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.
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.
You're really reaching here. Clearly we can all see there's some cost/benefit to giving up freedom for safety. There's no need to take it to this extreme. People choose to be on both sides of the fence.
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.
here atleast they are legal however since the 22 uses a pistol round most people wont bother with them since a handgun will fire the same calibre bullet semi automatic aswell, but is easier to hide.
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.
here atleast they are legal however since the 22 uses a pistol round most people wont bother with them since a handgun will fire the same calibre bullet semi automatic aswell, but is easier to hide.
see my point here?
No, I don't. You say that they are not needed because most people won't bother with them since another, less harmful gun to people, is better?
Are you arguing that it's better (still obviously not good, as you're supporting guns) to ban the small, easily concealed, gun instead of the one that is more useful for hunting?
On February 03 2010 00:40 ShadowDrgn wrote: Honest question: why does everyone from outside the US hate guns so much? Do schools in your country drill into your heads that guns are bad? Do your parents sit you down and scare you straight about guns when you're kids? Do you think that Hollywood movies accurately portray America's gun culture?
The fact is that most Americans don't own guns, have never fired a gun, and will never be threatened by a gun, but it seems like every European and Canadian on the Internet thinks the US is the wild west with shoot-outs on the streets every day. Obviously there are Americans who dislike guns as well, but they never seem so vehemently against them.
I don't really remember much gun talk at all, I just don't think we have them in our culture (unless you live on the country-side or like hunting). I guess most of the media coverage you get is when something bad (i.e columbine) happens which gives you a skewed perspective.
For whatever it's worth, I used to be vehemently opposed to the American view on firearms but I've sort of done a 180 in recent years.
In an *ideal* world, I think nobody would own guns for obvious reasons, but I can see plenty of places in the world where I'd like to have a firearm at my disposal. Perhaps not so much where I live (shit, never seen anyone carrying a weapon of any kind - ever) tho
On February 03 2010 01:22 TS-Rupbar wrote: I am against guns because owning a gun doesn't protect you at all. It is much more dangerous than not owning one.
1. Other people can steal your gun or kids may find it. 2. Accidents DO happen. 3. If a criminal has a gun, one of you will die. If only the criminal has a gun, he probably won't shoot you.
Guns are bad and shooting guns as a hobby does not justify all the bad stuff they come with.
And if the criminal's intent is not to rob you, but rather to kill you, then if you don't have a gun you die for sure. If you do have a gun, he might die, which is a much, much better outcome.
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.
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.
You're really reaching here. Clearly we can all see there's some cost/benefit to giving up freedom for safety. There's no need to take it to this extreme. People choose to be on both sides of the fence.
What extreme? I'm not trying to be condescending, but I would very much like to hear why my arguments are more extreme than one suggesting that gun control restricts your freedom.
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.
here atleast they are legal however since the 22 uses a pistol round most people wont bother with them since a handgun will fire the same calibre bullet semi automatic aswell, but is easier to hide.
see my point here?
No, I don't. You say that they are not needed because most people won't bother with them since another, less harmful gun to people, is better?
Are you arguing that it's better (still obviously not good, as you're supporting guns) to ban the small, easily concealed, gun instead of the one that is more useful for hunting?
ok ok no.
What im saying is you can get handguns that fire the same calibre bullet. Which are more easily concealed and if you were going for a school shooting/massacre/kill your ex-wife kind of shit the handgun would be much more easily concealed than a rather large rifle.
However i do believe that if you are going to ban one or the other the handgun(smaller easily concealed) would be better to ban. As the rifle is used in many small game sports which alot of people in my region take part in.
Wow, I love the invasion of Europeans into this thread. Awesome. Let me say that I am very indifferent towards gun control, but some of the posts in this thread are just ridiculous. Half of your posts have been sarcastic rants of conservative hicks. Then you say LOL and say Science proves Guns = murders or whatever.
This is so stupid, it is Statistics 101. CORRELATION IS NOT EQUAL TO CAUSALITY. Your argument is illogical. That is like saying well, I know that when there are more mosquitoes, more people go swim in their swimming pools. Therefore, mosquitoes make people swim in swimming pools. Yes there is a correlation because generally mosquitoes come in warmer months during which more people like to go swimming. But the mosquitoes don't CAUSE more people to go swimming.
In addition, the study posted in DC that showed that hand guns on people reduced homicides or whatever must be looked at with extreme caution. Just as any study that says the opposite of more guns = more homocides. There are so many external factors that any study must be looked at very carefully.
In addition, I found this Youtube video of how at least some people in Switzerland feel about gun control. Personally, I'm not really sure how I feel about it yet.
On February 03 2010 01:22 TS-Rupbar wrote: I am against guns because owning a gun doesn't protect you at all. It is much more dangerous than not owning one.
1. Other people can steal your gun or kids may find it. 2. Accidents DO happen. 3. If a criminal has a gun, one of you will die. If only the criminal has a gun, he probably won't shoot you.
Guns are bad and shooting guns as a hobby does not justify all the bad stuff they come with.
3.I happen to live in an area where crime is really high. Home invasions and violent assaults are a common occurrence. You're point in this line is just wrong; in my area anyway. People break into houses, kill everyone, rape the women, and steal your tv. That;s just the kind of shit you hear every other day.
On February 03 2010 07:29 Unstable wrote: @TS-Rupbar : Get your facts right.
More people are injured in traffic-related accidents than people whom are injured in gun-related ones.
Guns are not illegal in Sweden, though a person must have the proper permits to own them.
Sweden is one of the countries in Europe which has the highest amounts of firearms per capita.
Having government control what a persona can, or cannot own is an infringement on personal freedom.
Of course they are, but that's because there are far more cars than guns.
No guns in Sweden are used for self-defence. They are used for hunting and not designed to hurt humans. A hunting rifle is far less effective at killing people than a handgun.
So what? Lots of people use many guns for hunting different kinds of animals. The statistics are skewed. They are obviously skewed that way in America too, but not nearly as heavily.
It is, but that the law stops me from raping my grandmother is also an infringement on personal freedom.
On February 03 2010 01:22 TS-Rupbar wrote: I am against guns because owning a gun doesn't protect you at all. It is much more dangerous than not owning one.
1. Other people can steal your gun or kids may find it. 2. Accidents DO happen. 3. If a criminal has a gun, one of you will die. If only the criminal has a gun, he probably won't shoot you.
Guns are bad and shooting guns as a hobby does not justify all the bad stuff they come with.
3.I happen to live in an area where crime is really high. Home invasions and violent assaults are a common occurrence. You're point in this line is just wrong; in my area anyway. People break into houses, kill everyone, rape the women, and steal your tv. That;s just the kind of shit you hear every other day.
On February 03 2010 01:22 TS-Rupbar wrote: I am against guns because owning a gun doesn't protect you at all. It is much more dangerous than not owning one.
1. Other people can steal your gun or kids may find it. 2. Accidents DO happen. 3. If a criminal has a gun, one of you will die. If only the criminal has a gun, he probably won't shoot you.
Guns are bad and shooting guns as a hobby does not justify all the bad stuff they come with.
3.I happen to live in an area where crime is really high. Home invasions and violent assaults are a common occurrence. You're point in this line is just wrong; in my area anyway. People break into houses, kill everyone, rape the women, and steal your tv. That;s just the kind of shit you hear every other day.
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 00:40 ShadowDrgn wrote: Honest question: why does everyone from outside the US hate guns so much? Do schools in your country drill into your heads that guns are bad? Do your parents sit you down and scare you straight about guns when you're kids? Do you think that Hollywood movies accurately portray America's gun culture?
The fact is that most Americans don't own guns, have never fired a gun, and will never be threatened by a gun, but it seems like every European and Canadian on the Internet thinks the US is the wild west with shoot-outs on the streets every day. Obviously there are Americans who dislike guns as well, but they never seem so vehemently against them.
I don't really remember much gun talk at all, I just don't think we have them in our culture (unless you live on the country-side or like hunting). I guess the most of the media coverage you get is when something bad (i.e columbine) happens which gives you a skewed perspective.
For whatever it's worth, I used to be vehemently opposed to the American view on firearms but I've sort of done a 180 in recent years.
In an *ideal* world, I think nobody would own guns for obvious reasons, but I can see plenty of places in the world where I'd like to have a firearm at my disposal. Perhaps not so much where I live (shit, never seen anyone carrying a weapon of any kind - ever) tho
On February 03 2010 01:22 TS-Rupbar wrote: I am against guns because owning a gun doesn't protect you at all. It is much more dangerous than not owning one.
1. Other people can steal your gun or kids may find it. 2. Accidents DO happen. 3. If a criminal has a gun, one of you will die. If only the criminal has a gun, he probably won't shoot you.
Guns are bad and shooting guns as a hobby does not justify all the bad stuff they come with.
And if the criminal's intent is not to rob you, but rather to kill you, then if you don't have a gun you die for sure. If you do have a gun, he might die, which is a much, much better outcome.
People don't kill people for no reason. And if they do, it's much easier to do it if guns are legal. If I did something to make someone want to inflict damage onto me, I would much rather that they did it without a gun.
EDIT: Maybe I'm ignorant, but it seems to me that stabbing someone repeatedly in the genitals is a bad way to kill someone. If your friend is holding his mouth and you just slit his throat, you should be able to kill him in a better way.
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 07:29 Unstable wrote: @TS-Rupbar : Get your facts right.
More people are injured in traffic-related accidents than people whom are injured in gun-related ones.
Guns are not illegal in Sweden, though a person must have the proper permits to own them.
Sweden is one of the countries in Europe which has the highest amounts of firearms per capita.
Having government control what a persona can, or cannot own is an infringement on personal freedom.
Of course they are, but that's because there are far more cars than guns.
No guns in Sweden are used for self-defence. They are used for hunting and not designed to hurt humans. A hunting rifle is far less effective at killing people than a handgun.
So what? Lots of people use many guns for hunting different kinds of animals. The statistics are skewed. They are obviously skewed that way in America too, but not nearly as heavily.
It is, but that the law stops me from raping my grandmother is also an infringement on personal freedom.
EDIT: replaced "firearm" with "handgun"
you realise everything you said is pretty much what ive been saying the whole time minus self defense, which some people do use them for here too..
people don't do shoot-offs unless there intent is too kill or harm. If a robber knows u have a gun. there going to be scared shitless.you dont even have to be near him. If u shot one bullet in ur house i bet ur fucking ass hes going to run shitless out that door. if he doesn't then hes prepared to die for that tv and ice creame. and as for the young turk video. You expect the owners of the store to leave? theres no way the people on the outside are going to beable to get in and if they somehow managed to take a pot shot on 1 of the owners my balls would have dropped a 2nd time. All in all. There are many ways to kill people, If someone wants to kill someone there is no stopping them. even if guns aren't in the picture. And its just as easy to kill someone with a gun, using a knife or any other blunt/pierce object as long as they dont know it's coming. If the government wants to ban guns they should ban anything that can create explosives. Thousands of people can die if the bomb maker sets it up right. and cars kill way more people then guns. People should not be afraid of guns. They should be afraid of the person behind the gun
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.
I'm afraid to ask, but I have to....
Why the genitals?
I have no clue, the dude was laughing about the story the entire time. It's my personal belief that anyone that signs up for the U.S. military right now, is just blood thirsty.
And trust me, the exact question you asked, has been in my head since then.
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.
I'm afraid to ask, but I have to....
Why the genitals?
I have no clue, the dude was laughing about the story the entire time. It's my personal belief that anyone that signs up for the U.S. military right now, is just blood thirsty.
And trust me, the exact question you asked, has been in my head since then.
you have a very unhealthy view of the people who protect your freedoms.
On February 03 2010 07:29 Unstable wrote: @TS-Rupbar : Get your facts right.
More people are injured in traffic-related accidents than people whom are injured in gun-related ones.
Guns are not illegal in Sweden, though a person must have the proper permits to own them.
Sweden is one of the countries in Europe which has the highest amounts of firearms per capita.
Having government control what a persona can, or cannot own is an infringement on personal freedom.
Of course they are, but that's because there are far more cars than guns.
No guns in Sweden are used for self-defence. They are used for hunting and not designed to hurt humans. A hunting rifle is far less effective at killing people than a handgun.
So what? Lots of people use many guns for hunting different kinds of animals. The statistics are skewed. They are obviously skewed that way in America too, but not nearly as heavily.
It is, but that the law stops me from raping my grandmother is also an infringement on personal freedom.
EDIT: replaced "firearm" with "handgun"
you realise everything you said is pretty much what ive been saying the whole time minus self defense, which some people do use them for here too..
To own a gun in Sweden, you need to go to courses. They are also not designed to hurt people. A semi automatic rifle is much more dangerous than a hunting rifle. Because weapons for self defense are designed to hurt people, they are MUCH more suited to be used in malicious deeds than hunting rifles.
The car argument is very bad, because cars have a purpose and there is a reason for why no one wants to ban them. I can understand the self defense argument even though I don't agree with it. The car one is just really stupid.
EPT
