post, 5 minutes and 8 seconds later...

So what are you saying? If its so easy to kill people without a gun, why would anyone bother using one? Just accept what we all know, guns facilitate death much more effectively than any other weapon.

I am saying a gun is a tool. I can drive a nail with a hammer just as well as I can with ratchet turned the wrong way.

Humans quite effectively killed each other long before guns. How many people died during the middle ages of Europe?

What a gun (as does any weapon) does do is allow a smaller or weaker person the ability to overcome a larger, stronger or more skilled oppoent.

Without guns, one would be at the mercy of someone who is larger, or stronger.

A gun also shortens the learning curve - one doesn't need to know how to fight to defeat someone who does

That is it that is what a gun does. Beyond that I can (not that I want to) kill someone just as dead with many mother means - infact there are many other tools to kill with than a gun that there are not.

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 41 seconds later...

The inanimate object argument just holds no weight with me.

That is your issue, you are giving a block of metal life and taking the responsability of the user.

Ahh I see the light, now I understand why the liberals in the US are so much of the "it wasn't his fault" camp. I now understand why there is such a large lack of responsability and so much a lack of owing up to ones actions in this country - to do so means that you and not the gun is responsable.

Face it' it's a tool, nothing more. I think there is a huge difference between killing 1 person with the pull of a trigger and killing 100,00+ with the push of a button.

lnb203

05-21-2008, 12:48 PM

'How many people are we talking? 100-200 you think that justifys removing a deterance that has saved thousands?'

Fact? I think not.

'You are using a few extreme examples which the liberal US press sensationalizes and not seeing the incidents where people defend them self with the use of a gun, many times with out having to fire it - because out press will not publish that.'

You don't need to preach to me about sensationalist press. I can't stand it. Also (again) I am a predominantly right wing minded person, and I am therefore particularly wary of left wing bias. Secondly, I don't even live in America and am not subjected to the press bias you talk of. My views are my own.

Anyway, this time I really am gone!

md21017md

05-21-2008, 01:00 PM

You have repeatedly implied that civilians having guns protects them from military/police brutality etc. I was providing evidence of the opposite, that in fact, even the illusion of being armed in public can get you killed.

You are sugarcoating what was going on. this guy was not just standing there brushing his hair and got shot. Don't confuse the facts. The police were told he was about to commit a crime - yes killing your self is murder. How were they to know he didn't want to take a few with him. Don't confuse the facts and make it sound like he was waiting for a bus.

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 48 seconds later...

No, please don't. Again, your reply is out of context. Look back at my old posts, I said comparing modern US to politically unstable third world nations lacked credibilty. I maintain that viewpoint, you will not be needed your guns to protect yourself from the American government anytime soon.

How do you define soon. What if they are needed in 100 years, do you really think the government of the time is going to allow them back in? You have no idea what will happen in the future.

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 36 seconds later...

You don't need to preach to me about sensationalist press. I can't stand it.

Yet here you are using it to try to make your point.

Also (again) I am a predominantly right wing minded person, and I am therefore particularly wary of left wing bias.

Yet you are solidly on the liberl lets get evil guns even though it won't really accomplish anything, we are at least looking like we are doing something mindset.

Secondly, I don't even live in America

Yet you presume to tell us we should get rid of guns? Of course, after all we did kick your butts for our freedom

and am not subjected to the press bias you talk of.

Sure you are, it pervades ever corner of the world

Anyway, this time I really am gone!

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

Ytterbium

05-21-2008, 01:09 PM

Sometimes, if that's the case. Look at it this way. In our country, we had a revolution. If the British had made guns illegal, we would have never been able to win. Hell, the only reason we did win is because they got tired of fighting. We lost the majority of the battles, and we HAD guns!!!!In Russia they made revulotion too and made guns illegal. Are they allowed to do so? So the one with most arms is the leader?

Oh really? Can you prove that?Are you serious? It was a joke.

Two perfect examples. Both leaders who believed in gun control.Just like above you completely miss the my point. What did I want to say? You can make anything look harmless if you place it next to something worse.

And that's why you can't understand.So it might be, there's many things I don't understand. I think I'm on a deeper level in this subject than you others.

You'll get ahold of an illegal gun easier either way if you're a criminal.Yes, contacts. But the you have a wider assortment in gun liberal places.

Sound like my kind of guys. ;)Great for you then.

Its easy to say things about our country when you don't have to live in it.In what particular?

Yeah, I don't believe you. md21017md, you wanna take it? I mean, if you can prove that I'm wrong about not seeing it with my own eyes, you can take the cake. ;)Read his previous posts.

Yes, I can.And you say I get it from movies?

But what you don't realize is, that because of our history, we're a gun culture. Here, criminals can and will get ahold of guns and use them in robberies or mugging. And if guns were made illegal, then they'd still get them. End of story. Maybe gun control works in some countries, where culturally its not an issue. But here its different.Ofcourse it's different. But it don't have to. Things aren't for ever as mentioned earlier. Think if some communists came and overthrew the goverment and banned the guns? They have the right to do so as you said before. Which leads to the same question all over again (in which I don't get a answer). Those who thinks the goverment is bad, don't have to be the "good guys". You actually want to let people to have the right of using arms against an elected goverment? The goverment still is more powerful than your handgun.

I would never want to make history for that. I'd shoot myself if there were any guns left. lolWho knows you might get into history for that too.

What would you call it then? I mean, I guess simple is the wrong word for it. But you should have got off his property. I think it was a case of poor judgement, but I've never heard of any situation like that and I think its pretty farfetched. Come up with more realistic scenarios.Now we are at my deeper level again and the issues I want to put pressure on. This is certainly something that would happen more often than your goverment starts killing people whatever etc. So it's not farfetched. The reason why you haven't heard of it, is because the it reads in the news "intruder shot". And wham! you have another pro-gun argument or is it really? If you have the mind, out of the box thinking etc and can read between the lines. Actually you have no idea what happened, as the dude whom defended his life and proterty was the sole witness. This separates our views on humanity and what's humane. You see it as a freedom to kill whoever you think is bad. Whilst I don't, want lay innocent peoples lifes in the decision of the common man like this. I know you have different laws aswell no right of access or freedom to roam either. I don't think the risk of getting shoot by someone who thinks I'm an intruder, is a freedom. It's the opposite.

Exactly. Every time a law is passed, a right is taken away. Laws should protect citizens from their rights being infringed on by other citizens. The government in my opinion should be there for national defense, civil service, and policing.Not necessarily. Laws can give rights too, there will allways be an responsibility though.

What would you do? Offer to help them take your shit? Please.Again you don't want to understand. Why does it have to involve guns, can't you imagine another way? Let me read your alternative ways. It's tiresome to repeat all the time. So let's see how you would handle it without a gun. As that's a situation which could happen to you too.

No. Everything should be regulated, not restricted.Call it whatever you want.

Not necessarily true. Long guns are more accurate. And with a sawed off barrel, concealable as well. And there are those who hunt with high caliber handguns.Handguns have other safety mechanisms than rifles. Handguns are also easier to point in the wrong direction ie dangerous ones. Either by will or accidently.

Well we're talking about what works in this country. Not yours. In yours, it may work. In ours, it doesn't. So don't presume to tell us how to live.Again, this is an international forum.

True. Hypothetically was the key word there.No matter if you have guns or not there will be larger dudes that can hurt you. Guns don't even this out.

Good question. I can look after myself anyway. lol. Although I'm planning on becoming a U.S. Marshal, so........lol. Cops can't be everywhere at once. Its impossible.No they usually don't have to either. If there's few cops you recruit more.

Yeah. I was just throwing my guns around the other day. :huh:As you said you were like Riverratt. You have your guns everywhere. I don't want to have it like that. Guns should always be kept away and safely locked up.

And that's why I hate the world. I'm just too individualistic for my own good. lolYes you and your gun against the world, how idealistic.

How do you know? What about the other 130-70 countries in the world? Should the entire world base gun ownership on your tiny little country?How many times do I have to write this. No I don't, they're not as priviliged as my country.

Kas I have to call you on this one. The 2nd ammendment was purely about having an armed populace to deter against governmental oppression. At the time, hunting was seen as an inhiernt right. There was really no way they could envision living without hunting.Yes nowadays you get your food at the drivethru.

I am not sure what you are saying about my quote? What I have said is that I own guns, but where I live and most of my travels I do not feel the need to carry a gun, and unfortunately in the liberal assed state in which I live I could not get a cary permit.Yes you see you don't need it there either.

Not sure why you are pulling me into this one, I agree with Kas. There are plenty of people that successfully defend them self in the US. Problem is you never hear about it, because it would mess up the liberal gun grabbing agenda, and since the media in the US is very liberal - well you get the idea.I meant the things we agreed on earlier. About fighting against knifes or guns. It's near impossible against a knife and I gun would be even harder.

Plenty of people in this country have when the need aroseAgain we discussed this earlier. If you're at gunpoint you can't do that.

So the cops will be the only ones with the ability to defend thier selfNo, you don't need a gun to defend yourself. You didn't learn martial arts, just because it's useless did you?

You again are talking about sweeden. Big F'ing deal - 1 little country out of the world. Well dude the rest of the world is not so lucky.Yes I know that.

The police in most countries (ok, minus the extreme opressive ones) can not act until a crime has been committed. Can you call the cops in your country and ask them for an escort to the bank because you have a large deposit? The police are to protect soceity in general not a specific individual.Yes I can if there's a threat against me.

Really? Do you need to play tennis, watch TV, drink a glass of wine? Do you need a designer wardrobe? Do you need a DVD player?Generally no.

See you keep forgetting - in the US gun ownership is a RIGHT. A RIGHT superceeds a need. End of story, debate over.It may be so I don't think all Americans can say that though. I think there're other elementary rights than guns. But then I'm not American either.

This just proves your ignorance. By it's very nature a handgun is far less powerfull than a the smallest of rifles. Yes there are exception and I am being generic but as a whole a handgun, having a far shorter barrell and being hand held can not generate the power and accuracy or a rifle.No it can't but there're other pros/cons aswell.

Ybit,

Why is it you answer everyone points except the one I posted stating the fact that more people in the past 100 years have been killed by thier government not other citizens?

Why, I bet because it totally kills your arguement.

So answer my point. Over 100,000,000 people have been killed by thier governemnt over the past 100 years. This is not including wars - this is simply a government killing a segment of its people because they don't fit.

How many of those 100,000,000 would have died had they access to a gun?

You didn't answer this point when I asked how many jews would have died in WW@ had they a gun.

You didn't answer my point when I asked how likely would hitler have come to power had Germans had guns (he banned guns shortly before taking over Germany).

Answer these points and stop repeating pointless attempts as you have.

This is why we have guns, the rest is liberal rhetoric.What point? I'll try my best.
Which kills do you count then. When a police shoots a bank robber? You know even if you're allowed to have guns the goverment still kills your people. Do you count them aswell? If we take current wars as example how many of these are friendly fire kills rather than enemies? How do you count them?
How many people are killed by your goverment than by the people? Do you have any figures about that?
As I written many times before you nor I know how many people would have died if they had guns or not.
About the jews then. If the pulled a gun on a soldier, don't you think they would be killed on the spot than transported to a concentration camp? I guess the soldiers wasn't alone when they took away people.
The problem is that many people didn't see Hitler as evil. He gave people work etc made the country rise again after the WW1. Then it slowly turned out like it did.

Kas Ka

05-21-2008, 01:23 PM

Kas I have to call you on this one. The 2nd ammendment was purely about having an armed populace to deter against governmental oppression. At the time, hunting was seen as an inhiernt right. There was really no way they could envision living without hunting.

Of course it was. But thats why I didn't specifically say hunting. What about the thousands of Indian nations on the frontier who attacked without warning. Of course guns were intended as a deterrant against an oppressive government, but you can't tell me that it was also intended as a basic survival tool on the ever expanding frontier.

Not sure why you are pulling me into this one, I agree with Kas. There are plenty of people that successfully defend them self in the US. Problem is you never hear about it, because it would mess up the liberal gun grabbing agenda, and since the media in the US is very liberal - well you get the idea.

Thanks.

md21017md

05-21-2008, 01:54 PM

The goverment still is more powerful than your handgun.

It worked for the Afgan's among many others

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 38 seconds later...

Originally Posted by Kas Ka
Not necessarily true. Long guns are more accurate. And with a sawed off barrel, concealable as well. And there are those who hunt with high caliber handguns.

Handguns have other safety mechanisms than rifles. Handguns are also easier to point in the wrong direction ie dangerous ones. Either by will or accidently.

What safety mechanisims would that be?

You can point anything in the wrong direction if you are not paying attention to what you are doing.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 9 seconds later...

No matter if you have guns or not there will be larger dudes that can hurt you. Guns don't even this out.

So you mean a big guy is immune to gunfire? Not sure what you are trying to say here.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 36 seconds later...

Originally Posted by md21017md
How do you know? What about the other 130-70 countries in the world? Should the entire world base gun ownership on your tiny little country?

How many times do I have to write this. No I don't, they're not as priviliged as my country.

As many times as you say guns should not be int he world. Maybe your little corner is paradise, and maybe in your country you don't need guns, but that is 1 little part of the world. The rest of the world is not as fortunate as you and there is a very real need in the rest of the world.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 58 seconds later...

Originally Posted by md21017md
Plenty of people in this country have when the need arose

Again we discussed this earlier. If you're at gunpoint you can't do that.

I think you are saying once the bad guy pulls a gun you can't do anything? That is bull, plenty of people have done something when facing a gun.

Ever seen Pulp fiction? Granted it is a fictional story, but there is no reason that the diner sceen couln't go do exaclty as portrayed - not a shot was fired.

I know I know it's hollywood, but I am trying to illistrate a point and that is the best way on here.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 35 seconds later...

Originally Posted by md21017md
I am not sure what you are saying about my quote? What I have said is that I own guns, but where I live and most of my travels I do not feel the need to carry a gun, and unfortunately in the liberal assed state in which I live I could not get a cary permit.

Yes you see you don't need it there either.

I don't need to carry one down the street, but I do have 1 in my house. Where I live I am more worred about a break in when I am asleep. At the same time, I am not saying there is not a legit need for others in the US based on where they are.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 33 seconds later...

Quote:
Originally Posted by md21017md
So the cops will be the only ones with the ability to defend thier self

No, you don't need a gun to defend yourself. You didn't learn martial arts, just because it's useless did you?

No, but what I learned out of it is that it's pretty damn hard to defend against an untrained person with a knife. It's pretty damn hard for a woman to defend against a man

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 22 seconds later...

It may be so I don't think all Americans can say that though. I think there're other elementary rights than guns. But then I'm not American either.

Of course we have other rights. If you notice the ability to say what we want was first, and the right to bear arms was second

md21017md added to this post, 9 minutes and 51 seconds later...

What point? I'll try my best.
Which kills do you count then. When a police shoots a bank robber?

No, when a country systematically executes it's populace such as hitler did with the jews, as stalin did with political prisoners, as Sadam did with the Kurds.

You know even if you're allowed to have guns the goverment still kills your people.

It's a hell of a lot harder. What do you think would happen if the US tried to killl everyone of a particular race or religon as hitler did? Really think they would succeed?

Do you count them aswell? If we take current wars as example how many of these are friendly fire kills rather than enemies?

Again, that 100,000,000 were simply citizens - not combatabts. Some (as in the Iraqi kurds) were gassed, we know of the holocost (you do believe that happened right).

Some were put in prison because they didn't support the communist goverment and were then starved and or worked to death. It goes on and on - the main point - these were citizens killed simply because they were the wrong coloy, the wrong religon or they opposed the existing government.

How many people are killed by your goverment than by the people? Do you have any figures about that?

No I don't. As far as i know, our government only kills citizens that were convicted of a crime, tried, found guilty and they sentenced to death in accordance to our laws.

About the jews then. If the pulled a gun on a soldier, don't you think they would be killed on the spot than transported to a concentration camp?

You are looking at it 1 on 1 or 1 on 100, but what happens when the 100 german soldiers come to get you and face 1000 armed jews? Followed by 10,000 jews?

Do you know that when the germans invaded Stalingrad - only 1/2 of the soldiers had guns? They beat might germany with half thier soldier armed didn't they

The problem is that many people didn't see Hitler as evil. He gave people work etc made the country rise again after the WW1. Then it slowly turned out like it did.

You have a valid point as to the fact that a lot of people supported him, all the more reason to have an armed populace to counter something like this.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 50 seconds later...

but you can't tell me that it was also intended as a basic survival tool on the ever expanding frontier.

No not at all, just the opposit. At the time that was such a given, it was seen as making an ammendment to say you had the right to eat - it was just assumed there was no other way. Hunting was also assumed as such.

Kas Ka

05-21-2008, 02:05 PM

In Russia they made revulotion too and made guns illegal. Are they allowed to do so? So the one with most arms is the leader?

Once again, you completely miss my point. I'm pretty much done with you. We're getting nowhere. Neither of us is going to convince the other, so I don't care anymore. I'm just glad you don't have a say in what goes on here.

You can make anything look harmless if you place it next to something worse.

So why aren't we talking about restricting what's worse? lol

So it might be, there's many things I don't understand. I think I'm on a deeper level in this subject than you others.

And with that statement you lose all credibility. What arrogance! You think you know so much, but you don't. All you know about is what works in your part of the world and you give no thought to the differences in other places. There is no deeper level. Because you have completely missed my points at every step of the way. So how do we know that I'm not on a deeper level than you?

In what particular?

What the hell have we been talking about? You've been acting like our country is the same as yours and its not. The outcome would be completely different.

And you say I get it from movies?

Not from movies. From experience. I know my own capabilities because I enjoy target shooting. It is a fun hobby. On that note let me say that even if this country was the safest society in the world, I would still be against gun control. I probably wouldn't feel the need to carry as much, but I would be pro-gun just the same. I enjoy them. I see them as a work of art. There are "car guys" and then there are "gun guys". I'm a gun guy.

Ofcourse it's different. But it don't have to.

Okay. Here's your problem (which in my opinion is weird for an INTJ). You're talking about what could be rather than what is. As an INFJ, that should be my domain. lol

Think if some communists came and overthrew the goverment and banned the guns? They have the right to do so as you said before.

I think you took that out of context. If communists came into the government, then it would be a gradual change. Sure, one day who knows. But in this country the system allows change to be more gradual and the chances of a coup are very unlikely.

Which leads to the same question all over again (in which I don't get a answer). Those who thinks the goverment is bad, don't have to be the "good guys". You actually want to let people to have the right of using arms against an elected goverment? The goverment still is more powerful than your handgun.

The government is more powerful, unfortunately. They have the monopoly on violence. So that means we should give up our rights completely? Psychologically, I would at least like to think I could fight back, even though I'd probably lose.

Now we are at my deeper level again and the issues I want to put pressure on. This is certainly something that would happen more often than your goverment starts killing people whatever etc.

Really? Ever read about the Ruby Ridge incident?

Yeah, that scenario is pretty farfetched. I wouldn't say it could never happen, but I've never heard of it happening. If something like that happened, then if could be seen as a comparison to "friendly fire". Mistaken intentions and mistaken identity. And you want to blame the gun for it? Its the dumbass guy who shot you. He should have had better judgement. Ok, so say he didn't have a gun, but rather something else (i.e. a knife, etc.). What's the stop him from walking up to you and stabbing you? I'm sorry, but enough with the scenarios. They're not getting us anywhere.

Laws can give rights too, there will allways be an responsibility though.

They usually don't, though.

Again you don't want to understand. Why does it have to involve guns, can't you imagine another way? Let me read your alternative ways. It's tiresome to repeat all the time. So let's see how you would handle it without a gun. As that's a situation which could happen to you too.

If I didn't have a gun, my reaction would still be the same. I just would have to use another weapon or tool of some sort. The outcome would be the same. So what's your point?

Handguns have other safety mechanisms than rifles. Handguns are also easier to point in the wrong direction ie dangerous ones. Either by will or accidently.

True. But they're also not as accurate and don't have the knock down power of long guns.

Again, this is an international forum.

Yeah, but we haven't been talking about gun control in Jamaica. Please. The country that has been in the most debate has been the U.S. and you know it.

No matter if you have guns or not there will be larger dudes that can hurt you. Guns don't even this out.

WHAT? Yes it does. How can you even say that? Unless Super Man comes at me, I'm pretty sure a gun would help against a dude who's bigger than I am.

No they usually don't have to either. If there's few cops you recruit more.

Easy to say that, isn't it? Just like not everyone wants a gun, not everyone wants to be a cop.

As you said you were like Riverratt. You have your guns everywhere. I don't want to have it like that. Guns should always be kept away and safely locked up.

Why? Everyone in my household knows about gun safety. My guns are kept clean and unloaded and I always treat them as they are loaded. Only a few of my guns are hanging on the wall. And those are mostly historical firearms (muzzle loaders and such). The rest are either in safes or in gun cases.

In a firearm safety course they ask this question:

What is the best way to keep a firearm out of the hands of a child?

A) Keeping it locked up

B) Education

Honestly there are other choices but I couldn't remember them. These are the two that people always get stumped on. Do you know what the answer is? Its education. Because if you can teach a child about how to safely and effectively use a firearm, then for them, the mystery is gone. My dad taught me this way, and I didn't really ever get a firearm out by myself till I was in high school. Before that, it was always with my father's supervision. I'm not saying that guns shouldn't be kept locked up, per se. But its not the priority. Ammunition should be locked up, rather. And in our house, it is.

I mean, if you don't want to have your guns out, thats fine. But don't criticize me and Riverratt for being able to have ours on display responsibly.

md21017md

05-21-2008, 03:41 PM

I mean, if you don't want to have your guns out, thats fine. But don't criticize me and Riverratt for being able to have ours on display responsibly.

I feel left out, all this gun talk makes me want to go buy another gun. There you go ybetter, your arguement sparked the wrong desire - 1 more gun in the world because of you.

lnb203

05-21-2008, 06:30 PM

Well, was hoping to leave this but after reading your jibes I'm going to have to tie up a few ends.

'You are sugarcoating what was going on. this guy was not just standing there brushing his hair and got shot. Don't confuse the facts. The police were told he was about to commit a crime - yes killing your self is murder. How were they to know he didn't want to take a few with him. Don't confuse the facts and make it sound like he was waiting for a bus.'

Pffft. 'Don't shoot yourself, we'll do it for you!' Shooting yourself is not on, but it's ok if the police do it. 20 times I may add. Reminds me of Springsteen's song, 41 Shots.

Don't sugarcoat the facts, a mentally ill man was shot twenty times because his hairbrush was mistaken for a gun.

'What if they are needed in 100 years, do you really think the government of the time is going to allow them back in?'

Not if they have any sense, although lets be honest, the US is hardly likely to ban guns anytime in the foreseeable future.

'Yet here you are using it to try to make your point.'

If you consider that article to be sensationalist, then fair enough. Personally, I see the 'legal' killing of an unarmed man to be newsworthy. The article also took quotes from both the families lawyer and then NYPD, and seemed to consider both sides of the story.

'Yet you are solidly on the liberl lets get evil guns even though it won't really accomplish anything, we are at least looking like we are doing something mindset.'

While the anti-gun sentiment in America may predominantly come from a liberal viewpoint, in a wider context I don't think gun control is necessarily a liberal vs conservative issue. Considering that liberalism essentially stands for minimising government intervention and maximising the rights of the indivual, you could even logically argue that the liberal standpoint of the issue would be to REDUCE government restrictions.

I'll say it again, I'm a conservative, but if some of my views are considered 'liberal' in America then so be it.

'Yet you presume to tell us we should get rid of guns? Of course, after all we did kick your butts for our freedom'

It's an internet discussion revolving around America's gun culture. I'm stating an opinion, not petitioning your government (I couldn't actually care less if Americans want to shoot each other). And we could start a whole new topic on the American's self proclaimed 'Freedom', don't even get me started on that one.

And before you start accusing me of hating America (people like yourself often fall back on this one), I'd like to point out that I used to live there. In general, I think it's a great place.

'Sure you are, it pervades ever corner of the world'

America's cultural influence does, certainly. If we're talking movies and music etc, I won't dispute that. As I assume we're talking about news, sorry but American broadcasting is considered a joke amongst most of the developed world. Can't beat Fox/CNN etc etc for a few chuckles.

'Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out'

Unnecessary.

Monte314

05-21-2008, 08:07 PM

I must agree that without guns, the world would be safer... for a big guy trying to break into my house with a knife.

md21017md

05-21-2008, 08:55 PM

Pffft. 'Don't shoot yourself, we'll do it for you!' Shooting yourself is not on, but it's ok if the police do it. 20 times I may add. Reminds me of Springsteen's song, 41 Shots.

I would challenge you to do the police's job. You roll onto a sceen, you have no idea who is going to try to kill you or someone else, you are second guessed about every move you make. You have someone who is irrational, mental, violent and you are trying to contain the problem. In this case you have someone who is telling you he has a gun and "lets go" you literally have milliseconds to react. The police are risking thier life over some dirt bag, all this guy had to do was lay down. Do you think you can determine a hairbrush from a gun in the time it takes someone to shoot at you? If so, maybe you need to be giving lessons to the police.

Not if they have any sense, although lets be honest, the US is hardly likely to ban guns anytime in the foreseeable future.

Then what is the point to the discussion?

America's cultural influence does, certainly. If we're talking movies and music etc, I won't dispute that. As I assume we're talking about news, sorry but American broadcasting is considered a joke amongst most of the developed world. Can't beat Fox/CNN etc etc for a few chuckles.

Ok, well there I have to agree with you. I'd cut off me left picky to get an objective report of the truth just one frigging time

Look, the reality is this, if the world were utopia (which it isn't) socialisim would work - everyone would put in 110% and we'd all make the same ammount of money working for the comon good. There would be no hunger, no crime and no want.

Unfortunately humans screw that utopia up on every possible level. Anywhere there are humans there will be a segment that will want to exploit the rest, there will be a criminal element - that is just how we are wired. If you get rid of guns then that criminal element will have no deterrance. There will be nothing from stopping the 300 pund guy or the gang of 5 from taking advantage of others.

That is one element. the second is that so long as humans have a government, said government is capable of corruption. So long as thier is corruption and differing socio economic and religous groups there is probability of government killing off opposition.

Until the ways of man change - no likely, hasn't happened in thousands of years - there is a need for people to be able to protect them self.

The third is that even in a well heeled soceity, there will be times of strife. There will be disasters, riots etc, where good people lose thier minds temporarily.

Watch this video To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is not 1 gun insight. Tell me it's not violent. Tell me that the truck drivedr would not have fared better had he had a gun.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 0 seconds later...

'Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out'

Unnecessary.

Maybe not, but fitting

SardonicSarcasm

05-21-2008, 10:31 PM

lol, think of the children!

I would never give up my guns. All one has to do is look around the world to see what could happen when guns are outlawed. I come from just across the border Mexico where everyone has guns even though they're incredibly hard to own legally. Regardless of the law, people will arm themselves against a perceived threat.

Antares

05-22-2008, 04:58 AM

Absolutely I am. Had all the Chinese had guns in the 1920-30's when Japan was raping your women and killing your people left and right, how well would they have done had they faces 100,000,000 chinese armed with guns?

A little tiny assed nation like Japan was tearing your (China) ass up, and only by intervention of the US were you save - of course not before how many Chinese were killed? How many women raped, how many seny to Japan to be prostitutes. How well did non violence work then for your people?

Have you ever learned Asian history at all? China did not have such advanced technology! Oh, it's easy for you to say: "What if they all have guns", well, chinese military technology has stopped developing at around Ming Dynasty and completely shut the country off, while Japan was receptive of such innovations (Commodore Perry, the Portuguese and the Jesuits)

Why don't you read a book or 2. Have you ever lived in a free country? Or have you lived your entire life under communist brainwashing? See I can critize your leaders, you can't. I can critize mine as well. Know why? Because my gun owning ancestors fought and died so I'd have that privledge.

I do not know what fallacies you speak of, nor do I see your connection of a gun to JFK's head.

Do not assume things about me or insult me. That I'm a mindless herd follower who can't think? Can you keep this discussion about guns please? What makes you think I can't criticize my leaders? I do this everyday!

Addressing the various posters in general:

1. Keep the insults and the unnecessary gibes out. This does not need to turn into a flame war. If it's unnecessary, keep it to yourself. You're here to debate, not rant.

2. Agree to disagree. Reply to the posts of your opponents respectfully and do not insult anyone's intelligence.

3. Stay on topic; this debate is not about the posters and their identity, nationality or political stance should be left out (Oh, you're just saying this because you are...)

md21017md

05-22-2008, 07:23 AM

Have you ever learned Asian history at all? China did not have such advanced technology! Oh, it's easy for you to say: "What if they all have guns", well, chinese military technology has stopped developing at around Ming Dynasty and completely shut the country off, while Japan was receptive of such innovations (Commodore Perry, the Portuguese and the Jesuits)

And what happened to your country without a means to defend? You were raped, robbed and killed by a much smaller nation. Your women were kidnapped and sold into sex slavery. Was your world better without guns?

Do not assume things about me or insult me. That I'm a mindless herd follower who can't think? Can you keep this discussion about guns please? What makes you think I can't criticize my leaders? I do this everyday!

I am staying on topic. The point you are missing is that guns are necesary for freedom. You live in a communist nation. I asked a simple pointed question - have you always lived under communist rule. I am assuming you are not old enough to have lived in China before Mao?

I think that is a very relevent question because living in a communist country you do not enjoy the rights and freedoms we have in the US, nor do you have the responsibilities we have.

I also would ask you to stay on topic and answer points when asked. I pointedly asked you to comment on the fact that you are saying the world would be safer without guns, yet 100,000,000 people were killed by thier own government - about 3/4 of that number by your government. These were not criminals, they were not people killed in a war. They were simply members of a political, religous, or ethnic group that the ruling party did not like. Since they were unarmed it was easy for the government to kill them off.

So I ask you again, how easily could your government have killed off 78,000,000 people if they had access to weapons?

How easily could Japan have raped your country had your citizens had access to weapons?

Antares

05-22-2008, 08:49 AM

And what happened to your country without a means to defend? You were raped, robbed and killed by a much smaller nation. Your women were kidnapped and sold into sex slavery. Was your world better without guns?

Yes, because the Rape of Nanking happens a lot. With all those attempted murders that I read in the news, I can't help but be thankful that they didn't have guns.

I am staying on topic. The point you are missing is that guns are necesary for freedom. You live in a communist nation. I asked a simple pointed question - have you always lived under communist rule. I am assuming you are not old enough to have lived in China before Mao?

I think that is a very relevent question because living in a communist country you do not enjoy the rights and freedoms we have in the US, nor do you have the responsibilities we have.

China before Mao, China after Mao, the difference? Can you keep the debate about guns, please? Not where I am? You've deviated the topic ages ago. My apparent bias, in existence or not, is irrelevant. You're suppose to discuss my points, not how biased I am because I'm too underprivileged to taste 'true freedom'. I would prefer it if you do not mention my situation at all, since in formal debates, you don't go around saying: "Well, you live in xxx, so you never really experienced yyy, therefore you were brainwashed by the government of xxx.". No. Unacceptable.

We are in an age of enlightenment; the current restrictions will not allow such an occurance in any 'civilised' government, and from what I've observed, the CCP is sufficiently more 'civilised' than before. Realize; the situation is different. Just because guns would have helped before doesn't mean they would have helped now. CCP is past its genocide stage, and frankly I find it hard to believe those pesky conspiracy theorists that are slanted the other way. Hell'll freeze over the day I completely trust the CCP, but it won't do much better the day I believe that Western media is neutral, objective and intent-free. We're discussing right here, right now. We're not in WWII, and our present interests reside over whether the world will be safer *now*, the day-to-day affairs of our society. Please keep it about that.

No, the Rape of Nanking will not happen again unless something goes seriously wrong. Nor will Tiananmen Massacre. We're trying to find the most practical solution here. Are you implying that the CCP will 'kill them off' again? No, I think they've come a long way.

Two thirds of all 1992 US murders were accomplished with firearms. Handguns were used in about half of all murders. Sharp instruments were used in 17% of murders and blunt instruments in about 6%.

Now we could replace the 2/3s of gun homicides with sharp objects. Wouldn't that prevent the loss of many lives?

md21017md

05-22-2008, 08:52 AM

Quote:
And what happened to your country without a means to defend? You were raped, robbed and killed by a much smaller nation. Your women were kidnapped and sold into sex slavery. Was your world better without guns?

Yes, because the Rape of Nanking happens a lot. With all those attempted murders that I read in the news, I can't help but be thankful that they didn't have guns.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you telling me the Japanese in the 30's didn't have guns when the invaded your country?

Antares

05-22-2008, 08:57 AM

What the hell are you talking about? Are you telling me the Japanese in the 30's didn't have guns when the invaded your country?

No. The Chinese didn't have guns. Instead, they have outdated weapons that are much more primitive. Japanese had guns.

md21017md

05-22-2008, 09:26 AM

I do not know the term CCP you are using?

China before Mao, China after Mao, the difference? Can you keep the debate about guns, please? Not where I am? You've deviated the topic ages ago. My apparent bias, in existence or not, is irrelevant.

It is actually very relevent. I am assuming you grew up in a culture where your leaders do not want an armed populace - too easy to loose control. As a result, you leaders tout the "evile gun" and all are led to believe as such. You do not have a culture where people grow up hunting, where people grow up with the ability to protect them self as opposed to relying on the government. Where you grew up is very inportant in how your view the world, and this topic specifically.

You're suppose to discuss my points, not how biased I am because I'm too underprivileged to taste 'true freedom'.

I have been discussing your points,, and never said you were underpriveledged

I would prefer it if you do not mention my situation at all, since in formal debates, you don't go around saying: "Well, you live in xxx, so you never really experienced yyy, therefore you were brainwashed by the government of xxx.". No. Unacceptable.

This may be true, but then this is not a formal debate.

We are in an age of enlightenment; the current restrictions will not allow such an occurance in any 'civilised' government, and from what I've observed, the CCP is sufficiently more 'civilised' than before.

And I am sure Germany durring WW2 was considered more civilized at the time.

Realize; the situation is different. Just because guns would have helped before doesn't mean they would have helped now.

How can you say that? Have people all the sudden stopped being corrupt?

CCP is past its genocide stage, and frankly I find it hard to believe those pesky conspiracy theorists that are slanted the other way. Hell'll freeze over the day I completely trust the CCP,

Ok, so you don't trust them, but you don't want any ability to defend against them?

but it won't do much better the day I believe that Western media is neutral, objective and intent-free.

If you mean US media, not it is not. Our media is very intent - to keep it to guns - on having guns portrayed as evil. People are no longer held accountable for thier actions. "That evile gun killed those people, not the poor individual holding the gun, he's just a victim"

We're discussing right here, right now. We're not in WWII,

Ok, right now Myanmar is allowing it's citizens to die. Right now people in Darfur are dying (100,000 at least) with no way to defend them self.

How far back is right now?

Within the past 20-30 years how many ethnic clensings have we had?

Bosnia
The Kurds in Iraq
Afganastan
Kurds in Turkey
Rwanda
Myans in Guatemala - 1970's to 1980's
Sri Lanka
Burma

I could keep going, but the fact is, more people have died by thier government - there were people were guns were banned and people had no ability to defent them self.
and our present interests reside over whether the world will be safer *now*. No, the Rape of Nanking will not happen again unless something goes seriously wrong. Nor

will Tiananmen Massacre. We're trying to find the most practical solution here. Are you implying that the CCP will 'kill them off' again? No, I think they've come a long way.

How do YOU know?

But, if you want to debate the issue, lets stick to the facts

Guns can not do anything without a human to operate them

Humans have killed each other just as effectively for thousands of years priot to the invention of guns as they have since

Guns are meerly a tool, and like any tool the end can be accomplished with that tool or something else improvised

A person can kill with a knife, or a club just as easily as a gun.

A club or knife is readily available, can be easily carried and concelled, arousing little suspision.

A gun can be traced, and if used in a crime the bullet can be positively lined to the victim and the gun

A knife or club can not be easily traced or linked to a crime or victim

An armed populace is a deterrant both to opression of the government, criminals and to any external government that would invade.

A gun give a smaller, or weaker (read a woman) an opportunity to defend against a larger attacker.

A gun give someone the ability to defend against multiple attackers.

Statistically (at least in the US), someone carrying a knife is far more likely to use it in a fight.

Statistically (Again in the US) most knife victims are stabbed and cut multiple times. Contray to what the press states, the fatality rate for stabbing victims is far higher due to multiple deep penetrating wounds - usually delivered accurately to the torso - most attackers stab the chest and stomach or back with a high likelyhood of hitting vital organs.

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 39 seconds later...

Quote:
Originally Posted by md21017md
What the hell are you talking about? Are you telling me the Japanese in the 30's didn't have guns when the invaded your country?

No. The Chinese didn't have guns. Instead, they have outdated weapons that are much more primitive. Japanese had guns.

Ok, and your point is that guns are not needed. My counter is that this is not the case. My supporting arguement is that China - a much larger country - was literally raped by Japan simply because the Chinese had no way to defend.

My point is that had China had weapons, even if it were only the local Chinese citizens - Japan would not have decimated your people as they did.

My further point is that the only thing that saved china any more damage was intervention by the US with GUNS. American guns saved Chinese lives.

You turn turn to counter this arguement

Ytterbium

05-22-2008, 11:32 AM

It worked for the Afgan's among many othersPartly because another goverment supplied them.

What safety mechanisims would that be?Depends on the gun ofcourse. But many pistols is just to fire as they're loaded. While many rifles have a switch instead. No matter what it's easier to point a handgun in the wrong direction.

You can point anything in the wrong direction if you are not paying attention to what you are doing.Yes but some things are riskier than others.

So you mean a big guy is immune to gunfire? Not sure what you are trying to say here.Think a little bit. If you arm people, there will be good and bad shooters instead good or bad runners/
fighters etc. A large guy can carry heavier guns too. You just reconstruct the +/- sides you don't even them out.

As many times as you say guns should not be int he world. Maybe your little corner is paradise, and maybe in your country you don't need guns, but that is 1 little part of the world. The rest of the world is not as fortunate as you and there is a very real need in the rest of the world.Yes there're not many places which can be great. Please read what I write. I'm not talking about the world here. On Svalbard, Norway they carry rifles to protect themselves from polar bears, when going out. I don't think any of us actually needs a gun. We don't hunt food. 7Eleven is open around the clock. It's probably no good robbing anyone on Svalbard either. As you can't run away. It's a different case here though.
So how many times do I have repeat myself. I want gun restrictions, good control and banning some kind of weapons.

I think you are saying once the bad guy pulls a gun you can't do anything? That is bull, plenty of people have done something when facing a gun.No we have agreed on knifes and guns are even harder to do something about when faced with them.
Yes I wrote about an old man you knocked a bankrobber cold blood before.

Ever seen Pulp fiction? Granted it is a fictional story, but there is no reason that the diner sceen couln't go do exaclty as portrayed - not a shot was fired.

I know I know it's hollywood, but I am trying to illistrate a point and that is the best way on here.No I've never seen it.

I don't need to carry one down the street, but I do have 1 in my house. Where I live I am more worred about a break in when I am asleep. At the same time, I am not saying there is not a legit need for others in the US based on where they are.So where do you keep it? Under your pillow?

No, but what I learned out of it is that it's pretty damn hard to defend against an untrained person with a knife. It's pretty damn hard for a woman to defend against a manA good ol' kick in the groin usually do the job.
Without guns you just need some more brain power to win.

Of course we have other rights. If you notice the ability to say what we want was first, and the right to bear arms was secondBear arms is not even second here. There are still far more thigns which have to be considered.

No, when a country systematically executes it's populace such as hitler did with the jews, as stalin did with political prisoners, as Sadam did with the Kurds.How come many countries with gun restrictions don't do this then?

It's a hell of a lot harder. What do you think would happen if the US tried to killl everyone of a particular race or religon as hitler did? Really think they would succeed?Why not if it's done nicely. People will just think of the people who claim this as lunatics. They will only think of it as crazy conspiracy theories.

Again, that 100,000,000 were simply citizens - not combatabts. Some (as in the Iraqi kurds) were gassed, we know of the holocost (you do believe that happened right).I don't know that those citizens have done neither do you. What they did was illegal appearantly and they had to suffer for it. I don't say it's good. They're seen as just as much criminals as your goverment sees their criminals in the death row.
No I'm not a Nazi nor claim that the holocaust is made up.

Some were put in prison because they didn't support the communist goverment and were then starved and or worked to death. It goes on and on - the main point - these were citizens killed simply because they were the wrong coloy, the wrong religon or they opposed the existing government.It's bad everybody know that, including me. What I don't get is that why the heck you want to make such things possible. By letting people to "defend" themself from the goverment. You make such things possible. I have no idea how Russia would've been if they never overthrew the goverment and killed the Tsar family.

No I don't. As far as i know, our government only kills citizens that were convicted of a crime, tried, found guilty and they sentenced to death in accordance to our laws.Yes allgoverment does that. The problem is how much effort they put in it or how "good" their laws are.

You are looking at it 1 on 1 or 1 on 100, but what happens when the 100 german soldiers come to get you and face 1000 armed jews? Followed by 10,000 jews?What happens if it's the opposite, the sam thing.

Do you know that when the germans invaded Stalingrad - only 1/2 of the soldiers had guns? They beat might germany with half thier soldier armed didn't theyThe winterwar between the Soviet and Finland had similar diffuculties. They had no supplies or proper clothing so they froze to death.

You have a valid point as to the fact that a lot of people supported him, all the more reason to have an armed populace to counter something like this.That don't stop those to support Hitler and takes things in their own hands. It happened in the Balkans, whereas the population itself killed eachother.

md21017md

05-22-2008, 01:06 PM

Have said it will? My society proves this. While guns aren't available everywhere, people still kill eachother.

I am not sure your point here, you seem to contridict yourself?

You did not want to answer on my question about giving guns to the inmates.

Originally Posted by md21017md
It worked for the Afgan's among many others

Partly because another goverment supplied them.

Not initially and what does it matter if they already had them or someone else supplied them?

I never said I didn't want your answer. I said I didn't agree with your point of giving guns to convicted criminals

Yes, you think that's a stupid idea.

What part of giving a weapon to a convicted criminal makes sense to you?

Just like I think it's stupid to give everyone guns out in the society where people kills eachother.

You are comparing convicted criminals to honest citizens. The fact of the matter is that the number of people in soceity killing each o ther with guns is very small in comparison to the number of guns present. The people committing these murders would still commit the murders, they'd just use a different tool.

Depends on the gun ofcourse. But many pistols is just to fire as they're loaded. While many rifles have a switch instead. No matter what it's easier to point a handgun in the wrong direction.

I can't quite understand what you are saying, I think a little is being lost in translation. In actuality, revolvers have no safety mechanisim for the most part. Semi auto pistols do have a safety as do most rifles and shotguns. I am not sure the point you were making, but either (pistol or rifle) is as safe or as dangerous as the person holding it - as goes with any tool. As to pinting in the wrong direction, how does the length have anything to do with what is essentially carelessness (pointing a gun in the wrong direction)

Originally Posted by md21017md
So you mean a big guy is immune to gunfire? Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Think a little bit. If you arm people, there will be good and bad shooters instead good or bad runners/
fighters etc. A large guy can carry heavier guns too. You just reconstruct the +/- sides you don't even them out.

Ok, but this does not support your initial arguement which seemed to be that a bigger person was immune to gunfire? Your arguement about a bigger gun shows your lack of knowledge of the subject. A 90 pound woman can carry a gun that will be more than effective.

Yes there're not many places which can be great. Please read what I write. I'm not talking about the world here. On Svalbard, Norway they carry rifles to protect themselves from polar bears, when going out. I don't think any of us actually needs a gun. We don't hunt food. 7Eleven is open around the clock. It's probably no good robbing anyone on Svalbard either. As you can't run away. It's a different case here though.
So how many times do I have repeat myself. I want gun restrictions, good control and banning some kind of weapons.

Maybe that is part of the problem, I don't recall you saying this. My understanding was that your position is that no one in the world need guns?

There are not 7/11's everywhere. There are a lot of people in the wold that do not eat if they do not hunt. Now if your arguement is that some people have a need - as you seem to be saying her to protect from polar bears, then there is always a chance that these guns will end up in the wrong hands, or the people allowed guns to protect from polar bears will decide they want to use thier gun for some other illegal purpose. You are sort of contridicting your point.

Banning of what kind of weapon? What makes 1 gun safer or more deadly than another?

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 30 seconds later...

Originally Posted by md21017md
I think you are saying once the bad guy pulls a gun you can't do anything? That is bull, plenty of people have done something when facing a gun.

No we have agreed on knifes and guns are even harder to do something about when faced with them.
Yes I wrote about an old man you knocked a bankrobber cold blood before.

Ok, so you are agreeing with me that there are ligitimate cases of people using a weapon (gun or otherwise) to deffend them self or another? You are also agreeing that a knife can be just as dangerous as a gun?

Can I assume from all this you are agreeing that in the absense of guns a criminal will just get another tool (weapon) that will allow him to commit the same crime?

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 16 seconds later...

Originally Posted by md21017md
I don't need to carry one down the street, but I do have 1 in my house. Where I live I am more worred about a break in when I am asleep. At the same time, I am not saying there is not a legit need for others in the US based on where they are.

So where do you keep it? Under your pillow?

In the closet by my bed. As I said, where I live, I am more concerned with burglers. I am using a tool as I need to use it. Sometimes you need a hammer to nail a nail, sometime to pull one out. Of course without a hammer you can use a rock and still drive a nail - a tool is just a tool.

md21017md added to this post, 5 minutes and 7 seconds later...

Originally Posted by md21017md
No, but what I learned out of it is that it's pretty damn hard to defend against an untrained person with a knife. It's pretty damn hard for a woman to defend against a man

A good ol' kick in the groin usually do the job.

Really? Have you ever tried it? I told you I spent 10 years studying martial arts. I will tell you that when one has an adrenelin dump a shot to the nads doesn't mean much - I've continued on many times after a good (accidental) shot as have others. That aside, if I have a knife and you try to kink my groin you are going to pull back a bloodly leg - do you think I am just going to stand and watch? It's not as easy as you think. Put an athletic cup on and give a friend a magic marker - see how many lines you can make on him while he tries to kick you.

Without guns you just need some more brain power to win.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 26 seconds later...

Quote:
Originally Posted by md21017md
Of course we have other rights. If you notice the ability to say what we want was first, and the right to bear arms was second

Bear arms is not even second here. There are still far more thigns which have to be considered.

Well it is second here. 'Nuff said

What else would you like to consider?

Quote:
Originally Posted by md21017md
No, when a country systematically executes it's populace such as hitler did with the jews, as stalin did with political prisoners, as Sadam did with the Kurds.

How come many countries with gun restrictions don't do this then?

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 57 seconds later...

Why do countries with gun restrictions not commit genocide? A lot of reasons, not all of which anyone knows. Why do a majority of gun owners not kill? The reason while maybe important from an accidemic stand point really doesn't matter. What matters is if your government wants to kill you.

md21017md added to this post, 0 minutes and 57 seconds later...

Quote:
Originally Posted by md21017md
It's a hell of a lot harder. What do you think would happen if the US tried to killl everyone of a particular race or religon as hitler did? Really think they would succeed?

Why not if it's done nicely. People will just think of the people who claim this as lunatics. They will only think of it as crazy conspiracy theories.

You didn't answer the question.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 16 seconds later...

Quote:
Originally Posted by md21017md
Again, that 100,000,000 were simply citizens - not combatabts. Some (as in the Iraqi kurds) were gassed, we know of the holocost (you do believe that happened right).

I don't know that those citizens have done neither do you. What they did was illegal appearantly and they had to suffer for it. I don't say it's good. They're seen as just as much criminals as your goverment sees their criminals in the death row.
No I'm not a Nazi nor claim that the holocaust is made up.

Wait, are you trying to say these people were criminals in some manor? You mean the Jews that hitler killed were criminals? You mean the Kurds Sadam killed were criminals? What crime did the Cambodians killed by the Khemer Roughe commit?

md21017md added to this post, 5 minutes and 4 seconds later...

Originally Posted by md21017md
Some were put in prison because they didn't support the communist goverment and were then starved and or worked to death. It goes on and on - the main point - these were citizens killed simply because they were the wrong coloy, the wrong religon or they opposed the existing government.

It's bad everybody know that, including me. What I don't get is that why the heck you want to make such things possible. By letting people to "defend" themself from the goverment. You make such things possible. I have no idea how Russia would've been if they never overthrew the goverment and killed the Tsar family.

How am I making this possible? Revolution is not always good, no doubt about that. But, you can't eliminate the possibility worldwide because there were some bad once, there have been plenty of good ones and plenty that never happened because the forces involved have a deterance against or for based on an armed populace.

You can argue this a million ways to sunday. Maybe an armed populace would never have allowed Sadam to have come to power, meaning the gulf war would never have had to happen. One could argue an armed populace in Myanmar would not allow the junta's to rule and 1,000,000+ people would now be getting adequate aid. One could argue that an armed populace would never have allowd the Chinese government or the Russian government to kill 70,000,00+ of it's citizens.

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 48 seconds later...

Originally Posted by md21017md
You are looking at it 1 on 1 or 1 on 100, but what happens when the 100 german soldiers come to get you and face 1000 armed jews? Followed by 10,000 jews?

What happens if it's the opposite, the sam thing.

Well of course. That is not hard to gather, but then it would happen anyway. Germany killed 6,000,000+ Jews. They did not have that many soldiers, and mos of what they did have were fighting on 2 fronts. It was guite easy for a small number of armed soldiers to control and execute a large number of people that could not fight back. Had the Germans had to face 10 - 20 - 30,000 armed Jews they could have had to commit a higher number of troops to the effort taking away from the war, or might have had to abandon trying to kill its own citizens.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 12 seconds later...

Originally Posted by md21017md
You have a valid point as to the fact that a lot of people supported him, all the more reason to have an armed populace to counter something like this.

That don't stop those to support Hitler and takes things in their own hands. It happened in the Balkans, whereas the population itself killed eachother.

So you are saying it's better to be unarmed and allow your government to kill you?

Ytterbium

05-22-2008, 01:24 PM

Once again, you completely miss my point. I'm pretty much done with you. We're getting nowhere. Neither of us is going to convince the other, so I don't care anymore. I'm just glad you don't have a say in what goes on here.How did I miss it? My points have been missed or ignored constantly here. It does't mean I haven't answered the questions instead. So I would recommend you doing so too.

So why aren't we talking about restricting what's worse? lolIt's done too. If we get back to cars. People are killed in car accidents. Which results in more polices on the roads, more research on safety and regulations both for drivers and car makers. The list goes on.

And with that statement you lose all credibility. What arrogance! You think you know so much, but you don't. All you know about is what works in your part of the world and you give no thought to the differences in other places. There is no deeper level. Because you have completely missed my points at every step of the way. So how do we know that I'm not on a deeper level than you?Ofcourse there's a deeper level. Just look at your first uppermost part of this post. Swallow your pride and let's do this. Just answer my questions step by step, which you've done far better than md21017md. So I know you can. I'll try my best to answer yours.

What the hell have we been talking about? You've been acting like our country is the same as yours and its not. The outcome would be completely different.Ofcourse they're different.

Not from movies. From experience. I know my own capabilities because I enjoy target shooting. It is a fun hobby. On that note let me say that even if this country was the safest society in the world, I would still be against gun control. I probably wouldn't feel the need to carry as much, but I would be pro-gun just the same. I enjoy them. I see them as a work of art. There are "car guys" and then there are "gun guys". I'm a gun guy.So how's your skills on pop up targets? I know it's easy when you know where they are and you're ready. But if a robber supprise you and have you at gunpoint. How can you unholster your gun, pull it, aim and shoot him. Before he pulls the trigger and hits you? You can still like your guns and have them as hobby. But you have to keep them locked up safely, not carry them in the society, pass check ups etc. Just like car guys have to pay tax, insure their cars, get a license to drive them and so on. What's wrong with that?

Okay. Here's your problem (which in my opinion is weird for an INTJ). You're talking about what could be rather than what is. As an INFJ, that should be my domain. lolWhy is it? It's an intuitive trait you know. Only difference is that you use feeling as guidance while I use thinking.

I think you took that out of context. If communists came into the government, then it would be a gradual change. Sure, one day who knows. But in this country the system allows change to be more gradual and the chances of a coup are very unlikely.They don't have to be voted you know. If they're many and armed they'll defend themselves against the "wrong doers". You can't really assume everybody thinks like you or use the same "common sense" as you.

The government is more powerful, unfortunately. They have the monopoly on violence. So that means we should give up our rights completely? Psychologically, I would at least like to think I could fight back, even though I'd probably lose.I don't give up my rights. Yes the goverment is the body for violence. As we vote about these things. If they're bad, they won't be any goverment anymore. If they're going to make anything drastic. It will have to go many years and re-elevtions to make huge difference/law changes. I don't think opionions should be expressed through rock throwing and gun rattling.
Then I know not every goverment have the tradition of fair trails or openness towards the public. But that's another subject.

Really? Ever read about the Ruby Ridge incident?Now I have.

Yeah, that scenario is pretty farfetched. I wouldn't say it could never happen, but I've never heard of it happening. If something like that happened, then if could be seen as a comparison to "friendly fire". Mistaken intentions and mistaken identity. And you want to blame the gun for it? Its the dumbass guy who shot you. He should have had better judgement. Ok, so say he didn't have a gun, but rather something else (i.e. a knife, etc.). What's the stop him from walking up to you and stabbing you? I'm sorry, but enough with the scenarios. They're not getting us anywhere.No it's not the guns fault. Guns should be protect from dumbasses. It's not the cars fault people crash, even if many people claim that. "When the tree suddently ran into me and my car". If he had I knife instead he couldn't get me before I was in my car again. Unless I ran the door bell and he opened. Still, with firearmes your distance of action is longer.
This is just as scary if the goverment or if a citizen does it. None of the should do it. Especially not citizens as they rarely can handle such situations properly. They certainly lack training and education on the subject.

They usually don't, though.That's another difference between our countries then.

If I didn't have a gun, my reaction would still be the same. I just would have to use another weapon or tool of some sort. The outcome would be the same. So what's your point?Would the outcome be the same? This doesn't contradict your gun arguments then?
If a police man has an angry face and a raised club or stands calmly looking at the demonstrants. Which one is the most intimidating one? Which is the one making the adrenaline pumping? Which is the one makes the people feeling attacked? This is psychology. I think none of us would storm the robber. But everyone don't think that clear (or think at all for that matter).

True. But they're also not as accurate and don't have the knock down power of long guns.But you get knocked down alright if getting hit. Dead in the worst cases. All it takes is a slight move the your hand. With a rifle you have to move your whole body.

Yeah, but we haven't been talking about gun control in Jamaica. Please. The country that has been in the most debate has been the U.S. and you know it.No, well the US is a "gun nation" and we communicate in English. So is it strange there's an overweight on that side? No. Even if it's so there're plenty of arguments of other nations here. So if people claim false things about things I know about. Then why can't I say what I think about it.

WHAT? Yes it does. How can you even say that? Unless Super Man comes at me, I'm pretty sure a gun would help against a dude who's bigger than I am.I answered this above. It's not even, there're will be bad and good shooters. There're many things which have to be considered. Being clumsy etc slim your chances too.

Easy to say that, isn't it? Just like not everyone wants a gun, not everyone wants to be a cop.Then you make it an attractive job. Although you can't cut down on the quality.

Why? Everyone in my household knows about gun safety. My guns are kept clean and unloaded and I always treat them as they are loaded. Only a few of my guns are hanging on the wall. And those are mostly historical firearms (muzzle loaders and such). The rest are either in safes or in gun cases.As I wrote to Riverratt. You might be the best gun owner in the world and I don't think you're irresponsible. But I say without control and ragulations there will be people who aren't like you holding guns. Why let them?

In a firearm safety course they ask this question:

What is the best way to keep a firearm out of the hands of a child?

A) Keeping it locked up

B) EducationSounds like our written exam for driving license. But there're 65 of those questions, all they try to do is to set you up.

Honestly there are other choices but I couldn't remember them. These are the two that people always get stumped on. Do you know what the answer is? Its education. Because if you can teach a child about how to safely and effectively use a firearm, then for them, the mystery is gone. My dad taught me this way, and I didn't really ever get a firearm out by myself till I was in high school. Before that, it was always with my father's supervision. I'm not saying that guns shouldn't be kept locked up, per se. But its not the priority. Ammunition should be locked up, rather. And in our house, it is.Then you had a great father. I was out with my father at the firing range too as a kid. Never had an interest in guns or hunting. My father never forced me either, although he asked if I wanted to do the exams to become a hunter.
I would still lock the guns safely somewhere. As I wouldn't trust childern and their curiosity. Just like I would explain things about cars and traffic. But I won't give them the car keys.

I mean, if you don't want to have your guns out, thats fine. But don't criticize me and Riverratt for being able to have ours on display responsibly.If they're made useless it's a complete different deal. But having guns laying around could get more guns in circulation on the illegal market. Why take the heavy TV-set when there's an handgun laying around?

md21017md

05-22-2008, 02:00 PM

As we vote about these things. If they're bad, they won't be any goverment anymore.

So when are the leaders of Myanmar going to be voted out? How about Iran? How about north Korea?

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 44 seconds later...

If they're going to make anything drastic. It will have to go many years and re-elevtions to make huge difference/law changes. I don't think opionions should be expressed through rock throwing and gun rattling.

I would agree with you that a peacefull solution is far better than war. However, if war is the only option then one should be able to effect it. There are times when fighting IS the only option.

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 58 seconds later...

None of the should do it.

What people should do it not the question. No one is arguing that people shouldn't kill, steal, lie or rob banks - but people do all that any there is nothing you can do to stop it. People robbed banks (monestaries) long before there were guns. People killed long before guns. Getting rid of guns will not change that fact. You might wish it so, but it won't make it happen.

Especially not citizens as they rarely can handle such situations properly. They certainly lack training and education on the subject.

Really? The citizens uf the American colonies seemed to do a pretty damn good job against the better trained and equiped Britts. The Viet Cong did a pretty good job against the US, and the Iraqi's are doing a lot of damage. You keep making these totally unfounded and totally illogical statements.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 44 seconds later...

Originally Posted by Kas Ka
True. But they're also not as accurate and don't have the knock down power of long guns.

But you get knocked down alright if getting hit. Dead in the worst cases.

What are you saying?

All it takes is a slight move the your hand. With a rifle you have to move your whole body.

Have you ever actually shot a gun?

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 44 seconds later...

Originally Posted by Kas Ka
WHAT? Yes it does. How can you even say that? Unless Super Man comes at me, I'm pretty sure a gun would help against a dude who's bigger than I am.

I answered this above. It's not even, there're will be bad and good shooters. There're many things which have to be considered. Being clumsy etc slim your chances too.

But that was not your claim. You stated as understood my Kas and I, that a bigger man would not be effected by a gun wielded by a smaller

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 15 seconds later...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kas Ka
Why? Everyone in my household knows about gun safety. My guns are kept clean and unloaded and I always treat them as they are loaded. Only a few of my guns are hanging on the wall. And those are mostly historical firearms (muzzle loaders and such). The rest are either in safes or in gun cases.

As I wrote to Riverratt. You might be the best gun owner in the world and I don't think you're irresponsible. But I say without control and ragulations there will be people who aren't like you holding guns. Why let them?

Because you remove the deterance a gun provides against the government. If licensed and a test required - you don't agree with the government, are of the wrong race or what ever, then the government can deny you ownership. This allows only those that are of the "proper" group to have a gun.

Antares

05-23-2008, 04:16 AM

It is actually very relevent. I am assuming you grew up in a culture where your leaders do not want an armed populace - too easy to loose control. As a result, you leaders tout the "evile gun" and all are led to believe as such. You do not have a culture where people grow up hunting, where people grow up with the ability to protect them self as opposed to relying on the government. Where you grew up is very inportant in how your view the world, and this topic specifically.

Look, if you can't get impersonal and start debating, I'm not sure I want to do this with you. Stop making it about me.

And as for 'brainwashing', the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) never even MENTIONED guns to me. Nor did they make comments about it. Nope, never heard of it.

I have been discussing your points,, and never said you were underpriveledged

Basically, you are making this case against me based on the fact that I wasn't able to live in the US.

This may be true, but then this is not a formal debate.

Your point? That you should be able to break the rules of debate?

And I am sure Germany durring WW2 was considered more civilized at the time.

Yes, I'm sure of that too. But people move on, and morality moves on. What is considered civilized is not what it once were. Romans consider themselves civilised. What's that suppose to mean?

Ok, so you don't trust them, but you don't want any ability to defend against them?

This sentence is incoherent.

If you mean US media, not it is not. Our media is very intent - to keep it to guns - on having guns portrayed as evil. People are no longer held accountable for thier actions. "That evile gun killed those people, not the poor individual holding the gun, he's just a victim"

And why would your media do that? And I haven't seen a report like that.

Ok, right now Myanmar is allowing it's citizens to die. Right now people in Darfur are dying (100,000 at least) with no way to defend them self.

How far back is right now?

Within the past 20-30 years how many ethnic clensings have we had?

Bosnia
The Kurds in Iraq
Afganastan
Kurds in Turkey
Rwanda
Myans in Guatemala - 1970's to 1980's
Sri Lanka
Burma

It hasn't happened in America, has it? Americans have an entirely different system, and unless one is paranoid enough to suspect that, from the past actions of the US, the government doesn't respect the wishes of the citizens because they have guns; but because of who they are; the people. Just because something went wrong over there does it mean in more... erm... democratic countries, we should all take 'potential counter measures'?

How do YOU know?

Because even the form of government is different from what it was then.

Guns can not do anything without a human to operate them

Humans have killed each other just as effectively for thousands of years priot to the invention of guns as they have since

Guns are meerly a tool, and like any tool the end can be accomplished with that tool or something else improvised

A person can kill with a knife, or a club just as easily as a gun.

A club or knife is readily available, can be easily carried and concelled, arousing little suspision.

A gun can be traced, and if used in a crime the bullet can be positively lined to the victim and the gun

A knife or club can not be easily traced or linked to a crime or victim

An armed populace is a deterrant both to opression of the government, criminals and to any external government that would invade.

A gun give a smaller, or weaker (read a woman) an opportunity to defend against a larger attacker.

A gun give someone the ability to defend against multiple attackers.

Statistically (at least in the US), someone carrying a knife is far more likely to use it in a fight.

Statistically (Again in the US) most knife victims are stabbed and cut multiple times. Contray to what the press states, the fatality rate for stabbing victims is far higher due to multiple deep penetrating wounds - usually delivered accurately to the torso - most attackers stab the chest and stomach or back with a high likelyhood of hitting vital organs.

Gun is a tool that has been misused by irrational people and can be used to threaten or mug. As a citizen speaking for citizens, I wouldn't want someone to be able to pull a gun on me any time.

Just as easily? Hello? If a person is fifty meters away, or even five meters away, it isn't very realistic to think about stabbing them, is it? What about shooting them? Our goal is to decrease the number of deaths from potential murders, and without guns, at least they have a chance of escaping.

2/3 of murders happen with guns. They're just going to resort to the easier option if they're bent on killing someone.

As for tracing, what are you more interested in? Prevention or cure? Catching the murderer doesn't revive the victim, but we can keep them alive by all means possible.

A gun CAN give someone the means to protect themselves. But what if the attacker has a gun too?

Please provide some sources for the 'statistically...' information.

My point is that had China had weapons, even if it were only the local Chinese citizens - Japan would not have decimated your people as they did.

My further point is that the only thing that saved china any more damage was intervention by the US with GUNS. American guns saved Chinese lives.

We're talking about individual ownership of guns, not state ownership of guns or fighter planes. We don't anticipate something like the Rape of Nanking every day, but people encounter muggers, robbers and murderers everyday. I'm discussing a problem for 'right here', 'right now'. Not during events that are unlikely to happen again at all.

md21017md

05-23-2008, 07:05 AM

It is actually very relevent. I am assuming you grew up in a culture where your leaders do not want an armed populace - too easy to loose control. As a result, you leaders tout the "evile gun" and all are led to believe as such. You do not have a culture where people grow up hunting, where people grow up with the ability to protect them self as opposed to relying on the government. Where you grew up is very inportant in how your view the world, and this topic specifically.

Look, if you can't get impersonal and start debating, I'm not sure I want to do this with you. Stop making it about me.

And as for 'brainwashing', the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) never even MENTIONED guns to me. Nor did they make comments about it. Nope, never heard of it.

Don't you agree personal experiances and bias' play into a person's belief? It would be pretty hard to talk about snow to someone whow grew up in the desert and never saw snow. You might be able to explain that it is white and cold, but they will never truely understand it till the experiance it. My point is that you have not grown up in a culture where guns are redily available, so your experiance and opinions of guns is going to be different than had you grown up in a culture accepting of guns. It is not about you or an attack on you is is a reference to your experiance with the topic at hand.

This may be true, but then this is not a formal debate.

Your point? That you should be able to break the rules of debate?

md21017md added to this post, 0 minutes and 56 seconds later...

why not, this is an informal discussion on web forum

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 29 seconds later...

Ok, so you don't trust them, but you don't want any ability to defend against them?

This sentence is incoherent.

Then let me restate it. You do not trust your government but you also do not feel you need an ability or the means to defend your self from that government?

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 54 seconds later...

If you mean US media, not it is not. Our media is very intent - to keep it to guns - on having guns portrayed as evil. People are no longer held accountable for thier actions. "That evile gun killed those people, not the poor individual holding the gun, he's just a victim"

And why would your media do that? And I haven't seen a report like that.

It is a well known fact - look at the tone of the american press compared to the BBC for example. That aside, you only see gun crimes in the media, you never see any reports of a citizen using a gun for self defense, and on the rare ocassion you do it's on a back page and severly downplayed.

md21017md added to this post, 11 minutes and 44 seconds later...

It hasn't happened in America, has it?

Who is to say it won't? Government have a life span. If history is any indicator (remember those that do not study history are doomed to repeat it) all governments eventually crash. The average lifespan of a government is around 400 years - the US is 230 as an organized government, who knows what will happen in another 100 years.

Over the past 100 years our government took 230,000 US citizens, removed them from thier homes and placed them in prison - thier crime? They were Japanese durring WW2. Most lost everything they had - homes, business. We in effect had concentration camps. The only thing we didn't do was execute them, but who knows how close we could have been. What would have happened had Japan managed to invade California or Hawaii? Would the US have killed them for fear they would have helped? Who knows, but we did ruin thier lives out of fear.
In the 1960's students at Kent University staged a protest of the Vietnam war. National Guard troops tried to break it up and in the process killed 4 students.

Durring the 1930's 10,000 ex WW1 veterans set up a cam to protest the US government. They were supposed to be paid a bonus for service. The government was supposed to pay them a war bonus and refused. In the end US soldiers were ordered to break this up, several were killed and many wounded. The real problem here is that our constitution prohibits the use of US soldiers against our own people.

Since 9/11 our government has stripped away a lot of privacy right, right to illegal search, and rights to a public trial. If the government deems you a terror suspect they can pretty much do an end run around all our constitutional right, arrest you try you in private. None of this is legal, so the US government will do what it feels like when it wants to.

Americans have an entirely different system, and unless one is paranoid enough to suspect that, from the past actions of the US, the government doesn't respect the wishes of the citizens because they have guns; but because of who they are; the people. Just because something went wrong over there does it mean in more... erm... democratic countries, we should all take 'potential counter measures'?

md21017md added to this post, 7 minutes and 0 seconds later...

Gun is a tool that has been misused by irrational people and can be used to threaten or mug.

This is quite true, however, guns have also been used by people to defend them self.

There are a lot of things misused should we get rid of them all? People have used kitchen knives to rob or kill should we outlaw them? People misuse legitimate drugs, should we get rid of them?

In any soceity, you are going to have a portion of people that want to take advantage of the rest. Removing 1 tool will not change thier desire, they will just use another tool.

What do you say to the old man, a woman, a smaller man - how should they defend them self against a bigger or multiple attackers?

How do you defend your self if someone attacks you with a knife?

As a citizen speaking for citizens, I wouldn't want someone to be able to pull a gun on me any time.

Nor would I, but I also would not want someone to pull a knife on me either. I would not want some one to break in my house armed with knives or clubs and I with no way to defend my self.

What would you do if several people broke in your house armed with knives and/or clubs and were going to kill your family? What could you do against that?

What does a woman living alone do when someone breaks in her house to rape her and she is not allowed a gun to defen her self?

thod

05-23-2008, 07:22 AM

Don't you agree personal experiances and bias' play into a person's belief? It would be pretty hard to talk about snow to someone whow grew up in the desert and never saw snow. You might be able to explain that it is white and cold, but they will never truely understand it till the experiance it. My point is that you have not grown up in a culture where guns are redily available, so your experiance and opinions of guns is going to be different than had you grown up in a culture accepting of guns. It is not about you or an attack on you is is a reference to your experiance with the topic at hand.

Indeed. If I had grown up in a land of thuggery where being beaten and shot were the norm I too would desire to hold a gun to prevent that. However that has not been my experience. I have never woken up with a burglar in my bedroom, nor even been burgled. I have not been attacked since a child and even the most ardent gun supporter can see objections to giving children guns.

Then let me restate it. You do not trust your government but you also do not feel you need an ability or the means to defend your self from that government?

You having a gun will not protect you from the government. They will come in and arrest you with a team of professionals if they so desire. Your gun offers little defense against the SWAT team.

This is in fact desirable. We want the police to be able to get the bad guys, who will be armed. You may be defined as a bad guy too, even if you feel what you do is right. You, as an individual, are not qualified to make that decision. It is the other men around you, the community, that decide if you are a danger and must be arrested. Every single loon out there thinks that what he does is justified.

Your having a gun does not discourage the cops. They are not afraid, the do what they do because they are the good guys and you are the bad guy. They are crusaders working to make the world a better place. When a member of your family has been taken by the bad guys, then you too will become a crusader.

We have established that an individual cannot prevail alone, so what about groups of people owning guns to prevent government repression then, so called militias. These present more resistance since the governments advantage of numbers is equaled. Certainly some groups such as drug gangs still need to be taken out by superior numbers and firepower. We can assume that this militia is numerous and has populour support.

At this point we have nobody taking out the bad guys, the police cannot come in and get them and so the task falls to the militia itself. These groups will have different views on what constitutes a bad guy leading to seeming injustice. In effect you have a series of mini states each ruled by a warlord. This is exactly what happens in armed societies such as Afghanistan and no central control exist. These militias are rarely democratic. They owe there existence to the force of the gun. They will rule with their own advantage in mind.

All you do is replace one tyrant with another. The alternative being anarchy with bad guys roaming free. You see this is the US ghettos creating no go areas for the police. They are not ideal democrocies they are run by street gangs on the principle of might is right for their own advantage.

It is a well known fact - look at the tone of the american press compared to the BBC for example. That aside, you only see gun crimes in the media, you never see any reports of a citizen using a gun for self defense, and on the rare ocassion you do it's on a back page and severly downplayed.

Because in the UK guns are hard to obtain. We all know that organized crime lords can get them, but street punks cannot. Thus gun crime by such individuals indicates a flaw in controls that has allowed the street punk to obtain a gun.

I may be mugged by a knife man, but never have been. Yet the mugger knows I am unarmed and he has no need to kill me. After he has my wallet, I can report the crime, if I see him again, I can contact police etc. They will probably have his face from CCTV etc.

I do not wish to punish people who try to mug me. I wish to escape unharmed. This difference in objective affects if you would want to carry a gun yourself. The mugger does not wish to harm me, his crime is not sadistic it is economic. He will take my wallet and leave, only if I am a threat to him will he harm me.

md21017md

05-23-2008, 08:05 AM

Just as easily? Hello? If a person is fifty meters away, or even five meters away,

True, but then a good majority of murders happen at close range. Pretty damn hard to rob someone from 50 meters away isn't it? Most people shot in a robbery are shot within arms reach or so. Not to mention, very few people - without practice - can hit a person at 50 meters.

it isn't very realistic to think about stabbing them, is it?

Not at all, a gun used in a robery is more often used to scare and intimidate. yes sometimes they shoot. A knife is less threatening and I think used in a robbery or attack, you are more likely to be stabbed as a supprise attack. In the US, if a person is carrying a knife into a fight - compared to carrying a gun into a fight (or robbery) you are statistically more likely to be cut or stabbed.

What about shooting them? Our goal is to decrease the number of deaths from potential murders, and without guns, at least they have a chance of escaping.

What about shooting them? If a person wants to kill another and a gun is not available the killer will use another tool.

You are talking about changing mans heart but taking away a tool. When have we as a species ever let a minor inconvenience like lack of a tool stop us from accomplishing our goal?

By taking away guns from citizens you remove the opportunity of law abiding people to defend them self. There would be many people dead that legally defended them self or another. You also remove the deterrant effect a gun has. In a country that does not allow guns, you can freely attack anyone or break into any house without fear of the victim resisting. Yes you have police, but most of the time they get there after the fact.

What about disasters, most people tend to panic and loose thier minds in the midst how a disaster, there is no police presence for a time period so one is thier own savior.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is a good example. The guy in the truck is named Reginald Denny. Durring a riot he was pulled from his truck and beaten close to death by several black guys - simply because he was a white guy. He had no ability to defend him self against severl people but had he a gun in his hand who knows. Sure he might have shot them, at the sight of the gun they might more likely have backed off. This is the nature of deterance and these incidents - a gun used but not fired - happen all the time but are never reported in the press.

md21017md added to this post, 5 minutes and 20 seconds later...

2/3 of murders happen with guns. They're just going to resort to the easier option if they're bent on killing someone.

In what country?

This chart for 2006 looks to me like guns are a small portion of the weapons used

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 4 seconds later...

As for tracing, what are you more interested in? Prevention or cure?

Prevention would of course be prefered, but the reality is that the police stop very few crimes as they are happening. A vast majority of the time the police are involved to catch the criminal after the fact. The beeter able they are to do so also provides a deterrant. One is more likely to commit a crime as they are more reasonably assure they will not get caught.

Catching the murderer doesn't revive the victim, but we can keep them alive by all means possible.

Of course it doesn't, but by knowing you will get caught you are less likely to commit a crime.

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 1 seconds later...

A gun CAN give someone the means to protect themselves. But what if the attacker has a gun too?

Valid point, but the criminal that wants a gun will always get one - would you rather face him unarmed or at least have a chance. Again, do you understand the concept of deterrance? The US and the USSR both had nukes - why did neither side use them during the cold war? Both sides came close to pushing the button, why didn't they - because they knew that while they might destroy the enemy, they would also be destroyed. Detant works at all levels. If you have a knife and I a knife I am less likely to attack you than if I know you do not have a knife. A gun - being a tool - is no different.

md21017md added to this post, 7 minutes and 47 seconds later...

We're talking about individual ownership of guns, not state ownership of guns or fighter planes.

I too am talking about individual ownership. If another country was able to invade the US, not only would they have to face our military, but they would also have to face ever person with a gun. My point is that had the 200-300,000 people in Nanking had a gun, the Japanese may not have taken the city, or they at least would have paid a higher price.

We don't anticipate something like the Rape of Nanking every day, but people encounter muggers, robbers and murderers everyday.

So you are saying a "nanking one every 100 years (300,000) people being raped and killed is acceptable vs a couple thousand a year?

Problem is it does happen everyday or at least every few years. I will state it again - more people have been killed by thier (or an invading) government than in crimes. Those killed in crimes by gun - if guns were not allowed a vast majority would still be killed, just by another means. In addition you'd have more people killed - people that were able to stay alive because of a gun (used in self defense) as well as additional attacks by criminals that would then know citizens could not own a gun.

I'm discussing a problem for 'right here', 'right now'. Not during events that are unlikely to happen again at all.

I was discussing right here right now as well. Darfur is right here right now, rwanda was not all that long ago.

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 21 seconds later...

Indeed. If I had grown up in a land of thuggery where being beaten and shot were the norm I too would desire to hold a gun to prevent that. However that has not been my experience. I have never woken up with a burglar in my bedroom, nor even been burgled. I have not been attacked since a child and even the most ardent gun supporter can see objections to giving children guns.

Neither have I, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If I remember you live in the UK. Your people can not for the most part own a gun right? You still have rapes? Robberies? Murders? breakins?

Think about this logically - Johnny wants to kill bobby. Do you think he's going to say "Damn I wish I could kill that SOB, but hell I can't get a gun, all I have is this useless knife"

If someone wants to kill another, and lack of a gun will not stop them.

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 2 seconds later...

You having a gun will not protect you from the government. They will come in and arrest you with a team of professionals if they so desire. Your gun offers little defense against the SWAT team.

As an individual yes, but what would happen if the US or any country with an armed populace) tried to round up all members of a certain race or religon (as hitler did). In these countries around the world where the government has been able to freely round op and kill segmens of the population - they would have a harder time with an armed populace if they could do it at all.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 53 seconds later...

This is in fact desirable. We want the police to be able to get the bad guys, who will be armed. You may be defined as a bad guy too, even if you feel what you do is right. You, as an individual, are not qualified to make that decision. It is the other men around you, the community, that decide if you are a danger and must be arrested. Every single loon out there thinks that what he does is justified.

That is not my arguement. What if the government decides that because you are catholic or Japanese you are a burden or what ever and decides to kill lall member of that group. What if the US government out of fear decided to execute all Middle easterners in the US? That is the detant I am talking of. Maybe it's not likely in the US, but who knows, at one time we imprisoned 230,000 japanese citizens just because they were Japanese.

md21017md added to this post, 0 minutes and 50 seconds later...

Your having a gun does not discourage the cops. They are not afraid, the do what they do because they are the good guys and you are the bad guy. They are crusaders working to make the world a better place. When a member of your family has been taken by the bad guys, then you too will become a crusader.

Me no, but 100,000 me's - yes.

md21017md added to this post, 3 minutes and 53 seconds later...

We have established that an individual cannot prevail alone, so what about groups of people owning guns to prevent government repression then, so called militias. These present more resistance since the governments advantage of numbers is equaled. Certainly some groups such as drug gangs still need to be taken out by superior numbers and firepower. We can assume that this militia is numerous and has populous support.

A militia is generaly larger than any standing military. In the US, if you took every cop and every soldier, they'd still be outnumbered.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 48 seconds later...

At this point we nobody taking out the bad guys, the police cannot come in and get them and so the task falls to the militia itself. These groups will have different views on what constitutes a bad guy leading to seeming injustice. In effect you have a series of mini states each ruled by a warlord. This is exactly what happens in armed societies such as Afghanistan and no central control exist. These militias are rarely democratic. They owe there existence to the force of the gun. They will rule with their own advantage in mind.

So it's better to allow the central government to systematically kill off whom ever it pleases? As I've stated and shown, governments have killed far more citizens than any criminal activity. Again, I am not talking war, but ethnic or political clensing. 100,000,000 over the past 100 years.

md21017md added to this post, 5 minutes and 33 seconds later...

Because in the UK guns are hard to obtain. We all know that organized crime lords can get them, but street punks cannot. Thus gun crime by such individuals indicates a flaw in controls that has allowed the street punk to obtain a gun.

But you still have crime? You still have murders don't you? You still have robberies? One of the biggest differences is that you have legalized drugs. A vast majority of the murders in the US are drug related. I would reason that if we stopped this useless drug war, our crime rate would be on par with the UK and the rest of Europe.

I may be mugged by a knife man, but never have been.

And I have never been mugged with a gun

Yet the mugger knows I am unarmed and he has no need to kill me.

No one has a need to kill someone in a robbery

After he has my wallet, I can report the crime, if I see him again, I can contact police etc. They will probably have his face from CCTV etc.

I don't want to live in a soceity where my every move is tracked and monitored. Freedom has a price. If you want to live like that so be it, but I and most Americans do not - most of us value our freedom.

Kas Ka

05-23-2008, 12:13 PM

So how's your skills on pop up targets? I know it's easy when you know where they are and you're ready.

There are styles of target shooting where you have to walk through a course and don't know where the targets will pop up. You are graded on speed and accuracy.

Now I have.

Wait. Did you mean just reading my mention of it, or did you actually read about it? lol

If he had I knife instead he couldn't get me before I was in my car again. Unless I ran the door bell and he opened. Still, with firearmes your distance of action is longer.

For some reason I pictured you talking to the old man from the car. Being outside your car would be even worse!!! lol

Especially not citizens as they rarely can handle such situations properly. They certainly lack training and education on the subject.

Well here's one thing I'll agree with you on. Education. I think everyone should be educated in how to safely and effectively use firearms. And for handguns, its required. But it isn't for long guns in this country.

Would the outcome be the same? This doesn't contradict your gun arguments then?

As far as me attacking him, yes. As far as a contradiction, no.

I think none of us would storm the robber. But everyone don't think that clear (or think at all for that matter).

See, I don't know why attacking him would be not thinking clear. Why would I let someone take something from me? I couldn't do that. It isn't right to just stand there. I mean, be smart about it. But there is nothing wrong with taking a stand.

With a rifle you have to move your whole body.

Not if its sawed off.

Then you make it an attractive job. Although you can't cut down on the quality.

Hey, I am attracted to it. Unfortunately it doesn't pay anything. I mean, for me, that's fine. But for others it may be a problem.

But I say without control and ragulations there will be people who aren't like you holding guns. Why let them?

Well, we do have regulations already. But anymore in my opinion would be an infringement on civil rights. And that I just can't tolerate.

As I wouldn't trust childern and their curiosity. Just like I would explain things about cars and traffic. But I won't give them the car keys.

Yeah, but no one locks up the car keys.

If they're made useless it's a complete different deal. But having guns laying around could get more guns in circulation on the illegal market. Why take the heavy TV-set when there's an handgun laying around?

I don't think it would be to the point where it would make a real difference. One of those situations that could happen but usually won't.

Dreamer

05-23-2008, 01:05 PM

Indeed. If I had grown up in a land of thuggery where being beaten and shot were the norm I too would desire to hold a gun to prevent that. However that has not been my experience. I have never woken up with a burglar in my bedroom, nor even been burgled. I have not been attacked since a child and even the most ardent gun supporter can see objections to giving children guns.
Okay,so therefore since you have never been mugged,you can guarantee that you will never be mugged,that I will never be mugged, that my friend will never be mugged,etc.

Where did you buy your crystal ball? I want one too.

You having a gun will not protect you from the government. They will come in and arrest you with a team of professionals if they so desire. Your gun offers little defense against the SWAT team.
You're probably very stupid if you desire to hold a house versus a SWAT team(or that is the only alternative you can think of).

If,if armed insurgency against the government is justified(and I am in no way saying that it is in the current climate), the last thing I would want to do is to wait for a SWAT team to storm my house, with me stupidly barricading myself in it.

Want to see examples where insurgents have held against government forces? Vietnam,Iraq, China,etc.

This is in fact desirable. We want the police to be able to get the bad guys, who will be armed.

The government has the definite advantage of having enormous material ressources, if the government cannot figure out how to take out a homie with an AK-47, it's their problem and I'd say they are fairly incompetent if they can't with the amount of ressources they have.

Crime will not be a problem. Criminals are divided,they lack esprit de corps. I expect a SWAT team to be able to defeat any gangbanger.

You may be defined as a bad guy too, even if you feel what you do is right. You, as an individual, are not qualified to make that decision. It is the other men around you, the community, that decide if you are a danger and must be arrested. Every single loon out there thinks that what he does is justified.
I agree with this statement, the majority is always right.

The government never oversteps its boundaries, a democracy cannot be turned into something else because it has checks and balance,ever. People are all rational and their emotions cannot be manipulated by the medias or a scrupulous government official.

The men who tried standing up to Pol pot during the fall of Phnom penh were probably loons also, I mean,the majority of Cambodia was supporting the Khmer Rouge/Sihanouk alliance so...

Your having a gun does not discourage the cops. They are not afraid, the do what they do because they are the good guys and you are the bad guy. They are crusaders working to make the world a better place. When a member of your family has been taken by the bad guys, then you too will become a crusader.
You may have a way,way overinflated impressions of the Police.

I think that a small percentage of cops could be qualified as "crusaders" but IMHO if it is the same as in the military the large majority of them do believe what they are doing is right BUT the main reason they are here is that they see it as a stable job, not because they feel like killing every gangbanger in Los Angeles or New York.

I don't know the % of cops who have had a family member taken by the bad guys, but I think it is comparable to the civilian populace i.e. very low.

At this point we have nobody taking out the bad guys, the police cannot come in and get them and so the task falls to the militia itself. These groups will have different views on what constitutes a bad guy leading to seeming injustice.
Question: If there is a militia actually big and effective enough to hold off government forces in a country such as the USA,UK, France,etc, what has the government done to fuel such an insurgency?

And is it even feasible to disarm an insurgency?
In most counter-insurgency campaigns, the government has actually tried to arm the populace into resisting the guerillas and efforts to disarm the guerillas usually fail miserably.

Despite fairly "lax" gun laws in Canada and the US(you can buy a military rifle in large parts of North America, with the fully automatic function disabled), and the militias have so far been fairly dormant, and their impact upon society is virtually inexistent.

Those that were clearly whacky and not popularly supported(the neo-nazi types) got quickly disbanded by government forces or were kept under a tight leash.

If the government does not overstep its boundaries, none of the militia crap you are talking about would be happening.

Political stability goes a long way to keep your country from imploding.:thinking:

In effect you have a series of mini states each ruled by a warlord. This is exactly what happens in armed societies such as Afghanistan and no central control exist.
Ah,but then Afghan culture is a wee bit different then western culture. Afghanistan is not even ethnically homogeneous and have a warrior culture. It is probable that in the long run, a civil war in the US or any other western nation would lead to one group dominating the other. Political compromise would be much easier than in Afghanistan.

These militias are rarely democratic. They owe there existence to the force of the gun. They will rule with their own advantage in mind.
Where do you get this impression from?
My impressions was that most of the US militias where democratic in nature(although with arguably a very libertarian flavor).

Insurgencies, just like the army, are reflective of the political culture of the country from which they stem.

You see this is the US ghettos creating no go areas for the police. They are not ideal democrocies they are run by street gangs on the principle of might is right for their own advantage.
Ever taught about the idea that the problem might be the police itself? The average trooper is not properly equipped to take on a group of gangbangers with AK-47s.Solution: Arm and train your police correctly,sweep in, everything will be fine.

Antares

05-23-2008, 06:04 PM

Why not? Are you being serious? Debate rules are just so that people are absolutely logical and impersonal. If you don't want follow that, then I'm going to bow out of this until you do.

Ytterbium

05-24-2008, 11:27 AM

So when are the leaders of Myanmar going to be voted out? How about Iran? How about north Korea?Well it's just as likely they'll make guns legal again.

I would agree with you that a peacefull solution is far better than war. However, if war is the only option then one should be able to effect it. There are times when fighting IS the only option.It looks so. Palestinians vs Israelis for instance. But North Koreans seem like a highly brain washed population, so I don't know if they know how the rest of the world is.

What people should do it not the question. No one is arguing that people shouldn't kill, steal, lie or rob banks - but people do all that any there is nothing you can do to stop it. People robbed banks (monestaries) long before there were guns. People killed long before guns. Getting rid of guns will not change that fact. You might wish it so, but it won't make it happen.Yes they do it. That's why we don't going to arm people. This is where we differ. You say you need a gun to defend yourself. I say we don't need to. This goes on in a endless loop.

Really? The citizens uf the American colonies seemed to do a pretty damn good job against the better trained and equiped Britts. The Viet Cong did a pretty good job against the US, and the Iraqi's are doing a lot of damage. You keep making these totally unfounded and totally illogical statements.If there's warning texts and signs everywhere on American products. It doesn't make you wonder if you really can claim that?

What are you saying?If you get hit by a bullet I don't think you'll continue to do what you did. If unlucky killed instantly otherwise heavy bleeding and pain.

Have you ever actually shot a gun?Yes I have. Both rifles and handguns. With rifles you hold it with both hands. Otherwise the barrel will point down the ground. It's harder to balance and fire when holding it in one hand. Handguns such as pistols, revolvers and so on are possible to point everywhere with one hand. Handguns are however held with both hands while shooting, for stability.

But that was not your claim. You stated as understood my Kas and I, that a bigger man would not be effected by a gun wielded by a smallerNo, I think I know best what I claim. I say that you can't even things out with guns. As everybody aren't skilled with them. If you have muscles you're likely to punch harder. If you aim good you're more likely to hit the target. People are different, with or without guns

Because you remove the deterance a gun provides against the government. If licensed and a test required - you don't agree with the government, are of the wrong race or what ever, then the government can deny you ownership. This allows only those that are of the "proper" group to have a gun.Yes, but they still need to tell you why you can't own a gun. If the goverment tells you "You're blind and you can't own a sub-machine gun" It's a legitimate reason. Then you can whine as much you like, "It's just because I'm *insert something racial*"

There are styles of target shooting where you have to walk through a course and don't know where the targets will pop up. You are graded on speed and accuracy.I know. Have you tried it?

Wait. Did you mean just reading my mention of it, or did you actually read about it? lolI checked wikipedia.

For some reason I pictured you talking to the old man from the car. Being outside your car would be even worse!!! lolNo I thought of getting out of the vehicle to go and ask someone. Then the angry landowner spots me.

Well here's one thing I'll agree with you on. Education. I think everyone should be educated in how to safely and effectively use firearms. And for handguns, its required. But it isn't for long guns in this country.I think every citizen should be educated in that too. But when doing their military service. Handguns and other weapons have nothing to do in a peaceful society.

As far as me attacking him, yes. As far as a contradiction, no.I don't think the outcome would be the same with a gun. I think it's highly variable depending on the situation, act and "weapons" used.

See, I don't know why attacking him would be not thinking clear. Why would I let someone take something from me? I couldn't do that. It isn't right to just stand there. I mean, be smart about it. But there is nothing wrong with taking a stand.What I mean that it might be better to stand back. The adrenaline is pumping and the thief feels attacked he might do something very bad to you. Sometimes being defensive is more offensive or the opposite. All depending on the situation. Then you can wait out the perfect opportunity.

Not if its sawed off.That's true. But what people other than criminals saw them off?

Hey, I am attracted to it. Unfortunately it doesn't pay anything. I mean, for me, that's fine. But for others it may be a problem.Yes, then you get better benefits for people so they might consider it.

Well, we do have regulations already. But anymore in my opinion would be an infringement on civil rights. And that I just can't tolerate.I don't feel that way neither do my compatriots. I think it's something to get used to.

Yeah, but no one locks up the car keys.I don't either but then I drive cars that no one wants to steal. I'll guess some people lock up their car keys or atleast registration papers. If someone breaks into your house, I don't think you like if they took your car too.
As a little note is that cars are getting harder to nick. So you actually need the keys to steal it. So if you have a nice car, they might break into your home just because of that.
I don't actually know if that have happened, I'm just masterminding.

I don't think it would be to the point where it would make a real difference. One of those situations that could happen but usually won't.I don't know but it's certainly a possibility.

Pnutslayer

05-25-2008, 12:26 AM

Riverratt

05-25-2008, 07:33 AM

I am new to this forum and was surprised to find out that so many of us are for tighter gun control. INTJs are supposed to be logical and use reason and all that, right? The arguments (as far as I read) for more control here are largely idealogical (as they are anywhere). :thumbsdown: Some have brought up how many gun related deaths per year there are in the U.S., but without comparing this to anything it is a number used only for shock value.

As far as I can tell there is very little evidence for gun control in the U.S. I am a great believer in statistics. I don't have the time right now to dig up all the information I have read on the topic so I urge you all to do some digging of your own. This video shares some key points: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Also, for those of you who don't beleive in the right that I know the second amendment clearly gives me, look at what the authors thought about the topic. They thought that all citizens of the U.S. should be able to keep weapons to protect themselves from crime, if it is caused by the government or by an individual it does not matter.

Treat this topic like a research paper, not the regurgitation of urban folklore. Besides collecting, refurbishing, and shooting firearms is my greatest joy in life. Many don't understand the pleasure of simply blasting away at perhaps nothing more than a dusty hill (some people enjoy jogging:huh:). Would you want your greatest joy taken from you? :angry:

You know, you hit upon a very salient point, about INTJ's and this most unreasonable stance. I never thought INTJ's used emotions to come to conclusions, but on this subject I must be wrong...

OR...

They are not INTJ's.

I too enjoy collecting old Military Surplus rifles..

Really too many to list, and I can reiterate, no way in hell is some government "pinko" going to get them, I don't care what they say or do..The US Constitution gives me that right....

I am sick of this "people" that think, that just because the vast majority of criminals that get out of jail, WILL re-offend, that the best way to "stop the killing" is to take MY guns...

I have not hurt anyone with my guns...for almost the 40 years I have been on Earth...

I don't have anything more serious than a speeding ticket...

Now explain to me, just HOW, is taking away MY guns, and "those of folks just like me" going to make you safer?? PLEASE explain the LOGIC???

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

jesse

05-25-2008, 11:11 AM

As long as there is life on this planet, no matter what you do, there will never be a perfectly safe environment. Ban all the guns and weapons you want, people still have arms and legs, and of course, you can use rocks and even branches to hurt someone if so inclined.

Organized crime for instance has not been deterred by the banning of fire arms and other weapons. Instead, there probably are plenty of "entrepreneuers" who are making a killing distributing guns and weapons to the underground, as is the case with illegal drugs. Once you stop living within the law, you can do as you please.

One particular justification often said in conjunction with obssessive strict gun control is: let the police provide security. "I see. You're telling me I must put my life at the hands of law enforcement who will not always be able to help when needed." Law enforcement, however, does have an area where it excels: causing hassle when it is completely uncalled for. maybe they do it for fun, I wouldn't know.

jesse

05-25-2008, 11:33 AM

I am sick of this "people" that think, that just because the vast majority of criminals that get out of jail, WILL re-offend, that the best way to "stop the killing" is to take MY guns...

I have not hurt anyone with my guns...for almost the 40 years I have been on Earth...

I don't have anything more serious than a speeding ticket...

Now explain to me, just HOW, is taking away MY guns, and "those of folks just like me" going to make you safer?? PLEASE explain the LOGIC???

Convicts once released often remain at the bottom of the social ladder. I don't blame them for becoming frustrated at the stigma a stint in prison will give them in the eyes of others. This quickly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because they don't really have much waiting for them once they are out, IF they are even released these days. What will they do? Starve to death or join a gang which gives them a community and a way to feed themselves or stay out of everything and get rejected because they've done time in the big house?

Returning to the topic of gun control, I agree that it is an appalling suggestion to restrict gun control which makes it that much harder for the decent citizen to get a hold of a gun. To date it has failed in many jurisdictions, take for instance the school shooting in Finland last year. I don't know for sure, but they kept saying the gun was legally obtained and registered. It didn't stop the carnage from happening now did it?

Calling for tighter legislation on gun ownership might impress fat neurotic housewives and give those gun control advocates fuzzy feelings of accompishment, but I can see through the smoke screen. "think of the children" is not a valid reason.

Antares

05-26-2008, 01:58 AM

jesse

05-26-2008, 09:37 AM

Depending on the size and quantity of the rocks. If you're having a stoning fest, then yes, rocks can kill. But once the victim is out of range, your rocks can't even get to them. Without guns, the chances of the intended victim actually dying decreases.

Decreased yes, but not eliminated. Guns, and rocks come in different sizes and all of them have a range. If you can't reach someone, you'll find a way to capture, corner, or stall the person until you can reach your target.

Riverratt

05-26-2008, 11:57 AM

Decreased yes, but not eliminated. Guns, and rocks come in different sizes and all of them have a range. If you can't reach someone, you'll find a way to capture, corner, or stall the person until you can reach your target.

Also don't forget, according to the anti-gunners. When you are "sneak attacked" you wont have a chance to draw your sidearm...

That same rule applies to ALL, offensive weapons, rocks, sticks, bricks, and pipes..

You propose banning those as well???

after all, you want to "end the senseless killing"

If not, your a hypocrite.

Vivid

05-26-2008, 02:59 PM

I'm sure that as soon as guns disappear, we'll resort to using another weapon.
An utter waste of time.

blueback

05-26-2008, 09:06 PM

Antares

05-27-2008, 03:31 AM

Well, technically, a gun is just an advanced way of throwing a rock. We started with throwing a rock out of our hands, then we used slings, then we used bows (which have a rock on the end of a stick), then we used catapults, then we used cannons, then we used small shoulder-mounted cannons, then we used handguns (which have a rock packed in a tube with a propellant and a primer).

If you want to outlaw handguns then you are simply stepping backwards down the scale. Do I even have to explain why that won't work? Once technology exists it spreads, you can't stop it forever. Ideas aren't subject to resource limitation.

It's still long-range killing. But a gun is more effective. The title of this thread is: "Without guns, the world would be safer." It's a hypothetical proposal that we actually *can* remove guns. If we decrease the effectiveness of the killing, then technically the victim would have a better chance of escape.

md21017md

05-27-2008, 07:41 AM

Without guns, the chances of the intended victim actually dying decreases.

What are you basing this on?

Back to the original topic, Would the world be safer without guns?

Fist, what is the percentge of deaths caused by guns as compared to all other methods?

According to the world health Org, here are the top 10 causes of death - violent crime is no where to be seen. A majority of the causes below can be traced to people smoking (which kills more people than guns) and people eating shitty food.

If we really want to reduce deaths and have a major impact, then stop worrying about guns and outlaw tobacco. Tobacco kills far more people than a gun, and there is no legitimate need to smoke.

After that, outlaw cars, for they cause multiple times the number of deaths that guns do yearly.

Coronary heart disease 1.34 17.1
Stroke and other cerebrovascular diseases 0.77 9.8
Trachea, bronchus, lung cancers 0.46 5.8
Lower respiratory infections 0.34 4.3
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 0.3 3.9
Colon and rectum cancers 0.26 3.3
Alzheimer and other dementias 0.22 2.7
Diabetes mellitus 0.22 2.7
Breast cancer 0.15 1.9
Stomach cancer 0.14 1.8

md21017md

05-27-2008, 08:04 AM

It's done too. If we get back to cars. People are killed in car accidents. Which results in more polices on the roads, more research on safety and regulations both for drivers and car makers. The list goes on.

You are mixing apples and oranges. Car related deaths are accidents, people are not using the car as a weapon to kill another. Murder by gun is intentional. Removing the tool will not eliminate the desire.

md21017md added to this post, 12 minutes and 43 seconds later...

Originally Posted by md21017md
So when are the leaders of Myanmar going to be voted out? How about Iran? How about north Korea?

Well it's just as likely they'll make guns legal again.

Exactly my point - in the mean time far more people die because of thier leaders, and the people have no way to address the problem and can not leave.

Originally Posted by md21017md
What people should do it not the question. No one is arguing that people shouldn't kill, steal, lie or rob banks - but people do all that any there is nothing you can do to stop it. People robbed banks (monestaries) long before there were guns. People killed long before guns. Getting rid of guns will not change that fact. You might wish it so, but it won't make it happen.

Yes they do it. That's why we don't going to arm people. This is where we differ. You say you need a gun to defend yourself. I say we don't need to. This goes on in a endless loop.

It's an endless loop because you have a utopian view and seem to think removing the tool eliminates the desire of the person who would kill another.

Haw can you not understand that someone wanting to kill another person is going to do so regardless of the tool available?

Your arguement is that a gun allows one to kill at long range? This is true to a point, but most murderers do not practice enough to hit anyone at the ranges you are imagining.

In the US (according to a cop friend of mine) most police shoot outs happen at 25 feet (about 9 meters) or less. Police consider the danger circle for a knife to be 21' - the distance the average person can cover and stab a cop before he can pull a holstered gun aim and fire at the suspect. While you might imagine hollywood shootem up's where the bad guy is several hundred meters away, very few if any murders happen like that.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 26 seconds later...

Quote:
Originally Posted by md21017md
Really? The citizens uf the American colonies seemed to do a pretty damn good job against the better trained and equiped Britts. The Viet Cong did a pretty good job against the US, and the Iraqi's are doing a lot of damage. You keep making these totally unfounded and totally illogical statements.

If there's warning texts and signs everywhere on American products. It doesn't make you wonder if you really can claim that?

You can't compare the stupidity of a few to the soceity as a whole.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 49 seconds later...

If you get hit by a bullet I don't think you'll continue to do what you did. If unlucky killed instantly otherwise heavy bleeding and pain.

Depends on a lot of factors, what type of bullet, where you are hit, adrenelin. There are plenty of soldiers that faught on after being hit. There was a case in Florida, maybe 20 years ago. The FBI had a shoot out with 2 guys that were robbing banks. In the process one of the robbers was hit several times once in the aorta - he still lived long enough to kill 2 more FBI agents.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 27 seconds later...

Originally Posted by md21017md
Have you ever actually shot a gun?

Yes I have. Both rifles and handguns. With rifles you hold it with both hands. Otherwise the barrel will point down the ground. It's harder to balance and fire when holding it in one hand. Handguns such as pistols, revolvers and so on are possible to point everywhere with one hand. Handguns are however held with both hands while shooting, for stability.

So you are a hypocrite? You thing no one should have guns but you own them? Then why don't you follow your own advice and destroy your guns?

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 48 seconds later...

I think every citizen should be educated in that too. But when doing their military service. Handguns and other weapons have nothing to do in a peaceful society.

Then why do you own guns?

Riverratt

05-27-2008, 08:06 AM

It's still long-range killing. But a gun is more effective. The title of this thread is: "Without guns, the world would be safer." It's a hypothetical proposal that we actually *can* remove guns. If we decrease the effectiveness of the killing, then technically the victim would have a better chance of escape.

You do realize that guns are SIMPLE machines??

I have a friend, who's hobby, is making guns, from scratch....AT HIS HOME, in his simple small machine shop. He builds the barrels, stocks, and actions, he builds it all...from scratch.

How do you propose to control that?

Do you intend to limit the sales of common machine tools, and register scrap metal?? Make owning a stiff spring a capitol offence??

Also, the SIMPLEST repeating gun, to make at home...is the submachine gun...

A bit of good stainless exhaust pipe, a small bit of pipe for the barrel, a chunk of "bar stock" to make a bolt with, and you have all the major pieces.. the rest can be made out of spring steel and sheet metal.

Hell here is a parts list and specs for a .380 caliber sub machine gun.

Weapon Type - Machine Pistol
Action - Open bolt fully automatic
Calibre - .32/.380
Capacity - 16/14
OAL - 18 ¾
Barrel Length - 9"
Weight unloaded - 4lbs 9oz
Sights - None
Safety - None
Construction materials - Tube, Collars, Nuts and Bolts
Material availability - Good
Tools required - Hand only

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Photos of the gun can be found here..at this BRITISH website..

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Also, it is obvious, but some "non-knowing person" will say it....

We can ban the bullets!!!!

Ammunition is much easier to make at home, than the gun...I make my own ammunition at home now..

Their are, common household items that I can make Primers, and propellants out of, the brass shell casings are reusable, many MANY times over.

I can take common fish sinkers, and wheel weights, and make bullets all day long.

Antares

05-27-2008, 08:50 AM

Riverratt: I am aware of that little bit of technicality, thanks. Although I do not remember ever mentioning the complexity of guns. What are you responding to exactly? Can you stick to the subject please? Simple machines can make lethal weapons; surely you know that?

What are you basing this on?

Logic, I suppose. If I'm trapped in a tiny space, then whether someone is planning on stabbing me or shooting me makes little difference. But if I'm in open area, at least knives can't go very far. If I'm capable of running, I'm capable of escaping the knife.

Fist, what is the percentge of deaths caused by guns as compared to all other methods?

Please don't mention fists to me. I hardly consider that relevant.

And does it matter? I'm talking about whether it'll be easier for the victim to escape, even by a little, without than with guns.

If we really want to reduce deaths and have a major impact, then stop worrying about guns and outlaw tobacco. Tobacco kills far more people than a gun, and there is no legitimate need to smoke.

If we really want to reduce deaths and have a major impact, then stop worrying about domestic violence and outlaw tobacco. Yes. I can see where this is going.

After that, outlaw cars, for they cause multiple times the number of deaths that guns do yearly.

Except removing cars would bring the economy to a halt; would bring major inconveniences and tip the table on world cashflow. Removing guns won't.

md21017md

05-27-2008, 09:10 AM

What are you basing this on?

Logic, I suppose. If I'm trapped in a tiny space, then whether someone is planning on stabbing me or shooting me makes little difference. But if I'm in open area, at least knives can't go very far. If I'm capable of running, I'm capable of escaping the knife.

As I posted in another gun control thread - your vision of people shooting people at long range is hollywood. Most (in the US) police shoot outs happen at 25' or less. Think about it - most murders happen either during a robbery/rape or kidnapping in which case you need to be close - kind of hard to rob someone from 100 meters away. If in the case the person who is doing the killing just wants to kill the other, there is usually some mitigating reason - an arguement - in the case of the US quite often over drugs. Again, this is all stuff that happens in close proximity. There are very few people killed that were more than perhaps 10 meters at most - other than maybe accidental shootings - where the shooter aimed for 1 person and missed hitting someone else.

md21017md added to this post, 2 minutes and 20 seconds later...

Fist, what is the percentge of deaths caused by guns as compared to all other methods?

Please don't mention fists to me. I hardly consider that relevant.

And does it matter? I'm talking about whether it'll be easier for the victim to escape, even by a little, without than with guns.

Sorry missed the r, that should have been First

What does it matter? It matters a lot. Your arguement is that getting rid of guns would make the world safer (i.e., less people dying). My arguement is that death by guns constitutes a small percentage of deaths yearly compared to other causes.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 14 seconds later...

But if I'm in open area, at least knives can't go very far. If I'm capable of running, I'm capable of escaping the knife.

Not they don't but at the same time, I can easily walk up to you and stab you before you know what is happening. Most people that are stabbed report never seeing the knife - before or after the attack.

Antares

05-27-2008, 09:11 AM

They are not INTJ's.

So you're more INTJ. That's quite arrogant, isn't it? And condescending as well. If we don't think logically, we must be *gaspo* another type! I've noticed this a several times now. Judge the points of your opponents. Not their person.

Phalanx

05-27-2008, 09:14 AM

My grandfather always slept with a gun under his pillow. One night he woke up to find an intruder standing at the foot of his bed.

md21017md

05-27-2008, 09:16 AM

Except removing cars would bring the economy to a halt; would bring major inconveniences and tip the table on world cashflow. Removing guns won't.

except that it would be violating my constitutional right to own a gun.

The car issue may be a non issue with the price of gas as it is anyway.

My point to this was that yes there are murders in the world with guns, however, since a gun is a tool, not the cause (the cause being the human desire to end another's life)how is removing the tool going to eliminate the cause?

Explain to me how removing guns will make people stop killing? Humans have killed long before guns were invented and even today, even if only looking at murder guns are not the leading cause of death.

Second arguement, how is a smaller person supposed to protect him self against a larger one without the use of a gun?

How can a woman protect herself against a man without a gun?

How can a person protect them self against multiple attackers without a gun?

Finally, lets say guns are removed? How am I (or anyone) to defend against an attacker with a knife or a club?

md21017md

05-27-2008, 09:25 AM

I think he has a valid point. Tis is an INTJ forum, and INTJ's are supposed to be logic driven, yet most of the arguements for gun control touted on here are very much feeling based in the face of logic and cold hard facts.

It's hard to argue with someone who presents a 'don't confuse me with the facts I know how I feel" mentality - and there is a lot of that going on here.

Logically we can conclude the following

1. Guns do not CAUSE death.
2. Guns to not do anything without a human operator.
3. A human who posesses the desire to kill another can just as easily use another tool (weapon) to accomplish the task (kill the intended victim).
4. Removing guns will only force the would be killer to select another tool.
5. Statistically, more murders are committed with weapons other than guns (knives, clubs, bare hands)
6. Removing guns will only effect the law abiding citizen - the criminals will still get guns if they want them.
7. Removing guns means the criminal know for a fact that the law abiding victim will not posess a means of defense.

These are the logical points. Debate them away.

Ytterbium

05-27-2008, 10:41 AM

You are mixing apples and oranges. Car related deaths are accidents, people are not using the car as a weapon to kill another. Murder by gun is intentional. Removing the tool will not eliminate the desire.Not always. I don't know how many get killed unintentially by guns. But it sure happens. You don't have the intention of causing a crash with your car, but it happens anyway. Then there're people who use the cars to kill, themselves atleast.
Then you'll always have the desire still there. Why make it easy for them?

Exactly my point - in the mean time far more people die because of thier leaders, and the people have no way to address the problem and can not leave.What makes you think that these people will revolt? Do you think they know how the rest of the world looks like? Have they experienced anything else than their world?

It's an endless loop because you have a utopian view and seem to think removing the tool eliminates the desire of the person who would kill another.No and I don't know how many times I've written to you that's not the case.

Haw can you not understand that someone wanting to kill another person is going to do so regardless of the tool available?Ok, if we two sat down in a room. Suddently I pull a weapon and say I'm going to kill you. What weapon do you rather see that I pull on you? An automatic rifle, a hand gun, a knife, an axe, a fist, a rubber chicken or doing a kung fu move etc?

Your arguement is that a gun allows one to kill at long range? This is true to a point, but most murderers do not practice enough to hit anyone at the ranges you are imagining.What are the ranges I'm imaging? A half-way round the world? No I don't. Compare to a knife or a fist the handgun has a longer range. Even though the aim is bad the bullet can go far.

In the US (according to a cop friend of mine) most police shoot outs happen at 25 feet (about 9 meters) or less. Police consider the danger circle for a knife to be 21' - the distance the average person can cover and stab a cop before he can pull a holstered gun aim and fire at the suspect. While you might imagine hollywood shootem up's where the bad guy is several hundred meters away, very few if any murders happen like that.Ok logic. Why does it happen so close? Because the one on gunpoint thinks he have a chance. The one behind the gun knows too that the other one has a chance. Hence the tense and shots fired.
Although shoots can be fired from further distances. That's what I did while practicing (amongst other) and it's hard to hit.

You can't compare the stupidity of a few to the soceity as a whole.Why not? The goverment here had enough of people dying on the winter roads. Because they didn't use winter tyres. So they made it mandatory to use winter tyres, for everyone.
Even though I'm a "law abiding" citizen and a great driver(;)) I'll have to put winter tyres on my car. Right or wrong?

Depends on a lot of factors, what type of bullet, where you are hit, adrenelin. There are plenty of soldiers that faught on after being hit. There was a case in Florida, maybe 20 years ago. The FBI had a shoot out with 2 guys that were robbing banks. In the process one of the robbers was hit several times once in the aorta - he still lived long enough to kill 2 more FBI agents.Ofcourse there're all cases. No matter what most people die later, of bleeding probably.

So you are a hypocrite? You thing no one should have guns but you own them? Then why don't you follow your own advice and destroy your guns?I don't own any guns. I don't have anything against people having guns. What I want is that it should be regulated and that you can't buy just anything.
Just as I don't mind people owning cars. But they'll have to pass inspections and have been deemed adequate to use them and so on.

Then why do you own guns?Again I don't own any guns. Those guns I've used were owned by the state/goverment.

md21017md

05-27-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by md21017md
You are mixing apples and oranges. Car related deaths are accidents, people are not using the car as a weapon to kill another. Murder by gun is intentional. Removing the tool will not eliminate the desire.

Not always. I don't know how many get killed unintentially by guns.

People get killed accidentally by gun, but then people also slip and fall in the tub and die. The reality is - are enough people dying to justify removing guns? Or more correctly, would eliminating guns reduce deaths? I would argue that there would be a slight decrease (as I've stated before on this thread) decrease in accidental deaths, but that would be more than offset by an increase in violent crime - criminals would then know that law abiding citizens are unarmed.

But it sure happens. You don't have the intention of causing a crash with your car, but it happens anyway.

That is my point. Someone comitting murder is carrying out an intentional act. If he WANTS to kill someone and a gun is not available then he will resort to another weapon. Removing the tool has not changed his desire.

Then there're people who use the cars to kill, themselves atleast.
Then you'll always have the desire still there. Why make it easy for them?

I don't think you can use "a gun is easier" arguement. I think it's far easier to stab someone with a knife than shoot them. People miss shooting all the time, people rarely miss stabbing.

md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 31 seconds later...

Quote:
Originally Posted by md21017md
Exactly my point - in the mean time far more people die because of thier leaders, and the people have no way to address the problem and can not leave.

What makes you think that these people will revolt? Do you think they know how the rest of the world looks like? Have they experienced anything else than their world?

Maybe they won't but if you lived in someplace like Myanmar or Cambodia under Pol Pott, or if you were a Jew in Nazi German - wouldn't you like to have the option?

md21017md added to this post, 4 minutes and 13 seconds later...

Quote:
Originally Posted by md21017md
It's an endless loop because you have a utopian view and seem to think removing the tool eliminates the desire of the person who would kill another.

No and I don't know how many times I've written to you that's not the case.

Then you are contridicting your own arguement. You are saying guns have no place in soceity and we'd all be safer without them, but right here you are saying you agree that wouldn't be the case? So which is it?

Originally Posted by md21017md
Haw can you not understand that someone wanting to kill another person is going to do so regardless of the tool available?

Ok, if we two sat down in a room. Suddently I pull a weapon and say I'm going to kill you. What weapon do you rather see that I pull on you? An automatic rifle, a hand gun, a knife, an axe, a fist, a rubber