Gaming Steve Message Board

Random Encounters => Everything Else => Topic started by: syphonbyte on January 07, 2007, 05:32:18 am

Title: The Gun Topic
Post by: syphonbyte on January 07, 2007, 05:32:18 am
Since the Saddam hanging topic was getting a bit crowded, I figured it was time to branch out into a gun control debate topic! I'll start by responding to a post Bastardman made.

So, if not at flamethrowers, where would you draw the line, exactly? Anti-tank guns? Land mines? Weapons grade plutonium?
Few people would actually purchase anti-tank guns, landmines or plutonium even if they were legal to own, because they would be ridiculously impractical. A good example of this is the S&W Model 500, a revolver which fires .500 caliber rounds and is the most powerful production revolver in the world. When it was released there were many who argued that it ought to be outright banned because of how enormously powerful it is. (The muzzle power is almost 3 times that of the the Model 29 used by Dirty Harry.) Despite this, there has never been a Model 500 used in a crime in the US. Why? It's impractical on a number of levels, such as the prohibitive price, which is the main thing that would keep people from buying, say, anti-tank guns or plutonium. (You can't exactly hide it that well, either.)

I think that gun ownership should be legal for whatever purpose the owner wants to use it for aside from murder. Certainly there are correlations between gun ownership and murder, because murderers probably buy guns. There are correlations between violent crimes and video games as well. Cigarettes cost far less than firearms and cause quite a few deaths, and are much more indiscriminate about their victims. Alcohol and drunk driving also kill a lot of people.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Didero on January 07, 2007, 05:37:17 am
Few people would actually purchase anti-tank guns, landmines or plutonium even if they were legal to own, because they would be ridiculously impractical. A good example of this is the S&W Model 500, a revolver which fires .500 caliber rounds and is the most powerful production revolver in the world. When it was released there were many who argued that it ought to be outright banned because of how enormously powerful it is. (The muzzle power is almost 3 times that of the the Model 29 used by Dirty Harry.) Despite this, there has never been a Model 500 used in a crime in the US. Why? It's impractical on a number of levels, such as the prohibitive price, which is the main thing that would keep people from buying, say, anti-tank guns or plutonium. (You can't exactly hide it that well, either.)
If it's so impractical and expensive, why would you want to sell/buy/be allowed to own it?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: sltlamina on January 07, 2007, 05:39:36 am
A guy In Australia sold a Rocket Launcher to a suspected Terrorist :-\ I'd buy plutonium, I can think of loads of uses for that.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 07, 2007, 05:54:52 am
Few people would actually purchase anti-tank guns, landmines or plutonium even if they were legal to own, because they would be ridiculously impractical. A good example of this is the S&W Model 500, a revolver which fires .500 caliber rounds and is the most powerful production revolver in the world. When it was released there were many who argued that it ought to be outright banned because of how enormously powerful it is. (The muzzle power is almost 3 times that of the the Model 29 used by Dirty Harry.) Despite this, there has never been a Model 500 used in a crime in the US. Why? It's impractical on a number of levels, such as the prohibitive price, which is the main thing that would keep people from buying, say, anti-tank guns or plutonium. (You can't exactly hide it that well, either.)
If it's so impractical and expensive, why would you want to sell/buy/be allowed to own it?

The same reason anybody would want something impractical and expensive; to shoot elephants.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Celdur on January 07, 2007, 06:18:06 am
a gun is a gun and guns kil why would you want stronger guns? we dont have zombies and cyborgs on this planet....
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: HolsteinCow on January 07, 2007, 06:26:20 am
(http://i14.tinypic.com/449gzsy.jpg)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Daxx on January 07, 2007, 06:37:27 am
So, for what good reason should gun ownership be legal?

To protect against the redcoats when we come back to put down the American revolutionaries, obviously. ;D

Okay, humourous comments aside, there's an important point to this post.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Granting people the ability to "bear arms" (in other words, to serve as a soldier) is a relic of the days when the US could not afford to maintain a standing professional army and required people to serve as a militia. Isn't it a bit outdated? I mean, who would you be defending yourself against now?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: HolsteinCow on January 07, 2007, 06:57:20 am
So, for what good reason should gun ownership be legal?

To protect against the redcoats when we come back to put down the American revolutionaries, obviously. ;D

Okay, humourous comments aside, there's an important point to this post.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Granting people the ability to "bear arms" (in other words, to serve as a soldier) is a relic of the days when the US could not afford to maintain a standing professional army and required people to serve as a militia. Isn't it a bit outdated? I mean, who would you be defending yourself against now?

Black people and Democrats ::)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Legodragonxp on January 07, 2007, 08:07:50 am
The level to which you say 'that is too much power' is insanely subjcetive. I could make an arguement that a .22LR is powerful enough for all civilian needs. I could also make an argument that the .30-06 rifle should be the top end. Then exchange can be argued in either direction from either point on basis of 'statistics', 'moral high-ground', 'humane treatment' and other 'issues'.

This same arguemnt could be applied to any machine. Does anybody 'need' a Corvette or a Porsche? Are they too powerful? Should we limit maximum horsepower? To what level? 50HP, 100HP, 200HP? Limit top speeds instead? Again, to what 55? 65? 105? 165?

There are a lot of 'high-powered' firearms. The really powerful ones are generally owned by wealthy individuals becuase they are extremely expensive to fire $3-$8 PER SHOT in some cases. Are these weapons a threat to society? Not really. Criminals generally want something small and cheap. The .50 caliber handguns are huge, hard to control, and expensive. A .357 magnum does, for almost all intensive purposes, the same thing, and is much easier to use/attain/feed.

US federal law prohibits the ownership of firearms, using smokeless powder, firing a bullet of a diameter greater the .51 inches without special permit. Several US states have more strict rulings because of the sudden rise in ownership of .50 BMG rifles. This is the same round as what is fired out of heavy machine guns (such as from the top of Tanks, and the wings of most US fighter planes in WWII). There are several 'slightly smaller' rounds out there that are just about as powerful (.45-70 for example) that people ignore because 'that is an old west gun'.

It boils down to people don't want to live in fear, but each person fears a different thing. Where I might fear not being able to defend myself from an attacker, another person would fear that I would be the attacker since I own a gun. The gun control types want to control people with laws. How do you control someone who wants to be a criminal and, by definition, ignores the law in the first place?

All this argument stands to do, at least here, is to enflame both sides while they all pull out their 'statistics' and 'beliefs' to attempt to sway the other side that they are supeior to the other. Enjoy.

-Lego


Robert A. Heinlein  - "An armed society is a polite society."
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Daxx on January 07, 2007, 08:38:57 am
How do you control someone who wants to be a criminal and, by definition, ignores the law in the first place?

Lets look at two countries with differing attitudes to gun ownership. The US, which people are familiar with, allow their citizens to possess firearms by granting them constitutional freedom to do so. The UK has one of the tightest attitudes towards gun control in the world.

The argument above suggests that gun control laws would be ineffective at reducing violent or gun-related crime, because the suggestion is that people who are willing to commit crimes would have no respect for gun control laws either.

So - lets look at whether this could be judged to be true, based on real-life empirical evidence.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Comparison_with_the_United_States:
[In England] In 2005/06 there were 765 homicides, including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings. The population of England and Wales is 53,046,000 (out of the UK total - including Scotland and Northern Ireland of 59,835,000), which translates as 1.4 homicides per 100,000 residents.
By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 murders for every 100,000 of population.
Okay, so there's a big difference in crime statistics between the US and the UK - the UK has a far lower count of homicides per head than the US. But that doesn't necessarily mean guns are the problem. However:
70% of murders in the United States involve firearms
Compared to 9.4% in the United Kingdom
Only 9.4%? That's staggering. That means less than 10% of murderers in the UK are able to get their hands on firearms.
So, how many homicides involving/not involving firearms does that translate to?
US - 3.85 gun-related homicides per 100,000 population
US - 1.65 non-gun-related per 100,000
UK - 0.13 gun related homicides per 100,000 population
UK - 1.27 non-gun-related per 100,000

This demonstrates that in the UK (with tighter gun control legislation) there are fewer murders involving guns. This is a correlation, not necessarily a causation, but the fact that the US has 30 times the number of gun-related homicides speaks for itself. Does this support the idea that gun control laws are ineffective? No, it does not, and in fact suggests the opposite.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 07, 2007, 09:26:41 am
The idea that "if owning guns is a crime, only criminals will own guns" is itself rather short-sighted.
Yes, it does mean that people that want guns will get them anyway, but the secondary implication of this is that if anyone is found in possession of a firearm, they can be immediately arrested and punished, regardless of their motives (which, since they are criminals, will surely be negative).
In a country where everyone and his dog owns a gun, seperating the unsavoury types from the law abiding citizens ready to drive back the evil forces of the land grabbing, hugely fat, chiken-leg eating King Of England, is basically impossible.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 07, 2007, 10:24:53 am
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Canadian_Gun_Control.htm is a very interesting read; I'm a bit too tired to post much more at the moment. It's tempting to label high levels of handgun ownership as a main culprit in gun-related violence, but then again there are nations like Switzerland which have a high level of handgun ownership yet far fewer gun crimes than the US.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: huggkruka on January 07, 2007, 10:28:04 am
The sad truth is that most people are not rational enough to handle guns in their prime, and even less so when they're aggrevated, frightened, mad or pressured in any other way. It's just so easy to use, point and click, magic wand. No need to get close and bloody.

Still, it's US law, and I'm happy as long as the constitution doesn't take any more hits(anyone seen habeas corpus recently?). It's quite funny however. In the case of movie and game violence, it's OK to disregard the constitution(free speech vs censorship), but god help you if you attack the right to wield guns!

On a personal level I'm morbidly fascinated with guns. Maybe it's a power thing.  ???

I mean, golly!(NSFW I guess) (http://www.postreh.com/phprs/picture/paulie/Nikita_16.jpg)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Mr. Consideration on January 07, 2007, 10:36:16 am
Micheal Moore tried to explain that in "Bowling for Columbine".  It's because your country is a hell of a lot more aggressive than Switzerland.

His example was Canada. He went across the border and everyone left thier doors unlocked and lived happy lives and generally didn't shoot each other, and it had almost identical gun laws to America.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: PatMan33 on January 07, 2007, 10:46:45 am
In the town my sister lives in everyone leaves their doors unlocked and the police station closes at 11.

That can live like this because everyone there has a gun and is trained how to use them. It's one of those towns where everyone hunts and you would have to be an idiot to try to rob a house in that town. Guns are not just devices of the devil that spread death.


And that brings me to a point I want to make. People should be allowed to have guns because criminals are sure as heck not going to give up their guns. The gun is used as a deterrent by Joe Schmo to ward off crime.

You can't take everyone's guns away because a few people are irresponsible. However I think there should be classes that you are required to take if you are seeking to buy a gun. I put that in bold so you know I am not just some gun nut.


Additionally...
Anyone who is acquiring guns through less-than-legal means is going to do what they are going to do regardless of any laws and people should be able to defend themselves.


That's all I want to say. Sorry if I repeated some stuff.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Celdur on January 07, 2007, 11:44:46 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_AUG

the aug is pretty much the gun i think looks the coolest....just LOOK at it its COOL

and one time i saw some home made handgun on the internet that was made to strong that when he tested it it flew out his hand becose of the power right in his face...i dont know where i found that clip but it was pretty funny.....
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Interitus on January 07, 2007, 12:04:15 pm
In the town my sister lives in everyone leaves their doors unlocked and the police station closes at 11.

That can live like this because everyone there has a gun and is trained how to use them. It's one of those towns where everyone hunts and you would have to be an idiot to try to rob a house in that town. Guns are not just devices of the devil that spread death.


In the town my mom lives in everyone leaves their doors unlocked too, but we don't have guns, none of our neighbors do, i only know of a few people who actually own guns, and those are hunting rifles. As similar as everyone says Canada and the US are, you can see many differences.

In Patman's example they keep their doors unlocked because if someone tried something they would be shot

Whereas where my mom lives, everyone keeps their door unlocked because they simply trust each other. 

Now you can make all sorts of claims to trust but in the 20 years she has livedd in Canada my mom is yet to have someone break into her house or any of our friends.

Don't get me wrong, Americans in general can be great people, but personal experience and  just numbers show that they can be very violent also (why that is is another topic itself). for the US  I think tighter gun control would be a good thing, at least until they gain better control on the number of deaths per year, then they can think about easing restrictions.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 07, 2007, 01:17:20 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_AUG
the aug is pretty much the gun i think looks the coolest....just LOOK at it its COOL

Nah, its too complicated and weird looking. Can't beat a good old-fasioned Dirty-Harry style Magnum.


In the case of Guns being used for a constructive purpose (such as killing the menace we call Deer), I think thats absolutely fine. No-one uses a hand-gun to hunt.
A rifle is hardly something you can conceal, or grab and use on the spur of the moment. With most long arms like that (as far as my understanding goes) you have to reload often, which is time consuming, they take more skill to aim, are more expensive, more cumbersome, and all-round less user-friendly than your average handgun.
Its the sort of weapon that you can use to shoot a fleeing burglar in the leg (provided youve got skill), not something you can commit a crime with.

So heres a crazy idea: Ban small arms.
I think it would be interesting to see what would happen.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: HolsteinCow on January 07, 2007, 01:18:34 pm
the second amendment is for when the government ignores the first one
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: PatMan33 on January 07, 2007, 02:09:55 pm
Anyone wanna shoot at people hiding behind the first amendment from my lovely base atop the second amendment?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Behumat on January 07, 2007, 02:40:42 pm
I always figured the right to firearms was to deter tyranny. For instance, the President decides to ammend the constitution declaring himself leader for life, obviously the army would be in a quandry as to what to do, but the people would have no such problem. For them it would be obvious, resist. An armed populace helps prevent such situations. Anyone remember the move Red Dawn? I always liked that film. :P
My personal favorites are the Five-Seven and the P90. :) Wolverines!!!
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: PatMan33 on January 07, 2007, 02:52:41 pm
I always figured the right to firearms was to deter tyranny. For instance, the President decides to ammend the constitution declaring himself leader for life, obviously the army would be in a quandry as to what to do, but the people would have no such problem. For them it would be obvious, resist. An armed populace helps prevent such situations.

<_<
>_>

Wait I thought that was what Checks and Balances were for...
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: operaghost21 on January 07, 2007, 03:09:30 pm
umm, I really have nothing to contribute to this discussion....




...shotguns.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: huggkruka on January 07, 2007, 03:48:02 pm
There's a question. What are the situations where you need a gun? What are the justifications for semi-automatic rifles and pistols at home other than that they're cool?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 07, 2007, 03:59:14 pm
Like they said. To protect their country from 'Tyrants'.
Like George the 3rd. The most popular Monarch in British history.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Daxx on January 07, 2007, 04:53:58 pm
I always figured the right to firearms was to deter tyranny. For instance, the President decides to ammend the constitution declaring himself leader for life, obviously the army would be in a quandry as to what to do, but the people would have no such problem. For them it would be obvious, resist. An armed populace helps prevent such situations. Anyone remember the move Red Dawn? I always liked that film.

1. That's not going to happen for many many good and obvious practical reasons.
2. It's silly to suggest that the army or police forces can't do anything.
3. Why do you need guns to have a people's rebellion?
4. Would guns even be useful? The only tyrannical regime that has ever arisen from a democratic regime is (correct me if there are any more) the Third Reich, and that was a regime which was very relaxed on gun control.

It was a good reason several hundred years ago. Now, not so much.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Legodragonxp on January 07, 2007, 05:34:10 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_AUG

the aug is pretty much the gun i think looks the coolest....just LOOK at it its COOL

and one time i saw some home made handgun on the internet that was made to strong that when he tested it it flew out his hand becose of the power right in his face...i dont know where i found that clip but it was pretty funny.....

The AUG is a really cool weapon, but it takes some getting used to. It however looks better on paper than in reality. The port could be set to eject left or right (depending on your shoulder preference) and the concept of changing barrels was novel. Having fired one (I put about 300 rounds through one) I was not very impressed. The optical sight was good for close-quarters, but long-range it wasn't very good and I would have perfered standard iron-sights or a conventional scope. My biggest complaint however was that the ejection port was right below your eye and I found I had minor powder burns on my cheekbone and temple after my ten magazines. I also didn't care for the fast that I couldn't reload the gun without constantly changing hand positions on the weapon. With an M-16, AK-47, or Galil you can continue to point the weapon while reloading with your left hand.

Having compared the AR-15/M16A1/M16A2 (I was in the Army), Galil, AK-47 (civilan model), and the AUG (Z model if I recall) I found that I liked the Galil the most as it had 'the best of both worlds' of the AR-15 family and the AK-47 family. Lack of a bolt hold option kind of bothered me though I never did any shooting beyond 200meters with one I have heard it wasn't as accurate beyond that point. The M-16 family was very nice, but a worn model was nearly worthless, there was no way to ever get a tired one to be reliable. The AK-47 family was fun and cheap to feed. Not as acurate (mine had a plastic front sight) it never seemed to get any worse after several thousand rounds (with steel jacket rounds at that). The AUG comes in last simply because of the odd handling characteristics as well as the ejection port burns I recieved.

If I I was told I had to use any of them to however, all would be welcome. Over all they end up being close.

I still want to try and HK (hard to find in the US), Enfield Bullpup (nearly impossible to find in the US), and the French Bullpup (forgot the name).

To the gun control argument, none of these are anymore dangerous than a .30-06 hunting rifle in good hands.

-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Cobra on January 07, 2007, 06:46:28 pm
I stopped trying argue this point supporters of guns wont be letting go with out a fight and face it they are the side with guns you don't want to be fighting them.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 07, 2007, 07:15:15 pm
The AUG is UGLY AS SIN.

I'm fairly sure that Canada has more restrictions on handguns than the United States, and handguns are responsible for most gun crime if I recall. It makes sense, after all; you can conceal a handgun much more easily than a long rifle. Most handguns are quite weak though; pretty much all deaths from handguns are due to multiple gunshot wounds. The government (FBI?) released a report on the fatality of handgun wounds and found that unless you shoot someone in the heart or the eye, they stand a better chance of living than dying due to the idiotic (from a ballistics standpoint) doctrines used in Law Enforcement Agencies.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: operaghost21 on January 07, 2007, 09:18:37 pm
The AUG is UGLY AS SIN.

agreed.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: DarkAngel on January 07, 2007, 09:55:09 pm
I support gun control... If you're hunting or killing pests or whatever you don't need a Glock or an AK or a mac-10...

However, in the US, where every man and his dog seems to have a gun, I dont think it would be wise to suddenly introduce tight gun control laws, because it would be impossible to confiscate all the now-illegal guns.
This would just serve to create a huge arms black-market, which responsible people would not buy from, effectively meaning that if you want to have a powerful gun you have to have underground connections. So by trying to control guns, you would just be taking them from the responsible people while keeping them available to criminals...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_AUG

the aug is pretty much the gun i think looks the coolest....just LOOK at it its COOL
Thats the standard rifle for our army. Its defective. They can go off without the trigger being pressed, and our soldiers have to carry around spare barrels coz they heat up too much! But then again, our army ran out of bullets last year, negotiated to buy the defective Joint-Strike-Fighter's from the US, and terrorists and gang-leaders came into possession of some of our anti-tank weapons, so its no big surprise that we use sub-standard rifles... Then again, it does look "space-agey", doesn't it...
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 08, 2007, 02:23:14 am
To the gun control argument, none of these are anymore dangerous than a .30-06 hunting rifle in good hands.

ah, but are they any more dangerous than a rifle in the -wrong- hands?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: huggkruka on January 08, 2007, 04:01:44 am
If the guns in the US are supposed to be to deter tyranny, then what says they can't be used to invoke it? A popular people's movement which doesn't need to buy guns on the black markets...that's not good. *Think about the Red Khmer, only with legal guns*
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: shock223 on January 09, 2007, 09:21:13 am
guns are only as dangous as the people that hold them.

and i do aprovel of having a gun in a house (pistol, locked up in a heavy duty box if you have kids, they can't get into it, perfulby near your nightstand) if a guy is in my house, i'm going to make sure that he never get the idea again.

interseting fact:if you injury a guy in your home, he can sue you for "mental angish" so if you do that, finish the job.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Daxx on January 09, 2007, 09:23:22 am
guns are only as dangous as the people that hold them.

Unfortunately, people can be violent, and guns go a long way to making that violence far more dangerous.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: huggkruka on January 09, 2007, 11:54:40 am
interseting fact:if you injury a guy in your home, he can sue you for "mental angish" so if you do that, finish the job.

Sooo...you'd kill before you'd get sued?  :(
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 09, 2007, 01:20:20 pm
No, kill the guy so he can't sue you.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Manna on January 09, 2007, 04:13:28 pm
and i do aprovel of having a gun in a house (pistol, locked up in a heavy duty box if you have kids, they can't get into it, perfulby near your nightstand) if a guy is in my house, i'm going to make sure that he never get the idea again.
Keeping a gun locked, unloaded in a security box is a nice idea but if you're keeping the gun for your own protection and a guy is in the house then you have to go get the key (because you'd have to be some kind of moron to keep them in the same place if you're trying to keep the gun away from your kid) unlock the box and load the gun. Do any of you do this? Or do you keep the gun loaded with the safety on within reach while you're sleeping so you can defend yourself if need be? I'm betting on the second one. Which is why children keep blowing their own hands off or worse.

Protecting your family is nice but you're bringing a dangerous weapon into your home which your kids can get ahold of or you're keeping it so locked up that you wouldn't be able to use it in an emergency anyway.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Legodragonxp on January 09, 2007, 04:46:20 pm
A security gun box requiring a push-button combination can be opened in a couple seconds, loading a revolver or semi-auto takes a couple seconds. If you don't have those 5-10 seconds needed to wake up and clear your mind you are not able to make a clear decision about using deadly force.

I have seen a couple really nice gun-boxes that require two adult sized hands to operate but can be opened quickly. If I had interest in using a handgun for self defense I could consider such a box.

I perfer shotguns however. Intially you have a club. A couple seconds after that you have a single-shot shotgun after loading the first round. Every couple seconds after that you can bring more ammo in to the magazine while you cover the doorway. Unlike a hangun, it is easy to add ammo over time. In addition, properly loaded, you can deliver (per shot) as much energy as the entire magaznie of a 9mm handgun and using smaller shot you don't punch through several walls (I prefer to keep Turkey loads on hand).

Shotguns are also easier to hit targets with with an 18" barrel unchoked (minimum legal length in the US) a 12guage shotgun will fire a wad of lead pellets 3/4 or an inch wide around the speed of sound. At 5feet from the muzzle that wad of pellets has spread to be about 5 inches across and at 12 ft (the length or a bedroom) the pattern is now a foot wide. (buckshot will typically have about half those numbers).

Shotguns also benefit from being held at two different points and easier to aim with (handguns tend to cause people to flinch). If you were to mount a falshlight on the shotgun it becomes an aiming device (although I had one for a bit on one of my shotguns and kept snagging it on things (under magazine mount)).

-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Cobra on January 09, 2007, 04:54:03 pm
I love how this is a serious discussion on gun crontrol and also a forum for gun nuts/enthusists to share opinion on the best guns.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: SBD on January 09, 2007, 10:36:27 pm
But are guns the real problem, or is it the people using them? No offence to the majority of the board, but I think I'd prefer to go to the UK or Canadia (I love calling it that) then the US. My sister went and came back with stories about how ignorant the average yank is.

But as least the Steyr Aug is better then the SA-80.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Mr. Wizard on January 10, 2007, 12:30:19 am
...shotguns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancor_Jackhammer

Should I ever be blessed with a daughter in the future, I will make sure to buy a shotgun before she begins dating.

 ;)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 10, 2007, 12:33:58 am
I think it's more important to educate kids about firearms if you're going to have them than to keep them locked up and hidden away. The kids who hurt themselves are the ones who aren't taught about the guns and end up stealing the key to the safe from somewhere and having a field day with the "cool gun" without knowing what/where the safety is, whether the gun's loaded, and so on.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: shock223 on January 10, 2007, 10:57:05 am


Protecting your family is nice but you're bringing a dangerous weapon into your home which your kids can get ahold of or you're keeping it so locked up that you wouldn't be able to use it in an emergency anyway.

educating your kids about why guns are not playthings (taking them to a gun range and showing them the power behind these things) education is better gun control than any box.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: huggkruka on January 10, 2007, 12:40:48 pm
No, kill the guy so he can't sue you.

I meant that(semantics). I still want an answer since I find it a bit alarming someone would think some money is worth more than a life.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: p-luke on January 10, 2007, 01:50:17 pm
I find it a bit alarming someone would think some money is worth more than a life.

Well, sadly, that is in fact the case.
you see, "money" is just used to substitute for anything in the world that you can buy.
You could probably save thousands of sick people if you get a million, then maybe a million is worth more then one life?
Or maybe you can spend the million dollars on buying loads of firearms to fight gangs; or to start a new gang...

It's the sad truth.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 10, 2007, 02:06:19 pm
guns are only as dangous as the people that hold them.

By that merit everything is only as dangerous as the person that holds it. A marshmallow in the hands of a psychopath would be as deadly as a chainsaw. But a flamethrower wielded by a sweet-tempered old lady would be about as effective as a pillow.

It would be better to think of guns as danger multipliers.
Even relatively safe people are transformed into walking hazards simply by holding one.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: gec05 on January 10, 2007, 02:09:58 pm
Bad ideas start shifting in your head... :(
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Legodragonxp on January 10, 2007, 05:13:21 pm
Found this off a random link run...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6760530260633420235&q=firearms+training&hl=en

(20 minutes long)

Ever wonder how much proctection your house provides to gunfire?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: shock223 on January 11, 2007, 12:58:29 pm
No, kill the guy so he can't sue you.

I meant that(semantics). I still want an answer since I find it a bit alarming someone would think some money is worth more than a life.

money is not really i was talking meant (money can be replaced). the fact that someone can come into your home when you are home and you defend your self (and in the process, give the person an injury) and having that guy sue you... that like some guy raping a woman and filing for a assult when she trys to fight back.

Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Legodragonxp on January 11, 2007, 02:10:57 pm
In most states, rape is grounds for the use of deadly force. However, justifying deadly force on someone who has entered your home without permission is much harder. You would have to prove fear of greivious bodily harm or death to you or someone in the home you are protecting (in many states, arson of residence, rape, or bodily harm/death are the only grounds for dealy force).

Keeping a screwdriver nearby to plant in his hand after he dies.... that one is up to you.

-Lego


Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Manna on January 11, 2007, 02:21:20 pm
So...you're saying I have to wait for the guy to rape me before I bash his head in with a lead pipe so I have some evidence he meant no good? Very odd.

In our country its pretty much that you can use a weapon equal to the weapon the guy is carrying, so if he runs at you with a bat you can bat him or if he runs at you with a knife you can get a bit stabby.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: PatMan33 on January 11, 2007, 02:22:40 pm
I would rather have a gun if a guy came at me with a bat or a knife...


Then you can say this epic line...

"I pity the fool who brings a knife to a gunfight"
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: DarkAngel on January 11, 2007, 05:33:05 pm
But as least the Steyr Aug is better then the SA-80.
Didnt the SA-80 get replaced with the far superior L85A2 tho?

educating your kids about why guns are not playthings (taking them to a gun range and showing them the power behind these things) education is better gun control than any box.
To teach kids that guns arnt play-things, you should take them to a gun play-group hobby-association and show them how fun it is to blast things to smithereens with them?

guns are only as dangous as the people that hold them.
Not really. A child is not very dangerous. A child holding a loaded gun is very dangerous.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Manna on January 11, 2007, 05:37:40 pm
Additionally, concerning children, I feel that a child of the age of 5 or so is probably far too young to be taken to a gun range and showed how to use it and even if they were that they may not fully grasp the significance of gun safety but a child of 5 would be very capable of disarming the safety (if by accident) and pulling the trigger. Out of interest, does everyone here who has a gun have some kind of security box or cabinet?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: huggkruka on January 11, 2007, 11:43:44 pm
No, kill the guy so he can't sue you.

I meant that(semantics). I still want an answer since I find it a bit alarming someone would think some money is worth more than a life.

money is not really i was talking meant (money can be replaced). the fact that someone can come into your home when you are home and you defend your self (and in the process, give the person an injury) and having that guy sue you... that like some guy raping a woman and filing for a assult when she trys to fight back.



To be perfectly honest, in how many cases would he win? In Sweden, most, but in the US, I don't think too many. But you are such a sueing nation... why don't you just countersue?

An unlikely-to-succed legal process is really nothing. After all, you used excessive violence but you walk free(shooting him as opposed to just putting the gun to his head and tell him to get the hell out or knock him out)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Luminar on January 12, 2007, 12:54:04 am
Youtube is most inconveniently down at the moment, but I found an awesome video of a fireworks factory exploding on there. It's one hell of a blast and I know we're all pyrophiles in this topic...
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 12, 2007, 03:49:11 am
Additionally, concerning children, I feel that a child of the age of 5 or so is probably far too young to be taken to a gun range and showed how to use it and even if they were that they may not fully grasp the significance of gun safety but a child of 5 would be very capable of disarming the safety (if by accident) and pulling the trigger. Out of interest, does everyone here who has a gun have some kind of security box or cabinet?

When I was about 5 or 6 my dad taught me to use one of his .22s and about how dangerous it was. From what I remember, he pretty much always kept it out in his shop, but I knew enough not to mess with it when he wasn't around because I'd been taught about it. He did the same with my brothers as well. Where I lived at that age, that was fairly normal, and of all my other friends who were taught about gun safety, none of them accidentally shot or killed anybody. All evidence points to proper gun education reducing gun accidents; you don't have to be 18 years old to understand that something can be dangerous.

Firearms aren't allowed at the dorms here, so I store my guns at my parents' house locked up along with my dad's. Once I'm living someplace that I can keep them I probably won't have a safe or cabinet until I have kids.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: LadyM on January 12, 2007, 04:46:18 am
I was taught to shoot by my father, I would go Dove hunting and skeet shooting with him. I've been around them all my life and the area I live in, most people have them. I agree with Syphonbyte, education is a big part of gun safety even at a young age. It takes the mystery away as to what a gun will do. Most people keep their gun in a gun safe and maybe one out in a high place or safe place for quick access. These places can be locked when needed. Some safes can be opened with a hand print for quick access. There are many options. I currently have two shotguns that were my grandfathers and a hand gun. I have taken a gun safety/conceal carry class.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: huggkruka on January 12, 2007, 09:29:35 am
That part of gun-keeping at least seems to work fairly well. It seems the more guns you have, the smaller is the chance you off yourself with them.  :P Sure, a couple of people shoot themselves accidentally every year but that's just the lovely spice of irony.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Behumat on January 12, 2007, 10:04:10 am
I always figured the right to firearms was to deter tyranny. For instance, the President decides to ammend the constitution declaring himself leader for life, obviously the army would be in a quandry as to what to do, but the people would have no such problem. For them it would be obvious, resist. An armed populace helps prevent such situations.

<_<
>_>

Wait I thought that was what Checks and Balances were for...

Heh, tell that to the patriot act. It was passed as a war powers act, and 98% of it is just fine, but its that nagging 2% that pretty much takes large sections of the bill of rights, and chucks them in the waste bin. And who's to say it'll go away when the war is over? Who's to say when the war is over?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Legodragonxp on January 12, 2007, 04:58:56 pm
I was taught to shoot by my father,(snip)I have taken a gun safety/conceal carry class.

(http://www.nederpoparchief.nl/bluesbrothers/script_41.jpg)
The real LadyM

heh heh heh
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: PatMan33 on January 12, 2007, 05:30:03 pm
BLUES BROTHERS FOR THE WIN!!!
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: DarkAngel on January 15, 2007, 04:22:23 pm
Wait I thought that was what Checks and Balances were for...

Heh, tell that to the patriot act. It was passed as a war powers act, and 98% of it is just fine, but its that nagging 2% that pretty much takes large sections of the bill of rights, and chucks them in the waste bin. And who's to say it'll go away when the war is over? Who's to say when the war is over?

Good point - when is the "war on terrorism" over? Technically its impossible to win a war against an idea, so technically the war will never end...

Remember Hitler was given "emergency powers" to fight terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire) once too... He didnt ever give up his extra powers, in fact, he used them to try and spread his tyranny over the entire world...
If all german citizens had guns, I dont think they would have acted to stop this tyranny, because at the time he was the popular leader. Likewise, if GWB used the "war on terror" to invade sovereign nations and spread tyrrany, I don't think american citizens and their guns would stop him - not because they wouldn't be able to stop him, but because they believe in him as a leader.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Legodragonxp on January 15, 2007, 05:04:02 pm
That darn Hilter, sure... one guy has to screw it up for everybody else. :)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 15, 2007, 05:15:00 pm
Wait I thought that was what Checks and Balances were for...

Heh, tell that to the patriot act. It was passed as a war powers act, and 98% of it is just fine, but its that nagging 2% that pretty much takes large sections of the bill of rights, and chucks them in the waste bin. And who's to say it'll go away when the war is over? Who's to say when the war is over?

Good point - when is the "war on terrorism" over? Technically its impossible to win a war against an idea, so technically the war will never end...

Remember Hitler was given "emergency powers" to fight terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire) once too... He didnt ever give up his extra powers, in fact, he used them to try and spread his tyranny over the entire world...
If all german citizens had guns, I dont think they would have acted to stop this tyranny, because at the time he was the popular leader. Likewise, if GWB used the "war on terror" to invade sovereign nations and spread tyrrany, I don't think american citizens and their guns would stop him - not because they wouldn't be able to stop him, but because they believe in him as a leader.

That isn't the "tyranny" that most gun owners talk about defending against, though. If GWB were to, say, declare himself emperor of the US and start ordering the executions of leading Democrats, then there would probably be people chomping at the bit for a revolution. Similarly, if the US were invaded for some reason, gun owners would be more than happy to come out in full force and kick some ass.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Manna on January 15, 2007, 05:26:42 pm
arg, that scares the hell out of me, syphonbyte! If your president were executing innocent people under false claims in other countries you would feel no need to rebel, if he were executing innocent people in YOUR country it would be a personal affront to you.

Also, do you honestly believe...honestly...that there is the slightest chance in a million years that any terrorist organisation, country or coalition would ever attempt to take America by force? Really?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: DarkAngel on January 15, 2007, 05:27:55 pm
That isn't the "tyranny" that most gun owners talk about defending against, though. If GWB were to, say, declare himself emperor of the US and start ordering the executions of leading Democrats, then there would probably be people chomping at the bit for a revolution.
LoL, its ok be led by a tyrant, as long as he's only a closet tyrant at home. j/k  :P ;)
My meaning behind that joke is that tyranny doesn't have to be overt, like the example you give. It can be as simple as the gradual erosion of rights, through legitimate legislation like the patriot act. People will only grab their guns and fight against it if it is sudden. People don't even notice their freedom slipping away if its done slowly and gentle enough - especially if you've got emotionally compelling excuses to gather public support.

Similarly, if the US were invaded for some reason, gun owners would be more than happy to come out in full force and kick some ass.
I'm getting a bit off topic now, but, that's something that ticks me off - everyone agrees that if their country was being invaded, they would stand up and do their bit to fight off the aggressors, but when people do their bit to stand up against US invasions they're not "freedom fighters" or "patriots", they're "insurgents" or "terrorists".
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Bobthetriangle on January 15, 2007, 07:26:53 pm
I'm against gun laws, but seriously, if an invader was able to defeat the US military, whats a bunch of rednecks with shotguns going to do?

I believe that there should be no laws restricting gun ownership, not because I'm afraid of foreign invaders but simply because the government is a big fat guy with a shotgun and foam cowboy hat who uses whatever excuse he can find to take away our rights. We really should just start over, put everything back to the way it was in 1780 when there weren't any stupid laws and we actually had rights.

(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i220/bobthetriangle/LYCFYG.jpg)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 15, 2007, 10:11:36 pm
LoL, its ok be led by a tyrant, as long as he's only a closet tyrant at home. j/k  :P ;)
My meaning behind that joke is that tyranny doesn't have to be overt, like the example you give. It can be as simple as the gradual erosion of rights, through legitimate legislation like the patriot act. People will only grab their guns and fight against it if it is sudden. People don't even notice their freedom slipping away if its done slowly and gentle enough - especially if you've got emotionally compelling excuses to gather public support.
Yes, but eventually it will get to a point where it IS noticed. In a situation like that, I'd rather live somewhere that lets me have a gun. There are also other (more probable) instances, like natural disasters, that tend to throw things into chaos. That much was made obvious when Katrina hit Nawlins, and I'd prefer to be able to defend myself against people trying to steal my cookies and milk.

I'm getting a bit off topic now, but, that's something that ticks me off - everyone agrees that if their country was being invaded, they would stand up and do their bit to fight off the aggressors, but when people do their bit to stand up against US invasions they're not "freedom fighters" or "patriots", they're "insurgents" or "terrorists".
That's the media for you.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Cobra on January 16, 2007, 01:52:47 am
Yeah but long before it's noticble you've lost your guns because they gradually snuck them away from you using as D.A. mentioned compelling emotional reasons to make you want to give them up.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 16, 2007, 03:12:31 am
LoL, its ok be led by a tyrant, as long as he's only a closet tyrant at home. j/k  :P ;)
My meaning behind that joke is that tyranny doesn't have to be overt, like the example you give. It can be as simple as the gradual erosion of rights, through legitimate legislation like the patriot act. People will only grab their guns and fight against it if it is sudden. People don't even notice their freedom slipping away if its done slowly and gentle enough - especially if you've got emotionally compelling excuses to gather public support.
Yes, but eventually it will get to a point where it IS noticed. In a situation like that, I'd rather live somewhere that lets me have a gun. There are also other (more probable) instances, like natural disasters, that tend to throw things into chaos. That much was made obvious when Katrina hit Nawlins, and I'd prefer to be able to defend myself against people trying to steal my cookies and milk.

But you don't need a gun to defend your baked goods. If it came to looting and suchlike, a baseball bat would do just as well, if not better (you don't need training, unlimited use, incapacitates without killing  :P)

Plus, the point is that when its that gradual it hardly ever gets noticed, and the people that do tend to be able to notice usually get guns through the underground anyway, obviating the need for every person in the country to have one (have you ever considered that an oppressive regime may well have the support of a majority of citizens?... armed and fanatical citizens.)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: huggkruka on January 16, 2007, 06:17:47 am
Good point. Look at angry muslim protesters. There's always a whole lot of AKs waved in their peace marches. An Iraqi civilian using the usual "home defence" approach towards American troops is called an insurgent. As far as he's concerned, he's defending his country against tyrannic invaders(not entirely reasonless). Course, this doesn't happen too often, most US troops are actively attacked. Keep in mind this is just what would happen in the USA if it was invaded by, say, Canada.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 16, 2007, 10:54:01 am
Yeah but long before it's noticble you've lost your guns because they gradually snuck them away from you using as D.A. mentioned compelling emotional reasons to make you want to give them up.

Thanks to groups like the NRA, an armed revolt would happen before the government fully accomplished that. (Not to mention the group that is responsible for the Patriot Act is the same one that allowed the assault rifle ban to expire.)

But you don't need a gun to defend your baked goods. If it came to looting and suchlike, a baseball bat would do just as well, if not better (you don't need training, unlimited use, incapacitates without killing  :P)

Plus, the point is that when its that gradual it hardly ever gets noticed, and the people that do tend to be able to notice usually get guns through the underground anyway, obviating the need for every person in the country to have one (have you ever considered that an oppressive regime may well have the support of a majority of citizens?... armed and fanatical citizens.)
If people are getting guns through the underground then I'm going to need more than a baseball bat when they attack my bakery after a hurricane comes through. Your point that guns could still be obtained illegally is exactly why many people say that gun control won't work.

I don't think a regime can be considered "oppressive" if they have the support of the majority of citizens. If it were so oppressive to them then they wouldn't be fanatically supporting it.

"Gun control is not about guns; it's about control."
 ^Excellent quote.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Mr. Consideration on January 16, 2007, 11:10:34 am
I'm pretty sure the Nazi regime had support of the majority of the populace. Does that mean it wasn't oppressive?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 16, 2007, 11:44:57 am
But you don't need a gun to defend your baked goods. If it came to looting and suchlike, a baseball bat would do just as well, if not better (you don't need training, unlimited use, incapacitates without killing  :P)

Plus, the point is that when its that gradual it hardly ever gets noticed, and the people that do tend to be able to notice usually get guns through the underground anyway, obviating the need for every person in the country to have one (have you ever considered that an oppressive regime may well have the support of a majority of citizens?... armed and fanatical citizens.)
If people are getting guns through the underground then I'm going to need more than a baseball bat when they attack my bakery after a hurricane comes through. Your point that guns could still be obtained illegally is exactly why many people say that gun control won't work.

Black-market weapons dealers tend to be in short supply during a huge natural disaster.

My black-market comment only applies in the case of your 'anti-tyranny' argument... in which case people will have some time to mull things over and obtain the goods. When a hurricane hits, few people's first thought is "where can I illegally obtain a gun so I can rob people?".

The Comment that Balth made is also totally correct, a regime can be opressive to minorities while still garnering the support of a majority of the population. Would YOU use your gun to shoot policemen if your government passed a curfew on Muslims? Or started carting them off to detention camps en mass?

As a final point I would like to point out that countries in which guns are illegal have more liberal governments than America. Coincidence? I think not!
(note: liberalism tends to discourage tyranny, what with free speech and all)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 16, 2007, 12:08:34 pm
Black-market weapons dealers tend to be in short supply during a huge natural disaster.
Criminals (owners of guns in a nation where guns are outlawed) tend to have those guns before the natural disaster. Guns were in short supply in New Orleans but that obviously doesn't mean people didn't have them when TSHTF.

My black-market comment only applies in the case of your 'anti-tyranny' argument... in which case people will have some time to mull things over and obtain the goods. When a hurricane hits, few people's first thought is "where can I illegally obtain a gun so I can rob people?".
The comment can't only apply to one instance. However, I don't actually consider guns to specifically be for "preventing tyranny," I'm simply pointing out that a lot of people do make that argument.

The Comment that Balth made is also totally correct, a regime can be opressive to minorities while still garnering the support of a majority of the population. Would YOU use your gun to shoot policemen if your government passed a curfew on Muslims? Or started carting them off to detention camps en mass?
Being oppressive to minorities and being oppressive to the entire population are two very different things. If a government oppresses the entire population, then most would agree that the government should be replaced. If it's oppressing a minority and the majority don't have a problem with it, then why on Earth would they consider their government "tyrannical" and move to replace them?

As a final point I would like to point out that countries in which guns are illegal have more liberal governments than America. Coincidence? I think not!
(note: liberalism tends to discourage tyranny, what with free speech and all)
So basically, restricting the freedom to own a firearm is "liberal" and allowing people to purchase them is not? That's one thing that I've never understood about so-called "liberal" ideas; it's fine to restrict firearms and force people to pay for the medical treatment and welfare of others, but it isn't okay to restrict their right to marry their dog, get high and complain in their blog about the PM? I would think that "liberalism" would allow people to freely purchase and trade firearms, but this obviously isn't the case.

Note that firearm ownership in China is illegal; I don't think many people would claim that China is more liberal than the US. In Canada, on the other hand, firearms are legal, and most people would say that Canada is more liberal than the US.

Interestingly, every totalitarian regime (Fascist Italy, China, the Soviet Union) has restricted firearm ownership shortly before fully coming into power. The only exception is the Weimar Republic, which actually liberalized gun laws shortly before making it illegal for Jews to own them.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 16, 2007, 12:21:57 pm
The Comment that Balth made is also totally correct, a regime can be opressive to minorities while still garnering the support of a majority of the population. Would YOU use your gun to shoot policemen if your government passed a curfew on Muslims? Or started carting them off to detention camps en mass?
Being oppressive to minorities and being oppressive to the entire population are two very different things. If a government oppresses the entire population, then most would agree that the government should be replaced. If it's oppressing a minority and the majority don't have a problem with it, then why on Earth would they consider their government "tyrannical" and move to replace them?

In which case guns are useless to that end.
An oppressive regime can't exist unless it has support to begin with. Due to the nature of America as a whole, it's simply unthinkable that it could just transform overnight into a fascist hell-hole, guns or no guns.
If they arent going to be used to protect minorities either then you may as well give the whole thing up.


The point about Liberal governments is that they are supposed protect the rights of everyone, not just those that have guns. Seen from one side, having a gun is an infringement on the rights of others not to be shot. I think we can all agree we all have the right not to be wounded or killed by some gun nut.
By your defenition of Liberalism, murder should be legal... and civilians should have acess to nuclear material for bomb-making.

As for the 'totalitarians restricted guns' comment. This is very dodgy reasoning. You name three countries that illegalised guns and went fascist. Well, heres a list of countries where guns are illegal that didnt go fascist: France, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Belgium, Holland, Sweden...
Thats already twice as many.
Statistics overhwhelmingly favour the 'not conducive to facism' theory of gun control (http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n125/Krakowsam/emot-eng101.png)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 16, 2007, 01:34:04 pm
I'm not about to debate the causes of fascism, and as I said in my last post, the whole "preventing tyranny" argument isn't a big deal to me to begin with. That's not why I own guns and it isn't why most people own guns.

The point about Liberal governments is that they are supposed protect the rights of everyone, not just those that have guns. Seen from one side, having a gun is an infringement on the rights of others not to be shot. I think we can all agree we all have the right not to be wounded or killed by some gun nut.
By your defenition of Liberalism, murder should be legal... and civilians should have acess to nuclear material for bomb-making.
I never said that any of those things should be legal. I was making the point that so-called liberals allow people some freedoms and deny them others, just like so-called conservatives. Owning a gun does not automatically cause you to shoot others, and indeed restricting the right to own a gun is restricting ones right to defend themselves.

As for the 'totalitarians restricted guns' comment. This is very dodgy reasoning. You name three countries that illegalised guns and went fascist. Well, heres a list of countries where guns are illegal that didnt go fascist: France, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Belgium, Holland, Sweden...
Thats already twice as many.
Statistics overhwhelmingly favour the 'not conducive to facism' theory of gun control (http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n125/Krakowsam/emot-eng101.png)
Those were 3 examples; almost EVERY totalitarian regime has restricted firearms ownership. I'm not saying that gun control causes totalitarian regimes, but that it makes implementing them far easier.

Quite frankly, there are no solid arguments for gun control that don't boil down to control issues. There is just as much "proof" that guns cause violence as there is "proof" that guns lower violence. The only reason a government would want to restrict firearm ownership would be to remove them from the population to better control them. That's exactly the reason that there are no firearms in Japan, and the same reason that most European nations have such draconian gun laws. Some people simply don't want to own firearms, and I have no problem with that; if they want to live somewhere that guns are outlawed, that's their right; I only expect the same consideration of my rights in return.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Daxx on January 16, 2007, 01:54:46 pm
There is just as much "proof" that guns cause violence as there is "proof" that guns lower violence. The only reason a government would want to restrict firearm ownership would be to remove them from the population to better control them.

Sorry, that's a load of crap. Just because you can find "proof" that guns lower violence doesn't mean that therefore a government cannot want to restrict gun ownership with the intent of protecting its citizenry. The government could still quite legitimately dismiss or not agree with this "proof".
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 16, 2007, 02:11:59 pm
Sorry, that's a load of crap. Just because you can find "proof" that guns lower violence doesn't mean that therefore a government cannot want to restrict gun ownership with the intent of protecting its citizenry. The government could still quite legitimately dismiss or not agree with this "proof".

They can just as well dismiss the "proof" that guns increase violence, too.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 16, 2007, 04:01:09 pm
The proof like the murder rates being three times higher?  :)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Daxx on January 16, 2007, 05:09:10 pm
Sorry, that's a load of crap. Just because you can find "proof" that guns lower violence doesn't mean that therefore a government cannot want to restrict gun ownership with the intent of protecting its citizenry. The government could still quite legitimately dismiss or not agree with this "proof".

They can just as well dismiss the "proof" that guns increase violence, too.

But they don't, and that's the whole point. It's still possible for a government to legitimately believe it is protecting its people. Suggesting that the only reason they could possibly want to control ownership of firearms is for the purposes of control is patently silly.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 16, 2007, 05:28:04 pm
But they don't, and that's the whole point. It's still possible for a government to legitimately believe it is protecting its people. Suggesting that the only reason they could possibly want to control ownership of firearms is for the purposes of control is patently silly.

Believing that the government does what they do to "protect" the citizens is even sillier. Taking away guns to "protect" people from each other is just like taking away other rights (free speech, abortion, etc) to "protect" people from "terrorists" and such.

The proof like the murder rates being three times higher?  :)

I doubt that it's that simple. Other nations with firearms have far lower murder rates as illustrated earlier in this topic, and there are plenty of recorded instances where restricting firearms in the US actually increased the rate of violent crime.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Bobthetriangle on January 16, 2007, 05:36:21 pm
How about we just take away people's rights too live? The chance of a person turning into a serial killer is just far too great in my opinion, we should just kill everyone.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: DarkAngel on January 16, 2007, 06:45:45 pm
Being oppressive to minorities and being oppressive to the entire population are two very different things. If a government oppresses the entire population, then most would agree that the government should be replaced. If it's oppressing a minority and the majority don't have a problem with it, then why on Earth would they consider their government "tyrannical" and move to replace them?
Lets imagine a country where 40% of the population are slaves, and do all the work, while 60% of the population are slave-owners and have a grand old life. Apparently this is absolutely fine, and free of tyranny because the majority of people are happy. Just because the 60% majority supports the government doesn't change the fact that 40% of the population are in a living hell.

So basically, restricting the freedom to own a firearm is "liberal" and allowing people to purchase them is not? That's one thing that I've never understood about so-called "liberal" ideas; it's fine to restrict firearms and force people to pay for the medical treatment and welfare of others, but it isn't okay to restrict their right to marry their dog, get high and complain in their blog about the PM? I would think that "liberalism" would allow people to freely purchase and trade firearms, but this obviously isn't the case.
That is a good point, except for the dog and blog bit, i didnt get that at all.

Owning a gun does not automatically cause you to shoot others, and indeed restricting the right to own a gun is restricting ones right to defend themselves.
Owning a gun gives you the ability to easily kill others. Restricting gun ownership does not restrict your "right to defend yourself"! It only restricts your ability to kill, which may restrict your ability to defend yourself if you are defending against another person with a gun. However, if NOONE has guns, then NOONE needs guns to protect themselves from the people with guns.

Quite frankly, there are no solid arguments for gun control that don't boil down to control issues. There is just as much "proof" that guns cause violence as there is "proof" that guns lower violence.
To me, guns dont cause violence, but its common sense that guns act as a multiplier for violence!
If two rival gangs want to kill each other, a gun-fight is sure to develop, and people will die.
If they dont have access to guns, then a knife-fight is sure to develop, which is still likely to result in deaths, but not as likely as if they used guns.
Again, if they only had kitchen utensils, not hunting knives, the capacity for them to inflict death is lowered further.

The only reason a government would want to restrict firearm ownership would be to remove them from the population to better control them. That's exactly the reason that there are no firearms in Japan, and the same reason that most European nations have such draconian gun laws.
Japan doesnt have guns because otherwise the population would be uncontrollable? Care to back that statement up with some evidence?
Any nation that controls gun ownership is only doing so to keep the population in line?? I'm pretty sure here in Aus (where ownership is restricted to pistol clubs and farmers who use them for pest control) we passed gun control laws to protect the greater population from murderers.

Some guns, such as a bolt-action rifle are tools for killing pests and animals for food, others, such as assault-rifles and pistols are tools designed for killing people. There is no need for the greater population to be exposed to tools designed to commit murder (seeing as murder is illegal), and the safest way to protect ourselves is not for us to own a murder-tool, but to ensure noone owns one.

Believing that the government does what they do to "protect" the citizens is even sillier. Taking away guns to "protect" people from each other is just like taking away other rights (free speech, abortion, etc) to "protect" people from "terrorists" and such.
Taking away guns does protect people though. Guns are tools for killing, if tools for killing are unavailable, then it is harder to kill people, and therefore people are better protected from being killed.
Taking away free speech or abortion has nothing to do with protecting people.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Daxx on January 16, 2007, 06:46:51 pm
But they don't, and that's the whole point. It's still possible for a government to legitimately believe it is protecting its people. Suggesting that the only reason they could possibly want to control ownership of firearms is for the purposes of control is patently silly.

Believing that the government does what they do to "protect" the citizens is even sillier. Taking away guns to "protect" people from each other is just like taking away other rights (free speech, abortion, etc) to "protect" people from "terrorists" and such.

Perhaps your government might do that ::); but realise that is not what was said. The suggestion was that governments will only criminalise weapons in order to control the populace - which is clearly untrue. Perhaps you might live in fear of your government, but that does not mean that they positively cannot be benevolent.

And taking away the "right" to possess dangerous weaponry is like taking away the right to rape or the right to murder. We may as well call prohibition against killing "murder control". The only way to see possession of firearms as a "right" is in a libertarian sense that allows us to do whatever we want regardless of our own safety and that of the others around us, and requires the same line of thought that suggests we should decriminalise other things which are currently illegal for safety purposes such as hard drugs or large quantities of highly radioactive material.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Manna on January 16, 2007, 07:06:33 pm
And taking away the "right" to possess dangerous weaponry is like taking away the right to rape or the right to murder. We may as well call prohibition against killing "murder control". The only way to see possession of firearms as a "right" is in a libertarian sense that allows us to do whatever we want regardless of our own safety and that of the others around us, and requires the same line of thought that suggests we should decriminalise other things which are currently illegal for safety purposes such as hard drugs or large quantities of highly radioactive material.

This is an excellent point! Western culture already has a system in place to protect the stupid or the ignorant from themselves. We put up signs to tell people that the ground is wet and would be slippery because we cannot rely on people looking where they're going. We restrict the speed limit of cars in certain areas because we dont trust people to slow down when going around corners, we ban and outlaw all sorts of dangerous substances such as fireworks in many areas because people have been known to misuse them. Guns are known to be dangerous in the hands of criminals and the hands of the inexperienced. Why then, is it so very outrageous to restrict the use of guns?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 16, 2007, 07:31:17 pm
Lets imagine a country where 40% of the population are slaves, and do all the work, while 60% of the population are slave-owners and have a grand old life. Apparently this is absolutely fine, and free of tyranny because the majority of people are happy. Just because the 60% majority supports the government doesn't change the fact that 40% of the population are in a living hell.
Ignoring the fact that it isn't actually possible for there to be more slave owners than slaves ;), Democracy is built around the rule of the majority. In a Democratic system that would be absolutely fine.

That is a good point, except for the dog and blog bit, i didnt get that at all.
The dog bit was poking fun at the whole gay marriage issue in the US, and the blog bit was about free speech.

Owning a gun gives you the ability to easily kill others. Restricting gun ownership does not restrict your "right to defend yourself"! It only restricts your ability to kill, which may restrict your ability to defend yourself if you are defending against another person with a gun. However, if NOONE has guns, then NOONE needs guns to protect themselves from the people with guns.
If it were actually possible to entirely remove guns from a society, violent crime would then move to the next common denominator; say, swords or knives.

To me, guns dont cause violence, but its common sense that guns act as a multiplier for violence!
If two rival gangs want to kill each other, a gun-fight is sure to develop, and people will die.
If they dont have access to guns, then a knife-fight is sure to develop, which is still likely to result in deaths, but not as likely as if they used guns.
Again, if they only had kitchen utensils, not hunting knives, the capacity for them to inflict death is lowered further.
Or they could just buy guns on the black market or make their own homemade devices, which is what would happen if for some bizarre reason guns instantly ceased to exist.

Japan doesnt have guns because otherwise the population would be uncontrollable? Care to back that statement up with some evidence?
The reason guns are prohibited in the Japanese constitution is because it was written by the US to cripple Japan's defensive abilities after World War II.

Any nation that controls gun ownership is only doing so to keep the population in line?? I'm pretty sure here in Aus (where ownership is restricted to pistol clubs and farmers who use them for pest control) we passed gun control laws to protect the greater population from murderers.
I doubt that murders in Australia were as prevalent before gun control as they are here in the US.

Some guns, such as a bolt-action rifle are tools for killing pests and animals for food, others, such as assault-rifles and pistols are tools designed for killing people. There is no need for the greater population to be exposed to tools designed to commit murder (seeing as murder is illegal), and the safest way to protect ourselves is not for us to own a murder-tool, but to ensure noone owns one.
Any gun can kill a person quite easily (with the exception of most pistols). If I were going to kill somebody, there are a lot of bolt-action rifles I'd rather use than, say, an M16, which is far more unreliable.

Taking away guns does protect people though. Guns are tools for killing, if tools for killing are unavailable, then it is harder to kill people, and therefore people are better protected from being killed.
Taking away free speech or abortion has nothing to do with protecting people.
By that logic, cigarettes are also tools for killing, albeit in a much slower fashion. That's why a lot of places restrict the age that people can buy them, and in the US they aren't even allowed to advertise on TV (which I find ridiculous.)

And taking away the "right" to possess dangerous weaponry is like taking away the right to rape or the right to murder. We may as well call prohibition against killing "murder control". The only way to see possession of firearms as a "right" is in a libertarian sense that allows us to do whatever we want regardless of our own safety and that of the others around us, and requires the same line of thought that suggests we should decriminalise other things which are currently illegal for safety purposes such as hard drugs or large quantities of highly radioactive material.
Banning a legitimate commodity because it's used for the wrong purpose is unnacceptable as far as I'm concerned. By that logic, knives should be banned, cars should be banned and ammonium nitrate should be banned.

This is an excellent point! Western culture already has a system in place to protect the stupid or the ignorant from themselves. We put up signs to tell people that the ground is wet and would be slippery because we cannot rely on people looking where they're going. We restrict the speed limit of cars in certain areas because we dont trust people to slow down when going around corners, we ban and outlaw all sorts of dangerous substances such as fireworks in many areas because people have been known to misuse them. Guns are known to be dangerous in the hands of criminals and the hands of the inexperienced. Why then, is it so very outrageous to restrict the use of guns?
In my opinion, the very action of banning those things is unacceptable.

Cigarettes and alcohol kill far more people every year than guns do, yet they aren't banned. If a government really wanted to "protect" their population, then they'd ban those before going after guns. Like I said before, gun control is about control, not guns, and anybody who places so much trust in their government that they allow themselves to be disarmed is in my opinion foolish.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Cobra on January 16, 2007, 08:00:10 pm
i think it's a case of the Govt doesn't care about stupid people using Cigerettes to kill them selves. You want to be an idiot and kill your self go ahead we will make some tidy profit off of it. Stupid people killing other people who might be actully have more than 1 brain cell rattling inside their skullthats what you want to be stopping.

Let stupid people kill them selves not other people.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Bobthetriangle on January 16, 2007, 08:24:34 pm
Cigarettes and alchohol are useless in my opinion, but I don't want to see them banned as that would be another step forward in the governments grand plan to take away all our rights.

I say, Personal Freedom > Personal Security. (I say 'personal security' because we, of course, need an army to protect the nation as a whole from foreign invaders.)

Murders are gonna happen no matter what, banning guns, drugs, etc only promotes gang violence. We learned that back in the early 20th century.

The only thing we need protection from is the government itself. Apparently the founding fathers didn't make the constitution strong enough to secure our rights.

Banning/restricting guns, or anything else, is like I said, 'another step forward in the governments grand plan to take away all our rights.'

It's a conspiracy, man. 8)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: DarkAngel on January 16, 2007, 09:27:54 pm
.... If [the government]'s oppressing a minority and the majority don't have a problem with it, then why on Earth would they consider their government "tyrannical" and move to replace them?
Lets imagine a country where 40% of the population are slaves, and do all the work, while 60% of the population are slave-owners...snip....
Ignoring the fact that it isn't actually possible for there to be more slave owners than slaves ;), Democracy is built around the rule of the majority. In a Democratic system that would be absolutely fine.
Lol, i guess that doesnt make much sense does it. Well, if you had a family of 4 who owned one slave, every family member could be called a slave owner.
Tyranny is oppressive power exerted by government, even if the government is only oppressing a minority, it's still tyranny, and it is your duty as a patriotic gun owner to overthrow them. It doesn't matter if you're personally benefiting from the tyranny by owning slaves, tyranny is tyranny.

If it were actually possible to entirely remove guns from a society, violent crime would then move to the next common denominator; say, swords or knives.
Yes, and its harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun.

If citizens could own ballistic missiles/artillery it would be easier still to kill people. Should people be allowed to own artillery pieces? How far are you gonna take this? Where do you draw the line between weapons citizens can have, and weapons only the military can have? I think the current line in the US is ".50" cal guns. By your reasoning, shouldn't we get rid of this artificial restriction and allow citizens to own artillery if they feel like it?

The only reason a government would want to restrict firearm ownership would be to remove them from the population to better control them. That's exactly the reason that there are no firearms in Japan.
The reason guns are prohibited in the Japanese constitution is because it was written by the US to cripple Japan's defensive abilities after World War II.
First you implied the Japanese govt banned guns to control the population.
Now you say the US govt banned guns to control the Japanese govt.
Those are two very different claims. BTW the Japanese military does have guns.

Any gun can kill a person quite easily (with the exception of most pistols). If I were going to kill somebody, there are a lot of bolt-action rifles I'd rather use than, say, an M16, which is far more unreliable.
You're missing the point. Anything can kill someone. Hunting rifles are designed for hunting. Other guns (such as the M16) are designed for killing people - they aren't designed for pest-control, or catching a feed; they were designed specifically for the purpose of murder. Why does society need items that were designed for murder? Why can't we limit people to only items designed for killing animals?

By that logic, cigarettes are also tools for killing, albeit in a much slower fashion.
No they aren't. Everything is designed for a purpose. Cigarettes were designed for leisure. Guns were designed to kill things. Some guns were designed specifically to kill people.

Banning a legitimate commodity because it's used for the wrong purpose is unnacceptable as far as I'm concerned. By that logic, knives should be banned, cars should be banned and ammonium nitrate should be banned.
Yes, you're right, banning something simply because it has the potential to be abused was identified as a logical fallacy over a thousand years ago. However, the argument for banning guns isn't "simply because they have the potential to be abused".

Cigarettes and alcohol kill far more people every year than guns do, yet they aren't banned. If a government really wanted to "protect" their population, then they'd ban those before going after guns.
If a person dies from tobacco or alcohol related illness, that's their choice.
If a person dies from a gunshot wound, that's not their choice.

Like I said before, gun control is about control, not guns, and anybody who places so much trust in their government that they allow themselves to be disarmed is in my opinion foolish.
Gun control isn't about control, it's about necessity. Should anyone be allowed to possess uranium if they see fit? Is the government exercising too much control by disallowing the public from possessing nuclear weapons? Should I be able to build a nuke if I know how? You dont need any of this stuff, and by having any of it, you're only causing potential problems and disasters, there is nothing to be gained from every citizen having a nuke except destruction.
Fair enough if you need a gun to shoot pests, but do you really need a gun designed to shoot people? And if you do need such a gun, would you still need it if noone else had a gun?

IMO, anyone who feels threatened by being "disarmed" by their government is foolish. We live in a society of law and order. We have police and the armed forces, we don't need militias anymore. We have governments controlled by checks and balances so they cannot become tyrannical. There is no need to hold onto a gun like a revolutionary just in case the government turns evil overnight. As I said earlier, if a government was to become tyrannical, they would probably do so gradually and would fool the majority into supporting them, and you agreed that in that case people would not grab their guns and resist anyway.

How is giving up your gun increasing the control that the government has over you? Even if you don't have a gun, the president can't just turn himself into a dictator. And even if he did, non-violent resistance is more effective than civil war.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 16, 2007, 10:13:29 pm
Tyranny is oppressive power exerted by government, even if the government is only oppressing a minority, it's still tyranny, and it is your duty as a patriotic gun owner to overthrow them. It doesn't matter if you're personally benefiting from the tyranny by owning slaves, tyranny is tyranny.
I don't own guns to fight tyranny, I own them to shoot paper plates and deer.

Yes, and its harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun.

If citizens could own ballistic missiles/artillery it would be easier still to kill people. Should people be allowed to own artillery pieces? How far are you gonna take this? Where do you draw the line between weapons citizens can have, and weapons only the military can have? I think the current line in the US is ".50" cal guns. By your reasoning, shouldn't we get rid of this artificial restriction and allow citizens to own artillery if they feel like it?
Yes.

First you implied the Japanese govt banned guns to control the population.
Now you say the US govt banned guns to control the Japanese govt.
Those are two very different claims. BTW the Japanese military does have guns.
I guess I wasn't clear with what I said; the US government restricted firearm ownership in Japan to control the Japanese population. I didn't mean to insinuate that it was the Japanese government's doing. And yes, what little military they do have does have guns, which is similar to the situation there in the past when the warlords were the only armed people.

You're missing the point. Anything can kill someone. Hunting rifles are designed for hunting. Other guns (such as the M16) are designed for killing people - they aren't designed for pest-control, or catching a feed; they were designed specifically for the purpose of murder. Why does society need items that were designed for murder? Why can't we limit people to only items designed for killing animals?
Why does it matter if a gun was designed to kill an animal or a person? A lot of hunting firearms are more than capable of killing a person, which was my point.

No they aren't. Everything is designed for a purpose. Cigarettes were designed for leisure. Guns were designed to kill things. Some guns were designed specifically to kill people.
NO guns were designed for "murder," though. If something is misused, that doesn't mean it should be banned.

Yes, you're right, banning something simply because it has the potential to be abused was identified as a logical fallacy over a thousand years ago. However, the argument for banning guns isn't "simply because they have the potential to be abused".
I'm fairly sure that's exactly what the argument is.

If a person dies from tobacco or alcohol related illness, that's their choice.
If a person dies from a gunshot wound, that's not their choice.
If a person dies from a drunk driver, that's not their choice. If they get lung cancer from pollution thanks to cars and cigarettes and such, that's not their choice.

Gun control isn't about control, it's about necessity. Should anyone be allowed to possess uranium if they see fit? Is the government exercising too much control by disallowing the public from possessing nuclear weapons? Should I be able to build a nuke if I know how? You dont need any of this stuff, and by having any of it, you're only causing potential problems and disasters, there is nothing to be gained from every citizen having a nuke except destruction.
Fair enough if you need a gun to shoot pests, but do you really need a gun designed to shoot people? And if you do need such a gun, would you still need it if noone else had a gun?
A gun is not a nuclear weapon, though.

IMO, anyone who feels threatened by being "disarmed" by their government is foolish. We live in a society of law and order. We have police and the armed forces, we don't need militias anymore. We have governments controlled by checks and balances so they cannot become tyrannical. There is no need to hold onto a gun like a revolutionary just in case the government turns evil overnight. As I said earlier, if a government was to become tyrannical, they would probably do so gradually and would fool the majority into supporting them, and you agreed that in that case people would not grab their guns and resist anyway.
Checks and balances are a joke. The Patriot Act in the US demonstrates this quite aptly, and things like socialized health care and firearms restrictions in other nations demonstrate it as well. If a crisis were to arise in the near future such as oil running out and no alternative fuels being available, I have no doubt that the government would be unable to handle the resulting turmoil. It's improbable, of course, but a nice side effect of having a gun is that I'd be more secure in that situation.

How is giving up your gun increasing the control that the government has over you? Even if you don't have a gun, the president can't just turn himself into a dictator. And even if he did, non-violent resistance is more effective than civil war.
Giving up a gun means giving up the only sure means of resistance against tyranny. Non-violent resistance would mean nothing against a dictator like Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler, both of which came to power in a perfectly "legal" manner.

At any rate, I'm a capitalist at heart and I don't believe in restricting things like guns, alcohol and cigarettes. I don't expect everybody to agree with me about that, which is the only reason I'm giving other arguments in the first place. Like I said, though, if one wishes to live somewhere with strict gun control, that's their right, but by the same token one has the right to live somewhere that they aren't restricted.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: huggkruka on January 16, 2007, 10:47:54 pm
The irony right now is that many gun nuts will be perfectly happy with a shredded constitution because they know they'll never be sent to camps or prison for their beliefs. That's why that's the last part of a fascist overtaking. No-one cares about the rights of foreigners, and not about the right of political opponents when it comes to that, and so on. But when the point comes where guns finally are outlawed, it's faaar too late to do anything. Gun bans do not create dictatorships, lazy-ass hillbillies who don't care who they vote for do.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 17, 2007, 12:48:55 am
The irony right now is that many gun nuts will be perfectly happy with a shredded constitution because they know they'll never be sent to camps or prison for their beliefs. That's why that's the last part of a fascist overtaking. No-one cares about the rights of foreigners, and not about the right of political opponents when it comes to that, and so on. But when the point comes where guns finally are outlawed, it's faaar too late to do anything. Gun bans do not create dictatorships, lazy-ass hillbillies who don't care who they vote for do.
Amen!

I also don't honestly see how owning a gun makes you 'safer'.

Can you perhaps use your gun to deflect bullets sent at you by others? Or maybe frighten away those nasty, hardened criminals, theyve grown up surrounded by guns, they should be scared of them, right?.
When two people are pointing guns at each other it boils down to which one is more of a maniac. How much of a maniac are you?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Didero on January 17, 2007, 01:10:50 am
...
If a crisis were to arise in the near future such as oil running out and no alternative fuels being available, I have no doubt that the government would be unable to handle the resulting turmoil. It's improbable, of course, but a nice side effect of having a gun is that I'd be more secure in that situation.
...
No, you'd be in a angry, armed mob, which doesn't sound secure, at all. If guns are outlawed in a situation like that, you'd just be in an angry mob, not an armed one, which, seems much safer, to me.

When everyone owns a gun, it's far easier to use them in a situation like that, which becomes dangerous quickly. If guns are illegal, few people would try to buy guns on the black market to fight for the remaining oil.

The reason that the government would be unable to handle the situation you described, is because the armed population outnumbers the armed forces, and the population is almost equally armed as the police. Without people owning guns, the turmoil would be far easier to get under control.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 17, 2007, 02:54:12 am
Which is why police these days are going to be using plasma-tasers and microwave guns.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Didero on January 17, 2007, 05:02:39 am
Which is why police these days are going to be using plasma-tasers and microwave guns.
And of course the brown note (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note) ;)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: huggkruka on January 17, 2007, 07:43:33 am
Which is why police these days are going to be using plasma-tasers and microwave guns.
And of course the brown note (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note) ;)

Oh my god, now we must change the title...
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 17, 2007, 11:39:03 am
Done.

This discussion is sort of running in circles so I'll change the subject a bit by asking how many pro-gun control folks have used firearms and how many haven't.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on January 17, 2007, 11:42:53 am
Yes, but not live ammunition (spent a day at the local army base).
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: HolsteinCow on January 17, 2007, 01:06:55 pm
I want my ****ing guns because I want my ****ing guns. If any of you want to take them away, come on over to my ranch and I'll introduce you to Mr. .44
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Manna on January 17, 2007, 01:56:18 pm
I've gone shooting roos on a farm. I had the opportunity to fire a handgun of some discription but chose not to.

As it happens, I remember when the gun laws came into affect in australia. There were people just as vocal as you are now. Now there is barely anyone who tries to remove the gun laws. Our gun laws were put in place after a national referendum. That means the people of Australia determined that the best thing to do in our country would be to remove the guns - not the government trying to control us, not some dictator preparing to tighten his noose around the country. How can you see this as a threat to you?

The fact of the matter is that I have lived in Australia with guns and Australia without and I feel much, much safer in the one without. You keep speaking of this black market where your criminals are getting all their guns from...this interests me because I DO live in a country where these sorts of black markets should be flourishing and I have to say you're worried about nothing. There are generally two ways to get a gun in Australia: one is to join a gang in which case, the purpose of your gun is to shoot other gang members almost exclusively and this only really harms the gangs. Shootings in melbourne particularly are focused on key gang members, not the public at large. The second way to get a gun is to smuggle it into the country yourself. With the up-jumped security at airports this would be quite a feat. There are people in australia who sell guns but you cant just find them wandering the street, you need to know some shady characters and over time these trades are shutting down as the police confiscate more and more illegal firearms.

In Australia if someone breaks into my house I can be pretty darn certain that they dont have a gun and they can be pretty darn certain that I dont either. There are the odd cases of people with shotguns or whatever but for the most part this is true. Now, if I know he doesn't have a long range weapon that can instantly kill me and he knows the same about me then there's less chance for a 'shoot first ask questions later' kind of strategy and this is great because I know that a couple of blows from my bokken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokken) are likely to chase him off without anyone needing a quick trip to the hospital or the morgue.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: /lurk on January 17, 2007, 02:00:10 pm
Wait.

In your countries, you have criminals so insane that they break into peoples houses while the occupants are actually there?

Because that's just crazy. Even heroin addicts aren't that daft.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on January 17, 2007, 04:58:06 pm
it's the old cat bugular in the middle of the night situation that you wake up and cach red handed. Maybe because Amercians are steriotypically gun nuts they will try harder for black market arms. As for what DA said about guns being designed as murder weapons yes of course there are guns that are designed for hunting and they could easily kill a human but there are many guns designed only to be able to kill other humans. it is there sole function. you don't see many people hunting rabbits with an AK-47.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Bobthetriangle on January 17, 2007, 06:28:36 pm
I want my ****ing guns because I want my ****ing guns. If any of you want to take them away, come on over to my ranch and I'll introduce you to Mr. .44

Rock on.

you don't see many people hunting rabbits with an AK-47.

I wanna hunt rabbits with an Ak-47.

Anyway, perheps a better solution than banning guns is simply heavily taxing the ammo. Then people would be less encouraged to use the guns. This would benefit gun collectors and those who feel they need a way to defend themselves, but not criminals. But, of course there's still the black market.

Yes, and its harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun.

If citizens could own ballistic missiles/artillery it would be easier still to kill people. Should people be allowed to own artillery pieces? How far are you gonna take this? Where do you draw the line between weapons citizens can have, and weapons only the military can have? I think the current line in the US is ".50" cal guns. By your reasoning, shouldn't we get rid of this artificial restriction and allow citizens to own artillery if they feel like it?
Yes.

If i want to own a piece of artillery I should be able to. Would I use it to massacre millions? No, of course not. I probably wouldn't even shoot it at all.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: DarkAngel on January 17, 2007, 06:39:19 pm
By your reasoning, shouldn't we get rid of this artificial restriction and allow citizens to own artillery if they feel like it?
Yes.
Should people also be able to own weapons of mass destruction? It would seem if you don't want any artificial lines drawn between weapons that are allowed and weapons that are banned then nuclear weapons should be allowed as well.

Artillery, missiles, nuclear bombs -- all of these things are tools designed with the purpose of killing and destruction. There is no point owning these things unless you plan on killing large groups of people, and planning to kill large groups of people is illegal, therefore it should be illegal to own these things.

I don't own guns to fight tyranny, I own them to shoot paper plates and deer.
Ok, fair enough if you want to shoot deer, you should be able to own a tool designed for shooting deer, such as a bolt-action of some sort.

Why does it matter if a gun was designed to kill an animal or a person? A lot of hunting firearms are more than capable of killing a person, which was my point.
Like I said, artillery is designed for killing people en mass, and there is no need for you to do that, so there is nothing to gain from allowing artillery, only loss can come of it.
Yes a tool for hunting is capable of killing a person, but so is a tool for turning screws, neither, however, are designed for killing people.
As a tool for killing people, screwdriver < bolt-action < assault-rifle < machine-gun.
I'm not saying we should restrict screw-drivers or bolt-actions, these are tools designed for a purpose (turning screws and hunting deer). I'm saying we should restrict tools for designed for killing people (assault rifles and machine guns).
You don't need an assault rifle to kill a deer, a bolt-action will do just fine. However, if you want to go on a rampage and kill a crowd of people, you need a tool designed for that purpose (such as an assault-rifle).
By restricting tools designed for killing people (assault rifles, etc...) you can still hunt your deer and shoot your plates, but you cannot kill a whole crowd of people. That is the distinction between tools for hunting animals and tools for killing people.

NO guns were designed for "murder," though. If something is misused, that doesn't mean it should be banned.
Yes, guns such as the M16 were designed as tools for the intentional killing of people.
Sorry, my word for "the intentional killing of people" is "murder" - if you don't agree with this definition then replace any instances of "murder" in my posts with "killing people".



Gun control isn't about control, it's about necessity. Should anyone be allowed to possess uranium if they see fit? Is the government exercising too much control by disallowing the public from possessing nuclear weapons? Should I be able to build a nuke if I know how? You dont need any of this stuff, and by having any of it, you're only causing potential problems and disasters, there is nothing to be gained from every citizen having a nuke except destruction.
Fair enough if you need a gun to shoot pests, but do you really need a gun designed to shoot people? And if you do need such a gun, would you still need it if noone else had a gun?
A gun is not a nuclear weapon, though.
You didn't answer the question. Should people be allowed to own nukes?
If you're going to argue that there should be no restriction on weapons, then that should also include the right to own weapons of mass destruction, shouldn't it?

Yes, you're right, banning something simply because it has the potential to be abused was identified as a logical fallacy over a thousand years ago. However, the argument for banning guns isn't "simply because they have the potential to be abused".
I'm fairly sure that's exactly what the argument is.
Do you also think that the reason murder is illegal is because someone might abuse it and murder someone who didn't deserve it?

Guns have the potential to be abused AND the damage resulting from abuse GREATLY outweighs the advantages of responsible ownership.

There is nothing to be gained from owning tools designed for killing people except the possibility of abuse. Restricting ownership to guns that are designed for killing animals retains the advantages of gun ownership, but also eliminates many of the dangers, such as the ability for mass-murder. Therefore in the interest of public safety, weapon ownership should be restricted.

Checks and balances are a joke. The Patriot Act in the US demonstrates this quite aptly, and things like socialized health care and firearms restrictions in other nations demonstrate it as well. If a crisis were to arise in the near future such as oil running out and no alternative fuels being available, I have no doubt that the government would be unable to handle the resulting turmoil. It's improbable, of course, but a nice side effect of having a gun is that I'd be more secure in that situation.
A)Whats wrong with socialized health care? (start a new topic if you want to answer this plz)
B)How does socialized health care demonstrate that checks and balances are a joke?
C)How does owning a gun protect you from socialised health care?
D)How do firearms restrictions demonstrate that checks and balances are a joke?
E)I dont think you would be safer, I think you would be on a level playing field with the rest of the gun-toting angry mob. Everyone would be safer if noone had a gun in that situation.

Giving up a gun means giving up the only sure means of resistance against tyranny. Non-violent resistance would mean nothing against a dictator like Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler, both of which came to power in a perfectly "legal" manner.
You already agreed that even if the German population was well armed, they wouldn't have stopped Hitler from becoming a tyrant. You also said that you don't own a gun to fight tyranny, and that if your leader was being tyrannical within the framework of democracy you would have no problem with it. Therefore you are just as vulnerable to tyranny with or without your gun.

Non-violent resistance would have worked against those dictators just as well as an armed revolution would have. The problem is that the population believed in them, so the best defence against tyranny is not learning how to fight it, but learning how to identify it. However, as you already said, you have no problem living under tyranny as long as you are being treated ok personally, so even if you did identify it you wouldn't fight it, therefore, compassion is also required to defend against tyranny.

Non-violent resistance is built around education and compassion, both of which are poison to tyranny, whereas an armed resistance is built around violence and hatred, which only breeds more tyranny.
BTW, non-violence was powerful enough to defeat the tyranny of the British empire, so it's proven to work just as well as guns...

At any rate, I'm a capitalist at heart and I don't believe in restricting things like guns, alcohol and cigarettes. I don't expect everybody to agree with me about that, which is the only reason I'm giving other arguments in the first place. Like I said, though, if one wishes to live somewhere with strict gun control, that's their right, but by the same token one has the right to live somewhere that they aren't restricted.
If someone wants to live somewhere where murder or rape isn't "restricted", should they have the right to do so?
Out of interest, do you believe that pot, heroin, cocaine or crystal-meth should be restricted? Also, do you support age restrictions on guns/tobacco/alcohol/voting?

Wait.
In your countries, you have criminals so insane that they break into peoples houses while the occupants are actually there?
Because that's just crazy. Even heroin addicts aren't that daft.
Yes, it's called "Home invasion" instead of "Break and enter" if you're home at the time. Most home invasions are carried out by criminals with guns, whereas break and enters are usually carried out by unarmed criminals - just a little bit of proof that gun availability increases violent crime...

Anyway, perheps a better solution than banning guns is simply heavily taxing the ammo. Then people would be less encouraged to use the guns. This would benefit gun collectors and those who feel they need a way to defend themselves, but not criminals. But, of course there's still the black market.
Some comedian used to use that as a joke. Mighta been eddy murphy. In a world where bullets cost $5000, people would think twice before shooting someone - "I'd pop a cap in your ass!! if I could afford it...."

If i want to own a piece of artillery I should be able to. Would I use it to massacre millions? No, of course not. I probably wouldn't even shoot it at all.
If you're not going to use it, what's the point of owning it?

Allowing artillery ownership provides no benefits to society and only poses a risk that someone might use it. Seeing as the benefits are zero, the risks are the loss of human life (which is priceless, but for arguments sake ill say its equal to "100 benefit"), and say this risk may occur 0.00001% of the time, then when we divide the benefits by the costs we get:
Benefit to cost ratio = 0 / 100*0.0000001, which equals zero.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Bobthetriangle on January 17, 2007, 06:44:31 pm
If i want to own a piece of artillery I should be able to. Would I use it to massacre millions? No, of course not. I probably wouldn't even shoot it at all.
If you're not going to use it, what's the point of owning it?

Allowing artillery ownership provides no benefits to society and only poses a risk that someone might use it. Seeing as the benefits are zero, the risks are the loss of human life (which is priceless, but for arguments sake ill say its equal to "100 benefit"), and say this risk may occur 0.00001% of the time, then when we divide the benefits by the costs we get:
Benefit to cost ratio = 0 / 100*0.0000001, which equals zero.

The average person probably can't afford an artillery piece. The only people owning them would most likely be collectors. Besides, who's gonna drag a cannon into your house and attempt to rob you with it?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on January 17, 2007, 06:52:45 pm
No one but when a less the stable person puts all his cash into owning guided rockets lets say organized crime could easily afford a readily availble guided missle if they wanted one you better hope you aren't near there enemies when a gang war breaks out.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Bobthetriangle on January 17, 2007, 06:55:49 pm
Most gang violence is a result of buying and selling banned material. By banning guns you're helping gangs, so either way the gangs seem to benefit, don't they?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: DarkAngel on January 17, 2007, 07:04:05 pm
The average person probably can't afford an artillery piece. The only people owning them would most likely be collectors. Besides, who's gonna drag a cannon into your house and attempt to rob you with it?
Plenty of people collect old tanks, artillery, even helicopters! But they're all modified so they cant shoot anymore.

I can imagine lots of situations where these weapons could be used - got a land dispute with your neighbour? Hold his property at ransom with the threat of a barrage!

Just recently in Australia, a gang member acquired an RPG (stolen from the military) so he could fire it into the next family gathering of his rivals... This took a lot of effort on his part because RPG's aren't easy to come by. If anyone could go out and buy one from their local Amu-nation store, then these events would be commonplace.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 17, 2007, 07:23:37 pm
Should people also be able to own weapons of mass destruction? It would seem if you don't want any artificial lines drawn between weapons that are allowed and weapons that are banned then nuclear weapons should be allowed as well.

Artillery, missiles, nuclear bombs -- all of these things are tools designed with the purpose of killing and destruction. There is no point owning these things unless you plan on killing large groups of people, and planning to kill large groups of people is illegal, therefore it should be illegal to own these things.
By that logic, there's no reason to own cigarettes unless you're planning to kill yourself, and suicide is illegal so cigarettes should be illegal. It wouldn't matter if nuclear weapons were legal for civilians to own because nobody could afford them, and if somebody actually somehow obtained one, the government would know about it.

Ok, fair enough if you want to shoot deer, you should be able to own a tool designed for shooting deer, such as a bolt-action of some sort.
Then I can take that bolt-action and kill a bunch of people. Or I could buy a gun "designed" for shooting elephants and go kill some people with that. It doesn't solve the problem at all.

Like I said, artillery is designed for killing people en mass, and there is no need for you to do that, so there is nothing to gain from allowing artillery, only loss can come of it.
I could use the artillery to celebrate the New Year by shooting down some trees.

Yes a tool for hunting is capable of killing a person, but so is a tool for turning screws, neither, however, are designed for killing people.
As a tool for killing people, screwdriver < bolt-action < assault-rifle < machine-gun.
I'm not saying we should restrict screw-drivers or bolt-actions, these are tools designed for a purpose (turning screws and hunting deer). I'm saying we should restrict tools for designed for killing people (assault rifles and machine guns).
You don't need an assault rifle to kill a deer, a bolt-action will do just fine. However, if you want to go on a rampage and kill a crowd of people, you need a tool designed for that purpose (such as an assault-rifle).
By restricting tools designed for killing people (assault rifles, etc...) you can still hunt your deer and shoot your plates, but you cannot kill a whole crowd of people. That is the distinction between tools for hunting animals and tools for killing people.
There are a lot of bolt-action rifles that are far more powerful than assault rifles. Also note that it's extremely difficult if not impossible to obtain assault rifles here in the US. As I said before, almost ANY gun can be used to kill people easily. Lee Harvey Oswald didn't use an assault rifle; neither did the D.C. sniper or other murderers.

Yes, guns such as the M16 were designed as tools for the intentional killing of people.
Sorry, my word for "the intentional killing of people" is "murder" - if you don't agree with this definition then replace any instances of "murder" in my posts with "killing people".
The M16 was never intended for civilian use, nor were other assault rifles. Nearly all the ones that civilians own are semi-automatic. The process of obtaining an actual assault rifle is extremely difficult which is why criminals just use other guns.

You didn't answer the question. Should people be allowed to own nukes?
If you're going to argue that there should be no restriction on weapons, then that should also include the right to own weapons of mass destruction, shouldn't it?
I don't see why it should automatically include weapons of mass destruction since they're obviously not the same thing as guns, but hell, we might as well allow people to own them too. Ammonium nitrate is legal anyhow.

Do you also think that the reason murder is illegal is because someone might abuse it and murder someone who didn't deserve it?
The reason murder is illegal is because killing others is a violation of their rights. Outlawing guns because they're sometimes used to kill is like outlawing computers because they're sometimes used to hack.

Guns have the potential to be abused AND the damage resulting from abuse GREATLY outweighs the advantages of responsible ownership.
Alcohol has the potential to be abused and the damage resulting from abuse GREATLY outweighs the advantages of responsible drinking.

There is nothing to be gained from owning tools designed for killing people except the possibility of abuse. Restricting ownership to guns that are designed for killing animals retains the advantages of gun ownership, but also eliminates many of the dangers, such as the ability for mass-murder. Therefore in the interest of public safety, weapon ownership should be restricted.
It doesn't matter if a gun is "designed" for killing animals, it can just as easily kill a human. Assault rifles aren't "designed" to be used by criminals to hijack cars, either.

A)Whats wrong with socialized health care? (start a new topic if you want to answer this plz)
B)How does socialized health care demonstrate that checks and balances are a joke?
C)How does owning a gun protect you from socialised health care?
D)How do firearms restrictions demonstrate that checks and balances are a joke?
E)I dont think you would be safer, I think you would be on a level playing field with the rest of the gun-toting angry mob. Everyone would be safer if noone had a gun in that situation.
A: Everything.
B: Its existence.
C: I never said that it did.
D: Same as B
E: In an imaginary world where no guns existed, yes.

You already agreed that even if the German population was well armed, they wouldn't have stopped Hitler from becoming a tyrant. You also said that you don't own a gun to fight tyranny, and that if your leader was being tyrannical within the framework of democracy you would have no problem with it. Therefore you are just as vulnerable to tyranny with or without your gun.
That's because Hitler wasn't oppressing them.

Non-violent resistance would have worked against those dictators just as well as an armed revolution would have. The problem is that the population believed in them, so the best defence against tyranny is not learning how to fight it, but learning how to identify it. However, as you already said, you have no problem living under tyranny as long as you are being treated ok personally, so even if you did identify it you wouldn't fight it, therefore, compassion is also required to defend against tyranny.
No, non-violent resistance doesn't work against armed Waffen SS or KGB knocking on your door, it just gets you a 9mm hole in your head.

Non-violent resistance is built around education and compassion, both of which are poison to tyranny, whereas an armed resistance is built around violence and hatred, which only breeds more tyranny.
BTW, non-violence was powerful enough to defeat the tyranny of the British empire, so it's proven to work just as well as guns...
Non-violent resistance was not the only reason the British left India, and it certainly wasn't the only strategy being used by the Indians.

If someone wants to live somewhere where murder or rape isn't "restricted", should they have the right to do so?
Out of interest, do you believe that pot, heroin, cocaine or crystal-meth should be restricted? Also, do you support age restrictions on guns/tobacco/alcohol/voting?
If they want to live somewhere that murder and rape are legal, that's their right. They'll probably get murdered or raped, though. I do think that most drugs should be legal and I disagree with most age limits.

I understand that my views are rather extreme, but it doesn't really matter to me because I don't ever plan to run for public office, so I don't mind being extreme. Like I said, I don't mind if people want to live in a place where guns are restricted (though I think it's foolish), but I do mind if people arbitrarily decide that I should not be allowed to have guns reguardless of where I live.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gungnir on January 17, 2007, 07:31:09 pm
I think it makes sense to own a small-arms weapon/shotgun, if you fear that someone may intrude and attempt to harm you, although there should be a mandatory training in safety, obviously, and possibly if you have too bad of a criminal record, no guns for you. if they took away all civilians' guns, people who really wanted them could probably get some (maybe not so good quality, but it's still a gun), and if they were gonna do something with that gun, they would probably do it with something else if they couldn't get a hold of the gun. Bats can kill people. Hammers. Nails.

however, my parents don't keep guns in the house, although my dad can use an AK quite well (russian-army training)..so i'm not exactly "gun-literate".
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: DarkAngel on January 17, 2007, 08:05:26 pm
Should people also be able to own weapons of mass destruction? It would seem if you don't want any artificial lines drawn between weapons that are allowed and weapons that are banned then nuclear weapons should be allowed as well.

Artillery, missiles, nuclear bombs -- all of these things are tools designed with the purpose of killing and destruction. There is no point owning these things unless you plan on killing large groups of people, and planning to kill large groups of people is illegal, therefore it should be illegal to own these things.
By that logic, there's no reason to own cigarettes unless you're planning to kill yourself, and suicide is illegal so cigarettes should be illegal. It wouldn't matter if nuclear weapons were legal for civilians to own because nobody could afford them, and if somebody actually somehow obtained one, the government would know about it.
I dont follow.
My point:
Item X is designed for mass killing, there is no point having X unless you plan on mass killing.
Your adaptation of my point:
Item Y is designed for leisure but can cause death, there is no point having Y unless you plan on killing yourself.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 17, 2007, 09:15:10 pm
I dont follow.
My point:
Item X is designed for mass killing, there is no point having X unless you plan on mass killing.
Your adaptation of my point:
Item Y is designed for leisure but can cause death, there is no point having Y unless you plan on killing yourself.

Item X is designed for military use, but can be used for commiting crimes.
Item Y is designed for leisure, but can kill you.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on January 17, 2007, 09:18:55 pm
Semi automatic weapons used only by the public though really aside from killing what ever you decide to point it at it really doesn't have any other use.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: huggkruka on January 18, 2007, 12:52:06 pm
Is suicide illegal? ??? Do you actually send people to prison if they survive for attempted suicide? News to me!

"Item X is designed for military use, but can be used for commiting crimes.
Item Y is designed for leisure, but can kill you."

Isn't that the same as
"Item X is designed for military use, but can be used to kill someone.
Item Y is designed for leisure, but can kill yourself"

I see a considerable differance in illegality here(if we ignore second-hand smoking). Killing other people as opposed to killing yourself.

Calling it "military use" is a bit silly. It's designed to kill or lethally wound people at the furthest distance from yourself, there's no denying that. The military does that occasionally but not only that. And if you think it's for military use then why should civilians have it?


Oh, and railguns just became reality. Sweet. (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/012007/01172007/251373)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Bobthetriangle on January 18, 2007, 01:28:56 pm
And if you think it's for military use then why should civilians have it?

Why not? Maybe I want an AK to hang on my wall. Yes, I could get a non-functional replica but it's just not the same.

Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: PatMan33 on January 18, 2007, 01:31:27 pm
When did the brown noise get jumbled into this topic???


Why was I not informed?


Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on January 18, 2007, 01:36:08 pm
And if you think it's for military use then why should civilians have it?

Why not? Maybe I want an AK to hang on my wall. Yes, I could get a non-functional replica but it's just not the same.

Why is it not the same, since its value hanging on the wall is purely aesthetic. In fact, if someone told you it was working or sold it to you as such, it would be absolutely no different since you're not deriving utility from its use.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Bobthetriangle on January 18, 2007, 01:49:40 pm
What if I felt like shooting a target or something? It would be nice to be able to do that if I felt like it.

And even if it was purely aesthetic...

Compare:

Guest: Hey, nice AK. Is it real?
Me: No...
Guest: Oh...

to:

Guest: Hey, nice AK. Is it real?
Me: Yep
Guest: Cool.

If I were to hang an AK on my wall, I'd want it to be authentic. Otherwise it's really pointless. Wouldn't you rather have real gold than something painted to look like gold?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on January 18, 2007, 01:51:44 pm
And even if it was purely aesthetic...

Compare:

Guest: Hey, nice AK. Is it real?
Me: No...
Guest: Oh...

to:

Guest: Hey, nice AK. Is it real?
Me: Yep
Guest: Cool.

If I were to hang an AK on my wall, I'd want it to be authentic. Otherwise it's really pointless. Wouldn't you rather have real gold than something painted to look like gold?

I think you just completely ignored what I wrote. I'll quote myself.

Why not? Maybe I want an AK to hang on my wall. Yes, I could get a non-functional replica but it's just not the same.

Why is it not the same, since its value hanging on the wall is purely aesthetic. In fact, if someone told you it was working or sold it to you as such, it would be absolutely no different since you're not deriving utility from its use.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 18, 2007, 02:25:33 pm
Like Bob said, "Wouldn't you rather have real gold than something painted to look like gold?"

Its value hanging on the wall (for some people) is greater if it's an actual functional gun. A lot of people buy BMWs but never drive them at 120mph, but the fact that they could is good enough and makes it worthwhile. He could also use the AK to shoot at dangerous critters and such wandering on his property if the opportunity arose.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on January 18, 2007, 03:05:53 pm
Which brings us back to the point of guns being designed for the purpose of hunt instead "murder" Whats wrong with the bolt action for critters on the property. The AK-47 is designed to kill humans in a rather effective way. So unless you plan on killing some humans you don't need it. A replica will serve the needs of looking pretty.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 18, 2007, 03:10:11 pm
Like Bob said, "Wouldn't you rather have real gold than something painted to look like gold?"

But the only function of Gold is to look like Gold (well, and computer parts, but that doesnt count). The function of an AK is to kill people. The function of a wall-AK is to look like an AK... on a wall.

A better analogue would be "Would you rather have an AK or a plastic AK painted to look like a real one?"
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 18, 2007, 03:53:18 pm
Which brings us back to the point of guns being designed for the purpose of hunt instead "murder" Whats wrong with the bolt action for critters on the property. The AK-47 is designed to kill humans in a rather effective way. So unless you plan on killing some humans you don't need it. A replica will serve the needs of looking pretty.

There are a lot of things that people don't "need" that they buy anyhow. Also, there are numerous bolt-action rifles that were "designed" for killing people, like the Mosin-Nagant I have.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 18, 2007, 04:15:18 pm
Which brings us back to the point of guns being designed for the purpose of hunt instead "murder" Whats wrong with the bolt action for critters on the property. The AK-47 is designed to kill humans in a rather effective way. So unless you plan on killing some humans you don't need it. A replica will serve the needs of looking pretty.

There are a lot of things that people don't "need" that they buy anyhow. Also, there are numerous bolt-action rifles that were "designed" for killing people, like the Mosin-Nagant I have.

and what was your motivation to buy it?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: DarkAngel on January 18, 2007, 05:03:39 pm
and what was your motivation to buy it?

Simple. Ego.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 18, 2007, 05:36:50 pm
It's a classic, plus it's good for shooting things.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Bobthetriangle on January 18, 2007, 06:40:32 pm
Like Bob said, "Wouldn't you rather have real gold than something painted to look like gold?"

But the only function of Gold is to look like Gold (well, and computer parts, but that doesnt count). The function of an AK is to kill people. The function of a wall-AK is to look like an AK... on a wall.

A better analogue would be "Would you rather have an AK or a plastic AK painted to look like a real one?"

I would, of course, prefer the real AK. A plastic AK would be pointless. I really don't see your point.

Authentic > Fake

There are a lot of things that people don't "need" that they buy anyhow. Also, there are numerous bolt-action rifles that were "designed" for killing people, like the Mosin-Nagant I have.

Lucky...I would like to have either an Ak-47 or K98. The K98s are cheaper and easier to get in the U.S. so I'd probably get one of them. My parents would never let me so it'll have to wait.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Manna on January 18, 2007, 06:43:36 pm
But if you never ever used it and it just hung on your wall and looked exactly like a real one. Does it really matter if it's real or not? The person who sold it to you could just lie and say it's real and you'd never know anyway. Or, when people ask you if it's real or not you could just tell them it's real and noone would know (or care) if it isn't. It still serves all the purposes you wanted it to but doesn't need to have any killing functionality, see?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Vivec on January 18, 2007, 06:45:16 pm
When you try to approach it logically, sure, that works.

But having the real thing is much, I don't know, cooler than having a fake one.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Manna on January 18, 2007, 06:46:44 pm
When you try to approach it logically, sure, that works.

But having the real thing is much, I don't know, cooler than having a fake one.

lol, sorry, I'll remember not to sully this thread with logic next time!  ;)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Bobthetriangle on January 18, 2007, 06:48:40 pm
Why would I mount a fake on my wall? It's just pointless...

No history behind it, nothing to be proud of, and if I ever did want to shoot it I wouldn't be able to.

Don't you have anything of sentimental value? Perhaps something handed down through generations of your family? Something unique that your grandfather picked up in France during WWII? A souvineer from someplace that you've been to? A last gift from someone you loved who died?

If you do, then would you like it if I replaced it with a replica?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Vivec on January 18, 2007, 06:50:03 pm
When you try to approach it logically, sure, that works.

But having the real thing is much, I don't know, cooler than having a fake one.

lol, sorry, I'll remember not to sully this thread with logic next time!  ;)

or most of the rest of the internet, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: DarkAngel on January 18, 2007, 07:05:35 pm
Why would I mount a fake on my wall? It's just pointless...

No history behind it, nothing to be proud of, and if I ever did want to shoot it I wouldn't be able to.
Lots of stuff in museums are actually replicas, they often keep the real stuff out back.

Don't you have anything of sentimental value? Perhaps something handed down through generations of your family?

If you do, then would you like it if I replaced it with a replica?
What if one day you found out that your great-great-great-grandma's priceless whatevermajig was actually a cheap replica? Would it diminish the sentimental value?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on January 18, 2007, 07:35:05 pm
Why would I mount a fake on my wall? It's just pointless...

No history behind it, nothing to be proud of, and if I ever did want to shoot it I wouldn't be able to.

Don't you have anything of sentimental value? Perhaps something handed down through generations of your family? Something unique that your grandfather picked up in France during WWII? A souvineer from someplace that you've been to? A last gift from someone you loved who died?

If you do, then would you like it if I replaced it with a replica?

What if you had a key component removed so it didn't actually fire? The gun retains it's history it was in a great many battle your ansestors are honored and no body is needlessly injured by the gun ever again.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Vivec on January 18, 2007, 07:36:05 pm
What if you had a key component removed so it didn't actually fire? The gun retains it's history it was in a great many battle your ansestors are honored and no body is needlessly injured by the gun ever again.

That seems fine to me. The knowledge that the gun has actually been fired before seems more important than being able to fire again.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on January 18, 2007, 07:50:43 pm
That's a good compromise, but deactivated guns can often be reactivated. That's where most of the black-market guns in the UK come from.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on January 18, 2007, 07:54:38 pm
I'm sure you should fill the barrel or something.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: DarkAngel on January 18, 2007, 10:15:10 pm
That's a good compromise, but deactivated guns can often be reactivated. That's where most of the black-market guns in the UK come from.
Yeah, when semi-auto shotguns became restricted here, my friend had to get his modified so it could only hold a certain amount of shells at once (3 or 4 i think, instead of 6 or 7), but he got it modified in such a way that he could easily reverse it. This way, he could be out hunting ducks with 7 shots at the ready, then if he sees a ranger, he could just pump out 4 shells, insert a pin into the magazine, and viola, its legal again...

If you cemented the barrel it would be a lot harder to undo tho ;D
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on January 20, 2007, 12:27:19 pm
[quote ]
If you cemented the barrel it would be a lot harder to undo tho ;D
[/quote]

A man runs in to a bank holding a gun demanding money or he'll start killing people. Who is going to stop and check to see if the barrel is plugged? How would you feel safer when you cannot tell if the weapon is functional or not? People see a gun and the fear for their lives, be it real or not.

BTW, Barrels are easy to replace. To render a weapon truely useless required the barrel and receiver to be heavily damaged (usually via some sort of a welding process).

So long at 1/4" and 3/4" pipe is for sale, you'll need to worry about guns folks. Next up.. outlaw pipe!

-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 20, 2007, 09:06:44 pm
A friend and I made a blunderbuss out of a 1/2" diameter steel pipe.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 21, 2007, 04:27:31 am
Manufacturing firearms sounds like terrorist activity to me.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Luminar on January 21, 2007, 04:30:01 am
That's gone and reminded me of the Anarchist's Cookbook or whatever it was. I remember reading it didn't actually get banned outright because though it gave instructions to do dangerous stuff, it never actually espoused any anti-government views. Dunno how correct that is...
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: huggkruka on January 21, 2007, 08:39:17 am

BTW, Barrels are easy to replace. To render a weapon truely useless required the barrel and receiver to be heavily damaged (usually via some sort of a welding process).


Then just do that! Easy-peasy.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Manna on January 21, 2007, 01:42:46 pm
That's gone and reminded me of the Anarchist's Cookbook or whatever it was. I remember reading it didn't actually get banned outright because though it gave instructions to do dangerous stuff, it never actually espoused any anti-government views. Dunno how correct that is...

It isn't banned but having a copy of the PDF on your HDD is enough to render you a threat in most countries. Seeing as how you only need circumstantial evidence to detain someone as being suspected of terrorist activities (such as a painter having lots of tins of paint in his garage...obviously a terrorist) ny form of half-assed training such as the anarchist's cookbook is gonna look bad.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 21, 2007, 01:44:55 pm
Especialy if youre the sort of knucklehead they interviewed in Bowling for Columbine.

"Yeah, I mixed up a couple of drums of Nay-pawm"

can be suffixed with "Hyuck hyuck" if necessary.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on January 21, 2007, 02:27:17 pm
I unsuprisingly have a copy. (No, I haven't mixed up a couple drums o' nay-pawm or made a fertilizer bomb.)

Manufacturing firearms sounds like terrorist activity to me.

It's not as powerful as the spud cannon my dad built when we lived in New York. We could launch a potato clear across the Erie Canal. </redneckflashback>
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 16, 2007, 03:12:23 pm
If a person commits a crime of passion/a non-premeditated crime (which incidentally we cannot rule out in this case), keeping guns illegal will mean that they won't just be able to pick up a gun and kill a bunch of people in some lunatic rage.

Oh, but you can kill *just as many people* with a knife.  ::)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 03:19:42 pm
The ones who want to commit crimes will do it. Making guns less available just means the criminals who want them bad enough get them

I know we've had this discussion before, so we should perhaps take any further comments to that thread; but I will say one thing: this argument is terrible. It only holds true if all crime is premeditated, the crime itself cannot be committed expediently or safely without a gun (for example if there is an expectation that any potential victim will be carrying a gun).
If a person commits a crime of passion/a non-premeditated crime (which incidentally we cannot rule out in this case), keeping guns illegal will mean that they won't just be able to pick up a gun and kill a bunch of people in some lunatic rage.

EDIT:
Here's the thread. Gun legalisation comments should probably go in it.
http://www.gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?topic=8081.0

But how many instances has a psycho path just been able to pickup a gun and kill somebody?. A couple of 12 year olds pulling daddys gun out of the drawer and not much else.

One don't have to already have a crime in mind to want to attain a gun. Gangsters and wannabs will get guns and its not because its easy. Its quite hard but if they want them bad enough they will get them and they do. I stand by my statement
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Werechicken on April 16, 2007, 03:24:40 pm
A gun is a highly impersonnal weapon for murder, it makes the actual act of killing someone much easier as it's a far more detached affair.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 16, 2007, 03:29:52 pm
But how many instances has a psycho path just been able to pickup a gun and kill somebody?. A couple of 12 year olds pulling daddys gun out of the drawer and not much else.

In the US? Apparently, quite a lot of people kill other people with guns on an impulse. Yes, it does happen a lot more than you seem to think. Over half of family murders are caused by firearms. A gun kept in the home is more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. There were only 163 justifiable homicides in the US in 2003, out of over 10,000.

One don't have to already have a crime in mind to want to attain a gun. Gangsters and wannabs will get guns and its not because its easy. Its quite hard but if they want them bad enough they will get them and they do. I stand by my statement

I doubt this. Some might, but I can't imagine most would bother. In countries where guns aren't legalised (for example the UK), there aren't so many gang-bangers with guns. The reason for this is that they're expensive, difficult to get ahold of, illegal and don't need to be used to commit low-level crime. Since gun control was introduced in Australia, for example, there was a 44% decrease in firearms used in armed robberies.

You might want to read some posts earlier in this thread.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 03:36:00 pm
A gun is a highly impersonnal weapon for murder, it makes the actual act of killing someone much easier as it's a far more detached affair.

Agreed but that does bring me to say americans are quite fond of firearms in general. So theres many who collect and then we have our hunters and then we have people like myself who keep them in case of a break in or something else of the sort. Then you have the insane that can pick up a gun that somebody was careless enough to leave around. Then you have the gangsters who must have guns to fit there image and sometimes do use them. Then the petty criminals who want to rob a store. Then you have the preplanned attacks like virginia tech. But the point i'm making is if the guns were made less available would just mean the first 3 i named would have a hard time getting them. While the others would still get them because they would try harder. Guns are more popular then knives or other weapons  here for crimes. It makes them feel tougher i guess but if guns were outlawed it would be something else. knives then would we need to outlaw knives too?

In the US? Apparently, quite a lot of people kill other people with guns on an impulse. Yes, it does happen a lot more than you seem to think.

Maybe, But likely alot less then what you seem to think


I doubt this. Some might, but I can't imagine most would bother. In countries where guns aren't legalised (for example the UK), there aren't so many gang-bangers with guns. The reason for this is that they're expensive, difficult to get ahold of, illegal and don't need to be used to commit low-level crime.


Well you would be wrong. Most do bother trust me i live here. Gangsters in particular are cowards a gun makes them feel more secure and yes they do go through the trouble.

Edit: This brings me to something. Whats the stats for school murders with some other weapon in europe?

Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 16, 2007, 03:37:45 pm
In the US? Apparently, quite a lot of people kill other people with guns on an impulse. Yes, it does happen a lot more than you seem to think.

Maybe, But likely alot less then what you seem to think

I doubt this. Some might, but I can't imagine most would bother. In countries where guns aren't legalised (for example the UK), there aren't so many gang-bangers with guns. The reason for this is that they're expensive, difficult to get ahold of, illegal and don't need to be used to commit low-level crime.

Well you would be wrong. Most do bother trust me i live here. Gangsters in particular are cowards a gun makes them feel more secure and yes they do go through the trouble.

Well, I provided some statistics to back me up. Care to look at those, or provide your own? I don't see why I should believe you when what you've said isn't backed up by even the slightest shred of evidence. The fact that you live in a place where there is no gun control does not mean you know what it's like where there is, and neither would it prove anything even if it did.

EDIT: And please don't assume the Virginia Tech shootings were pre-planned. As I've said, we don't know this yet.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 03:45:14 pm
You added that edit and i diden't notice while i was posting...anyway

Family murders you pretty much named it. But thats something seperate altogether of course the guns in the house if they are gonna kill a family members are they gonna use a gun? Or a knife? Aside from the other reasons i mentioned a gun is cleaner no blood on your hands if you kill a family member..theres plenty of reasons.

Its safe to say the virginia tech shooter (or shooters) Diden't act on impulse grab a gun and a crapload of ammo. Walk in shoot people reload shoot people leave. Come to another area of the collage a block or two away kill more people reload kill himself. Not to mention all of the nearby dates posters mentione in that thread like coloubine week, hitler day.

Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 16, 2007, 03:52:54 pm
Family murders you pretty much named it. But thats something seperate altogether of course the guns in the house if they are gonna kill a family members are they gonna use a gun? Or a knife? Aside from the other reasons i mentioned a gun is cleaner no blood on your hands if you kill a family member..theres plenty of reasons.

And that's a reason to keep guns legal... why?
Furthermore, firearms assaults have been found to be 12 times as likely to result in death as non-firearms assaults. I don't see where you're going with this.

Its safe to say the virginia tech shooter (or shooters) Diden't act on impulse grab a gun and a crapload of ammo. Walk in shoot people reload shoot people leave. Come to another area of the collage a block or two away kill more people reload kill himself. Not to mention all of the nearby dates posters mentione in that thread like coloubine week, hitler day.

And you know that the perpetrator didn't just grab the gun and ammo from under his bed how?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 04:01:45 pm

And that's a reason to keep guns legal... why?
Furthermore, firearms assaults have been found to be 12 times as likely to result in death as non-firearms assaults. I don't see where you're going with this.


At the risk of sounding a bit morbid here then why is it reason to make it illlegal?. If there was not a gun in the house it would be a club or knife..and for the morbid part. So the gun kills faster right?. Well then i suppose if they used a knife instead of a gun then the victem would be stabbed over and over and over untill they died. If the family member grabbed the gun with the intention to kill they are going to make sure they are dead. So with a knife a few stabs an FU and its all good?.

And you know that the perpetrator didn't just grab the gun and ammo from under his bed how?

And if he did? It would still have been planned somehow and if it was on impulse he wouldve likely gotten caught before it happened. Do you understand how hard it would be to not only pull of a school shooting but travel down the road 2 hours later and do it again??.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 16, 2007, 04:10:16 pm
And that's a reason to keep guns legal... why?
Furthermore, firearms assaults have been found to be 12 times as likely to result in death as non-firearms assaults. I don't see where you're going with this.

At the risk of sounding a bit morbid here then why is it reason to make it illlegal?. If there was not a gun in the house it would be a club or knife..and for the morbid part. So the gun kills faster right?. Well then i suppose if they used a knife instead of a gun then the victem would be stabbed over and over and over untill they died. If the family member grabbed the gun with the intention to kill they are going to make sure they are dead. So with a knife a few stabs an FU and its all good?.

In case you didn't understand what I wrote, I'll restate it.

If the weapon were substituted, there would be less of a chance for any attack to be fatal. Reducing fatalities is a good reason to make something illegal. Statistics show that having guns in the house leads to more domestic murders: a woman is 7.2 times as likely to be killed by someone close to them if there is a gun in the house.

Fewer guns = less fatal domestic violence.

And you know that the perpetrator didn't just grab the gun and ammo from under his bed how?

And if he did? It would still have been planned somehow and if it was on impulse he wouldve likely gotten caught before it happened. Do you understand how hard it would be to not only pull of a school shooting but travel down the road 2 hours later and do it again??.

Doesn't matter. That doesn't prove that it was premeditated.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 04:13:40 pm
And i said if the killer wants them dead they will die be it gun or not, the guns a faster death and the knife is gonna take more stabs if there was no gun they would KILL with the knife.

100% Proven no but the evidence is for it being planned
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 16, 2007, 04:19:02 pm
And i said if the killer wants them dead they will die be it gun or not, the guns a faster death and the knife is gonna take more stabs if there was no gun they would KILL with the knife.

Fewer guns = fewer domestic homicides.

What don't you get about that? Gun control reduces fatalities resulting from domestic violence. No-one's going to dispute that it's possible to kill someone with a knife. However, the availability of alternative murder weapons is not an argument for gun liberalisation - you wouldn't legalise heroin because nicotine is a legal alternative.

100% Proven no but the evidence is for it being planned

Really? You're in the police department now? Even so, it's irrelevant whether it was or not. Stricter gun control would nevertheless curb incidents that were, which was my original point.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 04:25:14 pm
You know you really don't need to take such an attitude with you in your posts.

So..if someone wants to kill not having a gun lowers the chances of him going through with it???. Your listening a bit to much to numbers. Logic and common sense ought to tell you thats BS. Or are you suggesting something else?. If so i'm sorry but i do not understand.

Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 16, 2007, 04:30:02 pm
So..if someone wants to kill not having a gun lowers the chances of him going through with it???. Your listening a bit to much to numbers. Logic and common sense ought to tell you thats BS. Or are you suggesting something else?. If so i'm sorry but i do not understand.

Not having a gun lowers the chances of an injury being fatal. Someone might stab someone or hit someone once and not have meant to kill them. Logic and common sense should make it obvious that when someone attacks someone with a gun, that person is far more likely to die, especially in one accidental or unthinking attack. Isn't that obvious to you? The statistics clearly show that this is the case. Not everyone who shoots someone means to kill them, or would mean to kill them in a sane frame of mind. Therefore, this demonstrates that when an attack is not premeditated (as I said several posts up when I brought the statistic up) that gun control works to reduce murders.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: /lurk on April 16, 2007, 04:32:31 pm
Consarn it, why don't the gun lobby understand the concept of science. You know, the thing where facts trump what "common sense" might dictate.

Numbers don't lie. People get shot by people - people with guns. Put out the fire!

Wait, did I post that earlier?

Edit: Yes! (http://www.gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?topic=7522.msg283478#msg283478)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 04:39:35 pm


Not having a gun lowers the chances of an injury being fatal. Someone might stab someone or hit someone once and not have meant to kill them. Logic and common sense should make it obvious that when someone attacks someone with a gun, that person is far more likely to die, especially in one accidental or unthinking attack. Isn't that obvious to you? The statistics clearly show that this is the case. Not everyone who shoots someone means to kill them, or would mean to kill them in a sane frame of mind. Therefore, this demonstrates that when an attack is not premeditated (as I said several posts up when I brought the statistic up) that gun control works to reduce murders.

Yes i get that a gunshot wound has a higher death toll then other types of attacks. But by your own logic the only murders it would prevent is the accidental ones and thats what i was saying to begin with. But is it going to stop planned robberys? Planned Murders? A gangster that lost a fight in the street blowing someone away?. No if any of the above shoot its with the intention to kill. The virgina tech planned or not would it have prevented it? No the guy may have had some kind of mental problem but from what we know. reloading, moving to another area the guy was quite capable of being aware of what was going on if thats not true he wouldve been caught much quicker

Consarn it, why don't the gun lobby understand the concept of science. You know, the thing where facts trump what "common sense" might dictate.

Numbers don't lie. People get shot by people - people with guns. Put out the fire!

Wait, did I post that earlier?

Edit: Yes! (http://www.gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?topic=7522.msg283478#msg283478)

Yes and if guns were outlawed that would not change. Has laws ever prevented a criminal from commiting a crime? No thats why they are called criminals. You know its iilegal to carry a gun or even a knife in america?. But most gangsters carry them everywhere
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Werechicken on April 16, 2007, 04:41:57 pm
Consarn it, why don't the gun lobby understand the concept of science. You know, the thing where facts trump what "common sense" might dictate.

Numbers don't lie. People get shot by people - people with guns. Put out the fire!

Wait, did I post that earlier?
Doesn't matte I once had a huge argument with an American pro-gun nut who was convinced a hammer was far more dangerous than a gun, could be used to commit crimes and leave far less evidence AND could be thrown accurately to kill someone. - Yeah, allot of common sense there.

Guns are highly dangerous, easy to use weapons and there should be very strict controls on who can own a gun and who can have access, it's just basic common sense, protection of the home is a rubbish excuse as in this case the criminal is as likely as the homeowner to have a gun, and the criminal will be more willing to use that gun. (Another part of the argument I mentioned before was the person arguing with my comment that a dog would be a better preventive measure, to which that idiot replied that a criminal could silently kill the dog, in the dark, without being injured and if the dog does bark the owner would just dismiss it).

And Daxx, if there was tighter controls on the purchase of guns then the availability of those guns to the criminals would decrease.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 04:46:49 pm


Doesn't matte I once had a huge argument with an American pro-gun nut who was convinced a hammer was far more dangerous than a gun, could be used to commit crimes and leave far less evidence AND could be thrown accurately to kill someone. - Yeah, allot of common sense there.

Guns are highly dangerous, easy to use weapons and there should be very strict controls on who can own a gun and who can have access, it's just basic common sense, protection of the home is a rubbish excuse as in this case the criminal is as likely as the homeowner to have a gun, and the criminal will be more willing to use that gun. (Another part of the argument I mentioned before was the person arguing with my comment that a dog would be a better preventive measure, to which that idiot replied that a criminal could silently kill the dog, in the dark, without being injured and if the dog does bark the owner would just dismiss it).

And Daxx, if there was tighter controls on the purchase of guns then the availability of those guns to the criminals would decrease.


There are strict laws on purchaseing firearms already. You have no idea the crap you gotta go through to own one as it is and home defense is a perfect reason. So your dog barks you hear a gunshot. Heres some scenarios Run downstairs get shot. call the cops wait on the cops get shot (assuming you have phone access in your room). Grab a gun and at least you stand a chance

EDIT: Not to mention depending where you live you chance wild animal, Ether after you or a pet..care to engage a bear in a fist fight  ;D
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Werechicken on April 16, 2007, 04:49:34 pm
Yes because every criminal really wwant to go to prison, be real, as soon as a criminal realises that they've been rumbled most will get out of there as fast as they can, Besides if you went down there with a gun they could just shoot you and say it was self defence, and it would be true, as you'd be giving them no choice, at least if you didn't have a gun they'd be less likely to kill you outright.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: /lurk on April 16, 2007, 04:50:37 pm
Has laws ever prevented a criminal from commiting a crime? No thats why they are called criminals.

So you're saying that if there were no laws there'd be no crimes and thus we'd all be living in a crime-free utopia?

Either you're an absolute genius or there's a wee teensy flaw in your logic there.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 04:53:56 pm
Yes because every criminal really wwant to go to prison, be real, as soon as a criminal realises that they've been rumbled most will get out of there as fast as they can, Besides if you went down there with a gun they could just shoot you and say it was self defence, and it would be true, as you'd be giving them no choice, at least if you didn't have a gun they'd be less likely to kill you outright.

Is that a chance you wanna take? hope he runs?. Most places have a law here if someone is on your property threating you or a family member(like breaking in your house) You can kill them and its considered self defense.

So you're saying that if there were no laws there'd be no crimes and thus we'd all be living in a crime-free utopia?
Either you're an absolute genius or there's a wee teensy flaw in your logic there.

No thats not what i'm saying at all. I'm saying what i have been saying it woulden't stop criminals. It would stop hunters and collecters etc.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 16, 2007, 04:54:40 pm
So you're saying that if there were no laws there'd be no crimes and thus we'd all be living in a crime-free utopia?


Anarchy in the UK USA!
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: /lurk on April 16, 2007, 05:01:45 pm
No thats not what i'm saying at all. I'm saying what i have been saying it woulden't stop criminals. It would stop hunters and collecters etc.

It stops hunters and collectors killing people by accident and hence becoming criminals, which can only be a good thing.

At least some would-be criminals would be unable or unwilling to out of their way obtain guns if laws were tightened, which can only be a good thing.

I fail to see what the drawback of gun control is. Please present what you think it is in an easily-understood format, such as a paragraph of text or demonstrative comic strip.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 16, 2007, 05:07:17 pm
Not having a gun lowers the chances of an injury being fatal. Someone might stab someone or hit someone once and not have meant to kill them. Logic and common sense should make it obvious that when someone attacks someone with a gun, that person is far more likely to die, especially in one accidental or unthinking attack. Isn't that obvious to you? The statistics clearly show that this is the case. Not everyone who shoots someone means to kill them, or would mean to kill them in a sane frame of mind. Therefore, this demonstrates that when an attack is not premeditated (as I said several posts up when I brought the statistic up) that gun control works to reduce murders.

Yes i get that a gunshot wound has a higher death toll then other types of attacks. But by your own logic the only murders it would prevent is the accidental ones and thats what i was saying to begin with. But is it going to stop planned robberys? Planned Murders? A gangster that lost a fight in the street blowing someone away?. No if any of the above shoot its with the intention to kill. The virgina tech planned or not would it have prevented it? No the guy may have had some kind of mental problem but from what we know. reloading, moving to another area the guy was quite capable of being aware of what was going on if thats not true he wouldve been caught much quicker

So we shouldn't stop guns from being legalised because although it saves lives and prevents murder, it doesn't prevent all murder. Great logic there. ::)

Yes and if guns were outlawed that would not change. Has laws ever prevented a criminal from commiting a crime? No thats why they are called criminals. You know its iilegal to carry a gun or even a knife in america?. But most gangsters carry them everywhere
I know we've had this discussion before, so we should perhaps take any further comments to that thread; but I will say one thing: this argument is terrible. It only holds true if crime is premeditated and the crime itself cannot be committed expediently or safely without a gun (for example if there is an expectation that any potential victim will be carrying a gun).
If a person commits a crime of passion/a non-premeditated crime (which incidentally we cannot rule out in this case), keeping guns illegal will mean that they won't just be able to pick up a gun and kill a bunch of people in some lunatic rage.
Not all people who commit murder are habitual criminals. Not all people who commit murder intend to do so. Not all people who commit murder plan said murder first. Not all crimes require carrying guns for a variety of reasons.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 05:08:07 pm

It stops hunters and collectors killing people by accident and hence becoming criminals, which can only be a good thing.

At least some would-be criminals would be unable or unwilling to out of their way obtain guns if laws were tightened, which can only be a good thing.

I fail to see what the drawback of gun control is. Please present what you think it is in an easily-understood format, such as a paragraph of text or demonstrative comic strip.

It stops hunters from hunting.
It prevents collecters from collecting.
It stops those who would use a gun to protect thier property from criminals or wild animals from doing so.
It lets most gangsters still get them
It lets most criminals still get them
Its taking away more of our freedom and our goverments been doing a great job of that.
It would put a dent a few business's.
Its like the damn geneva convention. your enemys will use whatever means they want to kill you. You have a mile long list of rules to obey!

In short its punishing the good guys for the bad guys deeds while the bad guys remain unaffected for the most part.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 16, 2007, 05:16:40 pm
It prevents collecters from collecting.
I hear you buddy. The goverment have been a constant thorn in my side in amassing my deadly rycin and anthrax collection. Apparently its illegal to own potential fatal biological agents now.

demonstrative comic strip.

(http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n125/Krakowsam/guncontrol.png)

The writing is my own but the picture and inspiration came from: http://www.thepaincomics.com/. Specifically: http://www.thepaincomics.com/Political%20Cartoons.JPG
The Pain is awesome.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: /lurk on April 16, 2007, 05:18:37 pm
It lets most gangsters still get them
It lets most criminals still get them

I've already explained that this is not a point against gun control. Without gun control, more gangsters and criminals get guns.

Protection of property from criminals and wilds animals thanks to guns is statistically irrelevant. Daxx knows the numbers better than I do, though. So that is not a point against gun control.

Many free, democratic countries institute gun control measures. Reduction of civil liberties is not a point against gun control.

So you have the end of a couple of hobbies and a dent to a relatively minor industry versus the possibility to save thousands of lives. That looks like an easy decision to me.


Oh, and thank you Krakow. That made the arguments much clearer for me.  :)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 05:24:15 pm
It lets most gangsters still get them
It lets most criminals still get them

I've already explained that this is not a point against gun control. Without gun control, more gangsters and criminals get guns.

Protection of property from criminals and wilds animals thanks to guns is statistically irrelevant. Daxx knows the numbers better than I do, though. So that is not a point against gun control.

Many free, democratic countries institute gun control measures. Reduction of civil liberties is not a point against gun control.

So you have the end of a couple of hobbies and a dent to a relatively minor industry versus the possibility to save thousands of lives. That looks like an easy decision to me.


Oh, and thank you Krakow. That made the arguments much clearer for me.  :)

Gun control is one thing. Attempting to make owning them illegal period is something else altogether.

And banning guns will not prevent murders anyway even if criminals coulden't get them. It just changes the weapon of choice, Humans have been finding ways to kill eachother forever. Not having guns never stopped them before. And as it is your only going to stop the minority that is accidental murders. Not the majority of intentional gun murders. Thats like saying videogames can cause a mentally ill man to commit murder. Its very very very rare but it does happen. Ban videogames.

If a murderer don't have a gun he will use a knife. If he don't have a knife a stick. No stick then a rock. No rock then his fists. But the fact is it will not prevent a murderer from owning a gun. It will prevent everyone else from owning a gun
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 16, 2007, 05:28:58 pm
And banning guns will not prevent murders anyway even if criminals coulden't get them. It just changes the weapon of choice, Humans have been finding ways to kill eachother forever. Not having guns never stopped them before. And as it is your only going to stop the minority that is accidental murders. Not the majority of intentional gun murders. Thats like saying videogames can cause a mentally ill man to commit murder. Its very very very rare but it does happen. Ban videogames.

If a murderer don't have a gun he will use a knife. If he don't have a knife a stick. No stick then a rock. No rock then his fists. But the fact is it will not prevent a murderer from owning a gun. It will prevent everyone else from owning a gun

Are you illiterate, or do you regularly not read what other people write?

Restricting gun possession lowers mortality rates from attacks.
Restricting gun possession lowers the incidence of homicides against women in the home.
Restricting gun possession makes it more difficult for criminals to obtain weapons that are more likely to kill.
Restricting gun possession means that crimes may be committed with much less propensity for violence.
Restricting gun possession, therefore, will reduce the murder rate.
Countries with strong gun control laws have significantly lower homicide rates.

All of this has been posted earlier in the thread.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 05:38:10 pm

Dude temper geez.

Restricting gun possession lowers mortality rates from attacks. Irrelevant. It someone intends to kill they will do so regardless of whether its a gun or thier middle finger.

Restricting gun possession lowers the incidence of homicides against women in the home.. That don't even make sense. So no gun being in the house makes a husband less likely to kill his wife?

Restricting gun possession makes it more difficult for criminals to obtain weapons that are more likely to kill. More difficult yes but you would be lucky to stop more then 5

Restricting gun possession means that crimes may be committed with much less propensity for violence. So a knife attacks going to be less violent? or any attack for that matter..

Restricting gun possession, therefore, will reduce the murder rate. Only unintentional ones and that can be done with requirment tests and class's

Countries with strong gun control laws have significantly lower homicide rates. Who is to say its because of the gun laws? Theres a ton of diffrences between countries outside of the gun laws my friend
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 16, 2007, 05:44:23 pm
Restricting gun possession lowers mortality rates from attacks. Irrelevant. It someone intends to kill they will do so regardless of whether its a gun or thier middle finger.

You seem to think people are some sort of ultra-determined super-beings that never give up until theyve accomplished their goals. Also, try challenging someone to kill you with a stick. If you fight back then its almost certain they wouldn't succeed. If they had a gun you would basically have no chance. Even if you had a gun then you would probably die, even if you did manage to take him with you.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 05:48:21 pm
Restricting gun possession lowers mortality rates from attacks. Irrelevant. It someone intends to kill they will do so regardless of whether its a gun or thier middle finger.

You seem to think people are some sort of ultra-determined super-beings that never give up until theyve accomplished their goals. Also, try challenging someone to kill you with a stick. If you fight back then its almost certain they wouldn't succeed. If they had a gun you would basically have no chance. Even if you had a gun then you would probably die, even if you did manage to take him with you.

Theres alot of variables that go with that. Was the murder a sneaky one?. Or a straiight forward attack?. Honestly if anything no guns would just cause criminals to be smarter. And of course it would be hard with a stick but for one to use a stick you would need to ban everything else first.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 16, 2007, 05:53:08 pm
Ok. So why are there less murders in countries with gun control?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 05:55:51 pm
Ok. So why are there less murders in countries with gun control?

That brings me to the wall i mentioned the virginia tech thread. I can't accurately discuss it because i don't completely know how *insert countrie here* works
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 16, 2007, 05:55:59 pm
You know, I'm wondering whether you're not just trolling.

Restricting gun possession lowers mortality rates from attacks. Irrelevant. It someone intends to kill they will do so regardless of whether its a gun or thier middle finger.
Entirely relevant. Reducing murder rates is the prime aim of gun control. Unless you want more people to be murdered.

Restricting gun possession lowers the incidence of homicides against women in the home. That don't even make sense. So no gun being in the house makes a husband less likely to kill his wife?
Yes. That is correct. Statistics show this. Use of a gun in the heat of the moment is more likely to lead to a fatal injury.

Restricting gun possession makes it more difficult for criminals to obtain weapons that are more likely to kill. More difficult yes but you would be lucky to stop more then 5
Again, statistics demonstrate how effective this is. You're clearly wrong here, and you have no evidence to back your claims up with.

Restricting gun possession means that crimes may be committed with much less propensity for violence. So a knife attacks going to be less violent? or any attack for that matter..
Criminals are less likely to use violent weapons if the people they are robbing don't have guns. Criminals are less likely to use violent means if they have less violent weapons or weapons with less propensity to inflict serious injury.

Restricting gun possession, therefore, will reduce the murder rate. Only unintentional ones and that can be done with requirment tests and class's
So restricting murder is somehow wrong again? And no amount of testing or classes are going to prevent non-premeditated murder.

Countries with strong gun control laws have significantly lower homicide rates. Who is to say its because of the gun laws? Theres a ton of diffrences between countries outside of the gun laws my friend
It's a pretty strong inference.

So, to sum up, you haven't really presented any reason why guns should be legalised. There is plenty of evidence which suggests that control would reduce murder rates, reduce incidence of violent crime and reduce the economic impact of said crime.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 16, 2007, 06:06:05 pm
Who is to say its because of the gun laws? Theres a ton of diffrences between countries outside of the gun laws my friend

Yes, but like I said before, if a country is as prone to violence and murder as you seem to be suggesting that the USA is, then you shouldnt be handing out guns.
Sure, a responsible adult that went to gun classes and keeps his piece in a safe like Switzerland can be trusted with a gun, but would you give one to Little Billy America, who we all know has ADHD and spends all day playing Cowboys and Indians?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 06:10:43 pm
Alright Daxx this has gone on far enough. Your mind simply is not registering what i am saying and your provideing nothing more then me word of mouth. Your evidence came from your mouth alone and any statistics you could provide i could provide ones too. Thats the thing about statistics theres alot of them. You have been debating with a i know it all tone and have had an unfounded attitude with me and have now gone as far as suggesting i'm trolling. So i don't think debating with somebody such as yourself is worth my time anymore.

I'm not going to address what you just posted since i've already done so but heres something. You know..i miss type alot of words with my keyboard. I bet alot of people do, Heres an idea lets get rid of all keyboards!!!. Course the people mistype the words not the keyboards..but hell if theres no more keyboards then no more mistyped words.

Yes, but like I said before, if a country is as prone to violence and murder as you seem to be suggesting that the USA is, then you shouldnt be handing out guns.
Sure, a responsible adult that went to gun classes and keeps his piece in a safe like Switzerland can be trusted with a gun, but would you give one to Little Billy America, who we all know has ADHD and spends all day playing Cowboys and Indians?

Well i never said we were prone to violence and murder. Just Guns, But thats the point i was making my idea would be selling guns at flea markets etc should be illegal. And those who are purchaseing a gun from the proper store needs to go through classes to own it.

Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 16, 2007, 06:14:06 pm
Yes, but like I said before, if a country is as prone to violence and murder as you seem to be suggesting that the USA is, then you shouldnt be handing out guns.
Sure, a responsible adult that went to gun classes and keeps his piece in a safe like Switzerland can be trusted with a gun, but would you give one to Little Billy America, who we all know has ADHD and spends all day playing Cowboys and Indians?

Well i never said we were prone to violence and murder. Just Guns, But thats the point i was making my idea would be selling guns at flea markets etc should be illegal. And those who are purchaseing a gun from the proper store needs to go through classes to own it.
Ok... so you're claiming that guns don't cause murder... but that the lower murder rates in other countries are due to cultural differences. The only conclusion that can be reached is that Americans are culturally predisposed to violence. If they were just culturally disposed to gun ownership then there supposedly wouldnt be a problem, by your reasoning anyway.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 06:17:44 pm

Ok... so you're claiming that guns don't cause murder... but that the lower murder rates in other countries are due to cultural differences. The only conclusion that can be reached is that Americans are culturally predisposed to violence. If they were just culturally disposed to gun ownership then there supposedly wouldnt be a problem, by your reasoning anyway.

Parenting media and life views are just some of the things i was thinking of. But as i said i don't know i've never left america. Maybe stricter punishments? See i just don't know

Edit: Actually that just circles around to violence again....Okay then the gun laws might be part of why europes murders aren't that high. But i still stand by if they were banned in america then those who wanted them would go out of there way to get them
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 16, 2007, 06:25:04 pm
Alright Daxx this has gone on far enough. Your mind simply is not registering what i am saying and your provideing nothing more then me word of mouth. Your evidence came from your mouth alone and any statistics you could provide i could provide ones too.

I have provided statistics, and have drawn reasoned conclusions from them. I can provide the references for those statistics, if you like. As everyone here knows, I do not just make up things - I like to consider myself an academic and enjoy engaging in reasoned debate (I might add that it's not particularly bright to suggest that you know in what exactly tone a post on the internet is made). If you can provide well sourced statistics of your own, please do - I have asked already, but you haven't yet. Are you new to the internet, or to debating? You're not really demonstrating maturity here.

You're not providing any arguments in favour of gun liberalisation. We're all waiting.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Kcronos on April 16, 2007, 06:48:48 pm
Wooot!  Daxx! Daxx! Daxx! Daxx! Daxx! Daxx!

I couldn't have said it better myself!
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on April 16, 2007, 06:56:16 pm
it's good when Daxx is on your side of a debate you don't have to try he is too good. :)

In the mean time we will see if ShadowBandit can somehow find evidence to show that it's better that weapon that is more likely to kill someone than a weapon that is less likely to kill.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 16, 2007, 07:47:35 pm
it's good when Daxx is on your side of a debate you don't have to try he is too good. :)

In the mean time we will see if ShadowBandit can somehow find evidence to show that it's better that weapon that is more likely to kill someone than a weapon that is less likely to kill.

I've already stated that i'm done replying to Daxx so you might be waiting for awhile  :P
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Danzik on April 16, 2007, 11:17:40 pm
Restricting gun possession lowers the incidence of homicides against women in the home.
Restricting gun possession makes it more difficult for criminals to obtain weapons that are more likely to kill.
Restricting gun possession means that crimes may be committed with much less propensity for violence.
Countries with strong gun control laws have significantly lower homicide rates.
Daxx,
For my knowledge, please provide the source of the above statements.

Also, what is the source of the aforementioned 7.2 statistic?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on April 16, 2007, 11:33:50 pm
I've said it before in this topic and I'll say it again; increased mortality rates due to firearms being available isn't a reason to ban/restrict them in my opinion. There are far more important matters for the government to attend to that don't trample on rights or make people distrustful of their leaders.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on April 16, 2007, 11:43:20 pm
If people killing people isn't a reason to make a law then what is?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on April 17, 2007, 01:48:51 am
Murder is already illegal in every country as far as I know.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on April 17, 2007, 03:56:03 am
Well shouldn't there be laws to make it harder for people to break laws.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: /lurk on April 17, 2007, 06:01:45 am
it's good when Daxx is on your side of a debate you don't have to try he is too good. :)

In the mean time we will see if ShadowBandit can somehow find evidence to show that it's better that weapon that is more likely to kill someone than a weapon that is less likely to kill.

I've already stated that i'm done replying to Daxx so you might be waiting for awhile  :P

So you're giving up? Ah, well, facts get us all in the end. You should see the religion thread.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Danzik on April 17, 2007, 11:13:26 am
Restricting gun possession lowers the incidence of homicides against women in the home.
What is the source of the aforementioned 7.2 statistic?
I'm still waiting for this...
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 17, 2007, 02:53:06 pm
So you're giving up? Ah, well, facts get us all in the end. You should see the religion thread.

I'm not sure how to reply to this without sounding harsh so ill tell you now my post contains no anger.

I never said i was giving up i said i was done replying to  one poster. This is not because his arguments are correct or incorrect smart or dumb founded or unfounded. But when a person can't get a point across without constant attitude and a personal poke here and there (Especially when they are supposed to be winning) its just not worth it to debate with them. I will still reply to others. And i should say i hold no bitterness towards Daxx hopefully we share more fondness in the future

Now as for theses *facts* what facts are you exactly refering to /lurk?

EDIT: I admit however i was wrong to judge someones tone 100%
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: /lurk on April 17, 2007, 03:28:24 pm
Statistics showing that a country with gun control has fewer homicides per capita:
Quote from: Daxx
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Comparison_with_the_United_States:
[In England] In 2005/06 there were 765 homicides, including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings. The population of England and Wales is 53,046,000 (out of the UK total - including Scotland and Northern Ireland of 59,835,000), which translates as 1.4 homicides per 100,000 residents.
By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 murders for every 100,000 of population.
Okay, so there's a big difference in crime statistics between the US and the UK - the UK has a far lower count of homicides per head than the US. But that doesn't necessarily mean guns are the problem. However:
70% of murders in the United States involve firearms
Compared to 9.4% in the United Kingdom
Only 9.4%? That's staggering. That means less than 10% of murderers in the UK are able to get their hands on firearms.
So, how many homicides involving/not involving firearms does that translate to?
US - 3.85 gun-related homicides per 100,000 population
US - 1.65 non-gun-related per 100,000
UK - 0.13 gun related homicides per 100,000 population
UK - 1.27 non-gun-related per 100,000

This demonstrates that in the UK (with tighter gun control legislation) there are fewer murders involving guns. This is a correlation, not necessarily a causation, but the fact that the US has 30 times the number of gun-related homicides speaks for itself. Does this support the idea that gun control laws are ineffective? No, it does not, and in fact suggests the opposite.

Logic showing why a country with gun control would have fewer homicides per capita:
Quote from: Daxx
Restricting gun possession lowers mortality rates from attacks.
Restricting gun possession lowers the incidence of homicides against women in the home.
Restricting gun possession makes it more difficult for criminals to obtain weapons that are more likely to kill.
Restricting gun possession means that crimes may be committed with much less propensity for violence.
Restricting gun possession, therefore, will reduce the murder rate.
Countries with strong gun control laws have significantly lower homicide rates.

So far, your argument in favour of gun liberalisation doesn't match up to Daxx's. If you can't counter his arguments, why would anyone else need to debate you?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 17, 2007, 04:24:24 pm
Restricting gun possession lowers the incidence of homicides against women in the home.
Restricting gun possession makes it more difficult for criminals to obtain weapons that are more likely to kill.
Restricting gun possession means that crimes may be committed with much less propensity for violence.
Countries with strong gun control laws have significantly lower homicide rates.
Daxx,
For my knowledge, please provide the source of the above statements.

Also, what is the source of the aforementioned 7.2 statistic?

Sure thing (though most of those are inferences based on stats). Sorry for not posting this earlier.

The homicides against women in the home statement comes from a statistic in Campbell et al. "Assessing risk factors for intimate partner homicide", NIJ Journal 250 (2003)
The less likely to obtain weapons statement is drawn from gun crime statistics from Wikipedia, comparing use of weapons in crimes in the UK and the US in my first post in this thread. It's also supported by stats from: Australian Institute of Criminology "Facts and Figures 2004", which is available here (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2004/facts_and_figures_2004.pdf).
The propensity for violence statement is an inference from my reasoning - see this post (http://www.gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?topic=8081.msg344430#msg344430). There are some other stats on this available here (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=bradyred&menu=gvr) which are taken from the FBI's Uniform Crime Report.
Countries with lower homicide rates also comes from my very first post in this thread (which secondarily references the source via wikipedia), as Lurk pointed out.

Strangely, I can't find the 7.2 statistic any more because the secondary reference I used for that seems to have been updated since the attacks. However, the Campbell report listed above quotes 6.

ShadowBandit, your declaration that you won't debate with me because I have an "attitude" are personally insulting, unfounded (as both of us have noted, your interpretation of my posts does not reflect their intent), and an ad hominem logical fallacy (that is, they do not detract from the validity of my argument regardless of their veracity).
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 17, 2007, 04:28:24 pm
Since this is about as volitile and unbending discussion of "I'm right, you're wrong" as you can ever get and more or less pointless to debate since most people are already solidly entrenched on 'their' side, I'll just throw in a question to the 'the world would be better without guns crowd'.

If, tomorrow, all guns were to be removed from the hands of all Americans other than law enforcement and the military., what do you envision the crime (violent and non-violent) scene will look like over the next five years? Include aspects such as domestic violence, rape, robery and burglary, auto theft, drugs, etc...

Please don't forget that we here in America like to sue even more than we like to shoot people and the legal system is already overloaded.

-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 17, 2007, 04:44:30 pm
The thing is /lurk i would completely agree that banning guns would lower *some* crime if not for one little thing here in america.

Everything thats been banned so far has not stopped anyone from obtaining. Ill use pot and other drugs as an example. they are illegal and that fact has not dented a bit of the population. So let me put it this way, If all the worlds guns were destroyed it would lower a bit of crime. But as long as people can obtain them legally or not they will. We love guns. So banning them right now would only do what i have said before ill try to dig up some evidence or statistics of my own.

Daxx unfounded? i beg to differ

You know, I'm wondering whether you're not just trolling.
Are you new to the internet, or to debating? You're not really demonstrating maturity here.
Are you illiterate, or do you regularly not read what other people write?
Really? You're in the police department now? Even so, it's irrelevant whether it was or not. Stricter gun control would nevertheless curb incidents that were, which was my original point.

I did also already mention that the accuracy of your points is not affected by this be they right or wrong.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: stuck on April 17, 2007, 04:53:04 pm
The truth is, banning guns in the United States would do nothing. They are already there. It would take years and years to get rid of every single firearm, but plenty would leak through. Why do you think the U.S. has a problem with illegal immigrants? At this point it is too late, the only thing it would accomplish is law-abiding citizens getting shot down because they had no defense against the mighty boomstick.

However, pot and illegal drugs are not an accurate analogy. Pot/Opium/Meth/etc can be very easily grown or created, whereas guns are made in very precise and elite factories.

This brings something else up. Though the guns may stop pouring into the country, other ones would still exist, and for very long times. Drugs are one use things, while a gun can maintain its value for years. AK-47s are still being used by terrorists and militias because they can not grow outdated.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 17, 2007, 04:59:37 pm
Everything thats been banned so far has not stopped anyone from obtaining. Ill use pot and other drugs as an example. they are illegal and that fact has not dented a bit of the population. So let me put it this way, If all the worlds guns were destroyed it would lower a bit of crime. But as long as people can obtain them legally or not they will. We love guns. So banning them right now would only do what i have said before ill try to dig up some evidence or statistics of my own.

Once again thats a very bad analogy. Are you saying that if class A drugs were legal in America then the same amount of people would use them as if they were not?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 17, 2007, 05:03:02 pm
However, pot and illegal drugs are not an accurate analogy. Pot/Opium/Meth/etc can be very easily grown or created, whereas guns are made in very precise and elite factories.

You got me on that one...ShadowBandit diden't think that one through ;D

Something i do wanna address my opinion on however...

Restricting gun possession lowers the incidence of homicides against women in the home.

Honestly sometimes you have to disregard numbers. This is absurd common sense ought to tell you this, You can find numbers for everything this is like saying honey i bought a rifle..the numbers show guns in a household increase the likely hood of me killing you so i'm sorry.

Lets have a show of hands here. How many of you would say if a gun was in your household the likely hood of you killing your Mother,Wife,Sister,Aunt,Grandma Would increase?.

Once again thats a very bad analogy. Are you saying that if class A drugs were legal in America then the same amount of people would use them as if they were not?

No since pot is illegal casual users stop, But people who want them like drug dealers druggies and teenagers still get and use them as if they were legal.
But yes that was a bad analogy i agree
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 17, 2007, 05:04:28 pm
Lets have a show of hands here. How many of you would say if a gun was in your household the likely hood of you killing your Mother,Wife,Sister,Aunt,Grandma Would increase?.

<raises hand>
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 17, 2007, 05:06:02 pm
Lets have a show of hands here. How many of you would say if a gun was in your household the likely hood of you killing your Mother,Wife,Sister,Aunt,Grandma Would increase?.

<raises hand>

Is this honesty or sarcasm?. If its honesty do explain  ;)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 17, 2007, 05:10:53 pm
Honesty.
I can think of at least two instances in which a gun I could accidentally kill a family member with a gun and not with anything else.

1) While cleaning, waving around or otherwise handling the gun it goes off in my hands and plants a bullet in someone.
2) Thinking a family member getting a late night snack or coming in through the back door mistakenly is a burglar I deleriously shoot them.

You couldn't realistically achieve either of those scenarios with a knife or golf club. Well, I guess you could be sharpening a knife and it slips out of your hand and embeds itself in the chest of a friend... oh wait, thats never going to happen.

Not to mention that a burglar or intruder without a gun could grab it off you/off the kitchen counter and shoot you with it.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 17, 2007, 05:14:55 pm
Honesty.
I can think of at least two instances in which a gun I could accidentally kill a family member with a gun and not with anything else.

1) While cleaning, waving around or otherwise handling the gun it goes off in my hands and plants a bullet in someone.
2) Thinking a family member getting a late night snack or coming in through the back door mistakenly is a burglar I deleriously shoot them.

You couldn't realistically achieve either of those scenarios with a knife or golf club. Well, I guess you could be sharpening a knife and it slips out of your hand and embeds itself in the chest of a friend... oh wait, thats never going to happen.

Well yes ill agree with that but the responsibilty classes i mentioned would take care of that. There are alternatives to completely banning them.

Not to mention that a burglar or intruder without a gun could grab it off you/off the kitchen counter and shoot you with it.

I would think you would keep it somewhere safe not on the kitchen counter O_o



Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 17, 2007, 05:18:33 pm
Honesty.
I can think of at least two instances in which a gun I could accidentally kill a family member with a gun and not with anything else.

1) While cleaning, waving around or otherwise handling the gun it goes off in my hands and plants a bullet in someone.
2) Thinking a family member getting a late night snack or coming in through the back door mistakenly is a burglar I deleriously shoot them.

You couldn't realistically achieve either of those scenarios with a knife or golf club. Well, I guess you could be sharpening a knife and it slips out of your hand and embeds itself in the chest of a friend... oh wait, thats never going to happen.

Well yes ill agree with that but the responsibilty classes i mentioned would take care of that. There are alternatives to completely banning them.

Not to mention that a burglar or intruder without a gun could grab it off you/off the kitchen counter and shoot you with it.

I would think you would keep it somewhere safe not on the kitchen counter O_o



Ummmm... you seem to be ignoring the repetedly proven existence of total dips*** morons.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 17, 2007, 05:21:26 pm
Ummmm... you seem to be ignoring the repetedly proven existence of total dips*** morons.

Yes there are many...but they shoulden't be able to pass the classes

Anyways even this does not justify what the numbers say. The numbers say a gun in the household increases the chances of homicide agains't a women. This implies that it would be intentional. Though the accidental point is still accurate
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: HanianKnight on April 17, 2007, 05:31:02 pm
Ummmm... you seem to be ignoring the repetedly proven existence of total dips*** morons.

Yes there are many...but they shoulden't be able to pass the classes

Anyways even this does not justify what the numbers say. The numbers say a gun in the household increases the chances of homicide agains't a women. This implies that it would be intentional. Though the accidental point is still accurate

I honestly don't think classes would do much help. We all have to take Drivers Ed and a test to get a liscense. Have you ever notices how many dip****s are currently driving around with their blinkers on and plowing into random light posts? No matter how stupid you are, you can always pass a class by cheating and simply paying attention for a moment and then forgetting it all later.

Oh, and as for gun-control. I agree with Daxx and Krakow Sam. Although I'll have them know there are many Americans who arent a bunch of gun-toting flag worshipping morons like we're often portrayed. Some of us are actually intelligent people on par with any country.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 17, 2007, 05:35:41 pm
Honesty.
I can think of at least two instances in which a gun I could accidentally kill a family member with a gun and not with anything else.

1) While cleaning, waving around or otherwise handling the gun it goes off in my hands and plants a bullet in someone.
2) Thinking a family member getting a late night snack or coming in through the back door mistakenly is a burglar I deleriously shoot them.

You couldn't realistically achieve either of those scenarios with a knife or golf club. Well, I guess you could be sharpening a knife and it slips out of your hand and embeds itself in the chest of a friend... oh wait, thats never going to happen.

Not to mention that a burglar or intruder without a gun could grab it off you/off the kitchen counter and shoot you with it.

These are both cases where you are blaming an inanimate object for someone lack of control and common sense.
1) You failed to inspect and clear the weapon before handling it. You are careless and endangering people. This is not the guns fault, and it is not a danger of the gun in and of itself. It would be like blaming a car because its driver was going 100mph and crashed in to a pedestiran in a crosswalk.
2) Again, you could be brought up on charges, even if it WAS a burgler, because you would have to show cause for a weapons discharge. If you do not have the patients and clear thinking when handling a weapon, you should not be holding it. If you blast granny while eating SPAM from a can you obviously didn't have a clear picture of the event, you we're not thinking clearly, you were not controling yourself and willfully (and wrecklessly) used deadly force.

In both cases YOU would be the problem. You are defelcting blame on an inanimate object for your own carelessness. People have done this and some have been charged for it. Guns are not toys, but people think they are. Like a car, it'll kill you real quick if you don't respect it.

-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 17, 2007, 05:37:58 pm
I honestly don't think classes would do much help. We all have to take Drivers Ed and a test to get a liscense. Have you ever notices how many dip****s are currently driving around with their blinkers on and plowing into random light posts? No matter how stupid you are, you can always pass a class by cheating and simply paying attention for a moment and then forgetting it all later.

Oh, and as for gun-control. I agree with Daxx and Krakow Sam. Although I'll have them know there are many Americans who arent a bunch of gun-toting flag worshipping morons like we're often portrayed. Some of us are actually intelligent people on par with any country.

That was a bit of an unfair that you generalized people who like guns to be unintelligent. Likes and dislikes values and beilefs don't always have a bearing on somebodys intelligence. If i misintepreted this i apologize.

But one takes Drivers Ed to learn how to drive safely on the road and thats the point. I would think the test woulden't be an easy one. Idiot proof if you will  ;D. But idiots will always exist and the alternative is ban them all and people still get them illegally anyways.

EDIT: Also Drivers Ed is only required for people under the age of 18  :-\

Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on April 17, 2007, 05:39:36 pm
To use your own argument the proverbial "dipsh*t" goes to class due to being unable to have the capacity to fake some responsibility they fail do this person think "oh well I guess I don't deserve a gun?" Heck no they do this thing of going out and obtaining a firearm illegally.

This doesn't also account for the idiot who has enough smarts to now how to pass a class it doesn't mean as soon they graduate they are going to maintain responsibility. Case and point stand out side the DMV (or your countries equivalent) Watch how many idiots race out screaming Dad! Dad! i got my license then pile into the car and with a screeching of tires fly out of the car park going sideways.

You can tell people to be responsible until you are blue in the face wont do much good.


   
The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:
Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.  Look like HK made the same point 1st

Ah 3rd time in a row i tried posting and i get somone else making a post before me AAAAHHHHH!
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 17, 2007, 05:44:23 pm
To use your own argument the proverbial "dipsh*t" goes to class due to being unable to have the capacity to fake some responsibility they fail do this person think "oh well I guess I don't deserve a gun?" Heck no they do this thing of going out and obtaining a firearm illegally.

This doesn't also account for the idiot who has enough smarts to now how to pass a class it doesn't mean as soon they graduate they are going to maintain responsibility. Case and point stand out side the DMV (or your countries equivalent) Watch how many idiots race out screaming Dad! Dad! i got my license then pile into the car and with a screeching of tires fly out of the car park going sideways.

You can tell people to be responsible until you are blue in the face wont do much good.

If you based everything on how irresponsible some people are then you would need to ban everything, Cars Electronics, Knives, Chainsaws Mowers.
And if somebody who fails the class would just get it illegally then what makes you think not being allowed to have one at all would stop him?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: HanianKnight on April 17, 2007, 05:47:03 pm
I honestly don't think classes would do much help. We all have to take Drivers Ed and a test to get a liscense. Have you ever notices how many dip****s are currently driving around with their blinkers on and plowing into random light posts? No matter how stupid you are, you can always pass a class by cheating and simply paying attention for a moment and then forgetting it all later.

Oh, and as for gun-control. I agree with Daxx and Krakow Sam. Although I'll have them know there are many Americans who arent a bunch of gun-toting flag worshipping morons like we're often portrayed. Some of us are actually intelligent people on par with any country.

I wasn't actually saying that gun-owners are unintelligent, I was just mentioning a stereotype that people have of Americans. I actually know a few people who do have guns, but they are just hunting rifles and they lock that stuff up tight. No one is going to play cops and robbers with thoise things and accidentally blow off their friends head. They just go hunting, and they are very responsible. But guess what, they don't need any handguns, they don't want them and they agree they have no place in the home. They also support tighter gun-control laws, because they don't want crazies to get their hands on a gun, and they can wait a while for a backround check to be done. Because they have nothing to hide and they realize that guns are extremely dangerous.

That was a bit of an unfair that you generalized people who like guns to be unintelligent. Likes and dislikes values and beilefs don't always have a bearing on somebodys intelligence. If i misintepreted this i apologize.

But one takes Drivers Ed to learn how to drive safely on the road and thats the point. I would think the test woulden't be an easy one. Idiot proof if you will  ;D. But idiots will always exist and the alternative is ban them all and people still get them illegally anyways.

EDIT: Also Drivers Ed is only required for people under the age of 18  :-\


To use your own argument the proverbial "dipsh*t" goes to class due to being unable to have the capacity to fake some responsibility they fail do this person think "oh well I guess I don't deserve a gun?" Heck no they do this thing of going out and obtaining a firearm illegally.

This doesn't also account for the idiot who has enough smarts to now how to pass a class it doesn't mean as soon they graduate they are going to maintain responsibility. Case and point stand out side the DMV (or your countries equivalent) Watch how many idiots race out screaming Dad! Dad! i got my license then pile into the car and with a screeching of tires fly out of the car park going sideways.

You can tell people to be responsible until you are blue in the face wont do much good.

If you based everything on how irresponsible some people are then you would need to ban everything, Cars Electronics, Knives, Chainsaws Mowers.
And if somebody who fails the class would just get it illegally then what makes you think not being allowed to have one at all would stop him?

Because they would be reasonably hard to find and not everybody is so determined to buy a gun and risk going to jail or facing heavy fines. The reason guns are being singled out for irresponsible people using them is because they are made for the sole purpose of killing. Cars provide a valuable sevice and chainsaws serve a real function, cutting wood. If you go on a rampage with a chainsaw then you won't be killing as many people as if you had a gun. Knives also cut food, and you would rarely kill someone in a moment of rage with a knife. But with a gun all you need to do is move your finger, and bam! You just killed someone. Or if your hand slips while cleaning it, then you could have just killed someone. If you slip with a knife, then you might cut your finger pretty badly, but it won't end anybodys life.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 17, 2007, 05:53:12 pm
Ah i see sorry, And i never mentioned handguns (perhaps collecters). Hunting rifles can be used for anything a handgun can outside of being hidden with ease (and its already illlegal to carry a concealed weapon). So if all guns were banned those rifles are no exception and the people like them would pass the classes plus a background check. Though i would feel safer if handguns were banned i have to remind myself people would still get them illegally.

Well guns serve a purpose too, Hunting, Home defense, Target/skeet shooting.. But yeah i understand what you mean and i can't really refute it HK
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on April 17, 2007, 06:00:21 pm

Well guns serve a purpose too, Hunting, Home defense, Target/skeet shooting.. But yeah i understand what you mean and i can't really refute it HK

Home defense by killing those you are defending against.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 17, 2007, 06:02:25 pm

Well guns serve a purpose too, Hunting, Home defense, Target/skeet shooting.. But yeah i understand what you mean and i can't really refute it HK

Home defense by killing those you are defending against.

Yes? or injurying/incapacitated. I don't understand what the point of this post was?. Please elaborate
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: HanianKnight on April 17, 2007, 06:03:41 pm
While its true that a hunting rifle can be used to kill a person,and it does, you will most likely not see a person go on a rampage and kill lots of people with a hunting rife. After the first shot you have to reload. They are much larger and more difficult to lug around. Someone who is determined to kill a person will be able to with a hunting rifle, but it will be a much rarer occurance than the current amoutn of gun-related deaths. Many people that end up killing someone did it in a moment of passion, if they had time to think things out I would assume that most would not have killed the person.

On the other hand, a small handgun can be shot many times and weighs far less. Its easier to kill with, and like you mentioned, can be concealed. If a kid walks into his school with a hunting rifle, then people will notice, but he can hide the handgun until he starts shooting.

As for getting them illigally, the simple idea of going to jail would prevent quite a few people from getting a handgun. Yes many people that want to kill others could get them. But accidental shootings would be way down.

and I believe that Cobra's point was that home defense would still be killing someone. I don't think many robbers actually want to kill the family they are robbing, they just want their stuff. Mainly because if they did kill the family then it would be a much more major crime and they would be caught. Many of the murders are probably because the owner of the home came charging down the stairs and the robbery turned into a kill or be killed situation.

I remember someone mentioning that the relitivly few deaths during the Paris riots were due to the citizens not having guns to shoot the rioters with. That theory seems to make sense to me.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 17, 2007, 06:08:26 pm
While its true that a hunting rifle can be used to kill a person,and it does, you will most likely not see a person go on a rampage and kill lots of people with a hunting rife. After the first shot you have to reload. They are much larger and more difficult to lug around. Someone who is determined to kill a person will be able to with a hunting rifle, but it will be a much rarer occurance than the current amoutn of gun-related deaths. Many people that end up killing someone did it in a moment of passion, if they had time to think things out I would assume that most would not have killed the person.

On the other hand, a small handgun can be shot many times and weighs far less. Its easier to kill with, and like you mentioned, can be concealed. If a kid walks into his school with a hunting rifle, then people will notice, but he can hide the handgun until he starts shooting.

As for getting them illigally, the simple idea of going to jail would prevent quite a few people from getting a handgun. Yes many people that want to kill others could get them. But accidental shootings would be way down.

Then we would be on the same page. I have nothing agains't Handguns and the sort being banned so long as you keep in mind many will still obtain them and mostly the ones it would stop would be the ones who had no intention of doing anything illlegal with them. But its unfair and pointless to ban hunting rifles and shotguns. Mind you i'm not even pro gun nor do i hunt O_o.

EDIT: Any body breaking into a house regardless of the intention is risking thier life and giving the owner a right to attack them. And its true many likely were kill or be kill situations...but how many people would sit and hope the cops will get them knowing they are in your house right now? And are they wrong to do something about it?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 17, 2007, 06:11:06 pm
"You can't fix stupid!" - Ron White
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: HanianKnight on April 17, 2007, 06:19:28 pm
wait, then what the Hell are we arguing about?I think we should ba handguns, and I do realize that people can still get them, but the amount of deaths will drop dramatically. Hmm.... I guess I'm done.  :-\

Edit: I still think that many home break-ins wouldn't result in deaths. I don't have any studies, to back me up, but I would assume that the criminal would want to escape without getting caught, if they kill someone then now the Police are going to really try and catch whoever killed the person. If its a theft they would still look, but not nearly as much, if I were to break into a persons home to take their tv, I would take the tv and run. I wouldn't want to kill the family, because that would raise the chances of me being caught by a lot.

So I think that even if you do ahve the right to kill the person in your home, you still raise the chances of being killed yourself. And while you do have the right to attack the criminal, do you honestly believe that you should kill the person for theft? I understand that you would be under stress, but adding stress and guns usually doesn't end up helping a situation like a robbery.

Lego: That was quite rude. you don't need to be mean to someone because they don't agree with you. Unless they're a creationist, and you actually know them. Then you can be mean :P
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 17, 2007, 06:36:59 pm
wait, then what the Hell are we arguing about?I think we should ba handguns, and I do realize that people can still get them, but the amount of deaths will drop dramatically. Hmm.... I guess I'm done.  :-\

Edit: I still think that many home break-ins wouldn't result in deaths. I don't have any studies, to back me up, but I would assume that the criminal would want to escape without getting caught, if they kill someone then now the Police are going to really try and catch whoever killed the person. If its a theft they would still look, but not nearly as much, if I were to break into a persons home to take their tv, I would take the tv and run. I wouldn't want to kill the family, because that would raise the chances of me being caught by a lot.

So I think that even if you do ahve the right to kill the person in your home, you still raise the chances of being killed yourself. And while you do have the right to attack the criminal, do you honestly believe that you should kill the person for theft? I understand that you would be under stress, but adding stress and guns usually doesn't end up helping a situation like a robbery.

Lego: That was quite rude. you don't need to be mean to someone because they don't agree with you. Unless they're a creationist, and you actually know them. Then you can be mean :P

Well  i posted in this thread because somebody said something i said in another thread was ridiculous and suggested i bring it here.
My personal intention if somebody were to break in woulden't be to kill them. If they were carrying a gun and diden't listen to me and they would only get one warning i would fire. If they were unarmed a shot to the leg or a beatdown would suffice then i would call the cops. This is what i would do personally and i can't speak for other people but i do know some would act on impulse and do something stupid  :-\
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 17, 2007, 06:46:05 pm
Lego: That was quite rude. you don't need to be mean to someone because they don't agree with you. Unless they're a creationist, and you actually know them. Then you can be mean :P

That was not targetted at any single person here, but as a general reference to the desire to try to change something that you ultimately have no control over. This whole subsection of this thread is this:

"We are scared that somebody is going to do something stupid and we want to control other people."

Guns are harmless pieces of metal, plastic, and wood. It is the people that you fear, not the weapons. People find it easier to blame inanimate objects and others for their stupidity and fears.

People wanting guns for defense are stating: "I fear someone else hurting me, and therefore I want to be prepared to defend myself." They are taking an active stance in preperation of a perceived threat (real or not). They do not want other people to control their opinion or choice.

People wanting to get rid of guns are stating: "I do not trust my fellow man, and I want to control their environment and by extension my own." They are taking a passive stance by believing that making laws tougher will make fewer criminals.

Now both parties are rallying that they want to change things by stating the fact they want heard, fears they want heard, and hopes they want heard. Both sides really are not listening to the other and are responding with "Oh yeah?" as their replies.

The problem is the people. Stupid people. Careless people. People who have snapped. People who might be June or Ward Cleaver all their lives but go ballistic and hurt someone the next. There is nothing you can do to stop that.

No guns were used in 9/11

The Unibomber made bombs and mailed them to his targets.

Palestinians build rockets and strap bombs to their bodies.

You want to control people, but people don't want to be controlled. The ones that snap, are stupid, or careless are out of your control.

hence:

"You can't fix stupid!" -Ron White (<--- source included :) )

-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on April 17, 2007, 09:01:36 pm
I've never understood why people think that handguns should be banned instead of hunting rifles and such. Handguns are far less lethal and it almost always takes multiple shots to kill somebody because they have weaker bullets, which means in a "crime of passion" or accidental shooting, the chances of somebody dying are far less. Just to respond to a few things I noticed while skimming the last few pages:

While its true that a hunting rifle can be used to kill a person,and it does, you will most likely not see a person go on a rampage and kill lots of people with a hunting rife.
A number of shootings in the US (DC sniper, assassination of JFK) were carried out with hunting rifles. If anything, it's more difficult to catch somebody using one because of greater range and lethality and such.

While cleaning, waving around or otherwise handling the gun it goes off in my hands and plants a bullet in someone.

The chances of #1 happening are ridiculously low even if somebody has no idea how to use a gun. They don't simply go off because someobdy is holding them. It's still possible, of course, which is why I advocate educating people about gun safety.

On control in the US:

I doubt that guns will ever be successfully outlawed in the US simply because it would be more or less impossible to enforce. Unlike nations like Japan (where there's basically no guns) or a number of European nations with "successful" gun control programs, the US is geographically enormous and diverse, and the thought of trying to get all the guns out is crazy. Even if that happened, there are a lot of people who have the means to produce firearms on their own, and not just zip guns.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 18, 2007, 05:03:22 am
Restricting gun possession lowers the incidence of homicides against women in the home.

Honestly sometimes you have to disregard numbers. This is absurd common sense ought to tell you this, You can find numbers for everything this is like saying honey i bought a rifle..the numbers show guns in a household increase the likely hood of me killing you so i'm sorry.

So wait, we ignore what happens in the real world? If we're going to disregard numbers I'm gonna start smoking right now because although statistics show that I'm far more likely to die younger of a variety of diseases we're ignoring numbers amirite?

Honestly, you complain that I'm treating you like an idiot but you're not helping yourself very much.

This whole subsection of this thread is this:

"We are scared that somebody is going to do something stupid and we want to control other people."

Guns are harmless pieces of metal, plastic, and wood. It is the people that you fear, not the weapons. People find it easier to blame inanimate objects and others for their stupidity and fears.

People wanting guns for defense are stating: "I fear someone else hurting me, and therefore I want to be prepared to defend myself." They are taking an active stance in preperation of a perceived threat (real or not). They do not want other people to control their opinion or choice.

People wanting to get rid of guns are stating: "I do not trust my fellow man, and I want to control their environment and by extension my own." They are taking a passive stance by believing that making laws tougher will make fewer criminals.

Lego, you're absolutely correct in saying that we want to stop people being allowed to own guns because we're scared that people are going to do something stupid. But then, surely that's completely justifiable? It's the same reason we don't allow just anyone to walk into a hospital and start operating on someone. It's the same reason we don't just allow anyone to own a tank. It's the same reason we don't allow just anyone to manufacture their own explosives. Prolific gun ownership does in fact correlate with a higher homicide rate and a number of other statistics which show that guns just aren't safe.
Now, you're suggesting that it's the people that are the problem. Yes, that's true. But people are stupid. People are careless. And yes, people do need to be protected from themselves and other people.

Where you are absolutely and unjustifiably wrong is to claim for whatever reason you may have that people who aren't in favour of gun legalisation are solely trying to control other people's opinions or choices. Gun ownership is not an intrinsic right, in that it's something that's part of one's human rights. Gun ownership is granted to citizens of the US by an amendment to your constitution (and even that is debatably no longer relevant, as we have discussed earlier in the thread).
As I have said before:
But they don't, and that's the whole point. It's still possible for a government to legitimately believe it is protecting its people. Suggesting that the only reason they could possibly want to control ownership of firearms is for the purposes of control is patently silly.

Believing that the government does what they do to "protect" the citizens is even sillier. Taking away guns to "protect" people from each other is just like taking away other rights (free speech, abortion, etc) to "protect" people from "terrorists" and such.

Perhaps your government might do that ::); but realise that is not what was said. The suggestion was that governments will only criminalise weapons in order to control the populace - which is clearly untrue. Perhaps you might live in fear of your government, but that does not mean that they positively cannot be benevolent.

And taking away the "right" to possess dangerous weaponry is like taking away the right to rape or the right to murder. We may as well call prohibition against killing "murder control". The only way to see possession of firearms as a "right" is in a libertarian sense that allows us to do whatever we want regardless of our own safety and that of the others around us, and requires the same line of thought that suggests we should decriminalise other things which are currently illegal for safety purposes such as hard drugs or large quantities of highly radioactive material.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 18, 2007, 05:26:59 am
I'd also like to point out that the constitution does not offer the right for people to keep and bear guns.
The US constitution offers the right to keep and bear arms.
The last time I checked a sword or a bow and arrow still counted as arms. Therefore an outright ban on all firearms for anyone except the army and law enforcement officials is perfectly constitutional. (Ok, it wouldn't be an outright ban, hunting rifles would naturally still be legal.)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 18, 2007, 05:55:59 am
Daxx and Krakow Sam. If you would not mind, could you scroll up a few posts to where I asked for opinions on crime in the US if guns were 'suddenly' removed from all citizens and post a possible view. I'm curious to what you think would happen. Yes I know it would be a monumental task, but for this excercise somebody just waves a magic wand and poof! all the guns in the USA not owned by Law Enforcement and the Military are gone and the magic wand goes away.

Daxx, I want to write a reply to your post, but I need to get to work. I'll post more later.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 18, 2007, 06:01:42 am
Daxx and Krakow Sam. If you would not mind, could you scroll up a few posts to where I asked for opinions on crime in the US if guns were 'suddenly' removed from all citizens and post a possible view. I'm curious to what you think would happen. Yes I know it would be a monumental task, but for this excercise somebody just waves a magic wand and poof! all the guns in the USA not owned by Law Enforcement and the Military are gone and the magic wand goes away.

It seems like a trick question but I think the annual death rate from murders, violent crime and accidental death would decrease dramatically. There would be an initial period in which a large amount of criminals are needlessly shot as the police adjust to the new situation but eventually it would stabalise, guns would once again be regarded with fear and crime would level out somewhat somewhere between what it was immediately after the guns went away and what it was before. Eventually criminals would start robbing stores and banks with imitation guns, but that would still be preferrable in the long run because no-one would actually be shot and the criminals would be slightly less likely to get away with the money.

Oh, and Britain would immediately launch a land invasion to get its colony back.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 18, 2007, 06:15:47 am
Daxx and Krakow Sam. If you would not mind, could you scroll up a few posts to where I asked for opinions on crime in the US if guns were 'suddenly' removed from all citizens and post a possible view. I'm curious to what you think would happen. Yes I know it would be a monumental task, but for this excercise somebody just waves a magic wand and poof! all the guns in the USA not owned by Law Enforcement and the Military are gone and the magic wand goes away.

Actually I don't think it's possible to predict what would happen. People would panic, but that's largely a function of the suddenness of the change and the fact that there was no warning - I imagine you're trying to draw parallels to the difficulty of taking everyone's guns away from them, but obviously that would be a completely different situation.

The difficulty in prediction comes from the fact that people in the US are used to having guns, and aren't used to not having guns. Maybe some people would try to commit crimes they otherwise wouldn't have because they thought it would be easier (whether it would be or not is somewhat unclear), but equally every situation in which firearms lead to an unlawful death (disregarding any possibility that the police could still cause unlawful deaths) would disappear. I'd imagine any surge in crime would be motivated mostly by the sudden and shocking change from gun-ownership to non-gun-ownership but would by that token be very brief.

I'm not a sociologist, and it's difficult to construct even a guess about this. At best, anything we could say is only conjecture maybe backed up with a little reasoning.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 18, 2007, 06:34:00 am
What about concidering the opposite scenario. What do the pro-gun people think would happen if guns were suddenly legal in England (or another European country in which guns are illegal) and a large proportion of the population suddenly owned a gun?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: operaghost21 on April 18, 2007, 08:20:07 am
Honestly sometimes you have to disregard numbers. This is absurd common sense ought to tell you this, You can find numbers for everything this is like saying honey i bought a rifle..the numbers show guns in a household increase the likely hood of me killing you so i'm sorry.

So wait, we ignore what happens in the real world? If we're going to disregard numbers I'm gonna start smoking right now because although statistics show that I'm far more likely to die younger of a variety of diseases we're ignoring numbers amirite?

Honestly, you complain that I'm treating you like an idiot but you're not helping yourself very much.

while i hate to defend shadowbandit...

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Pchart.jpg)

 ::)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 18, 2007, 08:44:52 am
Oh man, the ice caps are melting and the pirates are dying!

Seriously, this helps in demonstrating where you can use statistics and where you can't.

If you have a set of statistics that show a correlation between two sets of data and a reasonable explanation that links the two, then it's possible that there is a causation somewhere. Furthermore, if there is no reasonable alternative explanation, the chances are further increased. For example, it's difficult to argue that smoking doesn't increase the risk of lung cancer since the data backs the correlation up and there is a reasonable explanation for why there is a link (IANAMD, of course). Obviously, between pirates and global temperatures we can see that these are largely unconnected variables and that there are alternative explanations to support the correlation than pirates cause global warming. *waits for someone to post a lengthy essay on the connection*

So when we correlate more guns in the home with more murders of abused women, we look at the data and we can explain it fairly simply and with common sense that for example an angry husband is more likely to kill his wife when he unthinkingly fires a gun at her than if he hits her with his fist or a blunt object. When we have even more statistics to support this, such as the fact that rates of female homicide are disproportionately higher in US states where guns are more prevalent (source - Matthew Miller et. al., "Firearm Availability and Suicide, Homicide, and Unintentional Firearm Deaths Among Women." Journal of Urban Health 79: 26-38 (2002)) there's only more and more evidence to support the theory and no alternative explanation has been given.

Seriously, denying statistics and saying "use your intuition", "disregard numbers" is encroaching on Leng-like levels of disconnection from reality.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: /lurk on April 18, 2007, 09:23:14 am
That comparison between pirates and global warming is flawed anyway. There are, in fact, more pirates (http://old.wheresthebeef.co.uk/show.php/guide/2600_Guide_to_Internet_Piracy-TYDJ.txt) than there have ever been.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: operaghost21 on April 18, 2007, 09:26:40 am
pffft, those aren't real pirates!
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 18, 2007, 09:27:18 am
My concern here is that the cure is worse than the disease. The reason I asked for an opinion about the changes in gun in the hands of private citizens has to do with a couple factors. Mild-violence crime and home theft is down in my area (Minneapolis Third Precinct crime rates report). This could be, by extrapolating someone’s statistics, because we now allow for the concealed carry of firearms. The basic function being "If I attack that little old lady she might pull a gun on me and shoot me." Or another passer by may bring arms to bear against the criminal. It is a two-way street. Criminals are concerned about getting shot too.

Now with no firearms a person or persons wishing to commit a crime of violence need to only over-power their victim. Oh sure, they might not get killed, but they'll probably be beaten and threatened. Firearms are equalizers. Removing firearms does not reduce the threat of a crime being carried out against you. It may reduce the odds of a deadly force encounter, but without a power-balance of some kind, a strong criminal now has an upper hand and attacking the weak and elderly a more viable option.

What about the police? First you need to contact them if something is happening. You then need to communicate with them and get them in route to your home. Hopefully you are the only problem they are dealing with (no other crimes, no car accidents, etc) and they get right there. There is a serious time delay (personal experience is 5-10 minutes inside a major US city).

What about people living in the country (farmers, small towns, etc...) where the number of active patrolling law enforcement officers might be less than1 per 40 square miles? If the worst threat a band of criminals might have to fear is a baseball bat, what stops them from attacking a farm house?

This is why I ask about removing firearms. We are allowed to have them by law, and they do get used in a criminal way, but would removing them actually make day-to-day living safer across the board? I personally do not think so. There are no statistics to back it up because it is an unknown.

Most areas that have allowed for concealed carry of firearms have had a reduction in mid-level crimes. Some have seen an increase in violent crime, and there in lies the problem. Is one case of serious crime better or worse than 10 cases of more mild crimes? Is the effect of 1 person shot better or worse than 10 homes being robbed? We don't have those statistics, and I for one would rather not be a test subject.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 18, 2007, 09:57:31 am
One person being killed outweighs any number of bloodless muggings in my opinion.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on April 18, 2007, 10:27:08 am
Apparently the American government values each citezen at $5 000 000 (I think.) Times this by 31 by 5 million and you get $155 000 000. And this isn't the only case. I don't that protection from theives can make up this difference. And that is on a purely financial side.

On a moral side, guns are terrible.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 18, 2007, 10:41:59 am
Apparently the American government values each citezen at $5 000 000 (I think.) Times this by 31 by 5 million and you get $155 000 000. And this isn't the only case. I don't that protection from theives can make up this difference. And that is on a purely financial side.

On a moral side, guns are terrible.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your comments here, could you please clarify? Where do you come up with a person is worth $5million?
-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 18, 2007, 11:55:43 am
So wait, we ignore what happens in the real world? If we're going to disregard numbers I'm gonna start smoking right now because although statistics show that I'm far more likely to die younger of a variety of diseases we're ignoring numbers amirite?
Honestly, you complain that I'm treating you like an idiot but you're not helping yourself very much.

Yet again you coulden't make a post towards me without making a slight jab that was not required. Stop assumeing that because you dislike my points that my points are dumb silly or making myself look bad.

I said some numbers not all. Of course smoking increases the chances of a younger death, This is logical smoking is harmful and can cause types of cancer.
Now a gun in the household can't logically increase the chances of a women being killed unless by accident and i'm not keen on repeating myself so please look at my other posts. But from what you're saying it seems as though you assume somebody who owns a gun has it in hand at all times so in times of anger they can pull the trigger. You and i both know this is not the case he would need to get angry go fetch the gun and point it at the women and this is highly unlikely unless he already had plans of killing her.

Numbers that give you statistics on amount of people who smoke or amount of democratics etc, Are fine. But when you get numbers like this that disregard people situations and even logic then yeah i'd say its time to think rather then read the numbers.

Seriously, denying statistics and saying "use your intuition", "disregard numbers" is encroaching onLeng-like levels of disconnection from reality

So people who look at numbers and accept they have a higher chance of intentionally killing thier wife because the numbers say so is not disconnected from reailty?.



Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Didero on April 18, 2007, 12:45:30 pm
You're talking past each other. I think Daxx sees accidental deaths as an important reason for tighter gun control, while ShadowBandit sees accidental deaths as a minor factor. Correct me if I'm wrong though :)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Kcronos on April 18, 2007, 12:50:03 pm
How about school shootings?  How will the children get their guns?  Basically, for people who aren't psycos, the lack of a weapon would discourage them!
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: /lurk on April 18, 2007, 12:51:46 pm
Seriously, denying statistics and saying "use your intuition", "disregard numbers" is encroaching onLeng-like levels of disconnection from reality

So people who look at numbers and accept they have a higher chance of intentionally killing thier wife because the numbers say so is not disconnected from reailty?.

That's science for you. Actually based on evidence and fact, the dastards. Don't they know that an uninformed opinion can reshape the universe to match itself?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Kcronos on April 18, 2007, 01:07:19 pm
The numbers reflect reality.  They don't change it.  ::)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on April 18, 2007, 01:37:42 pm
Quote
I'm sorry but I don't understand your comments here, could you please clarify? Where do you come up with a person is worth $5million?
-Lego

I read in some book that according to the United States whatever or other, each person is valued at     $5 000 000. I think it's so they can say that it isn't worth it to spend too much on a rescue mission or something along those lines.

Don't blame me, I read it in a book!
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 18, 2007, 04:12:12 pm
So wait, we ignore what happens in the real world? If we're going to disregard numbers I'm gonna start smoking right now because although statistics show that I'm far more likely to die younger of a variety of diseases we're ignoring numbers amirite?
Honestly, you complain that I'm treating you like an idiot but you're not helping yourself very much.

Yet again you coulden't make a post towards me without making a slight jab that was not required. Stop assumeing that because you dislike my points that my points are dumb silly or making myself look bad.

Sorry, I have difficulty dealing with illiterate children who can't follow simple logic. You are actually genuinely making me angry, I think I'm going to stop posting in this discussion for a while.

Now a gun in the household can't logically increase the chances of a women being killed unless by acciden

Which is, if you were following this discussion from the beginning (though perhaps you've forgotten by now) my entire point. GUNS ARE DANGEROUS BECAUSE THEY LEAD TO MORE PEOPLE DYING. I don't know how to make that any more obvious.

Numbers that give you statistics on amount of people who smoke or amount of democratics etc, Are fine. But when you get numbers like this that disregard people situations and even logic then yeah i'd say its time to think rather then read the numbers.

No, sorry, you're totally wrong. The statistics cannot lie. If you want to provide an alternative explanation, fine. But I don't see you doing so.

Seriously, denying statistics and saying "use your intuition", "disregard numbers" is encroaching onLeng-like levels of disconnection from reality

So people who look at numbers and accept they have a higher chance of intentionally killing thier wife because the numbers say so is not disconnected from reailty?.

See above. Statistics have an unfortunate tendency to reveal the truth.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 18, 2007, 04:24:13 pm
Wow Daxx if you have been paying attention i have been addressing one of your points not all of them. Here it is
quote author=Daxx link=topic=8081.msg344854#msg344854 date=1176848904]
Restricting gun possession lowers the incidence of homicides against women in the home.
[/quote]

Someone just mentioned numbers reflect not change right?. Somebody had to write the numbers correct? Who has the right to point at me and say i have more of a chance of intentionally killing a women in my house because a gun resides here?. Nobody because thier is no chance. This brings me back to my show of hands post.

(i'm short on time so i can't make a large post right now)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Samog on April 18, 2007, 04:36:53 pm
Numbers that give you statistics on amount of people who smoke or amount of democratics etc, Are fine. But when you get numbers like this that disregard people situations and even logic then yeah i'd say its time to think rather then read the numbers.
lol, wut

"The field of statistics is just fine when it's talking about things that don't affect me but NOT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT MY GUNS ARRRGH YOU ARE DUMB AND A COLD HEARTLESS MONSTER"

When people go into murderous rage (for whatever reason) they don't come out of it in the time it takes them to go into their room (or wherever they may keep it), pull out a gun, and think "wait what am I doing I think maybe I will go for a walk everything is happy it is a joyous day :) ."
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 18, 2007, 04:41:18 pm
"The field of statistics is just fine when it's talking about things that don't affect me but NOT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT MY GUNS ARRRGH YOU ARE DUMB AND A COLD HEARTLESS MONSTER"

I don't even like guns nor hunting. Only time i have ever fired one was trying to shot a tin can.

When people go into murderous rage (for whatever reason) they don't come out of it in the time it takes them to go into their room (or wherever they may keep it), pull out a gun, and think "wait what am I doing I think maybe I will go for a walk everything is happy it is a joyous day :) ."

Because most people are insane psychopaths that can go on a killing spree on the drop of a dime??. Most husbands who get angry at there wives don't even hit them let along fetch a gun and shoot them.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Werechicken on April 18, 2007, 05:06:09 pm
Can we try and calm this discussion down please, people are getting too heated up, and this is a subject many people hold strong views on, on both sides of the debate, so maybe a bit of restraint is in order.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on April 18, 2007, 05:11:07 pm
Guns are the problem not the solution.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Didero on April 19, 2007, 12:38:40 am
When people go into murderous rage (for whatever reason) they don't come out of it in the time it takes them to go into their room (or wherever they may keep it), pull out a gun, and think "wait what am I doing I think maybe I will go for a walk everything is happy it is a joyous day :) ."

Because most people are insane psychopaths that can go on a killing spree on the drop of a dime??. Most husbands who get angry at there wives don't even hit them let along fetch a gun and shoot them.
There's the problem. You seem to think Daxx and the rest mean that most people would shoot their wives when they're angry. I think they mean, that the minority that would, without guns, hit their wives with their hands or relatively not-so harmful objects in a blind rage, would, with guns, shoot at them in a blind rage. That results in a higher death rate in households.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 19, 2007, 01:16:19 am
There's the problem. You seem to think Daxx and the rest mean that most people would shoot their wives when they're angry. I think they mean, that the minority that would, without guns, hit their wives with their hands or relatively not-so harmful objects in a blind rage, would, with guns, shoot at them in a blind rage. That results in a higher death rate in households.

Yes i agree there would be rare cases of such a thing happening. But the point i am addressing is an absurd and completely false statistic. Who in the hell can say a firearm in the household increases the chance of a women being intentionally killed. Does anybody understand where i'm coming from with this?. Numbers cant tell you everything. They cant tell you you have a higher chance of intentionally killing, Having sex, Sticking your tongue to a light pole. Why? ever hear of choice? thinking? intelligence? logic?. I can honestly say i would never molest a goat. If a number says for any reason i have increased chances of molesting a goat then it would be wrong. Why? because nothing can increase my chances of molesting a goat because i will not under any circumstance molest a goat. Of course it increases a chance of it accidentally happening but if that statistic meant accidentaly it woulden't say women. And that is why i am addressing that point. In other words no matter what the a number says nothing can increase a particular persons chances of doing anything with in reason intentional




Me and i beileve most of the others have found common ground about the gunlaw as a whole. I'm not agains't handguns and the sort being banned even though i beileve the affect would be little (but thats my entitled opinion). As long as hunting firearms would not be banned then i see no reason to keep the others as they have no use or function to the common person.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on April 19, 2007, 01:29:41 am
I think that if people beating their wives is such a problem, then instead of taking away guns we ought to work to stop people from beating their wives in the first place. People often seek to treat a symptom of a problem instead of the problem itself because it seems easier.

Anyhow, I don't really mind if groups of people (i.e. entire countries) get together and decide to ban gun ownership, but I believe they ought to give the same reguard to groups of people who want to allow gun ownership.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Didero on April 19, 2007, 01:30:42 am
Why does mentioning women make it not accidental?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 19, 2007, 01:34:44 am
Why does mentioning women make it not accidental?

Well how exactly would it increase the chances of a women being killed as opposed to men if it were accidental? I would say the chances would be even if it were accidental but instead it singles out women. This is all assumeing that the particular wording is correct of course.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on April 19, 2007, 04:06:56 am
ShadowBandit if there is an increased chance doesn't mean you your self will do it. Stats don't work that way unless there is a 100% chance of something if there was a 100% chance that you will deflower the goat it will happen. Of course I'm sure we can all agree that there is not 100% chance that was just an example. If it's a 5% chance that it might happen it's probably all well good and likely that you wont seeing your previously mentioned stance on inter species erotica we can pretty much say you will be in the 95% majority. What the stats say is that you introduce 100 people to the goat statistically 5 of them will be with the goat. Wont necessarily be 5 maybe none of them will maybe the odds will play against and some how all of them will.

Go back to the gun thing sure you would never turn a gun on an innocent human being in the heat of the moment but you are one person in a population just because you would never injure your wife or partner doesn't mean there are many that would and they would with guns given the chance. Now it's a lot harder to do something with deadly force with out a gun therefore no gun less deadly force.

I will repeat one more time to clarify we are not saying you will for sure injure your wife we are saying there are women out there that could possibly be killed and have been killed because the husband was aloud to have a gun. This can be averted.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 19, 2007, 04:09:43 am
I think that if people beating their wives is such a problem, then instead of taking away guns we ought to work to stop people from beating their wives in the first place. People often seek to treat a symptom of a problem instead of the problem itself because it seems easier.


Instituting a massive anti-violence programme would cost more than banning guns and probably wouldnt be effective since you would have to make it mandatory for anyone to turn up, and people would find mandatory stuff an infringement on their freedoms.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom)
Post by: Doctor Z on April 19, 2007, 05:34:33 am
In the town my sister lives in everyone leaves their doors unlocked and the police station closes at 11.

That can live like this because everyone there has a gun and is trained how to use them. It's one of those towns where everyone hunts and you would have to be an idiot to try to rob a house in that town. Guns are not just devices of the devil that spread death.


And that brings me to a point I want to make. People should be allowed to have guns because criminals are sure as heck not going to give up their guns. The gun is used as a deterrent by Joe Schmo to ward off crime.

You can't take everyone's guns away because a few people are irresponsible. However I think there should be classes that you are required to take if you are seeking to buy a gun. I put that in bold so you know I am not just some gun nut.


Additionally...
Anyone who is acquiring guns through less-than-legal means is going to do what they are going to do regardless of any laws and people should be able to defend themselves.


That's all I want to say. Sorry if I repeated some stuff.
I only read the first page, cause I wanted to get this out before forgetting it.

It's called Mutually Assured Destruction. Its mainly on International levels. For those of you who dont know, its where two different people/country/etc can both kill each other. As such, neither one wants to attack the other, because if they do, the attacker will get killed/bombed/etc, by the attackee. Its like a balance. If you but alot of weight on one end, it gets more power. But if you put the same ammount of weight on the other end, you achieve equilbrium (did I use that right?)

Sorry if this had been said, but still. I think, since you cant guarantee that neither will not be able to kill the other, you should try instead for M.A.D..
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 19, 2007, 05:51:00 am
Yeah, thats really good. Shame MAD is a concept that applies specifically to nuclear weapons and deals with governments and nations rather than individuals.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Doctor Z on April 19, 2007, 05:51:55 am
Aye, but it CAN be used to refer to individuals. It's just not done that much.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 19, 2007, 06:01:09 am
ShadowBandit if there is an increased chance doesn't mean you your self will do it. Stats don't work that way unless there is a 100% chance of something if there was a 100% chance that you will deflower the goat it will happen. Of course I'm sure we can all agree that there is not 100% chance that was just an example. If it's a 5% chance that it might happen it's probably all well good and likely that you wont seeing your previously mentioned stance on inter species erotica we can pretty much say you will be in the 95% majority. What the stats say is that you introduce 100 people to the goat statistically 5 of them will be with the goat. Wont necessarily be 5 maybe none of them will maybe the odds will play against and some how all of them will.

Go back to the gun thing sure you would never turn a gun on an innocent human being in the heat of the moment but you are one person in a population just because you would never injure your wife or partner doesn't mean there are many that would and they would with guns given the chance. Now it's a lot harder to do something with deadly force with out a gun therefore no gun less deadly force.

I will repeat one more time to clarify we are not saying you will for sure injure your wife we are saying there are women out there that could possibly be killed and have been killed because the husband was aloud to have a gun. This can be averted.

Yes but what i'm saying is the numbers are predicting the actions of people. Yes some would but a gun being in the household can't raise the chances of any specific person commiting intentional murder. People actually have to fill theses numbers and how can someone actually see that something increases the chances of somebody performing said action?. you cant predict what people will do i do mean within reason here. For example if you give a girl free make up you can likely assume she will use it but the actions here are far apart. Like the smoking thing would be accurate because it has nothing to do with people by itself. Its proven that smoking is harmful thus anyone who smokes is possibly increaseing the chance of dieing at a younger age. If i walk up stairs i have an increased chance of tripping and falling. But what can increase my chance or any sane persons chance of doing something extreme like that? nothing. Now your statistic thing is not the same thing here. If 5 out of 100 people would molest a goat then thats another statistic all together. But what can increase the chances of any of those 100 people molesting a goat? nothing. The 5 that would woulden't for any outside reason its who they are they are sick people. Nothing couldve happened to convince them that they like goats.

Cobra don't get angry if i took something you said wrong. I have trouble understanding you're posts :-\
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: /lurk on April 19, 2007, 06:13:14 am
For example if you give a girl free make up you can likely assume she will use it

No you can't, see, 'coz that's statistic so, like, there's no way of knowing what she's going to do. 'Cuz no external influence can ever affect someone's behaviour.  ::)

EDIT: Emoticon.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 19, 2007, 06:26:50 am
I already explained that /lurk
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on April 19, 2007, 06:30:44 am
I can guarantee 100% that a person with out a gun will not shoot anyone you can bet the house, the farm what ever you like it is a physical impossibility no gun means you can't shoot anything. Now we have established that accidents happen and they seem to happen a lot with in the U.S.A. woman who have been subjected to violence have been shot it has happened before and if you think it wont ever happen again or even happen at a significantly decreased rate in the future you are with dumb naive or both. Sorry there is no way around it violence against women will not stop magically over night. As long as there are guns in the house there will be times when violence escalates to someone pulling a gun you can't deny it wont happen again and it will continue to happen at a similar rate it has in the past you don't have sudden changes in trends for no reason.

Back to my point while you can't say who will or wont attack someone you can't deny someone somewhere will and for that reason guns should be restricted.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 19, 2007, 06:36:05 am
I can guarantee 100% that a person with out a gun will not shoot anyone you can bet the house, the farm what ever you like it is a physical impossibility no gun means you can't shoot anything. Now we have established that accidents happen and they seem to happen a lot with in the U.S.A. woman who have been subjected to violence have been shot it has happened before and if you think it wont ever happen again or even happen at a significantly decreased rate in the future you are with dumb naive or both. Sorry there is no way around it violence against women will not stop magically over night. As long as there are guns in the house there will be times when violence escalates to someone pulling a gun you can't deny it wont happen again and it will continue to happen at a similar rate it has in the past you don't have sudden changes in trends for no reason.

Back to my point while you can't say who will or wont attack someone you can't deny someone somewhere will and for that reason guns should be restricted.

Your post has nothing to do with the recent conversation and i beileve many of us found common ground about gun control in general. I never said anything about it stopping nor did i say it won't happen again and again you brought up *accidents* and actually you're post is pretty irrleveant to everything we've been recently discussing. So i don't actually know how to respond to this.


Back to my point while you can't say who will or wont attack someone you can't deny someone somewhere will and for that reason guns should be restricted.

You can't deny some loon somewhere might be affected by violent videogames and snap. For that reason should videogames be restricted?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 19, 2007, 07:02:50 am
(snip) Sorry there is no way around it violence against women will not stop magically over night. (snip)

Back to my point while you can't say who will or wont attack someone you can't deny someone somewhere will and for that reason guns should be restricted.

Ban women! (what am I saying!!!!!) :)

You are making my point, by blaming an inanimate object as a cause. It is the person that is the problem. If you want to start throwing numbers, what percentage of firearms are used in crimes? What percentage of assaults against women are firearm related? If you want to play with numbers you'll find that other things are a far more dangerous threat to women than a firearm.

But why bother. We all have our opinions and I think it is safe to say the nobody here is going to be swayed much by what is posted here. Civil discssion if fine, but I think the thread is dying for lack of any fresh viewpoints.

-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 19, 2007, 10:10:03 am
Actually, Shadow, Cobra has pretty much summed up why you don't understand what I'm saying (thanks Cobra). You may want to go back and re-read his posts in relation to my initial comments.

As for the people being the problem; as I think KS already mentioned, guns are a damage multiplier. In the wrong hands they can do far more damage even though it's the people that might be the problem. This does not mean that guns are the cause, but they enable and exacerbate and that is the real issue.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 19, 2007, 11:03:05 am
Actually, Shadow, Cobra has pretty much summed up why you don't understand what I'm saying (thanks Cobra). You may want to go back and re-read his posts in relation to my initial comments.

As for the people being the problem; as I think KS already mentioned, guns are a damage multiplier. In the wrong hands they can do far more damage even though it's the people that might be the problem. This does not mean that guns are the cause, but they enable and exacerbate and that is the real issue.

Ill read his posts again because i do have trouble understanding him. My fault not his. But no matter what here why don't we just agree to disagree and let it drop. I haven't been here long and i would rather not be bitter agains't anyone nor do i wish anyone to be bitter agains't me
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on April 19, 2007, 12:48:46 pm
I can't see how guns can be viewed as anything but dangerous, their purpose, the one they were built for, is to kill things.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 19, 2007, 08:44:22 pm
I can't see how guns can be viewed as anything but dangerous, their purpose, the one they were built for, is to kill things.

Then I am, as are millions of others in the USA, horribly guilty of owning several and never using them for, what you believe is, their intended purpose.... unless we are going to get in to a debate that paper is a something that can be killed. Most gun owners are normal peaceful people. Just as most believers in Islam are normal peaceful people, yet there is a prejudice to think that muslims are terrorists. You have a mind set that I do not agree with... but that is a great thing about the USA. I can believe what I want (1st amendment) , be armed (2nd amendment), and talk about it all I want (1st amendment), over a nice glass of beer (21st amendment). :)

-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 20, 2007, 02:54:36 am
Being armed could mean you're holding a wooden sword. The second ammendment in no way entitles you to have useless guns. Why even have them if you never use them? Its basically psychotic.  ???
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 20, 2007, 06:10:10 am
I am allowed by law to own a firearm. I don't use them to kill things, but I do use them to go target and skeet shooting which is a fun challenge. How would that make me psychotic. Why are you labelling me this way? You are prejudice against my choices in life. Sports car owners are not all race car drivers. Muslims are not all terrorists. People in leather jackets are not all cycle gang members. People with long hair are not all hippies. Why are all gun owner psychotic in your view? See how these wonderful topics can be twisted. :)

-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 20, 2007, 06:42:49 am
Ok, but sports cars can still be used to drive to the store, Islam can be a peaceful religion and leather jackets still keep you warm. Guns serve no purpose beyond killing people and looking cool. If you want something cool looking you could just hang a non-functioning gun on your wall.
It's like someone said, America seems to have this obessesion with guns. No-one gives an adequate reason for why they own a gun (except hunters, bodyguards and the police) but insist its their god-given right to have one.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on April 20, 2007, 12:34:10 pm
It's like someone said, America seems to have this obessesion with guns. No-one gives an adequate reason for why they own a gun (except hunters, bodyguards and the police) but insist its their god-given right to have one.

I own a gun because I want to. I find that to be a perfectly adequate reason considering that my owning it infringes on nobody else's rights. It seems to me that there are far less 'adequate' reasons to own something like a PS3 than a gun.

Anyhow, I don't mind if other groups of people decide to ban guns where they live, and if they're successful then that's great, but I expect the same consideration if some other group of people decides not to ban guns.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: /lurk on April 20, 2007, 12:41:08 pm
What if the people who decide to ban guns are your neighbours?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 20, 2007, 12:46:20 pm
I own a gun because I want to. I find that to be a perfectly adequate reason considering that my owning it infringes on nobody else's rights.

Right up until the point where you haul off and shoot someone, sure.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 20, 2007, 03:18:01 pm
I own a gun because I want to. I find that to be a perfectly adequate reason considering that my owning it infringes on nobody else's rights.

Right up until the point where you haul off and shoot someone, sure.

Depending on the conditions at the time, shooting someone may also be within his rights. Arson of residence, rape, and grievous bodily harm of your or someone you are protecting are grounds for deadly force in most of the states in the US.

Krakow:
I gave a reason for having firearms (target shooting, skeet,etc) that doesn't involve killing anything, yet you seem to be ignoring it for some reason. I have committed no crime. I have done nothing wrong. I am not a threat to anybody through the action of owning a firearm. It is a hobby that I enjoy and it requires a lot of skill and discipline to be good at.

-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 20, 2007, 03:27:31 pm
well, saying its a hobby is hardly a defense. I have no doubt someone could claim that their hobby is letting off nuclear bombs and watching from a safe distance. If they did it out in some micronesian attols that were uninhabited it would harm no-one. But that would hardly justify allowing someone to assemble a nuclear device.
It sounds to me very much like the argument of smokers opposing the ban on smoking in public places over here. They claim it is their right to smoke, while totally ignoring the rights of those who have to inhale their smoke second hand.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 20, 2007, 04:08:30 pm
To develop from that point, the thing with rights like that is that you have to give them to everyone. Sure, you might not be about to kill anyone, but that doesn't account for those who are and the problems they cause. It's the same argument that Shadow was using, and it doesn't work.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 20, 2007, 05:18:49 pm
I did actually find a use for small arms today. I went exploreing some woods nearby. I have never been in them but its home to many dangerous animals such as coyotes wolves stray dogs and even the rare bear. I took my small dog with me because i was not going to go in far. I found deer! i have never seen any before and i watched them graze for awhile. I kept ahold of my dog because if he chased them a buck may of gored him because of the babys. Had that happened a hand gun would have been handy.

Tomorrow i am taking this girl back there to see the deer if we can find them. So we may be going deep into the woods. I don't own any small arms and taking a rifle or bow would actually be illegal because hunting seasons over. So i'm taking a hunting knife for defense and i would feel much safer with a handgun. I might be able to handle a dog wolf or snake but a bear no way.

I'm not defending small arms i'm just saying i have found a use for them.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 20, 2007, 05:20:26 pm
Hoping to impress this girl with the size of your 'hunting knife' eh?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 20, 2007, 05:24:24 pm
Hoping to impress this girl with the size of your 'hunting knife' eh?

Haha nah i don't have to impress her shes mines already. But shes never gotten to see a deer upclose like that before and i know she would love it. Its just an issue of safety the chances of an animal attack are very low but in case it did happen i would rather have a hunting knife then a stick or something.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 20, 2007, 08:20:33 pm
It sounds to me very much like the argument of smokers opposing the ban on smoking in public places over here. They claim it is their right to smoke, while totally ignoring the rights of those who have to inhale their smoke second hand.

How does this compare? Second hand smoke is a direct by-product of the smoker who is directly harming other peoples health. There is no second hand wounding from the legitimate use of a gun, nor may I use one in a public place. There is no harm done using a weapons in a responsible manner. My using a firearm does not hurt anybody else unless I wish it to. Well, OK, I guess I'm shooting holes in your statement, but not with a firearm.

-Lego

Quote
Posted by: Daxx 
Insert Quote
To develop from that point, the thing with rights like that is that you have to give them to everyone. Sure, you might not be about to kill anyone, but that doesn't account for those who are and the problems they cause. It's the same argument that Shadow was using, and it doesn't work.

I have the right to bear arms as do all US citizens. The law limits what those arms are. You are blaming an inanimate object again for the actions of people. So in your view, because somebody might do something stupid, and there is no stopping stupidity, it is better to remove all potential objects that might be considered dangerous even if the danger is statistically only an extremely small percentage of the total pool of those objects. OK...

What percentage of a group of potentially dangerous objects should be considered the minimum value before banning or heavily restricting them should be instituted? I want to see this logic applied elsewhere other than to just try to defuse the paranoia of the gun-fearing crowd.

BTW, have any of you ever operated a firearm?
-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 20, 2007, 08:31:04 pm
.
BTW, have any of you ever operated a firearm?
-Lego

I have fired some hunting rifles. I'm more fond of my bow
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 21, 2007, 02:13:30 am
It sounds to me very much like the argument of smokers opposing the ban on smoking in public places over here. They claim it is their right to smoke, while totally ignoring the rights of those who have to inhale their smoke second hand.

How does this compare? Second hand smoke is a direct by-product of the smoker who is directly harming other peoples health. There is no second hand wounding from the legitimate use of a gun, nor may I use one in a public place. There is no harm done using a weapons in a responsible manner. My using a firearm does not hurt anybody else unless I wish it to.

Strictly speaking, second hand smoke doesn't have to harm anyone. You can smoke it in your own home nowhere near other people. But to suggest that your gun ownership (or smoking) doesn't affect anyone else is a specious argument: statistics show that gun use and cigarette use have effects on other people. Again, it doesn't have to be true in every specific case to make it true over a large population.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 21, 2007, 11:50:53 am
It sounds to me very much like the argument of smokers opposing the ban on smoking in public places over here. They claim it is their right to smoke, while totally ignoring the rights of those who have to inhale their smoke second hand.

How does this compare? Second hand smoke is a direct by-product of the smoker who is directly harming other peoples health. There is no second hand wounding from the legitimate use of a gun, nor may I use one in a public place. There is no harm done using a weapons in a responsible manner. My using a firearm does not hurt anybody else unless I wish it to.

Strictly speaking, second hand smoke doesn't have to harm anyone. You can smoke it in your own home nowhere near other people. But to suggest that your gun ownership (or smoking) doesn't affect anyone else is a specious argument: statistics show that gun use and cigarette use have effects on other people. Again, it doesn't have to be true in every specific case to make it true over a large population.

You're changing the conditions of your statement. Your example was smokers in public and second hand smoke. My reply was that firearms use is a public place is not allowed and there is no direct secondary effect of firearms usage. Your shield of 'statistics show' lacks a definitive point and more a broad stroke of a vagueness brush.

-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 21, 2007, 12:31:04 pm
It may not be allowed to shoot other people but it still happens. You can't weasel out of it by saying "but it's illegal" - I could say that rape is illegal, but it wouldn't stop it affecting other people. There are statistically effects on other people of your (the "you" in this statement being the average person) gun ownership, which was my point.

And don't even try to deny that guns aren't invoved in fatal accidents.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 21, 2007, 02:36:34 pm
I am not denying that guns are used in fatal incidents, the term accident isn't really proper and as a true 'accident' with a firearms is extremely difficult and rare (responsibility of the handler is not an 'accident').

How is pointing out what the law is, the very basis of civilization, 'weaseling out' of anything? A gun does not commit a crime. A person commits a crime. A gun is not dangerous. A person using a gun in a careless or criminal manner is dangerous.

In the case of smoking in public, the second hand smoke is a nearly uncontrollable byproduct of smoking and has direct health conflicts. By creating a law that prohibits smoking in a public place there is a direct protection of others under the law, but the smoker is still permitted to smoke.

In the case of firearms, there is concern that their discharge in a public place may be dangerous to others. Therefore, by law, you may not do so. You may only discharge a firearm in certain areas (ranges, private property, mostly outside of city limits and townships) unless in the act of self-defense which then over-rides the area limitations (but does not absolve the firer or responsibility of his actions under the law). Under these laws and regulations millions of firearms peacefully coexist in our society (and in my opinion are a direct influence on our peace and stability as a nation).

A criminal is someone who does not obey the law. Your solution is to punish law-abiding citizens in hopes of reducing criminals. We have and amendment or two for that as well.

I am not weaseling out of anything by siding with law. Laws can be changed, but there has to be reason and support for such a change. Those changes require debate, preferable civil debate. That is hopefully something we can do here. ;)

-Lego

Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on April 22, 2007, 01:06:52 am
I bet if we outlawed 'hunting knives,' as KS put it earlier, we'd have a lot less rape.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Gorman Conall on April 22, 2007, 01:15:03 am
I bet if we outlawed 'hunting knives,' as KS put it earlier, we'd have a lot less rape.

Wait thats what he was implying????. Whoosh went right over my head :-[ :)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 22, 2007, 04:08:19 am
I bet if we outlawed 'hunting knives,' as KS put it earlier, we'd have a lot less rape.
Yes indeed. But 'hunting knives' serve a vital purpose that guns do not.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on April 22, 2007, 04:33:51 am
Yes it's not guns who kill people but stupid and or careless people, but just because it's not the guns fault someone points at another person and pull the trigger doesn't mean we should be putting it int he hands of said careless person. I know there are many who are responsible well behaved people but the minority are spoiling it for the rest of you.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 24, 2007, 02:30:20 am
How is pointing out what the law is, the very basis of civilization, 'weaseling out' of anything? A gun does not commit a crime. A person commits a crime. A gun is not dangerous. A person using a gun in a careless or criminal manner is dangerous.

I should point out that you again seem to be approaching this with the mindset that you have a god-given right to carry or own a gun. Why? I don't think we've established why it should be a right for every person to carry a gun, much less a law permitting the ownership of dangerous weapons.

In the case of smoking in public, the second hand smoke is a nearly uncontrollable byproduct of smoking and has direct health conflicts. By creating a law that prohibits smoking in a public place there is a direct protection of others under the law, but the smoker is still permitted to smoke.

In the case of firearms, there is concern that their discharge in a public place may be dangerous to others. Therefore, by law, you may not do so. You may only discharge a firearm in certain areas (ranges, private property, mostly outside of city limits and townships) unless in the act of self-defense which then over-rides the area limitations (but does not absolve the firer or responsibility of his actions under the law). Under these laws and regulations millions of firearms peacefully coexist in our society (and in my opinion are a direct influence on our peace and stability as a nation).

The problem is, people (and not just "criminals") don't use them solely within those designated areas. People do carry weapons around with them in public (and not just "criminals"). People carry weapons concealed on their person for a number of reasons, in their cars; kids even take them to school! Sure, in a perfect magical fairy world it would be fine if everyone kept their guns inside and never used them (and there were never any incidents within the home) but they don't.

It's also important to point out at this stage that the effects of a fatal incident in the home aren't just limited to the home. Suicides and homicides in the home do have external effects, on the people within the deceased's social circles and families, and there is even a quantifiable effect on things like house prices.

So to sum up, it's impossible to contain the effects of guns solely to within the home. Not only do people need protection from their own poor gun use, but they need protection from the poor gun use of others. I think Cobra made a good point above.

A criminal is someone who does not obey the law. Your solution is to punish law-abiding citizens in hopes of reducing criminals. We have and amendment or two for that as well.

I don't know what amendments you're referring to, but my solution "punishes" nobody. Again, if it's not a right for you to possess a firearm, then you're not being punished if you're not allowed to do so. I don't consider myself punished by not being allowed to possess a gun. A perfect analogy here is a baby whining after its favourite toy has been taken away - because that toy had sharp edges and was toxic if eaten. The fact is - as we've discussed earlier - not allowing people to carry guns does keep people safer.

I approach this issue from a utilitarian perspective since that seems an obvious way to determine whether gun ownership should be made legal or not. The net utility generated by gun ownership cannot be very large if at all positive in a country where there are numerous fatal shootings, accidents, use of guns to enable crime and a heightened fear of criminals. The legitimately positive (ability to go hunting? collecting?) effects of gun ownership are horribly outweighed by the negative effects.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on April 24, 2007, 02:33:49 am
I actually do think that firearm ownership is a basic right, but that's based on my views on free trade and such and has little to do with the fact that they're guns.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 24, 2007, 02:49:13 am
I actually do think that firearm ownership is a basic right, but that's based on my views on free trade and such and has little to do with the fact that they're guns.
Okay, but why?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 24, 2007, 09:30:55 am
I bet if we outlawed 'hunting knives,' as KS put it earlier, we'd have a lot less rape.
Yes indeed. But 'hunting knives' serve a vital purpose that guns do not.

If you were to address knives in the same way that guns are addressed, you would need to remove all knives to be of any effect. Banning handguns is pointless unless you ban hack-saws as well as a quick use of a saw on a rifle or shotgun still allows you to have a small concealable firearm. Banning hunting knives would be pointless if you could still buy a meat cleaver.

To Daxx:

Your utilitarian arguement runs on the assumption that the removal of firearms will make things safer. Firearms are a balancing force in this country towards crime, and prisoners asked why they don't rob occupied homes point out fear of being shot (I'll have to find that reference, it has been a few years).

Quote
It's also important to point out at this stage that the effects of a fatal incident in the home aren't just limited to the home. Suicides and homicides in the home do have external effects, on the people within the deceased's social circles and families, and there is even a quantifiable effect on things like house prices.

Your 'contained' argument expands out beyond the gun itself, demonizing it as an excuse for human behavior. This same arguement could be applied to just about anything (knives, smoking, drugs, internet forums, etc...) and is therefore reaching for an excuse and going beyond the topic of just guns but back to the basics of human nature and emotions. Your 'cause' was a human, the 'effect' is emotion. The gun was just a tool in the process and could be substituted with a car, a knive, a drug overdose, etc... you can't outlaw human emotion. It is a knee-jerk response to an emotional outburst.

You said:My comments in bold
The problem is, people (and not just "criminals") don't use them solely within those designated areas that is a crime . People do carry weapons around with them in public (and not just "criminals") that is legal depending on local laws and may or may not be a crime. People carry weapons concealed on their person for a number of reasons may or may not be a crime, in their cars may or may not be a crime, ; kids even take them to school! that is a crime in all US states to the best of my knowledge.

Being armed is a right of mine as a US citizen. By law I am permitted to own a firearm. I have my reasons for owning one. When someone tells me that they want to take something away from me I want to hear a logical reason for it. If you wish to change the law and try to make my choices criminal I want justification for that act. So far all I'm really seeing is emotional outrage at statistically rare event enacted by criminals being used as justification to force change against law-abiding citizens.

-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: LadyM on April 24, 2007, 01:46:09 pm
I agree 100% with everything Legodragon has said in this thread. The gun is an object it's the people that cause the problems. I too own a handgun, two rifles (a gift from my grandfather) and a shotgun. I own them to protect life and property and because they are fun to shoot sometimes. I don't intend to use it against anyone but if I ever need to, I have that option. I have fired handguns in target practice, the largest being a 45 magnum. I've also fired an Uzi and AK-47. I have to say, it's fun to shoot at targets. My father, a former Marine, taught me to skeet shoot and took me Dove hunting. I've pretty much been around guns most of my life. It's not always something to fear but always to respect.

Banning guns for everyone is only going to raise crime and personal assault. If a criminal knows law abiding citizens won't have a gun, they will take advantage of that to rob, pillage and steal. Allowing citizens to own firearms and carry them concealed deters such crime. Every state that has allowed concealed weapons has seen a downturn in the crime statistics. My state, North Carolina, is one of the states that allows concealed weapons. It's logged with your drivers license and if you are ever pulled over, you have to inform the officer as soon as he approaches your car. You are allowed to use deadly force if your life is in danger or on the behalf of someone else who is in danger. There have been many many times when someone with a concealed gun has saved the life of others because they had their weapon with them. It is not legal to carry a gun onto school or government property or public gatherings. That is for anyone including those with concealed permits.

Every time there is a big shooting by some stupid person, we get one step closer to having the guns taken away. The majority of people who own guns are normal, regular people who know what they are doing and respect the law.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 24, 2007, 02:22:47 pm
Your utilitarian arguement runs on the assumption that the removal of firearms will make things safer. Firearms are a balancing force in this country towards crime, and prisoners asked why they don't rob occupied homes point out fear of being shot (I'll have to find that reference, it has been a few years).

Please find that if you can, that'd be interesting.

Seriously, though, firearms as a balancing force against crime? Not only does that just create a climate of fear, but it promotes the "sure, killing people is okay" point of view. I hardy think it counteracts the argument that guns cause a lot more negative effects than positive ones. If anything, I doubt that gun ownership lowers crime. You find some statistics for that and maybe your argument will hold water.

Quote
It's also important to point out at this stage that the effects of a fatal incident in the home aren't just limited to the home. Suicides and homicides in the home do have external effects, on the people within the deceased's social circles and families, and there is even a quantifiable effect on things like house prices.

Your 'contained' argument expands out beyond the gun itself, demonizing it as an excuse for human behavior. This same arguement could be applied to just about anything (knives, smoking, drugs, internet forums, etc...) and is therefore reaching for an excuse and going beyond the topic of just guns but back to the basics of human nature and emotions. Your 'cause' was a human, the 'effect' is emotion. The gun was just a tool in the process and could be substituted with a car, a knive, a drug overdose, etc... you can't outlaw human emotion. It is a knee-jerk response to an emotional outburst.

I'm not sure why that means you should be allowed to own guns. If anything, it bolsters the point that guns enable more deaths and, as KS said earlier and to which you've not really responded, guns being a damage multiplier.

As a tool which enables people to kill, they are still dangerous. It doesn't matter who pulled the trigger or why they did it. The gun itself enabled the murder/death. Again, statistically people who are attacked by someone with a gun are more likely to die.

You said:My comments in bold
The problem is, people (and not just "criminals") don't use them solely within those designated areas that is a crime . People do carry weapons around with them in public (and not just "criminals") that is legal depending on local laws and may or may not be a crime. People carry weapons concealed on their person for a number of reasons may or may not be a crime, in their cars may or may not be a crime, ; kids even take them to school! that is a crime in all US states to the best of my knowledge.

Which means what? My argument is exactly the same. If anything, the fact that this goes on despite the ability to carry guns around with you being restricted is proof that laws restricting possession are not the solution to the problem of people carrying around guns illegally.

Being armed is a right of mine as a US citizen. By law I am permitted to own a firearm. I have my reasons for owning one. When someone tells me that they want to take something away from me I want to hear a logical reason for it. If you wish to change the law and try to make my choices criminal I want justification for that act. So far all I'm really seeing is emotional outrage at statistically rare event enacted by criminals being used as justification to force change against law-abiding citizens.

Yet you don't explain why you think you should have that right. Saying that "I don't care what you say I have the right because the government said so several hundred years ago" doesn't cut it.

It's easy to give a logical reason for taking away weaponry. In fact, I don't know whether you've just been ignoring it but that's basically the whole point of what everyone in this thread who is against gun legalisation. Allowing people to own guns is dangerous. It statistically leads to more deaths. The negative effects of gun ownership are arguably far far greater than any potential positives, and by that should therefore mean allowing people to own guns is a bad idea.

I don't quite know why you're trying to label what is after all most of the rest of the developed world's attitude to firearms as "reactionary", "emotional outrage" or "knee-jerk". That just sounds like an ad-hominem circumstantial justification of your status quo.

Banning guns for everyone is only going to raise crime and personal assault. If a criminal knows law abiding citizens won't have a gun, they will take advantage of that to rob, pillage and steal. Allowing citizens to own firearms and carry them concealed deters such crime.

Good reasoning, only experience shows otherwise (look at the statistics for Australia, for example). In fact, other comparable countries who don't allow their citizens to own guns have a lower homicide rate per capita. Co-incidence?

Every state that has allowed concealed weapons has seen a downturn in the crime statistics. My state, North Carolina, is one of the states that allows concealed weapons. It's logged with your drivers license and if you are ever pulled over, you have to inform the officer as soon as he approaches your car. You are allowed to use deadly force if your life is in danger or on the behalf of someone else who is in danger. There have been many many times when someone with a concealed gun has saved the life of others because they had their weapon with them. It is not legal to carry a gun onto school or government property or public gatherings. That is for anyone including those with concealed permits.

Are those statistics from John Lott?

[Lott] finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws. Source (http://www.vahv.org/oped/nejm2029.html)

There's also a critique of his work here:
http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: p-luke on April 24, 2007, 02:30:25 pm
If a criminal knows law abiding citizens won't have a gun, they will take advantage of that to rob, pillage and steal.

Hardly anyone in Europe has a gun. And we hardly have any murders/assault here at all. (Like 5% of the gun crimes of the US. Not exactly that though, I saw it in a movie sometime ago, but it was something like that.)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 24, 2007, 02:35:44 pm
If a criminal knows law abiding citizens won't have a gun, they will take advantage of that to rob, pillage and steal.

Hardly anyone in Europe has a gun. And we hardly have any murders/assault here at all. (Like 5% of the gun crimes of the US. Not exactly that though, I saw it in a movie sometime ago, but it was something like that.)

There are some stats here:
http://www.gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?topic=8081.msg284807#msg284807
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: LadyM on April 24, 2007, 02:57:24 pm
We're not Europe, it's hard to compare when it's so different. The entire basis of our countries existence is different. Our country was founded on the right to bear arms, not only against other countries but to keep our own government in check.

Here are some statistics I found on the NRA site regarding conceal carry:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS (CCW) STATISTICS (http://www.beast-enterprises.com/ccw.html)

Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992) -

The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000).

The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000).

The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (183.1 per 100,000).

The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the restrictive states (455.9 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (398.3 per 100,000). Using the most recent FBI data (1992), homicide trends in the 17 states with less restrictive CCW laws compare favorably against national trends, and almost all CCW permittees are law-abiding.

Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%. From start-up 10/1/87 2/28/94 (over 6 yrs.) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used).

Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm. Americans use firearms for self-defense more than 2.1 million times annually.

By contrast, there are about 579,000 violent crimes committed annually with firearms of all types. Seventy percent of violent crimes are committed by 7% of criminals, including repeat offenders, many of whom the courts place on probation after conviction, and felons that are paroled before serving their full time behind bars.

Two-thirds of self-protective firearms uses are with handguns.

99.9% of self-defense firearms uses do not result in fatal shootings of criminals, an important factor ignored in certain "studies" that are used to claim that guns are more often misused than used for self-protection. Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 24, 2007, 05:33:43 pm
Interesting read: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107274,00.html

Quote
Daxx said: Yet you don't explain why you think you should have that right.

I find this interesting, a comparision of crime and conviction between England and the USA.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/crvsgraf.html

Im my opinion, banning firearms in the USA would make the graphs for the USA turn up and be much more like England's. not something I want.

I cannot find my book with the commentary about prisioners commenting on fear of being shot at this time. When I do I will post it. (other readers of this forum thread feel free to disregard my comment until such time as I can provide the source. Although it would appear to be about as logical as other points made here)

One more interesting read: http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html
This one talked about DGU (Defensive Gun Uses). There is a Survey by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz regarding DGUs that states there are about 2million defensive gun uses in the USA per year. A similar survey done to disprove it resulted in about 3.8 million per year.

I'm kind of fond of this one:

While gun-related suicides were reduced by Canada's gun control legislation of 1978, the overall suicide rate did not go down at all: the gun-related suicides were replaced 100% by an increase in other types of suicide -- mostly jumping off bridges.


-Lego



Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 25, 2007, 04:55:52 am
I bet if we outlawed 'hunting knives,' as KS put it earlier, we'd have a lot less rape.
Yes indeed. But 'hunting knives' serve a vital purpose that guns do not.

If you were to address knives in the same way that guns are addressed, you would need to remove all knives to be of any effect. Banning handguns is pointless unless you ban hack-saws as well as a quick use of a saw on a rifle or shotgun still allows you to have a small concealable firearm. Banning hunting knives would be pointless if you could still buy a meat cleaver.

You realise we were both using 'Hunting Knife' as a euphemism for penis, right?  :-*
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 25, 2007, 05:39:04 am
I bet if we outlawed 'hunting knives,' as KS put it earlier, we'd have a lot less rape.
Yes indeed. But 'hunting knives' serve a vital purpose that guns do not.

If you were to address knives in the same way that guns are addressed, you would need to remove all knives to be of any effect. Banning handguns is pointless unless you ban hack-saws as well as a quick use of a saw on a rifle or shotgun still allows you to have a small concealable firearm. Banning hunting knives would be pointless if you could still buy a meat cleaver.

You realise we were both using 'Hunting Knife' as a euphemism for penis, right?  :-*

I wasn't. I was attempting to have a mature debate regarding weapons and crime. If this euphemism is the direct you wish to turn this thread then I'll move on to other topics.

-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 25, 2007, 06:12:33 am
Yes, I realise that. The point is I would't seriously advocate the banning of knives, but since you didn't get that I wasn't being serious you replied as though i was. I'm sorry for any confusion caused.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: /lurk on April 25, 2007, 01:33:40 pm
Graphs up to date eleven years ago.

Nice.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 25, 2007, 02:14:14 pm
Please show me something newer that sways the arguement and I'll listen. That is the problem with using statistics, you have to collect them all compare them, and post them. Was there some super-wonderful change in either scoiety regarding crime that I am not aware of? If so, please share.

-Lego
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Daxx on April 25, 2007, 05:36:45 pm
Reserved.

(I should be writing an essay on strategic management and another on game theory, not on firearms liberalisation. I'll fill this in later).
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: syphonbyte on April 26, 2007, 10:17:25 pm
I actually do think that firearm ownership is a basic right, but that's based on my views on free trade and such and has little to do with the fact that they're guns.
Okay, but why?

I believe in unrestricted trade of any commodity, including guns. That's basically why.

(This is going to look stupid after Daxx types out his huge essay thing above this post, but oh well.)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Didero on April 27, 2007, 12:29:59 am
The way I see it, is this:
People who grew up without guns don't see a need for them, and don't understand why others need them.
People who grew up with guns see them as something natural, and don't understand why they should be removed.
This discussion will never end.

But feel free to continue anyway :)
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Werechicken on April 27, 2007, 04:23:20 am
(http://home.xtra.co.nz/hosts/fire-equipment-centre/extinguisher.jpg)
I think this guy should be the mascot for this thread
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: SBD on April 27, 2007, 04:43:24 am
But why would we want to extinguish our teenage pyrotechnic-induced fires?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Krakow Sam on April 27, 2007, 05:27:29 am
The way I see it, is this:
People who grew up without guns don't see a need for them, and don't understand why others need them.
People who grew up with guns see them as something natural, and don't understand why they should be removed.
This discussion will never end

Yes it will. It will end when all the guns are taken away for ever and we all live in fear of easily avoidable weapons like bows and arrows.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Brutus on April 27, 2007, 09:46:07 am
their is a much stronger case against guns than their is for but in my opinion you should never take guns away from a country that wants them

that is the whole point of a democracy, you give the people what they want even if it is not for their own good. if the majority of people in Britian wanted guns legalised then they should be legalised and if the majority of people in America suddenly wanted them to be made illegal then they should be

DEMOCRACY!
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cobra on April 28, 2007, 03:53:34 am
Sure if the majority wants guns then let them go and those who don't like it can get out but in the meantime we will continue have debates so that one group can tell the other that they are a pack of idiots int he nicest possible way.
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: SBD on April 28, 2007, 05:54:18 am
Quote
that is the whole point of a democracy, you give the people what they want even if it is not for their own good.

A majority of kids want candy for breakfast, but we don't give it to them because it's better for them. The same reason why we shouldn't give people in America the 'right' to own assault rifles and .50 cal sniper rifles. In the words of the Ammunation ad, "no need to clean the deer when he's already been minced!"
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Legodragonxp on April 28, 2007, 06:21:08 am
The way I see it, is this:
People who grew up without guns don't see a need for them, and don't understand why others need them.
People who grew up with guns see them as something natural, and don't understand why they should be removed.
This discussion will never end

Yes it will. It will end when all the guns are taken away for ever and we all live in fear of easily avoidable weapons like bows and arrows.

... and they all lived happily ever after.

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


                                  NEWT
                   My mommy always said there
                   were no monsters.  No real
                   ones.  But there are.

        Ripley's expression becomes sober.  She brushes damp
        hair back from the child's pale forehead.

                                  RIPLEY
                          (quietly)
                   Yes, there are, aren't there.

                                  NEWT
                   Why do they tell little kids
                   that?
Title: Re: Guns! (and other things that go boom) (and of course the brown note)
Post by: Cool AN on April 28, 2007, 01:55:07 pm
Aliens was on yesterday.

I have a confession, I have never seen Alien. I have see all the others, multiple times, but never the first. I always miss it.
Title: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 02:30:19 pm
Over the past few days, I've discussed gun control with some people. The debate has typically been me and, I believe, Gorman advocating against it and other people advocating for it. Now, I'm happy with regulation. Regulations can be good. Environmental regulation, for example, helps ensure that companies don't produce too much in the way of pollutants. I don't mind people having to have licenses, to pass certain safety tests... Even waiting periods are fine by me, they stop people from making spur of the moment decisions. However, outright banning guns or preventing people from getting them through one method or another isn't right.

Now, people have posted things like graphs to show a correlation between gun ownership and death rates. What's not accounted for is the legality of those guns, or things like gun restriction. For example, Germany came in as a high ranking place on that chart but has some of the loosest gun restrictions in the world and the lowest murder rate in all of Western Europe, lower even than Scotland, which came in as the lowest rated one, or one of them, on the chart. Russia, meanwhile, which has absolute restriction of firearms, would have been off the chart entirely, having one of the highest murder rates in the world. Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, but its murder rate is one of the lowest in the world.

So, I have to ask, why would people argue for gun control? We know criminals get them anyway, almost all gun crime is committed with an illegal or stolen firearm because legal ones have the rifling recorded so, if used in a crime, they can be tracked back to the owner. England, where guns are banned, has seen no decrease in the amount of gun-related crimes since the ban and Wales has seen an increase. In Australia, where a ban has recently gone into effect, crime rates have jumped up by a tremendous amount.

I have a few simple questions for all those who would argue in favour of gun control.

1. Why ban guns? We know it doesn't affect crime rates, we know that places with varying levels of weapons restrictions have higher and lower levels of crime.

2. Guns provide the common person with a way to fight back when threatened. We know criminals have weapons, and countless times restrictions on where people can carry firearms have led to unnecessary suffering. Why take them from people who obey the law and can defend themselves with them?

3. There are many who use guns for sport and hunting, and many who even rely on them to practice their way of life, amongst them countless Native tribes in North and South America. People who live in places where you can't just walk to the local Marks & Spencers for your shopping have to survive by other methods. Even people who can in outlying areas may find food expensive enough that hunting is a necessity. It's also necessary to cull animal herds or their numbers skyrocket, and occasionally creatures like bears have to be killed; a feat not able to be accomplished easily, humanely, or securely using things like bows and arrows. Is it alright to take away these people's ability to live in their home for your comfort?

4. Is it right to take away another person's property rights? We deal with substances on a daily basis that are poisons or easily turned into weapons. Why is it okay to let someone have extracts of things like digitalis, or to drive cars, or to own knives, or gain muscle when all these things can be used as weapons? Earlier on this board, a thread about a murderer who killed seven people and wounded many others was placed up. This man lives in Japan, where guns are banned. He, therefore, ran them down with his truck and attacked them with knives before being arrested by police officers (Who, coincidentally, stopped him by threatening him with guns). Can you justify taking away a person's right to property for what they MAY do when you know they can accomplish it by other means?

Thoughts? Opinions? Answers?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 08, 2008, 02:41:21 pm
lol biased opinion much?

Yeah I have a full today tomorrow so I'll follow up on this comment tomorrow, until then I'm sure the other forum goers will be pleased to rip that reasoning to shreds, g'night!
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Sasha on June 08, 2008, 02:42:56 pm
Funny how in the old west people were armed to the teeth and strangely, people murdered each other.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: The Time Traveller on June 08, 2008, 02:46:33 pm
Ummm... excuse me?  You're using Correlation Implies Causation. That's the same thing anti-video game activists use.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 02:50:31 pm
Funny how in the old west people were armed to the teeth and strangely, people murdered each other.

Yeah, people murder each other all the time. Owning a gun is never a guarantee of safety. It merely lets you have a chance of defending yourself. No matter what you do, there will ALWAYS be violence, and banning guns will not stop it. It won't even stop guns being used in crime. It merely allows people a chance to defend themselves, amongst other uses.

lol biased opinion much?

I'm curious what exactly you think is biased. Is it the fact I think gun control is bad?

TT, who is that directed to, might I ask?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: The Time Traveller on June 08, 2008, 02:50:56 pm
Sasha.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: MetallicDragon on June 08, 2008, 02:51:21 pm
1. Why ban guns? It can prevent things like the Virginia Tech Massacre or just any nutjob from buying a gun and going on a rampage, for one.

2. Yes, guns can, in a few situations, protect you against an armed criminal. But how many lives would have been saved by having a gun compared to those lives lost by accidental shootings?

3. Hunting rifles are not really as big of a threat as a handgun: they have to be reloaded manually and are probably much harder to aim at point-blank range.

4. You mention someone who killed 7 people using his car and a knife. A car is a huge object that can be seen from a distance, and can be much more easily avoided than a bullet traveling at the speed of sound. If you see it coming, you can get out of the way, but if someone aims a gun at you, then you have a second or two to react, or get behind cover. In order to attack someone with a knife you have to be right next to them. What if this man had a gun? How many people would have been killed had he had a pistol in addition to his car and knife? In the case of a weapon such as a gun which can take someone's life much more easily than a knife or car, personal liberty should be sacrificed for public safety.

Also, cars and knives serve many other purposes than a gun. Without cars or knives our world would be quite different; all a gun does is kill people.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Sasha on June 08, 2008, 02:58:13 pm
Sasha.


No. I said having it doesn't mean the chances of survival aren't 100% as his argument is trying to relay. The only thing that is capable of happening, is even more deaths.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Mr. Consideration on June 08, 2008, 03:04:25 pm
Now, people have posted things like graphs to show a correlation between gun ownership and death rates. What's not accounted for is the legality of those guns, or things like gun restriction. For example, Germany came in as a high ranking place on that chart but has some of the loosest gun restrictions in the world and the lowest murder rate in all of Western Europe, lower even than Scotland, which came in as the lowest rated one, or one of them, on the chart. Russia, meanwhile, which has absolute restriction of firearms, would have been off the chart entirely, having one of the highest murder rates in the world. Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, but its murder rate is one of the lowest in the world.

Russia is also a corrupt police state with huge amounts of illegally owned weapons....just because something is illegal somewhere doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Switzerland has a very well-educated and healthy population, who are generally 'mature' enough to handle gun-owndership; it's not a densley populated nation with little poverty or immgration. The lack of 'slum' areas stop alot of violent crime.l There are always other factors, and no-one has ever claimed gun ownership increases the likelihood of crime; only that it gives any criminal an effective and powerful weapon to use for criminal intent. The argument that 'well, the victim has a gun too' is retarded, on the basis that it assumes said victim knows how to use the weapon proficiently and how to handle themselves in a combat situation. The criminal who 'relies' on his gun is far more likely to be skilled at using it. In the crowd situation of the othet topic; once bullets start flying the initial instinct is either to run away or shoot the person firing. With people running in all directions, chances are you'll put a bullet in an innocent bystander. Even if you manage to hit someone who is firing, chances are you'll blow away another would-be vigilante just like you who is trying to kill the criminal. What you have now is a group of terrified, confused people firing guns at each other. Not a great situation.

The 'Home Defence' argument is equally stupid. Where is your gun kept? In some kind of cupboard, locked away? What use is that is a criminal is in your home with a weapon? If they want to rob you; best to just surrender, let them do it and rely on your insurance than needlessley endanger yourself with pointless heroism. If they came with the express purpose of killing you, you'll never get to your weapon in time. Even if you did get to your weapon, what are the chances it is cleaned and in perfect operational form? The criminal, knowing ahead of you that his gun may be used, probably cleaned it that very morning.

The obvious solution to this is of course to keep you gun cleaned and oiled on your Coffee table all day, in easy reach of any children or young family members or pets or criminals who have broken into your home and can pawn your shiny Magnum. Or of course, to keep it tucked in your belt and fire from the Hip. Shame you'll never hit anything that way.

People used to murder Foxes in my country for 'sport' aswell. I think killing innocent wild animals for your own pleasure, and gaining nothing from their death is a disgusting excuse for fun. Killing animals at any other time displays mental problems, but not when you're out huntin'. Yee-ha!

Why bans guns? They are tools of death; nothing more, nothing less. Last I checked killing people was illegal, so giving people a tool which can easily kill another, which has no other use seems a little idiotic.

I have to finally go get some sleep, so I'll add some more tomorow.

Warning - while you were typing 5 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post. < Touchy Issue, eh?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Hammerman58 on June 08, 2008, 03:04:50 pm
I am for having guns I think we there needs to be a stronger punishment for having illegal weapons and to stop those from entering the country.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: The Time Traveller on June 08, 2008, 03:06:15 pm
Sasha.


No. I said having it doesn't mean the chances of survival aren't 100% as his argument is trying to relay. The only thing that is capable of happening, is even more deaths.
The thing about guns is, you don't have to kill people to use it.  Like if a criminal attacks you, you don't need to shoot the criminal in most cases to make them go away, you just need to point your gun at them.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: /lurk on June 08, 2008, 03:07:32 pm
Right. I'll start with your points that are patently false, like this one:

... almost all gun crime is committed with an illegal or stolen firearm because legal ones have the rifling recorded so, if used in a crime, they can be tracked back to the owner.

Table 1: Deadliest mass shootings 1966-2002 and legal statuts of weapons used

Code: [Select]

Date   
Place Dead Legal status
     
26 Apr 2002 Erfurt, Germany 16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
27 Sep 2001 Zug, Switzerland    14 + 1 Legal guns, licensed pistol owner
29 Jul 1999 Atlanta, GA, USA 12 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
20 Apr 1999  Littleton, CO, USA 13 + 2 Not legal guns
28 Apr 1996 Port Arthur, Australia 35 Legal guns*
13 Mar 1996 Dunblane, Scotland 17 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
16 Oct 1991 Killeen, TX, USA 23 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
13 Nov 1990        Aramoana, New Zealand 13 + 1 Legal guns, licensed gun owner
18 Jun 1990      Jacksonville, FL, USA   9 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
06 Dec 1989 Montreal, Canada 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
19 Aug 1987 Hungerford, England 16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
20 Aug 1986 Edmond, OK, USA 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
18 Jul 1984 San Ysidro, CA, USA 21 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
01 Aug 1966 Austin, TX, USA  16 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required

In Port Arthur the gun used was unregistered and the user didn't have a license.

Now for the things that I don't have a handy table to rebuke with:
1. Why ban guns? We know it doesn't affect crime rates, we know that places with varying levels of weapons restrictions have higher and lower levels of crime.
Why not ban guns? They serve no practical purpose outside of the hands of trained professionals and pose a danger of accidental death or simple mass-murder. If we can ban asbestos, why not something even more deadly?

2. Guns provide the common person with a way to fight back when threatened. We know criminals have weapons, and countless times restrictions on where people can carry firearms have led to unnecessary suffering. Why take them from people who obey the law and can defend themselves with them?
Usually when people say something like "countless times restrictions on where people can carry firearms have led to unnecessary suffering." they provide at least one example of the same. In this case, it's hard to argue the opposite - all the countless times that restrictions on firearms have prevented people suffering - since in these cases nobody gets their head shot in.
 
3. There are many who use guns for sport and hunting, and many who even rely on them to practice their way of life, amongst them countless Native tribes in North and South America. People who live in places where you can't just walk to the local Marks & Spencers for your shopping have to survive by other methods. Even people who can in outlying areas may find food expensive enough that hunting is a necessity. It's also necessary to cull animal herds or their numbers skyrocket, and occasionally creatures like bears have to be killed; a feat not able to be accomplished easily, humanely, or securely using things like bows and arrows. Is it alright to take away these people's ability to live in their home for your comfort?
See "trained professionals" above. Animal management is necessary and hunting is entertaining and environmentally sound when mananged properly - that is to say, not just letting anyone down a bottle of whisky, grab an AK-47 and wade into a herd of deer.

Quote
4. Is it right to take away another person's property rights? We deal with substances on a daily basis that are poisons or easily turned into weapons. Why is it okay to let someone have extracts of things like digitalis, or to drive cars, or to own knives, or gain muscle when all these things can be used as weapons? Earlier on this board, a thread about a murderer who killed seven people and wounded many others was placed up. This man lives in Japan, where guns are banned. He, therefore, ran them down with his truck and attacked them with knives before being arrested by police officers (Who, coincidentally, stopped him by threatening him with guns). Can you justify taking away a person's right to property for what they MAY do when you know they can accomplish it by other means?
This is the same point as 1, really, except that this one lets me throw down the "FREE COCAINE AND PLUTONIUM FOR BABIES!" strawman. Do you really think that he'd have killed fewer people had he had access to an assault rifle, or a sniper rifle?

And there we go. The general populace has no need of guns, except to needlessly endanger life and limb. Oh, and I hate when this happens: "Warning - while you were typing 8 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post."
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Sasha on June 08, 2008, 03:16:39 pm
Sasha.


No. I said having it doesn't mean the chances of survival aren't 100% as his argument is trying to relay. The only thing that is capable of happening, is even more deaths.
The thing about guns is, you don't have to kill people to use it.  Like if a criminal attacks you, you don't need to shoot the criminal in most cases to make them go away, you just need to point your gun at them.

Not really. A friend of mine was assaulted 2 times. They had guns and my friend had a gun too. He still was assaulted and lucky for him he didn't get shot.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 08, 2008, 03:17:25 pm
Well, I think Consideration and /lurk made every point I was going to make and then some...

I for one find it a little peculiar that some people view gun ownership as a god-given right. The fact its written into the constitution of a country doesn't make it an unarguable fact that everyone deserves a shiny gat to wave around.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2008, 03:22:12 pm
I'm sorry, the question is why do you need a gun?

I mean, you're most likely to be attacked whilst walking along the road, or leaving a club at night and I'm pretty sure you won't be carrying your gun around with you.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 08, 2008, 03:28:21 pm
I agree with KS. Guns are not a human right.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 03:45:02 pm
1. Why ban guns? It can prevent things like the Virginia Tech Massacre or just any nutjob from buying a gun and going on a rampage, for one.

No it can't. VTM was a "Gun Free Zone". That law only resulted in law-abiding citizens, including a professor, not interested in killing people, from having the ability to fight back. Coincidentally, not far from VTM, a man with a shotgun went into a college and was about to engage in a slaughter of his own. The moment he had drawn the gun, two students drew out pistols, made him drop the weapon, and the situation ended bloodlessly.

Coincidentally, the Columbine killers, the person who sold them the weapons... They all violated gun control laws...

2. Yes, guns can, in a few situations, protect you against an armed criminal. But how many lives would have been saved by having a gun compared to those lives lost by accidental shootings?

Accidental shootings as in kids shooting themselves? Kids kill themselves and each other in pools and with electrical sockets far more often, so it's poor logic in that case. Accidental shootings as in hitting someone innocent when shooting at a criminal? They're very rare. The thing most people forget is that half the point of having a gun is not having to use it. Just drawing a weapon is usually enough to stop most crimes.

3. Hunting rifles are not really as big of a threat as a handgun: they have to be reloaded manually and are probably much harder to aim at point-blank range.

All guns have to be aimed manually and I've found rifles are easy to shoot at close to point blank. Besides, a lot of hunters don't go hunting with standard rifles. I know a few that use modified assault rifles.

4. You mention someone who killed 7 people using his car and a knife. A car is a huge object that can be seen from a distance, and can be much more easily avoided than a bullet traveling at the speed of sound. If you see it coming, you can get out of the way, but if someone aims a gun at you, then you have a second or two to react, or get behind cover.

Didn't help the people he ran over, then got out of the car and stabbed repeatedly.

In order to attack someone with a knife you have to be right next to them. What if this man had a gun? How many people would have been killed had he had a pistol in addition to his car and knife? In the case of a weapon such as a gun which can take someone's life much more easily than a knife or car, personal liberty should be sacrificed for public safety.

Knowing standard clip size, probably fewer than he actually did kill. Knives don't use ammo and don't need to be reloaded. Unless he was very much prepared, which most people like him aren't, it's doubtful he'd have taken out many people. As soon as he's out of bullets, someone could tackle him, and if someone else had a gun, they could've shot him or even convince him to drop his weapon.

I should also bring up the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security".

You can't take away someone else's rights for your own comfort. Otherwise, we could agree to things like locking up all people of Arabic descent because there are Arab terrorist cells.

Also, cars and knives serve many other purposes than a gun. Without cars or knives our world would be quite different; all a gun does is kill people.

A gun doesn't kill people, just as a car doesn't drive on its own. People kill people. People also kill animals for food, defend themselves from other people, and shoot targets for entertainment.

I am for having guns I think we there needs to be a stronger punishment for having illegal weapons and to stop those from entering the country.

Works for me.

No. I said having it doesn't mean the chances of survival aren't 100% as his argument is trying to relay. The only thing that is capable of happening, is even more deaths.

I actually never said that. Guns can halt crimes without bloodshed (What do you think Police do?), and I never said you will always win... But you'll have a chance. That's what matters.

Russia is also a corrupt police state with huge amounts of illegally owned weapons....just because something is illegal somewhere doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Switzerland has a very well-educated and healthy population, who are generally 'mature' enough to handle gun-owndership; it's not a densley populated nation with little poverty or immgration. The lack of 'slum' areas stop alot of violent crime.l There are always other factors, and no-one has ever claimed gun ownership increases the likelihood of crime; only that it gives any criminal an effective and powerful weapon to use for criminal intent. The argument that 'well, the victim has a gun too' is retarded, on the basis that it assumes said victim knows how to use the weapon proficiently and how to handle themselves in a combat situation. The criminal who 'relies' on his gun is far more likely to be skilled at using it. In the crowd situation of the othet topic; once bullets start flying the initial instinct is either to run away or shoot the person firing. With people running in all directions, chances are you'll put a bullet in an innocent bystander. Even if you manage to hit someone who is firing, chances are you'll blow away another would-be vigilante just like you who is trying to kill the criminal. What you have now is a group of terrified, confused people firing guns at each other. Not a great situation.

So, you have admitted that crime is related to poverty and education, not gun ownership. Switzerland, I should note, has mandatory military service and supplies all its citizens who complete it with 50 rounds and their own weapon. Hence, they are very likely to be trained.

As for the whole suggestion of crazed people, keep in mind that people typically have to undergo training to own a weapon (Something I am fine with), and it's an innate risk. If you hear shooting, your job is to find out if the person is a threat before shooting. Ask any member of the NRA, they know to keep a gun at low-ready and raise if the other person tries to.

The 'Home Defence' argument is equally stupid. Where is your gun kept? In some kind of cupboard, locked away? What use is that is a criminal is in your home with a weapon? If they want to rob you; best to just surrender, let them do it and rely on your insurance than needlessley endanger yourself with pointless heroism. If they came with the express purpose of killing you, you'll never get to your weapon in time. Even if you did get to your weapon, what are the chances it is cleaned and in perfect operational form? The criminal, knowing ahead of you that his gun may be used, probably cleaned it that very morning.

Weapons are kept in safes and locked away because of laws that keep them there. I don't know about anyone else, but the weapons in my home are kept in consistently cleaned and oiled condition. Never is it otherwise. It's stupid laws that keep them locked away and prevent them from being of any use.

The obvious solution to this is of course to keep you gun cleaned and oiled on your Coffee table all day, in easy reach of any children or young family members or pets or criminals who have broken into your home and can pawn your shiny Magnum. Or of course, to keep it tucked in your belt and fire from the Hip. Shame you'll never hit anything that way.

Actually, it's best to keep it in your bedside table at night, in a safe when you can't have it in the day, or with you at any other given moment. Under-arm carry holsters are the preferred kind. That way, if you're attacked, it's easy to get it and you can keep it concealed.

People used to murder Foxes in my country for 'sport' aswell. I think killing innocent wild animals for your own pleasure, and gaining nothing from their death is a disgusting excuse for fun. Killing animals at any other time displays mental problems, but not when you're out huntin'. Yee-ha!

That's why, by law, you have to eat any animal you kill here unless in self defense.

Why bans guns? They are tools of death; nothing more, nothing less. Last I checked killing people was illegal, so giving people a tool which can easily kill another, which has no other use seems a little idiotic.

It does have other uses, though. I've stated several. We also know people will use them, and we give them to our police officers. Do we give them to ease in police officers killing of other people, or to defend themselves and others?

Warning - while you were typing 5 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post. < Touchy Issue, eh?

Yeah, I noticed... Happened to me too. Twice... Will probably happen a third time soon.

Not really. A friend of mine was assaulted 2 times. They had guns and my friend had a gun too. He still was assaulted and lucky for him he didn't get shot.

So... You would like your friend to not have had a gun in that situation? These people who assaulted him were criminals, we know criminals get guns anyway, and you can't stop them from having guns. Would you like your friend to not have had a gun then?

Table 1: Deadliest mass shootings 1966-2002 and legal statuts of weapons used

Right, and what of every day crimes? Of all criminals arrested and having weapons confiscated from crimes committed in the US in 1997, well over 75% were not bought from a store through legal means. They were stolen, borrowed from a friend or relative, gotten from an illegal dealer, etc.

Why not ban guns? They serve no practical purpose outside of the hands of trained professionals and pose a danger of accidental death or simple mass-murder. If we can ban asbestos, why not something even more deadly?

Most gun licensing requires you to go through certain training equivalent to police safety training. Their practical purpose resides in self-defense, hunting, and entertainment like skeet shooting. Please stop using the strawman of them not having "no practical purpose". Should we ban knives, cars, arsenicum, digitalis, etc. because they can have lethal uses?


Usually when people say something like "countless times restrictions on where people can carry firearms have led to unnecessary suffering." they provide at least one example of the same. In this case, it's hard to argue the opposite - all the countless times that restrictions on firearms have prevented people suffering - since in these cases nobody gets their head shot in.

Virginia Tech? A professor who owned a gun was shot at point blank defending students, having not been allowed to bring his gun in with him. You could look up Suzanne Hupp. Gun control didn't save lives there, it took them. She and her parents were in a restaurant, their gun in the car, and a man drove his car through the wall, stepped out with a rifle, and, one by one, shot everyone there slowly and methodically in full view of police officers.

Do you have examples where gun control saved lives?

See "trained professionals" above. Animal management is necessary and hunting is entertaining and environmentally sound when mananged properly - that is to say, not just letting anyone down a bottle of whisky, grab an AK-47 and wade into a herd of deer.

... Yeah, because every hunter is a redneck. Lovely. As I said, just about every person who gets a license HAS to undergo certain levels of training. I'm not even licensed (Not 18 yet) and I've undergone it.


This is the same point as 1, really, except that this one lets me throw down the "FREE COCAINE AND PLUTONIUM FOR BABIES!" strawman. Do you really think that he'd have killed fewer people had he had access to an assault rifle, or a sniper rifle?

Potentially. Men who have gone into crowded auditoriums and unloaded shotguns and assault rifles into a crowd in under two minutes have killed fewer people than he did.

Also, what's this free cocaine and plutonium for babies bit? In case you hadn't guessed, I'm for removal of drug laws too because people should be allowed to do with their own bodies as they see fit.

And there we go. The general populace has no need of guns, except to needlessly endanger life and limb. Oh, and I hate when this happens: "Warning - while you were typing 8 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post."

Again, happened to me. As for the general populace, they have every reason to have them: To defend themselves, their families, and their friends; to hunt for their food and to cull animal populations; and for fun.

I for one find it a little peculiar that some people view gun ownership as a god-given right. The fact its written into the constitution of a country doesn't make it an unarguable fact that everyone deserves a shiny gat to wave around.

Well, you have a right to property and to defend yourself. You shouldn't take away someone else's property or security just for your own comfort.

I'm sorry, the question is why do you need a gun?

I mean, you're most likely to be attacked whilst walking along the road, or leaving a club at night and I'm pretty sure you won't be carrying your gun around with you.

I dunno about you but... Walking in the dark alone at night? That's the time I'd want to carry it the most.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 08, 2008, 03:47:49 pm
*Do* you have a right to property?

If you ask me all you have a right to is freedom of speech, access to healthcare, a warm place to sleep and food in your belly. Property is a luxury, especially deadly property designed to maim and kill.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2008, 03:49:08 pm
I'm sorry, the question is why do you need a gun?

I mean, you're most likely to be attacked whilst walking along the road, or leaving a club at night and I'm pretty sure you won't be carrying your gun around with you.

I dunno about you but...Walking in the dark alone at night? That's the time I'd want to carry it the most.

You carry guns around with you all the time?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 03:50:07 pm
*Do* you have a right to property?

If you ask me all you have a right to is freedom of speech, access to healthcare, a warm place to sleep and food in your belly. Property is a luxury, especially deadly property designed to maim and kill.

And if a doctor doesn't want to provide health care? The problem is, those rights all require property. Without a right for property as a basis, none of the rights you suggested exist. In fact, it's actually more the opposite; access to health care, food, and a warm place to sleep is the luxury, property is the right, not the other way around.

You carry guns around with you all the time?

No, that's illegal. I can't even carry a metal pipe. In this city, carrying even a baseball bat in a "threatening manner" is illegal.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2008, 03:56:54 pm
You carry guns around with you all the time?

No, that's illegal. I can't even carry a metal pipe. In this city, carrying even a baseball bat in a "threatening manner" is illegal.

Exactly, so whilst you're being mugged or raped, precious Mr. Gunny will be waiting at home.

What's he gonna do, give you a cuddle and tell you it doesn't make you any less of a man?

You proved my point, most incidents of assault happen when you are nowhere near your gun.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 04:02:55 pm
Exactly, so whilst you're being mugged or raped, precious Mr. Gunny will be waiting at home.

What's he gonna do, give you a cuddle and tell you it doesn't make you any less of a man in a comforting voice?

You proved my point, most incidents of assault happen when you are nowhere near your gun.

Yes... Doesn't that say that there's a problem with that law? It means criminals who break the law can use their guns to rob, rape, and mug but I, a law abiding citizen with not even a misdemeanor on my record, cannot use it to defend myself..
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 08, 2008, 04:11:21 pm
*Do* you have a right to property?

If you ask me all you have a right to is freedom of speech, access to healthcare, a warm place to sleep and food in your belly. Property is a luxury, especially deadly property designed to maim and kill.

And if a doctor doesn't want to provide health care? The problem is, those rights all require property. Without a right for property as a basis, none of the rights you suggested exist. In fact, it's actually more the opposite; access to health care, food, and a warm place to sleep is the luxury, property is the right, not the other way around.


I hope your not suggesting that you should acquire those things with a gun. >_>

Anyway do you have the right to any property? I know a lot of things that i am glad that people can not own. Some Chemicals and Weapons to name two big things.

Also should you have the right to defend you self in any manner?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2008, 04:12:43 pm
So you think the punishment for mugging should be being shot in the face?

Bit extreme don't you think?

And obviously, they will have a gun. You won't be expecting it. They could come up behing you and put a gun to your head. Would you be brave enough to turn around and shout "no!" whipping out your beloved gun whilst rolling to the side ala cowboy?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 04:19:45 pm
I hope your not suggesting that you should acquire those things with a gun. >_>

No, I'm not.

Anyway do you have the right to any property? I know a lot of things that i am glad that people can not own. Some Chemicals and Weapons to name two big things.

But people can own them. Chemicals are available to people with the proper licenses, and weapons are available to the military, police, and, in many countries, the common person. The police are just the common person given special tools paid for by us, after all. Same with the military.

Also should you have the right to defend you self in any manner?

.... YES! Why on Earth wouldn't you!? What do you think the Police and Military were even brought into existence for?

So you think the punishment for mugging should be being shot in the face?

Bit extreme don't you think?

Not punishment, but if necessary to defend someone, it can be proper recourse. If I draw a gun on them, and they try to attack me, why shouldn't I shoot? Should I let myself be hurt for their safety?

And obviously, they will have a gun. You won't be expecting it. They could come up behing you and put a gun to your head. Would you be brave enough to turn around and shout "no!" whipping out your beloved gun whilst rolling to the side ala cowboy?

No, I'm not that stupid. A gun isn't a guarantee of safety. If they draw a knife and are more than 5-10 feet from me, though, well... Then the odds are in my favour if I have a shoulder holster. If they have a gun, and I have my gun drawn, it all comes down to who has it up sooner. I don't want to shoot them, but I will if it's necessary to save my life. Do you think I want to shoot someone? Never. But will I if it saves me or someone else's life... Well...
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Brandonazz on June 08, 2008, 04:22:00 pm
*Do* you have a right to property?

If you ask me all you have a right to is freedom of speech, access to healthcare, a warm place to sleep and food in your belly. Property is a luxury, especially deadly property designed to maim and kill.

And if a doctor doesn't want to provide health care? The problem is, those rights all require property. Without a right for property as a basis, none of the rights you suggested exist. In fact, it's actually more the opposite; access to health care, food, and a warm place to sleep is the luxury, property is the right, not the other way around.

In Communist Russia, point disproves YOU!

I jest.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 04:23:36 pm
... I'm confused, were you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Brandonazz on June 08, 2008, 04:25:47 pm
I was commenting on how a Socialist would disagree with your logic.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2008, 04:30:02 pm
Ok, lets imagine a little circumstances here, if gun crime were allowed.

Man A doesn't like Man B, because he slept with his wife or whatever.

They both carry guns with them all the time, because of the fantastic new law.

Man A sees Man B, there isn't anybody around.

In the morning Man B is dead. Man A: "Well Man B came at me like a crazy man, I just had to defend myself by shooting him 20 times in the back of the head."
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 04:34:25 pm
.... Not gun crime, gun ownership. I hope that was a slip and not a piece of extreme bias.

Also, you seem to think that allowing guns would turn people into idiots and police into idiots. Why would they spontaneously break the law like that? Wouldn't Man A do it anyway with, say, a knife? And wouldn't the police have evidence of the crime?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Ultramarine on June 08, 2008, 04:36:55 pm
Guns more efficient in taking care of the job.

I'd make a more intelligent comment but I still need to analyze the thread more.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: MetallicDragon on June 08, 2008, 04:38:18 pm
You keep saying that criminals will always have illegal guns anyway. The only way this would make sense is if those guns were brought into the country illegally or otherwise got into their hands and weren't initially legally bought. Do you have any evidence of this?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 04:41:27 pm
A gun is an equalizer too. Other weapons rely on physical strength, something some have and some don't. A gun can provide security to anyone, regardless of size or strength.

Also, proof exists in England. There is still gun crime there, even with a ban. They were brought into the country illegally, typically from Germany.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 08, 2008, 04:45:16 pm
Anyway do you have the right to any property? I know a lot of things that i am glad that people can not own. Some Chemicals and Weapons to name two big things.

But people can own them. Chemicals are available to people with the proper licenses, and weapons are available to the military, police, and, in many countries, the common person. The police are just the common person given special tools paid for by us, after all. Same with the military.

Not all chemicals can be obtained by private individual. Not even via a company. Yes there are even chemicals that are illegal to handle by the government it self in some countries.

Same with weapons. If take a weapon as extreme as the nuclear bomb then we will see that only very few governments allow there own military to have them. We do not have any Nukes in in the Swedish army but technically we could have. (And there where plans during the during the early part cold war for getting them.) There are many other weapons that are illegal not only by national law but international law. Why? Because these weapons are seen as so dangerous that threatens humanity it self.

Question: Do you think that nations like North Korea and Iran should be able to own WMD?
Also should you have the right to defend you self in any manner?

.... YES! Why on Earth wouldn't you!? What do you think the Police and Military were even brought into existence for?

Because in any manner not only means that you could retaliated with far more violence then need to defend you self or you property. Something that could even be damaging for other.

Not the police and the militarily is there (in a modern democratic society) to protects is citizens but also to make sure they do not take the law in to there own hands. There primary mission really is to keep the peace.



Note i am not absolutely against gun ownership. Just that i require people to take responsibility. Also i do not see property ownership as a god given right. I see it as a human construct.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: The Time Traveller on June 08, 2008, 04:54:24 pm
I do note that though responsible people should be allowed guns, there should be a background check for mental stability and criminal record, and minors shouldn't be allowed guns.  But sane, responsible, law-abiding citizens should be allowed guns.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Ultramarine on June 08, 2008, 04:56:14 pm
I do note that though responsible people should be allowed guns, there should be a background check for mental stability and criminal record, and minors shouldn't be allowed guns.  But sane, responsible, law-abiding citizens should be allowed guns.

Totally agree, but I don't think arms dealers would put much effort into checks.
They'll sell what they can sell to anyone of the right age.

If the government were involved than maybe it could work, but it would still be squandered by having a small amount of states enstating that law.



Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 08, 2008, 04:57:49 pm
Also should you have the right to defend you self in any manner?

.... YES! Why on Earth wouldn't you!? What do you think the Police and Military were even brought into existence for?

Oh cool! President Axelgear says I can defend myself and my god-given property in *any* manner I choose! I'll put the SCUD missiles on the roof and autocannons on the patio.. oh! and the pit with the scorpions and broken glass in it goes under the doormat.  ;)

I do note that though responsible people should be allowed guns, there should be a background check for mental stability and criminal record, and minors shouldn't be allowed guns.  But sane, responsible, law-abiding citizens should be allowed guns.

Sane, law abiding citizens don't stay sane and law abiding in all cases. Its like declaring the WWII bomb you dug up in your garden safe because "It hasn't exploded yet".
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 05:00:16 pm
Not all chemicals can be obtained by private individual. Not even via a company. Yes there are even chemicals that are illegal to handle by the government it self in some countries.

... Such as?

Same with weapons. If take a weapon as extreme as the nuclear bomb then we will see that only very few governments allow there own military to have them. We do not have any Nukes in in the Swedish army but technically we could have. (And there where plans during the during the early part cold war for getting them.) There are many other weapons that are illegal not only by national law but international law. Why? Because these weapons are seen as so dangerous that threatens humanity it self.

Which? In the US, tanks, military helicopters... Essentially all forms of weaponry not declared inhumane (Like flamethrowers) are available to people. That's why corporations like Blackwater are able to form.

Question: Do you think that nations like North Korea and Iran should be able to own WMD?

No. Why should criminals be allowed to have weapons?

Because in any manner not only means that you could retaliated with far more violence then need to defend you self or you property. Something that could even be damaging for other.

Retaliating with any more than the necessary amount of force is a criminal act. I think we crossed definitions there. I meant you can retaliate by any necessary means.

Not the police and the militarily is there (in a modern democratic society) to protects is citizens but also to make sure they do not take the law in to there own hands. There primary mission really is to keep the peace.

And what if the police or military are corrupt? Or when they can't get there in time? Fat lot of good the police will do being 15 minutes away when you're being threatened NOW.

Note i am not absolutely against gun ownership. Just that i require people to take responsibility. Also i do not see property ownership as a god given right. I see it as a human construct.

Aren't all rights human constructs? And I believe responsibility is necessary too, which is why violent felons shouldn't be allowed to own weapons.



Also, Sam, as for those things, you can do so, but if anyone gets hurt, it's your responsibility for it. Good luck affording the SCUD's by the way. As for people "not staying sane and law abiding in all cases", you can't arrest someone or restrict them for what they "might do" or we should all go to jail because we have the ability to murder people and might do so.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Daxx on June 08, 2008, 05:11:40 pm
Retarded thread is retarded. We've had this discussion before, IIRC, and I believe most of the forum made the exact same arguments which did nothing to dissuade the gun nuts and didn't convince anyone else.

Axelgear, you seem to be in the thick of a lot of controversy at once at the moment. Perhaps it's time you stepped back a little from the keyboard? Discussion is cool, but deliberately getting involved in lots of arguments at once isn't healthy.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: The Time Traveller on June 08, 2008, 05:14:37 pm
Retarded thread is retarded.
Ad hominem post is ad hominem.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Daxx on June 08, 2008, 05:15:53 pm
Retarded thread is retarded.
Ad hominem post is ad hominem.

Hey kid, next time before you make a fool of yourself, look up the logical fallacy of which you're trying to accuse me.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: The Time Traveller on June 08, 2008, 05:17:24 pm
It is ad hominem.  It is making an accusation that the maker of the thread is mentally defficent without arguing your own cause..
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 05:17:47 pm
Retarded thread is retarded. We've had this discussion before, IIRC, and I believe most of the forum made the exact same arguments which did nothing to dissuade the gun nuts and didn't convince anyone else.

... Gun nuts? So anyone who supports people being allowed to get guns is a nut?

Axelgear, you seem to be in the thick of a lot of controversy at once at the moment. Perhaps it's time you stepped back a little from the keyboard? Discussion is cool, but deliberately getting involved in lots of arguments at once isn't healthy.

I like getting things out in the open.

... I've had to click post about four times now...
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Ultramarine on June 08, 2008, 05:19:03 pm
Retarded thread is retarded. We've had this discussion before, IIRC, and I believe most of the forum made the exact same arguments which did nothing to dissuade the gun nuts and didn't convince anyone else.
So this did come from IRC, not a surprise it's a touchy topic.

Axelgear, you seem to be in the thick of a lot of controversy at once at the moment.

In about 3 threads actually.

And both of you stop it.
That's right TT and Daxx, but in favor of Daxx he's right.
Besides I think Daxx is wise enought to know what a Hominem means.

*Edit*

Damn, posted too late.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Daxx on June 08, 2008, 05:22:53 pm
It is ad hominem.  It is making an accusation that the maker of the thread is mentally defficent without arguing your own cause..

(http://imgur.com/G4LQB.jpg)

Please stop, for your own sake.

Retarded thread is retarded. We've had this discussion before, IIRC, and I believe most of the forum made the exact same arguments which did nothing to dissuade the gun nuts and didn't convince anyone else.

... Gun nuts? So anyone who supports people being allowed to get guns is a nut?

Yes؟ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_mark)



Also, IIRC means If I Remember Correctly.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 05:24:32 pm
But Daxx did commit an ad hominem. He called those opposed to restrictive laws "gun nuts".

Ad hominem (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem)

Now, Daxx, to clarify, why is this thread retarded?

Also, what's with the irony mark? I don't quite see how there's any form of irony here.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Gungnir on June 08, 2008, 05:27:15 pm
Also should you have the right to defend you self in any manner?

.... YES! Why on Earth wouldn't you!? What do you think the Police and Military were even brought into existence for?

Oh cool! President Axelgear says I can defend myself and my god-given property in *any* manner I choose! I'll put the SCUD missiles on the roof and autocannons on the patio.. oh! and the pit with the scorpions and broken glass in it goes under the doormat.  ;)
Like Mr. Consideration said, Guns are tools of death, nothing more. However, if I happen to have a screwdriver on me when someone charges at me with a knife, I would like to be able to try and stab him in the throat rather than just block and run. If someone was carrying a vat of acid for some reason (who knows, maybe it's a chemist), then the assailant just picked the wrong day to assault someone.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 08, 2008, 05:27:32 pm
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) is illegal to use in many counties. As far as i know not even the government is allowed to use it in Sweden. There probably a tone of different chemicals that are illegal or extremely restricted and for a good reason.

In USA yes. But not every country have as liberal laws as USA. More then a few courtiers do now allow mercenaries.

What makes them criminals? Just because you do not agree with them? There sovereign nations.

And i asked if you think that any manner would be allowed. Not what the laws says.

The make a new and better police force rather then take the law in to your own hands.

Laws are there to protect us (to put it very simplified.) Gun laws are no different. Laws can grant rights or take them away. Taking aways rights are not always a bad thing. I do not have have the right to hit my wife (I do not have any but this is just a example) or to drive a car without a drivers license on public roads. And you know what. I am glad i do not have those rights.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Daxx on June 08, 2008, 05:28:05 pm
Jesus Christ, you really need some help if you're going to insist on reading that amount of your own personal neuroses into other peoples' posts whilst fundamentally ignoring everything of actual substance.

I'm leaving this thread now because this mire of stupidity can only get deeper. Enjoy.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 05:40:34 pm
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) is illegal to use in many counties. As far as i know not even the government is allowed to use it in Sweden. There probably a tone of different chemicals that are illegal or extremely restricted and for a good reason.

Last I checked, that's environmental regulation, not weapon regulation.

In USA yes. But not every country have as liberal laws as USA. More then a few courtiers do now allow mercenaries.

Yes, but it's not just mercenaries. Governments should be afraid of their people; that's just one reason people should be allowed to have whatever weapons they choose.

What makes them criminals? Just because you do not agree with them? There sovereign nations.

... They tortured their own people, killed political dissenters, and committed countless human rights violations. THAT is what makes them criminals, not something so petty as a disagreeement.

And i asked if you think that any manner would be allowed. Not what the laws says.

I agree with the law. Use as much force as is necessary and no more.

The make a new and better police force rather then take the law in to your own hands.

The police were formed BY people taking the law into their own hands... How else did you think they started? Besides, it's not taking the law into your own hands, just an aspect of your personal safety being more possible.

Laws are there to protect us (to put it very simplified.) Gun laws are no different. Laws can grant rights or take them away. Taking aways rights are not always a bad thing. I do not have have the right to hit my wife (I do not have any but this is just a example) or to drive a car without a drivers license on public roads. And you know what. I am glad i do not have those rights.

Taking away rights isn't a bad thing? Heh, excuse me if I disagree. Public roads are public property, and the license is your proof of being able to drive safely. You can't hit your wife because she has a right to security. To break out the old chestnut "Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins".

Like Mr. Consideration said, Guns are tools of death, nothing more. However, if I happen to have a screwdriver on me when someone charges at me with a knife, I would like to be able to try and stab him in the throat rather than just block and run. If someone was carrying a vat of acid for some reason (who knows, maybe it's a chemist), then the assailant just picked the wrong day to assault someone.

I have NO clue what your point is there... Guns are able to cause death but so are knives. They have other uses, though.

Jesus Christ, you really need some help if you're going to insist on reading that amount of your own personal neuroses into other peoples' posts whilst fundamentally ignoring everything of actual substance.

... Daxx, did I just read that right? You made yet another ad hominem post.

Now, what was there of substance that you want me to focus on? All you said is that most of the forum is pro-gun control and that this has come up before. Oh, and that I'm in a lot of heated discussions lately.

I'm leaving this thread now because this mire of stupidity can only get deeper. Enjoy.

Is it stupid to disagree with you or what? What, exactly, is so stupid?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Ultramarine on June 08, 2008, 05:43:09 pm
The thread subject itself since it's been discussed before with nearly the same results.
And or the topic is going into a pointless spiral of arguments and critiquing.

Yeah, something like that.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Gungnir on June 08, 2008, 05:45:09 pm
Like Mr. Consideration said, Guns are tools of death, nothing more. However, if I happen to have a screwdriver on me when someone charges at me with a knife, I would like to be able to try and stab him in the throat rather than just block and run. If someone was carrying a vat of acid for some reason (who knows, maybe it's a chemist), then the assailant just picked the wrong day to assault someone.

I have NO clue what your point is there... Guns are able to cause death but so are knives. They have other uses, though.


Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was trying to say that because guns have no other purpose than to cause death, they should not be owned. However, if you just so happen to be carrying something that has multiple uses (screwdriver/knife/etc.) you should be able to defend yourself to full extent should you be attacked. Now, I'm not saying you should carry around knives or acid in public. Even if all you have is your fists, but you're some really good martial artist, if you break the guy's neck while he's trying to stab/beat you, that should be allowed.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 05:49:55 pm
I haven't been a part of the discussion before. It might be interesting to have people actually discuss it.

And why shouldn't a gun be allowed? You're saying that, if someone attacks you, you have every right to fight back and even kill them by whatever means necessary. Why not allow a gun, something that, I repeat, has other uses like hunting and entertainment, to be used in self defense? A gun can not only end it with fewer injuries but often without anyone being injured at all.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Gungnir on June 08, 2008, 05:58:51 pm
Hunting -> death. Unless you're going on a wilderness trek for a month, do you really need a gun to supply your food?
Entertainment -> Well I guess you mean target shooting. In that case, I guess guns would have very limited legality. Unless killing animals is entertaining?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 06:01:44 pm
Skeet shooting especially. I don't like shooting myself, I have sensitive ears and no amount of ear protection has ever been adequate, but I love launching skeet for people.

As for hunting, ask Natives or people who live outside major metropolitan areas.

Again, though, they HAVE uses outside of killing, don't they?

Besides, why not allow them when they can end crimes without bloodshed and provide an equalizing force for people who are physically weak?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 08, 2008, 06:17:21 pm
Never claimed it to be a regulation of weapons. But it is related to property and rights. Though i guess you agree with me then that not all property is equal.

Why? Why do the government need to be afraid of is citizen? Does it not mean that everyone is afraid of everyone to? I do not think the government is afraid of is citizens in Sweden yet it seems to go well for us. And is the USA government really afraid of is own people?

Like there alone in violating international law. USA is no angel it self. But i guess i can not argue more with you on this point. I after all think that no nations should have WMDs.

I think the first law enforcement was created by those in power. Not by the masses. Now that we do have law enforcement agency why not use it? Or do you really believe that we should rutienly create a new law enforcement agency once we get bored with our old one? Maybe that is why USA have so many different law enforcement agency? I rather fix what is broken.

Well many times when you give one right to a person you take a way a other persons right. The wifes right to feel secure overnights my right to hit her. The right for others to feel secure on public roads overrides my rights to drive wherever i want. Same could be argued with weapons. The right to feel secure overrides the right to own a gun to put it simple. It is all a balance. Freedom for some or freedom for all?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: gec05 on June 08, 2008, 06:30:10 pm
It should be illegal to hate someone than to kill someone. Once you do that you solve all our violence problems.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 06:31:40 pm
Never claimed it to be a regulation of weapons. But it is related to property and rights. Though i guess you agree with me then that not all property is equal.

No, PCB's are regulated because their existence poses a constant threat to other people and their disposal, therefore, puts everyone at risk. If there was some way to dispose of them safely, then it would be regulated that they must be disposed of as such.

Why? Why do the government need to be afraid of is citizen? Does it not mean that everyone is afraid of everyone to? I do not think the government is afraid of is citizens in Sweden yet it seems to go well for us. And is the USA government really afraid of is own people?

A government should know that, if it tries to take away its citizens rights, they will suffer the consequences. That's how everyone should be towards everyone. We shouldn't be scared but we should remember to respect one another and fear the retribution that comes from even trying to harm a fellow human being.

Like there alone in violating international law. USA is no angel it self. But i guess i can not argue more with you on this point. I after all think that no nations should have WMDs.

I believe it would be nice if no nation did, but they exist for a reason. As for international law, I'm curious what law you're referring to (And I'll laugh if you say the Geneva Convention). Still, I'm talking about human rights violations, not international law, and, yes, they have violated those.

I think the first law enforcement was created by those in power. Not by the masses. Now that we do have law enforcement agency why not use it? Or do you really believe that we should rutienly create a new law enforcement agency once we get bored with our old one? Maybe that is why USA have so many different law enforcement agency? I rather fix what is broken.

Actually, you should look up a man named Robert Peel. He effectively created the modern police force in European society. His own words: "The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence." 

The current police force is not exactly a broken system, so much as it suffers from flaws that will always be inherent in any system short of Big Brother. Every citizen should be able to defend themselves and others, and there's no reason to deny them that.

Well many times when you give one right to a person you take a way a other persons right. The wifes right to feel secure overnights my right to hit her. The right for others to feel secure on public roads overrides my rights to drive wherever i want. Same could be argued with weapons. The right to feel secure overrides the right to own a gun to put it simple. It is all a balance. Freedom for some or freedom for all?

... You don't HAVE a right to hit her and public roads are a LUXURY; a privilege, not a right. You don't have the right to hit someone without their consent. You are only allowed to hurt someone if they are an immediate threat to yourself or someone else. Public roads are not your property and therefore they're not yours to own. Weapons could be barred from public buildings, not that it makes any sense, because people don't have a right to be there; it's a privilege.

Also, can you please quote things?


Also, Gec, that's violation of freedom of conscience.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: gec05 on June 08, 2008, 07:10:19 pm
Whatever. If someone thinks they have the right to despise someone to the point wanting to murder them then modern law is simply contradicting itself.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 08, 2008, 07:15:07 pm
depends on what you mean by safe disposal because you can brake down the chemical compounds of PCB to harmless relative byproducts that if nothing else can be stored without any environmental impact. But weapons also put people at risk. There is no difference in this respect.

Is it not enough that we know what is good or bad? Is it not enough that we can vote out anyone who does not represent us in the government? I do not know where you live but i live in a democracy and i take great pride in that i can kick out those in charge without resorting to volience.

Then i say you better start laughing and i say no more about that. Just so you know. The convention is about human rights.

Robert Peel was not first. I still believe that the first law enforcement was created by those in power. Also it is not about denying people the chance to defend the self. It about denying them the right to defend them self by any means.

Oh? So what is the difference between a right and a privilege? That someone allows you to do something? Maybe gun ownership is a privilege? Ever thought about that? privilege is a right granted right? Nothing more. Ownership is a construct so all ownership is granted by the establishment (which we like to see as the public in a democratic society) and can in theory be retaken by the establishment.
 
And not i can not quote things. I do not feel like it. :P

Well it is late and i need to go to bed. Night.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 07:33:23 pm
You have a right to despise someone, not to murder them. I can hate you all I want, but I can't harm you.

Yokto, again, I wish you would quote...

Anyway, as to PCB's, they're a hazard to everyone around them. It's why we can't store nuclear waste in residential areas.

As for a democracy, not every government was, has remained, or will always be a democracy. You don't NEED to resort to violence, but if you HAVE to, you have to be able to. Again, that's a part of having a gun in all situations where self-defense comes up: Not wanting to resort to violence, but being willing to do so if necessary.

It's on the treatment of POW's but.. Yeah, different topic for a different time.

As for Peel, he made the modern law enforcement system as we know it. You're STILL denying people their right to self defense, which is a problem right there, as you're taking away their ability to defend themselves. He was right, too. Law Enforcement is the people defending the people, it's not some invention of those in power. It's simply the formalization and subsidization of the ancient entity that is the local militia.

As for a right and a privilege, a right is inalienable. It is a part of the basis for law and no-one can or should take it away. A privilege is something granted to you simply by being a law-abiding member who pays taxes. I.E. Roads, public facilities, and so on. Owning a gun is a part of property rights. The "establishment" as you call it, is not a construct of any establishment, any more than any of the other basic human rights are. If you want to take away right to property, what's to stop things like imminent domain, where the government freely seizes assets and then resells them? Don't say it can't happen, it has. What separates what is yours from what is mine? Do not forget the old saying that ownership is nine tenths of the law.

Company A mines raw materials, Company B buys them. Company B turns them into parts, which Company C buys. Company C turns them into firearms. Consumer buys them. It's all private enterprise here, no-one has had their rights violated... All good.

If you don't like guns, don't buy from companies that manufacture them, don't associate with people who own them, protest... If a company loses business over it, they'll stop selling the product. No government interference, no violence... Society solves its own issue. Don't try and have the government take my property and interfere in my life because you don't like my choices. I'm not violating your rights or anyone else's, so what reason do you have to claim?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: MetallicDragon on June 08, 2008, 08:21:41 pm
Who is to determine what our unalienable rights are? That's what we are discussing; talk of rights and privileges is just semantics.

Basically we are arguing over the right to defend oneself with a gun versus your right to be safe from a gun attack.

If your assailant does not have a gun, then they can be disabled by a non-lethal weapon, such as pepper spray or a bean-bag gun.

What if they have an illegally obtained gun? Then there's obviously a problem with the law or enforcement of the law.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 08:34:14 pm
A man on drugs is difficult to stop with pepper spray, as many a rape victim can tell you. As for the right to defend yourself with a gun and the right to be safe from an attack in which a gun is used, the two are not mutually exclusive.

As for determining inalienable rights, the safest bets are the simplest; life, liberty, security, property, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience.

As for illegal guns, that IS a problem of law enforcement. You can't stop people getting guns illegally, they'll get them brought in from elsewhere.


Let me suggest a proposal and see if people can agree or disagree to it: A simple licensing system. People can buy guns as they see fit but to do so, they must get a license. They cannot have any prior violent felony convictions or signs of mental illness. They can get a second license, a CCP (Concealed Carry Permit), to be allowed to carry their weapons in public. That way, law-abiding citizens can carry weapons in public, there's set amounts of safety, and we can assign harsher laws to those who illegally acquire weapons.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Legodragonxp on June 08, 2008, 08:35:46 pm
(sticks head in)

(looks around)

Yep, another cross battle of Americans arguing with British Nationals over a the right to bear arms. Both sides are talking but nobody is listening.

That reminds me, time to clean the shotgun again... has been a year. Purchased for the intended purpose to defend me and mine in the event that society breaks down on a minor or major level. Not an end of the world event, but a major storm could result in looting and lack of police protection. Far too many people have faith that a call to 911 will summon the police like some sort of fairy flippin' godmother and all will be well. It doesn't work that way. I've held a person pinned in a choke holds for 15 minutes to keep them from swallowing pills in an attempted sucide waiting for that fairy-flippin' godmother to appear (aka 911)... and when the police finally did show... it took them 3 minutes to decide to intervene.

If you think the police will walk blindly in to a situation where there is a violent person you are wrong. People today are afraid to defend themselves, it is made worse by laws put in place to punish anybody trying to use weapons, even if such action us justified, you'll spend $10,000 in legal fees just to point a gun at someone, even if they were trying to kill you.

My thought.... if you want to remove guns from people wanting to defend themselves, give them a better option. A real option. Not some fairy tale of 911 and the false hope that it is some sort of magical police officer will appear, some holy warrior of peace that can teleport to your side and make it all go away. Until that magic appears, I have a Winchester 1300 full of Turkey loads and Slugs, as well as a few other suprises waiting for anybody stupid enough to challenge my life or anyone I choose to protect.

(pulls head out with a case of dejavu... didn't LadyM and I cover this a while back in another thread?)
-Lego
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 08:37:46 pm
Yep, another cross battle of Americans arguing with British Nationals over a the right to bear arms. Both sides are talking but nobody is listening.

Lego, I like you so much for everything you just said, but... I'm British and live in Canada.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Brandonazz on June 08, 2008, 08:49:28 pm
Call me cynical Lego, but I can't imagine most guns being used as you would use them.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 08:55:02 pm
How DO you imagine them being used? The US alone has over 200 million firearms within it, probably more illegal ones.... With a total of 11.4 million crimes in 2006, and that's ALL major crimes, all forms (Murder, rape. theft, etc)... Even if a gun was involved in every single one of them and it was a different one every time wielded by a different person, that's about only 5% of all firearms being used in crimes. Naturally, it would never be this high, and I do mean ever, but even so...
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Brandonazz on June 08, 2008, 09:02:52 pm
I'll admit that this subject is not my forté, but mostly the uses that have already been discussed here.

EDIT: Is there some compendium of all gun related statistics, not those tailored by one side or the other? It'd help me out here.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 09:04:59 pm
Self defense, sport, hunting, animal cruelty, and murder? Yep, guns can and will be used for all those things. So will knives, fists, and a whole host of other things.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 08, 2008, 09:07:22 pm
*yawn*..................  :o

Bloody heel you're still going at it!? Axelgear you do realise you've been arguing your case for 7 straight hours!

Self defense, sport, hunting, animal cruelty, and murder? Yep, guns can and will be used for all those things. So will knives, fists, and a whole host of other things.

Difference is fists and knives can be used for much more, guns.... not a single thing else.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Sasha on June 08, 2008, 09:10:48 pm
Well, you can pretend you're a Cowboy and the rest of the world is an Indian..
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 09:18:14 pm
Difference is fists and knives can be used for much more, guns.... not a single thing else.

A knife can be used to cut things and poke holes in things. Can it be used for anything else?

Fists can be used to manipulate and strike things. Can they be used for anything else?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 08, 2008, 09:23:46 pm
Difference is fists and knives can be used for much more, guns.... not a single thing else.

A knife can be used to cut things and poke holes in things. Can it be used for anything else?

Fists can be used to manipulate and strike things. Can they be used for anything else?
non-violent uses

knives: cut food, cut wood for kindling, cut cloth and many, many, many more!

hands: okay there is no way I'm going to list the millions of non-violent uses for your hands

guns: um....sports (skeet shooting, clay pigeon shooting, target shooting [although that is such BS it's like using a knife for 'throat-slitting' practice and saying it's completely harmless])
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 09:45:11 pm
When was the last time you used a knife to cut kindling or cloth? Scissors, axes, these are the things for that. I cut my food with a fork and spoon unless necessary otherwise, or just use my hands. Still, I digress. There are nonviolent uses for each. Sport shooting with a gun is like professional knife throwing or arm wrestling contests. Still, though, a gun is primarily meant to punch holes in things from a distance. Still, it does have non-violent uses.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: HanianKnight on June 08, 2008, 09:49:11 pm
You don't use a knife to cut your food? What kind of freaking fork do you use when eating a steak or pork-chop or something like that. I really do find that surprising.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 08, 2008, 09:50:29 pm
I don't eat much of either.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: HanianKnight on June 08, 2008, 09:52:50 pm
Well still, buttering bread, uhh.... other stuff. You really don't use a knife for that? I don't know, we're very different people I guess.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 08, 2008, 10:00:23 pm
I cut my food with a fork and spoon unless necessary otherwise, or just use my hands.

Weakest argument ever.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Josasa on June 08, 2008, 10:07:21 pm
*Do* you have a right to property?

If you ask me all you have a right to is freedom of speech, access to healthcare, a warm place to sleep and food in your belly. Property is a luxury, especially deadly property designed to maim and kill.

I'm sorry for this post, it's probably way off topic at this point, but i noticed this and just had to reply. This really baffled me..
Quote from: Man's Rights, The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand
"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values."
-Ayn Rand
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 08, 2008, 10:15:37 pm
Bad idea trying to justify your point with Ayn Rand - incredibly bad....

Besides to what extent do you have a right to property? What about clearly illegal things? If not where can you raw the line?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Josasa on June 08, 2008, 10:19:48 pm
Bad idea trying to justify your point with Ayn Rand - incredibly bad....

Besides to what extent do you have a right to property? What about clearly illegal things? If not where can you draw the line?

Why exactly is it bad? I'm just wondering what the general opinion of her is...

You have the right to property, something to call your own. Also, define clearly illegal before i make my statement. Don't feel like starting a discussion over something that insignificant.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 08, 2008, 10:23:00 pm
Ayn Rand was a foaming at the mouth capitalist the type who believes that communism and the like is the very work of the devil and will bring down society. To call her bias would be like saying the nazi's were bad people; fundamentally right but just not quite getting the picture across.

edit: whoops!
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Josasa on June 08, 2008, 10:27:08 pm
Ayn Rand is a foaming at the mouth capitalist the type who believes that communism and the like is the very work of the devil and will bring down society. To call her bias would be like saying the nazi's were bad people; fundamentally right but just not quite getting the picture across.

Everyone has a bias. Whether or not you have the power to see past it is up to the reader (and i think i do, but then again, how can i know?).
Really overall, the right to property does allow all other rights, and the lack of that right destroys all other rights. Sure the extra words add the bias, but the overall point should be easy to understand.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 08, 2008, 10:30:35 pm
Okay if you want to see me point go read a summery of atlas shrugged on wikipedia and you'll see my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_shrugged

edit: also objectivism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29
and it's critics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Josasa on June 08, 2008, 10:32:15 pm
Yes, i've already seen that page as well as read the novel.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Brandonazz on June 08, 2008, 10:32:52 pm
The power to see the past the bias? So appreciating Mein Ka-

Oops. Damn Godwin.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Josasa on June 08, 2008, 10:35:09 pm
The power to see the past the bias? So appreciating Mein Ka-

Oops. Damn Godwin.

Currently reading that now.

He does bring up some good points...

;)

Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 08, 2008, 10:40:00 pm
So back to guns.

Tools that make murder easier or what Jesus and Moses used to conquer the Romans?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Mr. Consideration on June 09, 2008, 12:26:01 am
*Do* you have a right to property?

If you ask me all you have a right to is freedom of speech, access to healthcare, a warm place to sleep and food in your belly. Property is a luxury, especially deadly property designed to maim and kill.

I'm sorry for this post, it's probably way off topic at this point, but i noticed this and just had to reply. This really baffled me..
Quote from: Man's Rights, The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand
"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values."
-Ayn Rand

Mr. C disagrees. People who have believe in 'The Right to Property' generally don't take into account all the people thier enlightened philosophies enslave don't own an incredible amount of property, over all. 'The Right of Property' as gibbered about by Ms Rand is essentially 'the right to be rich and not give a **** about other human beings because I am better than them." a la the 'great people' of Atlas Shrugged.' The whole 'Effort = Reward' is an total lie. Having Rich Parents require me to put in less 'effort'. Living in a nice area requires me to put in less 'effort'. Thus, you'll eventually end up with a collosal wealth gap and a corporate oligarchy. At least we kept all those poor people from under the sway of baby-killing reds with their healthcare and their equality and their freedom.

Property doesn't allow all other rights. People in societies that collectivley-own things can still have rights (I'm not talking about any Stalinist states here).

The little Korean debate was pretty cool. As far as I'm concerned, North Korea is doing exactly what you're doing; owning a weapon with the intention of 'defending himself'. Don't try and say 'Well, thats different because The West says..." We've seen it before. The real reason Iran and North Korea work so hard for nuclear weapons is because they are terrified of the Western Nuclear monopoly.

I cut my food with a fork and spoon unless necessary otherwise, or just use my hands.

.....but normal people use Knives for cutting food. Perhaps we should ban your Razor-edged spoon?





Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Didero on June 09, 2008, 02:26:17 am
I know I'm probably a bit late with this, but using guns for entertainment? Are you really that starved for anything fun to do that you have to shoot things to keep yourself entertained?
And there are a few people that rely on guns to survive. But that's not really a valid reason to just allow everybody to have a gun.

Also, I think the argument "there will always be illegal guns, so we should be able to defend against that" sounds a bit weak to me. Doesn't it make more sense to increase the checking for weapon smuggling? It sounds like trying to cure the symptoms instead of the disease.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 09, 2008, 02:52:52 am
I don't eat much of either.

I made Axelgear a macro:

(http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n125/Krakowsam/nitpickery.png)

>_>

<_<


Quote from: Man's Rights, The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand
"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values."
-Ayn Rand

I'm all for a man being entitled to the sweat from his brow, but I think property, as Yokto said, is just an artificial concept. Under the current system, I believe someone has the right to anything they legally own, but they don't have the right to legally own anything they want.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 09, 2008, 04:14:30 am
Due to this turning in to a war of semantics and ideological struggle that will not progress i think we should take the the pragmatists view on guns rather then debate the idea of ownership and law.


And now some relate questions about weapons to protect democracy as this seems to be a big part argument.
Are weapons needed for a nation to transcend in to Democracy?


I guess that has to do for now.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 09, 2008, 05:41:23 am
Mr. C disagrees. People who have believe in 'The Right to Property' generally don't take into account all the people thier enlightened philosophies enslave don't own an incredible amount of property, over all.

Who do they enslave, I might ask? As for owning it, it doesn't matter. They still own it. We own a car, we own our TV's... If anyone tries to tell us otherwise, they've got another thing coming. Our money paid for these things, our labour earned said money, so how, in any way, is it NOT ours?

'The Right of Property' as gibbered about by Ms Rand is essentially 'the right to be rich and not give a **** about other human beings because I am better than them." a la the 'great people' of Atlas Shrugged.' The whole 'Effort = Reward' is an total lie. Having Rich Parents require me to put in less 'effort'. Living in a nice area requires me to put in less 'effort'. Thus, you'll eventually end up with a collosal wealth gap and a corporate oligarchy. At least we kept all those poor people from under the sway of baby-killing reds with their healthcare and their equality and their freedom.

Rand was all about self-interest. You have a right to be self-interested. If I want to care about myself and no-one else, isn't that my  choice? Effort = Reward is not a lie simply because some people are born with an advantage, the principle is true but simple things can provide advantages and reduce how much effort you need to put in.

As for a colossal wealth gap, that's up to society as a whole. If people dont' like it, they can unionize or not buy from those companies or what have you. It's the balance that has maintained itself in most modern societies. As for Communist Russia, please, PLEASE don't tell me you think they were good people, murdering their own people, forcing farmers onto starvation wages, and taking their land to force them to work for the government to "keep everyone equal", while granting the upper class wealth and privilege.

Property doesn't allow all other rights. People in societies that collectivley-own things can still have rights (I'm not talking about any Stalinist states here).

Collectively own? Do you mean everyone pays a small portion of a purchase? I'm curious what context you're talking of.

As for property, you own your life and you own your property, and these things are yours to protect, own, and do with as you see fit. I can definitely argue that all rights, therefore, extend from right to property.

The little Korean debate was pretty cool. As far as I'm concerned, North Korea is doing exactly what you're doing; owning a weapon with the intention of 'defending himself'. Don't try and say 'Well, thats different because The West says..." We've seen it before. The real reason Iran and North Korea work so hard for nuclear weapons is because they are terrified of the Western Nuclear monopoly.

Well, Iran's president wants to initiate the end times, but, anyway...

They are criminals. England, France, they got nuclear weapons because of the American Nuclear monopoly of the time and that's fine. They don't gratuitously violate human rights by torturing their people or killing political dissenters. As I said before, violent criminals shouldn't be allowed access to weapons. They've proven themselves a risk to all people around them and shouldn't be allowed to have them. The same is said for these nations.

.....but normal people use Knives for cutting food. Perhaps we should ban your Razor-edged spoon?

You can try. I've not done anything illegal with it, though. Maybe other people have used their razor-edged spoons badly, but why does that allow you to take mine away when I haven't used it badly and I want to keep it?

I know I'm probably a bit late with this, but using guns for entertainment? Are you really that starved for anything fun to do that you have to shoot things to keep yourself entertained?

... Right, so the only reason I would find it entertaining is because I'm starved for fun. So are shooter games just for people starved for entertainment?

And there are a few people that rely on guns to survive. But that's not really a valid reason to just allow everybody to have a gun.

Maybe, but then how do you decide who should be allowed to have one to survive and who shouldn't? Besides, it doesn't invalidate that other people should be allowed to.

Also, I think the argument "there will always be illegal guns, so we should be able to defend against that" sounds a bit weak to me. Doesn't it make more sense to increase the checking for weapon smuggling? It sounds like trying to cure the symptoms instead of the disease.

The problem is, no matter what you do, there will ALWAYS be more. There's been the "War on Drugs" for over 40 years and drugs are now LESS expensive than they were when it started. Many, many times less expensive. In parts of America, illegal guns are cheaper and easier to get than legal ones, and that is certainly the case in the UK.

Anyway, having a weapon gives you the ability to defend yourself. Why shouldn't you be allowed to, really?

I'm all for a man being entitled to the sweat from his brow, but I think property, as Yokto said, is just an artificial concept. Under the current system, I believe someone has the right to anything they legally own, but they don't have the right to legally own anything they want.

But why can't I use the sweat of my brow to get a tool that I can use to defend myself?

Due to this turning in to a war of semantics and ideological struggle that will not progress i think we should take the the pragmatists view on guns rather then debate the idea of ownership and law.

Well, ownership is a key issue here, but alright.

So what practical use do guns have?

Self defense, hunting, and entertainment. Simple. Police and military use them for the former, hunters use them for the second, and some Olympic athletes use them for the third. All three uses should be available to the common person.

That is what i would like to know. What limits should it be to gun so they still can fulfill there role? (If they have any that is.)

Licensing to prevent criminals from obtaining them. It won't stop all of them getting illegal weapons, but it'll stop some. Beyond that, all you're doing is restricting the law-abiding citizen. Essentially, I believe everything a police officer can do with a gun, a civilian should be allowed to as well because they both are carrying them for much the same reason. Every consequence an officer incurs from misusing a weapon should also be reserved to pass down on any citizen who does so.

What is the direct effect on guns on a society?

Guns? None. The people who carry them? It depends. Things like a weapon's legal status, who owns it, where it's owned, what they do with it... These affect things greatly. It all depends on a lot of varying factors. Guns themselves are just a tool, though, it's the society and its people that acts on things.

Are weapons needed for a nation to transcend in to Democracy?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. England needed them, America needed them, various African countries have needed them... Needs for weapons extend beyond this too, but having a weapon also means keeping a nation democratic. If a government knows its populace will fight back against any attempt to take their rights, they often lose their will to take them. Sometimes, the people are complacent at this, and sometimes, they fight back when pressed.

Have a popular uprising that takes up arms ever protected Democracy and how many failed attempts have there been?

Yes it has and countless times.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 09, 2008, 05:49:59 am
Well ownership does not have to do with the direct practicality of the issue. Therefor we can disregard it in this case.

Also you made a lot of claimers but did not really back them up with anything. You have not showed that your statements to be true. What i feel you are doing is trying to evade my questions.

(And no i am not trying to prove that guns have no use or something like that. I just want to facts about them. And this far only the Anti gun camp has really come with facts.)
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 09, 2008, 05:54:08 am
Right. What would you like proof of? Gimme a list and I'll go get it.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yannick on June 09, 2008, 05:56:48 am
Crazy american with their guns. Guess what, a study shows that, there's more chance of being gunned down by someone you know and love/are friends with then by criminals.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 09, 2008, 06:00:24 am
Lets start with my old list

(I guess this one is done)
(The answer was unclear on this one)
(You had no prove that guns have no effect.)
[/list]

And now some relate questions about weapons to protect democracy as this seems to be a big part argument.
(Unclear answer. Please elaborate)
(You did not give one example. This is really a two part question. I would like a answer on both.)
[/list]

Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 09, 2008, 06:18:18 am
The little Korean debate was pretty cool. As far as I'm concerned, North Korea is doing exactly what you're doing; owning a weapon with the intention of 'defending himself'. Don't try and say 'Well, thats different because The West says..." We've seen it before. The real reason Iran and North Korea work so hard for nuclear weapons is because they are terrified of the Western Nuclear monopoly.

Well, Iran's president wants to initiate the end times, but, anyway...

They are criminals. England, France, they got nuclear weapons because of the American Nuclear monopoly of the time and that's fine. They don't gratuitously violate human rights by torturing their people or killing political dissenters. As I said before, violent criminals shouldn't be allowed access to weapons. They've proven themselves a risk to all people around them and shouldn't be allowed to have them. The same is said for these nations.

Thats funny, lots of countries have said that the Iraq war was illegal, which would make every country involved in it criminal and therefore not allowed to wield nuclear weapons.
America has been involved with torture and mistreatment of prisoners, English politicians are pushing for an ever extended period of detention without evidence for 'terror' suspects. I can't recall anything dirty France is involved in, but its bound to have its fingers in some shady pies. DO NOT start another thread of argument regarding the war in Iraq or the culpability of nations for human rights abuses, I'm just trying to make the point that there is no objective way to determine whether a nation is or isn't 'criminal'.

All your arguments only apply to some sort of fantasy land where all gun owners are uber-responsible and infallible, but also seem to live in a world teeming with outlaws ready to steal their property and endanger their lives at every turn. Its like a double whammy of unfeasible idealism and unhealthy cynicism.
To introduce a new point, how the hell is a personal firearm a defensive weapon? A quarterstaff is a defensive weapon, an anti-air gun is a defensive weapon. Maybe even a mounted machine gun is a defensive weapon, but a handgun?
If you want personal protection that badly, invest in a tazer. Given the average firearm proficiency of a regular person, the accuracy at range isn't going to be an issue, theres much less chance you'll kill someone either accidentally or on purpose (unless you taze grandpa) and there are less restrictions on owning one.
I guess my main issue is that from the way you're writing you seriously seem more concerned with personal property than human life. is it really worth killing a man because he was trying to steal your DVD player?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 09, 2008, 06:44:58 am
Crazy american with their guns. Guess what, a study shows that, there's more chance of being gunned down by someone you know and love/are friends with then by criminals.

Yep, because most crimes are crimes of passion. You are more likely to have someone just snap and kill you than anything else. Look at crimes with knives, fists, etc. They'll mostly be from relatives/friends. Most people who are raped, kidnapped, etc. are so by someone they know well.

That is what i would like to know. What limits should it be to gun so they still can fulfill there role? (If they have any that is.)(The answer was unclear on this one)

Well, every country that has a police force that carries guns knows that people carrying firearms can and does reduce crime. Why not let civilians carry them?

What is the direct effect on guns on a society?

You say I have no proof that they don't affect people. Is there any proof they do? As has been said here, poverty and corruption are the two largest causes of crime, and we know that there are countries with very little gun control that have some of the lowest murder rates in the world, far lower than most countries that tried to ban them.

Are weapons needed for a nation to transcend in to Democracy?(Unclear answer. Please elaborate)

A nation does not always need weapons to achieve democracy but it does need them to maintain it (Otherwise, why else have a police force or army?). Some do need weapons to achieve it, as many African countries and Middle-Eastern nations can tell you, and America itself was founded on revolution by the firearm against unfair rulership. Once a nation is established, though, they need weapons to keep their freedom. Look at Afghanistan, it founded a nation on a bloodless coup thanks to overwhelming mass-populace arming and became a secular democratic republic for a time... At least until it was invaded by Russia... Over the course of a few years, what was once a democratic nation founded on human rights became a dictatorship. The Russian government took away weapons from the democratic members of society while America funded extremists - again - and the entire country fell back into the dark ages.

If you have a police force, you've armed some of your population to protect you, but the problem arises in what happens when the police are the ones oppressing you, or what happens when democracy falters. What happens when disasters strike and society falls to chaos, or when a majority group tries to oppress a minority? These things have happened before and you can be sure they will happen again. Firearms can't prevent these things from happening but when people have them, they can make sure that when they strike, the blow is felt as little as possible.

Have a popular uprising that takes up arms ever protected Democracy and how many failed attempts have there been? (You did not give one example. This is really a two part question. I would like a answer on both.)

As I said, Afghanistan is a great example. Bloodless coup from an armed populace leads to a better life for its people. Then, the mass disarming of the populace and the arming of an extremist group far more heavily leads to the place falling to tyranny. It, in itself, is an example of democracy succeeding by the arming of the law-abiding citizen and failing by the removal of such. Why do you think the first act of most dictatorships is to ban all elements of the populace but the ones they own the loyalty of from having weapons? Stalin did it, Castro did it, Qadaffi did it, and, pardon the Godwin, Hitler did it. We know banning weapons doesn't stop crime, it especially doesn't stop criminals from using the weapons, so the only real purpose it serves is to take away the ability of the average citizen to defend themselves, be it from another person or a government.


Thats funny, lots of countries have said that the Iraq war was illegal, which would make every country involved in it criminal and therefore not allowed to wield nuclear weapons.

Heh heh, cute, you seem to think I supported going to war with Iraq.

Still, other countries may think it's illegal, though, but as Saddam Hussein has committed mass genocide and funded terrorist groups that assaulted America, he is an accomplice in their crime and therefore guilty of it. Punishing someone for committing a crime isn't a crime.

America has been involved with torture and mistreatment of prisoners, English politicians are pushing for an ever extended period of detention without evidence for 'terror' suspects. I can't recall anything dirty France is involved in, but its bound to have its fingers in some shady pies. DO NOT start another thread of argument regarding the war in Iraq or the culpability of nations for human rights abuses, I'm just trying to make the point that there is no objective way to determine whether a nation is or isn't 'criminal'.

I agree, America's torturing of people should be punished. Excise those in power and send them to jail. It is wrong for people to do it. However, it doesn't make the nation criminal as the entire government is not complicit in it. In Iran, the law is based around torture and human rights violations (I.E. Killing someone because they're gay).

All your arguments only apply to some sort of fantasy land where all gun owners are uber-responsible and infallible, but also seem to live in a world teeming with outlaws ready to steal their property and endanger their lives at every turn. Its like a double whammy of unfeasible idealism and unhealthy cynicism.

And you seem to draw yours from the fantasy land where all gun owners are insane cooks who will murder everyone in sight and make Columbine look like someone stubbing their toe. Some gun owners will murder people, just as some knife owners will stab people. It doesn't justify taking them away from the people who use them for legal purposes, right?

To introduce a new point, how the hell is a personal firearm a defensive weapon? A quarterstaff is a defensive weapon, an anti-air gun is a defensive weapon. Maybe even a mounted machine gun is a defensive weapon, but a handgun?

How are ANY of those things defensive? They're explicitly designed to kill the other person before they can kill you, or at least make a threat of such so that they won't try it. That, and entertainment if you have the money and safety measures. A handgun is merely a mobile, small version of any of those. You can use it to defend yourself, anywhere, and not just at some set location.

If you want personal protection that badly, invest in a tazer. Given the average firearm proficiency of a regular person, the accuracy at range isn't going to be an issue, theres much less chance you'll kill someone either accidentally or on purpose (unless you taze grandpa) and there are less restrictions on owning one.

Tazers are far less effective, you can't fire again if you miss, and are incredibly expensive and difficult to maintain. A firearm is far more effective as a deterrent, even before we get into other things. They're also cheaper, more reliable, and have greater range.

I guess my main issue is that from the way you're writing you seriously seem more concerned with personal property than human life. is it really worth killing a man because he was trying to steal your DVD player?

No. If someone breaks into my house, though, I'm not going to shoot first and ask questions later, I'll point the gun, tell them to stop or I will shoot, and I'll have them sit down until the police come. If they run towards me, that trigger is getting pulled. They run away, well... I'll have to judge that by the situation. They could be running to get a weapon of their own for all I know, right? If it's down an open street, though, I would just let them go and call the police.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Mr. Consideration on June 09, 2008, 06:48:13 am
Mr. C disagrees. People who have believe in 'The Right to Property' generally don't take into account all the people thier enlightened philosophies enslave don't own an incredible amount of property, over all.

Who do they enslave, I might ask? As for owning it, it doesn't matter. They still own it. We own a car, we own our TV's... If anyone tries to tell us otherwise, they've got another thing coming. Our money paid for these things, our labour earned said money, so how, in any way, is it NOT ours?

The quotes are getting more and more complicated. I'm referring to the sweatshop workers; or even generally the working class. I'm referring to the entrepeneur Rand envisioned, who creates vast corporations. All major corporations, from what I've seen, are highly unethical. The Big Boss does little work; the starving child in India produces his trainers all day long for a tremendous amount of effort. Who gets more out of it? Every big business in the world works like this. You can call it whatever you like, but it looks a hell of a lot like slavery to me. But that isn't the argument at hand...

(http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h118/Balthamael/CapitalistFollyt.jpg)

No, I don't approve of Stalinist Russia, or totalitarianism is general. Don't try and tie my opinion to an evil regime like that. I love how you assumed that I loved Stalnist Russia and argued against the posistion, despite me saying in my post that I thought Stalinism evil.

Societies with Collective Ownership? Look up 'Catalonia' for what I'm refering to.

Guns are illegal in the UK....

Again, it's been stated that the use of a gun is to kill things. Hunting is killing things. Sport is pretending to kill things. Guns = Killing. That is their only use!

I can't see Guns standing for Democracy at all. Surely guns have more use in a coup d'etat than in an election?]


This argument seems not to be composed of points at all, only the slow sapping of the opponent's will by repeating the same points ad inifinitum. I've made my points...I'll leave it to the others for now.




Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 09, 2008, 07:10:56 am
The quotes are getting more and more complicated. I'm referring to the sweatshop workers; or even generally the working class. I'm referring to the entrepeneur Rand envisioned, who creates vast corporations. All major corporations, from what I've seen, are highly unethical. The Big Boss does little work; the starving child in India produces his trainers all day long for a tremendous amount of effort. Who gets more out of it? Every big business in the world works like this. You can call it whatever you like, but it looks a hell of a lot like slavery to me. But that isn't the argument at hand...

It's how it works. The people choose to work for them because they get paid enough to eat. They can unionize, at least in places that aren't Communist countries like China, and demand better rights and pay, but there might be people to replace them who are willing to work for the money provided. It might seem unethical but, in free countries, it occurs at the people's consent.

But, yes, different argument.

No, I don't approve of Stalinist Russia, or totalitarianism is general. Don't try and tie my opinion to an evil regime like that. I love how you assumed that I loved Stalnist Russia and argued against the posistion, despite me saying in my post that I thought Stalinism evil.

I'm sorry. I'll try and avoid doing so in future.

... I do find it ironic you have that avatar, though.

Societies with Collective Ownership? Look up 'Catalonia' for what I'm refering to.

As in Spain? I can't exactly find anything on them having Collective Ownership.

Guns are illegal in the UK....

Coincidentally, gun crime rates in the UK never actually fell after the ban. In fact, they went up in Wales. Look it up, you'll find it interesting.

Again, it's been stated that the use of a gun is to kill things. Hunting is killing things. Sport is pretending to kill things. Guns = Killing. That is their only use!

Guns shoot things full of holes. Knives are used for stabbing and cutting. Both have potential for killing.

Also, is self-defense killing too? Even if no-one has to shoot?

I can't see Guns standing for Democracy at all. Surely guns have more use in a coup d'etat than in an election?

They have use in both; both to maintain democracy and to remove a tyrannical government from power. The knowledge of an armed populace keeps tyrants from trying to take over the people and keep minorities protected from an aggressive majority. It keeps the power in the hands of the people more than the government.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Didero on June 09, 2008, 07:15:53 am
I know I'm probably a bit late with this, but using guns for entertainment? Are you really that starved for anything fun to do that you have to shoot things to keep yourself entertained?

... Right, so the only reason I would find it entertaining is because I'm starved for fun. So are shooter games just for people starved for entertainment?
I didn't say that. I said there are more than enough ways of entertaining yourself, that don't require a gun. So entertainment isn't really a valid reason for owning such a potentially dangerous device, that doesn't have any other uses than killing or injuring.

And there are a few people that rely on guns to survive. But that's not really a valid reason to just allow everybody to have a gun.

Maybe, but then how do you decide who should be allowed to have one to survive and who shouldn't? Besides, it doesn't invalidate that other people should be allowed to.
Well, you described people that don't have access to a supermarket, you could allow them guns for a start. Or you could learn them farming, so they could grow their own food and keep their cattle, but that might be a bit overdoing it.
And maybe this doesn't invalidate that other people should be allowed to own a gun, but it at least lessens one of the arguments in favour of it.

Also, I think the argument "there will always be illegal guns, so we should be able to defend against that" sounds a bit weak to me. Doesn't it make more sense to increase the checking for weapon smuggling? It sounds like trying to cure the symptoms instead of the disease.

The problem is, no matter what you do, there will ALWAYS be more. There's been the "War on Drugs" for over 40 years and drugs are now LESS expensive than they were when it started. Many, many times less expensive. In parts of America, illegal guns are cheaper and easier to get than legal ones, and that is certainly the case in the UK.
I don't see what drugs have to do with this, since drugs are only dangerous for the user itself, while guns are dangerous for everybody in the vicinity of the user.
And illegal guns are harder to get for the average person, since you need to know where to get them.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 09, 2008, 07:27:28 am
I didn't say that. I said there are more than enough ways of entertaining yourself, that don't require a gun. So entertainment isn't really a valid reason for owning such a potentially dangerous device, that doesn't have any other uses than killing or injuring.

So we should ban...

-Fireworks
-Model rockets
-Wood-burning kits
-Lawn darts

And so on...

Entertainment isn't really the main reason I was arguing anyway, though. I mainly argue self-defense and right to property.

Well, you described people that don't have access to a supermarket, you could allow them guns for a start. Or you could learn them farming, so they could grow their own food and keep their cattle, but that might be a bit overdoing it.
And maybe this doesn't invalidate that other people should be allowed to own a gun, but it at least lessens one of the arguments in favour of it.

You've never been to Nunavut, have you? The land is frozen most of the year, except for some grasses, and it's FAR too cold to grow crops most of the year. Besides, animal herds need to be culled anyway.

I don't see what drugs have to do with this, since drugs are only dangerous for the user itself, while guns are dangerous for everybody in the vicinity of the user.

Not if the user isn't dangerous. Still, the point is, banning something doesn't make it disappear, it just makes sure that only people willing to break the law will have it.

And illegal guns are harder to get for the average person, since you need to know where to get them.

True. The average law-abiding citizen who wants to get a gun to defend himself cannot do so now. Congratulations. However, most violent criminals get guns from people who have them already, typically from areas where gun control is more lax or from drug dealers. So, again, all this has done is stop the person who wants to defend himself from getting a gun and ensured that, if a criminal wants to attack someone, they can do so with impunity knowing the person has no gun with which to fight back.

As gang members testify all the time, if they lose a gun, they can just go get another one for only a few hundred dollars, and they know that if they break into your home in an area with gun control, you can't do ANYTHING to stop them. Remember, they don't respect the law, after all.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Andrew Ryan on June 09, 2008, 07:29:55 am
I don't see what drugs have to do with this, since drugs are only dangerous for the user itself, while guns are dangerous for everybody in the vicinity of the user.
And illegal guns are harder to get for the average person, since you need to know where to get them.

Well... Not exactly. Have you ever seen a user cranked out on meth or cock or heroine? Sometimes they go beserk and attack other people for no reason whatsoever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mHnYMYS8mc

Like so...

And as for guns, I'm alright for owning one as long as you are pre-screened by a psych that you are mentally stable enough to own a gun.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 09, 2008, 07:35:13 am
I have asked questions and you still evading them Axelgear. I asked for facts and you give me rhetoric and hypothesis.

let me give a example on a statement without a any facts to support it
...and we know that there are countries with very little gun control that have some of the lowest murder rates in the world, far lower than most countries that tried to ban them.
This might be true. I do not know. But you have no facts to back up your claim. Also you say we know. But who are we? I am not included in this group because i do not know. That much is for sure.

Note anyone else are allowed to answer my questions. I am just trying to get some facts on the table to support one of the other view. I should i say i am looking for facts which we can use to draw a conclusion.

Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: LadyM on June 09, 2008, 07:36:43 am
(pulls head out with a case of dejavu... didn't LadyM and I cover this a while back in another thread?)
-Lego
Yeah, we did, probably in the election thread.

First, I stand with Lego on everything he said. Second, the opinions expressed seems to come down to whether or not you've been raised around guns. Those who have not experienced the chance to shoot (skeet, target, hunt) won't know that it can also be fun. Why do you think people play shooting game? It's fun. Those who have handled guns all their lives are not afraid of them and respect them. They teach their children to also respect them. No one should take away one's basic right to defend life and property. Property meaning house and home. Like it or not, it is a basic right in my country, as long as it remains in the constitution, it will be that way.

Third, they ARE a deterrent to crime especially in states with conceal carry laws. People who mean to do harm to others, will choose an easier victim than one they know owns a gun. If that gun is produced during a crime, chances are higher they will leave or be detained for the police to arrive.

I own a pistol and several shotguns, a couple given to me by my grandfather so they have special meaning to me. I have taken the conceal carry class in my state. Any law abiding citizen knows the difference between defense and stupidity. Even in a fit of anger, you make the choice to not involve a gun. That's part of being an intelligent person. I keep my pistol in my computer room upstairs in the event someone breaks in and comes up here. I can grab it and tell them to get out. If they don't and keep coming, I legally have grounds to use it. What other weapon would I have that would work for me? A knife? that requires being close to the person and I can't physically overpower a man. A baseball bat? Same thing, plus it would probably anger him and make things worse. Pepper spray? thats a joke. Even knowing that the gun could be taken away from me, I would still prefer to have that as my weapon of choice over anything else. My first choice being a shotgun. I'm also a pretty good shot, which comes from being taught to skeet shoot, hunt doves and target practice.

If someone breaks into my home, attacks me in my car or assaults me on the street, then yes, they deserve to be shot. There are consequences for actions and thats the chance you take for doing stupid things like that. The police are not always there to help you, you have to think for yourself sometimes. If I have to take the chance of being attacked when minding my own business, then they take the chance of getting shot if they mess with me. When traveling by car late at night and someone follows you and pulls up beside you to harass you about your driving and you put your pistol up on the dashboard for them to see, they think twice about it and drive away. (yes, this happened to me) To be able to purchase a handgun you have to file paperwork with the sheriff including which includes a sign off on mental health. A background check is done and if all things are clear, the permits are mailed to you and you can purchase your gun. There is no going into the store and buying one off the counter anymore. That's the legal way to obtain a gun.

It really is disappointing to hear gun owners being called nuts and stupid when it's the idiots who do crimes that are the stupid ones. It's the smart people who know how to think for themselves and make their own decisions and not allow their government to take everything away from them. If you want to think of me as a nut, then so be it. I really don't care. I will continue to support the right of gun owners.



Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 09, 2008, 07:39:35 am
This might be true. I do not know. But you have no facts to back up your claim. Also you say we know. But who are we? I am not included in this group because i do not know. That much is for sure.

Note anyone else are allowed to answer my questions. I am just trying to get some facts on the table to support one of the other view. I should i say i am looking for facts which we can use to draw a conclusion.

A list of countries rated by homicide rate over the course of ten decades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate)

Look up Switzerland and Germany on that list, they both allow public carrying of concealed weapons.

Also, Lady M, I like you.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Didero on June 09, 2008, 07:59:49 am
I didn't say that. I said there are more than enough ways of entertaining yourself, that don't require a gun. So entertainment isn't really a valid reason for owning such a potentially dangerous device, that doesn't have any other uses than killing or injuring.

So we should ban...

-Fireworks
-Model rockets
-Wood-burning kits
-Lawn darts

And so on...

Entertainment isn't really the main reason I was arguing anyway, though. I mainly argue self-defense and right to property.
Actually, lawn darts are banned in the US and in your Canada, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_darts#Banned_from_sale_in_the_U.S._and_Canada).
And if it isn't the main reason, why do you keep bringing it up?

Well, you described people that don't have access to a supermarket, you could allow them guns for a start. Or you could learn them farming, so they could grow their own food and keep their cattle, but that might be a bit overdoing it.
And maybe this doesn't invalidate that other people should be allowed to own a gun, but it at least lessens one of the arguments in favour of it.

You've never been to Nunavut, have you? The land is frozen most of the year, except for some grasses, and it's FAR too cold to grow crops most of the year. Besides, animal herds need to be culled anyway.
I've never been to any place that requires people to hunt for their own food, no. But even if guns are so necessary for a small group of people, that isn't a good reason for the rest of America to have guns too.

And illegal guns are harder to get for the average person, since you need to know where to get them.

True. The average law-abiding citizen who wants to get a gun to defend himself cannot do so now. Congratulations. However, most violent criminals get guns from people who have them already, typically from areas where gun control is more lax or from drug dealers. So, again, all this has done is stop the person who wants to defend himself from getting a gun and ensured that, if a criminal wants to attack someone, they can do so with impunity knowing the person has no gun with which to fight back.

As gang members testify all the time, if they lose a gun, they can just go get another one for only a few hundred dollars, and they know that if they break into your home in an area with gun control, you can't do ANYTHING to stop them. Remember, they don't respect the law, after all.
Do you think you can stop an armed gang member robbing you or breaking into your house with a gun? If he's any good at robbing, he'll surprise you, so you don't have any time to get your gun out, and if he even thinks you're grabbing for your gun, he'll shoot you out of fear. If he's breaking in, he'll also catch you by surprise, and shoot you if he even thinks you're going for a gun.
So even with a gun, there's actually little you can do.



Pepper spray? thats a joke.
I don't know too much about pepper spray, so I'd like to know: Why do you think pepper spray's a joke?

[...]the opinions expressed seems to come down to whether or not you've been raised around guns.
I think so too, yes. I also think, but that's just my baseless opinion, people that are for gun control are living a somewhat, how to say it, safer life, with less need for self-protection. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 09, 2008, 08:47:45 am
This might be true. I do not know. But you have no facts to back up your claim. Also you say we know. But who are we? I am not included in this group because i do not know. That much is for sure.

Note anyone else are allowed to answer my questions. I am just trying to get some facts on the table to support one of the other view. I should i say i am looking for facts which we can use to draw a conclusion.

A list of countries rated by homicide rate over the course of ten decades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate)

Look up Switzerland and Germany on that list, they both allow public carrying of concealed weapons.

Also, Lady M, I like you.

Well i have looked at that list before but you know. As it is presented is hard to see a pattern. I am sure that if someone make a graph and put it in to context we might see a pattern. For example. One of the nations with the lowest rate is Japan. A nation with very very few guns. Also nations that have totalitarian rule seems to have low murder rate. Though i am not sure. Maybe there is no pattern to it and that may be the significants. I do not know. Especially as it is not put in to context with guns and gun laws.



LadyM do not worry about me. I still stands for the guns with moderation side. ;)
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 09, 2008, 08:51:37 am
This might be true. I do not know. But you have no facts to back up your claim. Also you say we know. But who are we? I am not included in this group because i do not know. That much is for sure.

Note anyone else are allowed to answer my questions. I am just trying to get some facts on the table to support one of the other view. I should i say i am looking for facts which we can use to draw a conclusion.

A list of countries rated by homicide rate over the course of ten decades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate)

Look up Switzerland and Germany on that list, they both allow public carrying of concealed weapons.

Shame that wouldn't hold water with a statistician. Those countries are the exception, not the rule.

Its like saying that prayer cures cancer because one out of a thousand cancer patients treated only with prayer recover to full health. Its a statistical anomaly, in other words. Which isn't to say that Germany and Switzerland have lower homicide rates 'by accident' it probably has more to do with cultural and economic factors, and the efficacy of their police forces, not gun legality. It would also be interesting to see the statistics for actual gun ownership in Germany (I already know the ownership of guns in switzerland is high, due to their unusual national service scheme).
But, as always I have a feeling you're going to evade my point again like you have with everyone else's. You did a good enough job of evading my previous points and ignoring my wish for you not to go on a tangent about an analogy I was making. You'll probably go on a tangent about this too  :P
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: SBD on June 09, 2008, 09:04:32 am
Man, I have so much more respect for Ladym now, knowing that she wouldn't think twice about blowing my face off if I jumped through her bedroom window.  ;D
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 09, 2008, 10:12:29 am
This might be true. I do not know. But you have no facts to back up your claim. Also you say we know. But who are we? I am not included in this group because i do not know. That much is for sure.

Note anyone else are allowed to answer my questions. I am just trying to get some facts on the table to support one of the other view. I should i say i am looking for facts which we can use to draw a conclusion.

A list of countries rated by homicide rate over the course of ten decades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate)

Look up Switzerland and Germany on that list, they both allow public carrying of concealed weapons.

Also, Lady M, I like you.

But America has the most of any Western country. And they are one of the few that allow guns.

And in any case, that's just homicide, not statistics purely of gun-related homicide.

And as to your last point:

Axelgear and Ladym, sitting in a tree.

 ;)
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 09, 2008, 10:30:42 am
Bona Fide Supraman there might be a reason to watch the homicide statistic in general to.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 09, 2008, 10:36:13 am
Bona Fide Supraman there might be a reason to watch the homicide statistic in general to.

Well even if you just use these statistics, as I said, America (which allows guns) has the most homicide of any Western country.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Josasa on June 09, 2008, 10:46:41 am
...(Points made)
The little Korean debate was pretty cool. As far as I'm concerned, North Korea is doing exactly what you're doing; owning a weapon with the intention of 'defending himself'. Don't try and say 'Well, thats different because The West says..." We've seen it before. The real reason Iran and North Korea work so hard for nuclear weapons is because they are terrified of the Western Nuclear monopoly.

Good points Mr. C and Krakow, but i still believe that the Right to Property is as 'god-given' as that of Free Speech or anything else. I think that government interference should be kept to a minimum, and this includes interferences on different rights. And that's just my opinion.

But the rest of the quote: Iran has stated multiple times that they wish to wipe Israel off the map. I can see that North Korea wishes to defend itself, but in the case of Iran, that's multiplying the instability of the Middle East by a lot. One of their man wishes is the disappearance of the Jewish state. I truly think that if Iran gets nuclear weapons then there will be a nuclear war.

But again, that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 09, 2008, 10:59:26 am
Actually, lawn darts are banned in the US and in your Canada, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_darts#Banned_from_sale_in_the_U.S._and_Canada).
And if it isn't the main reason, why do you keep bringing it up?

I bring it up because people keep saying that a gun doesn't have any peripheral uses. Coincidentally, my brother just went to the target range earlier.

As for Lawn Darts, I think such a ban is stupid. If kids aren't mature enough to use them properly, don't give them to them. You shouldn't ban something because people are stupid.

I've never been to any place that requires people to hunt for their own food, no. But even if guns are so necessary for a small group of people, that isn't a good reason for the rest of America to have guns too.

The law must apply to one person as it applies to all. If one person is allowed to have a firearm or a vehicle or what have you, it must be possible for everyone to attain it the same way.

Do you think you can stop an armed gang member robbing you or breaking into your house with a gun? If he's any good at robbing, he'll surprise you, so you don't have any time to get your gun out, and if he even thinks you're grabbing for your gun, he'll shoot you out of fear. If he's breaking in, he'll also catch you by surprise, and shoot you if he even thinks you're going for a gun.
So even with a gun, there's actually little you can do.

If I had a CCP and owned a pistol, I'd keep it around at all times. If someone tried to break down the door, that thing is out in two seconds flat, well before they come anywhere near the living room, let alone my room. Believe me, there's quite a bit you can do.

Besides, even KNOWING there is a gun in the house can be effective. Criminals don't tend to rob people in areas they know are armed.

I don't know too much about pepper spray, so I'd like to know: Why do you think pepper spray's a joke?

Because unless you aim exactly right, it'll just make them smell tangy and it won't actually stop them?

I think so too, yes. I also think, but that's just my baseless opinion, people that are for gun control are living a somewhat, how to say it, safer life, with less need for self-protection. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Look at Washington DC, they had a gun ban several decades ago there and it has some of the highest gun-related crime rates in the world.

Still, I can agree that being raised around weapons does affect your opinion.

Well i have looked at that list before but you know. As it is presented is hard to see a pattern. I am sure that if someone make a graph and put it in to context we might see a pattern. For example. One of the nations with the lowest rate is Japan. A nation with very very few guns. Also nations that have totalitarian rule seems to have low murder rate. Though i am not sure. Maybe there is no pattern to it and that may be the significants. I do not know. Especially as it is not put in to context with guns and gun laws.

Japan actually has two reported murder rates. Their crime reporting is spotty, at best...

Totalitarian nations typically don't report murder rates often. Still, back on track, if you notice that most of the lower murder rates come from Western countries, and the gun control restrictions in each vary. A few off the bottom of the list.

For purposes here, I list gun control in countries as those that do not allow open carrying of weapons (This is regardless of whether licensing is involved)

With gun control:
-Luxembourg
-Denmark
-England

Without:
-Austria
-Switzerland
-Germany

There are names from close to the bottom of the list. There are others lower (Like the UAE and Hong Kong), but at the very bottom of the list are typically names that have spotty information, either of crime reporting or of gun law availability. I left Greece off the list because it could be either (There are ways to get CCP's in Greece but the circumstances behind it vary).

I still stands for the guns with moderation side. ;)

What exactly do you mean by moderation?

Shame that wouldn't hold water with a statistician. Those countries are the exception, not the rule.

Not really. There's countless countries that have high or low murder rates with or without gun control. Gun control doesn't seem to affect it. The chart that Lurk posted a while ago deliberately leaves off countries that would smack the correlation off the charts, like Lithuania, which has a terrible murder rate and very tight gun control.

Its like saying that prayer cures cancer because one out of a thousand cancer patients treated only with prayer recover to full health. Its a statistical anomaly, in other words. Which isn't to say that Germany and Switzerland have lower homicide rates 'by accident' it probably has more to do with cultural and economic factors, and the efficacy of their police forces, not gun legality. It would also be interesting to see the statistics for actual gun ownership in Germany (I already know the ownership of guns in switzerland is high, due to their unusual national service scheme).

It's not a scheme, it's to train everyone so that, if a war comes, they can fight. As for Germany, I can't find those statistics. No matter what I search, typing gun control into Google inevitably leads to finding people ranting about the United States.

Again, though, these are not the only countries and they are not statistical anomalies. There are many countries without restrictive gun control that have low murder rates and there are countries with them that do and have similar rates. There are also countries without gun control with high murder rates and countries with it and high murder rates. The crime isn't caused by the guns, it's caused by the economic, political, and cultural situation of that country. Do you honestly thing giving people weapons or taking them away will get them out of criminals hands, or that even without them crime will go away?

But, as always I have a feeling you're going to evade my point again like you have with everyone else's. You did a good enough job of evading my previous points and ignoring my wish for you not to go on a tangent about an analogy I was making. You'll probably go on a tangent about this too  :P

What exactly did I evade? You keep saying this but I don't exactly see what I tried to dodge. I answered your points and questions with counter-points.


But America has the most of any Western country. And they are one of the few that allow guns.

And in any case, that's just homicide, not statistics purely of gun-related homicide.

And as to your last point:

Axelgear and Ladym, sitting in a tree.

 ;)

America is a massive statistical anomaly. That's why I've tried to avoid using it in my examples except when necessary. When you talk about America, you're talking about many, many small countries crammed together in one; that's essentially what it is. Parts of the US have extreme gun control, to the point of having no legal retailers (And, ironically, these regions have some of the worst crime rates), and some parts have none whatsoever except maybe a license.

As for homicides, if you view only gun-related deaths, you're sort of tainting it. It wouldn't reveal actual crime statistics, any more than me getting out a chart showing knife-related homicides would show actual crime rates. That's why, on the chart that Lurk used, Switzerland came up very high on it in terms of gun-related homicides, but in terms of actual murder rate, it's far lower than just about all other countries on that chart. It gives you a poor view of the actual state of a country.

Edit: Just something I forgot...

Well even if you just use these statistics, as I said, America (which allows guns) has the most homicide of any Western country.

Yeah, Germany allows them and manufactures a huge amount of them and has the lowest homicide rate in Western Europe. America is a statistical anomaly, as I said before. It's also far larger in size and population, so more crime is going to be natural.

Referring to the US specifically... Parts of America have incredibly high crime rates (As high as 10 per 100,000), while other parts have as low as some European countries (As low as 1.2 at some points). It's difficult to judge the US as a whole when, in fact, it's like a lot of tiny countries mushed together.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: MetallicDragon on June 09, 2008, 11:07:10 am
I've heard people say that guns are illegal in the UK but I've looked around the internet and from what I can tell you can still get them if you have the proper licenses. Anyone know for sure?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 09, 2008, 11:09:42 am
I've heard people say that guns are illegal in the UK but I've looked around the internet and from what I can tell you can still get them if you have the proper licenses. Anyone know for sure?

You're allowed to get a gun in the UK, I think, if you're a sports shooter or farmer. You also have to provide a "good reason" as to why you want to own your firearm...
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 09, 2008, 11:12:23 am
As for homicides, if you view only gun-related deaths, you're sort of tainting it. It wouldn't reveal actual crime statistics, any more than me getting out a chart showing knife-related homicides would show actual crime rates. That's why, on the chart that Lurk used, Switzerland came up very high on it in terms of gun-related homicides, but in terms of actual murder rate, it's far lower than just about all other countries on that chart. It gives you a poor view of the actual state of a country.

But we're talking about guns? How are statistics involving guns going to taint it?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: The Time Traveller on June 09, 2008, 11:15:24 am
Wait.  Someone mentioned Pepper Spray as being weak.  Isn't Pepper Spray fatal?  Didn't they use it in WW1, thus the gas masks?  And now it's banned in the geneva convention?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 09, 2008, 11:16:23 am
Could you just not make a graph and add relevant data? Like laws (how strict the control is)

Also you mention Gemany is a nation without gun control. Something that is not true. You have to have a license to own a gun. (So there is gun control.)

Switzerland also have rules for gun ownership even if it is easier to acquire them in Switzerland then for example Germany.

You may own firearms in England but require a license. (But this is mentored by others so i will not go more in to that.)

I do not know about the gun laws of Austria, Denmark or Luxembourg.

Like always you are short on facts and sometimes there even misleading.



And by moderation i mean in short that if you can show that you can Handel guns in a safe manner then you should be able own them.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: MetallicDragon on June 09, 2008, 11:23:29 am
Wait.  Someone mentioned Pepper Spray as being weak.  Isn't Pepper Spray fatal?  Didn't they use it in WW1, thus the gas masks?  And now it's banned in the geneva convention?

You're thinking of Mustard Gas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas)
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 09, 2008, 11:26:14 am
Because any place where guns are available is going to encounter them more frequently. They will be the tool of choice for murders and self-defense alike. Just because they are used, though, does not mean they are the cause of crime or that removing them will, in any way, affect crime statistics. It's like saying banning knives will reduce murder rates; it won't because people will still kill with other things anyway.

Could you just not make a graph and add relevant data? Like laws (how strict the control is)

I'm not exactly handy in Excel...

Also you mention Gemany is a nation without gun control. Something that is not true. You have to have a license to own a gun. (So there is gun control.)

No, that's regulation. I've made the distinction several times. I'm FINE with regulation, but restriction is what I oppose. Licensing, permits... That stuff is FINE with me. License someone by checking their criminal record and mental health, and, if they're fine, let 'em buy and carry weapons.

Is that acceptable?

Switzerland also have rules for gun ownership even if it is easier to acquire them in Switzerland then for example Germany.

Yeah, I am starting to think we've been on the same page for a while...

You may own firearms in England but require a license. (But this is mentored by others so i will not go more in to that.)

Yes, and you need "good reason" to own one. I.E. Sporting use, farm ownership, or immediate risk for your life (In which case you need proof for it or have to be in a risky government job. Otherwise, you can't get one).

I do not know about the gun laws of Austria, Denmark or Luxembourg.

Austria lets you carry publicly with a license, Denmark and Luxembourg are the "Keep it in a safe at home in a lockbox, store the ammunition elsehwere and only take it out at a gun range" type.

Like always you are short on facts and sometimes there even misleading.

Liiiike?

Wait.  Someone mentioned Pepper Spray as being weak.  Isn't Pepper Spray fatal?  Didn't they use it in WW1, thus the gas masks?  And now it's banned in the geneva convention?

... Pleeeeease tell me you're not serious...



Edit: ... Yokto, I think you and I have been on the same page all along. I'm all for gun regulation (Licensing, rifling recording, etc.), I just hate restriction (Gun control, like not being allowed to carry weapons in public).
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Didero on June 09, 2008, 11:31:13 am
Actually, lawn darts are banned in the US and in your Canada, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_darts#Banned_from_sale_in_the_U.S._and_Canada).
And if it isn't the main reason, why do you keep bringing it up?

I bring it up because people keep saying that a gun doesn't have any peripheral uses. Coincidentally, my brother just went to the target range earlier.

As for Lawn Darts, I think such a ban is stupid. If kids aren't mature enough to use them properly, don't give them to them. You shouldn't ban something because people are stupid.
I agree, a ban on lawn darts is a bit odd. But then again, so is letting kids throw around sharp metal objects :P

I've never been to any place that requires people to hunt for their own food, no. But even if guns are so necessary for a small group of people, that isn't a good reason for the rest of America to have guns too.

The law must apply to one person as it applies to all. If one person is allowed to have a firearm or a vehicle or what have you, it must be possible for everyone to attain it the same way.
I meant people need a valid reason to own a gun, where needing it to hunt for food is a valid reason. Of course you're gonna bring up 'protecting your property' as a valid reason too, so never mind.

Do you think you can stop an armed gang member robbing you or breaking into your house with a gun? If he's any good at robbing, he'll surprise you, so you don't have any time to get your gun out, and if he even thinks you're grabbing for your gun, he'll shoot you out of fear. If he's breaking in, he'll also catch you by surprise, and shoot you if he even thinks you're going for a gun.
So even with a gun, there's actually little you can do.

If I had a CCP and owned a pistol, I'd keep it around at all times. If someone tried to break down the door, that thing is out in two seconds flat, well before they come anywhere near the living room, let alone my room. Believe me, there's quite a bit you can do.

Besides, even KNOWING there is a gun in the house can be effective. Criminals don't tend to rob people in areas they know are armed.
EDIT: That still leaves the surprise street robbery.

I don't know too much about pepper spray, so I'd like to know: Why do you think pepper spray's a joke?

Because unless you aim exactly right, it'll just make them smell tangy and it won't actually stop them?
You have to aim a gun exactly right too. And a bullet is a small bit of metal, while pepper spray creates a cloud of irritating particles, so you'd have to aim a gun even better than pepper spray.

I think so too, yes. I also think, but that's just my baseless opinion, people that are for gun control are living a somewhat, how to say it, safer life, with less need for self-protection. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Look at Washington DC, they had a gun ban several decades ago there and it has some of the highest gun-related crime rates in the world.
But there are plenty of places not too far from Washington DC where you can get a gun legally, so it's not that good of an example.

Still, I can agree that being raised around weapons does affect your opinion.
As is evident from this discussion, because the only people against gun control are the people who already own one :)
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Mr. Consideration on June 09, 2008, 11:33:55 am
I'm giving up on quotes.

The Avatar is a joke. Stalin was a monster.

I was refering to Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War, and the actions of the CNT-FAI. Nowadays Catalonia is just a very politically charged regionsof Spain.

Weapons aren't going to defend a minority because the opressive majority will have weapons too. Armenians were havily armed in Turkey, but the first recognised genocide in history went on regardless.


Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post

This thread is insanley fast paced.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 09, 2008, 11:35:41 am
OK. You need to look up the word Control first.

Also all of these countries have some sort of Gun Control or Gun Regulation whatever you wish to call it. The difference to what extent. I mean in Germany you are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon without a very good reason. Heck even i Switzerland you need a good reason to own a gun. (Even if the reasons might be trivial)

I am trying to find a good balance but your world seem to be black and white. Which is very odd when you pick countries to hold as a example that do not have black and white rules.



Axel i have never been against you. You just seem to believe that. In fact i am trying to help you in a way. Your not winning any points buy confusing people and using odd rhetoric.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 09, 2008, 12:00:32 pm
Weapons aren't going to defend a minority because the opressive majority will have weapons too. Armenians were havily armed in Turkey, but the first recognised genocide in history went on regardless.

The Armenian Genocide occurred by taking away their property then forcing them into death camps. Coincidentally, though, there was an Armenian Resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_resistance). These people fought back, while the others assumed it would all be okay (And, to be honest, why shouldn't they have? Genocide was a new concept), and the ones who stayed with their weapons and fought were the ones that survived.

Also all of these countries have some sort of Gun Control or Gun Regulation whatever you wish to call it. The difference to what extent. I mean in Germany you are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon without a very good reason. Heck even i Switzerland you need a good reason to own a gun. (Even if the reasons might be trivial)

If you're over the legal age, you're given a gun in Switzerland and 50 rounds of ammo, after military service. You're expected to maintain and keep it well. As for carrying it in public, self-defense is a reason enough. Again, though, this is regulation, not restriction. You're allowed to have the weapons and people just want to know and feel safe. I'm fine with it.

I am trying to find a good balance but your world seem to be black and white. Which is very odd when you pick countries to hold as a example that do not have black and white rules.

I thought laws were black and white rules? Still, like I said, regulation is fine with me. As long as the sane, law-abiding citizen has their weapons and can carry them for self-defense... I'm good. Need them to take a test, provide evidence they're not on drugs, have no criminal record... Fine by me. As long as there is a way that people can get a weapon for self-defense purposes and be able to have it when the need arises... I'm happy.

Axel i have never been against you. You just seem to believe that. In fact i am trying to help you in a way. Your not winning any points buy confusing people and using odd rhetoric.

I never said you were against me, just that we've been on a different side of the debate, or so it seemed, when we've probably been close to agreeing all along.



... Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth, this thread moves fast...

I agree, a ban on lawn darts is a bit odd. But then again, so is letting kids throw around sharp metal objects :P

Simple answer: Don't buy your kid lawn darts. Why have the government interfere when the public is perfectly and easily capable of getting the result they desire themselves, right?

I meant people need a valid reason to own a gun, where needing it to hunt for food is a valid reason. Of course you're gonna bring up 'protecting your property' as a valid reason too, so never mind.

Life and property, but otherwise you beat me to the punch.

That still leaves the surprise street robbery.

A gun is not a guarantee of safety, merely a guarantee of a chance at it. If someone comes down an alley towards me with a knife and I get the gun out, they're either going to stop in their tracks or they're going to end up taking a few shots. If they get me from behind, though, there's really not much I can do, and I'd just give them my wallet and let 'em go... Of course, the moment they start to run away, I'd reach for my gun, turn, and yell freeze...

A gun won't ALWAYS protect you. Neither will the police. It doesn't mean we get rid of either one. All both of them do is offer you the chance of protection.

You have to aim a gun exactly right too. And a bullet is a small bit of metal, while pepper spray creates a cloud of irritating particles, so you'd have to aim a gun even better than pepper spray.

If you take out a gun and pull the trigger, the noise and flash alone is enough to scare most people away. The knowledge your life means more to you than theirs and you're willing to defend it will scare most people. Besides, spraying pepper spray on someone's leg or arm or hand or stomach won't do jack. A bullet anywhere is going to have some effect.

... Unless they're seriously stoked on drugs, in which case pepper spray is useless and a bullet will at least slow them down.

But there are plenty of places not too far from Washington DC where you can get a gun legally, so it's not that good of an example.

It's not even getting it, it's keeping it. In the US you have to register to own a gun and you can't get a license if you live in Washington DC.

As is evident from this discussion, because the only people against gun control are the people who already own one :)

Seems it. The people who own a gun and know what it can do are happy to keep it. Those who have never truly been exposed to one... Okay, that's just me being biased... Again, though, I am against restriction, not regulation. Licensing, rifling recordings, permits... These are fine with me. So long as the average law abiding citizen can get a weapon to defend their life, it's okay with me.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 09, 2008, 12:09:04 pm
Well first i would like to say that Genocide is a old concept even mentioned in the bible. Though i think i am going off topic with this.

And yes specific laws may be black or white but as a hole the law is not. Is not like you can ether own a gun or not in Germany, Sweden, Denmark or even USA.

I still do not agree with you on you attitude towards guns. And i am probably stricter then you on the regulations. But i was never trying to take any sides really. Just because i agree with someone does not mean i take all his values.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 09, 2008, 12:11:54 pm
What exactly is your view on regulations? I'm with Lady M here and most responsible gun owners: Take classes, take tests, get background checks but otherwise no real interference is necessary and nor is it going to stop anything.

For the record, my attitude towards guns is that they're a tool, nothing more, and law abiding citizens should be allowed to have them.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 09, 2008, 12:25:39 pm
My view on tools is that they can be use for good or evil. Some tools are more harmful then beneficial.

Well first of all you will need some eduction in how to use them but also how to store the. You have to show that you can do both. And the more. Much of it is proportional to the type of weapon. Some thing i think will be always beyond reach. I have already mentioned nuclear weapons as something i do not think anyone should be allowed to have. The use of the weapon might also play a role. If are going to use to for hunting then you must be educated in hunting practices and not only firearm control.

Some weapons do not need any special education however. But this is mainly because there so common and have hight utility value. Like knives. Even then you still have responsibilities.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: huggkruka on June 09, 2008, 12:33:34 pm
I'm just randomly throwing myself into this thread, whohoo! Shouldn't gun supporters in the US also have a healthy disrespect for US governmental power? After all, the right to bear arms refers to the citizen's right to start a militia to overthrow the government if it isn't protecting the constitution(I think). That should make gun supporters automatically critical to the current administration which is getting way to powerful and disrespectful of the constitution/god-damned piece of paper.

I'd also like to express my opinion that people who shoots burglars should have their gun licence taken away for life. The chance of you killing a family member the next time is too high. Also, unless the burglar also had a gun or acted erratically(like an addict), there is no reason you couldn't just make him strip, send him out the door, and then call the police to look for a nude guy. Basically, shooting people is wrong and no matter how low-life the people who break into your home are they should be treated as humans.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 09, 2008, 12:42:45 pm
My view on tools is that they can be use for good or evil. Some tools are more harmful then beneficial.

Well, a tool is a tool. A tool can be used for better or for worse, but their innate being has no harm or benefit; only how you use them.

Well first of all you will need some eduction in how to use them but also how to store the. You have to show that you can do both. And the more. Much of it is proportional to the type of weapon. Some thing i think will be always beyond reach. I have already mentioned nuclear weapons as something i do not think anyone should be allowed to have. The use of the weapon might also play a role. If are going to use to for hunting then you must be educated in hunting practices and not only firearm control.

Yeah, and you have to be trained on gun safety to get a license. Same with a CCP. You have to learn how to safely handle it and prove you can do so before you can get a weapon. I'm all for this. There are also rules for getting a hunting license. These are not things I'm against.

Some weapons do not need any special education however. But this is mainly because there so common and have hight utility value. Like knives. Even then you still have responsibilities.

Yep. I'm glad to see those responsibilities upheld.



Also, Hugg, you're actually right. Everyone should always be suspicious and critical of their government. Any government powerful enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take it away.

As for shooting burglars, if someone isn't threatening you, you shouldn't shoot. It's murder. You should still shoot if someone is a threat to you, though. Still, I do like your suggestion on what to do with them...  ;D
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Interitus on June 10, 2008, 02:10:27 pm
To me it seems like the more guns you put out there the more they are accessable.  It's fine to teach people how to store guns, but will they do that?  If they don't then they aren't a responsible gun owner. But how do you judge who is a responsible gun owner before they start leaving a weapon lying around the house?  And how do you know if a weapon isn't stored properly? You just assume everyone is storing them properly. You can teach a person to store a gun but usually by time you find out they haven't been something has happened.

And what about background checks? They are not some all powerful tool that will tell you you can't let this person buy a gun because in 5 years this persons spouse will be killed by accident which will cause them to spiral into a depression and go on a shooting spree.  Mental health is not a constant. People can be depressed and come out of it. People with no previous signs of mental illness can start to exhibit them.

But I think the best example is the news. I get a lot of American news, and the amount of gun related news topics is astounding. From a 5 year old bring a gun into school to show his friends to innocent people being shot because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't know if it's a reflection of American society or the need for tighter gun regulations. But something needs to change.     
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Legodragonxp on June 10, 2008, 02:25:50 pm
Wait.  Someone mentioned Pepper Spray as being weak. 

(sticks head in again)

Pepper spray, tear gas, and other spray deterents are a mixed bag. As the victim you get caught in the cloud as well, it can burn eyes (especially when wearing contacts). It can be completely ineffective (as an Military Police Officer I saw guys that could walk right through clouds of the stuff and hardly even cough) or only serve to incapacitate the user making it that much easier to assault them. These are reasons why many police forces are going to taser type weapons.

-Lego
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 10, 2008, 03:39:47 pm
Yep. Many rapists use pepper spray/mace too. It blinds your target, meaning they can't tell the police what you looked like later.

To me it seems like the more guns you put out there the more they are accessable.  It's fine to teach people how to store guns, but will they do that?  If they don't then they aren't a responsible gun owner. But how do you judge who is a responsible gun owner before they start leaving a weapon lying around the house?  And how do you know if a weapon isn't stored properly? You just assume everyone is storing them properly. You can teach a person to store a gun but usually by time you find out they haven't been something has happened.

Yeah... And if someone is found storing a weapon improperly, they can typically be fined, if not arrested, for their negligence. However, you can't ensure everyone will always follow the law. Why do you think we have police?

And what about background checks? They are not some all powerful tool that will tell you you can't let this person buy a gun because in 5 years this persons spouse will be killed by accident which will cause them to spiral into a depression and go on a shooting spree.  Mental health is not a constant. People can be depressed and come out of it. People with no previous signs of mental illness can start to exhibit them.

Yeah... So should we lock everyone away for everyone's safety? Should we put everyone on medication because they MIGHT become schizophrenic? Sure, some people will go insane. You can't stop that. You can't stop murders either. People will always go insane and kill. However, this is an incredibly rare occurrence and people they typically end up using gun control laws to their advantage to ensure that taking lives will be easier (Such as going into "Gun Free Zones" like post offices, schools, etc.)

To quote a wise man, "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws. That's insane."

But I think the best example is the news. I get a lot of American news, and the amount of gun related news topics is astounding. From a 5 year old bring a gun into school to show his friends to innocent people being shot because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't know if it's a reflection of American society or the need for tighter gun regulations. But something needs to change.     

News agencies, North American ones especially, are founded on sensationalism. They always report the worst things. The five year old bringing a gun to school happens once, out of tens of millions of kids, and it resulted from their parents improperly teaching the kid to respect the firearm and not storing it safely. Innocent people getting shot occurs because of gang warfare and other crime, primarily due to the illegality of narcotics I should add.

American society itself has problems. All societies do. I agree, gun regulations in some places are a touch lax. I just don't think restriction (I.E. Banning their sale, barring their public carrying, etc.) is the right way to go.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 10, 2008, 03:51:49 pm
What exactly is your view on regulations? I'm with Lady M here and most responsible gun owners: Take classes, take tests, get background checks but otherwise no real interference is necessary and nor is it going to stop anything.

Hang on a second, I thought in America you could just apply for a permit to own a gun?

Anyways I still prefer the British system of you actually needing a reason to own a gun, home protection not being a good, enough reason. (Just for the record, my parents used to live next to a fairly rough council estate but also had two very large, very loud dogs [they were softies really] and didn't get burglarized once, whilst every other house on our street got broken into at least once every couple of years. They've recently moved away to the isle of man [which is an interestingly dull place])
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 10, 2008, 05:15:30 pm
Hang on a second, I thought in America you could just apply for a permit to own a gun?

In America, it really depends. In some states, you don't need any more than a driver's license to own a gun, in some you can't take it out anywhere but a gun club (And gun clubs are non-existent).

Anyways I still prefer the British system of you actually needing a reason to own a gun, home protection not being a good, enough reason. (Just for the record, my parents used to live next to a fairly rough council estate but also had two very large, very loud dogs [they were softies really] and didn't get burglarized once, whilst every other house on our street got broken into at least once every couple of years. They've recently moved away to the isle of man [which is an interestingly dull place])

Yeah, but if your parent's house didn't look worth stealing from... Why bother? Still, dogs aren't really worth it for some people and it's not actually humane or legal to keep a dog in some places.

Besides, how is home protection or self protection not a good reason? I'd say they're excellent reasons.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 10, 2008, 05:39:03 pm
Well it wasn't an area of low-income, most people were financially comfortable on that street, however we were the only ones with dogs.

As for the home security part, I guess it's because if they break in quietly then creep up to your room then a gun's bugger all use, whilst if your alarm goes off, or if your saint Bernard or other breed of dog spots them, most burglars are likely to leg it before you call the police.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 10, 2008, 05:52:36 pm
Well it wasn't an area of low-income, most people were financially comfortable on that street, however we were the only ones with dogs.

And how frequently were they broken into? For what purpose? Though just because you had dogs may not be the only reason your house wasn't broken into... Anyway, I digress...

As for the home security part, I guess it's because if they break in quietly then creep up to your room then a gun's bugger all use, whilst if your alarm goes off, or if your saint Bernard or other breed of dog spots them, most burglars are likely to leg it before you call the police.

Yes, and if they use any number of methods, your dogs are useless, your alarm can be disabled, and so on. Besides, not everyone can afford an alarm or a dog in time and money. Firearms are considerably cheaper. Besides, someone who isn't scared of dogs or alarm systems or someone who knows the alarm code or is known by the dog (Remember a huge percentage of crimes, rape and kidnapping especially, occurs from someone the victim knew) will still be deterred by a gun. More importantly, if worst comes to worst, they can be STOPPED by it. Try telling a criminal determined to kill you more than to preserve their own life that the police are on their way...

However, this really doesn't matter. Why shouldn't people be allowed to have a gun to defend themselves?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Legodragonxp on June 10, 2008, 06:50:27 pm
Hang on a second, I thought in America you could just apply for a permit to own a gun?


In general, in the US, if you do not have a felony criminal record, restraining order, or mental health issue...
...and are 18 years old or older
You may purchase and own a long arm (shotgun or rifle) barring certain types of semi-automatic rifles deemed 'assault weapons' by (appearance only BTW) which require and handgun/assault weapons purchase permit.
... and you are 21 years old or older you can purchase and own a handgun (provided you have a permit to purchase)

Handgun purchase permits are generally issues by the police of your home town (or sheriff in rural areas). They require a criminal background check.

Some states have more specific laws (New York bans handguns, Califronia requires registration of firearms, etc..)

In Minnesota where I live, you only fll out paperwork when you purchase a firearm from a FFL (federal firearms licensed) dealer. There is no paper work or background check when selling firearms person to person (so I could sell a shotgun to LadyM and no paperwork would be needed... but you'd better bet I'd get a reciept for it just in case it appeared in a crime someday). Handguns cannot be carried in public without a concealled carry permit, which requires a class and a background check. Minnesota conceal carry law makes no restriction on the type of weapon carried (if you really want to carry a shotgun you may), nor are you REQUIRED to conceal it (you're a dumb@$$ if you don't though, the cops will tire of the complaint calls).

Federal law limits the largest caliber for smokeless powder fireamrs (sans relics) to .50 with most states requiring permits or outright banning the ownership of .50 cal BMG round firing weapons. Shotguns must be at least 26 inches in length and have a minimum barrel length of 18 inches. Rifles must be at least 26 inches in length and had a minimum barrel length of 16 inches. Handguns may be of any size but may not have a barrel length of more than 14 inches or any kind of fixed butt-stock (it would be a rifle then).

Fully-automatic weapons are illegal unless they are made before a certain date, and require registration ($250 a gun) with the BATF and a class 3 weapons permit (which typically takes about 3 months to aquire). Of note, in the last 40 years, the number of legally registrered fully-automatic machine guns used in crimes has been 2.

Black powder muzzle loaders (muskets and kin) may be owned by felons for the purpose of sport and target shooting, and may also be purchased and owned in most states at the age or 16.

Confussing eh?

-Lego
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 10, 2008, 07:09:09 pm
As for the home security part, I guess it's because if they break in quietly then creep up to your room then a gun's bugger all use, whilst if your alarm goes off, or if your saint Bernard or other breed of dog spots them, most burglars are likely to leg it before you call the police.

Yes, and if they use any number of methods, your dogs are useless, your alarm can be disabled, and so on. Besides, not everyone can afford an alarm or a dog in time and money. Firearms are considerably cheaper. Besides, someone who isn't scared of dogs or alarm systems or someone who knows the alarm code or is known by the dog (Remember a huge percentage of crimes, rape and kidnapping especially, occurs from someone the victim knew) will still be deterred by a gun. More importantly, if worst comes to worst, they can be STOPPED by it. Try telling a criminal determined to kill you more than to preserve their own life that the police are on their way...

However, this really doesn't matter. Why shouldn't people be allowed to have a gun to defend themselves?
That completely misses my point! Incidentally it's much easier to just sneak in, than it is to knock out a dog, in the dark, quietly or to disable an alarm system.

As another point unless you carry your gun with you literally everywhere then the smiling psychopath you know would still be able to kill you even if you had a gun as they'd choose a time when you're most vulnerable. Oh and please don't underestimate dogs for spotting hostile intent. Especially if they're attacking you. Ever gotten into an argument in front of a dog and it's gotten pretty heated?

Most criminals are more bothered about being caught, not killing someone. If I'm determined to kill your average person and both of us have a gun, your average Joe would be dead before he found his pistol.

It's for these reasons that the British government banned home defense as a reason for firearm ownership. There are just too many non-lethal non-dangerous alternatives.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 10, 2008, 07:23:14 pm
That completely misses my point! Incidentally it's much easier to just sneak in, than it is to knock out a dog, in the dark, quietly or to disable an alarm system.

Who said anything about knocking out a dog? Swing of an axe or a crowbar and that dog is dead. Besides, most thefts are smash-and-grab jobs. They go when the people aren't there, bust down the door, run, grab, run. It's easier to rob in the day than it is at night.

As another point unless you carry your gun with you literally everywhere then the smiling psychopath you know would still be able to kill you even if you had a gun as they'd choose a time when you're most vulnerable. Oh and please don't underestimate dogs for spotting hostile intent. Especially if they're attacking you. Ever gotten into an argument in front of a dog and it's gotten pretty heated?

Many people DO try and carry their gun everywhere. It's typically when they can't that they end up dieing, and when they can that they live. As for dogs, I can list any number of ways to bypass them. Closing a door is an easy enough way to stop a dog. Again, though, if a dog knows a person, they're easy to stop.

As for dogs and aggression, I've had them in my family for the majority of my life. Two of them have never growled at a human, one growled at anyone who came near and had to be put down for being too violent, and one was not in the least bit aggressive. So, to be honest, yes, I've seen it and I've never seen the dog grow angrier than it would be otherwise.

Most criminals are more bothered about being caught, not killing someone. If I'm determined to kill your average person and both of us have a gun, your average Joe would be dead before he found his pistol.

Well, when it comes to robberies, they typically do it in the day when a person isn't about. Simple smash and grab. If someone is trying to kill you, that depends on a lot of situations but, believe me, the average Joe has a FAR better chance to survive with the gun than without, don't they?

It's for these reasons that the British government banned home defense as a reason for firearm ownership. There are just too many non-lethal non-dangerous alternatives.

Just because there are alternatives, all of which are overcome relatively easy, I might add, doesn't mean that you ban a method. Guns don't ASSURE security or safety, I've said this before, but they do give you a chance at it. Just as the police do, the dog does, and the alarm does. None will protect your life 100%, but having a chance is the point.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 10, 2008, 07:47:14 pm
That completely misses my point! Incidentally it's much easier to just sneak in, than it is to knock out a dog, in the dark, quietly or to disable an alarm system.
Who said anything about knocking out a dog? Swing of an axe or a crowbar and that dog is dead. Besides, most thefts are smash-and-grab jobs. They go when the people aren't there, bust down the door, run, grab, run. It's easier to rob in the day than it is at night.
Because bludgeoning a dog to death is an activity you can carry out quitely, and most criminals go to the scene of a crime with an axe or a crowbar, rather than, say, a screwdriver which is much less conspicious and could actually be explained away if the police asked you why you're wandering around with it.

As another point unless you carry your gun with you literally everywhere then the smiling psychopath you know would still be able to kill you even if you had a gun as they'd choose a time when you're most vulnerable. Oh and please don't underestimate dogs for spotting hostile intent. Especially if they're attacking you. Ever gotten into an argument in front of a dog and it's gotten pretty heated?

Many people DO try and carry their gun everywhere. It's typically when they can't that they end up dieing, and when they can that they live.
In the shower? Or on the toilet? How about when answering the door? Do you always answer your door with your pistol cocked and by your side? Please try and answer honestly and realistically, if a person knew your personal habits they could effortlessly catch you of guard. All it takes is for you to be at ease for someone to have a gun trained on you before you realize what's going on.

Most criminals are more bothered about being caught, not killing someone. If I'm determined to kill your average person and both of us have a gun, your average Joe would be dead before he found his pistol.
Well, when it comes to robberies, they typically do it in the day when a person isn't about. Simple smash and grab. If someone is trying to kill you, that depends on a lot of situations but, believe me, the average Joe has a FAR better chance to survive with the gun than without, don't they?

By far I assume you're using the virtually unknown meaning of bugger all. Because most people weren't even aware of their killer until it's too late or if they do have some sort of weapon nearby they'd rather run than use it. Also the presence of a lethal weapon, like a gun, forces criminals to up their aggression, increasing your chances of being killed.

It's for these reasons that the British government banned home defense as a reason for firearm ownership. There are just too many non-lethal non-dangerous alternatives.
Just because there are alternatives, all of which are overcome relatively easy, I might add, doesn't mean that you ban a method. Guns don't ASSURE security or safety, I've said this before, but they do give you a chance at it. Just as the police do, the dog does, and the alarm does. None will protect your life 100%, but having a chance is the point.
Okay now you're talking out of your arse. Burglar alarms, dogs and double glazing are not something that can be overcome easily. At least not when compared to Johnny dimwit and his gun collection. Most burglaries are either on house which have these but don't use them, obviously dogs are excluded from this, or have none of these.

The vital point is that there are alternatives, they have been proven to be just as effective, if not more so, than guns at preventing burglaries. Finally if you want more proof that Briton's gun laws work just compare both our murder rate to Americas and our number of unsolved murders to that of America (guns also allow you to commit crime while leaving significantly less evidence, which is why fibre evidence is a major thing here in Europe, while it isn't in America)
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: SBD on June 10, 2008, 08:36:57 pm
Australia has some quite strict gun laws. As far as I know, semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are banned outright, pump actions might be as well. Pistols must have no more then a ten round magazine capacity (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is the same in the US). Also, they revolvers must have at least a 10cm barrel (just under 3 inches) and semi-automatic pistols must have at least a 12cm barrel. They also have a maximum calibre of .38 inches, but if you are taking part in a recognised competition then you can have up to .45 calibre. Also, the only airsoft guns that are legal are rifles, and even these fall under the same laws.

To get a license, you must give a decent reason, self-defense is not accepted. Once you have your license, you can't actually buy a gun for another 12 months. even then, you must get a Permit to acquire, which is delayed for 28 days.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Legodragonxp on June 10, 2008, 08:47:25 pm
Australia has some quite strict gun laws. As far as I know, semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are banned outright, pump actions might be as well. Pistols must have no more then a ten round magazine capacity (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is the same in the US).

There was a law in the US (Assualt Weapons Ban) that was in effect for ten years that limited the capacity of magazines on firearms to 10 rounds on any weapon built during those ten years unless you worked for the military or law enforcement. The ten years ran out about a year ago or so. All it really succeeded in doing was making handguns much smaller since high capacity magazines were no longer allowed.

Once someone can tell me how only having ten rounds will cause less crime than having eleven rounds I will explain it to you. LOL

-Lego
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 10, 2008, 10:36:04 pm
Because bludgeoning a dog to death is an activity you can carry out quitely, and most criminals go to the scene of a crime with an axe or a crowbar, rather than, say, a screwdriver which is much less conspicious and could actually be explained away if the police asked you why you're wandering around with it.

How do you explain a screwdriver in a way you can't explain a crowbar with? Besides, a piece of meat can distract a dog...

In the shower? Or on the toilet? How about when answering the door? Do you always answer your door with your pistol cocked and by your side? Please try and answer honestly and realistically, if a person knew your personal habits they could effortlessly catch you of guard. All it takes is for you to be at ease for someone to have a gun trained on you before you realize what's going on.

Of course. Why would I entertain any other idea? They could do it with a gun, a knife, or anything, and no dog, alarm system, police force, or firearm will save you if they're swift enough.

Still, if I was carrying it during the day, answering the door, probably, yes...

By far I assume you're using the virtually unknown meaning of bugger all. Because most people weren't even aware of their killer until it's too late or if they do have some sort of weapon nearby they'd rather run than use it. Also the presence of a lethal weapon, like a gun, forces criminals to up their aggression, increasing your chances of being killed.

Mostly because if you have a weapon, you're close-range. A gun can let you put distance between yourself and your attacker and, if they up their aggression, drop them before they even come close. A gun can even the odds, that's a part of its point...

Just fyi, in the US, a study by Gary Kleck found about two million defensive uses of firearms a year. Other studies ranges from 800,000 to 2.5 million. That's a lot of people saved by legal firearms from various forms of crime. There are about 11 million crimes a year in the US (Less than 20,000 of which are murder. About nine million are property crimes like vandalism and the majority of the rest are burglary). That's a sizable chunk of crimes stopped or, at the very least, blunted by firearms.

Okay now you're talking out of your arse. Burglar alarms, dogs and double glazing are not something that can be overcome easily. At least not when compared to Johnny dimwit and his gun collection. Most burglaries are either on house which have these but don't use them, obviously dogs are excluded from this, or have none of these.

.... No ad hominem, please.

As for burglar alarms, cut a wire, watch, and wait. The police arrive, call it a false alarm, and leave. That's how many smart burglars do it. Dogs, you just throw a piece of meat, dog urine,, kill, or lock away. Double-glazing can be bypassed by going through a door (Lockpick), or slipping a pry-bar through the window crack and opening the latch that way. Or just break it...

The vital point is that there are alternatives, they have been proven to be just as effective, if not more so, than guns at preventing burglaries. Finally if you want more proof that Briton's gun laws work just compare both our murder rate to Americas and our number of unsolved murders to that of America (guns also allow you to commit crime while leaving significantly less evidence, which is why fibre evidence is a major thing here in Europe, while it isn't in America)

In terms of effectiveness, even if they were more effective, and we know there ARE ways to get around all methods (Guns included), it doesn't mean there's any point in getting rid of guns.

As for crime rates... Yeah... And Britain has far less poverty, about 1/6th the population of the United states (Well, actually somewhere between 1/5th and 1/6th), a more educated populace... Parts of America could qualify as a developing nation. Of COURSE it's going to have higher murder rates. Look at Sweden and Germany, both of which have lower crime rates than Britain and both of which allow guns to be carried in a concealed nature in public. Same with Austria. Guns don't exactly seem to matter to crime rates as much as the education and general "health" of the population (I.E. Access to health care, food, shelter... Basically not living in poor conditions)
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: happydan20 on June 11, 2008, 12:45:41 am
i think its best to look at what the people who would directly deal with the consequences of abundant gun onwership have to say.  May states in the us have flirted with making it legal to bring a firearm into a bar.  You want to know who complained the loudest? Bar owners.

The argument is made that owning a gun is an equalizer, cops have guns though... and they'd rather you not have one. 

I was reading about a movement (I think i saw it on the colbert report) about people carrying firearms in plain view for everyone to see.  Cops love that too, because they have to make a decision of threat and there existence of the gun is going to complicate things.

I'm not pretending i have all the answers, but when even I want to understand the impact of a subject I ask myself, "who would it effect the most and what do they have to say about it."
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Daxx on June 11, 2008, 03:02:01 am
Oh for ****'s sake, look up the damn meaning of ad hominem.

Now look what you made me do, you made me post in this thread again. Bugger this for a game of soldiers, I think I'll just stay out of the thread entirely so I don't have to bother biting my lip whilst wincing at your posts.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 11, 2008, 03:04:18 am
That completely misses my point! Incidentally it's much easier to just sneak in, than it is to knock out a dog, in the dark, quietly or to disable an alarm system.

Who said anything about knocking out a dog? Swing of an axe or a crowbar and that dog is dead. Besides, most thefts are smash-and-grab jobs. They go when the people aren't there, bust down the door, run, grab, run. It's easier to rob in the day than it is at night.

If thefts occur when people aren't there then why do you need a gun for home defense? You just got so tangled up in trying to prove dogs were less effective in home defense than guns you went and threw the baby out with the bathwater ;)

You keep listing reasons why dogs are no good as home security, but could you perhaps explain why guns are *better* than dogs in most cases?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 11, 2008, 06:41:50 am
Silly Krakow, if he did that he'd be up a creek without a paddle.

Incidentally screwdriver: Oh I'm an electrician by trade and must have just left this screw driver in my pocket, crowbar: Um, I'm a construction worker by trade and must have forgotten I was walking around carrying a crowbar in my hand....
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 11, 2008, 08:10:51 am
i think its best to look at what the people who would directly deal with the consequences of abundant gun onwership have to say.  May states in the us have flirted with making it legal to bring a firearm into a bar.  You want to know who complained the loudest? Bar owners.

So let bar owners ban or allow guns themselves. They do own their own business. They, like anyone else, can allow or disallow things on their property, and if it loses them business it's because people willing to allow guns in their bar get the money. Same thing with smoking in bars: If you want, ban it in your establishment but if other bar owners want to allow it and get more money by letting smokers in... Let 'em. It's their choice, their lungs, and their customer's choice to expose themselves to it. There is no need for government regulation here or there.

The argument is made that owning a gun is an equalizer, cops have guns though... and they'd rather you not have one.

Not all cops, but still... Doesn't that sound wrong to you? "We have guns and power over you. We don't want you to be on equal footing to us."

Anyone who says that to you is scared of you or wants to suppress you, and you have to alleviate either condition by proving you're responsible and willing to defend yourself.

I was reading about a movement (I think i saw it on the colbert report) about people carrying firearms in plain view for everyone to see.  Cops love that too, because they have to make a decision of threat and there existence of the gun is going to complicate things.

Yeah, but certain police officers are allowed to carry guns in secret, why not the average citizen? What gives them the right to and us not to? I can understand a police officer's desire to know who has a weapon and who doesn't but if someone does have a weapon and they're a threat, wouldn't they have it in the open already?

Oh for ****'s sake, look up the damn meaning of ad hominem.

It means Argument to the Man. Again, I provide you with this link. (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem) Note the example of an attack on intelligence. Werechicken called gun collectors "Johnny dimwit", a mixture of Ad Hominem and its variant, Argument by Generalization.

If thefts occur when people aren't there then why do you need a gun for home defense? You just got so tangled up in trying to prove dogs were less effective in home defense than guns you went and threw the baby out with the bathwater ;)

Some do, some don't. I argue more self-defense than home defense, but, if you want, I can point out the simple answer. If someone is home, a stay-at-home Mom for example, then a daylight break-in can occur while they're still there. That help?

You keep listing reasons why dogs are no good as home security, but could you perhaps explain why guns are *better* than dogs in most cases?

Alright. Short list to keep it simple.

1. You have total control over a gun, so long as you keep it well maintained. A dog is another animal and will act independently of you. Even the most well-trained dog is still not entirely at your command.
2. Dogs are easily disabled. They're stupid and act on base instincts. Toss a piece of beef towards them and they'll chase it and eat it. Close the door, leave them in the room, and that dog is gone. Or just hit it really hard. Dogs, like any animal, know when to retreat in the face of superior force. Only the most well trained attack dogs or well bred fighting dogs will do otherwise, many of which species are illegal here (I.E. Pitbulls), and even then, a knife into the dog's throat will stop it from moving within a few seconds. Afterwards, even if your dog succeeds in scaring them off, you will have a lot of vets bills to pay.
3. A gun can give you the element of surprise and control of a situation. If you let a dog loose, it barks and you might get in one good hit. Then down goes the dog and you have an angry criminal. If you get the gun up on them before they see you, yell freeze... They're either going to put their hands up, and the situation is over with no violence, or they'll try and run or attack, in which case you're already in attack position and can take them down.
4. Training dogs to attack is illegal here. Even if your dog DID defend your home successfully by biting the criminal, they would have to be put down afterward, most likely.
5. Dogs are expensive by comparison to a gun. Dogs require monthly food, lots of walking, attention, cleaning up after, grooming... They are living beings. A gun can be taken out once a week, more or less depending on the frequency of use, to be cleaned, and then it's good for a good while. Maintenance is extremely low on a firearm. People can also keep firearms in small homes in cities without worrying about the gun's health.

There you go. Five good reasons a gun is better than a dog.

Incidentally screwdriver: Oh I'm an electrician by trade and must have just left this screw driver in my pocket, crowbar: Um, I'm a construction worker by trade and must have forgotten I was walking around carrying a crowbar in my hand....

Or "I was on my way to a friend's house. He has a jammed door, I'm gonna get it open for him." If you're escaping from a crime scene and the weapon was identified, though, no excuse will get you out of suspicion.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 11, 2008, 09:37:24 am
Axel be careful about trying to take the moral high ground. You do not really have that footing. Also ad hominem is not something you can spew out as some sort of counter attack when ever someone call you a loser of idiot. Not that i approve of people using terms like that to describe the other side even if it happen to be valid sometime. Use it when it really matter. When someone say you a idiot therefor your idea is a idiotic. Which may not be true of course even of the the first part would be true. (or the reverse for that matter.)

As for the rest of this argument. Well it seems to going no wear fast.  Lets see something new brought to the table. Some empirical data for example would be nice.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 11, 2008, 10:01:27 am
Axel Gear ad hominem is basically attacking the attacker. Your definition is completely wrong. (also I didn't insult your intelligence, and I said you were talking out of your arse because your point wasn't even slightly based in reality)

It would be you making a point then me saying you do this for a living, something not related to the point at all, which makes you a bad person, so your argument must be wrong.

While I did use the phrase Johnny dimwit as a generalization that was supposed to be the point. I was generalizing those people who inist that guns are good for home defense.

As for the crowbar - a policeman's going to be far more suspicious of that and may even take some form of I.D. or even offer to escort you to the place you said, with a screwdriver it's a very inconspicuous thing if you're a workman, my dad's got about fifty and we find them all over the place.

And here are ten reasons why a dog is better than a gun:
1. It can defend your home when you're not there.
2. A criminal would be able to tell there's a dog in the house very easily ergo; good deterrent.
3. If you have children they can play with the dog and have fun, while if kids start playing with your gun, less fun.
4. A dog is a good companion if you're lonely, I doubt you could play fetch with your gun.
5. If you're asleep when someone breaks in a dog  can alert you to that and give you time to call the police and barricade our bedroom door. While a guns just going to be lying on your bedside cabinet while the criminal loots your house quietly.
6. In a confrontation if you have a gun then you're a risk to the aggressor and therefore a target, if you have your hand on your dog's lead on the other hand they're going to be focusing on the dog more.
7. The dog is independent of you, therefore it doesn't have any of your weaknesses and is much more alert than you and also have the advantage of being able to see in the dark, whereas the criminal breaking in can't.
8. Your dog doesn't have to kill the intruder, just scare them, believe me, seeing a snarling German Shepard latched onto your arm will do that. Also that kind of training is legal, it's the kind of training given to guard dogs that makes them illegal to keep as pets, because it heightens their aggression.
9. I don't have to worry about someone stealing my dog and then committing a crime with it.
10. You can always take your dog with you if you have to walk through a rough area and is very visible, try walking down the street with your gun in your hand and you'll be arrested PDQ.

Oh as an extra: Walking your dog is a great way to meet people - not really relevant to the debate, but, try walking down the streets with a lovable golden retriever and see how many people you end up chatting to.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 11, 2008, 10:12:55 am
Be sure just not to train dogs to be killing machines. Though this is mainly done by people who as little sense of right and wrong and these dogs make less then ideal guard dogs.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 11, 2008, 10:32:25 am
I took some time out from serious debate to make this satire. Its definitely satire and not any sort of attempt at making any points or launching ad hominem attacks or anything of that sort.
Now thats clear, heres a view of the world from which Axelgear is arguing:

(http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n125/Krakowsam/gunswork.png)

P.S. Satire. >_>
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Mr. Consideration on June 11, 2008, 11:13:57 am
The debate shall be decided by who can produce the best Cartoon.

Sam is winning by miles.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 11, 2008, 11:17:15 am
Axel Gear ad hominem is basically attacking the attacker. Your definition is completely wrong. (also I didn't insult your intelligence, and I said you were talking out of your arse because your point wasn't even slightly based in reality)

My family owns guns, you called gun collectors Johnny dimwit, and therefore by extension you're calling my family members dimwits. Personal attack. You're also saying that people who collect guns aren't intelligent.

Also, how is my point not based in reality? How do you even determine that? I've provided a reasonable argument but just because I don't agree with you, I must be wrong, yes?

It would be you making a point then me saying you do this for a living, something not related to the point at all, which makes you a bad person, so your argument must be wrong.

You're saying my intelligence and that of the people who share my point is somehow defunct. Sounds to me like you were making an argument that our point must be wrong based on your perception of our unintelligence.

While I did use the phrase Johnny dimwit as a generalization that was supposed to be the point. I was generalizing those people who inist that guns are good for home defense.

But.. Guns can be good for home defense. I can provide many stories of people who have used them for such. Not much detail but the story is succinct enough (http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=857831)

He defended his home, and his family. With a rifle, no less. The attacker also had a gun and clearly didn't mind being heard.

Another famous story is that of Susan Gonzales. She's so loved by the media because she hated guns but now loves them, since having one saved her and her family. Two robbers, with guns, broke into her house. She went to see who it was, gasped, ran, and held the door shut and called 911. Then was shot through the chest. Police didn't save her then and these guys clearly were willing to kill and weren't afraid of being heard, so no dog would've saved anyone. She grabbed her husband's gun from the nightstand, fired warning shots, and it didn't work. So we now know no dog, no alarm system, and no police force threat stopped them. So she does the logical thing: She shoots at them. One is critically injured and retreats from the house, and the other runs. Aware she's not afraid of him and thinking her husband may have a gun, he steals the keys to her truck, runs outside, runs over his partner in the process, and drives away. He's now spending life in prison.

She survived, her husband survived, and the criminals were stopped. Permanently.

As for the crowbar - a policeman's going to be far more suspicious of that and may even take some form of I.D. or even offer to escort you to the place you said, with a screwdriver it's a very inconspicuous thing if you're a workman, my dad's got about fifty and we find them all over the place.

Again, though, if they have no proof, you just tell them a friend's house, go there, and you're clear. Same with a screwdriver. Both are easily explained away. Unless they are very suspicious of you, there's no reason for them to arrest you.

1. It can defend your home when you're not there.

Unless criminals are willing to kill the dog. Then it won't do anything. Dogs can't call 911 or scream for help.

2. A criminal would be able to tell there's a dog in the house very easily ergo; good deterrent.

Unless they're not deterred by it. Putting little stickers that say "Alarm" on your window don't stop 'em, after all. Yes, it'll deter some criminals, but it won't stop them all.

3. If you have children they can play with the dog and have fun, while if kids start playing with your gun, less fun.

And if your kid starts abusing the dog, the dog can hurt them. It's all about teaching responsibility and making sure they're mature with them. Guns are also more predictable. You know what will set them off.

4. A dog is a good companion if you're lonely, I doubt you could play fetch with your gun.

Some people would prefer human company, or aren't willing to commit to caring for an animal. This has nothing to do with why they'd be better at defending you, though.

5. If you're asleep when someone breaks in a dog  can alert you to that and give you time to call the police and barricade our bedroom door. While a guns just going to be lying on your bedside cabinet while the criminal loots your house quietly.

Yes, but so can a broken window, a jiggling doorknob, etc. Admittedly, a dog is a good early warning system, but it's not a good deterrent if they're determined. It might warn you to a criminal's presence... But it won't save you from them.

6. In a confrontation if you have a gun then you're a risk to the aggressor and therefore a target, if you have your hand on your dog's lead on the other hand they're going to be focusing on the dog more.

You're a target because you can fight back. Risk-reward. If you're not willing to fight for your possessions, fine. I am more than happy to respect your choice, do whatever makes you feel safe. However, there are people willing to fight to keep their home secure. Shouldn't they be allowed to?

7. The dog is independent of you, therefore it doesn't have any of your weaknesses and is much more alert than you and also have the advantage of being able to see in the dark, whereas the criminal breaking in can't.

It's also unintelligent, easily distracted, and far more easy to predict and disable/kill than a human. Its advantages are matched by its disadvantages in these cases.

8. Your dog doesn't have to kill the intruder, just scare them, believe me, seeing a snarling German Shepard latched onto your arm will do that. Also that kind of training is legal, it's the kind of training given to guard dogs that makes them illegal to keep as pets, because it heightens their aggression.

If it's latched onto my arm, my thoughts are less about running and more about getting it to stop. If a dog bites my arm, I do what I have learned to do: Grab its throat and squeeze. The dog's arteries and throat are surprisingly easy to crush. If I had a weapon, I'd stab it in its eyes to make it let go, or, if it's long enough, to destroy the brain.

Again, a dog can deter criminals. I won't argue that. For criminals that aren't deterred by such things, though, it is no help.

9. I don't have to worry about someone stealing my dog and then committing a crime with it.

Well, someone could... It's just a lot easier to steal a gun than a dog. Still, though, I don't have to worry about someone killing my gun or my gun getting distracted.

10. You can always take your dog with you if you have to walk through a rough area and is very visible, try walking down the street with your gun in your hand and you'll be arrested PDQ.

You don't draw your gun until necessary. A 15 year old boy was ignored by most major media outlets when four men tried to rob him, he warned them not to, and drew a gun on them when they took his wallet. They ran, he was unharmed and got his wallet back.

Oh as an extra: Walking your dog is a great way to meet people - not really relevant to the debate, but, try walking down the streets with a lovable golden retriever and see how many people you end up chatting to.

It's true. I love dogs, they're great companions. It doesn't mean I don't want a firearm too, though. And, besides, ever heard of Gun Clubs?

The biggest problem I have is, a dog is putting your life in someone else's hands. Same with the police and an alarm system. Both are OTHER people being relied on to protect YOU. A gun lets you rely on yourself.


Axel be careful about trying to take the moral high ground. You do not really have that footing.

When did I do that? By pointing out that people trying to keep you off an even footing with them is wrong? Isn't it?

Also ad hominem is not something you can spew out as some sort of counter attack when ever someone call you a loser of idiot. Not that i approve of people using terms like that to describe the other side even if it happen to be valid sometime. Use it when it really matter. When someone say you a idiot therefor your idea is a idiotic. Which may not be true of course even of the the first part would be true. (or the reverse for that matter.)

Insults aren't the point of a debate, though. They're childish name-calling, often done in lieu of a real point. Someone may or may not be an idiot, it doesn't make the debate any more civil when you call them it.

As for the rest of this argument. Well it seems to going no wear fast.  Lets see something new brought to the table. Some empirical data for example would be nice.

Well, I provided the name of a scientist whose studies have yielded impressive results in regards to guns stopping crime and has had it corroborated numerous times. How is that?



Still, if you want a cartoon, I can provide one, but it shall take me a little while.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 11, 2008, 11:23:11 am
*sigh*

The only thing I'm going to bother asking is how the hell can someone steal a dog and commit a crime with it?

Other than that you're just going to continue arguing until the sun burns out.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 11, 2008, 11:25:13 am
Meh, I'll defend my position. Also, the primary use would be dog-fighting.

Also, just an interesting thing: Any EU member nation does have right to property (Except for three that refused to sign that protocol).
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 11, 2008, 11:28:16 am
dog fighting? I think you'll find most of those gods are actually a few specific breeds that have been trained, also they are usually legally owned as dog fighting is illegal enough without someone investigating dog-napping looking into it.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 11, 2008, 11:30:48 am
Yeah, I'll agree that stealing a dog is unlikely. In fact, probably next to zero in the odds. Still, we can't really ban something because someone might steal it, right? Otherwise, we'd have to ban a lot of things...
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 11, 2008, 11:34:21 am
Yeah, I'll agree that stealing a dog is unlikely. In fact, probably next to zero in the odds. Still, we can't really ban something because someone might steal it, right? Otherwise, we'd have to ban a lot of things...
Fail.

It's far easier to steal a gun, also far more likely to happen, and if it is, it's almost certain that it'll be used for crime somewhere down the line.

That's the difference, almost no chance to almost definitely.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 11, 2008, 11:34:47 am
Axelgear, just seeing how much you write on this forum, I was wondering.

Do you ever, say, go outside? Meet up with friends? Do anything at all?

Obviously asides from saving the World with your guns.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 11, 2008, 11:40:52 am
It's far easier to steal a gun, also far more likely to happen, and if it is, it's almost certain that it'll be used for crime somewhere down the line.

Well, naturally. If someone is a criminal and steals something, of course it'll be used in a crime. It'll be sold and used to fund further crimes, or it'll be used in another crime. That goes for anything. Any jewelery stolen will be used to fund them and likely lead to further crimes if they aren't caught. Trying to take guns from law abiding citizens doesn't stop them from being used in crimes, though.

That's the difference, almost no chance to almost definitely.

Well, most guns used are gained from relatives, drug dealers, or similar sources. About 274,000 are stolen in the US a year, with about 200 million legitimate, and up to 90 million illegitimate, firearms owned. That seems more like a drop in a bucket than anything else...

Still, it's not almost definitely. Our firearms have never been stolen and we've had them for years. If it was almost definite they'd be stolen, they'd have been gone long ago.


Axelgear, just seeing how much you write on this forum, I was wondering.

Do you ever, say, go outside? Meet up with friends? Do anything at all?

Obviously asides from saving the World with your guns.

Gee, condescend much?

I was supposed to go out with a friend today but plans made by my brother/father without my knowledge have taken that opportunity away. Still, it's been moved to Saturday instead.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Mr. Consideration on June 11, 2008, 12:08:15 pm
Axelgear, just seeing how much you write on this forum, I was wondering.

Do you ever, say, go outside? Meet up with friends? Do anything at all?

Obviously asides from saving the World with your guns.

That was slightly bitchy. Give the dude a break.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 11, 2008, 12:09:38 pm
Thanks, Mr. C.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 11, 2008, 12:09:59 pm
Axelgear, just seeing how much you write on this forum, I was wondering.

Do you ever, say, go outside? Meet up with friends? Do anything at all?

Obviously asides from saving the World with your guns.

That was slightly bitchy. Give the dude a break.

Yeh...

Sorry I'm in a bad mood today.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: LadyM on June 11, 2008, 12:10:09 pm
Please don't make things personal. Stick with the topic.

Also, the other gun control topic was found so the two have been merged with the current title. It won't affect the current debate at all, it just keeps it together.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 11, 2008, 12:20:07 pm
Yeh...

Sorry I'm in a bad mood today.

Well, if there's anything I can do, just PM me.

And thanks, Lady M. I was wondering why the page count went up...
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Daxx on June 12, 2008, 09:22:14 am
I was chatting to my girlfriend the other day (she's American, so she had some valuable insight to the discussion) and we decided that quite simply you won't ever change your mind - just like you won't ever change your mind about religion no matter how much your arguments are ripped apart - so I don't really need to address those arguments at all, because if I were to do so, the special pleading quotient of the thread will be jacked up ad infinitum until everyone else gets bored and leaves, and nothing would have changed.

However, I can make an assessment of the policy decision I would make if I were a social planner, in order to express my viewpoint to neutral observers without having the line of discussion dictated by following another's argument. Watch this space for an uberpost/essay at some point in the future when I get some time.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 12, 2008, 10:13:40 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJCUglNpFTU
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: emmet on June 12, 2008, 10:34:38 am
A lot of people don't actually realize guns push back when shot, they think it's just like in the movies... ::)
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 12, 2008, 11:38:15 am
Also ad hominem is not something you can spew out as some sort of counter attack when ever someone call you a loser of idiot. Not that i approve of people using terms like that to describe the other side even if it happen to be valid sometime. Use it when it really matter. When someone say you a idiot therefor your idea is a idiotic. Which may not be true of course even of the the first part would be true. (or the reverse for that matter.)

Insults aren't the point of a debate, though. They're childish name-calling, often done in lieu of a real point. Someone may or may not be an idiot, it doesn't make the debate any more civil when you call them it.

Just know that using ad hominem as a counter when it really does not apply will not make you look smart. It will only make you look like a fool.

And i do not think i have to repeat my self in saying that name calling something that should be avoided. And all be careful about using stereotypes as that often just piss off the other side.

As for the rest of this argument. Well it seems to going no wear fast.  Lets see something new brought to the table. Some empirical data for example would be nice.

Well, I provided the name of a scientist whose studies have yielded impressive results in regards to guns stopping crime and has had it corroborated numerous times. How is that?

I may have missed as i do not follow this topic that carefully but where is the link?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 12, 2008, 11:50:48 am
Not to mention with issues like this there are almost an equal number of studies proving both sides points. It all deoends on what the experimenter initially set out to prove.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Legodragonxp on June 12, 2008, 02:08:57 pm
And here are ten reasons why a dog is better than a gun:

They are trying to ban dogs here. Sorry. You'll have to buy a gun.

http://wcco.com/local/dog.attack.breeds.2.368167.html

LOL

-Lego
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: /lurk on June 12, 2008, 02:44:53 pm
WHY DIDN'T THEIR GUNS PROTECT THEM?

CLEARLY THEY NEED MORE GUNS.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 12, 2008, 03:44:47 pm
I was chatting to my girlfriend the other day (she's American, so she had some valuable insight to the discussion) and we decided that quite simply you won't ever change your mind - just like you won't ever change your mind about religion no matter how much your arguments are ripped apart - so I don't really need to address those arguments at all, because if I were to do so, the special pleading quotient of the thread will be jacked up ad infinitum until everyone else gets bored and leaves, and nothing would have changed.

"You won't agree to my point, you're just too stubborn" or "You won't agree, it's a difference in how you think"?

Also, for the record, what does being an American have to do with anything? America is like a lot of different countries, rammed together. Where she is will definitely influence her viewpoint.

However, I can make an assessment of the policy decision I would make if I were a social planner, in order to express my viewpoint to neutral observers without having the line of discussion dictated by following another's argument. Watch this space for an uberpost/essay at some point in the future when I get some time.

I'm interested in hearing your views, actually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJCUglNpFTU

Actually, when it's not people mishandling the guns (Like holding the trigger when not in a shooting situation), well... Some of them have legitimate reasons to be thrown back. Like the woman shooting a Desert Eagle and getting whipped in the face. That gas-powered piece of work would throw anyone who hadn't shot it before. And the two guys on the same range getting knocked down sound like they're shooting beowulf's or bigger.

WHY DIDN'T THEIR GUNS PROTECT THEM?

CLEARLY THEY NEED MORE GUNS.

... I know that's meant in jest but the mere suggestion that you might think that is my viewpoint is distressing...

Just know that using ad hominem as a counter when it really does not apply will not make you look smart. It will only make you look like a fool.

How didn't it apply? He said the people I was arguing for, and myself, and my family, were dimwits. Suggesting we lack intelligence in any manner is an ad hominem attack as it is an attempt to try and weaken my argument in the eyes of other people by suggesting that there is a deficiency in something not related to this debate.

That's an Ad Hominem, Yokto. Pretty much all name-calling and insults fit this term, actually.

And i do not think i have to repeat my self in saying that name calling something that should be avoided. And all be careful about using stereotypes as that often just piss off the other side.

Have I...

A. Called people names
B. Stereotyped people

At any time in this debate? Or was this in reference to someone else?

I may have missed as i do not follow this topic that carefully but where is the link?

Which?

Not to mention with issues like this there are almost an equal number of studies proving both sides points. It all deoends on what the experimenter initially set out to prove.

Such as?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 12, 2008, 03:53:43 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJCUglNpFTU

Actually, when it's not people mishandling the guns (Like holding the trigger when not in a shooting situation), well... Some of them have legitimate reasons to be thrown back. Like the woman shooting a Desert Eagle and getting whipped in the face. That gas-powered piece of work would throw anyone who hadn't shot it before. And the two guys on the same range getting knocked down sound like they're shooting beowulf's or bigger.

That wasn't actually a thing to be debated. It was just a humorous video involving guns. I don't assume that all people handling guns are that inept.

That would just be stupid.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 12, 2008, 04:07:31 pm
That wasn't actually a thing to be debated. It was just a humorous video involving guns. I don't assume that all people handling guns are that inept.

I know. I didn't assume it was. I just felt it was worth pointing out. I've seen people shooting both and when you see a well-muscled man straining a bit to keep the gun steady when he shoots a Deagle, you know it has kick. As for Beowulfs... They make a BIG bang.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 12, 2008, 04:14:59 pm
Such as? Have you seen the conflicting research on violent video games?

I have neither the time, nor the inclination to look at a cross section on studies involving guns and crime. So I'm not going to provide you with examples and then have to deal with your inevitable follow up posts because I'm tired of your repetitive act.

Seeing as how Daxx has basically thrown down the gauntlet, and I have to say he is much more eloquent with getting his point across than I am, (I only say this because we're on the same side in this issue) I think I'll sit back and enjoy the show.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 12, 2008, 04:18:05 pm
FFS Axel! Why do you always try to read in stuff in what i say? I never said you did name call! Where did i say that? No where! That was to all who have been name calling! I do not think that i should have to call out there names! Bah.... You really annoy me you know that?

And by the way! I know what Ad Hominem is! It not name calling or using stereotypes per say. It is attacking the person rather then attacking the issue! Though the is a small difference it is still there! I will not debate it any more!

And no! I could not find you linking to any facts! I may have missed it as i said!
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: SmileyMan on June 12, 2008, 04:21:47 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJCUglNpFTU

I remember seeing the full clip off the police officer and the gun misfiring. The bullet hit the man the officer was arresting, and the officer started to panic. I think the man died.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 12, 2008, 04:47:18 pm
I remember seeing the full clip off the police officer and the gun misfiring. The bullet hit the man the officer was arresting, and the officer started to panic. I think the man died.

Y'know, I'd say things like "So should we take guns from officers" or "Are officers really that well trained" and so on, but not all officers are idiots who don't keep their finger off the trigger. It's an unfair argument and an unfair statement to suggest they all do that.

As for the incident itself, does anyone know where/when this occurred?

Such as? Have you seen the conflicting research on violent video games?

Yes, I have. Crimes clearly induced by video games are few and far between. Even if video games did cause violence, though, it'd not be reason to take them away because of freedom of choice, conscience, and property.

I have neither the time, nor the inclination to look at a cross section on studies involving guns and crime. So I'm not going to provide you with examples and then have to deal with your inevitable follow up posts because I'm tired of your repetitive act.

Act? I'm quite serious about what I've said. Still, there is no doubt guns are used in crime, used to stop crime, and are rendered impossible to use in certain situations by prepared, aggressive, or lucky criminals.

Seeing as how Daxx has basically thrown down the gauntlet, and I have to say he is much more eloquent with getting his point across than I am, (I only say this because we're on the same side in this issue) I think I'll sit back and enjoy the show.

Well, in truth, I am interested in his argument. The statistical argument, the logical argument, and the philosophical argument should all be very interesting to see from his perspective...

FFS Axel! Why do you always try to read in stuff in what i say? I never said you did name call! Where did i say that? No where! That was to all who have been name calling! I do not think that i should have to call out there names! Bah.... You really annoy me you know that?

You read things in what I say. I suppose we're both just reading too much into what each other says.

And by the way! I know what Ad Hominem is! It not name calling or using stereotypes per say. It is attacking the person rather then attacking the issue! Though the is a small difference it is still there! I will not debate it any more!

Calling people on my side of the debate dimwits and saying people who would agree with me are unintelligent... How is that not attacking the person instead of the issue?

And no! I could not find you linking to any facts! I may have missed it as i said!

What link(s) do you want? Links to what? What point do you want statistics for?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 12, 2008, 05:01:35 pm
And by the way! I know what Ad Hominem is! It not name calling or using stereotypes per say. It is attacking the person rather then attacking the issue! Though the is a small difference it is still there! I will not debate it any more!

Calling people on my side of the debate dimwits and saying people who would agree with me are unintelligent... How is that not attacking the person instead of the issue?
I will not debate it any more.

And no! I could not find you linking to any facts! I may have missed it as i said!

What link(s) do you want? Links to what? What point do you want statistics for?

You said you had posted information and i said i had not seen any and that i might have missed them..... -_-
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Gorman Conall on June 12, 2008, 05:03:46 pm
Axel word of advice. I am on your side on the gun control issue however i have learned something in my time here.

When you walk in to a Grenade (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/grenade.htm)

Prepare to deal with the Swarm (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/swarm.htm)

Regrettably as much as i love this forum that is just the way it is.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 12, 2008, 05:14:39 pm
Something tells me that those links will get people annoyed with you, Gorman, but thanks for posting them anyway.

I will not debate it any more.

What's to debate? I linked the definition and it had an example keenly similar to this situation.

You said you had posted information and i said i had not seen any and that i might have missed them..... -_-

I've posted a fair amount, actually. I just want to know what pieces people want and I can post them.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 12, 2008, 05:16:43 pm
Yes but i have missed then... Is that so hard to understand?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 12, 2008, 05:22:41 pm
I understand it. I'm actually trying to help. I'm offering to get you whatever thing you missed that you want. If you didn't mean anything in particular, though, just ask when it comes up.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 12, 2008, 05:30:55 pm
Well you could post a link or something where you present any research. After all this is Internet and Hyper links are one of the core features of WWW. >_>
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 12, 2008, 05:40:47 pm
Well, okay... I don't have anything specific to respond to but...

Here's an interesting thing about CCP's with links to further info (http://www.nowandfutures.com/d2/GunsStopCrime_GunsSaveLivesfact_sheet.pdf).

One about the numbers of guns used in self defense and why there's a discrepancy in numbers (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html)

A chart from Wikipedia about where people get guns to use in crimes from in the US (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Firearmsources.svg/516px-Firearmsources.svg.png)

There, a few links off the top of my head.

Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 12, 2008, 05:46:28 pm
Now i know you did not post these before. Well i will have a look at them and maybe tell you what i think.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: MetallicDragon on June 12, 2008, 05:47:02 pm
Is anyone here for a complete ban on guns?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 12, 2008, 05:47:27 pm
I think I posted the chart. The other two, no, I have not. My fault for that.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: SBD on June 13, 2008, 01:12:15 am
Is anyone here for a complete ban on guns?

How would farmers put down animals? bludgeon them to death?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Brutus on June 13, 2008, 02:39:35 am
farmers etc are allowed guns in Britain and most countries in the world.

but i beleive that guns have no place in the hands of any idiot in the streets or any other regular civilians.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 13, 2008, 03:57:39 am
Is anyone here for a complete ban on guns?

How would farmers put down animals? bludgeon them to death?

There are a few ways to kill animal. I believe that the most common way it to use a bolt pistol that is not a firearm is the transitional sense.



Btw Axel i have read some of the links you have posted. The first one seems a bit shaky and i could not find the source for some of the links it points to. Empty claims are bad independed of who said it.  The other parts look a bit more promising but i have to study it a bit more in detail. Also that last link does not really show anything. At least it i not put in to any real context so it does not really support you argument i think. (or the other way.)
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 13, 2008, 05:00:45 am
There are a few ways to kill animal. I believe that the most common way it to use a bolt pistol that is not a firearm is the transitional sense.

Didn't you see No Country For Old Men?  ;)
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 13, 2008, 05:07:35 am
Btw Axel i have read some of the links you have posted. The first one seems a bit shaky and i could not find the source for some of the links it points to. Empty claims are bad independed of who said it.  The other parts look a bit more promising but i have to study it a bit more in detail. Also that last link does not really show anything. At least it i not put in to any real context so it does not really support you argument i think. (or the other way.)

Yeah, I did say some of the links were dead there. If I didn't, I meant to. I can get others later for you if you want, but I am sort of tired at the moment.

As for the pie chart is simply to show where people get guns to use in crime and, primarily, they are not gotten through legal channels

but i beleive that guns have no place in the hands of any idiot in the streets or any other regular civilians.

Right, we've established you believe that then. Now.... Why? Why give them to farmers and police, who are just people like you and me, and not a normal person?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 13, 2008, 09:24:28 am
There are a few ways to kill animal. I believe that the most common way it to use a bolt pistol that is not a firearm is the transitional sense.

Didn't you see No Country For Old Men?  ;)

No i did not. I am therefor not sure what you are talking about. But i know there is more then one way to kill a animal. (They did after all manage to slaughter animals before the gun was invented :P)



About the pie chart Axel. When i look at it i get rather the opposite picture. And that is that most guns directly come form legal use. Retail guns and Family or Friends are about 50%. If you add in the others that does not look to be directly illegal this grow even more.

But it is a hard thing to read.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 13, 2008, 09:31:52 am
If you get a gun from a relative, and they give it to you, and you don't have a license, that's illegal. If you do have a license, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to take it. Still, some guns are legal, yes. Legal things will be used in crimes. People should be more careful with giving their weapons to people.

I could go on listing things but, in all honesty, it's not worth it to me. I still don't understand why public comfort should override people's rights/potential necessities (It may be necessary for you to defend yourself, but it might not). If I don't feel safe with the police having guns, should we take them away for my comfort?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: /lurk on June 13, 2008, 09:35:15 am
Axelgear please don't post charts that disprove the point that you're trying to make:

Family or friend (35%), Gun show (2%), Flea Market (2%), Pawnshop (4%), Retail store (15%) and Borrowed/Given (3%) comes to 61 percent of those guns being legal, even without counting "Other" and "Stolen" assuming the people they were stolen from owned them legally.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 13, 2008, 09:42:47 am
If they were taken with a license, bought legally with proper exchange of permits, etc. Sadly, it doesn't say these things. There's a lot missing, which is why that 35% is dubious. Pawnshops and Flea Markets are doubtful to transfer paperwork too. The only solid legal one is the retail store and the only solid illegal ones are the stolen/drug dealer ones.

As for posting things, whether things support or disprove my point, I'll be honest and post 'em. Everyone should do that. You argue with the truth, not just things that support you.

Again, though, I have asked the same thing again and again and no-one has really answered that point. Where does personal comfort override people's rights?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 13, 2008, 10:07:36 am
I definitely think the police should have them. I mean, it's their job. If anything they should use them more.

On the other hand, I don't think the general public should have them.

I mean, a gun is built with its purpose entirely to kill people.

That's why they were invented and produced.

That's why they are as good as they are today.

Don't argue that fact.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 13, 2008, 10:08:09 am
Well i guess the point is Axel that it could support ether side as the facts do not tell us a lot in this case. Though as i see it those 35% that are from Family or Friends are most likely legal guns even if they have been stolen by the user to commit a crime. So it is like that safe storage of guns are probably the biggest issue. I know in Sweden is one of the biggest issues (if not the major one). Most guns used in Sweden in crimes are stole i believe. And often the issue is that these weapons where not stored in a correct manner. (Even the military have lost guns showing that is a serious problem that have been used in criminal activities. Such laxed policy in storing guns must be stopped.)



Oh btw. Not every police have carried a gun (or does so now.) I prefer none lethal weapons my self for the average law enforcer.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 13, 2008, 10:15:04 am
I'm fine with storing them safely. If it isn't somehow in your possession (I.E. In your nightstand while you're in bed, in your holster, on the table while you repair it, etc.), you should lock it in a safe or at least put a trigger lock on it. Take some sort of precaution, really.

That said, though, you can't be blamed if something of yours is stolen and then used in a crime, right?

I definitely think the police should have them. I mean, it's their job. If anything they should use them more.

I think you mean have them, not use them. That, I agree with.

On the other hand, I don't think the general public should have them.

Why not? The police are just human beings, like you and I, and I want a gun for the same reason they're granted to the police: To defend myself and others.

I mean, a gun is built with its purpose entirely to kill people.

That's why they were invented and produced.

That's why they are as good as they are today.

Don't argue that fact.

Weren't sharp tools created to kill? All knives developed from stone tools exclusively to kill, their secondary use has only developed over time.

Still, though, that repetitive point aside, any time a gun is used, you can pretty much guarantee they're used to kill. That's an amoral thing. The why of it is what matters. If having the power to kill was somehow immoral, we should take away that power from everyone, police and military included.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 13, 2008, 10:20:46 am
Well i am just making a guess here but i think that knives where develop to cut stuff and not to be use as weapons primary. But i am not sure. A rock tend to be deadly without a sharp edge. But i guess not one can prove it ether way.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 13, 2008, 10:21:02 am

On the other hand, I don't think the general public should have them.

Why not? The police are just human beings, like you and I, and I want a gun for the same reason they're granted to the police: To defend myself and others.

But you shouldn't defend yourself. That is the job of the police and that's why they should have them.

For a start they are trained to use them.

And otherwise you would just end up with militias.

Seriously, if you put the law into citizens' hands then, well it wouldn't be good
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 13, 2008, 10:37:07 am
But you shouldn't defend yourself. That is the job of the police and that's why they should have them.

Ex-CUSE me!? ... *Deep breath*

Okay, well, let's go over a few things.

1. Where did the police begin? As local militias. Normal people gathered their own weapons and organized to defend their towns. Then, people organized further and paid a few to guard the town full time. The police are normal people who are given weapons and supplies. By us, for us. How are they anything less than normal people?

2. I WANT to defend myself. The police can help, sure. Let them. I welcome their assistance. It doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself. If you rely on the police, an alarm, a dog... You're relying on someone else to defend YOU. I would much rather be allowed to defend myself. Sure, if I can, I'll let the police handle it, but if my life is in imminent danger, 911 isn't really going to help that much...

3. If we shouldn't defend ourselves, then the whole basis for the police evaporates. You can't really say "You shouldn't defend yourself" and then say that the police have the job to do so because the police were created as an attempt at self-defense. They are inherently flawed to a degree in that respect, but that's why they came to be.

For a start they are trained to use them.

And that makes them less susceptible to kill people... How? A part of licensing is that you have to undergo simple training. A part of CCP's, in some places, is learning to shoot and carry safely in public, and the gun club my family visits regularly runs training courses akin to police training. In fact, many members have run training courses FOR the police. We license people to use cars because we know they're at least marginally capable with them and more people are killed by cars than anything else. That's why I'm okay with gun licensing; because you're letting competent people get what they need to protect themselves.

And otherwise you would just end up with militias.

The police are a militia. They're a militia being paid full time. They are ordinary people who have taken up arms to defend the populace. They are more regulated and regimented, but it doesn't make them stop being militia.

Seriously, if you put the law into citizens' hands then, well it wouldn't be good

Well, the law IS in our hands, but that's not what I want so much as being able to defend oneself.



Edit: As to Yokto's statement, it used to be, in Western society when swords were still about, you carried a sword everywhere. The sword was also your table knife and multi-tool. It was used for everything but it was created, first and foremost, as a weapon. This was in the days long before the fork came about, really. Since guns have arisen, swords have declined, though, and so has the usage of knives as a killing tool.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 13, 2008, 10:44:17 am
Well the police have extensive training and screening. Yes they are normal people, but they are normal people that are not likely to go on a killing spree.

I know they aren't superhuman.
 
And again, if you allow everyone to constantly carry guns in order to use them for self defence, what is stopping someone shooting somebody they didn't like and claiming self defence? And what is stopping people being killed for minor crimes, such as just walking across somebodies property?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 13, 2008, 10:55:06 am
Well the police have extensive training and screening. Yes they are normal people, but they are normal people that are not likely to go on a killing spree.

Seeing as how a family friend was murdered by a police officer, I'm inclined to disagree. She was a soccer mother who was killed in cold blood. Coincidentally, it took six years to get to trial, during which time he was walking free. He killed her while off duty, by the way.

A police officer, trained and screened, committed murder. The same screening used for them is used for gun licenses. The extensive training typically amounts to the same given at gun ranges, though gun ranges don't always have the top-notch facilities or courses that the police have and they usually instruct them better on how to store the weapon.

The training that my mother and brother had to go through to get black-badge certified was very similar to what police officers undergo at ranges, and they do Mozambique shoots for fun (Which are also quite similar to the shooting stuff police officers do but is more demanding in some ways and less demanding in others). To get a CCP in some places, you also have to undergo police-style training to a higher degree.

So, people who shoot have to be trained and they have to be screened in manners very much like those given to police. Are you going to drop those reasons?

And again, if you allow everyone to constantly carry guns in order to use them for self defence, what is stopping someone shooting somebody they didn't like and claiming self defence? And what is stopping people being killed for minor crimes, such as just walking across somebodies property?

What's stopping someone from stabbing someone they don't like and claiming self defense? Or running them over? And signs like "Trespassers Will Be Shot" exist for a reason. You're also supposed to yell "Stop or I will shoot", though you're unlikely to be charged if you shoot first because, let's be honest, if you don't know if they have a weapon or not, your life could be at risk and you have reason to shoot. Police officers can do this, so why not the average citizen?


Edit: Another fun reason why not to give Police Officers all the power (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6BsZUuZmr4&amp;feature=related). Sure, the police are typically there to protect you from criminals, but what happens when the police ARE the criminals? These guys ganged up and beat a man and then tried to suppress right to free speech. They got out on bail.

Yep, they commit violent assault, try to hide evidence, and then GET OUT ON BAIL.

So much for the idea that police don't commit mass-murder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gAWRcOYUtY&NR=1)

Officer's "training" leads to a five year old dieing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD3ZYFOSj2Q&amp;feature=related)

I don't think cops are bad people, though there are bad cops. Just because some people are bad, don't take away the ability to defend themselves from all of them.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: /lurk on June 13, 2008, 11:22:34 am
Seeing as how a family friend was murdered by a police officer, I'm inclined to disagree. She was a soccer mother who was killed in cold blood. Coincidentally, it took six years to get to trial, during which time he was walking free. He killed her while off duty, by the way.

A police officer, trained and screened, committed murder. The same screening used for them is used for gun licenses. The extensive training typically amounts to the same given at gun ranges, though gun ranges don't always have the top-notch facilities or courses that the police have and they usually instruct them better on how to store the weapon.

What did I tell you about making points that contradict your argument?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 13, 2008, 11:25:22 am
How is this counter to my argument? She had no gun, she tried to escape, and she failed. He did, she died. Fat lot of good the police did, especially since one of them killed her.

What I'm saying is, there's no reason to give guns to police officers and not to the average person because there's good and evil examples of both. In fact, police officers can be the worst because they get preferential treatment quite often. There's no reason to give them to police officers and not to normal people.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 13, 2008, 11:28:43 am
I'm not saying police officers should have guns all the time, just whilst on duty.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: /lurk on June 13, 2008, 11:30:43 am
How is this counter to my argument? She had no gun, she tried to escape, and she failed. He did, she died. Fat lot of good the police did, especially since one of them killed her.

What I'm saying is, there's no reason to give guns to police officers and not to the average person because there's good and evil examples of both. In fact, police officers can be the worst because they get preferential treatment quite often. There's no reason to give them to police officers and not to normal people.

He apparently passed all the screening and licensing requirements to own a gun, bought one and used it to kill someone.

If he didn't have a gun, your woman would probably still be alive. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 13, 2008, 11:33:43 am
Axel swords have never been common. At least not with the common man. the common man owned axes and knifes at best. This is of course depended a lot on what era and part of the world you are looking at. Also in many societies weapons where regulated. One example.

Quote from: Roman historian Tacitus
The Swedes (Suiones) had no right to carry arms, but that the weapons were locked inside and protected by a slave only to be distributed when they were attacked by enemies.

(quote taken form Wikipedia. Topic about Thralls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrall))

In that sense its not that different form the gun today. Those that tend to own the most guns tend to be those with higher income. At least based on one of the pdf files that was used as a source of one of the links you gave.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 13, 2008, 03:11:43 pm
Axel swords have never been common. At least not with the common man. the common man owned axes and knifes at best. This is of course depended a lot on what era and part of the world you are looking at. Also in many societies weapons where regulated.

And in many they weren't. Swords, axes, knives... They all carried a multi-use weapon and short swords were not uncommon.

In that sense its not that different form the gun today. Those that tend to own the most guns tend to be those with higher income. At least based on one of the pdf files that was used as a source of one of the links you gave.

.... Should I point out that the Romans were ruling over the Swedes as tyrants and took their weapons to keep them from kicking them out and taking over their own country?

Naaaah....

I'm not saying police officers should have guns all the time, just whilst on duty.

In case you didn't notice, all the cases of the videos I posted referred to officers while on duty. Besides, what makes them any more competent/trustworthy when on duty than off?

He apparently passed all the screening and licensing requirements to own a gun, bought one and used it to kill someone.

If he didn't have a gun, your woman would probably still be alive. Just sayin'.

Well, he was a murderer, so I imagine he could've gotten one anyway. He was a police officer, so he knows who to talk to if he wanted one illegally, and the gun given to him was government-issued. He could've also used a knife or an axe. People have killed with both. Or a piece of pipe. Or his bare hands.

Even if he didn't have a gun, he could've killed her. If she had a gun, she could've fought back.

Still, if you want to argue that, shouldn't we stop police officers having guns?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: /lurk on June 13, 2008, 03:27:52 pm
Here in reasonably-sane-land, police officers don't ubiquitously carry guns. That's because they don't need to worry about being shot, because there aren't enough guns around for that to be realistic threat to the average officer. That's because of gun control. The end result of all of this is fewer people getting shot, which is a desirable thing.

I think your "people can be killed by lead pipes, so there's no point in gun control" is cute, and also really stupid. I can knock it down (like it's been knocked down every other time you brought it up) in one of two ways by exaggerating it: "You're taking away my sarin gas and cluster bombs? Fine, I'll just use a lead pipe instead!" or just pointing out how meaningless it really is. I mean, if you're that worried about someone coming at you with a lead pipe while you're separated from your precious guns, why not just carry your own lead pipe around? Or, better yet, just run away.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 13, 2008, 03:30:35 pm
Here in reasonably-sane-land, police officers don't ubiquitously carry guns. That's because they don't need to worry about being shot, because there aren't enough guns around for that to be realistic threat to the average officer. That's because of gun control. The end result of all of this is fewer people getting shot, which is a desirable thing.

Tell that to Russian cops.

I think your "people can be killed by lead pipes, so there's no point in gun control" is cute, and also really stupid. I can knock it down (like it's been knocked down every other time you brought it up) in one of two ways by exaggerating it: "You're taking away my sarin gas and cluster bombs? Fine, I'll just use a lead pipe instead!" or just pointing out how meaningless it really is. I mean, if you're that worried about someone coming at you with a lead pipe while you're separated from your precious guns, why not just carry your own lead pipe around? Or, better yet, just run away.

Sarin gas is illegal due to its inability for accurate use. Explosives are the same. Still, guns are easier to control a situation with. If you are trying to kill someone, a gun might make it easier to do the job with.

As for the lead pipe bit, believe it or not, it's illegal here...

Oh, and I can't really run. Until recently, I've had nasty conditions with my feet that's left me largely sedentary. I've had it fixed, but running is still a limited capacity for me. I'm underweight and have so little muscle on me that my spine is crooked.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: 762 on June 13, 2008, 03:36:34 pm
I'm against gun control just because in any truly free society, the people should always be able to change the government. Some governments don't allow themselves to be changed, and it takes a revolution to change them. That's why it's important to let people have guns.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 13, 2008, 03:45:47 pm
That is one reason and a very good one, 762. That's why it was enshrined in the US Constitution.

I should also add that, if the woman, whose name I will not mention, had a gun, she could've fought back. The murderer, a police officer, didn't buy his gun legally. He got it from the government, and even if he couldn't have gotten it through the straight and narrow, he could have stolen one from evidence, requisitioned one, or gotten one in other various illegal ways. The government took her ability to get a gun away, though, as she was a law abiding citizen. Her death may have been unavoidable, he could've killed her without her having seen it coming but she could've also fought back and won. In the end, no-one knows whether she would have lived or died if she had a gun, but the fact is, she would have had a chance.

Edit: Again, I have to ask, why grant the usage of firearms to police officers and not the law abiding citizen? And why can public comfort (Not safety, as England/Wales is proof that, before and after the extreme restriction and near-banning of guns, crime rates and numbers actually went up relating to guns being used in them) override personal rights?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 13, 2008, 05:14:24 pm
Axel swords have never been common. At least not with the common man. the common man owned axes and knifes at best. This is of course depended a lot on what era and part of the world you are looking at. Also in many societies weapons where regulated.

And in many they weren't. Swords, axes, knives... They all carried a multi-use weapon and short swords were not uncommon.
[/quote]
I do not know any era where the common man have used swords. Be it short or long swords. Farmers normally used farming implements to defend them self. Yes sometimes even going to war with just a pitchfork and a scythe. (Which can be deadly weapons in the right hand but hardly designed for the job.)

But if you have some facts about how common sword usage was during its glory days then please present them.
In that sense its not that different form the gun today. Those that tend to own the most guns tend to be those with higher income. At least based on one of the pdf files that was used as a source of one of the links you gave.

.... Should I point out that the Romans were ruling over the Swedes as tyrants and took their weapons to keep them from kicking them out and taking over their own country?

Naaaah....


What are you talking about? There have never been a Roman ruling over Sweden. I see you have never studied Swedish history unlike some of use. The Romans never got further then Germania which they never did manage to successfully conquer.

Of course back then there was no real Kingdom of Sweden. Just a lot of small tribes. But still.

Where do you get these ideas form anyway? >_>
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 13, 2008, 05:42:08 pm
I do not know any era where the common man have used swords. Be it short or long swords. Farmers normally used farming implements to defend them self. Yes sometimes even going to war with just a pitchfork and a scythe. (Which can be deadly weapons in the right hand but hardly designed for the job.)

But if you have some facts about how common sword usage was during its glory days then please present them.

Well, it's not exactly like statistics are common from then. I don't have any statistics to say that swords were rare or common during those periods. The closest thing I can find quickly is this link (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/popular-but-false-myths-about-medieval-swords.html). The answer is that swords were fairly common, but it doesn't go deep.

What are you talking about? There have never been a Roman ruling over Sweden. I see you have never studied Swedish history unlike some of use. The Romans never got further then Germania which they never did manage to successfully conquer.

Of course back then there was no real Kingdom of Sweden. Just a lot of small tribes. But still.

Where do you get these ideas form anyway? >_>

Ah. I assumed you were quoting a Roman historian due to a Roman occupation at that time.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 13, 2008, 06:05:27 pm
Quote
While swords were expensive and sometimes difficult to obtain, there were commoners who not only possessed swords, but also were quite proficient with them

Quote taken form this page. Like you said it did not go in deep in to what people in medieval Europe used. But I do mention correctly that swords where expensive. Sure there where commoners that used swords. Mainly people living in cities. But those where rare. Most people live out in the country during this time and worked as farmers. Remember when they talk about commoners they talk about people that do not belong to nobility or the clergy. The clergy by the way seldom used swords. Pretty much only the Military Orders used swords when it came to the clergy (Crusaders.)

I know that during the viking age only those with a lot of wealth could afford a sword. Axes and spears being more common amongst the average viking. (This probably was also depended on the quality. Some swords are known to be of very poor quality made of soft iron wiles others being made for high quality Pattern welding steel)

And no i mentored the historian because he happened to document what was going on in what they viewed as the barbaric north.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Clockwerk on June 13, 2008, 06:09:55 pm
I'm against gun control just because in any truly free society, the people should always be able to change the government. Some governments don't allow themselves to be changed, and it takes a revolution to change them. That's why it's important to let people have guns.

I agree with this statement.  The United States Constitution was created as a result of one revolution.  Not the one againest Great Britian, but because of one led by Daniel Shays that helped expose the weakness of the Articles of Confederation forcing people to gather to fix it which led to the Constitutional Convention and the Constitution.  Until Shay's Rebellion very few of the states tried to fix the problems of a weak central Government, but once it occured the problem could not be ignored.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 13, 2008, 06:29:27 pm
Quote taken form this page. Like you said it did not go in deep in to what people in medieval Europe used. But I do mention correctly that swords where expensive. Sure there where commoners that used swords. Mainly people living in cities. But those where rare. Most people live out in the country during this time and worked as farmers. Remember when they talk about commoners they talk about people that do not belong to nobility or the clergy. The clergy by the way seldom used swords. Pretty much only the Military Orders used swords when it came to the clergy (Crusaders.)

City livers, especially in the Renaissance, carried swords. The farmers carried whatever was available. As for Crusaders, remember that, by and large, Crusaders were just civilians answering the church's call.

Still, you're right. The farmers didn't need swords because they already had similar weapons. It was the people who lived in the more populated cities who carried swords.

I know that during the viking age only those with a lot of wealth could afford a sword. Axes and spears being more common amongst the average viking. (This probably was also depended on the quality. Some swords are known to be of very poor quality made of soft iron wiles others being made for high quality Pattern welding steel)

It all depends on region, time, availability.... Sadly, we don't have much information for the times. You're right, though, that it is primarily city dwellers who carried swords.

And no i mentored the historian because he happened to document what was going on in what they viewed as the barbaric north.

Alright. Clearly, this didn't happen everywhere, though.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Daxx on June 15, 2008, 12:31:40 pm
At least try to back that up.

I know from the research that goes into the historical reenactment I do (and my girlfriend has done research on this as well, as she's currently pointing out to me) that many people carried knives, but swords were carried by almost no-one. The amount of work and materials that go into making a sword is extremely prohibitive. Swords require two cutting edges (requiring high quality steel) and a lot of working to create. They were status symbols for the gentry, but barely anyone carried anything more than a knife.

PS. Apparently according to my gf, murder rates in medieval Oxford were 110 per 100,000, almost all taking place between adult men, and were spontaneous for the most part, and 26/36 homicides used knives.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: HanianKnight on June 15, 2008, 01:14:43 pm
Why is everyone talking about knives?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Gorman Conall on June 15, 2008, 01:16:14 pm
Why is everyone talking about knives?

Guns are like so five minutes ago!!

knives are the *in* thing now geez everybody knows that!

*snap* *snap*
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: HanianKnight on June 15, 2008, 01:17:06 pm
DAYUM!

I got told.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Mr. Consideration on June 15, 2008, 01:35:36 pm
Why is everyone talking about knives?

Why, This is the Knife Control topic! Where else would we discuss Knives?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 15, 2008, 01:36:38 pm
Before I say anything, apparently I was wrong about swords. Doesn't mean people didn't carry around a sharp weapon wherever they went, be it an axe or a knife or whatever.

Apparently according to my gf, murder rates in medieval Oxford were 110 per 100,000, almost all taking place between adult men, and were spontaneous for the most part, and 26/36 homicides used knives.

Interesting. We've come a long way, seeing as no recorded country in the world has it that bad any more...
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: HolsteinCow on June 15, 2008, 07:16:22 pm
I'm against gun control just because in any truly free society, the people should always be able to change the government.

it's a good thing people like you weren't around in 1860
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 15, 2008, 07:18:55 pm
it's a good thing people like you weren't around in 1860

..... I am curious as to what you're referring to...
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Brandonazz on June 15, 2008, 07:18:59 pm
I'm against gun control just because in any truly free society, the people should always be able to change the government.

it's a good thing people like you weren't around in 1860

What about the American Civil War?

How many of the Confederate soldiers used their own guns?

It has no real bearing on gun control today, but I should point out that what 762 said is a staple of earlier societies.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: HolsteinCow on June 15, 2008, 07:20:04 pm
It has no real bearing on gun control today, but I should point out that what 762 said is a staple of earlier societies.

how early
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 15, 2008, 07:29:44 pm
What about the American Civil War?

How many of the Confederate soldiers used their own guns?

Not sure, really, but that's a good point, actually. The Southern States wanted to secede and backed it up with firepower. The North refused to acknowledge their Constitutional Rights. The South lost but they were able to fight back, right?

... Before anyone says the Civil War was over slavery, don't fool yourself.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: MetallicDragon on June 15, 2008, 07:35:06 pm
What about the American Civil War?

How many of the Confederate soldiers used their own guns?

Not sure, really, but that's a good point, actually. The Southern States wanted to secede and backed it up with firepower. The North refused to acknowledge their Constitutional Rights. The South lost but they were able to fight back, right?

... Before anyone says the Civil War was over slavery, don't fool yourself.

Then please, enlighten us. What was the Civil War over, if not slavery?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Hammerman58 on June 15, 2008, 07:37:26 pm
You could do all you want about controlling guns but people will find ways of getting them. You might have 50 nuts out of a 100 people with guns but if u do something u might have 1. The thing is you got 1 nut with 99 people not being able to do anything about that 1 nut.



We should not worry about what tools are used to commit crimes but the roots of those crimes. Sure take the gun from the guy but hes just going to walk across the street and but a machete. Gun control should not be a form of crime prevention. Nobody wants to tackle the issues of why people do what they do they just want to take away the items those people use.

Do not blame guns blame the society that harbors criminals and work to help that society be a better place.


The civil war was not about slavery at the start. It was first of all to make the country whole again by crushing the rebellion. Also the south was a different then the north so they thought they should be there own country. Its the difference why the lost. The north had the industry and money. The south had farming and less money plus about half the manpower. If the south had industry and more man power they would have won because of the better leadership. The slaver were freed to get some more northern support to continue the war. But he did not free the middle states because slavery was strong there and he did not want to lose the support.
Lincoln only freed the southern slaves and not the middle states between north and the south.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 15, 2008, 07:45:19 pm
Keeping the Southern States in the Union. The Slavery bit was thought up by Lincoln and his advisers. They decided on that because it would give them a reason to fight. The North largely didn't like slave owners and Lincoln gave them an excuse. For the record, even during the Civil War, the North didn't free their slaves. In fact, until the Constitution was amended to include a ban on slavery, the Emancipation of slaves ONLY occurred in states that fought for the Confederacy.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Daxx on June 16, 2008, 03:27:45 am
Sure take the gun from the guy but hes just going to walk across the street and but a machete.

Actually we already knocked that notion on its head a long time ago in this thread by demonstrating that most injuries from guns are either accidents or non-premeditated, and further we demonstrated that guns tend to lead to more grievous injuries in instances of accidents, domestic disputes and so forth.

Sure, the guy who premeditated murder is going to get his kill any way he can. However, when you remove guns from the situation instances of homicide (in terms of the ratio of homicide to assault, ABH and GBH) are reduced. The argument that says that criminals will always get guns and so therefore gun control isn't useful is flawed in a number of ways, because firstly crimes involving guns are reduced in countries with gun control and also gun control is not just about reducing criminal acts.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 16, 2008, 08:22:25 am
Actually we already knocked that notion on its head a long time ago in this thread by demonstrating that most injuries from guns are either accidents or non-premeditated

When did we do that? Though, to be honest, non-premeditated violence is the most common kind of violence.

and further we demonstrated that guns tend to lead to more grievous injuries in instances of accidents, domestic disputes and so forth.

Not sure how you could demonstrate this, but okay.

Sure, the guy who premeditated murder is going to get his kill any way he can. However, when you remove guns from the situation instances of homicide (in terms of the ratio of homicide to assault, ABH and GBH) are reduced. The argument that says that criminals will always get guns and so therefore gun control isn't useful is flawed in a number of ways, because firstly crimes involving guns are reduced in countries with gun control and also gun control is not just about reducing criminal acts.

.... It's not just about reducing criminal acts or at least reducing the harm they cause? I thought that was the point. If there's any other argument besides that, Daxx, something is very wrong.

Also, for the record, I point out again that when I say gun control, I mean restriction (I.E. Banning their handling in public places by civilians), and countries that lack this restriction have been shown to have lower murder rates than countries that don't have it.

Still, there's elements on both sides. There are countries with low restrictions on gun control and high murder rates and vice versa, as well as countries with high restriction on gun control and high murder rates, and vice versa.

Personally, I like things like Switzerland, though. Every male of a certain age has a gun, but they don't go crazy and murder people in the streets or just snap and kill people. It seems more their culture that keeps them safe than any law for or against gun control.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 16, 2008, 08:37:48 am
Actually we already knocked that notion on its head a long time ago in this thread by demonstrating that most injuries from guns are either accidents or non-premeditated

When did we do that? Though, to be honest, non-premeditated violence is the most common kind of violence.
Prove it then, and pro-gun sites do not count as proof.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 16, 2008, 09:14:46 am
It's surprisingly difficult to do so. There's no statistics, that I can find, that differentiate murder and manslaughter. (Edit: For the record, I include crimes of passion in non-premeditated)

Also, this is totally off topic, or at least the current line of discussion, but I just found a list for murder rate by region in the US. This is both murder and manslaughter. In Montana, where there are close to no restrictions on guns (No licensing, no restrictions, no safety training, etc.), the murder rate is lower than that of the UK and only slightly higher than England/Wales. In fact, in North Dakota, which has the lowest murder rate in the US and a lower murder rate than Britain, their laws on gun control are close to non-existent, while the highest murder rate is in Washington D.C., which has a total ban on gun ownership and sales.

For the record, the rates are available here (http://www.swivel.com/data_columns/spreadsheet/1005798?order_by_direction=ASC) and the gun laws are usually found swiftly on Google.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Daxx on June 16, 2008, 02:54:27 pm
and further we demonstrated that guns tend to lead to more grievous injuries in instances of accidents, domestic disputes and so forth.

Not sure how you could demonstrate this, but okay.

Earlier in the old part of this newly-merged thread I found some statistics about domestic abuse. In homes where a gun is present, domestic abuse is statistically significantly more likely to result in a homicide. Go read up on it, it's interesting.

Sure, the guy who premeditated murder is going to get his kill any way he can. However, when you remove guns from the situation instances of homicide (in terms of the ratio of homicide to assault, ABH and GBH) are reduced. The argument that says that criminals will always get guns and so therefore gun control isn't useful is flawed in a number of ways, because firstly crimes involving guns are reduced in countries with gun control and also gun control is not just about reducing criminal acts.

.... It's not just about reducing criminal acts or at least reducing the harm they cause? I thought that was the point. If there's any other argument besides that, Daxx, something is very wrong.

Please read me correctly. The objective of gun control is not merely about reducing numbers of crimes committed, it's about reducing the homicide and serious accident rates as well.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 16, 2008, 03:01:37 pm
Earlier in the old part of this newly-merged thread I found some statistics about domestic abuse. In homes where a gun is present, domestic abuse is statistically significantly more likely to result in a homicide. Go read up on it, it's interesting.

And people who commit spousal abuse should not be allowed firearms. If they have charges that have gone through against them (Charges with substance), take away their weapons. It's not unreasonable. I'm for taking away a violent felon's weapons.

Please read me correctly. The objective of gun control is not merely about reducing numbers of crimes committed, it's about reducing the homicide and serious accident rates as well.

If you're serious about accident rates, ban swimming pools and cars, the former leads to far more deaths than hand guns in accidents, and the latter causes more deaths in accidents alone than anything else. There's only 17,000 murders in the US but 46,000 car crash related deaths and 2.9 million car crash related injuries.

As for homicide, you can't take away the right to have a gun from people using it responsibly because some will use it irresponsibly or criminally. That's like taking away everyone's knives or cars or cigarettes or whatever because some people just can't control themselves. You don't take away the rights of law-abiding people just because they might become unlawful later.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Daxx on June 16, 2008, 03:04:52 pm
Earlier in the old part of this newly-merged thread I found some statistics about domestic abuse. In homes where a gun is present, domestic abuse is statistically significantly more likely to result in a homicide. Go read up on it, it's interesting.

And people who commit spousal abuse should not be allowed firearms. If they have charges that have gone through against them (Charges with substance), take away their weapons. It's not unreasonable. I'm for taking away a violent felon's weapons.

This was after the fact. And the homicides weren't always committed by the abuser, either.

You don't take away the rights of law-abiding people just because they might become unlawful later.

Yet again, you're ignoring the point I'm making. But whatever, I'm not going to explain it again.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 16, 2008, 03:06:32 pm
Okay compared to guns how many swimming pool deaths have there been?

Also you keep mentioning banning cars, despite the fact that cars are far more common and are vital to many people, whereas guns are not, with the possible exception of a few tiny minorities.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: HolsteinCow on June 16, 2008, 03:09:53 pm
Keeping the Southern States in the Union. The Slavery bit was thought up by Lincoln and his advisers. They decided on that because it would give them a reason to fight. The North largely didn't like slave owners and Lincoln gave them an excuse. For the record, even during the Civil War, the North didn't free their slaves. In fact, until the Constitution was amended to include a ban on slavery, the Emancipation of slaves ONLY occurred in states that fought for the Confederacy.

so in this alternate history of yours:

1)the south seceded for no reason
2)the north declared war on the south using slavery as an excuse because the fact that they didn't recognize the csa as a sovereign nation wasn't enough of an excuse to fight

where exactly did learn history
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 16, 2008, 03:22:05 pm
Okay compared to guns how many swimming pool deaths have there been?

Not sure compared to guns but how many people die from pools... About 2000 a year, give or take a hundred or two, and about 100,000 are injured. Firearms related accidents? About a few hundred deaths (In the area of 5-700) and injuries, I can't find stats for. So, yeah, pools are more of an accident risk than guns.

Also you keep mentioning banning cars, despite the fact that cars are far more common and are vital to many people, whereas guns are not, with the possible exception of a few tiny minorities.

Guns give some people self-defense, the ability to defend their lives and property. Sounds vital enough to me. Besides, if you're willing to agree that people dieing is okay because of something because taking it away would be an inconvenience for you, well...

This was after the fact. And the homicides weren't always committed by the abuser, either.

So... Self-defense? Snapping? In the case of snapping, I doubt it'd do much to not have a gun (Poison, knife, etc.) and self-defense I'd have called a good thing.

Yet again, you're ignoring the point I'm making. But whatever, I'm not going to explain it again.

Your point seemed to be that it reduced murder rates to ban guns. We've seen places with and without gun restrictions that have low murder rates, some of which have the lowest murder rates in the world. We know banning guns doesn't get them out the hands of criminals. I'm wondering what your point is exactly.

1)the south seceded for no reason

Oh, they seceded for a reason. They didn't like the way the nation was headed and split off. Things like manifest destiny (They wanted to take annex Cuba, for example) didn't fit with the Republicans.

2)the north declared war on the south using slavery as an excuse because the fact that they didn't recognize the csa as a sovereign nation wasn't enough of an excuse to fight

They didn't recognize state's rights to secede from the Union, something guaranteed by the Constitution until Lincoln threw it out (And suspended Habeas Corpus too, I might add), and attacked a sovereign nation.


For the record, I should point out that a part of the NRA's founding was to ensure gun rights went to black people and armed them against the KKK.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: HolsteinCow on June 16, 2008, 03:29:16 pm
Oh, they seceded for a reason. They didn't like the way the nation was headed and split off. Things like manifest destiny (They wanted to take annex Cuba, for example) didn't fit with the Republicans.

so the south won the civil war because we ended up annexing cuba 30 years later, my mind is blown
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 16, 2008, 03:30:46 pm
.... Riiiight... Moving on...
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 16, 2008, 03:33:44 pm
Oh, they seceded for a reason. They didn't like the way the nation was headed and split off. Things like manifest destiny (They wanted to take annex Cuba, for example) didn't fit with the Republicans.

so the south won the civil war because we ended up annexing cuba 30 years later, my mind is blown

*high fives*
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 16, 2008, 03:37:14 pm
Why are you high fiving him? That made no sense. The South lost the Civil War because it lost its sovereignty, that was merely a part of why they seceded.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 16, 2008, 03:41:29 pm
Okay compared to guns how many swimming pool deaths have there been?
Not sure compared to guns but how many people die from pools... About 2000 a year, give or take a hundred or two, and about 100,000 are injured. Firearms related accidents? About a few hundred deaths (In the area of 5-700) and injuries, I can't find stats for. So, yeah, pools are more of an accident risk than guns.
I'd like actual figures from a study not some numbers you clearly just made up. Your estimate for gun related deaths and injuries is laughably low while your pool related figures seem suspiciously high in terms of both deaths and injuries

Also you keep mentioning banning cars, despite the fact that cars are far more common and are vital to many people, whereas guns are not, with the possible exception of a few tiny minorities.
Guns give some people self-defense, the ability to defend their lives and property. Sounds vital enough to me. Besides, if you're willing to agree that people dieing is okay because of something because taking it away would be an inconvenience for you, well...
Fail. If I asked 1,000,000 Americans what they would rather give up their gun or their car how many do you think would seriously say they'd give up their car? Maybe those who live in very rough areas or gun fanatics, such as yourself, who believe that they can sense when they will be attacked and therefore will be able to draw their gun in an instant, or wake up immediately and grab their gun, however most rational people would say their gun without hesitation.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 16, 2008, 03:47:19 pm
I'd like actual figures from a study not some numbers you clearly just made up. Your estimate for gun related deaths and injuries is laughably low while your pool related figures seem suspiciously high in terms of both deaths and injuries

It doesn't fit your idea, so it must be made up! Gasp! Okay, fine.

Drowning statistics (http://www.lifesaving.com/issues/articles/13swimming_pool_drownings.html)

Gun accident statistics (http://www.gunsafesource.com/Firearm-Accidents.htm)

It also points out that the largest group of people who suffer from fire-arms related deaths are teens committing suicide.

Fail. If I asked 1,000,000 Americans what they would rather give up their gun or their car how many do you think would seriously say they'd give up their car? Maybe those who live in very rough areas or gun fanatics, such as yourself, who believe that they can sense when they will be attacked and therefore will be able to draw their gun in an instant, or wake up immediately and grab their gun, however most rational people would say their gun without hesitation.

Depends who you ask and where. I'm no gun fanatic, I just like the idea of being able to defend myself. As for giving up either, you shouldn't have to. Just because people use something, though, doesn't make it safer. Should people using it more often mean you can ignore the amount of suffering and death it causes? Guns are used a lot too, for fun, for safety, and for food. Just because not as many people have them doesn't mean they should be excised.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Daxx on June 16, 2008, 03:49:37 pm
Protip: If you cite your sources, people won't accuse you of making **** up.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 16, 2008, 03:50:38 pm
Meh... I'll try to do so in future.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: /lurk on June 16, 2008, 03:54:24 pm
Those figures are meaningless without comparing swimming pool ownership to gun ownership.

Go do that, and then you can call it an argument. Although all that argument would amount is "only a few guns cause fatal accidents," which isn't really worthwhile for trying to argue against tighter gun control.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 16, 2008, 03:59:40 pm
Those figures are meaningless without comparing swimming pool ownership to gun ownership.

Go do that, and then you can call it an argument. Although all that argument would amount is "only a few guns cause fatal accidents," which isn't really worthwhile for trying to argue against tighter gun control.

Actually, Lurk, there's anywhere between 200 to 300 million guns owned in the United States, owned by about 60 million people (1/5th of the population). Even if every house in the United States had a pool, 730 accidental deaths from 200-300 million items is a trifling statistic against 2000 from a far lower number of owned items.

If anyone could get me any number on the amount of pools owned, that'd be great. I'm having a hard time finding that.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: /lurk on June 16, 2008, 04:05:37 pm
That's easy to point out, but I wasn't just talking about numbers. Sometimes you're actually required to think about things. Maybe things like "How are swimming pools and guns different?" Or perhaps "How do the people who use swimming pools differ from those who use guns?"

In any case, the fact that they killed seven hundred and thirty people by accident in the U.S. in 2003 isn't a great argument against gun control.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 16, 2008, 04:14:30 pm
While I find it a bit suspicious that those figures are posted on a site where you can buy stuff for guns I'll let it slide.

As for your swimming pool comparison I'd say try comparing the overall level of deaths related to a large body of water that would be difficult to keep kids away from compared to a small compact object that can easily be locked away.

Oh and as for your incessant comparison of guns to cars (published in 1994 so the predictions may not be accurate but they do show a very clear trend):
(http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/graphic/00000191.gif)

For your center of disease control and prevention, a report comparing deaths by firearms and deaths by car.
http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/m0023655.asp#Table_1
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 16, 2008, 04:21:35 pm
Guns didn't kill anyone. People mishandling them did. I hate that line of logic because it's so inane. Guns, pools, cars... They don't kill ANYTHING, it's people using them that cause the problems. A gun doesn't have a finger to pull its own trigger.

As for how swimming pools and guns differ, that really doesn't seem to matter. Swimming pools result in more accidental deaths and injuries than guns. Cars result in more deaths, injuries, and suffering than... Anything, really. These are the points I present. Guns, pools, cars... They all have positive and negative uses. We shouldn't throw the whole thing out because some people misuse them.


Out of curiousity, where did you get that graph, by the way? Because it's incorrect. There were 17,000 murders in the US as of 2006, and that's been the average for the few years before, and that's all deaths, not just gun related. We also know that only a few hundred die from accidents in the US.

These statistics sound flawed. Unless, perhaps, they're including suicide, but even then that sounds fishy...

Edit: For the record, I believe that if someone wants to commit suicide, it's their call.

Also, here are suicide statistics (http://www.suicidology.org/associations/1045/files/2005datapgs.pdf).

Note that 17,000 or so firearms deaths are suicides. I was right, they DID include suicides, and therefore that graph is flawed. Suicide is not a crime and does not affect other people beyond the consequence of someone simply not being there. Their life, their choice, their fault. Not murder.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Brandonazz on June 16, 2008, 04:28:12 pm
Guns didn't kill anyone. People mishandling them did.

Nuclear weapons never killed anyone, the US army did.

Mustard gas never killed anyone, the people operating the canisters did.

Poison in coffee never killed anyone, the awkward butler did.

____________________________________________________

Also, mishandling? If you believe the purpose of a gun was never to kill, you are sadly mistaken.

Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Werechicken on June 16, 2008, 04:31:42 pm
Out of curiousity, where did you get that graph, by the way? Because it's incorrect. There were 17,000 murders in the US as of 2006, and that's been the average for the few years before, and that's all deaths, not just gun related. We also know that only a few hundred die from accidents in the US.

These statistics sound flawed. Unless, perhaps, they're including suicide, but even then that sounds fishy...

I use this as proof that you do not read through the posts of other people, you just skim for things you can argue:

From your center of disease control and prevention, a report comparing deaths by firearms and deaths by car.
http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/m0023655.asp#Table_1

I think they'd have a pretty good idea, also they predicted the numbers of deaths in 2006, they don't have a bloody crystal ball.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Daxx on June 16, 2008, 04:34:04 pm
Out of curiousity, where did you get that graph, by the way? Because it's incorrect. There were 17,000 murders in the US as of 2006, and that's been the average for the few years before, and that's all deaths, not just gun related. We also know that only a few hundred die from accidents in the US.

These statistics sound flawed. Unless, perhaps, they're including suicide, but even then that sounds fishy...

I use this as proof that you do not read through the posts of other people, you just skim for things you can argue:

From your center of disease control and prevention, a report comparing deaths by firearms and deaths by car.
http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/m0023655.asp#Table_1

I think they'd have a pretty good idea, also they predicted the numbers of deaths in 2006, they don't have a bloody crystal ball.

I'm starting to question why I ever extended him the courtesy of engaging in actual intellectual debate. It's so much easier to just ignore what the other person says.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 16, 2008, 04:44:21 pm
Nuclear weapons never killed anyone, the US army did.

Mustard gas never killed anyone, the people operating the canisters did.

Poison in coffee never killed anyone, the awkward butler did.

Yep. People were killed with those things, but not by those things. No World War II, no people killed by Nuclear Weapons.

Also, mishandling? If you believe the purpose of a gun was never to kill, you are sadly mistaken.

A gun's purpose is to punch holes in things and its greatest application is killing. Guns are designed, typically, FOR that purpose. Killing, however, is a varied act. Killing for food, for self defense, to protect someone or defend your rights, to overthrow an unjust government... These are killings typically considered good or at least not bad. Killing someone out of greed, jealousy, hate, or political motivation in relation to something they are not involved in... These are bad things.


And, yes, Werechicken, I read your post, and I read the bit at the end after I posted it. Again, they included suicides. As for motor vehicle rates, the numbers are relatively steady but, yes, there has been a decrease. There's also been a decrease in murder rates.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Brandonazz on June 16, 2008, 09:36:04 pm
Nuclear weapons never killed anyone, the US army did.

Mustard gas never killed anyone, the people operating the canisters did.

Poison in coffee never killed anyone, the awkward butler did.

Yep. People were killed with those things, but not by those things. No World War II, no people killed by Nuclear Weapons.

The sarcasm escapes you. I was simply reiterating the point that something made explicitly to kill is not justified simply because it requires someone to use it. Such things are wrong even before they are unleashed, not after the fact.

As to the second part:

When was the last time the average person needed a gun to get food?

Shut up about fringe peoples and whatnot. They can keep their guns.

When was the last time an unjust government needed overthrowing here? More than two centuries ago?

Even the civil war is well over a century ago. I don't see any dictators or doomsday scenarios soon. If one seems imminent, then again, have your guns. I don't care under such circumstances, but they are not the circumstances of now.

Continue to argue as you will for self protection and whatnot, tossing and receiving statistics, but please drop these other baseless arguments.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 17, 2008, 03:19:55 am
The sarcasm escapes you. I was simply reiterating the point that something made explicitly to kill is not justified simply because it requires someone to use it. Such things are wrong even before they are unleashed, not after the fact.

The sarcasm doesn't escape me, it was just a bad point. There's no need to use things like sarin or nuclear weapons outside of a state of war, which is why private citizens typically shouldn't own them. A firearm is far more useful in local self-defense. Any weapon with a massive potential for uncontrolled damage is generally not a good idea (I.E. Most explosives). Guns, knives... These things are a lot more controlled.

As to the second part:

When was the last time the average person needed a gun to get food?

Shut up about fringe peoples and whatnot. They can keep their guns.

Why should they have more rights than other people, though?

When was the last time an unjust government needed overthrowing here? More than two centuries ago?

Does it matter? Unjust governments can come and go. Should we not have an evacuation plan in case of a giant inferno or earthquake, even if one hasn't happened for centuries?

Even the civil war is well over a century ago. I don't see any dictators or doomsday scenarios soon. If one seems imminent, then again, have your guns. I don't care under such circumstances, but they are not the circumstances of now.

Well, that's the problem. The first act of a Dictatorship is typically to tighten gun restrictions. Hitler took them from dissenters, Jews, etc. Stalin did much the same. Castro took guns from those who opposed him and had them tortured and shot. Qadaffi... Well... You get the idea, right? Dictatorships take firearms because they let the people fight back. Limit access beforehand, and access after on any scale will be difficult.

Continue to argue as you will for self protection and whatnot, tossing and receiving statistics, but please drop these other baseless arguments.

They're not baseless, but they are admittedly less central to this argument.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Brandonazz on June 17, 2008, 05:33:51 am
I had a nice long response ready, then the forum dropped out.

Seeing as my current sleep pattern dictates that I should be sleeping already, I can't manage it again.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 17, 2008, 05:51:48 am
I understand. Nearly happened to me too, but Firefox loves me so my post was saved. Take your time, if you even feel like responding.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 17, 2008, 07:03:01 am
Saying guns do not kill people does not change the fact that they do. What do we mean when we say Weapon-X kill people? Well we mean that it was used to kill people. In context it makes sense. Trying to deconstruction it by removing it form its context serves nothing.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 17, 2008, 07:06:38 am
I'm trying to remove the idea that guns are somehow responsible for people's deaths when, ultimately, it is other people. It's not so much what was said but the implied thought behind it.

Again, could just be me reading too much into stuff, though.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 17, 2008, 07:15:50 am
OK you agree that people is the when it comes to guns right? So Banning guns will not solve the problem (As people are the problem not the guns.) However you can not ban people. But what you can do is bad people from obtaining guns. And well that is what the laws do. They do not say that guns are outlawed are require the guns to collect them self and then destroy them self. No the laws are meant for people. They ban people form having guns and it is people that get in to trouble if they have or use guns.

(This do not change the fact that i still think that people should be allowed to have guns if they can manage them. Though i will not go more in to detail about this now.)
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 17, 2008, 08:21:52 am
I'm sorry but I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Just to see if I got it right, you're agreeing that guns aren't the problem but people are but we can't ban people so we ban guns to save them from themselves? Sorry, but that logic doesn't really compute. There are responsible people who will use them right. They should be allowed access to them. You can't ban an item just because someone might abuse it or we'd have to ban more things than I can count. The reason we have licenses for cars is to show that people have learned the rules for using them, will exercise them responsibly, and use them as such. We still have people dieing, a lot in fact, from car related incidents but we don't ban the cars.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 17, 2008, 05:09:10 pm
The point is that when we stay we ban something we do not expect it to remove it self. A ban always means people can not use it. In the end is always the responsibility of the people.

We can ban pretty much anything. Not that baning everything will solve anything. Rather is finding a balance that one must strive for.  (And sometimes that balance may be no ban at all.) Still even in USA there are bans on guns. Assault rifles are banned form public use. (Military and police still have access to these weapons however.) And stopping mentally ill and criminals form getting guns is not a bad idea.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 17, 2008, 05:25:58 pm
A ban just ensures, though, that those willing to obey the law cannot use a weapon responsibly. Certainly, it might stop some people, but it will most certainly leave others vulnerable.

As for Assault Rifles, it depends on where you go as to what is classified. I don't disagree with regulation, though, just restriction. I'm not unreasonable and I do try to meet people in the middle here. I am fine with things like criminals and the mentally incapable of not being allowed weapons, with permits, that sort of thing, but people shouldn't be limited in their capacity to use guns for self defense. I'm okay with the private citizen having precision weaponry (Though the price tag is prohibitively expensive) but banned dispersal weapons (Flamethrowers, chemical and biological weapons, etc.) should stay banned because they're a high risk and the only use they have is to hurt a lot of people in a wide area indiscriminately.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: The Time Traveller on June 17, 2008, 05:28:09 pm
Here's something to remember:
What you're trying to prevent is people shooting other people with guns to rob them or murder them or something.  That's already illegal.  Since people who would do that don't care about the law, a law would not help.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 17, 2008, 05:45:41 pm
They're aware of that, TTT. What they are saying is that it prevents the average person from using a gun for that which would increase their chances of success if they ever decide to commit robbery or murder. However, allowing access to guns would/will allow the average person to fight back. It's why we give guns to police officers: Because we know they're going to defend themselves/others with it.

It's people essentially betting on risks. Those who have guns know they're not a danger to society and typically would like to have that chance to defend themselves. Those who don't view other people with weapons with some degree of suspicion, which is not exactly unhealthy since it is justified to some degree, and they believe they'd be safer by removing them.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 17, 2008, 05:55:03 pm
Oh yes. I think Automatic weapons are banned in USA. Not Weapons classed as Assault rifles. Note that a assault rifle in a traditional sense is is a automatic weapon that has the power of a traditional rifle.

Internal Joke: You know who else wanted to stop assault rifles? Yeah thats right! Hitler! >_>
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 17, 2008, 05:58:43 pm
I believe that's a Reductio ad Hitlerum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum).  ;D

As for the Assault Weapons ban, it expired in 2004. That's why AK's are now legal again in the US.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Brandonazz on June 17, 2008, 06:16:58 pm
They're legal?

What the hell.

Is there a bill up to ban them again?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 17, 2008, 07:47:51 pm
There was an attempt at it but when the person who introduced it proved on live TV that they didn't know a THING about what they were talking about (Believing a gun shroud is a shoulder strap, for example), it lost a lot of support. Studies attempting to show the ban's effect on crime rates also failed miserably, showing a negligible drop in crime rates and many study analysts suggest that studies are difficult to find evidence for in this case. More info here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban).

That said, individual states do have control over gun laws and have their own variants on this. Some states ban assault weapons, some don't. However, gun makers, being as tricky as any business professionals, found a way around the ban by creating weapons that were almost identical but lacked some of the criterion and therefore could be classified as non-assault weapons.

Personally, I'm with the militia movement. Assault weapons are difficult to quantify for self defense. Their only purpose is full scale war and that makes them a tool for overthrowing governments. That's not an issue I'll push in this debate, though.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Legodragonxp on June 17, 2008, 08:10:02 pm
They're legal?

What the hell.

Is there a bill up to ban them again?

Semi-automatic rifles of military deisgn are legal to purchase in the US again. However, there are a few weapons that are banned from import even though the 'assualt weapons ban' has run out. (Russian made AK-type rifles cannot be imported, but Chinese ones can, for example)

H&K took a stance many years ago to stop selling their military-style semi-auto weapons in the US (sans law-enforcement and military). Might make for good PR for them but it killed their sales.

A US citizen cannot purchase a fully-automatic weapon normally. There is something called a class 3 weapons permit that allows you to buy registered antique machines guns, but it is an extremely expensive hobby.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no bill with a chance of passing coming up to revive the assaulty weapons ban. It made no significant impact on crime. In fact, what it really succeeded in doing was push for a whole new range of ultra compact handguns because of the 10-shot capacity limit and extremely powerful rifles and handguns.

With the aftermath of things like Katrina, there is far less of a push to disarm the American citizen. Maybe someday that will change, but with the economy like it is right now, I wouldn't bet on it.

-Lego


Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 17, 2008, 08:25:53 pm
Katrina showed a thousand and one things, but going into that would be a mindless rebuttal.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: SBD on June 17, 2008, 09:54:51 pm
(Russian made AK-type rifles cannot be imported, but Chinese ones can, for example)

Isn't there an embargo on Norinco products though?
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 17, 2008, 10:04:29 pm
Norinco has had a lot of strikes against them but certain forms of ammunition and guns from them are available. However, they've routinely tried to destabilize the United States by selling artificially low priced guns illegally to criminal groups. They've even sent in tanks...

Still, AK's are made in a lot of other countries, including, but not limited to, Germany, Finland, Bulgaria, Egypt, and India.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Yokto on June 18, 2008, 12:48:34 am
Well i said it before and i will say it again. Banning a weapon just because it is Semi-Automatic is silly. Fully Automatic are quite different form Semi-Automatic weapons. Though i think people gets confused so i better clear things up.

A Semi-Automatic is a weapon when you pull the trigger it shots one bullet and then loads a new. So a Semi-Automatic works no different in use then a revolver. (Mechanically there different)

A fully Automatic however shots several bullets when you pull down the trigger. This is typical for military weapons such as Assault rifles and Sub-machines guns. They work mechanically very different form a Semi-Automatic weapon and altering a Semi-Automatic to fully Automatic is extreamly hard. If you can pull of this feat then you most likely can build you own gun.

Now it is important to know that you can not tell the difference between these two types of guns with a first glance. Sometimes you must even pick a part the weapon and look how it is constructed to know the difference. (or fire it :P) Though most Automatic weapons have 2-3 firing mode. Semi-Automatic, Burst or Fully Automatic. If it have a fire mode then you can be pretty sure it is a Fully Automatic. (Even if it only have Semi-Automatic and Burst fire which is common with many weapons as the military prefer burst over Fully Automatic setting.)
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Daxx on June 18, 2008, 02:39:34 am
Here's something to remember:
What you're trying to prevent is people shooting other people with guns to rob them or murder them or something.  That's already illegal.  Since people who would do that don't care about the law, a law would not help.

At least do people the courtesy of reading the thread before posting. You're wrong on multiple levels.

As Axel has already pointed out, gun control has a number of uses beyond simply reducing availability of weaponry to criminals. It reduces accidents and it reduces the chances that criminal acts do damage.

Further and more importantly (and this has been shot down so many times in this thread it's getting silly), the suggestion that "criminals by definition don't obey the law so a law controlling guns is useless" is plain wrong. Firstly, lowered gun availability does lead to lower crimes committed with guns, which implies that where guns are illegal criminals don't wish to compound their lawlessness by committing these crimes with an illegal weapon, or alternatively that these weapons become more expensive and difficult to acquire. Secondly, there is no hard distinction between "criminals" and "non-criminals". Both types are just regular people, and even a normal person can just snap one day and go on a shooting spree (cf. school shootings, etc.). In fact, statistics demonstrate that manslaughter and non-premeditated homicides are reduced when guns are not owned; this is because not all crimes are premeditated and so therefore controlling the availability of guns can be effective in reducing the damage done by these "crimes of passion".

I hope I don't have to debunk this again. If someone else brings this up, feel free to quote me.
Title: Re: Gun Control. Why?
Post by: Axelgear on June 18, 2008, 04:30:44 am
We can debate the reality of an automatic weapons ban after we come to an agreement on other things.

I will agree that licensing is okay, it helps, but that's regulation, not restriction.

As for lowered gun availability leading to their lowered use in crime, these statistics are flawed. They include suicide, for example, which is technically a criminal act but in no way physically harms anyone but the person who made the choice to be harmed. This is easily found out because the death rate with firearms for given nations usually far outweighs their actual homicide rate, which means that the statistics are stacked. Please find me statistics that don't include these on that. Still, I won't disagree that guns being more available could lead to an increase in their use, it's only logical. However, the amount of people who will snap are far lower than the people who would use guns for their protection, just as the number of people who will kill with cars or knives far, far outweighs the number who will use them safely.
Title: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: LHOO on December 17, 2008, 03:10:12 am
Daniel Petric shot his parents because they wouldn't allow him to play the violent video game Halo 3, prosecutors told a judge at the boy's murder trial Monday.

Quote
Oct. 20, 2007, his then-16-year-old son came into the room with a question

"Would you guys close your eyes," Daniel Petric asked. "I have a surprise for you."

Mark Petric said he expected a pleasant surprise. The next thing he knew, his head went numb. He had been shot in the head. Susan Petric, 43, died of gunshot wound to the head.

News Report (http://news.mmosite.com/content/2008-12-16/20081216070338758.shtml)

Awful story and what's bad enough is the dad forgives him....
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: Yannick on December 17, 2008, 03:30:13 am
The worst part is, who gives a 16-year old guns? At the age of 16, most teenagers are hormone-driven and incapable of rational thought.

Read the article. But still, if you're going to leave a key around to a toolbox with the guy's game and a gun, not smart IMO.
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 17, 2008, 03:38:06 am
The kid actually shot his mother because he had too many trans fats in his diet and listened to the Jonas brothers.

You can't prove that isn't the reason!  :P
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: DarkDragon on December 17, 2008, 03:49:39 am
Hey, some people are mentally disturbed or just plain retarded and shoot their parents over a videogame, lets not blame it on the stupidity of the teenager, lets blame videogames in general instead!
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: Yannick on December 17, 2008, 03:56:27 am
I would thank my parents if they took away my copy of Halo 3 (If I had an xbox 360 + halo3 that is)
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: Plank of Wood on December 17, 2008, 06:23:43 am
Credit Crunch caused this. Next.
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: Snork on December 17, 2008, 06:37:06 am
Halo, violent?
WTH. And what was the father thinking for looking the game up with a gun
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 17, 2008, 06:50:52 am
Credit Crunch caused this. Next.

No, it was the Obama victory. :P
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: Celdur on December 17, 2008, 07:05:01 am
GLOBAL WARMING!!! IM SERIAL
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: /lurk on December 17, 2008, 07:49:31 am
No, it's the fault of that gosh-darn Liberal Gun Control.

If she'd had an assault rifle this never would've happened.
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 17, 2008, 07:58:42 am
Halo, violent?

Well, yes. Halo is violent.
There's a difference between violence and gore. Halo may not be especially gory, but the core of the game is still warfare and combat, including but not limited to shooting people (even if they are freaky alien people).

Perhaps if the kid had killed his mother with an energy sword the case against videogames would have more weight.
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: Yannick on December 17, 2008, 08:01:05 am
He killed his mother with a gun?!

WE NEED MOAR GUNS, EVERYONE GET ASSAULT RIFLES!
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: Huckbuck on December 17, 2008, 08:18:31 am
This would never have happened if America didn't have them "GUNZ FOR EVERY1" lawes. Then he would have used a knife or something else instead, and that would probably not have resulted in the death of his mother, because I believe the father would have noticed even though he had his eyes shut, and he would have overpowered the kid. The worst thing is that people will blame the game instead of seeing that it was the gun that got it done. Jack Thompson is gonna love this.
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: Shadowgandor on December 17, 2008, 08:27:03 am
It's simple, guns are tools that are way to easy to use and still very effective in their purpose. A kid, even most adults, can't handle the responsibility.
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: Gorman Conall on December 17, 2008, 11:15:00 am
Oh brother...stop blaming guns. Your as bad as the people blaming video games

If the father had been responsible it wouldn't of happen. If there was no gun period the kid would of used another tool. If the gun had been properly locked up the kid would have used another tool.

Same outcome ether way.
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: Null on December 17, 2008, 11:20:04 am
See? Gunz, they make you safe. The other guy might have a gun, so you have to have a gun. That way everyone has a gun and everyone is safe from someone else who has a gun.

Oh, wait...
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: Shadowgandor on December 17, 2008, 11:25:50 am
Like I said in my previous message, guns are too easy, they let you kill someone from a distance by pulling the trigger. A knife, for example, is a lot more personal and requires the user to be determined in order to use it efficiently.
Title: Re: Boy shot his mom to death because they took his Halo3 away
Post by: Gorman Conall on December 17, 2008, 11:26:35 am
I'm going to end this now.

Fine alcohol should be banned. Sure if your responsible its fine...but most people aren't and they get plastered off their ass and do really stupid and dangerous things. And alcohol is a lot easier to get then guns!, Who knew?.

So how many of you are in favor of banning alcohol  ::).

Okay..now stfu