|
Sanya12364 Posts
|
On April 05 2009 05:32 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2009 04:46 Kwark wrote:
Sitting duck to who? The guy armed with the sharp stick?
Its actually pretty hard to get a gun in this country, even if you're a criminal with powers of law defiance who can somehow generate an illegal gun. It's to the benefit of the criminal community as a whole that there aren't guns. Policemen aren't armed. When they quarrel they don't all die. It's easy to obtain an illegal gun in a society when gun ownership is taken for granted and people think it's okay to gain a gun. That's why the "only criminals will have guns" argument works in the US. Because it's entrenched.
It's far harder to do so in a country where everyone agrees that gun ownership is utterly retarded. No! You idiot!  Think about being surrounded gang of six or more teenagers or being confronted by a single muscular man. These are pretty basic scenarios in a world without guns or knives. You might like the idea of taking it in the ass from the criminal element and submitting to intimidation, but don't you dare try to force that folly on me. One last time, you can't un-invent guns, so the really hard core criminal class will still have them. You might notice that there are still gun crimes in the UK and when they do happen, the average law enforcement department isn't equipped to deal with it. Finally, violence doesn't stop by taking away the weapons. Violence ends when society is good and virtuous, and there isn't any social rot. If you're so concerned about ending violence, do something about social decay. Taking away people's means of self-protection is evil.
u noe as a 68 something poster... half i which i can only assume u've gotten through pointless debates such as this one... u sure do like to trash talk senior posters...don't call ppl idiots because they won't conform to ur ideas
|
The number of illegal guns is very low. It is very hard to steal a gun because there are not that many guns around outside law enforcement and the militairy. How do you get water in the middle of the dessert. It is a lot harder to rob a store with a knife or a bat. There is less deterent from gunowners in the store sure but also far less oppertunity for criminals by lack of guns. Domestic violence (almost) never ends with someone getting killed by a gun in a flash of rage. I have never in my live seen a gun that was privately owned.
edit: The Netherlands is a densely populated country. If you yell there are very likely people who can hear you. In most areas help is no more than a short sprint away. I can imagine living in a remote house you would like some protection for help being far away. I have never heard of junkies raiding a Dutch farm though.
Someone carrying or owning gun(s) would be more likely to become a target because the criminals here are that desparate to get a gun over here.
|
|
|
On April 05 2009 05:35 R3condite wrote:
u noe as a 68 something poster... half i which i can only assume u've gotten through pointless debates such as this one... u sure do like to trash talk senior posters...don't call ppl idiots because they won't conform to ur ideas
He's still right.
You can't stop violence.
Are you safer against a GANG with your fists, or with a knife or a firearm?
The other guys argument resolves around being "safer" when people are without these types of weapons. All of history shows otherwise. People died, reguardless of weapons. That's how martial arts were developed, to kill without the use of a weapon.
Canada has a lower incident of murders, but much higher instances of thefts. etc. (and the reason why our murder rate is so high is because the hippies pushed government to reduce the punishment for all crimes in favor of rehabilitation)
|
United States44062 Posts
On April 05 2009 05:50 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
the reason why our murder rate is so high is because the hippies pushed government to reduce the punishment for all crimes in favor of rehabilitation
Oh God.
|
On April 05 2009 04:46 Kwark wrote:
Its actually pretty hard to get a gun in this country, even if you're a criminal with powers of law defiance who can somehow generate an illegal gun. It's to the benefit of the criminal community as a whole that there aren't guns. Policemen aren't armed. When they quarrel they don't all die. It's easy to obtain an illegal gun in a society when gun ownership is taken for granted and people think it's okay to gain a gun. That's why the "only criminals will have guns" argument works in the US. Because it's entrenched.
It's far harder to do so in a country where everyone agrees that gun ownership is utterly retarded.
Er, actually its pretty easy to get a gun. Please back up your premises and make sure your assumptions are rock solid before building a case on them. A short google search turned up:
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/gunpart2.html
A few selective quotes from the article: + Show Spoiler +
"Dealers with no license usually don't go to that much trouble. They leave no paper trails and just how far within the law they operate is unknown In states such as Texas, where there are no civil restrictions on gun sales, the question rarely arises.
There is no law against the sale of firearms between individuals. State laws may require a sales tax, but federal regulations on such sales are nonexistent, Steel says. A person may sell any number of firearms to another individual without the supervision of any agency. It is only when the seller derives a livelihood from those sales that it is a violation.
"That's where the flea markets come in," Steel says. "If it's just an individual selling a few guns, there's no violation. When you see a guy sells 20 or 30 a day, day after day, you know that's how he's making a living."
The limited forms of gun control in effect today -- registration by purchasers and waiting periods -- have mixed effect. Police largely scoff at them as "feel good" legislation. In years past, many police officers were themselves licensed dealers, buying firearms for other officers. Their number, along with the number of licensed gun dealers nationwide, decreased over the past three years after application requirements became stricter and fees rose.
Still, many officers decry gun laws, and only a few seem to feel those laws have accomplished anything.
"If criminals want guns, they're going to get them," says Dorcia Meador, range master for the Fort Worth Police Department. "Police try to be where they're needed, but we're simply not always there when you need us."
Personally, i am 100% against irresponsible/underaged people from having guns, and i think it is a huge tragedy that teens bring guns to school and for whatever fucked up reason think that violence will solve their problems. That said, banning guns will not work. As you can read from the quote, officers at the front lines themselves admit that "If criminals want guns, they're going to get them." Making guns illegal really doesn't make sense logically:
Bad people break laws
Good people obey laws
Bad people can easily acquire guns.
So lets put in a law so it will make it harder for everyone to get guns.
Result:
Bad people still get guns, good people dont.
The law actually protects bad people because suddenly they know that if they acquire a gun, there will be no immediate negative consequences (until the police show up).
The same principle applies to nuclear weapons, Mutually Assured Destruction is a valid form of deterrent.
Look at Iraq: No Nukes, Labeled as Evil, Horrible Human rights violations, Gets Ass Kicked
Look at North Korea, Has Nukes, Labeled as Evil, EVEN WORSE human rights violations, Is left alone.
If guns were easily acquired, criminals would have to think twice before bringing a gun to school and going on a rampage. Because, suddenly, someone might actually shoot back.
Having made my case, I do think there needs to be some form of regulation and education for guns, just as there are for cars. The solution to stopping drunk driving deaths is not to ban cars, but to educate people, and to make sure they take and pass an IQ /common sense exam before they can drive. The same should apply to guns. Not talking about the issue (avoiding debates) will not help to solve the problem.
Also, I know i'm emotionally invested in this point (see post count :p) but seriously, what does post count have to do with legitimacy of your argument. Calling ppl idiots is not constructive and only draws fire to yourself, but post count should never be an issue in a debate.
|
On April 05 2009 05:53 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2009 05:50 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
the reason why our murder rate is so high is because the hippies pushed government to reduce the punishment for all crimes in favor of rehabilitation Oh God.
my thoughts exactly after reading the nonsense in these last few pages.
Tons of hypothetical examples and truth stretches to make an inane point. The knife argument was even dumber :/
|
United States44062 Posts
On April 05 2009 06:06 Railxp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2009 04:46 Kwark wrote:
Its actually pretty hard to get a gun in this country, even if you're a criminal with powers of law defiance who can somehow generate an illegal gun. It's to the benefit of the criminal community as a whole that there aren't guns. Policemen aren't armed. When they quarrel they don't all die. It's easy to obtain an illegal gun in a society when gun ownership is taken for granted and people think it's okay to gain a gun. That's why the "only criminals will have guns" argument works in the US. Because it's entrenched.
It's far harder to do so in a country where everyone agrees that gun ownership is utterly retarded. Er, actually its pretty easy to get a gun. Please back up your premises and make sure your assumptions are rock solid before building a case on them. A short google search turned up: http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/gunpart2.htmlA few selective quotes from the article: + Show Spoiler +
"Dealers with no license usually don't go to that much trouble. They leave no paper trails and just how far within the law they operate is unknown In states such as Texas, where there are no civil restrictions on gun sales, the question rarely arises.
There is no law against the sale of firearms between individuals. State laws may require a sales tax, but federal regulations on such sales are nonexistent, Steel says. A person may sell any number of firearms to another individual without the supervision of any agency. It is only when the seller derives a livelihood from those sales that it is a violation.
"That's where the flea markets come in," Steel says. "If it's just an individual selling a few guns, there's no violation. When you see a guy sells 20 or 30 a day, day after day, you know that's how he's making a living."
The limited forms of gun control in effect today -- registration by purchasers and waiting periods -- have mixed effect. Police largely scoff at them as "feel good" legislation. In years past, many police officers were themselves licensed dealers, buying firearms for other officers. Their number, along with the number of licensed gun dealers nationwide, decreased over the past three years after application requirements became stricter and fees rose.
Still, many officers decry gun laws, and only a few seem to feel those laws have accomplished anything.
"If criminals want guns, they're going to get them," says Dorcia Meador, range master for the Fort Worth Police Department. "Police try to be where they're needed, but we're simply not always there when you need us."
Personally, i am 100% against irresponsible/underaged people from having guns, and i think it is a huge tragedy that teens bring guns to school and for whatever fucked up reason think that violence will solve their problems. That said, banning guns will not work. As you can read from the quote, officers at the front lines themselves admit that "If criminals want guns, they're going to get them." Making guns illegal really doesn't make sense logically: Bad people break laws Good people obey laws Bad people can easily acquire guns. So lets put in a law so it will make it harder for everyone to get guns. Result: Bad people still get guns, good people dont. The law actually protects bad people because suddenly they know that if they acquire a gun, there will be no immediate negative consequences (until the police show up). The same principle applies to nuclear weapons, Mutually Assured Destruction is a valid form of deterrent. Look at Iraq: No Nukes, Labeled as Evil, Horrible Human rights violations, Gets Ass Kicked Look at North Korea, Has Nukes, Labeled as Evil, EVEN WORSE human rights violations, Is left alone. If guns were easily acquired, criminals would have to think twice before bringing a gun to school and going on a rampage. Because, suddenly, someone might actually shoot back. Having made my case, I do think there needs to be some form of regulation and education for guns, just as there are for cars. The solution to stopping drunk driving deaths is not to ban cars, but to educate people, and to make sure they take and pass an IQ /common sense exam before they can drive. The same should apply to guns. Not talking about the issue (avoiding debates) will not help to solve the problem. Also, I know i'm emotionally invested in this point (see post count :p) but seriously, what does post count have to do with legitimacy of your argument. Calling ppl idiots is not constructive and only draws fire to yourself, but post count should never be an issue in a debate.
Texas isn't a county in the United Kingdom. When I say "this country" and you highlight it I'm really not sure how it's even possible you're misunderstanding what I mean. But your article from 'Guns in America' doesn't really touch on the issue of guns in this country.
|
@ TanGeng:
True, violence will not end until we become something which is no longer human. Every society has its unstable elements. So, shall we make it easier or more difficult for those elements to commit violence?
You think that it's evil to take away a person's ability to protect themselves. I think it's evil to give the deranged guy next door a chance to take more lives than would otherwise be possible. If Jiverly Voong ran in carrying two knives instead of two guns, do you really think he could kill that many people? Personally, I would feel much safer knowing that half the passengers in the same subway car as me aren't carrying handguns.
Also, labeling other people's ideas as visceral is not much of an argument either. I could say the same for yours:
Owning a gun provides you with only an illusion of safety. If you and the guy next to you on the street is carrying a gun, and he decides to shoot you, do you honestly think you're gonna have time to pull your gun out? Your gun is not much of a deterrent; if the other partly seriously wants to hurt you, their initiative will not give you a chance to respond. If somebody feels like shooting you, guaranteed you're going to get shot first.
If the same gang from your post are armed with guns, your chances of survival are even slimmer.
If the same rapist is carrying a gun, you're still gonna get raped.
You say "if we ban guns, are we gonna ban knives and arms and legs next?". I could say, well why don't we give people grenades, or other similarly practical yet more deadly weapons?
To every one of your examples, there's a better counter example.
Quote from the article you posted: "The message was aimed at burying the belief that carrying a knife makes makes you feel safer, a reason given by most young people in surveys about knife crime, according to police."
Now replace "knife" with "gun", and "young people" with "gun owners".
If everyone is carrying guns, it does not make society more stable.
|
|
|
Murder and the amount of other crimes had actually declined substantially over about a decade from the mid nineties, only recently has it slightly gone up and stayed a basically stable rate here in the U.S.. I graduate in December with a criminal justice degree I don't think I have ever heard that the murder rate is high because punishment has become less harsh. Punishment is still pretty stiff for murder especially here in Texas, of course it depends on the intent and type of homicide that occurred such as it is in other states. Texas does a lot of capital punishment but our state still has a fairly high murder rate which I would not attribute to any case in capital punishment but more towards many other factors as every state has their own problems, drugs, gangs, economic woes and poverty are the major factors. This goes to the notion that more police means less crime which is simply not true.
|
On April 05 2009 06:55 Kwark wrote:
Texas isn't a county in the United Kingdom. When I say "this country" and you highlight it I'm really not sure how it's even possible you're misunderstanding what I mean. But your article from 'Guns in America' doesn't really touch on the issue of guns in this country.
Er, honestly? I construct a argument ground up based on principles for you and you merely address and attack a geographical technicality? The principle holds, criminals everywhere in ANY country have no problem getting guns. Otherwise they wouldn't BE criminals.
Further Google:
BBC On where UK Guns come from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6937457.stm
If you think that is out dated,
The Guardian, Saturday 30 August 2008
"Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1
Please, at give me the courtesy of treating me as an intelligent individual. I mean, consider what the obvious comeback to your statement is, and then google that first so that you dont embarrass yourself.
...
Oh wait this is the internets 
|
On April 05 2009 06:55 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2009 06:06 Railxp wrote:On April 05 2009 04:46 Kwark wrote:
Its actually pretty hard to get a gun in this country, even if you're a criminal with powers of law defiance who can somehow generate an illegal gun. It's to the benefit of the criminal community as a whole that there aren't guns. Policemen aren't armed. When they quarrel they don't all die. It's easy to obtain an illegal gun in a society when gun ownership is taken for granted and people think it's okay to gain a gun. That's why the "only criminals will have guns" argument works in the US. Because it's entrenched.
It's far harder to do so in a country where everyone agrees that gun ownership is utterly retarded. Er, actually its pretty easy to get a gun. Please back up your premises and make sure your assumptions are rock solid before building a case on them. A short google search turned up: http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/gunpart2.htmlA few selective quotes from the article: + Show Spoiler +
"Dealers with no license usually don't go to that much trouble. They leave no paper trails and just how far within the law they operate is unknown In states such as Texas, where there are no civil restrictions on gun sales, the question rarely arises.
There is no law against the sale of firearms between individuals. State laws may require a sales tax, but federal regulations on such sales are nonexistent, Steel says. A person may sell any number of firearms to another individual without the supervision of any agency. It is only when the seller derives a livelihood from those sales that it is a violation.
"That's where the flea markets come in," Steel says. "If it's just an individual selling a few guns, there's no violation. When you see a guy sells 20 or 30 a day, day after day, you know that's how he's making a living."
The limited forms of gun control in effect today -- registration by purchasers and waiting periods -- have mixed effect. Police largely scoff at them as "feel good" legislation. In years past, many police officers were themselves licensed dealers, buying firearms for other officers. Their number, along with the number of licensed gun dealers nationwide, decreased over the past three years after application requirements became stricter and fees rose.
Still, many officers decry gun laws, and only a few seem to feel those laws have accomplished anything.
"If criminals want guns, they're going to get them," says Dorcia Meador, range master for the Fort Worth Police Department. "Police try to be where they're needed, but we're simply not always there when you need us."
Personally, i am 100% against irresponsible/underaged people from having guns, and i think it is a huge tragedy that teens bring guns to school and for whatever fucked up reason think that violence will solve their problems. That said, banning guns will not work. As you can read from the quote, officers at the front lines themselves admit that "If criminals want guns, they're going to get them." Making guns illegal really doesn't make sense logically: Bad people break laws Good people obey laws Bad people can easily acquire guns. So lets put in a law so it will make it harder for everyone to get guns. Result: Bad people still get guns, good people dont. The law actually protects bad people because suddenly they know that if they acquire a gun, there will be no immediate negative consequences (until the police show up). The same principle applies to nuclear weapons, Mutually Assured Destruction is a valid form of deterrent. Look at Iraq: No Nukes, Labeled as Evil, Horrible Human rights violations, Gets Ass Kicked Look at North Korea, Has Nukes, Labeled as Evil, EVEN WORSE human rights violations, Is left alone. If guns were easily acquired, criminals would have to think twice before bringing a gun to school and going on a rampage. Because, suddenly, someone might actually shoot back. Having made my case, I do think there needs to be some form of regulation and education for guns, just as there are for cars. The solution to stopping drunk driving deaths is not to ban cars, but to educate people, and to make sure they take and pass an IQ /common sense exam before they can drive. The same should apply to guns. Not talking about the issue (avoiding debates) will not help to solve the problem. Also, I know i'm emotionally invested in this point (see post count :p) but seriously, what does post count have to do with legitimacy of your argument. Calling ppl idiots is not constructive and only draws fire to yourself, but post count should never be an issue in a debate. Texas isn't a county in the United Kingdom. When I say "this country" and you highlight it I'm really not sure how it's even possible you're misunderstanding what I mean. But your article from 'Guns in America' doesn't really touch on the issue of guns in this country.
HAHAHAHA
What the fuck?
I mean seriously....
I sat here reading this thread and saw you say 'it's not easy to get guns in this country' (i.e. whereever it is in GB that you're from) and then literally LOL'd when this tool quoted an AMERICAN article which backed up HOW EASY IT IS FOR ANY IDIOT WITH A GRUDGE TO GET A GUN.
HAHAHAHHAHAHA
How the fuck are people so dense?
|
On April 05 2009 07:35 Railxp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2009 06:55 Kwark wrote:
Texas isn't a county in the United Kingdom. When I say "this country" and you highlight it I'm really not sure how it's even possible you're misunderstanding what I mean. But your article from 'Guns in America' doesn't really touch on the issue of guns in this country. Er, honestly? I construct a argument ground up based on principles for you and you merely address and attack a geographical technicality? The principle holds, criminals everywhere in ANY country have no problem getting guns. Otherwise they wouldn't BE criminals. Further Google: BBC On where UK Guns come from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6937457.stmIf you think that is out dated, The Guardian, Saturday 30 August 2008 "Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you" http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1Please, at give me the courtesy of treating me as an intelligent individual. I mean, consider what the obvious comeback to your statement is, and then google that first so that you dont embarrass yourself. ... Oh wait this is the internets
You're a fool. Of course criminal elements will always find ways of obtaining weapons... The point is that it isn't generally those bikers or gang bangers or mafia stooges going around shooting up schools or shopping centres because they're having a fucking bad week.... It's a person that nobody else suspects, who is an emotional / psychological BASKET CASE, that flips out and is able to do SO MUCH DAMAGE because of how easy it is to obtain a fucking gun on a whim.
Look, shit like this will happen regardless of gun laws. I accept that and cannot argue against it. However it is the undeniable frequency with which this shit happens in the USA that YOU cannot deny. And to everyone else in the world, it seems pretty bloody obvious why it happens so much more in that country.
|
Kwark, the UK has no credibility in my view. The amount of surveillance and government intrusion they allow is unacceptable. The amount of deaths caused by citizens who are allowed to carry guns, vs the deaths prevented is debatable. In any case, it is not a large number.
And I don't think it is very relevant in either. Here is one good reason I think citizens should have weapons.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217_pf.html
Assault weapons bans are completely ridiculous. Very, very few crimes are committed with assault weapons which are legally owned.
Self defense is a basic right. Unless you've been in a threatening situation, you may not appreciate what it feels like to know you can defend yourself.
|
|
|
I've got a serious question:
If everyone is allowed to have guns in the United States what is the difference between a citizen and a police officer from a criminal point of view?
|
United States44062 Posts
On April 05 2009 07:35 Railxp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2009 06:55 Kwark wrote:
Texas isn't a county in the United Kingdom. When I say "this country" and you highlight it I'm really not sure how it's even possible you're misunderstanding what I mean. But your article from 'Guns in America' doesn't really touch on the issue of guns in this country. Er, honestly? I construct a argument ground up based on principles for you and you merely address and attack a geographical technicality? The principle holds, criminals everywhere in ANY country have no problem getting guns. Otherwise they wouldn't BE criminals. Further Google: BBC On where UK Guns come from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6937457.stmIf you think that is out dated, The Guardian, Saturday 30 August 2008 "Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you" http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1Please, at give me the courtesy of treating me as an intelligent individual. I mean, consider what the obvious comeback to your statement is, and then google that first so that you dont embarrass yourself. ... Oh wait this is the internets
Your argument was entirely retarded for a whole host of reasons already explained in this thread and countless others. I didn't see the point in bother repeating them to somebody who thought that Texas was in England. I felt it easier to just to gently explain to him that he's not so bright and move on with my life. Perhaps you should move on with yours.
|
On April 05 2009 07:48 Ace wrote:
If everyone is allowed to have guns in the United States what is the difference between a citizen and a police officer from a criminal point of view?
Academically, there isn't a huge difference. However, practically, there is. Citizens regularly get their guns taken by police and not returned. Citizens can get in huge amounts of trouble for using a gun even in a self-defense situation. Police can shoot someone and generally it all blows over.
So citizens with guns are kind of frowned upon by the government, other citizens who don't have or know anything about guns, and just watch the news, get really scared and call the police if they even see a gun.
For example, in Washington State, everyone is allowed to open-carry a gun on their belt. However, if one actually tried to exercise those rights for a day, the police would be called and at minimum you would have your gun confiscated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
