America! Fuck YEAH!

[Zeph]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

Supreme Court re-affirms the second amendment. I expect to see all these bullshit laws banning guns to be brought to court now and struck down.

[Apoc4lypse]

FUCK YEAH...

wait what are we so excited about...

E: oo... I'm sure the Colbert Report will have fun with this one...

tbh.. I hate guns, I hate real violence (video games are good), but tbh if we weren't aloud to have a "right to bear arms" the number of knives used in homicides would probably sky rocket. I can just imagine, some dude coming out of his house with a sword screaming "Get off my property, or I'll chop your dick off"

[Zeph]

tl;dr: The Supreme Court made a majority decision to say the government can not place a ban that would keep citizens from owning a firearm.

[Apoc4lypse]

tl;dr: The Supreme Court made a majority decision to say the government can not place a ban that would keep citizens from owning a firearm.

yeah I saw that... I just couldn't control my self, had to let it out before I actually read the article :O

[SnaFuBAR]

take THAT you gun control sissies.

[Ifafudafi]

THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS



I've never seen/heard of a case where anybody actually needed self-defensive firearms tbqh, but it's nice to know that the Supreme Court can at least put their foot down for something.

And yeah, I'm eagerly awaiting Colbert's response to this.

[Xetsuei]

Guns own.

[DrunkenSamus]

Xetsuei™;269140']Guns own.

If only douchebags didn't use them for drive-bys and murdering their families. :|

[Patrickssj6]

An amendment made by a bunch of stupid people roughly 250 years ago...and you people still dig it.

You should have heard how much European countries made fun of this. You people are downright pathetic, there is no other word for it.

I forgot that Europe has such a big crime rate because we don't have guns at home TO FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY AND TO PROTECT MY FAMILY AND PROPERTY!!! RAWR!!!

and you people called the Nazis patriotic...

[Apoc4lypse]

I'm uninformed... You guys can't own guns in Europe? Or what ever.

[Zeph]

I've never seen/heard of a case where anybody actually needed self-defensive firearms tbqh, but it's nice to know that the Supreme Court can at least put their foot down for something.

And yeah, I'm eagerly awaiting Colbert's response to this.

Probably because if someone tries to fuck you up and you pull a gun on them, they'll run away.


An amendment made by a bunch of stupid people roughly 250 years ago...and you people still dig it.

You should have heard how much European countries made fun of this. You people are downright pathetic, there is no other word for it.

I forgot that Europe has such a big crime rate because we don't have guns at home TO FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY AND TO PROTECT MY FAMILY AND PROPERTY!!! RAWR!!!

and you people called the Nazis patriotic...
I seem to recall seeing CCTV footage of people being stabbed on the streets in London and dying as the perps run off. I laugh at your country for keeping you in a situation where you cant avoid that. I'm thoroughly enjoying the comfort knowing if someone wants to fuck with me I dont have to be in arms reach to stop their aggression. I hope someone tries to stab you so you can understand this first hand.

The Nazi's were patriotic. That doesn't make what they did right. You have some major problems with your line of thought.

[n00b1n8R]

I've never had the need for a gun. I don't know anybody who has.

Discuss.

[nooBBooze]

I don't need a gun. I'm well hung :downs:

[cls]

As a a person with extreme socialist views, I think this as a good thing.


I've never had the need for a gun. I don't know anybody who has.

Discuss.

When you have a government that insist that its military use obsolete weapons like the M16/M4. Though I'm extremely biased against anything that uses direct impingement with the Desert Eagle being the loan exception.

[Amit]

As a a person with extreme socialist views, I think this as a good thing.



When you have a government that insist that its military use obsolete weapons like the M16/M4.

What? That's an incomplete sentence. Your other sentence doesn't have correct spelling either.

[rossmum]

hrf blurf guns cause murder guns are bad anyone who likes guns is murderer

Yeah.

No.

Nice to see they actually put their foot down for once so politicians who literally do not know a barrel shroud from a sling will be forced to stop making downright retarded gun laws which make absolutely no sense at all.

[DaneO'Roo]

Probably because if someone tries to fuck you up and you pull a gun on them, they'll run away.

Ahahhaahahah. Hilarious. That'll keep whos boss in check :)

I seem to recall seeing CCTV footage of people being stabbed on the streets in London and dying as the perps run off. I laugh at your country for keeping you in a situation where you cant avoid that.

I seem to recall some national televised footage of a maniac running through a college campus and murdering 36 people. We laugh at your country for keeping you in a situation where you can, but won't ever avoid that.

I'm thoroughly enjoying the comfort knowing if someone wants to fuck with me I dont have to be in arms reach to stop their aggression.

If everyone on earth kept a gun on their person to protect themselves, I'm fairly certain that thing's would turn fucked up real quick.

I hope someone tries to stab you so you can understand this first hand.

Uh, WHAT?

I'll raise you one.

I hope you and your classmates get shot so you can understand your countries stupidity first hand.

The Nazi's were patriotic. That doesn't make what they did right.

Irony up the ying yang.

You have some major problems with your line of thought.


.

[cls]

What? That's an incomplete sentence. Your other sentence doesn't have correct spelling either.

I have these small Asian eyes, so excuse me for being too lazy to put on my glasses when I'm on this here internet.

[Mass]

FUCK.

Why should we be "fuck yeah" 'ing America? It's not even America, it's a bunch of fools who don't even properly represent the populous. And this great success? They've made possible the repealing of gun bans in major cities? They've found a new way to raise fatal violent crime rates?

I could maybe have a quark's worth of sympathy were it not for the fact that this only affects major cities such as my own lovely Chicago which just recently lowered its homicide rate to something hovering around six-hundred a year. There's a reason the city banned these things. In this wonderful town, these blessed inventions fulfill their role, oh so well.

Since this decision only affects said metropolises and the Capitol, my only current hope is that: The new, gun-friendly Capitol will, in a well-armed, ear-ringing flash of true patriotic glory, rid itself of this current Court and replace the judges with someone who's intellect does, in fact, surpass that of a shovel.

[TeeKup]

This thread is going to get out of control real fast if you guys don't keep calm. Considering this topic, please think your posts out thoroughly.

[DaneO'Roo]

All I'm saying is, if you want to protect yourself, why can't you just carry a knife? A knife can't boomerang itself around a school and kill 30 odd people. If you feel that you need a gun to dispatch multiple enemies at once, then you really need to exit your fucking country.

[p0lar_bear]

The thing is, gun laws don't fucking work. If someone wants to get their hands on an assault weapon and go on a killing spree, they will regardless of what Mayor Hurfendurf says.

If nobody in a city is allowed to legally own a firearm, what if someone shows up at a park with a high powered rifle and goes nuts? The citizens are defenseless at any range, and by the time to cops show up, there's too many people wounded or dead.

Replay that scenario, except in a city that allows citizens to carry a handgun. Guy goes shooting, someone whips out a handgun and either incapacitates or kills the perp in self-defense. Less people are injured and the problem is under control.

If guns are allowed to be carried by anyone, anytime, anywhere, then people are going to be less encouraged to do stupid shit.

[Zeph]

I'm sorry, but what's keeping people with guns from running around and doing shit elsewhere in the world?


Why should we be "fuck yeah" 'ing America?
Involve yourself more with satirical movie culture.


I could maybe have a quark's worth of sympathy were it not for the fact that this only affects major cities such as my own lovely Chicago which just recently lowered its homicide rate to something hovering around six-hundred a year. There's a reason the city banned these things. In this wonderful town, these blessed inventions fulfill their role, oh so well.
If someone wants to kill someone, they'll find some way to do so. Your lovely Chicago had a ban in place, but that didn't solve the problem.

Tell me, if firearms were magically banned and no one possessed them anymore would swords, arrows, and other weapons of old be up for a ban? I dont know if you guys have been paying attention to history but we have always been killing one another. The only change has been the progression from using bare hands up the technology line to what we have today.

[rossmum]

The thing is, gun laws don't fucking work. If someone wants to get their hands on an assault weapon and go on a killing spree, they will regardless of what Mayor Hurfendurf says.

If nobody in a city is allowed to legally own a firearm, what if someone shows up at a park with a high powered rifle and goes nuts? The citizens are defenseless at any range, and by the time to cops show up, there's too many people wounded or dead.

Replay that scenario, except in a city that allows citizens to carry a handgun. Guy goes shooting, someone whips out a handgun and either incapacitates or kills the perp in self-defense. Less people are injured and the problem is under control.

If guns are allowed to be carried by anyone, anytime, anywhere, then people are going to be less encouraged to do stupid shit.
THIS.

Guys, you can blather about fucking violent crime rates all you damn well want, but have you actually paid the slightest iota of attention to the fatal bloody flaw behind gun 'control'? It assumes that you're going to follow the goddamn law in the first place. Now last time I checked, criminals generally don't follow the law, and if a violent psychopath wants a gun, he is going to fucking get one no matter how many senseless laws tell him it's wrong and bad and he shouldn't do it. What the fuck do you think would happen if we somehow made every gun on the planet to disappear? Would you ban all knives, blades, tools, and sharpened sticks too? Or sporting goods? You lot don't seem able to grasp the simple fucking concept that guns are only the preferred method because they're the easiest to use. If you take them away, criminals will just revert back to knives. It's common sense, use it.

e:

beaten by Zeph

[Zeph]

http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v127/147/12/698400188/n698400188_585107_9622.jpg

I've used this image on my ftp before, but I cant seem to find it right now. Pulled from a facebook group ftm.

[Mass]

I'm sorry, but what's keeping people with guns from running around and doing shit elsewhere in the world?
They have fewer guns, you know, because they're not legally sold as a commodity there.

Involve yourself more with satirical movie culture.
Involve yourself more with logic. Why would you bring up a movie that made fun of gun-toting Americans and their plentiful and various stupidities in a thread celebrating the victory of gun-toting Americans (and their plentiful and various stupidities.)

If someone wants to kill someone, they'll find some way to do so. Your lovely Chicago had a ban in place, but that didn't solve the problem.
An answer isn't absolutely impractical if it does not completely and utterly solve a problem. I know you are aware that almost 99% of gun crime in Chicago doesn't involve legally owned weapons fired by their owners. However, I don't think you understand the principle of people buying weapons legally are very capable of selling them illegally. Guns aren't brought in to gang members in freight trains, The GD's certainly didn't seem capable of operating a weapons plant in my last encounter, and, well, where do you think these weapons come from? Maybe there are major arms shipments in the U.S. why--that would seem to indicate a need for tighter gun control, now wouldn't it.

Tell me, if firearms were magically banned and no one possessed them anymore would swords, arrows, and other weapons of old be up for a ban? I dont know if you guys have been paying attention to history but we have always been killing one another. The only change has been the progression from using bare hands up the technology line to what we have today.
I'd like to see someone walk on to a college campus and kill more than 20 people with a bow and arrow. I'd be very interested to see sword mass production facilities. I'd be arguing for sword control the day they went into business.


And to polar, if the person with the assault weapon in the park has the intention of killing himself afterward, and that is quite likely, legal guns could make his whole enterprise quite easy.

[rossmum]

Let's restrict butterknives while we're at it, they can hurt people.

And nails.

And screws.

And hammers.

And sporting equipment.

And electrical devices.

And vehicles.

logic is where

:downs:

All in circulation in gargantuan numbers, all incredibly easy to obtain, all equally capable of harming other humans. Blaming violent crime on guns is no better than blaming murder on violent games. It's downright ignorant.

[Mass]

logic is where

It's in the "things built to kill people will kill people" department at the moment.

I noticed all devices on your list possess a practical purpose, I don't think swords are among those.

[Skyline]

If nobody in a city is allowed to legally own a firearm, what if someone shows up at a park with a high powered rifle and goes nuts? The citizens are defenseless at any range, and by the time to cops show up, there's too many people wounded or dead.

Replay that scenario, except in a city that allows citizens to carry a handgun. Guy goes shooting, someone whips out a handgun and either incapacitates or kills the perp in self-defense. Less people are injured and the problem is under control.


If both people had equal experience with a gun. Who would win? A high powered rifle or a handgun.

Replay that scenario. Someone pulls out their handgun and goes shooting at the person who went 'nuts'. Someone else pulls their handgun out and then starts shooting at the guy who just pulled his out, thinking he started shooting.

[rossmum]

It's in the "things built to kill people will kill people" department at the moment.

I noticed all devices on your list possess a practical purpose, I don't think swords are among those.
Yeah because we all know guns are totally incapable of being used for anything other than killing fellow human beings, right? I mean, they certainly can't be used for sport, to gather food, to put dying livestock out of their misery, to fend off bears or wolves, to kill vermin, or to blow the crap out of cans for fun, right? And they can't be used to create artificial and controlled avalanches either.

Oh, wait. They can.

Try again.

[Zeph]

Involve yourself more with satirical movie culture.
Involve yourself more with logic. Why would you bring up a movie that made fun of gun-toting Americans and their plentiful and various stupidities in a thread celebrating the victory of gun-toting Americans (and their plentiful and various stupidities.)
Why dont you look up the word satire? Do you really think I made this thread believing there wouldn't be any debate or hot tempers? That phrase perfectly illustrates what I expected this thread to be. People have different viewpoints and each believe the other is wrong.


If both people had equal experience with a gun. Who would win? A high powered rifle or a handgun.

Whoever had their sight picture the best and pulled the trigger best. Experience doesn't eliminate the fact you've got to get the gun sighted correctly and pull the trigger properly each time. Even so, what do you mean by win? Target shooting or anti-personnel? Either way, they're still just as deadly as one another.


Replay that scenario. Someone pulls out their handgun and goes shooting at the person who went 'nuts'. Someone else pulls their handgun out and then starts shooting at the guy who just pulled his out, thinking he started shooting.

Rewind that replayed scenario. Someone wasn't paying much attention at their carrying permit class. I'll give you a hint, it's the person who doesn't know what the hell is going on.


I noticed all devices on your list possess a practical purpose, I don't think swords are among those.
It's a knife.


And to polar, if the person with the assault weapon in the park has the intention of killing himself afterward, and that is quite likely, legal guns could make his whole enterprise quite easy.
So could the internet when he decides he wants to build a bomb instead.

[Ifafudafi]

*sigh*

YO, BITCHES! MR. T SAYS: "STFU, FOO'!"

Let's address everybody's points that I've seen here.

1. People are going to find ways to kill people, gun regulations or not.
This is true.

2. People or going to find ways to shoot people, gun regulations or not.
This is a bit different. While proper regulation laws do help prevent the everyday would-be rampager from obtaining a shiny deathcannon, they're not perfect and people will find ways to arm themselves regardless. Still, that's like removing a spam-filter because it doesn't filter everything, just most of it. While you could always try to find a 100% efficient one, a 80% efficient one is still better than nothing.

3. Europe > America.
No.

4. America > Europe.
No.


I'd also like to point out that the 2nd Amendment states that people are allowed to bear arms in order to ensure a well-functioning militia, or something along those lines. Last time I checked, we had the U.S. Army, so I don't think a militia is quite necessary.
On the other hand, there's this self-defense issue, which has already been talked to death.

So it's basically a which-is-worse scenario. Do we keep gunmen off the streets but leave our citizens with inadequate defenses, or let the citizens protect themselves but make it easier to cause shooting rampages?


EDIT: Team America was awesome, and I believe the theme song perfectly describes the current state of this topic. From both sides.

[rossmum]

Problem is, what if the Army sides with the Gov't. when it is time for a forceful replacement? Hence the need for a militia.

[Mass]

Yeah because we all know guns are totally incapable of being used for anything other than killing fellow human beings, right? I mean, they certainly can't be used for sport, to gather food, to put dying livestock out of their misery, to fend off bears or wolves, to kill vermin, or to blow the crap out of cans for fun, right? And they can't be used to create artificial and controlled avalanches either.

Oh, wait. They can.

Try again.
Yes, because we do all of these things in major American cities, and we particularly do these things with glocks in said cities, which is where these gun laws we're talking about apply.

Try again.

Oh, and Zeph, I'm sorry. How could I be so silly? I cut my bread with my saber all the time.

[rossmum]

Oh right, sorry, I wasn't aware gang members made frequent use of MG42s. I wasn't aware there were gangs in the more rural areas.

Unless I'm missing something very important here, gun laws are seldom specific to any one city, and in any case, you honestly think removing guns is going to prevent gang crime or cut the violent crime rate? Anything can be used as a damn weapon. Guns are just a fucking scapegoat because few people actually bother to take the time to learn about them.

[PenGuin1362]

Supreme Court re-affirms the second amendment. I expect to see all these bullshit laws banning guns to be brought to court now and struck down.
win

also thread is tl;dr but all i have to say is, when they banned liquor, people still found ways of smuggling it in. if you ban fire arms, criminals will still find ways to smuggle firearms and be armed but the helpless innocent civilians will not be....hm....that seems like a brilliant idea. Also, <3 walther p99, 1911, desert eagle, and many more handguns. So i would be quite angry if they banned handguns >:|

[CN3089]

So the US Supreme Court is full of idiots, what else is new?



God, I hope Scalia and Thomas fall over and die in 2009. http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-argh.gif


e: BUT IF YOU OUTLAW GUNS ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS HURF BLURF THESE ARE ARE GUNS http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-downspatriot.gif

man am I glad I live in Canada http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-capatriot.gif

[Zeph]

I'd also like to point out that the 2nd Amendment states that people are allowed to bear arms in order to ensure a well-functioning militia, or something along those lines. Last time I checked, we had the U.S. Army, so I don't think a militia is quite necessary.
On the other hand, there's this self-defense issue, which has already been talked to death.

So it's basically a which-is-worse scenario. Do we keep gunmen off the streets but leave our citizens with inadequate defenses, or let the citizens protect themselves but make it easier to cause shooting rampages?


EDIT: Team America was awesome, and I believe the theme song perfectly describes the current state of this topic. From both sides.

America technically doesn't have a militia in terms of old. As wars and time progressed, the militias were integrated into the military as the National Guard. In the old wars, the militia's were trained by military personnel to expand their potential power. They were then pulled into the military. If a foreign power were to invade American soil or the people want to revolt against their government, I'd expect communities to pull together and muster a defense of their homes. Those citizens are the militia as defined by the constitution.

To do that, they must have the right to obtain weapons. Granted, it wont be as effective as a trained machine gun team from the military, but a single skilled rifleman can train others to train more. Yes, either of those things happening is a longshot, but it's part of the checks and balances that this country is built upon.

[cheezdue]

tl;dr: The Supreme Court made a majority decision to say the government can not place a ban that would keep citizens from owning a firearm.


But why are they trying to ban arms when we can have them? I say theres only one need for a gun in your house and thats for protection.

[Mass]

First of all: Yes it is specific to the city. There's a gun shop about half a mile from here in the suburbs.

Secondly: Yes, I do think gun control affects crime. Not violent crime in essence, as you're perfectly correct in saying that is a much deeper problem, but in fatality. Guns make accidental killings by the angry and scared possible.

I don't think all the work should be put on eliminating firearms, getting crack out of the ghetto and disassembling gangs is more important. But I think the objective should be is getting guns, or at least automatic and semiautomatic weapons, out of the city. The easiest and first step to getting rid of them is stopping their legal sale. It's only part of an answer to a huge problem, and I don't expect it to save the day.

Human beings can't be trusted to act ethically or correctly, that's why we have laws in the first place. I think this is another field where this is true, and therefore, it should be subject to a law.

[Zeph]

Human beings can't be trusted to act ethically or correctly, that's why we have laws in the first place. I think this is another field where this is true, and therefore, it should be subject to a law.

Nah, we have laws to define actions we deem inappropriate and provide consequences for those who violate them.


Oh, and Zeph, I'm sorry. How could I be so silly? I cut my bread with my saber all the time.

Funny how you mention a weapon specifically designed for the entertainment of man. Why dont you go talk to all the Roman soldiers who used their swords as tools to slay animals they catch for food and prepare them to be eaten.

[Bodzilla]

Gun laws stop INPULSE gun crime.
simple as that. they dont eradicate guns or stop people using them but the impulsive teen anx and NO U arguments wont end in someone getting shot.

if people could handle themselves with guns in the first place, there would be no reason for guns.
some people like to shoot and own guns for recreation but thats what license's are for.

i swear america's stance on guns is about as logical as putting your shoes on before your socks.

[Terin]

Gun laws stop INPULSE gun crime.
simple as that. they dont eradicate guns or stop people using them but the impulsive teen anx and NO U arguments wont end in someone getting shot.

if people could handle themselves with guns in the first place, there would be no reason for guns.
some people like to shoot and own guns for recreation but thats what license's are for.

i swear america's stance on guns is about as logical as putting your shoes on before your socks.But people who are not criminals or gang members would NEVER use a gun irresponsibly! :o

That's the main arguement for gun laws. The main one against them are that robberies will be successful constantly if no civilians have any weapons. However, we don't have any statistics on which is more effective...

[kenney001]

I saw the colbert Report this morning, and he spent about 5-10 minutes on this one....funny as hell.

The problem is not the weapon. Impulse murder will happen. It will not stop. It is HUMAN NATURE at work here, not politics...When people experience a murderous impulse , they may attack no matter what the weapon.

Whats next?
Crossbows?
Swords?
Knives?
Scissors?
Pencils?

The more things they try to ban or control, the more it pisses me off...

[Pooky]

I'd like to see someone walk on to a college campus and kill more than 20 people with a bow and arrow. I'd be very interested to see sword mass production facilities. I'd be arguing for sword control the day they went into business.

You don't think a guy with a longbow could kill 20 unarmed people? :S

You're not giving skilled longbow users nearly enough credit.

[Bodzilla]

true, however. it's pretty fuckign hard to walk onto a campus with a fucking longbow hidden in your pants.

[Boba]

Yes, either of those things happening is a longshot, but it's part of the checks and balances that this country is built upon.
Well... attacks are not impossible. 9/11 proved that. However, with the fuel crisis ever intensifying, I believe there is a small possibility that something more militarized may occur on American soil. The only real place I could see being attacked is Alaska, because of the Oil fields; And, seeing as it's Alaska, they probably have weapons of some sort, even if it's civilian. :v:

Anyway, I kind of got OT there. In my opinion, guns are great. If a G36 was a woman, I would marry it. There's nothing wrong with having small arms around. And, on a psychological standpoint, having a gun just makes you feel like you have some influence over something. :awesome:

[rossmum]

You'd be surprised how easy it is to make an improv crossbow that will do some pretty serious damage; I used to do it, and then fire them at things about 40 metres away and see how far they'd penetrate. It was as simple as taking a certain design of ballpoint, unscrewing both ends, and taping an elastic band to one end. Pull the ink tube back on the band, and bang. That thing could easily take someone's eye out, at the very least. Thankfully, I never found out just how much damage it could do, because I was never stupid enough to use it in such a way.

Perhaps if parents spent half as much time educating their kids from an early age about violence, guns, drugs, peer pressure, etc. as they do blaming guns and games for every fucking crime committed under the sun, there might be some sort of improvement without politicians wasting their time outlawing things they don't understand. Because a piece of metal sheathing the barrel to prevent burns really makes a gun more dangerous, right.

[Zeph]

Perhaps if parents spent half as much time educating their kids from an early age about violence, guns, drugs, peer pressure, etc. as they do blaming guns and games for every fucking crime committed under the sun, there might be some sort of improvement without politicians wasting their time outlawing things they don't understand. Because a piece of metal sheathing the barrel to prevent burns really makes a gun more dangerous, right.

With this past generation, the problem was isolation instead of simply blaming bad things. Parents wanted their children to grow up completely unaware of such things. When the children grew up and were suddenly exposed to a strange new world where they had no clue how to react.

With the current generation entering adulthood, I expect a lot of our problems to be ironed out.

[SnaFuBAR]

Ban on high caliber, high powered rifles (.50) I can understand. Ban on automatic weapons? Totally understandable. Those combat applicable. Those are designed strictly for combat. A great deal of gun laws, however, are made out of sheer hatred and ignorance on the part of anti-gun advocates.

I'll use California as an example. The law constitutes that centerfire rifles may not have a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds, and the magazine may not be removable under any circumstances if it has a pistol grip. If the rifle has a pistol grip, it is called an "assault rifle". If it even "bears resemblance" to an assault rifle, it is an "assault weapon" and is subject to the assault weapons ban. What's the point of banning 30 round removable magazines? "Flash hiders" are also banned. Why ban something that is designed to control muzzle rise and prevent deafening and blinding of the shooter? They in no way "hide" muzzle flash. We're also not allowed to own "carbines". There's no reason for us to be disallowed to own these weapons. The majority of gun laws are completely ridiculous.

Gun control isn't going to stop shooting rampages, gang warfare, etc etc, as most of them are commited with illegally obtained weapons or improperly secured weapons. The sheer proliferation of illegal firearms absolutely nullifies any laws making it illegal to own a firearm. If someone wants to do damage with a firearm, they'll find one, and quite easily. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in the US alone.

Not to mention, the people that commit the crimes aren't exactly in the best mental state of health.

So what's the bigger problem? Guns or people? Perhaps the testing to own a weapon needs to be taken a look at rather than guns.


An amendment made by a bunch of stupid people roughly 250 years ago...and you people still dig it.
I'm sure that a bunch of state leaders who's countrymen just sacrificed thier lives for freedom, drafting a constitution and an ammendment granting people the ability to bear arms and form a militia army in the event they should fend off any attack are stupid. I mean really! The thought of the necessity to defend yourself and your country! WOW! "and we still dig it" HAHAHA.

Give me a good reason not to own a firearm. I mean one that is an innevitable, uncontrolable, high frequency, problematic trend/outcome of gun ownership.

You can't. Good day sir.

You should have heard how much European countries made fun of this. You people are downright pathetic, there is no other word for it.
Because we care what a bunch of Europeans think? OK don't think too highly of yourself.

I forgot that Europe has such a big crime rate because we don't have guns at home TO FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY AND TO PROTECT MY FAMILY AND PROPERTY!!! RAWR!!!
I wonder how many jews would've begged for a gun when nazi germany was going about its business. Guess you also didn't know that mandatory gun ownership reduces crime.

and you people called the Nazis patriotic...
hmmm... no... I believe we called them fascist genocidal maniacs hellbent on regional domination. Seriously how did you think that was adding to your argument? Or were you out to do your typified America-bash posting? Guess what country had a state monopoly on firearms? Nazi Germany.:eyesroll:

[Patrickssj6]

It's kinda sad to read the post of you people supporting gun ownership. Most of you people be better of trying to persuade me that a higher invisible being like a god exists since the arguments would be more...comprehensible instead giving me those ban-butterknives-theories.

Yes Snaf, it was my typical America-Bashing-Posting since some of you people...
http://modacity.net/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif America! Fuck YEAH! (http://modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?p=269147#post269147) rentafence (http://modacity.net/forums/member.php?u=1339) Fuck you.

...just down right....

http://modacity.net/forums/styles/modacity/misc/redcard_small.gif America! Fuck YEAH! (http://modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?p=269147#post269147) June 27th, 2008
12:31 AM Reversed 2 Disrespect/Insulting/Flaming Zeph (http://modacity.net/forums/member.php?u=57)

...fail.

[rossmum]

Pat, you can hardly criticise us when you resort to calling anyone who doesn't immediately renounce anything with more power than a slingshot a 'weapon-loving psychopath'.

[PenGuin1362]

Snaf that was epic beyond anything I've ever seen. Could not have said it better myself.


Gun control isn't going to stop shooting rampages, gang warfare, etc etc, as most of them are committed with illegally obtained weapons or improperly secured weapons. The sheer proliferation of illegal firearms absolutely nullifies any laws making it illegal to own a firearm. If someone wants to do damage with a firearm, they'll find one, and quite easily. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in the US alone.

Exactly the problem. You ban guns, people who abide by the law will not go out of their way to get a hold of a gun illegally. Now you have the problem of the innocent store clerk who gets his head blown off during a robbery because he was no longer allowed to keep a gun in the store.

And like Ross said, you can't instantly conclude that anyone who likes firearms is a murderous psycho. People like guns for the same reason they like cars or boats, they like the look, the feel, the power. The sheer fact that they can kill has no appeal to the person, especially a collector, what so ever. Cars kill people too, and lots of people like cars. They aren't designed for it however according to samples taking in 2003 (cars) and 2004 (guns), The death rate from vehicle related accidents is higher then deaths due to firearms. Vehicles are 15.3 per 100,000 population and firearms are only 10 per 100,000 population. So should we ban cars too? Or maybe just the really fast ones, ya know, the ones people like to collect. Or better, lets just make it so they can top out at 30 mph.

[Pooky]

I'm sure that a bunch of state leaders who's countrymen just sacrificed thier lives for freedom, drafting a constitution and an ammendment granting people the ability to bear arms and form a militia army in the event they should fend off any attack are stupid. I mean really! The thought of the necessity to defend yourself and your country! WOW! "and we still dig it" HAHAHA.


And also, to overthrow the government should that ever become absolutely necessary. And that is the main thing that I really like about this. This is the first time in a long time I've seen the US government do anything to give more power to the people, to reaffirm the sanctity of the Bill of Rights. If nothing else, it gives me a little more hope for the future.

[p0lar_bear]

And like Ross said, you can't instantly conclude that anyone who likes firearms is a murderous psycho. People like guns for the same reason they like cars or boats, they like the look, the feel, the power. The sheer fact that they can kill has no appeal to the person, especially a collector, what so ever.

This.

Believe it or not, there are people who want a gun just to have it. I've said this before, but if I had a handgun, all I'd do with it is keep it clean and probably go to a shooting range every weekend or something.

Guns just fascinate the hell out of me.

[SnaFuBAR]

It's kinda sad to read the post of you people supporting gun ownership. Most of you people be better of trying to persuade me that a higher invisible being like a god exists since the arguments would be more...comprehensible instead giving me those ban-butterknives-theories.

Yes Snaf, it was my typical America-Bashing-Posting since some of you people...
http://modacity.net/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif America! Fuck YEAH! (http://modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?p=269147#post269147) rentafence (http://modacity.net/forums/member.php?u=1339) Fuck you.

...just down right....

http://modacity.net/forums/styles/modacity/misc/redcard_small.gif America! Fuck YEAH! (http://modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?p=269147#post269147) June 27th, 2008
12:31 AM Reversed 2 Disrespect/Insulting/Flaming Zeph (http://modacity.net/forums/member.php?u=57)

...fail.
Thanks for responding to my post in a fashion that was a logical argument. I don't know what to say. You've won that one hands down, wow.:eyesroll:

[Skyline]

This thread just shows how (pathetically) dependent Americans are on guns. Making up excuses, if you really think you need a gun because every other day someone is going to decide they want to kill you. Than why do you live in such an unsafe country, you would probably have better chances in Iraq. Oh wait, you would just be killed there by Americans too.

[SnaFuBAR]

Try harder at an intelligible argument. This thread just shows how pathetic europeans are for america bashing, rofl.:XD:

[PenGuin1362]

Try harder at an intelligible argument. This thread just shows how pathetic europeans are for america bashing, rofl.

:highfive:


This thread just shows how (pathetically) dependent Americans are on guns. Making up excuses, if you really think you need a gun because every other day someone is going to decide they want to kill you. Than why do you live in such an unsafe country, you would probably have better chances in Iraq. Oh wait, you would just be killed there by Americans too.

Just leave. You obviously missed the point that I made twice, and even polar has stated. People aren't dependent on guns. People want them. Like polar said, and I agree, guns are fascinating as shit. They look fuckin awesome, and they're fun to shoot. It's just another item to collect. Take your anti-American bullshit somewhere else. In fact why don't you go to Iraq? You'd be pretty popular there. Oh wait, you'd probably just get killed by Americans there too.

[TeeKup]

And like Ross said, you can't instantly conclude that anyone who likes firearms is a murderous psycho. People like guns for the same reason they like cars or boats, they like the look, the feel, the power. The sheer fact that they can kill has no appeal to the person, especially a collector, what so ever. Cars kill people too, and lots of people like cars.

I would like to vouch for this. I am extremely obsessed with aircraft and cars myself, weapons to a certain extent. When I look at an F-22 Raptor the first thing I do is throw away the reality that its a weapon, I admire its design, its speed, its stealth capabilities, its maneuverability. The only thing I imagine myself doing with that aircraft is free flying over the country side, not killing enemy pilots over the middle east. Its the very same thing with cars. I love these things because I want to feel, experience, the joy of driving/piloting these things. I want to feel their speed, I want to feel the power in their engines. I don't want to kill people, I myself can't stand the very thought of me killing another human being.

We don't desire these things because of the single fact that they're weapons, most of us desire these things for their secondary and recreational purposes.

[p0lar_bear]

I'm apt to lock this topic (or have someone else lock it, since I just realized I need to go to work :v:) unless someone with an anti-gun view can argue something besides "guns kill people" or "americans are gun-toting rednecks hurf durf."

Really, the pro-firearm members here have presented intelligent views on why guns shouldn't be banned outright, and the anti-gun people are just anti-gun because the first thing they think of when they hear "gun" are violent killing sprees with illegally obtained assault weapons, or they think that everyone who wants a gun is a sociopath or a redneck.

[StankBacon]

p0lar, i love you.

[jcap]

I believe in the second amendment. I think American citizens have the right to own a firearm. However, if you abuse that right, then you can also lose it. If you are mentally unstable and/or have a mental illness, then that is also an issue. The right to own a firearm means the weapons of the era when the Bill of Rights was written or equivalent of today's weapons to their time. This means that owning an automatic firearm such as an M4 or MP5 should be prohibited, since there is no substantial reason or use for owning one.

Banning guns would not solve any problems. However, not banning guns isn't preventing any, either. Anyone who feels they must get their hands on a firearm to carry out their destructive plan will be able to get one. The average person who doesn't already have a gun isn't going to get one just for the hell of it. Using a gunshow as an example and saying that everyone is afraid of everyone and so there is never a shootout is terrible justification. In society, everyone is not going to own a gun, and even if everyone owns a gun, it's not always going to be accessible. There is also the issue of the average person not being able to fully reason before pulling the trigger, and of course, being trigger happy. Now, with that said, consider the following:

Even IF everyone had a gun, you are still going to have the people who go to such extremes today that would pull something such as an armed robbery. Let's say that Person A walks into a local store and holds up the clerk. The clerk most likely isn't going to have time to reach for his weapon to "defend" himself at risk of being shot and killed. Another civilian walking by has a gun on them and decides to be a hero and save the clerk. If...
the civilian pulls the trigger and misses the gunman, the gunman chances of the gunman pulling the trigger on the clerk greatly increases. In addition, the person who fired the weapon puts their life into jepordy. Now you have a standoff or a warzone.
the civilian pulls the trigger and hits the gunman, they will be not be regarded as a hero, but as a murderer. They will be arrested, tried, and convicted of murder. Saying that he was acting in defense of himself would not be valid since his own life was never in danger to begin with.

[Skyline]

This means that owning an automatic firearm such as an M4 or MP5 should be prohibited, since there is no substantial reason or use for owning one.

Funny. Everyone says, "I collect guns - power" and yet when someone like this says, just ban the most modern powerful firearms like this. Well, what happened to collecting them?

[Pooky]

Funny. Everyone says, "I collect guns - power" and yet when someone like this says, just ban the most modern powerful firearms like this. Well, what happened to collecting them?

Funny, I thought it was blatantly obvious those two had very different points of view :|


the civilian pulls the trigger and hits the gunman, they will be not be regarded as a hero, but as a murderer. They will be arrested, tried, and convicted of murder. Saying that he was acting in defense of himself would not be valid since his own life was never in danger to begin with.

He could say that he was defending the life of another person.

[Skyline]

They are. The people collecting the 'powerful' guns aren't saying anything about people wanting to ban just the 'powerful' guns. Why? :o

[PenGuin1362]

They are. The people collecting the 'powerful' guns aren't saying anything about people wanting to ban just the 'powerful' guns. Why?It was stated people like the general power behind guns, not the specifically powerful guns.

[Mass]

I would be a massive hypocrite to criticize those who take interest in firearms and their use and management. Gun enthusiasm is fine, I'm speaking more about the ability to make our own decisions on the issue, as a city.

Speaking about Chicago, one of the two places (it might have been three) mentioned by the article, there are a lot of reasons within the city itself that cause approximately 71% of votes to be cast for a strong proponent of gun control, (and more votes for other candidates with similar views.) Most of these reasons have to do with what's happened in Chicago's gangland since 1980. The majority of homicides in the city are gang related by a margin of about 20%. In the last three decades organized crime fell apart in Chicago, which in of itself, seems like a good thing. However, for the time being it means our gangs operate in rogue cliques, and gang crime is committed impulsively and illogically. (I'd also like to now suggest the ineffectiveness of a self-defense handgun against 4-6 men with automatic weapons, albeit the importance of proper training and such) This hell-broken-loose nature of crime is what justifies our gun elimination program, which focuses heavily on capturing illegal weapons (about 10,000 illegal firearms were recovered in 2005) and prohibits sale guns as a measure to help stop arms' flow in to the city.

That's why I support gun control in Chicago.

We have different values here and we would simply like to pursue our collective right to life without asinine judges appointed by election-stealing mongoloids interfering in our progress.

[jcap]

He could say that he was defending the life of another person.
Though this would be true, it would never hold up. Because of the way the courts are run and due to the entire legal system, he would go behind bars, though most likely not for life.

[Zeph]

He could say that he was defending the life of another person.

The solution is to say he was stopping the attackers aggression in self defense.


the civilian pulls the trigger and hits the gunman, they will be not be regarded as a hero, but as a murderer. They will be arrested, tried, and convicted of murder. Saying that he was acting in defense of himself would not be valid since his own life was never in danger to begin with.
Yes it can be called self defense. Dont tell me that you wouldn't feel like your life is threatened if someone pulled out a gun and started killing people around you..


This thread just shows how (pathetically) dependent Americans are on guns. Making up excuses, if you really think you need a gun because every other day someone is going to decide they want to kill you. Than why do you live in such an unsafe country, you would probably have better chances in Iraq. Oh wait, you would just be killed there by Americans too.

Guess what? Iraqis buy guns to protect themselves too.

[Rentafence]

Making up excuses, if you really think you need a gun because every other day someone is going to decide they want to kill you.

No. That's like saying car insurance is useless because if you think someone is going to hit you, you just shouldn't own a car. And what the hell is pathetic about wanting to defend your own life? Are you saying you would prefer to not put up a fight?

[SnaFuBAR]

This is a challenge to all you anti-gun supporters.

Give me a good reason not to own a firearm. I mean one that is an inevitable, uncontrollable, high frequency, problematic trend/outcome of gun ownership.

[Mass]

It's unnecessary, expensive, and in an impaired state of mind or emotion you could kill yourself or others with it, not to mention what happens if it's stolen.

That's why I don't ever plan on owning one.

It's like most things in that there's no problem with it if you're not an idiot. People are idiots though, for example, the supreme court.

[SnaFuBAR]

Was that a response to my challenge? If it was, it failed.

[Pooky]

It's unnecessary, expensive, and in an impaired state of mind or emotion you could kill yourself or others with it, not to mention what happens if it's stolen.

That's why I don't ever plan on owning one.

It's like most things in that there's no problem with it if you're not an idiot. People are idiots though, for example, the supreme court.

Hey there's something else that fits that description.


Fine cutlery :v:

[rossmum]

It's unnecessary,
I can't argue with that, look how many reasons you've backed it up with!


expensive,
Lee-Enfield SMLEs go for 70AUD. around here. That's around 65USD. A box of ammo is a few dollars, and because the Enfield's such a fucking brilliantly-made rifle, it only requires minimal maintenance.


and in an impaired state of mind or emotion you could kill yourself or others with it,
If you're liable to enter a state of mind that impaired, you probably should be seeing someone about it.


not to mention what happens if it's stolen.
That is why, in Australia and most likely the US too, you must own a gun safe with weapons and ammunition stored separately, the local police must ensure that it is secure and immovable, and why it's recommended you don't store a firearm with all its working parts.

[p0lar_bear]

I've got one good reason to not own a firearm:

All of your paranoid roommates and/or family members will disown you because you brought the embodiment of all evil into "their" household. :v:

[ExAm]

Depending on the roommates or family members :P

[Mass]

You don't need a gun safe here, and if you do, you certainly shouldn't be expecting a police inspection.

[SnaFuBAR]

Criminals love gun control. It makes their jobs safer.

[Mass]

Criminals also like bolstering their arsenal with your guns while you're away.

[SnaFuBAR]

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/kennesaw.html

I declare /thread. gtfo all you anti-gun nuts.


for the lazy or unbelieving:



Gun Ownership Mandatory in Kennesaw, Georgia

Crime Rate Plummets - Why Doesn't The Media Visit Kennesaw?
The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996. In 1982, Kennesaw Georgia passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in their home, exempting those with criminal records or religious objections. Yet, after the law went into effect in 1982, there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997).Seven months after it took effect, the residential burglary rate dropped 89%, vs. 10.4% statewide. Crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide, the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.
With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story.
What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.


Note in Switzerland, every household must have, by law, a fully automatic machine gun and ammunition. The crime rate is very low there.

E: hey, pat, how many europeans are laughing now? i suppose the joke in switzerland might be that americans are not allowed to own full autos to protect themselves :rolleyes: mb you should just stfu and stick to programming instead of carrying out arguments where you got no ammo. pun intended.

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/8181/tomhanks63357ej5vn3.gif

[rossmum]

You don't need a gun safe here, and if you do, you certainly shouldn't be expecting a police inspection.
Well then, that needs fixing. Regulate how people store their guns, not whether they can own them or not.


http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/kennesaw.html

I declare /thread. gtfo all you anti-gun nuts.


for the lazy or unbelieving:



E: hey, pat, how many europeans are laughing now? i suppose the joke in switzerland might be that americans are not allowed to own full autos to protect themselves :rolleyes: mb you should just stfu and stick to programming instead of carrying out arguments where you got no ammo. pun intended.
WELL FUCK ME

[Patrickssj6]

E: hey, pat, how many europeans are laughing now? i suppose the joke in switzerland might be that americans are not allowed to own full autos to protect themselves :rolleyes: mb you should just stfu and stick to programming instead of carrying out arguments where you got no ammo. pun intended.



Oh wow Snaf and I thought you were mature? Underlining posts with ridiculous pictures and -repping...I really must have hit a weak spot. Oh well I guess that's comprehensible since I'm touching your American pride.

First of all only about 2 people in this thread arguing against guns are from Europe.

And now to your Swiss..thing. I can't believe you take information from a random source. Swiss is not really even part of the European Union. They don't have the Euro and they don't accept certain laws. They have a really conservative attitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/meldung49748.html



The gun policy in Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland) is unique in Europe. The personal weapon of militia personnel is kept at home as part of the military obligations. This, in addition to liberal gun laws and strong shooting traditions, has led to a very high gun count per capita. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.
and here Status Quo for you...



To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon buying permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disabled (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record can request such a permit. The sale of automatic firearms and selective fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire) weapons is forbidden (as is the sale of certain disabled automatic firearms which have been identified as easily restored to fully automatic capability), unless the buyer has a special collector's license.
In America you don't even need a license...kind of different isn't it?

oh and here....I know you can't read it...Swiss by the way.
http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/schweiz/knappe_mehrheit_will_schaerferes_waffengesetz_1.66 0042.html

The population wants tighter weapon laws, especially woman. Case was a conflict in a marriage where the man just grabbed the weapon he had in his bedroom and shot his wife. Tell me that she wouldn't had any chance of surviving if the gun wouldn't have existed...because what? Ross would say he would take out the butterknives and kill her...NO...killing your wife with bear hands takes a lot more than just aiming and pulling a trigger. Not to mention that a gun is more lethal and the surviving rate is far below.

A populations WANTS tighter weapon laws? They really must have seen the advantages of owning a weapon now that they want to remove the from their household...

I only check this thread once a day and I will only respond if you can whip up new arguments besides "weapons are my passion". Trust me, every single one of you, if you would have grown up in a weapon free environment you would be against guns. I grew up in Brazil where daily you fear of being threatened and killed.

I might want to add that I hope you people know who provided the Taliban with weapons...and now you, you who provided them with weapons to support them in the cold war against Russia for pride and freedom, you fight terrorism you created.

Oh and here for you post underlining thing just to keep it going...
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/bilder/bild22382_v-gross4x3.jpg

FUCK YEAH!! AWESOME!!!

[p0lar_bear]

In America you don't even need a license...kind of different isn't it?

Wrong. If you possess a firearm in public without a carry permit, you're in trouble. And Americans are subject to the same background checks when purchasing a weapon, in most weapons shops, anyway.

If you possess any military/assault weapon as a civilian, you're in deep shit.


Trust me, every single one of you, if you would have grown up in a weapon free environment you would be against guns.

At an early age, I wasn't even allowed a Super Soaker. Hell, I used to get spanked any time I'd pick up a stick and start swinging it around. I'm still a gun enthusiast. I was simply taught what the consequences are for using a weapon to attack someone else.

[SnaFuBAR]

Oh wow Snaf and I thought you were mature? Underlining posts with ridiculous pictures and -repping...I really must have hit a weak spot. Oh well I guess that's comprehensible since I'm touching your American pride.

There you go again, bashing Americans. You're fucking sad. Ask Ross or anyone I talk to, I have no "American pride".

First of all only about 2 people in this thread arguing against guns are from Europe.

And? You're the one saying Europe is laughing at America's gun laws, and made ad hominen attacks in the first place.

And now to your Swiss..thing. I can't believe you take information from a random source. Swiss is not really even part of the European Union. They don't have the Euro and they don't accept certain laws. They have a really conservative attitude.

Your point is? Is Switzerland not part of Europe? Specifically Central Europe? When you make a claim that "EUROPE" is laughing, and Switzerland is included in that, regardless of joining the EU or not. Same with Turkey, they are part of Europe, but not the EU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/meldung49748.html

and here Status Quo for you...

In America you don't even need a license...kind of different isn't it?

Not for a long gun. But for handguns you're required to be Department of Justice Certified, and must be retested every 5 years. WTF do you think you know about American gun laws?

oh and here....I know you can't read it...Swiss by the way.
http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/schweiz/knappe_mehrheit_will_schaerferes_waffengesetz_1.66 0042.html

translate.google.com woop i can now.

The population wants tighter weapon laws, especially woman. Case was a conflict in a marriage where the man just grabbed the weapon he had in his bedroom and shot his wife. Tell me that she wouldn't had any chance of surviving if the gun wouldn't have existed...because what? Ross would say he would take out the butterknives and kill her...NO...killing your wife with bear hands takes a lot more than just aiming and pulling a trigger. Not to mention that a gun is more lethal and the surviving rate is far below.

Yeah we've had similar arguments by the anti-gun nuts here, too. It won't stop murders. Again, you've got to be mental to shoot someone out of rage. The problem isn't guns, it's testing and owners' mental stability. Also, we've had women here advocate a looser concealed carry law due to victimization of women by thugs. Women want an "equalizer". You can pull a gun to defend yourself, but you don't have to pull the trigger. Most jerks would run off at the sight of a weapon, and the true sociopaths would end up getting shot. Also, if his gun were properly stored I don't think that would've been a problem. Comes down to owner irresponsibility. Nobody should have their rights slashed because of a few fucktards.

A populations WANTS tighter weapon laws? They really must have seen the advantages of owning a weapon now that they want to remove the from their household...

Oh since you can warp the article to your advantage, I guess I can cut and paste sections that are pro-gun.
"
Schiessen werde überwiegend als Sport begriffen (72 Prozent).
Shooting will mostly understood as a sport (72 percent).
61 Prozent hätten zudem befunden, dass der Schiesssport Schweizer Kulturgut sei.
61 percent had also found that the Swiss cultural shooting." Seems the swiss like their guns after all.

I only check this thread once a day and I will only respond if you can whip up new arguments besides "weapons are my passion". Trust me, every single one of you, if you would have grown up in a weapon free environment you would be against guns. I grew up in Brazil where daily you fear of being threatened and killed.

I've already whipped up an argument beyond "guns are my passion". You choose to blatantly ignore the OBVIOUS BENEFIT OF MANDATORY GUN OWNERSHIP. TRY ADDRESSING AND REFUTING IT, WITHOUT BASHING AMERICANS OR ANYONE WHO ADVOCATES GUN OWNERSHIP. SO FAR YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO SO.

I might want to add that I hope you people know who provided the Taliban with weapons...and now you, you who provided them with weapons to support them in the cold war against Russia for pride and freedom, you fight terrorism you created.

Oh hurf de durf, the Afghanistan argument. OH IT'S GUN RELATED HURR HURR. Tell me, how fucking stupid are you? You don't realize that it was Russia that provided them with the majority of the weapons they possed then and now during Afghanistans pro-soviet era? Holy GOD almighty in heaven, Pat, I really do feel sorry for you. You're about as dim and bigoted as they come in anti-gun sector aren't you?

Oh and here for you post underlining thing just to keep it going...
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/bilder/bild22382_v-gross4x3.jpg

FUCK YEAH!! AWESOME!!!

no, not awesome. He's breaking the first rule of firearm ownership. point the weapon in a direction where it will cause the least damage in the case of accidental discharge when the weapon is not aimed.

.

[rossmum]

Pat, you're talking a load of shit and you know you are.

Growing up in an enviroment without guns wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. Being an arrogant, ignorant dick who feels the need to act all high and mighty, on the other hand, obviously does. Please, continue to criticise Snaf's maturity, the irony is hilarious since you're the one who seems to think that not hating guns with every fibre of your being is enough to make someone a "weapon-loving fucktard".

[Kornman00]

People, people, people! You're looking at it the wrong way! Guns don't kill people, bullets do. Why aren't we b&ing bullets <:maddowns:>?!

[nooBBooze]

Somebody call the logic police ffs.
Its bodies who kill people. Bodies. If people wouldn't have bodies, they couldnt be killed. :eng101:

[Kornman00]

God kills people :o

:downs:

[blind]

Blood loss and severe trauma to the brain kills people.
IDIOTS

also, the only problem with guns is the select group of people who abuse the privilege to use them.

[Roostervier]

Trust me, every single one of you, if you would have grown up in a weapon free environment you would be against guns.

I've grown up in a gun free environment (meaning in my home, and I've never seen any guns in either of my grandparent's houses either) all of my life, and I think gun control laws that ban all the purchasing and use of firearms are stupid. In other words, I'm pro-gun. I guess you were wrong about that, weren't you? Now that I moved down to Southern Indiana, I can tell you from experience, that almost everyone down here hunts. Even women do. I've never felt once like my life is threatened around any of these people. Sounds to me that guns are used for other things than killing other humans, and this is the perfect example. It is possible to use them for recreation and collecting.

By the way, in most cities, I'm pretty sure when you try and buy a gun, and you are approved, you must wait 10 (I think it's 10, it might be some other number, but you don't get them right away) days to pick that gun up. This keeps people who are angry and want to buy a gun from doing so while still being angry.

[Mass]

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/kennesaw.html

I declare /thread. gtfo all you anti-gun nuts.
Yes, because we're all quite aware that the structure of criminal activity in Kennesaw (and Switzerland too!)is exactly the same as that of Chicago, Washington D.C., and San Francisco. Therefore, the next logical step is to require thousands of people with strong gang loyalty and nothing to live for to pack legally owned heat in addition to their preexisting arsenals and the problem will solve itself.

I suppose it would, in the most cynical way imaginable.

By the way, that same website claims Roe V. Wade is evidence of attempts by the Democratic Party to set up a national socialist state. Their foresight into the diabolical plans of liberal elitists such as myself is quite concerning, and I'd have them killed if it weren't for their accursed legal possession of a handgun.

[SnaFuBAR]

Did I say the results would be the same for every single city? NOPE. Criminals are ineligible for gun ownership, so there goes that argument of yours out the window. They have illegally acquired guns, they didn't buy their "heat" from gun stores :rolleyes:.

I don't give a damn about their roe vs wade problem or conspiracies about it. The fact is that mandatory gun ownership in Kennesaw caused an immediate drop in criminal activity, and the numbers are there to back up the claim. Your attempt to bring in their stance on rvw to discredit them is a straw man.

Keep trying.

[PenGuin1362]

Go play with your toy gun. I'm sure there are people that collect those kinds of guns, my mistake that you don't. Small minds are amused by small things.

Skyline, are you that fucking retarded? First off, that hardly makes sense nor does the last sentence have any relevance to this argument. You clearly lack the mental ability to participate in an intelligent argument so just shut the fuck up.

[SnaFuBAR]

Oh, by the way,


Domestic Evidence.

If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime. For instance:19
New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.Defenders of the Washington law say it isn't working because criminals are getting guns in Virginia, where the laws are more relaxed. But just across the Potomac River, Arlington, Va., has a murder rate less than 10 percent of that of Washington (7.0 murders versus 77.8 per 100,000 population). Can the difference be explained by the fact that Washington is a large city? Virginia's largest city, Virginia Beach, has a population of nearly 400,000, allows easy access to firearms - and has had one of the country's lowest murder rates for years (4.1 per 100,000 population in 1991).

An analysis of 19 types of gun control laws [Table I] concluded that not only do they fail to reduce rates of violence, they even fail "to reduce the use of guns or induce people to substitute other weapons in acts of violence."20 For example:21

When Morton Grove, Ill., outlawed handgun ownership, fewer than 20 were turned in.
After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.
Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and 20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons:22International Evidence.

Other countries have had similar experiences. After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.23 (Canadian homicide rates are slightly lower than those in states along the U.S. border.) Violent crime accelerated in Taiwan and Jamaica after handguns were banned.24

Why Gun Control Laws May Benefit Criminals.

An increase in violent crime that appears to follow a tightening of controls on gun ownership and use is consistent with economic reasoning. Gun control laws are most likely to be obeyed by people who are otherwise law-abiding if, indeed, they are obeyed by anybody. Thus measures that apply equally to criminals and noncriminals, if they affect behavior at all, are almost certain to reduce gun possession more among noncriminals. As the popular slogan puts it: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Scholarly studies have not been able to demonstrate any effect of gun control laws. But if there is an effect, it is likely to benefit criminals in two ways: fewer armed victims to worry about and fewer criminal justice resources to devote to prosecuting real criminals. If fewer potential victims have guns for defense, the balance of power tilts slightly toward criminals. The overall crime rate tends to increase, although guns may not be used in any more crimes because, on average, victim resistance is lowered.

Because more police resources are spent on gun registration, gun law enforcement and gun law convictions, fewer resources are available to deter real criminals. Arrests for weapons violations already exceed 220,000 per year,25 a nontrivial load on the criminal justice system. A Chicago judge from one of the two courtrooms exclusively dedicated to trying gun law offenses in that city testified a few years ago:26

The most striking experience I can take away from the Gun Court . . . is . . . the kinds of people that appear there as defendants. . . . This is their very first arrest of any kind. Many of them are old people, many of them are shopkeepers, persons who have been previous victims of violent crime.

Although many of these "criminals" get probation, the advocates of stricter gun laws press for mandatory sentencing. Meanwhile, punishments meted out for gun law violations not connected with real crimes tend to depress citizens' respect for law and the criminal justice system. As attorney David B. Kopel puts it, "In a world where first-time muggers often receive probation, it is morally outrageous to imprison . . . everyone who carries a firearm for self-defense."27

tl;dr tighter gun laws cause increase in violent crimes. and you anti-gun nuts call US anti social? you're basically advocating higher crime, unnecessary strain on the criminal justice system, and want it to be easier for them to kill us law abiders.

[Martini-562]

I'm European (yay) and I don't see how banning guns would solve anything, I mean even if they managed to make sure no gangs had guns they'd probably still knife you. You can kill with just about anything, ok lets ban everythin < like that's going to help.

^Pretty much the hole topic in a nutshell

Even though I live in a country where you don't see as much guns as America, I'm still kind of a gun freak.

[SnaFuBAR]

Gun rights activists want guns so they can defend themselves, their families, and make the general public safer.

Anti-gun activists are totally blind to the reality that taking away gun rights sharply increases violent crime which is perpetrated on the law abiding populace with guns obtained illegally.

Who's a anti-social psychopath now, pat?

[Mass]

Chicago murder rates (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1383752.php/U.S._murder_rate_down_overall_still_pockets_of_mis ery) have been (http://www.windycitizen.com/2008/05/23/nationwide-drop-in-murder-skips-some-west-side-south-side-neighborhoods) really dropping (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4249169) for the past few years. This to me is a very clear sign we're doing something right, although I wouldn't say it's fair to call it anything beyond correlation for the moment. We should be allowed to keep doing what we're doing.

[nooBBooze]

Anti-gun activists are totally blind to the reality that taking away gun rights sharply increases violent crime which is perpetrated on the law abiding populace with guns obtained illegally.

Meh idk if your argument has an absolte value. what (supposedly) works for your country doesn't mean its applyable 1:1 elsewhere.
FUUUCK YEAHHH!!

[SnaFuBAR]

Chicago's homicide tally increased slightly in 2005 and 2006 to 450 and 467, respectively, though the overall crime rate in 2006 continued the downward trend that has taken place since the early 1990s, with 2.5% fewer violent crimes and 2.4% fewer property crimes compared to 2005.

2.5% fewer crimes. yep. that's progress.

[SnaFuBAR]

Meh idk if your argument has an absolte value. what (supposedly) works for your country doesn't mean its applyable 1:1 elsewhere.
FUUUCK YEAHHH!!


Other countries have had similar experiences. After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.23 (Canadian homicide rates are slightly lower than those in states along the U.S. border.) Violent crime accelerated in Taiwan and Jamaica after handguns were banned.24what? i didn't say that it would work perfect in every country, but it is perfectly understandable that eliminating lawful gun ownership only increases violent crime.

[Bad Waffle]

Noob, name a place where it wouldnt work...other than places at war, which already have at least one gun per household.

[nooBBooze]

what? i didn't say that it would work perfect in every country, but it is perfectly understandable that eliminating lawful gun ownership only increases violent crime.
And i didn't mean to imply that.

[p0lar_bear]

Honestly, I really think this thread has served its purpose.

My views on gun control laws have nothing to do with locking this topic. Reading on from page 3, you can clearly see this argument running in circles.