On February 03 2010 04:23 jello_biafra wrote: If you didn't have loads of guns in non law-abiding hands in the first place then there would be no need for this.
...You don't need a gun to rob, rape or kill someone.
likewise you dont NEED a gun to stop someone from robbing, raping or killing you unless they have a gun -_-
Also if they didn't have guns it would stop the mass killings and drastically decrease the frequency of most crime.
I mean how are people gonna rob banks, carjack people, go on insane rampages, easily kidnap people, create ridiculous standoff situations with police or generally easily commit many crimes in a short space of time without guns?
Also a lot of those killings occur due to a lack of people carrying guns. Like at Fort Hood no guns were allowed on base allowing the shooter to be unopposed. You are suggesting that we some how magically take away guns from all criminals which is an impossibility. We can deter a significant portion of crimes though by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. How many criminals would be willing to rob someone if they knew say 50% of people had a concealed weapon.
The number of crimes you deter is minuscule compared to the number of deaths caused by the easy availability of guns to pretty much anyone.
Number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population: US:14.5 UK:0.41
Thats 35 times more. Kinda hard to argue with the facts.
Word up.
Also, this ludicrous 'mercan notion that everyone deserves their piece is justified by an interpretation of the second amendment that has no consideration of its initial intention. America is plagued by constitution-thumpers who don't realize that it is an archaic document that is in no way sacred or eternally applicable.
I support all laws that restrict weapons and bullets for reasons all ready stated in this thread. However I watched the Swedish version of Wanted one day several years ago and they had a story about a guy who walked down a street and passed by three guys. They beat him so badly he almost died for no reason at all.
Not a chocking story, stuff like this happens, but since that day I do my best to get my odds up should I ever get jumped by three guys. I can't blame people for reasoning in a similar fashion. Please pass laws that makes me more safe and maybe I will leave my stuff at home or even throw it away when I notice the difference but until then I'll keep arming myself.
What I find odd is how each state gets to have its own law so people can still travel out of state to buy whatever are controlled wares in your homestate. And there isn't anyone checking what you're bringing in and out of the state. It makes gun control initiatives like was mentioned here not as effective as it could be.
On February 03 2010 04:23 jello_biafra wrote: If you didn't have loads of guns in non law-abiding hands in the first place then there would be no need for this.
...You don't need a gun to rob, rape or kill someone.
likewise you dont NEED a gun to stop someone from robbing, raping or killing you unless they have a gun -_-
Also if they didn't have guns it would stop the mass killings and drastically decrease the frequency of most crime.
I mean how are people gonna rob banks, carjack people, go on insane rampages, easily kidnap people, create ridiculous standoff situations with police or generally easily commit many crimes in a short space of time without guns?
Also a lot of those killings occur due to a lack of people carrying guns. Like at Fort Hood no guns were allowed on base allowing the shooter to be unopposed. You are suggesting that we some how magically take away guns from all criminals which is an impossibility. We can deter a significant portion of crimes though by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. How many criminals would be willing to rob someone if they knew say 50% of people had a concealed weapon.
The number of crimes you deter is minuscule compared to the number of deaths caused by the easy availability of guns to pretty much anyone.
Number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population: US:14.5 UK:0.41
Thats 35 times more. Kinda hard to argue with the facts.
The UK has higher violent crime rates then the US or any other European country.
On February 03 2010 04:23 jello_biafra wrote: If you didn't have loads of guns in non law-abiding hands in the first place then there would be no need for this.
...You don't need a gun to rob, rape or kill someone.
likewise you dont NEED a gun to stop someone from robbing, raping or killing you unless they have a gun -_-
Also if they didn't have guns it would stop the mass killings and drastically decrease the frequency of most crime.
I mean how are people gonna rob banks, carjack people, go on insane rampages, easily kidnap people, create ridiculous standoff situations with police or generally easily commit many crimes in a short space of time without guns?
Also a lot of those killings occur due to a lack of people carrying guns. Like at Fort Hood no guns were allowed on base allowing the shooter to be unopposed. You are suggesting that we some how magically take away guns from all criminals which is an impossibility. We can deter a significant portion of crimes though by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. How many criminals would be willing to rob someone if they knew say 50% of people had a concealed weapon.
The number of crimes you deter is minuscule compared to the number of deaths caused by the easy availability of guns to pretty much anyone.
Number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population: US:14.5 UK:0.41
Thats 35 times more. Kinda hard to argue with the facts.
Actually it is, because those figures are absolutely meaningless. You've given zero context. It's like having a bo3 of JD vs IdrA on every single map ever made and concluding every map favors Zerg.
On February 03 2010 04:23 jello_biafra wrote: If you didn't have loads of guns in non law-abiding hands in the first place then there would be no need for this.
...You don't need a gun to rob, rape or kill someone.
likewise you dont NEED a gun to stop someone from robbing, raping or killing you unless they have a gun -_-
Also if they didn't have guns it would stop the mass killings and drastically decrease the frequency of most crime.
I mean how are people gonna rob banks, carjack people, go on insane rampages, easily kidnap people, create ridiculous standoff situations with police or generally easily commit many crimes in a short space of time without guns?
Also a lot of those killings occur due to a lack of people carrying guns. Like at Fort Hood no guns were allowed on base allowing the shooter to be unopposed. You are suggesting that we some how magically take away guns from all criminals which is an impossibility. We can deter a significant portion of crimes though by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. How many criminals would be willing to rob someone if they knew say 50% of people had a concealed weapon.
The number of crimes you deter is minuscule compared to the number of deaths caused by the easy availability of guns to pretty much anyone.
Number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population: US:14.5 UK:0.41
Thats 35 times more. Kinda hard to argue with the facts.
Actually it is, because those figures are absolutely meaningless. You've given zero context. It's like having a bo3 of JD vs IdrA on every single map ever made and concluding every map favors Zerg.
Guns are MUCH more deadly than other weapon. If UK has more violent crimes than the US, which someone posted, then there really is NO WAY to argue against that USA's gun control causes more gun-related deaths.
Gun-related deaths are an important statistic because guns are much more deadly and even though knives and bats or whatever can kill people too, gun-related crimes probably have a higher fatality than say knife-related crimes.
On February 03 2010 04:09 jello_biafra wrote: Well the problem in america is that all the criminals already have guns due to them being legal the whole time so implementing gun control laws now is kind of screwing over the people who aim to protect themselves with it, if they didn't have this dumb policy of selling guns everywhere in the first place this whole mess wouldn't exist.
On February 03 2010 04:00 StarsPride wrote: allowing citizens to hold guns doesn't affect public safety in my honest opinion.
Umm...ever heard of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Geneva County, Washington Sniper, the countless instances of people going postal and the massive number of general gun crimes in the US every year...?
Have you ever heard of a state called Arizona where nearly everyone is allowed to carry guns, and there have been multiple instances of people going to shoot others, or cops, and other civilians have intervened and shot the aggressor?
Because I grew up in Phoenix, and this wasn't an uncommon thing.
You all need to realize that there are responsible people out there being hurt by this law, responsible, law abiding citizens. If you can't admit that, you need help.
---
I'm also not going to argue this any further, crazy leftists say BAN ALL GUNS, crazy rights say NO GUN LAWS.
There can be a middle ya know, and this law isn't it.
On February 03 2010 05:15 deconduo wrote: Number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population: US:14.5 UK:0.41
Thats 35 times more. Kinda hard to argue with the facts.
gun-related deaths also include suicides, which make up for aproximately half of that number.
If you also add in the number of guns per capita, you'll see that some countries which also have a increased amount of firearms per capita, don't have a high amount of gun-related deaths.
On February 03 2010 06:38 StarsPride wrote: You should look at the knife Related deaths in the UK and compare it to u.s sir id rather be shot once then be stabbed 5+ times
(Nothing to do with gunlaws)
I was talking to a SEAL officer the other day, he told me about his first kill in Iraq.
He went up behind an insurgent, slit his throat (he didn't die, still screaming), then to kill him asap without alerting guards, they had to make him bleed out. So his friend held the guys mouth so he couldn't scream, and they stabbed him in the genitals repeatedly. Yeah, I'd rather be shot too.
On February 03 2010 04:09 jello_biafra wrote: Well the problem in america is that all the criminals already have guns due to them being legal the whole time so implementing gun control laws now is kind of screwing over the people who aim to protect themselves with it, if they didn't have this dumb policy of selling guns everywhere in the first place this whole mess wouldn't exist.
On February 03 2010 04:00 StarsPride wrote: allowing citizens to hold guns doesn't affect public safety in my honest opinion.
Umm...ever heard of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Geneva County, Washington Sniper, the countless instances of people going postal and the massive number of general gun crimes in the US every year...?
Have you ever heard of a state called Arizona where nearly everyone is allowed to carry guns, and there have been multiple instances of people going to shoot others, or cops, and other civilians have intervened and shot the aggressor?
Because I grew up in Phoenix, and this wasn't an uncommon thing.
You all need to realize that there are responsible people out there being hurt by this law, responsible, law abiding citizens. If you can't admit that, you need help.
---
I'm also not going to argue this any further, crazy leftists say BAN ALL GUNS, crazy rights say NO GUN LAWS.
There can be a middle ya know, and this law isn't it.
/agree on this and if people had guns at columbine. not as many people would have died. and also Hello Kids cant get guns.People get them through illegal means. it would have happened in the first place even if guns were fully banned in the state To clarify "Designated teachers should have guns"
On February 03 2010 04:23 jello_biafra wrote: If you didn't have loads of guns in non law-abiding hands in the first place then there would be no need for this.
...You don't need a gun to rob, rape or kill someone.
likewise you dont NEED a gun to stop someone from robbing, raping or killing you unless they have a gun -_-
Also if they didn't have guns it would stop the mass killings and drastically decrease the frequency of most crime.
I mean how are people gonna rob banks, carjack people, go on insane rampages, easily kidnap people, create ridiculous standoff situations with police or generally easily commit many crimes in a short space of time without guns?
Also a lot of those killings occur due to a lack of people carrying guns. Like at Fort Hood no guns were allowed on base allowing the shooter to be unopposed. You are suggesting that we some how magically take away guns from all criminals which is an impossibility. We can deter a significant portion of crimes though by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. How many criminals would be willing to rob someone if they knew say 50% of people had a concealed weapon.
On February 03 2010 04:23 jello_biafra wrote: If you didn't have loads of guns in non law-abiding hands in the first place then there would be no need for this.
...You don't need a gun to rob, rape or kill someone.
likewise you dont NEED a gun to stop someone from robbing, raping or killing you unless they have a gun -_-
Also if they didn't have guns it would stop the mass killings and drastically decrease the frequency of most crime.
I mean how are people gonna rob banks, carjack people, go on insane rampages, easily kidnap people, create ridiculous standoff situations with police or generally easily commit many crimes in a short space of time without guns?
Also a lot of those killings occur due to a lack of people carrying guns. Like at Fort Hood no guns were allowed on base allowing the shooter to be unopposed. You are suggesting that we some how magically take away guns from all criminals which is an impossibility. We can deter a significant portion of crimes though by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. How many criminals would be willing to rob someone if they knew say 50% of people had a concealed weapon.
The number of crimes you deter is minuscule compared to the number of deaths caused by the easy availability of guns to pretty much anyone.
Number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population: US:14.5 UK:0.41
Thats 35 times more. Kinda hard to argue with the facts.
Actually it is, because those figures are absolutely meaningless. You've given zero context. It's like having a bo3 of JD vs IdrA on every single map ever made and concluding every map favors Zerg.
Guns are MUCH more deadly than other weapon. If UK has more violent crimes than the US, which someone posted, then there really is NO WAY to argue against that USA's gun control causes more gun-related deaths.
Gun-related deaths are an important statistic because guns are much more deadly and even though knives and bats or whatever can kill people too, gun-related crimes probably have a higher fatality than say knife-related crimes.
Also, it is a weak justification at best to say that a country shouldn't make an effort towards gun control simply because another country's effort to do so has failed to keep violence down. It's an overly simplistic view, which fails to take into account many important factors which all contribute to a society's level of violence.
Even if enacting gun control laws only resulted in a marginal reduction in violent crime, that would still be enough of a margin to fight for, since a slim margin in the US still means thousands of lives spared. Laws such as this won't cure the social ills behind violent acts, but they will make them difficult to perpetrate, and even more difficult to do so without leaving a trace.
On February 03 2010 04:59 dope-hat wrote: I WANT MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO BEAR MACHINEGUNS AND HAND GRENADES!!! JUST BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE USE IT FOR CRIMINEL PURPOSES IT DOESNT NEED TO AFFECT ME WHO ONLY WANTS TO HAVE THEM BECAUSE ITS MY RIGHT AND I LIKE GRENADES AND GUNS!!
*sigh*
I can't hunt squirrels without semi automatic weapons. Everyone who thinks they're unimportant are retarded.
On February 03 2010 05:15 deconduo wrote: Number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population: US:14.5 UK:0.41
Thats 35 times more. Kinda hard to argue with the facts.
gun-related deaths also include suicides, which make up for aproximately half of that number.
If you also add in the number of guns per capita, you'll see that some countries which also have a increased amount of firearms per capita, don't have a high amount of gun-related deaths.
They're correlated numbers, not causal. If they were, US wouldn't have an approximately six times higher rate of homicides.
One problem.The fact is, switzerland has the highest gun related death rate in europe. Its just that america is so far ahead of the western world, exluding countries like south africa, that any numbers put next to it look small in comparison.
On February 03 2010 04:59 dope-hat wrote: I WANT MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO BEAR MACHINEGUNS AND HAND GRENADES!!! JUST BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE USE IT FOR CRIMINEL PURPOSES IT DOESNT NEED TO AFFECT ME WHO ONLY WANTS TO HAVE THEM BECAUSE ITS MY RIGHT AND I LIKE GRENADES AND GUNS!!
*sigh*
I can't hunt squirrels without semi automatic weapons. Everyone who thinks they're unimportant are retarded.
is this suposed to offend me or what. especially the part where my poor typing skills didnt allow me to say that anyone who thinks semi automatic rifles are just for killing people are ignorant.
While there are certainly downfalls that come from having widespread ownership of guns, it is these downfalls that are the price of freedom.
People in the US like to talk about the price of freedom, (which they use to justify the war in Iraq and other things that literally have nothing to do with our freedom) , and the costs associated with gun ownership are that price.
Maybe everybody having guns is a bad thing. Maybe its unsafe.
But I would much rather live in a country where the government stays out of the business of individuals, a government that trusts mature adults to make decisions that they will live with, rather than a nanny state that tries to restrict every little thing that could ever be harmful.
Even in the most gunslinging part of this country, you are much more likely to die in a traffic fatality. Yet nobody suggests banning cars.
While this may be a controversial opinion, I believe that freedom is more valuable than some lives.
On February 03 2010 04:59 dope-hat wrote: I WANT MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO BEAR MACHINEGUNS AND HAND GRENADES!!! JUST BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE USE IT FOR CRIMINEL PURPOSES IT DOESNT NEED TO AFFECT ME WHO ONLY WANTS TO HAVE THEM BECAUSE ITS MY RIGHT AND I LIKE GRENADES AND GUNS!!
*sigh*
I can't hunt squirrels without semi automatic weapons. Everyone who thinks they're unimportant are retarded.
is this suposed to offend me or what. especially the part where my poor typing skills didnt allow me to say that anyone who thinks semi automatic rifles are just for killing people are ignorant.
otherwise
cool story bro
I believe that justifying semi automatic weapons for the cause of hunting squirrels is retarded. What other uses do they have?
The loss/gain ratio of legalizing semi automatic weapons is so high it's ridiculous.
On February 03 2010 07:07 GeneralStan wrote: While there are certainly downfalls that come from having widespread ownership of guns, it is these downfalls that are the price of freedom.
People in the US like to talk about the price of freedom, (which they use to justify the war in Iraq and other things that literally have nothing to do with our freedom) , and the costs associated with gun ownership are that price.
Maybe everybody having guns is a bad thing. Maybe its unsafe.
But I would much rather live in a country where the government stays out of the business of individuals, a government that trusts mature adults to make decisions that they will live with, rather than a nanny state that tries to restrict every little thing that could ever be harmful.
Even in the most gunslinging part of this country, you are much more likely to die in a traffic fatality. Yet nobody suggests banning cars.
While this may be a controversial opinion, I believe that freedom is more valuable than some lives.
Seriously... You're more likely to die in a traffic fatality because there are many more cars, maybe? Also, cars actually have a purpose other than killing people. They are useful.
EDIT: Guns are more likely to kill people than cars are.
I have never ever in my whole life met anyone that would like to own a gun for self-defence in Sweden. Why? There are (almost) no guns and the average criminal has no means of getting their hands on a gun. Why? Guns are illegal.
Banning weapons has nothing to do with freedom. I cannot understand that argument, as that would mean you would rather live in an anarchy.
The thing with the US' gun control is also that not only mature adults have access to guns. That mature adults cannot have guns is an incredibly low price to pay for idiots not owning guns.
To people saying that lots of gun-related deaths are suicide, I really believe that guns "promote" suicide in the sense that it often is a spur of the moment thing. It is so much easier to kill yourself with a gun than by any other means.
EPT
