Guns

[ExAm]

[17:26] Ð4ÑØ †: oh fuck me
[17:26] Ð4ÑØ †: news report
[17:26] Ð4ÑØ †: an entire family massacred on Christmas
[17:26] The Real Ziz Lady: .
[17:26] Ð4ÑØ †: where on earth could that have been
[17:26] The Real Ziz Lady: America >_>
[17:26] Ð4ÑØ †: *rollseyes*
[17:26] Ð4ÑØ †: wife husband, and like 4 kids
[17:26] Ð4ÑØ †: all shot
[17:26] Ð4ÑØ †: on there out of town property
[17:27] Ð4ÑØ †: in seattle
[17:27] The Real Ziz Lady: gg guns
[17:27] Ð4ÑØ †: NO BODIE JEEZ ITS NOT GNS
[17:27] The Real Ziz Lady: really makes a difference.
[17:27] The Real Ziz Lady: without them,
[17:27] The Real Ziz Lady: the king of england could just walk through your front door
[17:27] The Real Ziz Lady: AND ARE U GUNA LET THAT HAPPEN?
[17:27] Ð4ÑØ †: UR WORNG UR WRONG LOL
[17:27] Ð4ÑØ †: ITS NOT GUNS THA KILL PEOPEL
[17:27] Ð4ÑØ †: DUR
[17:27] Ð4ÑØ †: VIDEO GAMES
[17:27] Ð4ÑØ †: YES
[17:27] Ð4ÑØ †: LETS FIGHTING LOVE
[17:27] Ð4ÑØ †: PRTACT MAI BALLZ
[17:28] The Real Ziz Lady: PROTECT MAI BALLZ
[17:28] Ð4ÑØ †: ROPfl
[17:28] Ð4ÑØ †: but yeah
[17:28] Ð4ÑØ †: stupid us people arguing its not guns
[17:28] Ð4ÑØ †: when they're like the only country that allows the easiest access to guns
[17:28] The Real Ziz Lady: well look at it from there perspective
[17:28] Ð4ÑØ †: and they have the most massacres
[17:28] The Real Ziz Lady: "guns have got a lot of bad rep lately
[17:28] The Real Ziz Lady: but they're essential today to fight off the worlds modern super animals
[17:29] The Real Ziz Lady: like the flying squirl
[17:29] The Real Ziz Lady: or the electric eel"
[17:29] Ð4ÑØ †: lmfao
[17:29] Ð4ÑØ †: OR TEH GRIFFIN
[17:29] Ð4ÑØ †: yeah, i hunt deer with an m16
[17:29] Ð4ÑØ †: "so i gues you dont intend to actually eat the deer then"
[17:30] Ð4ÑØ †: your not exactly hunting
[17:30] Ð4ÑØ †: it smore like
[17:30] The Real Ziz Lady: slaughter?
[17:30] Ð4ÑØ †: stick gun out infront of you
[17:30] Ð4ÑØ †: hold tgown trigger until forest falls over
[17:30] Ð4ÑØ †: stupids
[17:30] Ð4ÑØ †: the way it is
[17:30] Ð4ÑØ †: any random prik in america
[17:30] Ð4ÑØ †: can buy a gun
[17:30] Ð4ÑØ †: like in their town say
[17:30] Ð4ÑØ †: a couple miles away
[17:30] Ð4ÑØ †: walk up to someones house
[17:30] Ð4ÑØ †: and just murder everyone
[17:30] The Real Ziz Lady: but they have harsh legislation
[17:30] The Real Ziz Lady: u know
[17:31] Ð4ÑØ †: i know
[17:31] The Real Ziz Lady: such as walking to the store
[17:31] The Real Ziz Lady: it's so hard to do that shit ya know
[17:31] Ð4ÑØ †: loolololololol
[17:31] Ð4ÑØ †: seriously
[17:31] Ð4ÑØ †: if hillary gets her way
[17:31] The Real Ziz Lady: MOAR GUNZ
[17:31] Ð4ÑØ †: and bans violence in media
[17:31] Ð4ÑØ †: and shit like that
[17:31] Ð4ÑØ †: people will want to vent anger in a more constructive way
[17:31] The Real Ziz Lady: MOAR
[17:31] Ð4ÑØ †: like shooting their math class
[17:32] Ð4ÑØ †: durh logics
[17:32] Ð4ÑØ †: id rather people sit on the pc and play CSS for their whole lives
[17:32] Ð4ÑØ †: then want to get their gun fix in RL
[17:33] Ð4ÑØ †: if guns were just remove form the planet, that would cause world peace
[17:33] Ð4ÑØ †: because you cant exactly throw knives across continents
[17:33] Ð4ÑØ †: but that will never happen
[17:33] Ð4ÑØ †: cause of fear
[17:33] Ð4ÑØ †: fear that some country will brake the rules
[17:33] Ð4ÑØ †: and be the only country to have guns
[17:33] Ð4ÑØ †: and burn us all
[17:34] Ð4ÑØ †: i think the best way to create world peace would be to pretty much just nuke america
[17:34] Ð4ÑØ †: but ship all the good people off to aus
[17:34] Ð4ÑØ †: mormons dont countWe like our guns because they go boom and make us happy in doing so. :downs:
Unfortunately there are some stupid assholes that have to go and ruin it for everybody.

NOTE: I didn't start this thread, it was moved from the quotes topic. I never intended to start a thread about this, so don't get any ideas.

[Tweek]

get firecrackers.

[ExAm]

Meh, I have no way to explain it other than they're a blast to use. It's like going to see an action movie just because there's action in it.

[n00b1n8R]

"whenever I held the gun, I got this incredible surge of power, like what god must feel when he's holding a gun" /homer

[Bodzilla]

Meh, I have no way to explain it other than they're a blast to use. It's like going to see an action movie just because there's action in it.
i dont know about you, but i dont think a power trip and a fun time evens out the massacres and slaughters.

[ExAm]

i dont know about you, but i dont think a power trip and a fun time evens out the massacres and slaughters.If the media reported whenever someone was having a good time at the range with friends and family, it would far exceed the number of murder stories. Yes, I'm aware that gun violence is terrible, but the solution is not to ban guns altogether, but to regulate on a level that will actually work, not the level that the NRA is "okay" with. It's too easy for criminals to get guns right now, and it has to stop. These people are ruining a once-respectable American pastime.

[Tweek]

Yes, I'm aware that gun violence is terrible, but the solution is not to ban guns altogether.

uh- yes it is.

people can't buy guns here, unless you pay your ass off, and get thoroughly checked out and whatnot.

there's no armed robberies here, no shootings, none of that american crap you're all SO PROUD of.
are you honestly so stupid that you think that if there were no guns, people would still shoot eachother?!

it's your stupid warped american "values" and "traditions" like the right to bear arms, and the thing where you're boss in your own house, and lets you kill anyone who touches your stuff.
the fact so many COWS cling to that is the only reason it exists, if even 10% of the americans werent dumb cows, you wouldn't be exterminating yourselves.

there's a REASON why the rest of the world laughs at america, and sais "only in america" when dumb shit happens that COULD ONLY HAPPEN IN AMERICA!
some people i talk to have an attitude of we're right, the rest of the world is wrong. that more or less DEFINES american stupidity.

[ExAm]

OH NOZ! SLANDER! D:

Now that was uncalled for. I have to fish through the rest of the unfortunately correct shit you're spewing about my country to pluck out the one thing that actually applies to me: I like firearms, pure and simple. Call it a hobby, or whatever. DO NOT EVER insult me or anyone else based on where they're from. What you just posted was a big goddamned ball of hate, and I think I just lost a large portion of the respect I had for you based on that one post alone.

[p0lar_bear]

people can't buy guns here, unless you pay your ass off, and get thoroughly checked out and whatnot.Then you CAN buy guns; it's just much more restricted. Also, a lot of the heinous crimes reported in the news are done with weapons obtained ILLEGALY, meaning that they went through a black market or some shit; not the gun shop down the street that requires you to pass a gun control training program and have a carry permit.


there's no armed robberies here, no shootings...Doubtful. They're there, but probably a bit less and they not as OMG WTF LOL blown out of proportion as the media (read: FOX News) usually makes crap out to be.


are you honestly so stupid that you think that if there were no guns, people would still shoot eachother?!Slingshots still exist. And what makes you think that all crimes will end with the removal of guns? There are plenty of ways to end a life past projectile weaponry.


and the thing where you're boss in your own house, and lets you kill anyone who touches your stuff.What's wrong with defending your home and family? If I woke up and saw someone I didn't know going through my shit, I'd crack them upside the head with a bat, given that they're someone I absolutely don't know. I'm personally against taking someone's life, so perhaps killing an intruder isn't my thing, but I'd like to scare the living shit out of them, and/or disable them if they're a threat.


there's a REASON why the rest of the world laughs at america, and sais "only in america" when dumb shit happens that COULD ONLY HAPPEN IN AMERICA!That reason is because people perpetuate stereotypes and go by them. wtg.

[Mass]

Living in the big city (Chicago,) particularly one infamous for corruption and gang activity I can tell you that guns kill people, yes, people kill people...WITH GUNS. The thing is that there are a lot of times when someone who has gotten a gun for self defense, or whatever, gets scared as fuck, mad as fuck, or confused as fuck. I believe that most killings, particularly in drug related or gang related small time vice are not pre-meditated, not with any murderous levels of malice, or anything that would make the person go out of their way to ice somebody: I think most murders are something the perpetrator regrets, and anything you do to make the process of comitting them harder, (not just reaching in their pocket and tensing their index finger,) will bring the numbers down.

Where I live, if you hear a gunshot, it means someone is getting shot at. So I think the rest of the country can wait one week until they get their new deer slaughtering beast, after all, you wait longer for a fucking computer to ship.

The only excuse for guns is that our ancestors killed all the wolves, bears, cougars, basically the things that eat deer, which means the deer are literally eating the forest to death. gj, pioneers.

[Disaster]

uh- yes it is.

people can't buy guns here, unless you pay your ass off, and get thoroughly checked out and whatnot.

there's no armed robberies here, no shootings, none of that american crap you're all SO PROUD of.
are you honestly so stupid that you think that if there were no guns, people would still shoot eachother?!

it's your stupid warped american "values" and "traditions" like the right to bear arms, and the thing where you're boss in your own house, and lets you kill anyone who touches your stuff.
the fact so many COWS cling to that is the only reason it exists, if even 10% of the americans werent dumb cows, you wouldn't be exterminating yourselves.

there's a REASON why the rest of the world laughs at america, and sais "only in america" when dumb shit happens that COULD ONLY HAPPEN IN AMERICA!
some people i talk to have an attitude of we're right, the rest of the world is wrong. that more or less DEFINES american stupidity.

ummm...if guns were eliminated then the criminals would still be getting the illegally imported weapons like aks and stuff. Then the people on the street would be absolutely helpless against that mass murder with the assault rifle..hmm now do you think thats safe? :confused:

[Emmzee]

Gun control is a stupid idea. Let's look at two real-world examples.

In England, since the most recent anti-gun laws were passed, crime actually went up.

In Australia, 85% of all violent crime is committed with a gun, despite the fact that is near impossible to get a gun there. Just ask any of our Aussies.

[Disaster]

if there were no guns..then the criminals who can get the guns from the black market would get the guns..and kill everybody..because they couldnt protect themselves..and no..guns do not kill people..the people use the guns to kill people..so people kill people..not the guns..guns are just the tool ..
if somebody wanted to kill somebody they are going to do it anyways..they could just grabe a knife from the kitchen..go to the person, and stab them to death..removing guns isnt going to stop anything..it infact is going to make it worse

[Bodzilla]

1. If the media reported whenever someone was having a good time at the range with friends and family, it would far exceed the number of murder stories.

2. Yes, I'm aware that gun violence is terrible, but the solution is not to ban guns altogether, but to regulate on a level that will actually work, not the level that the NRA is "okay" with.

3. It's too easy for criminals to get guns right now, and it has to stop. These people are ruining a once-respectable American pastime.
1. not worth it. a thousand people having a fun time does is not = to a single gun massacre.

2. Banning guns Worked in Australia. After we had a Massacre in australia we banned them. Since then i cant remember a single even of a gun massacre. People will learn to live without them.

3. It's too easy for anyone to get a gun.


And Emmy, where the hell did you pull that Stat from?
85% of all crimes? sounds like a load of shit to me. Maybe if you lived in sydney with all the gangs.... but other then that no.
I cant recall a single shooting incident within a 300 Km radius of my house.

[Disaster]

guns arent the problem..if someone is crazy enough to kill someone..there going to do it even if they dont have a gun. any thing can be used as a weapon, guns actually keep down the violence..someone is going to be able to get a gun if they want to, and if that person has the idea that anybody around him may have a gun it may prevent that massacre..

[Random]

Firearms/guns kill people, their use as a weapon of war dates back to mid-10th century china. They were originally designed to kill people. Personally I would rather shoot another person, because stabbing means you need to get close to them and drive a sharp piece of metal into them, not to mention all the victim's blood on you. As a result impulse, anger related murders would go down.

[nooBBooze]

We like our guns because they go boom and make us happy in doing so. :downs:

Gun=metal penis


Also, im not quite sure but i think the other guy just kept quoting the simpsons XP

[Bodzilla]

http://www.academic.marist.edu/alcuin/ssk/draft2.html

This is a Draft of an essay some fella in America made.
It's kinda how i feel on this issue. it's a draft thats been edited, so theres grammatical errors and problems the marker picked up Highlighted in bold.

it's a good read.

" Statistics prove that having a gun at home does more harm than good. In fact, "more than 90 percent of break-ins occur while residents are away from their homes" (79). Owners hardly ever get to defend themselves with their guns. Unfortunately, what occurs is that the thieves usually steal the guns which then end up in the wrong hands."

I dont know how people dont see it. All this time searching in Iraq to find Weapons of mass destruction, when you already have it at home.
Small arms are the weapons of mass destruction.

[Zeph]

If a person wants to kill someone, they'd do so with or without a gun. I'm sure the same argument would be made for swords if they were the epitome of warring weapons. How often have you heard 'swords dont kill people...'


Banning guns Worked in Australia. After we had a Massacre in australia we banned them. Since then i cant remember a single even of a gun massacre. People will learn to live without them.
Yes, having a gun massacre take place without guns is difficult. Did it eliminate murder or crime in the country?

Gun control is ridiculous. It is not a preventative measure at all. It only provides consequences for doing something. In my state, it is currently a felony to bring a firearm or other weapon to campus. Does anyone here think that would stop anyone who wants to come on a shooting rampage? Why should a person who is legally able to carry a firearm unable to do so for protection? Virginia state law says it's legal for a permit-holding person to carry a firearm on campus. Virginia Tech's rules for admission counters that, preventing anyone from having a weapon. That didn't stop the guy who went on a shooting spree and it left everyone there legally defenseless.

How often are you going to see this:
http://zeph.h2vista.net/Gun%20Free%20Zone.jpg

[p0lar_bear]

Zeph wins the thread.

Honestly, these laws DO stop stupid people from getting them, thus, lowering the number of deaths caused by sheer stupidiy/accidental discharges/Cheney's hunting friendly fire. However, it makes it a pain in the ass for people like me who want to hold and fire a gun at cans on a fence or a paper target. All I want is a Colt 1911 or a Beretta 92FS, I'm not asking for an AK-47, M16, or an MG42, which are weapons illegal to civilians.

On the other hand, organized crime cells can easily get said illegal weapons through other means; black market, imports, deals, and then trade them off to gangs and shit. Gun control laws are a joke; they just make it feel like something's being done when, in fact, it does nothing about the actual problem.

[Bodzilla]

You dont need to eliminate something entirely to have a positive effect.
And it's outrageous that you justify guns that way. Would you use that same logic if it came to something like Roads?
"we've just had straiter and safer roads put it to lower the road death tolls. But people still die so it's a complete waste of time."

<_<

[p0lar_bear]

You dont need to eliminate something entirely to have a positive effect.
And it's outrageous that you justify guns that way. Would you use that same logic if it came to something like Roads?
"we've just had straiter and safer roads put it to lower the road death tolls. But people still die so it's a complete waste of time."

You missed the point. Entirely. Plus, your analogy makes no sense.

We're saying that people who flaunt around gun control laws like they're the best thing since sliced bread and [peanut] butter are just as ignorant as the stereotypes they portray of average American. If someone really wants to blow your head off, they will, gun control law or not.

[Bodzilla]

If someone really wants to blow your head off, they will, gun control law or not.
no one is arguing that.
jesus.

but Fuck me, it still helps.
what was wrong with my analogy? it Copied his exactly. i just merely substituted Guns for road death tolls and Legislation with road works/construction.


Yes, having a gun massacre take place without guns is difficult. Did it eliminate murder or crime in the country?
mb it helps if i quote the exact part i was replying too.
i thought it was pretty obvious myself. :shrug:

[nooBBooze]

I think its partially true that ppl would still commit certain crimes even if the gun laws would be more harsh-after all if you want to go postal or rob a store or just kill someone, you will find the ways and the means to do so.
But on the other hand there are some deterministic aspects of gun related crimes that could be easily avoided if it wouldnt be that easy to get hold of guns in the first place.
like someone else just mentioned, a gun is one of most comfortable ways to kill a person because you simply dont have to directly atack your victim (unlike stabbin or beating so to death) and since (my opinion) nowadays you can see people getting shot at (on TV[shows] and videogames) almost every day, were pretty much desentezied of that kind of killing. so if someone already owns a gun, it makes it alot easier to seriously consider one those little scenarios [better yet, the general reaction to a intense emotion like ima pissed off->hurt] we like to play out when we have a really bad day. id say, having a gun under the pillow -even if youre a pacifist nature- makes a bit easier to consider to kill someone. its only a little but it can play a significant role in the deterministic chain that leads to a gun related crime.

do guns kill people?
umm...

Mb a principle that applies to global warming also applies to this issue.
Its not like you paint 6 dots on every side of a dice, the dice is only manipulated so the chances that you will get a 6 will get higher. less manipulation, less chances of getting a 6 = smarter gun control less - statistical- chances of gun related crimes.

of course thats a pretty superficial point of view but i dont feel like writing about all the other aspects (sociogeografical and -political and whatnot) as it would fill some pages (or at least mah evening) but it should be possibloe to catch my drift.
and of course i realize, that even if the us government should pass severe gun controls right now, there would still be enough guns for a good slice of the american population around for another 30+years.

EDIT: Also, broad generalisations usually phail. :/
i should run for cover now, should I?

[Bodzilla]

thats why you do a gun exchange program.
worked in australia.

[Zeph]

http://www.academic.marist.edu/alcuin/ssk/draft2.html

This is a Draft of an essay some fella in America made.
It's kinda how i feel on this issue. it's a draft thats been edited, so theres grammatical errors and problems the marker picked up Highlighted in bold.

it's a good read.

" Statistics prove that having a gun at home does more harm than good. In fact, "more than 90 percent of break-ins occur while residents are away from their homes" (79). Owners hardly ever get to defend themselves with their guns. Unfortunately, what occurs is that the thieves usually steal the guns which then end up in the wrong hands."

I dont know how people dont see it. All this time searching in Iraq to find Weapons of mass destruction, when you already have it at home.
Small arms are the weapons of mass destruction.

Why does it matter that it is most likely that a person's home will be broken into while they're away? I mean, just because I'm not in my home 24/7 I shouldn't have a gun? Just because the author of that paper presents the reader with a minority situation doesn't mean a universal constant based on that exists.

No, "weapons of mass destruction" is a political term. They're indiscriminate area of effect weapons, much like the high-yield bombs on our aircraft.


Psychotherapists have frequently pointed out that "people who attempt suicide don't really wish to die. Often the gesture is merely a disguised call for help" (Ladau 62). Other means of suicide such as overdosing on pills or breathing in carbon monoxide from car exhaust can give someone a chance for rescue. The possibility of survival from a gunshot to the head is very rare. Suicide can be a spur of the moment feeling. The more one thinks about (dying?) the more one might find some reasons to live. The accessibility to a gun will give one zero time to analyze what he is about to do, which is (to?) take his life.
Just as the 'psycotherapists' say, there are other means of commiting suicide, so why mess with guns? If they're willing to shoot themselves, they're willing to suck car exhaust. Surviving the ladder is a matter of being found in time. Both are equally deadly. If guns were banned, attempts of suicide would still exist.


Not only do students bring books to school, but they also bring guns. "According to the United States government, on (Not clear: Is this a number?) high school student in every five - from big cities or small towns- carries a weapon of some kind. One in 20 has a gun" (Schleifer 38). If one averages that out, it means that one student in every average size classroom is carrying a gun. As a result of the presence of guns in school, "71 students and school workers dies by gunfire, and another 201 were wounded" (15). School is supposed to be a learning environment, not a battlefield. It is common knowledge that the high school located around the block from my house had (omit) was forced to install metal detectors to avoid anincident at their (the) institution. Unfortunately, due to the presence of these guns entering the educational system, learning has become a secondary priority and surviving has become the number one priority of the students.(Good example - Makes the paper more personal)
Sounds to me like schools need to step up security at their school. I'd like to point out that I've run into this sort of statistic before and it is misleading and on the verge of wrong. One in five high-school students own a weapon. One in 20 students' (not limited to high school) families own or have access to a gun. Close to 300 either died or were wounded out of a population of close to 300 million. This statistic does not mean one in five students actively carry a weapon to school or one in 20 students actively carry weapons to class. Now the one were students actively carry weapons to class would be closer to reality as some states dont have anti-gun laws in campuses and permit holding adults would take a weapon with them for self defense.


People often wonder how students obtain guns, because no one under the age of 18 can legally own a gun. "Some guns are stolen, but studies show that a large percentage of the guns in schools belong to parents or other adults in the family. They are simply brought from home" (40). People in favor of gun availability often argue that gun laws will prohibit guns from falling into the wrong hands. So far this not been the case. Many incidents occur during street crimes. The individual that is attempting to protect himself (or herself) is actually setting him or herself up for losing the weapon and having it used against oneself.
Hmm, the author says he wants gun control laws, but admits they dont work.


Another reason why guns should not be available to private citizens is because the United States has the world's highest rate of gun- related suicides. Americans in favor of gun availability argue that if someone does not have a gun available to use, then they would find something else to use to assist them in his suicide attempts, instead of guns (Anderson).(page # ?)
Hmm, brass knuckles, baseball bats, air compressed staple guns, crossbows, etc. The list goes on and all compliments the human body, which can be deadly enough on its own. Should a ban be placed on the human body as well?


Why do citizens feel the need to own guns? The number one reason why Americans own guns is for protection. This reason is not hard to understand with the rising crime rate, but in reality these guns end up harming their owners and their families, more than they do the intruders. According to the FBI, 55 percent of the murders committed in 1981 were "by relatives or persons acquainted with the victims. And 17 percent of those murders are within domestic relationships. In addition to such killings, a considerable number of deaths and injuries were caused by gun accidents" (Anderson 78). (good)
This is probably the best constructed paragraph gramatically and argumentatively in the entire paper. However it's flawed. Violent crime and murder have existed for a long time since modern weapons became readily available. Pocket knives, or even the common writing pen, can be used to kill someone. Removing guns wont change that.


It is true that guns are necessary for protection in this world, but this does not mean that everyone should have a gun. Private citizens in this country should not be allowed to own guns. The United States Armed Forces and police officers should be the only people to carry guns, since their job is to protect private citizens. If guns are made illegal to citzens the crime rate will go down, safety will go up, and there will be fewer unnecessary deaths. The outlawing of guns will benefit our society.
America was founded on the principle of overturning an unfair government and firearms are a critical part in doing that. If you remove firearms, you remove what democracy we have.

[Emmzee]

Controlling guns is controlling people's choices. The government should not do anything to control what choices its people make.

[Zeph]

I'm not asking for an AK-47, M16, or an MG42, which are weapons illegal to civilians.
They're not illegal weapons for American citizens. My uncle owns a Russian made AK-47. His buddy, a US Marshal has even shot it. The government has some ridiculous definition for assault weapon. Something like if it has two features out of a list it's considered an assault weapon. The list includes things like folding stock, pistol grip, etc. I'd go look it up right now, but I've got to go find some dinner. As for machine guns, you can own them but you have to pay a rediculous fee for them, wait a serious amount of time for a license to process, etc.

America seriously needs firearm and firearm law education before anything done to restrict them.

[Bodzilla]

Controlling guns is controlling people's choices. The government should not do anything to control what choices its people make.
i believe very strongly in what you just said. I analyse everytihng the same way.
i just would prefer it without guns.

also Zeph it was an essay. i dont follow it word for word. it was just an easier and quicker way of pointing out somethings rather then spending a good half hour writting it down.
just relax.

also on the weapons of mass destruction, i believe small arms have had a far greater negative effect on the world then what H-bombs could ever have.

[Mass]

I think everyone skipped over my point, sure, if someone wishes to kill you there is not much you can do about short of killing them first or going into protective custody or whatever. However, do you honestly believe that a even a minority of killers who regret their crimes don't exist? Sure, honest to god pre-meditated murder is hard to stop, but frantic or crazed incidents happen where the death is only made possible by the firearm.

Besides, if gun control laws don't work, make them stronger, now this may be due to my ultra-left wing beliefs in economic regulation, but I think it's perfectly fair to force a manufacturer of lethal products to cease production.

[nooBBooze]

Controlling guns is controlling people's choices. The government should not do anything to control what choices its people make.
People voted for Hitler :/

[Emmzee]

It's not that we're selling guns that's the problem, the problem is that we're selling guns to nutjobs.

Take the Virginia Tech guy. Before he bought his guns, a judge declared him legally insane, or something to that effect. The gun store, and every gun store, for that matter, should've checked this, which would have been easy to do since it's on legal record. They didn't, and the rest is history.

The point is, places that sell guns should do background checks on potential customers before selling them guns. It's their responsibility to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, not the government's.


People voted for Hitler :/
Because he got results. People elected him because he jumpstarted the German economy from the worst inflation and economic depression ever. He also created a scapegoat for said depression, and people love a scapegoat. If you were living in Germany in the late twenties, you'd vote for him.

[Tweek]

If you remove firearms, you remove what democracy we have.

fuck, that has GOT to be the most stupid thing i have ever heard you say.

even you must see that's one of the dumbest statements you can come up with.

[Emmzee]

fuck, that has GOT to be the most stupid thing i have ever heard you say.

even you must see that's one of the dumbest statements you can come up with.
Since the right to own firearms is included in the Bill of Rights, it must not be Democratic.

Oh wait.

I take it you want the Russkies to invade and take away all our rights, since we lack the firepower to fight back?

[Tweek]

no firearms, no democracy?

logic prevails again.

[Emmzee]

no firearms, no democracy?

logic prevails again.
Without guns, we can't do anything to stop tyrannical governments from taking over every aspect of life. Gun control is the first step to mind control.

[Bodzilla]

as far as i'm concerned the right to bear firearms was more of a militia thing.
not created for private use.

[Patrickssj6]

I have to go with Tweek here. I don't care about patriotism nor do I care about your whole right-to-bear-arms thing which I despise.

Banning guns is not going to remove violence but it's one and EASY step to avoid it. There's a reason you can't drive at the age of 14 even though you are probably big enough to hit the acceleration and breaking pedal at the same time. By the time you drive a car you have certain responsibilities because you have the ABILITY to kill people or kill yourself. It's not like we are allowed to run around with knives and drink in excessive amounts and drive because...? It's quite easy, you avoid the one thing in the first place to avoid the consequences of it.

In Germany, you have to redo your shooting license every year which also includes a mental check at the psychiatrist.

Driving under the influence is prohibited, carrying a knife into school is also prohibited even drinking and carrying alcohol in public is prohibited. Why the hell are guns allowed in your own home? Because of what? Tradition? Obsession? Sometimes you have to make sacrifices (which in this case are quite easy) to achieve something better.

I can't put myself in a position of someone who protects the law "the right to bear arms". Nor do I understand those people or support them.

[Emmzee]

Driving under the influence is prohibited, carrying a knife into school is also prohibited even drinking and carrying alcohol in public is prohibited. Why the hell are guns allowed in your own home? Because of what? Tradition? Obsession?
Because it's your home and you have a right to privacy.

[DaneO'Roo]

In Australia, 85&#37; of all violent crime is committed with a gun, despite the fact that is near impossible to get a gun there. Just ask any of our Aussies.


Yeah, 85 percent of our violence happens whit a gun. Too bad theres barely any violence here in australia as it is. You see the occasional lebonese dude shooting someones house for lulz, but no. That is not a statistic to go by.

Whereas america, I've seen about 4 or 5 massacres this year.

Our last one was 1996.

You do the math.

[Emmzee]

Yeah, 85 percent of our violence happens whit a gun. Too bad theres barely any violence here in australia as it is. You see the occasional lebonese dude shooting someones house for lulz, but no. That is not a statistic to go by.

Whereas america, I've seen about 4 or 5 massacres this year.

Our last one was 1996.

You do the math.
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the United States has over 14 times as many people as Australia, and thus a much higher likelihood of something of that sort happening over here.

You do the math.

Also, please show me the 4 or 5 massacres you've seen in America this year. I can only count one.


E: Time for an analogy.

People will get something, regardless of whether or not it's illegal or banned. Take drugs, for example. Anyone who lives in the United States will tell you that anti-drug laws haven't done jack shit to stop drug use. Maybe they slowed it down, but people who want drugs will get them, one way or another. The same applies to guns. If I wanted, I could probably pick up an RPG-7 for a couple grand and a few hours of my time. Making something illegal doesn't make it impossible to obtain.

If you have a gun, and you want to shoot somebody, and they don't have any means of defending themselves, your choice is easy. But if they can shoot back and possibly kill you, it's a bit harder of a decision to make.

[Limited]

Oh goodie, my kind of thread.

If the government says you can have a gun, they are implying you are allowed to kill people, killing people is illegal in America - Dont give me any of the "oh, you can neutrilize them, you can scare them you dont need to use them" bs either. Guns like some one already posted, where made to kill, nothing else


ummm...if guns were eliminated then the criminals would still be getting the illegally imported weapons like aks and stuff. Then the people on the street would be absolutely helpless against that mass murder with the assault rifle..hmm now do you think thats safe? :confused:
Then gun control is doing fuck all, your not controlling the guns at all. I understand those are illegally imported so they arent under the gun control, why not crack down harder on the illegal guns? I dont hear about any gun amnesties in America where you can hand in your guns no questions asked.


Controlling guns is controlling people's choices. The government should not do anything to control what choices its people make.
What? The government says you cant kill people correct? They are therefore controlling your choice to kill some one. So uh yeah....

Here in UK, we have guns banned, any knifes carried in public is illegal, samurai knifes banned. Does it help? Yes. Is there still shooting incidents? Sadly yes, in bigger cities in the north where there are vicious gangs there are shootings. Not being racist, but nearly ALL the gun shootings are done by black people.

Banning guns, removes the urge to just pick up the gun and shoot some one with it, yes it can be a wonderful sport and hunting animals in my opinion should never be stopped (as long as it is as humaine as possible) I dont condone killing any living creature but I feel it is necessary to keep up traditions so we dont all live for granted.

"Its in the bill of rights, therefore it would be against democracy to remove it"
So? In my opinion there is no need what so ever for any one to have a gun, apart from the Army, yes you should be able to protect yourself, so that is why America agrees with guns more, if some one comes into your house and steals your shit you can shoot them (I think), here in UK you'd get put into prison, EVEN if they were going to shoot you first, our law is stupid as shit some times.

Banning guns would decreased the amount of gun crime, yes you can get guns illegally, here in UK you can get an uzi for £50 ($100) which shocks the crap out of me.

Now the whole issue with protecting yourself. There are people in the world that carry bombs around, there are people in the world that handle nuclear substances, does that mean I should have a disarming robot and wear a anti-nuclear suit thing all the time? No that would be ridiculous.

Oh and, the whole stereotype about America being all big guns blazing is 100% true. Allowing guns, allowing the right to shoot someone is certain situations and just US armed forces is the reason the stereotype exists.


I do feel however, it is too late to ban guns in the US. From going from allowing the right to bare arms, to allowing no one to have guns is a BIG change. I bet alot of people would still keep their guns as well due to the whole "I feel its my RIGHT to bare a gun" blah blah. You need to catch it early which isnt really possible now in US. So although I'm against guns it wouldnt be practical to ban the guns in US.

[ExAm]

My post spawned a healthy and intelligent debate? Righteous. I prefer to stay out of it, though.

[Emmzee]

Here in UK, we have guns banned, any knifes carried in public is illegal, samurai knifes banned. Does it help? No.
Fixed it for you.

2004 had a 17.9&#37; increase in violent crime over 2003 in the United Kingdom. Also,

The rise in UK gun crime is a long term trend that is apparently unaffected by the state of UK firearms legislation.
...
Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%, from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06.
Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom)

It's also hard for you to change your opinion with a pro-gun movement in the United Kingdom being virtually nonexistent. It's easy to be right when everyone around you agrees with what you say.

[p0lar_bear]

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/c/c6/Not-again-picard.jpg/800px-Not-again-picard.jpg


Oh goodie, my kind of thread.Oh goodie, my kind of post.


If the government says you can have a gun, they are implying you are allowed to kill people, killing people is illegal in America - Dont give me any of the "oh, you can neutrilize them, you can scare them you dont need to use them" bs either. Guns like some one already posted, where made to kill, nothing elseYour point? Yes, guns were made to kill, plain and simple. What is killed, though, is up to the person behind the sights. People think "gun" and relate to "dead person" because of movies, games, and the media.


why not crack down harder on the illegal guns?Gee, I don't know. Perhaps it's because the authorities aren't omniscient and can't track a box of assault rifles that were well-hidden in a ship containing other imported goods? Criminals good at what they do aren't fucking stupid, and don't get caught easily. Your buddy could have an RPG launcher sitting in his sock drawer, and nobody would ever know unless he showed it to someone.


What? The government says you cant kill people correct? They are therefore controlling your choice to kill some one. So uh yeah....They say we can't kill people. Those are just words. On top of that, it's illegal to kill in cold blood. Accidents, while penalized depending on the situation, and self-defense cases are not illegal.


Banning guns, removes the urge to just pick up the gun and shoot some one with itUh, no? The urge to kill exists no matter what.


So? In my opinion there is no need what so ever for any one to have a gun, apart from the Army, yes you should be able to protect yourself, so that is why America agrees with guns more, if some one comes into your house and steals your shit you can shoot them (I think), here in UK you'd get put into prison, EVEN if they were going to shoot you first, our law is stupid as shit some times.When arguing a point, try not to self-contradict yourself. Thanks.


Oh and, the whole stereotype about America being all big guns blazing is 100&#37; true. Allowing guns, allowing the right to shoot someone is certain situations and just US armed forces is the reason the stereotype exists.I do not own a gun, as much as I'd like to. I follow my own strict moral code, and if I owned a firearm, it would collect dust until I cleaned it and brought it to the range on the rare occasion that someone asked me to go to the range with them. Also, it would probably be a small handgun.

Your "big guns blazing" stereotype is now only 99.9% true. Probably even less.

Way to go. You've managed to self-contradict, babble, belittle the population of the U.S, and offend me in a new way YET again.

[Limited]

2005/06 levels of violent crime had decreased by over 43 per cent from a recent high level in 1995.
A sharp instrument was the most common weapon used in killings followed by firearms. There were 46 homicides involving firearms in 2005/06, 40 per cent (or 31 offences) fewer than 2004/05
Weapons were used in 22 per cent of all violent crimes reported in the BCS in 2005/06. The most common types of weapons used were knives (7 per cent of all incidents), hitting implements (7 per cent), and glass or bottles (4 per cent)

Yes gun crime has gone up, due to the fact like I said there is a massive rise in gang shootings. Im not going to deniey that, the police are cracking down and putting more and more legislations down to stop it. More than what US is doing.

Your point? Yes, guns were made to kill, plain and simple. What is killed, though, is up to the person behind the sights. People think "gun" and relate to "dead person" because of movies, games, and the media.
Pbear, guns were invented to kill people, not animals. Yes nowadays they can be but the intial reason was to kill people, that is why I relate it to "dead person"
"What is killed is up to the person behind the sight" - Your making it sound like shooting someone is moral and not a big deal.


Gee, I don't know. Perhaps it's because the authorities aren't omniscient and can't track a box of assault rifles that were well-hidden in a ship containing other imported goods? Criminals good at what they do aren't fucking stupid, and don't get caught easily. Your buddy could have an RPG launcher sitting in his sock drawer, and nobody would ever know unless he showed it to someone.
I know that, the people who buy and use the guns illegally are the stupid ones, authorities should go after both. There wouldnt be any supply if there wasnt any demand. Todays culture premits guns, movies, video games and even the law.


They say we can't kill people. Those are just words. On top of that, it's illegal to kill in cold blood. Accidents, while penalized depending on the situation, and self-defense cases are not illegal.
No, the law states, breaking the law deminishes some of your rights just to let you know.


Uh, no? The urge to kill exists no matter what.
If its easier to do so people are more likely to do it, unless they have a massive personal vendetta against this person. If you have to go to the hassle to illegaly buy the gun then buy the ammo and then use it your less likely to do it rather than just opening your padlocked case and whip out your gun and shoot them.


When arguing a point, try not to self-contradict yourself. Thanks.
Im stating my stance on gun control, I havent said I want guns in US, I say it would be very hard to now impley it.


I do not own a gun, as much as I'd like to. I follow my own strict moral code, and if I owned a firearm, it would collect dust until I cleaned it and brought it to the range on the rare occasion that someone asked me to go to the range with them. Also, it would probably be a small handgun.
This is the problem! You can not assume everyone in the US is following the same moral code. Neither can the law.


Your "big guns blazing" stereotype is now only 99.9&#37; true. Probably even less.
Oh really? Thats close enough for me to believe.


Way to go. You've managed to self-contradict, babble, belittle the population of the U.S, and offend me in a new way YET again.
Belittle the population of US? Hah I think not, I'm belitting the US LAW, the law should change more than the people. People would need to change a bit though, and THAT is the problem, "America is too stubborn" - Not my words.

E: By the way, Im not picking on the US only, my feelings about gun control is the same for any country that permits guns, its just I know the most about gun control in US. So I'm using that as an example, so please dont be so childish and take this as a personal attack to Americans.

[Emmzee]

Belittle the population of US? Hah I think not, I'm belitting the US LAW, the law should change more than the people. People would need to change a bit though, and THAT is the problem, "America is too stubborn" - Not my words.
Quoting something means you believe it.

Good job contradicting yourself.

Take your anti-American bullshit elsewhere, Limited.

[Limited]

Quoting something means you believe it.
Uh, no it doesnt, quoting some thing is a premise, you can then disagree with it.


Good job contradicting yourself.
Read my post....

Take your anti-American bullshit elsewhere, Limited.
Its anti-gun. Not American :D

Also is that the only reply you have, even though your facts are correct but mean nothing in proportion.

[Emmzee]

Also is that the only reply you have, even though your facts are correct but mean nothing in proportion.
Yeah, they do. They mean that gun control in the UK has done nothing to stop crime.


"America is too stubborn"
You still chose to quote it. If it isn't what you believe, why quote it?


People would need to change a bit though

Its anti-gun. Not American :D
Looks to me like you contradicted yourself there.

[Mass]

umm, I'm anti-gun and I'm American, do I somehow not count?

[Emmzee]

umm, I'm anti-gun and I'm American, do I somehow not count?
You have yet to make the same statements that Limited is making. I never said everyone who was anti-gun is anti-American, I exposed Limited as making yet another anti-American post.

[Warsaw]

Well, here are my 2 kopeks, straight up in easy to read bullet form:

-Firearms were created to out-range edged weaponry and to penetrate evermore effective armor, and therefore, were created for the purpose of removing an enemy threat from a hostile environment. i.e. soldiers on a battleground

-Firearms do not kill on their own, they require a human mind to build it, load it, lock it, and fire it. Therefore, the real problem is human nature, but it is easier to remove firearms than it is to change human nature.

-Emotional outbursts may cause a person to commit irrational acts. The presence of a gun may encourage those actions, magnify them, or simply make them easy to commit. Therefore, the problem is still human nature, and the weapon is simply a catalyst. i.e. Person A is furious at Person B and has fantasies about killing Person B, and goes through with it because he has an easy-to-reach means of killing in the form of a firearm. The presence of said firearm amplified the thought of murder.

-Banning all weapons may reduce the murder rate somewhat, but only through minimizing the effects of the above bullet. Those who are really intent on murder will still find a way, and organized crime will be even worse because nobody can fend off the thugs sent after them. i.e. banks will be easier to rob because there won't be that one guy in the line who has a gun unbeknownst to the burglars.

-"Outlaw firearms, and outlaws will be the only ones with firearms."

-If weapons are outlawed, then when a government truly becomes oppressive and otherwise abusive of its power, nobody will be able to rise up and replace that government with a better one, or at least make an attempt to do so. The lack of weaponry will discourage a rebellion, and any rebellion that does take place will be quashed by well-armed government fighters. "Ideas are more powerful than weapons. If we don't let the people have weapons, why would we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin

Personally, I am a pro-gun supporter. This country's gun-control laws are for the most part, a joke. They only define the receiver as the actual firearm, you have to have a certain number of US-made parts on it (why?), 10 rounds is designated as hi-capacity in some areas, removable magazines are illegal in other areas, I mean, come on, this is ridiculous.

In my opinion:

-A FIREARM is any device that propels a projectile electrically (rail-guns) or through the expansion of a gas.

-An ASSAULT WEAPON is a gun with a medium-powered cartridge and the ability to cycle between semi-automatic and at least one automatic mode of fire.

-The part where a law stating that it must be manufactured in the USA might help is the trigger group.

-No removable magazines (California, I am looking at you)? Seriously, anyone with practice can load a stripper clip just as fast as a magazine.

-All firearm purchases should require a background check. None of this "random" or "selective" nonsense. They keep those personal records for a reason.

-Have all states require a special license to carry a concealed firearm.

-Require full size rifles to be partially disassembled during transportation.

[Limited]

You have yet to make the same statements that Limited is making. I never said everyone who was anti-gun is anti-American, I exposed Limited as making yet another anti-American post.
Sigh, your reading between the lines, reading what you want to hear.

[Tweek]

and so, the quotewars hath begun.

[Emmzee]

Sigh, your reading between the lines, reading what you want to hear.
Please, enlighten me. How is reading between the lines equal to reading what I want to hear? Here's what you said:

Oh and, the whole stereotype about America being all big guns blazing is 100% true.
No it isn't. If you ever actually came here instead of ingesting the bullshit anti-American propaganda floating around Europe like a baby sucking on its mother's teat, you'd know that.

America is too stubborn" - Not my words.
They may "not be your words," but you still said them, meaning you believe them. Why say something you don't personally believe, unless you're a politician? Either you've got shit for brains or you really are anti-American.

[ICEE]

I don't think there is really a way around this. Yes, guns definitely increase the amount of killing that happens, I mean thats ultimately what they're designed to do: kill living creatures, but (in America at least) we were promised from the start the right to bear arms, and if that right were taken away, then it would cause other problems. I think that guns are necessary to defend ourselves from other people, because some people are just whack jobs. I don't think removing guns would stop massacres in America because if you want to kill a person, its not hard. It can be done with plenty of household necessities. There is another side to this however: when our forefather's guaranteed us the right to bear arms, they only had very basic weapons, and could not have predicted our high powered automatic guns of today. They only gave us this right (speculation) because they wanted the people to be able to fight the government if it should go awry like the way the British did, however nowadays people don't have access to the government's high powered weapons, so defending ourselves would really be impossible. As the matter of world peace, I say that will never happen. Men killed each other with swords before guns and stones and sticks before that. World peace is a fun little dream, but will never happen. Guns are not the heart of war nowadays anyways, because we have nuclear arms.

I guess I don't know what should be done, but I don't really see a way to remove guns from our society.

[Patrickssj6]

Because it's your home and you have a right to privacy.
So drugs and raping in your own home is allowed?

Don't tell me you are actually stupid enough to prefer the right to privacy over the fact that your children might get killed because of it.



No it isn't. If you ever actually came here instead of ingesting the bullshit anti-American propaganda floating around Europe like a baby sucking on its mother's teat, you'd know that.


How about you move your ass over here along with (I'm going to use facts here) your other silingual (see the word doesn't even exist, there is another word for it called "being an American") and what-do-I-care-about-other-countries-in-the-world American "race" and see how things are being done here.

I moved recently from USA to Germany after 4 years, after around being 2 years in South-America.

So maybe I should comment on the, how you call it, "propaganda floating around Europe" since I obviously have more experience than you?

[Warsaw]

They only gave us this right (speculation) because they wanted the people to be able to fight the government if it should go awry like the way the British did, however nowadays people don't have access to the government's high powered weapons, so defending ourselves would really be impossible. As the matter of world peace, I say that will never happen. Men killed each other with swords before guns and stones and sticks before that. World peace is a fun little dream, but will never happen. Guns are not the heart of war nowadays anyways, because we have nuclear arms.

I guess I don't know what should be done, but I don't really see a way to remove guns from our society.

Slightly off topic but the British didn't exactly go "awry." The Colonies were taxed, and they didn't like it; they had never been taxed before, and were essentially "spoiled" by that privilege. What was wrong about what the British did, however, was remove English taxes and impose those taxes onto the colonies to please the pompous windbags in Parliament at the time, justified by their stationing troops in the colonies for the French-Indian War. Those troops were neither asked for, wanted, nor did they do much at all during the War except die. It was colonial militia that achieved the real victories.

/history lesson.

[Emmzee]

Don't tell me you are actually stupid enough to prefer the right to privacy over the fact that your children might get killed because of it.
I take you've never heard of gun safety education.

How about you move your ass over here along with (I'm going to use facts here) your other silingual (see the word doesn't even exist, there is another word for it called "being an American") and what-do-I-care-about-other-countries-in-the-world American "race" and see how things are being done here.
From what I can tell by reading crime statistics and German gun law, you guys haven't passed a major gun law since 1938, and that one included a provision that made it illegal for Jews to own guns, so why don't you move to a nation with actual gun control and tell me I'm wrong when you've actually experienced it.

Not to mention that Germany has hardly any violent crime anyway, regardless of guns.

[Warsaw]

He was referring to a member of the family losing it and killing someone, not a gun accident.

[Emmzee]

He was referring to a member of the family losing it and killing someone, not a gun accident.
Seems like it would be the latter more than the former, because I'm reading of little kids finding their dad's poorly-hidden gun and blowing their heads off much more than people going crazy and killing their family.

[Warsaw]

Both are possibilities. Looking at the context of his post, it would seem he was referring to freak incidents and not an accident, but only he can tell you.

[Emmzee]

Just throwing this out there, but in 2005 in the United States, 42,636 people were killed in car crashes, and another 2.9 million injured, compared to roughly 30,000 killed by gun violence and less than a million injured.

Why don't we ban cars, seeing as they kill more people?

The answer: no. It is unrealistic, just as it is unrealistic to ban every gun.

[Warsaw]

And right you are about that, good sir.

[Mass]

Yes, but cars are a principle means of transport of goods and persons, and many of the specialized occupations of our civilization are impossible without them, where as if all the guns disappeared it would only affect a minority of people who use them for pleasure. Besides, I don't think its wrong to ban at least some cars, like pick up trucks, SUVs, minivans and other shit people don't need, unless of course you do need it, in which case that information should be included on your license.

Anyway, considering how many more people use cars than guns that figure doesn't mean much to me. :eyesroll:

[Warsaw]

"There is one gun for every twelve people in the world. The question is, how do we arm the other eleven?"

--Yuri Orlov

:p

I would be willing to bet that the number of people who own guns in the world comes close to the number of people who own cars in the world.

[Emmzee]

This site (http://www.unece.org/stats/trends2005/transport.htm) says that there are .776 cars for every American (as of 2005), whereas this site (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070829/ai_n19487692) says there are .9 guns to every American (as of 2007).

There are more guns in America than cars, and yet cars kill more people.

[kenney001]

Hmmm....lets see. We ban guns, and the people that would use them to protect would not have them, and the people that would do harm with them find other means of getting them, because the law obviously does not matter all that much to them.......Then the people who are innocent have no means of defense against those that arn't

I like the logic..../sarcasm

honestly, if there is one thing we should be getting rid of, its nuclear weapons. What's better than a device that can take out an entire metropolitan city!!

[jngrow]

This site (http://www.unece.org/stats/trends2005/transport.htm) says that there are .776 cars for every American (as of 2005), whereas this site (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070829/ai_n19487692) says there are .9 guns to every American (as of 2007).

There are more guns in America than cars, and yet cars kill more people.
No duh there are more guns, but the people who own them often have a lot more than one.

Guns need to be 10x harder to get in America. A complete ban would never work.

[Mass]

This site (http://www.unece.org/stats/trends2005/transport.htm) says that there are .776 cars for every American (as of 2005), whereas this site (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070829/ai_n19487692) says there are .9 guns to every American (as of 2007).

There are more guns in America than cars, and yet cars kill more people.
:eek: shit, I would have thought like .2 or something. Although I did say use and not own.

[Limited]

Please, enlighten me. How is reading between the lines equal to reading what I want to hear?

The fact you skipped over the facts I posted.


No it isn't. If you ever actually came here instead of ingesting the bullshit anti-American propaganda floating around Europe like a baby sucking on its mother's teat, you'd know that.
I hope you realise that the judgement comes from afar, therefore you see it in a different light than I do, you might not think America tries to be big badass compared to other countries because you dont actually have a clue how other countries operate. I only know about how America operates because they like to whore it out on our news channels since our country has been their bitch


Just throwing this out there, but in 2005 in the United States, 42,636 people were killed in car crashes, and another 2.9 million injured, compared to roughly 30,000 killed by gun violence and less than a million injured.

1. If you had read my post you would have spotted that I said "guns were invented to kill", cars however were made for transportation.
2. .9 of a gun per person in US is a SHOCKING STATISTIC, why does everyone in US need a gun? Protection yes, but it isnt essential.
3. Most car crashes are survivable, thats why the ratio of the 4 statistics is so vast.

Switzerland has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

If Switzerland can control it, why cant America?

[Warsaw]

Why can't we control it? Because our government is half-broken and crippled by corrupt Congressman who care only about getting re-elected (and I say re-elected because it is very uncommon for someone new to get into office) and don't really give much thought to what is in the best interest of the country. I'll tell you a piece of legislation that would greatly help this country, including the problem with gun control, if it were to be passed:

An act or amendment banning pork barrel legislature and any other non-germane tidbits that are earmarked onto a bill. And why, do you ask, will this fix the issues? Well, if Congressmen can not pork barrel, then they are drastically impaired in their ability to get re-elected, making the only option to improve their chances is to actually work on legislation to better the entire country and not just their states.

Voila, instant fix!

Will it ever happen? Probably not. Why? See first part of this post. :v

Also, in Switzerland, technically everybody is part of their armed forces, which is why there are so many automatic weapons and pistols. The fact that those weapons are also not illegal for a majority of the population to own lessens the desire to have possession of one because, let's face it, humans LOVE breaking the rules.

[Patrickssj6]

Not to mention that Germany has hardly any violent crime anyway, regardless of guns.
Sorry but :lmao:

Berlin has more Muslims than Ankara (that's the capital of Turkey; only if you don't know). Now imagine, if only 66&#37; have work, don't want to integrate into the Christian culture (like restricting their children to get swim lessons in German schools) and want to develop their own religion.

Now on the other hand you have the Germans that, even if you finish High School and College you don't get any work, have so many social problems and now those 2 things collide.

Tell me there is hardly ANY violence. There are parts in Berlin (e.g Kreuzberg) where not even police have any control. I've lived in New York and I can tell you that even the Bronx at night is even more secure than that.

Those people get into fights because they are bored and tired; tired of not having any work or to get even a chance to succeed in life. They start to train themselves how to fight, imagine if they would have access to guns...imagine if .9 of them had guns...

[Emmzee]

Tell me there is hardly ANY violence.
Okay.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/gm-germany/cri-crime

Hardly any violent crime.

[Patrickssj6]

Okay.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/gm-germany/cri-crime

Hardly any violent crime.

Actually you are right now proving the point that guns cause violence because that's the only obvious difference between Germany and USA are the amount of weapons owned by each citizen unless of course US citizen have some kind of a mental retardation carried on by their gens that makes them brutal murders.

Also I might add those numbers have been taken from 1998-2000. At that time the European nation was half as small as it is today and Turkey and all the other Russian countries not even part of it; hell not even the Euro existed back then.

Also here some up-to-date-stuff:
http://www.spiegel.de/flash/0,5532,15259,00.html

The crimes going from 1/8 (your source 1998-2000) to 1/4 (my source 2006) of the population. A dramatic increase I might add.

[Emmzee]

The fact you skipped over the facts I posted.
Too bad your facts were a bullshit one-year statistic, which hardly indicates trends. Let's see some crime statistics that cover a period of ten years or more that show that crime in England has decreased, hm?


The crimes going from 1/8 (your source 1998-2000) to 1/4 (my source 2006) of the population. A dramatic increase I might add.
Thanks for proving my initial point. Gun control does jack shit.

[nooBBooze]

Also I might add those numbers have been taken from 1998-2000. At that time the European nation was half as small as it is today and Turkey and all the other Russian countries not even part of it; hell not even the Euro existed back then.

Europe is not a nation :saddowns:

[Warsaw]

Technically, America isn't a nation either, it's two continents. The United States, on the other hand, is a perfectly viable name :haw:.

[Limited]

Europe is not a nation :saddowns:He ment Union, translation error :P silly pat (jk pat)

Gun crime in England and Wales dropped by 14&#37; last year, the murder rate was down by 9% and overall crime has remained broadly stable, according to Home Office figures published yesterday.

The annual homicide and gun crime figures published yesterday reveal the decline of the traditional armed robbery, with raids on banks, post offices and building societies all falling sharply over the past 10 years

Overall, they show that the risk of becoming a victim of crime in England and Wales has gone up from 23% to 24% but remains at a historically low level after peaking at 40% in 1995.

The fall in gun crime, down from 11,371 incidents to 9,728 in the year to last September, was welcomed by the Home Office minister Tony McNulty

The number of people killed in gun attacks was unchanged at 57 - down from a peak of more than 70 two years ago.

The police recorded crime figures show a 3% fall in all crime, with the BCS indicating a "statistically insignificant" 4% rise, leaving the impression of a broadly stable crime picture. Both sets of figures continue to show continuing falls in burglary and car crime. Violent crime fell by 1% on police figures and rose 2% according to the BCS.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf

In the year ending 31 March 2005 provisional figures show a:
16% reduction in the use of handguns
9% reduction in robberies involving firearms
6% reduction in serious injuries from firearms offenceshttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

Have fun Emmzee, that enough?

I dont want to argue about gun control, sadly criminals have seen that it gives good results (bank robberies, etc) therefore they are trying their best to get hold on them.

[ExAm]

Technically, America isn't a nation either, it's two continents. The United States, on the other hand, is a perfectly viable name :haw:.
We're just lazy about it. What else are we going to use to describe our citizens besides "amercans"? I can't think of anything that's short and usable to describe citizens of the United States. "United States-ians"? Nah.

[Emmzee]

He ment Union, translation error :P silly pat (jk pat)

Gun crime in England and Wales dropped by 14&#37; last year, the murder rate was down by 9% and overall crime has remained broadly stable, according to Home Office figures published yesterday.

The annual homicide and gun crime figures published yesterday reveal the decline of the traditional armed robbery, with raids on banks, post offices and building societies all falling sharply over the past 10 years

Overall, they show that the risk of becoming a victim of crime in England and Wales has gone up from 23% to 24% but remains at a historically low level after peaking at 40% in 1995.

The fall in gun crime, down from 11,371 incidents to 9,728 in the year to last September, was welcomed by the Home Office minister Tony McNulty

The number of people killed in gun attacks was unchanged at 57 - down from a peak of more than 70 two years ago.

The police recorded crime figures show a 3% fall in all crime, with the BCS indicating a "statistically insignificant" 4% rise, leaving the impression of a broadly stable crime picture. Both sets of figures continue to show continuing falls in burglary and car crime. Violent crime fell by 1% on police figures and rose 2% according to the BCS.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf

In the year ending 31 March 2005 provisional figures show a:
16% reduction in the use of handguns
9% reduction in robberies involving firearms
6% reduction in serious injuries from firearms offenceshttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

Have fun Emmzee, that enough?

I dont want to argue about gun control, sadly criminals have seen that it gives good results (bank robberies, etc) therefore they are trying their best to get hold on them.
Still not indicative of any long-term trends. Show me a marked decrease in violent crime over the past fifteen years and I'll concede.

But I digress.

The real point of this argument is that gun control, at least in America, will never work. Ever. Fuck you guys, I'm out.


Gun control is useless and banning guns won't solve the problem. They'll just turn to knives instead.
/thread

[Limited]

Still not indicative of any long-term trends. Show me a marked decrease in violent crime over the past fifteen years and I'll concede.
Pssh, whatever, then you'll say 20 years. Gun control has helped prevent ALOT of crimes, yes some get through but that number would be alot higher without the work being done now.

Rossmum, then ban knifes too. Knifes are banned in public in UK unless you have a FULLY meaning full reason (chef, carpet fitter etc) randomly walking around for no reason having a knife is illegal.

[Jay2645]

OH HAI LET'S BAN KNIVES THAN!

*At Dinner*
HOW WE SUPOSED TO EAT STAKE?

[ExAm]

OH HAI LET'S BAN KNIVES THAN!

*At Dinner*
HOW WE SUPOSED TO EAT STAKE?Answer: Get fillet mignon instead - The steak you can cut with a fork.

[Patrickssj6]

European Union, United Nations xD

My bad.


OH HAI LET'S BAN KNIVES THAN!

*At Dinner*
HOW WE SUPOSED TO EAT STAKE?

Knives have a second purpose. Guns don't.


Answer: Get fillet mignon instead - The steak you can cut with a fork.

:lmao: +rep

[ExAm]

Guns have a second purpose too. Have you ever seen the ones specifically made for target shooting?

[Patrickssj6]

Guns have a second purpose too. Have you ever seen the ones specifically made for target shooting?
Contradiction.

I'm pretty sure you don't go out and have "fun" with your MP7.

[Limited]

Guns have a second purpose too. Have you ever seen the ones specifically made for target shooting?
Yes, you practise shooting targets and THEN shoot people lol. Plus were talking about proper guns real ones not just ones made for target shooting.

[nooBBooze]

We're just lazy about it. What else are we going to use to describe our citizens besides "amercans"? I can't think of anything that's short and usable to describe citizens of the United States. "United States-ians"? Nah.
But still, if you ask any US citizen, he will tell you hes american - but on the other hand if you ask any citizen of the EU, id be surprised if even one of them will think of himself as a European. id say 9.5 out of ten random europeans will rather stick to their respective countries instead of the eu.
the eu is merely a schcizophrenic, beuorocratic and economic union.

also,
pants.

[Warsaw]

I was just kidding about the "America" thing, no need to take it to the next level.

Also, what is the difference between a target gun and a real gun other than shape and/or size? Both those and "proper" guns can still kill; yes, even those chambered in .17 Fireball or what have you.

[p0lar_bear]

Contradiction.

I'm pretty sure you don't go out and have "fun" with your MP7.

I'm also sure you don't go out to dinner and cut your food with a combat knife or switchblade.

[ExAm]

Contradiction.

I'm pretty sure you don't go out and have "fun" with your MP7.No, I'm dead serious. Most often they're .22 caliber rifles or handguns with a light frame and slightly unorthodox build, as well as a single shot mechanism. They aren't made for killing. That wasn't the intention that the makers had when they designed them. They're designed specifically to give the optimum accuracy and weight for shooting a small bullet at a small, paper target over a certain distance.

[Leiukemia]

Figured I'd get in here with a long post myself as well. I didn't read the last 2 pages so I don't know what was adressed there, but here goes. I'm seeing this thread is a whole lot of fantisizing.
Arguement:
Gun supporter(GS): "guns should be legal but with stricter laws then what are in existance"
Anti-gun(AG):"Guns should be made illegal, so nobody has access to guns"
GS:"people will always have access to guns, whether legal or not, and will use them as they please"
AG:"then they should just be stricter and remove all guns so nobody has them no matter what (this is the general idea I'm getting from some points made here)

What you're getting into now is "well they shoulds" and "what if's". You see, it's just not going to happen that easy. It is MUCH easier to make stricter gun laws then it is to sift through the country and remove all guns, legal and illegal. You're coming up with this shit like everything is so easily possible. With the state of crime in America (I'm just using America as I know most about it and it seems the most argued about country in this thread. Saying that they could just remove completly all guns from the country is rediculous. If stuff like that was so possible, then things like completely eliminating crime would be possible as well. Do you really think with the state the world is in that completly illiminating guns is that possible? It's just all bullshit of a world you'd like to see, how it "should be". You're not coming up with problem solvers in the least, I'm sorry. You're creating a bunch of shit in your head you'd like to see. It's time for a reality check, to look at the problem as it is and as what is actually possible.

Here, I'll give an example on a larger scale:
"Everyone should be rich, there should just be no homeless people. There shouldn't be any disease. There should be no hunger. Nobody should ever harm another person. Everyone should have equal rights and everyone should feel happy about themselves. People should live for as long as they like, and everything should go well for them their entire lives."

See what I did there? Same thing as you, except making it larger to see how rediculous it is. It's just not going to happen, not yet anyways with the state of the world. You're not coming up with answers at all, you're coming up with "should be's". You need to address this on the scale that is possible. Like the point already made, criminal and mental records of people are kept. They can be made available to gun stores. Regulation on what and what isn't legal to carry is possible (IE calibers, type of guns, etc). People found in possesion of illegal arms can be persecuted. It's obvious guns are important to large populations (What I'm meaning here is their mindset, as in guns are their passion or what they feel is necessary). With all these people trying so hard to keep guns legal, or make them legal, it is not unlikely at all that groups of supporters would be able to regulate guns better then what is being done now (IE gun education, check-ups on liscences and use etc).

And no, I'm not saying lets give up and take the shit. That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is we're not yet at the point of being able to get rid of guns completly. Maybe it will be in the future, but things like gun regulation are the stepping stones to getting there. I would love to see all the things happen in that rediculous Should-be statement I made as well, but again we need to work our way there by taking it one step at a time. Start thinking about the now, what is possible at this time, and stop fantasizing about how you would like to see things.

[Warsaw]

True.

However, never will the world be in a state to give up guns completely. It doesn't fit with human nature. Stricter gun laws would not necessarily help either. Ok, so it is harder to obtain a weapon, so what? The legal methods are not the only methods of obtaining a firearm, unfortunately. Remember, where there is a will there is a way.

[nooBBooze]

Contradiction.

I'm pretty sure you don't go out and have "fun" with your MP7.
seeing as guns symbolyze the penis, you symbolically wank with them.
theres your fun.:)


True.

However, never will the world be in a state to give up guns completely. It doesn't fit with human nature. Stricter gun laws would not necessarily help either. Ok, so it is harder to obtain a weapon, so what? The legal methods are not the only methods of obtaining a firearm, unfortunately. Remember, where there is a will there is a way.

ppl plead for the legalization of weed with the same arguments.

[Bodzilla]

ppl plead for the legalization of weed with the same arguments.
Nice parry ;D

Warsaw we all accept that people can still get guns if tey go through the right channel. However there is a time delay. Not having a gun on hand during an argument and instead having to go buy one illegally gives you time to think and evaluate your next action.

Instead of "I'm gunna Fucking kill you bitch", it becomes "mb this wasn't such a good idea. Tuck this shit, i aint going to prison because of a stupid whore".

I reckon the Delay would work wonders for sporatic shootings. Because unless you really had a reason to most people wouldnt go through the gangs to get one.

[Leiukemia]

True.

However, never will the world be in a state to give up guns completely. It doesn't fit with human nature. Stricter gun laws would not necessarily help either. Ok, so it is harder to obtain a weapon, so what? The legal methods are not the only methods of obtaining a firearm, unfortunately. Remember, where there is a will there is a way.

About the middle of your post, that's exactly what I was saying. People are always going to have access to guns legal or not. But I think stricter gun laws would help, especially focusing on education as someone already pointed out the large numbers of people who cause personal injury with them. Also, it wouldn't hurt either, I can see it as only making things better. If people don't like the strict laws, then they're obviously wanting to use them for something they shouldn't be, and in that case don't deserve the easyness of going to a gunshop and picking one up. Also, you have to remember there isn't exactly two opposite extremes to people who own guns. There's the medium of people who use them in an unsafe manner, such as firing them in places they shouldn't, not using a proper gun range etc. These are the people who would be held back by the gun laws. Also, since these people are really more of delinquants then people who are wanting guns to go out and shoot people, it is far less likely that they are the kind of people who would go out of their way to get an illegal gun. I think catching up with this medium of idiots who misuse guns, not exactly in a major crime, but just fucking around stupidly, would be a very good idea.

[Warsaw]

I agree with what you people are saying (sorry if I didn't say so before). I am not arguing for either side here, just pointing things out.

Also, define stricter gun laws. "Strict" can mean not being able to own certain types/certain features, or making it harder to get one in the first place. From what you guys are saying, it seems you are focused on the latter.