14 dead... including the shooter 26 injured happened this morning...
perpetrator was Jiverly Wong he was recently laid off from IBM (see EDIT3) i guess layoffs are starting to really sink in...
EDIT: wtf is w/ the shootings recently? i nvr noticed so many shootings happen so frequently...
EDIT2: Found on Wong's body were hunting knife in the waistband of his pants; a bag of ammunition tied around his neck; and two semi-automatic pistols, a .45-caliber Beretta and a 9 millimeter Beretta matching the serial numbers on his New York State pistol license.
so they were was a legally issued guns
EDIT3: "Although early reports suggested Wong had recently lost his job at a local IBM plant in nearby Endicott, New York, IBM stated they had no records showing Wong had ever worked for the company. A woman identifying herself as his sister stated he had worked for 'the vacuum company' (Shop Vac) until it closed down."
"The incident makes a total of at least five deadly mass shootings in the United States in a one-month period." ...wow...
oh and IBM has been making a RIDICULOUS amount of layoffs. a lot of it is outsourcing hte jobs. My dad worked there for 29 and a half years before they outsourced his job and screwed him on retirement
On April 04 2009 12:28 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I hadn't heard of this.. fucking terrible.
So sad that these kind of atrocities still occur. Yeah your life sucks.. why hurt so many innocent people? So fucked up.
Because their life sucks, they're pissed off and they don't give a fuck anymore
But you DO give a fuck to give the effort to kill other people. Not caring would be doing nothing, being indifferent.. caring about something would be killing people.
It isn't like the only thing stopping us from killing people is that we care not to kill people. I'd argue there is a lot that goes into that.. this person somehow became inverted on those feelings, those inhibitions and he went the extra psychotic step of killing many people he has no association with.
it is fucked up.. not a cliche.. LITERALLY fucked up.
I don't think anyone should view this as a race thing. I really don't believe the fact that he was Vietnamese had anything to do with it. There are messsed up people from every area of the world.
On April 04 2009 06:24 CharlieMurphy wrote: Kinda sucks for the asians and whites doing all the mass killings. Black people just kill each other.
This is my response, but I'd also like to add, wtf man?
That is the exception to the rule however.
I know it sounds terribly racist to say that more Asians and Caucasians do these mass killings, but it isn't when you're talking statistics. It's not like the statistics are saying "because they are X race they are more likely to do mass killings", it's just statistics.
Oh well, keep holding onto that constitutional right to bear arms! Those pesky oppressive governments might pop up for the first time in 200 years (as opposed to these shootings which happen every second weekend?)
On April 04 2009 13:35 HeadBangaa wrote: In these hard times, mary jane can really take the edge off. Too bad prudes and fascists continue to demonize the wonderdrug.
On April 04 2009 13:37 Brett wrote: Oh well, keep holding onto that constitutional right to bear arms! Those pesky oppressive governments might pop up for the first time in 200 years (as opposed to these shootings which happen every second weekend?)
Get your quips in before your government blacklists this website
On April 04 2009 13:37 Brett wrote: Oh well, keep holding onto that constitutional right to bear arms! Those pesky oppressive governments might pop up for the first time in 200 years (as opposed to these shootings which happen every second weekend?)
And disarming the general law-abiding population prevents shootings? - How?
That said arming the general population gives these suicidal maniacs more reason to go on killing sprees. They are more likely to die after several shots instead of emptying their entire clip and waiting until the police arrives.
Oh, can we disarm the police too, because it seems the police irresponsibly kills someone every week - rather than just every second week.
On April 04 2009 12:28 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I hadn't heard of this.. fucking terrible.
So sad that these kind of atrocities still occur. Yeah your life sucks.. why hurt so many innocent people? So fucked up.
Because their life sucks, they're pissed off and they don't give a fuck anymore
But you DO give a fuck to give the effort to kill other people. Not caring would be doing nothing, being indifferent.. caring about something would be killing people.
It isn't like the only thing stopping us from killing people is that we care not to kill people. I'd argue there is a lot that goes into that.. this person somehow became inverted on those feelings, those inhibitions and he went the extra psychotic step of killing many people he has no association with.
it is fucked up.. not a cliche.. LITERALLY fucked up.
I think my man Doc Holiday and Wyatt Earp summed up people like this best in the movie Tomestome
Wyatt: "What makes a man like Ringo do the things he does?"
Doc: "Man like Johnny Ringo got a great empty hole, right through the middle of him. He can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it."
On April 04 2009 07:53 EscPlan9 wrote: oh and IBM has been making a RIDICULOUS amount of layoffs. a lot of it is outsourcing hte jobs. My dad worked there for 29 and a half years before they outsourced his job and screwed him on retirement
looks like more possible killers... they should have an exit interview all the time to see if the person is stable...
On April 04 2009 12:59 Person514cs wrote: Good thing he didn't know how to make highly explosive bombs. Other wise the whole building might of went down with him.
On April 04 2009 13:37 Brett wrote: Oh well, keep holding onto that constitutional right to bear arms! Those pesky oppressive governments might pop up for the first time in 200 years (as opposed to these shootings which happen every second weekend?)
And disarming the general law-abiding population prevents shootings? - How?
That said arming the general population gives these suicidal maniacs more reason to go on killing sprees. They are more likely to die after several shots instead of emptying their entire clip and waiting until the police arrives.
Oh, can we disarm the police too, because it seems the police irresponsibly kills someone every week - rather than just every second week.
On April 04 2009 13:37 Brett wrote: Oh well, keep holding onto that constitutional right to bear arms! Those pesky oppressive governments might pop up for the first time in 200 years (as opposed to these shootings which happen every second weekend?)
And disarming the general law-abiding population prevents shootings? - How?
That said arming the general population gives these suicidal maniacs more reason to go on killing sprees. They are more likely to die after several shots instead of emptying their entire clip and waiting until the police arrives.
Oh, can we disarm the police too, because it seems the police irresponsibly kills someone every week - rather than just every second week.
General law abiding citizens pull out their guns in those situations? so someone going on a picnic with their family should carry an assault rifle with them at all times for their own protection? maybe each person should be allowed to carry a grenade just in case. Remember Cho the VT shooter? the guy was mentally ill and even HE was able to get a gun, enough said.
Two things which worry me additonally: a) all this media hype around the shootings will cause even more because they are like advertisements for people who hate their lives - they'll see that they'll be special when doing this b) all this shit will lead to *much* more surveillance... and fully tolerated by everybody. In the near future we'll probably see guards, metal detectors like at airports, cameras and shit at schools and other public places
on the bright side, maybe we'll finally see bans or heavy restrictions on weapon property, even in USA.
On April 04 2009 13:59 BalliSLife wrote: General law abiding citizens pull out their guns in those situations? so someone going on a picnic with their family should carry an assault rifle with them at all times for their own protection? maybe each person should be allowed to carry a grenade just in case. Remember Cho the VT shooter? the guy was mentally ill and even HE was able to get a gun, enough said.
Look regulations WERE in place to prevent a mentally ill person from getting a gun. Yet incompetence of the regulators allowed Cho to get one anyways. So you want to entrust your incompetent regulators even more power?
And what is the point of disarming the general law-abiding population? Does the government just do it for the hell of it without showing why it is of benefit. If that's the case, the fuck the government. One more reason to have a gun, so the government can't extend its arbitrary stupid and tyrannical rule.
btw, many robberies, killing sprees, and other crimes are stopped by people with concealed weapons. They just don't make the news because innocent people didn't get killed. AND most police departments are pretty incompetent, too. They barely provide any protection against most forms of crime. Get robbed? No help. Get mugged? No help. Etc.
The irony is that, assuming he stayed in the same general area he immigrated too, he could have shot up the same place where he took HIS aptitude test.
On April 04 2009 13:59 BalliSLife wrote: General law abiding citizens pull out their guns in those situations? so someone going on a picnic with their family should carry an assault rifle with them at all times for their own protection? maybe each person should be allowed to carry a grenade just in case. Remember Cho the VT shooter? the guy was mentally ill and even HE was able to get a gun, enough said.
Look regulations WERE in place to prevent a mentally ill person from getting a gun. Yet incompetence of the regulators allowed Cho to get one anyways. So you want to entrust your incompetent regulators even more power?
And what is the point of disarming the general law-abiding population? Does the government just do it for the hell of it without showing why it is of benefit. If that's the case, the fuck the government. One more reason to have a gun, so the government can't extend its arbitrary stupid and tyrannical rule.
btw, many robberies, killing sprees, and other crimes are stopped by people with concealed weapons. They just don't make the news because innocent people didn't get killed. AND most police departments are pretty incompetent, too. They barely provide any protection against most forms of crime. Get robbed? No help. Get mugged? No help. Etc.
If some guy just wants to randomly shoot you there's nothing you can do to prevent that, you've been watching too much fucking james bond to think some receptionist is gonna start moving backwards on her chair and start a shootout with the gunman the second he starts barging in.
On April 04 2009 14:12 0xDEADBEEF wrote: all this shit will lead to *much* more surveillance... and fully tolerated by everybody. In the near future we'll probably see guards, metal detectors like at airports, cameras and shit at schools and other public places.
I live in Binghamton actually, and was working while all of this was going only a few miles away. This is what I fear too, mostly because on Fox News (what the restaurant I work at puts on TV, not me) there was much talk about how it took forever to get a live video feed from Binghamton, how slow response time was by officials, etc. and generally made a few remarks about how things would be different if there was some kind of security alert procedures in place (in the way of counterterrorism moreso than accident prevention, based on the sounds of it). One of those Fox News reporters even went so far as to label the shooting an act of terrorism, whilst referring to it as an "arbitrary act of violence in the same sentence". Make sense of that.
sigh, what the fuck is wrong with this guy. it's ok to get laid off, everyone is getting laid off. going to a citizenship area to kill other immigrants? sigh, selfish motherfucker.
ANP reports that the shooting has been claimed by Pakistani Baitullah Mehsud, leader of some terrorist group. Personally I think Mehsud is taking credit for something unfortunate that happened but he had nothing to do with it, kind of a cheap way to say "I got you America"
On April 04 2009 13:37 Brett wrote: Oh well, keep holding onto that constitutional right to bear arms! Those pesky oppressive governments might pop up for the first time in 200 years (as opposed to these shootings which happen every second weekend?)
Get your quips in before your government blacklists this website
As an American, you would be worried about that wouldn't you? Quick send me a gun and I'll form a militia!
If some guy just wants to randomly shoot you there's nothing you can do to prevent that, you've been watching too much fucking james bond to think some receptionist is gonna start moving backwards on her chair and start a shootout with the gunman the second he starts barging in.
Only true for the first person to be shot, but this is an argument for making everyone helpless? You're not addressing how gun control prevents guns from getting into the hands of people who won't abide by the law. Nor does it prevent violent folks from acting out.
Gun control addresses neither of those issues until the point when guns are not to be found in society at all. Then what. What about police going on killing sprees? What about terrorists? What about pervasive robberies? Murders with swords and knives? The population will be powerless to counteract that.
Gun control proponents are emotionally stupid, and just react viscerally. It's such a shallow analysis that it's laughable.
On April 04 2009 06:14 R3condite wrote: EDIT: wtf is w/ the shootings recently? i nvr noticed so many shootings happen so frequently...
Shitty economy = lots of layoffs = lots of jobless, depressed/pissed off people = increase in violent episodes like this
+ guns everywhere
HA! Whereas in the UK, you just have riots and lots of people robbing each other. People knifing each other or burning out cars isn't "violence" because only guns are "violent."
On April 04 2009 17:10 LOcDowN wrote: sigh, what the fuck is wrong with this guy. it's ok to get laid off, everyone is getting laid off. going to a citizenship area to kill other immigrants? sigh, selfish motherfucker.
... maybe he was already unstable when they fired him (most likely)
If some guy just wants to randomly shoot you there's nothing you can do to prevent that, you've been watching too much fucking james bond to think some receptionist is gonna start moving backwards on her chair and start a shootout with the gunman the second he starts barging in.
Only true for the first person to be shot, but this is an argument for making everyone helpless? You're not addressing how gun control prevents guns from getting into the hands of people who won't abide by the law. Nor does it prevent violent folks from acting out.
Gun control addresses neither of those issues until the point when guns are not to be found in society at all. Then what. What about police going on killing sprees? What about terrorists? What about pervasive robberies? Murders with swords and knives? The population will be powerless to counteract that.
Gun control proponents are emotionally stupid, and just react viscerally. It's such a shallow analysis that it's laughable.
he had an automatic rifle... do u even noe how fast those things dish out bullets? he could have killed a LOT more if he wanted IMO
also as for gun control... if america has wanted they could have become like Korea gun wise... at the LEAST if ppl only use knives and such there isn't chance of u dying by "accidental stray" bullets and also u have some sort of a fighting chance vs a guy w/ a knife whereas a guy w/ a gun could probably kill u if he had good enough aim... and even if u had a gun when he had one... i would rather like ot run away from a guy w/ a knife then try to outgun some1 who's already pulled his out while mine is still in its holster
u noe im just surprised at how hard it is for police to take action during these situations...it really suks... i wonder if there were any security guards on duty though...
btw this all went down in 3min... http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7249853&page=1 ""We have no idea what the motive is," Zikuski said." reallly? really?! "New York civic association building that caters to immigrants"? layoff? hmm...
On April 04 2009 06:14 R3condite wrote: EDIT: wtf is w/ the shootings recently? i nvr noticed so many shootings happen so frequently...
Shitty economy = lots of layoffs = lots of jobless, depressed/pissed off people = increase in violent episodes like this
+ guns everywhere
HA! Whereas in the UK, you just have riots and lots of people robbing each other. People knifing each other or burning out cars isn't "violence" because only guns are "violent."
What riots or burning cars? You seem to have made up a violent country without guns to prove your point. Please avoid doing that. Real world examples are preferred.
If some guy just wants to randomly shoot you there's nothing you can do to prevent that, you've been watching too much fucking james bond to think some receptionist is gonna start moving backwards on her chair and start a shootout with the gunman the second he starts barging in.
Only true for the first person to be shot, but this is an argument for making everyone helpless? You're not addressing how gun control prevents guns from getting into the hands of people who won't abide by the law. Nor does it prevent violent folks from acting out.
Gun control addresses neither of those issues until the point when guns are not to be found in society at all. Then what. What about police going on killing sprees? What about terrorists? What about pervasive robberies? Murders with swords and knives? The population will be powerless to counteract that.
Gun control proponents are emotionally stupid, and just react viscerally. It's such a shallow analysis that it's laughable.
So you're telling me you feel a lot fucking safer if you knew that everyone walking in Time Square had a gun on them?
I'm reasonably sure TanGeng is trolling. Nobody is that stupid. Police going on killing sprees? Seriously? You think the only thing stopping the police going on killing sprees is that the citizens are armed? Plus in gun control countries the police are unarmed. If you actually looked at them rather than just making up stories about how they're anarchistic wastelands you'd know that.
If some guy just wants to randomly shoot you there's nothing you can do to prevent that, you've been watching too much fucking james bond to think some receptionist is gonna start moving backwards on her chair and start a shootout with the gunman the second he starts barging in.
Only true for the first person to be shot, but this is an argument for making everyone helpless? You're not addressing how gun control prevents guns from getting into the hands of people who won't abide by the law. Nor does it prevent violent folks from acting out.
Gun control addresses neither of those issues until the point when guns are not to be found in society at all. Then what. What about police going on killing sprees? What about terrorists? What about pervasive robberies? Murders with swords and knives? The population will be powerless to counteract that.
Gun control proponents are emotionally stupid, and just react viscerally. It's such a shallow analysis that it's laughable.
What? "Oh crap, people keep shooting each other. Maybe if we let everyone get guns it'll stop!"
On April 05 2009 01:16 R3condite wrote: he had an automatic rifle... do u even noe how fast those things dish out bullets? he could have killed a LOT more if he wanted IMO
Get your facts straight. He had handguns. Only hand guns. No hint of body armor either. Would have been easy to take down with a sure shot.
On April 05 2009 01:51 BalliSLife wrote: So you're telling me you feel a lot fucking safer if you knew that everyone walking in Time Square had a gun on them?
Yes! Because carrying a handgun doesn't mean that they have to use it. It's something called self-restraint? That and people will shoot back if you don't have any self-restraint. Most police officers have it.
On April 05 2009 02:05 Kwark wrote: I'm reasonably sure TanGeng is trolling. Nobody is that stupid. Police going on killing sprees? Seriously? You think the only thing stopping the police going on killing sprees is that the citizens are armed? Plus in gun control countries the police are unarmed. If you actually looked at them rather than just making up stories about how they're anarchistic wastelands you'd know that.
Police don't have to shoot people if the population is unarmed, but that doesn't stop them from shooting people. There are news reports of police shootings every week. And every week there's news of police abusing their power and demanding people obey their AUTHORITAH. It's a short step from there to shooting people for "compliance" reasons. How about use of Tasers? And police rarely go on killing sprees because their union will help cover up the one or two murders if and when officers find that urge to kill.
But then again, the police in the disarmed nations are powerless to stop most forms of crimes. France has suburbs of Paris which are no-go zones. Most European nations have those kind of ghettos. Riots at the G20 meeting happened in Great Britain, and in the Fall of 2004, riots happened all around Paris.
On April 05 2009 02:40 Dead9 wrote: What? "Oh crap, people keep shooting each other. Maybe if we let everyone get guns it'll stop!"
Better two dead than 15 dead.
Again, all of you are reacting viscerally to the presence of guns. It's like saying I have one, so I must use it to kill somebody. If you think that way, it's a miracle how mankind's managed to live so long after inventing nuclear warheads.
It's a short step from some policeman being an asshole to them going on killing sprees? And if they go on killing sprees the best solution is for the people to form a citizens militia and fight them off? Seriously?
On April 05 2009 02:59 Kwark wrote: It's a short step from some policeman being an asshole to them going on killing sprees? And if they go on killing sprees the best solution is for the people to form a citizens militia and fight them off? Seriously?
Seriously? Ha. The police abuse their power far more than you can imagine. Deadly force has been used by the police as if they were thugs. You probably don't understand the police system in Mexico because that's how it works and that's eventually how it will work.
And if you will put up with that kind of harassment from your "law enforcement" "servant" then you deserve to be a slave to the system.
Oh and the occasional murder here and there and an organized cover-up by the "law enforcement servant" is far more dangerous than a man that goes on a killing spree and commits suicide.
Can we stop turning every thread into a political debate about gun control?
And charliemurphy can get away with saying racist stuff about black people because he is black. It's like Eddie Murphy and the word "nigger." I can't find the carlin only video, but here's him and Richard Pryor telling it like it is:
On April 05 2009 02:59 Kwark wrote: It's a short step from some policeman being an asshole to them going on killing sprees? And if they go on killing sprees the best solution is for the people to form a citizens militia and fight them off? Seriously?
Seriously? Ha. The police abuse their power far more than you can imagine. Deadly force has been used by the police as if they were thugs. You probably don't understand the police system in Mexico because that's how it works and that's eventually how it will work.
And if you will put up with that kind of harassment from your "law enforcement" "servant" then you deserve to be a slave to the system.
Oh and the occasional murder here and there and an organized cover-up by the "law enforcement servant" is far more dangerous than a man that goes on a killing spree and commits suicide.
Gun control is prevalent in Europe. Europe isn't Mexico. Examples from Mexico are only marginally better than your examples from mythical countries.
On April 05 2009 02:59 Kwark wrote: It's a short step from some policeman being an asshole to them going on killing sprees? And if they go on killing sprees the best solution is for the people to form a citizens militia and fight them off? Seriously?
Seriously? Ha. The police abuse their power far more than you can imagine. Deadly force has been used by the police as if they were thugs. You probably don't understand the police system in Mexico because that's how it works and that's eventually how it will work.
And if you will put up with that kind of harassment from your "law enforcement" "servant" then you deserve to be a slave to the system.
Oh and the occasional murder here and there and an organized cover-up by the "law enforcement servant" is far more dangerous than a man that goes on a killing spree and commits suicide.
Gun control is prevalent in Europe. Europe isn't Mexico. Examples from Mexico are only marginally better than your examples from mythical countries.
That's because European police are a farce. Here's the British battle against "knife" crime. The British knife is now the American gun - except more people are afraid of in Britain of knives.
@TanGeng can u please stop bickering... 2 automatic handguns (edited)
also it's been confirmed that his guns were licensed... so much for rights to bear arms working towards ur favor
also did u noe that even if u own a handgun and shoot some1 because he was trying to shoot u they can sue u for shooting them... and the cops can decide to arrest u if they want to... though u r covered in part by self defense it is still illegal for you to shoot some1 and will go on ur yellow sheet and u can get prosecuted for it..
the world isn't as simple as u may think it is... nobody should be trigger happy because killing some1, whether or not he's a threat to u, is ILLEGAL unless u r in the policing sector... even then u can still get prosecuted... just not as badly
EDIT: STOP FUKIN DOUBLE POSTING AND DERAILING... make ur own damn thread and start convo there
Y DON'T U TELL THE FAMILIES OF THE DEAD THAT IT WAS THE DEAD PPL'S FAULT FOR NOT HAVING GUNS AND SHOOTING IT?!
jeez... gtfo... have some fukin respect for the dead...
On April 05 2009 02:59 Kwark wrote: It's a short step from some policeman being an asshole to them going on killing sprees? And if they go on killing sprees the best solution is for the people to form a citizens militia and fight them off? Seriously?
Seriously? Ha. The police abuse their power far more than you can imagine. Deadly force has been used by the police as if they were thugs. You probably don't understand the police system in Mexico because that's how it works and that's eventually how it will work.
And if you will put up with that kind of harassment from your "law enforcement" "servant" then you deserve to be a slave to the system.
Oh and the occasional murder here and there and an organized cover-up by the "law enforcement servant" is far more dangerous than a man that goes on a killing spree and commits suicide.
Gun control is prevalent in Europe. Europe isn't Mexico. Examples from Mexico are only marginally better than your examples from mythical countries.
That's because European police are a farce. Here's the British battle against "knife" crime. The British knife is now the American gun - except more people are afraid of in Britain of knives.
i highly... HIGHLY doubt ppl are more afraid of knives than guns... they would only say that cus they were nvr threatened by guns in the first place...
On April 05 2009 03:19 R3condite wrote: @TanGeng can u please stop bickering... 2 automatic handguns (edited)
also it's been confirmed that his guns were licensed... so much for rights to bear arms working towards ur favor
also did u noe that even if u own a handgun and shoot some1 because he was trying to shoot u they can sue u for shooting them... and the cops can decide to arrest u if they want to... though u r covered in part by self defense it is still illegal for you to shoot some1 and will go on ur yellow sheet and u can get prosecuted for it..
the world isn't as simple as u may think it is... nobody should be trigger happy because killing some1, whether or not he's a threat to u, is ILLEGAL unless u r in the policing sector... even then u can still get prosecuted... just not as badly
EDIT: STOP FUKIN DOUBLE POSTING AND DERAILING... make ur own damn thread and start convo there
Y DON'T U TELL THE FAMILY OF THE DEAD THAT IT WAS THEIR FAULT FOR NOT HAVING GUNS AND SHOOTING IT?! jeez... gtfo
It's still a tragedy, but you're blaming everybody else for owning guns. It's like getting stabbed by a knife and blaming everyone else for owning knives.
It's a stupid visceral reaction. It's laughably shallow. And just because you wish the world could un-invent guns, it's not going to happen.
On April 05 2009 03:19 R3condite wrote: i highly... HIGHLY doubt ppl are more afraid of knives than guns... they would only say that cus they were nvr threatened by guns in the first place...
You might think that, but the UK government has a tough on "Knife" crime initiatives that involves the government disarming the population of knives. Like I said, UK is more afraid of knives than US is afraid of guns.
On April 05 2009 03:19 R3condite wrote: i highly... HIGHLY doubt ppl are more afraid of knives than guns... they would only say that cus they were nvr threatened by guns in the first place...
You might think that, but the UK government has a tough on "Knife" crime initiatives that involves the government disarming the population of knives. Like I said, UK is more afraid of knives than US is afraid of guns.
It got cool for kids to carry knives and a few died. It'd be better if that stopped. There's no point to be made here by you. Knives are still dangerous, less than guns but not the kind of thing you want fourteen year old boys who think they're gangsters.
On April 05 2009 03:19 R3condite wrote: i highly... HIGHLY doubt ppl are more afraid of knives than guns... they would only say that cus they were nvr threatened by guns in the first place...
You might think that, but the UK government has a tough on "Knife" crime initiatives that involves the government disarming the population of knives. Like I said, UK is more afraid of knives than US is afraid of guns.
It got cool for kids to carry knives and a few died. It'd be better if that stopped. There's no point to be made here by you. Knives are still dangerous, less than guns but not the kind of thing you want fourteen year old boys who think they're gangsters.
But you want to disarm everyone. What's your argument for inhibiting everyone's right to protect themselves?
And if you think guns are bad, why not knives? Where do you draw the line?
On April 05 2009 03:19 R3condite wrote: i highly... HIGHLY doubt ppl are more afraid of knives than guns... they would only say that cus they were nvr threatened by guns in the first place...
You might think that, but the UK government has a tough on "Knife" crime initiatives that involves the government disarming the population of knives. Like I said, UK is more afraid of knives than US is afraid of guns.
Look u can't talk for both country at once.. u either lived in one to know it better or the other... iono where in US u may live but ppl in US ARE scared of guns... i really don't understand wat u mean when u say UK is more afraid of knives than US is of guns...i personally think both r very scary at the disposal of a wrong person...
EDIT: that aside please start a new thread if u wish to continue talking about gun control and knife control and what not...
plus... if i remember correctly ur original argument was for guns wasn't it? so from that i guess u r for knives as well? how does saying that UK is scared of knives say anything at all about how and y guns should be legal??
On April 05 2009 03:19 R3condite wrote: i highly... HIGHLY doubt ppl are more afraid of knives than guns... they would only say that cus they were nvr threatened by guns in the first place...
You might think that, but the UK government has a tough on "Knife" crime initiatives that involves the government disarming the population of knives. Like I said, UK is more afraid of knives than US is afraid of guns.
It got cool for kids to carry knives and a few died. It'd be better if that stopped. There's no point to be made here by you. Knives are still dangerous, less than guns but not the kind of thing you want fourteen year old boys who think they're gangsters.
But you want to disarm everyone. What's your argument for inhibiting everyone's right to protect themselves?
And if you think guns are bad, why not knives? Where do you draw the line?
I do think knives are bad in many contexts. Obviously they have practical uses around the house (unlike guns) but kids having them so they can act big in front of other kids will inevitably lead to someone getting stabbed. So yeah, it's illegal to carry them in public or for certain people to own certain types of knife. No other way of seeing that imo.
I don't carry knives, I don't own any knives for anything but cooking and a penknife and I don't want one. I don't feel like I need to protect myself with a knife or a gun. My argument is that it causes unnecessary deaths.
On April 05 2009 03:19 R3condite wrote: i highly... HIGHLY doubt ppl are more afraid of knives than guns... they would only say that cus they were nvr threatened by guns in the first place...
You might think that, but the UK government has a tough on "Knife" crime initiatives that involves the government disarming the population of knives. Like I said, UK is more afraid of knives than US is afraid of guns.
Look u can't talk for both country at once.. u either lived in one to know it better or the other... iono where in US u may live but ppl in US ARE scared of guns... i really don't understand wat u mean when u say UK is more afraid of knives than US is of guns...i personally think both r very scary at the disposal of a wrong person...
In the US, people are scared of guns in the inner city. A lot of kids carry guns for self-protection because they are afraid of kids in gangs bullying them around with a gun. In the UK, people are scare of knives in the inner city. A lot of kids bring knives for self-protection because they are afraid of kids in gangs bullying them around with a knife.
Rather symmetric. Guns are more dangerous, but it's not the cause of violence and it's ineffective to target the weapon because the violence will only shift to other weapons. Furthermore, gun control takes away a means of self-protection from everyone not just those involved in the violence. Where is the justification for that?
If and when knives are outlaws, people will shift batons or fists, and it'll be even harder for an individual to resist a group of people attacking or mugging them. Robbery by a group of young men is much safer in such a society, and it'll be natural for mugging and robbery by groups of delinquents to be much more common. Maybe people will start taking martial arts classes, and at that point the government can outlaw kids from having arms and legs.
ohh: Forgot one really serious crime, rape. Expect that to be on the rise, too.
You're saying it'll be even harder for people to defend themselves from muggers armed with fists than muggers armed with knives? You're not too bright are you.
Gun control means someone can't intimidate me with a gun. If they want to stab me they can't do it from a distance. If they want to baton me to death they have to hit me for a prolonged period of time, even less lethal than a knife. And so forth. Less to be afraid of. Easier to escape from. Easier to overpower while unarmed. Easier for doctors to save you from.
On April 05 2009 04:06 Kwark wrote: You're saying it'll be even harder for people to defend themselves from muggers armed with fists than muggers armed with knives? You're not too bright are you.
Gun control means someone can't intimidate me with a gun. If they want to stab me they can't do it from a distance. If they want to baton me to death they have to hit me for a prolonged period of time, even less lethal than a knife. And so forth. Less to be afraid of. Easier to escape from. Easier to overpower while unarmed. Easier for doctors to save you from.
If you choose to stay unarmed, you'll be a sitting duck. That much is obvious, so obviously you have no idea how to think critically.
Rather instead it's for those who elect to be armed in self-defense. In the US a growing percentage of gun carriers are women, because of their inferior size and muscle mass. The gun is an equalizer so a stronger person can't just overpower a weaker person.
Anyways, you can elect to be defenseless in a free country. You don't have to carry a gun or knife or any form of self-protection. But you can't expect that all criminals would be so benign as to leave you alone. In that case, it's a matter of how well you can defend yourself or if you choose to be subservient instead, and let some thugs exert their will over you.
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
"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 05:50 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 :/
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
On April 05 2009 06:55 Kwark wrote: 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.
Great way for you to dodge an argument huh? Too bad iseewhatyoudid there. This time you're going off with the "i'm too smart for this" approach.
@Brett: Lay off the ad hominid attacks/trolling/flaming, at best it doesn't do much for your legitimacy, at worse it grows your e-penis and gets you banned and the discussion locked.
If you read the guardian article, any psycho "BASKET CASE" can still get guns just in any poverty area IN THE UK. Again, you are skirting around the principle argument, guns are easy to get anywhere if you want it bad enough. Banning guns will not save you, educating people will.
Now forgive me if i'm wrong, but i do believe you contradicted yourself in your first point because you acknowledge that guns are easy to acquire, and then you say that psychos are able to do a lot of damage because of how easy it is to obtain a gun? How precisely is you NOT having a gun to save your own ass in that situation a good thing?
undeniably, gun ownership and homicide rates are positively correlated. But so are number of cars and car deaths. Do you ban cars?
No, you educate.
And it is rather ignorant to blanket and label the killers as "psyco/basket case/nutjobs", if you actually went deeper, you'd find that they probably have a clear logic in their heads for what they do. They probably also suffer from some sort of psychological disorder, and while you're tossing off 'generally accepted statistics' without actual proof, familial abuse and violence are also positively correlated.
Gun laws wont save your ass, parental classes just might.
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.
"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?
Many Americans assume their country is the best and therefor all other "good" countries are the same as them.
@Kwark: The guns are already more important than for commuting to work. They can save lives. Ask any VTech survivors, if they had a gun, could they have prevented the deaths.'
Just to add a little on why I'm death gripping this argument and not just taking the 'gently explain to him that he's not so bright and move on with my life' approach:
I firmly believe that gun laws won't save your ass from getting shot. It is like a placebo pill that everyone takes just to feel like they are actually solving a problem. The only surefire way to get people to change their behavior is through education. As long as there are people who believe that gun laws work, these are the people who will be lobbying for them, and wasting resources that could otherwise be directed towards education.
I'm hounding the issue because I honestly believe that education can save lives where gun laws cant.
What I am curious is why the opposing sides are death gripping theirs, despite the numerous articles i've posted to show that gun laws dont help plus the logical breakdown in my previous post.
On April 05 2009 06:55 Kwark wrote: 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.
Great way for you to dodge an argument huh? Too bad iseewhatyoudid there. This time you're going off with the "i'm too smart for this" approach.
@Brett: Lay off the ad hominid attacks/trolling/flaming, at best it doesn't do much for your legitimacy, at worse it grows your e-penis and gets you banned and the discussion locked.
If you read the guardian article, any psycho "BASKET CASE" can still get guns just in any poverty area IN THE UK. Again, you are skirting around the principle argument, guns are easy to get anywhere if you want it bad enough. Banning guns will not save you, educating people will.
Now forgive me if i'm wrong, but i do believe you contradicted yourself in your first point because you acknowledge that guns are easy to acquire, and then you say that psychos are able to do a lot of damage because of how easy it is to obtain a gun? How precisely is you NOT having a gun to save your own ass in that situation a good thing?
undeniably, gun ownership and homicide rates are positively correlated. But so are number of cars and car deaths. Do you ban cars?
No, you educate.
And it is rather ignorant to blanket and label the killers as "psyco/basket case/nutjobs", if you actually went deeper, you'd find that they probably have a clear logic in their heads for what they do. They probably also suffer from some sort of psychological disorder, and while you're tossing off 'generally accepted statistics' without actual proof, familial abuse and violence are also positively correlated.
Gun laws wont save your ass, parental classes just might.
The lowest price for a handgun from that article is £700 ($1000) A sawn off shotgun is £150 ($233), but that'd be pretty hard to conceal...
On April 05 2009 07:42 Brett wrote: 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.
The amount of people who die in school and mall shootings is minuscule. More people die from police tazers. no one seems to care about that though
Also the population of the US is greater than many other western countries combined. You would have to add all school and mall shootings from Britain and a bunch of other European countries, throw in Australia for free, to be able to compare the two.
On April 05 2009 08:44 Railxp wrote: @Kwark: The guns are already more important than for commuting to work. They can save lives. Ask any VTech survivors, if they had a gun, could they have prevented the deaths.'
Just to add a little on why I'm death gripping this argument and not just taking the 'gently explain to him that he's not so bright and move on with my life' approach:
I firmly believe that gun laws won't save your ass from getting shot. It is like a placebo pill that everyone takes just to feel like they are actually solving a problem. The only surefire way to get people to change their behavior is through education. As long as there are people who believe that gun laws work, these are the people who will be lobbying for them, and wasting resources that could otherwise be directed towards education.
I'm hounding the issue because I honestly believe that education can save lives where gun laws cant.
What I am curious is why the opposing sides are death gripping theirs, despite the numerous articles i've posted to show that gun laws dont help plus the logical breakdown in my previous post.
I'm sure if Cho didn't have a gun everyone in VTech would've been a lot safer
On April 05 2009 07:42 Brett wrote: 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.
The amount of people who die in school and mall shootings is minuscule. More people die from police tazers. no one seems to care about that though
Also the population of the US is greater than many other western countries combined. You would have to add all school and mall shootings from Britain and a bunch of other European countries, throw in Australia for free, to be able to compare the two.
If more people die in police tazers you have some fucking bad police. I don't think anyone has died in a police tazer in many many many years in Sweden.
. Doesn't the US have many more guns and higher murder rates than Canada?
The higher murder rate in the USA is not caused by citizens owning firearms. If a prohibition could somehow eliminate all firearms, and, therefore, all firearm-related homicides, without _any_ weapon substitution, the US murder rate would still be roughly _double_ the Canadian murder rate. If a USA without firearms would have many more murders per person than a Canada with firearms, there must be many other factors at work. (If the firearms in the USA cause its higher murder rate, then the above example must show that firearms make Canada safer. Obviously the answer cannot really be so simple.)
One must also consider that the number of firearms per person in Canada and the USA is similar, and that the laws in the USA vary greatly from state to state, with the states having fewer restrictions on law-abiding citizens also most often having lower murder rates.
The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause. If firearms caused murder, then Switzerland, Israel and Norway would have murder rates similar to the US, and places like Ireland, Scotland, Mexico, Jamaica, Bermuda, Bahamas and Sri Lanka would have low rates.
One needs only to look at WHY the firearms are owned. Canada is more rural and therefore each firearm owning household (roughly 26%) has a variety of firearms (at least 3) for different uses. In the US, firearm owning households (about 50%) are more likely to have only one or two because they own them for self-defence and not hunting, predator control, etc.
This further indicates that while fewer Canadian households have a firearm, those that do, have more. This confirms most government estimates of 15 to 20 million firearms in Canada, while in the US, there are about 200 million (giving both countries similar per capita rates of firearm ownership). If the rates of firearm ownership are similar in countries with drastically different murder rates, then it's probably not the firearms that are the problem.
Even within the US, there is no correlation between firearm ownership and murder rates. After the LA riots, there was a huge increase in sales. The following year, sales slumped because the market was saturated, yet the murder rates continued to _fall_. The US murder rate peaked in 1992 and has been decreasing. It dropped 8% from 1994 to 1995. Even as ownership increases in the US, the murder (and accident) rates decrease. Allowing citizens to possess and acquire firearms doesn't seem to be the problem.
If one ignores Washington DC and the US cities that are larger than Canadian cities, the murder rates in the US are not much higher than Canadian homicide rates. Also, roughly 14 states have murder rates similar to or below the Canadian average homicide rate. Additionaly, if one compares the states next to Canada to their neighbouring provinces, the states more often have lower murder rates. [StatCan, the USDoJ and the FBI Uniform Crime Reports]
comparison of Canada and the US: Province / State Homicide rate/100,000 ---------------- --------- B.C / Washington 3.7 / 5.0 Alberta / Montana 3.6 / 2.9 Saskatchewan / North Dakota 3.2 / 1.9 Manitoba / Minnesota 2.6 / 1.9 Ontario / Michigan w/o detroit / w/detroit 2.4 / 4.1 / 9.9 Quebec / NY w/o NYC / NY w/ NYC 2.4 / 3.7 / 13.2 Quebec / New Hampshire 2.4 / 1.6 New Brunswick / Maine 1.5 / 1.7 Territories / Alaska 17.8 / 7.5 [taken from: Brandon S. Centerwall, "Homicide and the prevalence of handguns: Canada and the United States, 1976 to 1980," _American Journal of Epidemiology_, 134 (11), pp 1245-60, Dec 1, 1991.]
Continue to:
* prev: 7. Does gun control work? * Index * next: 9. But if anyone could get a gun, like in the US, wouldn't we have higher murder rates, just like the US?
On April 05 2009 06:55 Kwark wrote: 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.
Great way for you to dodge an argument huh? Too bad iseewhatyoudid there. This time you're going off with the "i'm too smart for this" approach.
@Brett: Lay off the ad hominid attacks/trolling/flaming, at best it doesn't do much for your legitimacy, at worse it grows your e-penis and gets you banned and the discussion locked.
If you read the guardian article, any psycho "BASKET CASE" can still get guns just in any poverty area IN THE UK. Again, you are skirting around the principle argument, guns are easy to get anywhere if you want it bad enough. Banning guns will not save you, educating people will.
Now forgive me if i'm wrong, but i do believe you contradicted yourself in your first point because you acknowledge that guns are easy to acquire, and then you say that psychos are able to do a lot of damage because of how easy it is to obtain a gun? How precisely is you NOT having a gun to save your own ass in that situation a good thing?
undeniably, gun ownership and homicide rates are positively correlated. But so are number of cars and car deaths. Do you ban cars?
No, you educate.
And it is rather ignorant to blanket and label the killers as "psyco/basket case/nutjobs", if you actually went deeper, you'd find that they probably have a clear logic in their heads for what they do. They probably also suffer from some sort of psychological disorder, and while you're tossing off 'generally accepted statistics' without actual proof, familial abuse and violence are also positively correlated.
Gun laws wont save your ass, parental classes just might.
Key words: "If you want it bad enough". In other words, yes it is possible to get guns. That I concede. But I do not concede that it is 'easy'. You have to go out of your way to get them. That gives people time to calm down from these emo mood swings, time for intervention. As for your next sentence, there's a simple rebuttal: gun bans/control and education are not mutually exclusive.
Again, I don't concede that they are easy to obtain in gun controlled countries. I believe they are easily obtained in the US, and for that reason it follows that it is easier for a psychopath to obtain such a weapon and do a lot of damage. Case in point: Binghamton. Not having a gun wont save my ass, of course. But much like your sudden change of angle towards this concept of education, the point of gun control is prevention.
The car analogy does not work. If cars were being used in a 'Carmageddon' fashion on a regular basis, you would look into it. Car ACCIDENTS and major shootings are not comparable events. But just as an aside, in Australia 4WDs (or SUV's if you prefer the term) are responsible for a large portion of car accidents and related injuries and as a result there is a similar push to have them banned from general road use.
And it is rather ignorant to blanket and label the killers as "psyco/basket case/nutjobs", if you actually went deeper, you'd find that they probably have a clear logic in their heads for what they do.
I don't think I need to respond to this... Who cares how clear it is in their head? That doesn't make them any less disturbed. Surely you're not arguing that this Binghamtom killer was displaying unquestionable logic?
I don't think it's ignorant to label someone who kills so many people a psycho/basket case/nutjob in such circumstances. That's rather self-evident if you ask me.
I didn't actually bother looking at any of them, but this is the internet and statistics. We just quote bs at each other to gain moral points with no chance of actually convincing the other. So I'll assume that this link leads towards something which helps my case. You can click it if you are really emotionally committed to this argument, but I'm not.
I didn't actually bother looking at any of them, but this is the internet and statistics. We just quote bs at each other to gain moral points with no chance of actually convincing the other. So I'll assume that this link leads towards something which helps my case. You can click it if you are really emotionally committed to this argument, but I'm not.
United States-----306,148,000 Russia---------------141,850,000 Germany--------------82,062,200 France-----------------65,073,482 United Kingdom----61,612,300 Italy---------------------60,090,400 Ukraine----------------46,143,700 Spain-------------------45,853,000 Poland-----------------38,130,300 Etc. Sweden-----------------9,259,828 <---Zoler, that is about 3% of U.S. population. (In fact, the state that this took place in (New York) has more than double the population of the entire nation of Sweden.) Etc.
Just wanted to give some of you Europeans some perspective. Feel free to go back to blindly hating everything American and inventing facts to support your theories when I leave though.
On April 05 2009 07:42 Brett wrote: 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.
The amount of people who die in school and mall shootings is minuscule. More people die from police tazers. no one seems to care about that though
Also the population of the US is greater than many other western countries combined. You would have to add all school and mall shootings from Britain and a bunch of other European countries, throw in Australia for free, to be able to compare the two.
If more people die in police tazers you have some fucking bad police. I don't think anyone has died in a police tazer in many many many years in Sweden.
I didn't actually bother looking at any of them, but this is the internet and statistics. We just quote bs at each other to gain moral points with no chance of actually convincing the other. So I'll assume that this link leads towards something which helps my case. You can click it if you are really emotionally committed to this argument, but I'm not.
terrible
You blame me for cynicism regarding this argument? It happens every month on tl. Nothing changes.
And cynicism towards online statistics and how useful they are regarding anything is well merited. Quoting worthless statistics without citation and with deliberate aims and bias is worse than lying, at least liars know they're lying. Replying with something equally worthless while explaining that I had no interest in playing the game and he shouldn't waste his time seemed positively charitable.
In the context of university shootings, or any sort of mass gun rampages, I'd assert that they were pre-meditated and the person probably spent weeks dreaming and toying with the idea before finally going through with it. Returning to the idea that you're average psycho DOES want it bad enough. Yes, gun laws might prevent lazy and internet addicted junkies like me from getting a gun, and it will probably also stop spontaneous spousal arguments from resulting in gunfire. But, gun laws don't stop spontaneous spousal arguments from resulting in a stabbing. Indeed, gun control and education are not mutually exclusive, but it is the opportunity cost that I am focused on. Because all too often (generalizing based on USA), education is not a priority in government policy. Making guns illegal means they become valuable on the black market, and so there is further reason for those who have access to guns (cops) to sell it to those who want it (criminals). Even if i cede the point that guns are harder to get in controlled countries, the VTech self defense argument remains. I would be interested in how you'd address that.
The car analogy is admittedly more of a stretch than say a knife, and it defiantly falls through in terms of usefulness. But the commonalities of 1) weapon, 2) expensive, but attainable 3) is valuable to trade makes it very easy for me to get a point across.
I'm placing emphasis on understanding psycho reasoning (which probably isn't logical, wrong choice of word on my half) because until you can see from their point of view, you will not be able to empathize with their situation. And unless you can understand/empathize with them, there is no way to spot them and to get them the professional help they probably need.
@Kwark: Yes, statistics can be manipulated, which is why i based my original argument on logic instead. Curious enough tho, the 5th link down from your random google actually links to "Anti Gun Control Arguments Using Common Sense; Not Statistics" http://mddall.com/sbss/0311.htm + Show Spoiler +
Common Sense Doesn’t Require Statistics I start out amused, then get frustrated, then angry, and finally absolutely resolute when I see these anti-gunners spout statistics here, there and everywhere about the dangers of guns, crime rates and the effectiveness of gun control. Bullchips!
These arguments are then most times followed from the pro-gun side by another set of endless statistics that completely counter the arguments just made by the anti-gun crowd. Unfortunately, these pro-gun statistics will never convince the anti-gunners no matter how obvious the numbers.
Nobody ever seems to believe the other guys’ statistics and there is a sound reason for that—statistics are a liar’s best friend and liars know that better than anyone.
I studied statistics in college and found that I could easily develop a long list of impressive numbers to support any argument on either side of an issue, creating virtually any impression I fancied. Politicians and the media do it all the time.
“So what good are all these statistics Colonel if we can’t use them to prove gun control just doesn’t work?”
Although statistics are good facts to have in your pocket, you really don’t need numbers to prove this point. The founders didn’t have any statistics so all you need is what they had in abundance—common sense. “What do you mean Colonel?”
Here are just 4 common sense points that illustrate why gun control is a myth, not a pathway to crime control—and not one point uses statistics.
Common Sense Point #1: Thugs ignore gun laws. To think that thugs who ignore laws against murder, robbery, rape and assault will, by some stretch of lunacy, obey gun control laws is the purest form of lunacy. Does anyone think that a gang planning a bank robbery will trash those plans because they would first be required to register their guns before the job went down?
Let’s listen in on Mugsy and Bugsy planning…The Big Heist
“Well, Bugsy, there it is. Our plans for robbing the Last National Bank are absolutely fool-proof and dat cool million is just waitin’ on us. It’s just a cryin’ shame we can’t pull it off though.”
“Why Mugsy? What do you mean?” asks Bugsy incredulously.
“Because da law says we can’t carry unregistered guns or we could get into real trouble” says Mugsy as he resigns himself to the life of a law abiding citizen.
“You’re right.” admits Bugsy with a tear in his eye. We’ll just have to forget about dat million smackers. I certainly wouldn’t want to break any gun laws.”
And who really thinks that requiring a solid citizen to register his gun will prevent crime? He isn’t planning The Big Heist—never has, never will. So the point is?
Common Sense Point #2: Thugs prefer unarmed victims and avoid potentially armed citizens. Amazing bit of deductive reasoning isn’t it? Anti-gunners hope you never discover that truth on your own. Think about it though from the shoes of Mugsy and Bugsy. Who would you rather confront, an armed citizen or an unarmed one? Where would you rather focus your life of crime? In areas where guns are outlawed or where guns are prevalent? Who would you rather prey on, the defenseless or the armed? And where is violent crime more prevalent? Washington D.C. where gun laws are strictest or Florida where gun laws are more relaxed? I’ll give you one guess but let’s listen in on Mugsy and Bugsy again.
“OK Bugsy, the bank job was a flop I admit dat, but we can always pull a stick-up like in da ol’ days.”
“Yeah, dats right Mugsy. We can always get a little fast bread dat way.” says Bugsy, his excitement for the old days of street crime growing. “But where do we target da mark Mugsy?”
Well Bugsy, we sure can’t pull stick ups in Florida, too many guns there. We might could get shot by one of dem ol’ southern boys. You know how they are. A lot of ‘em is packin’ these days since Florida OK’d concealed carry—ya just never know down there anymore—a real shame ain’t it?”
“You’re right Mugsy. That could be way too dangerous for us.” “I got it!” says Bugsy, “We’ll hit every schmuck in Washington D.C. None of dem bums got guns…it’s against the law…we’ll be the only ones there what got heaters!”
“Great idea!” says Mugsy, “Let’s load up and git goin’. Easy pickins, here we come!”
Common Sense Point #3: Crime is deviant behavior. A gun is an inanimate tool not deviant behavior and crime is deviant behavior not an inanimate tool. You can’t prevent deviant behavior by regulating tools because tools are incapable of behavior and the number of tools available to the world’s deviants is endless.
Even if you could legislate guns out of existence, deviants could, would and have used other things that gave them a power advantage over their victims—knives, clubs, rocks or even sharp sticks—all of which are very legal and very accessible.
Commons Sense Point #4: The Trump Card. The strongest point of all consists of a mere 27 words and is absolute in its nature. It trumps all statistics ever concocted by man and all arguments ever made—and not one of the 27 words is a number… “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.” #4, my friends, is absolute, unambiguous and supersedes all arguments and all statistics.
Now go forth soldier, well armed with common sense, the absolute truth of the II Amendment and ready to fight the good fight.
One last note: If you ever find any staunchly committed anti-gunner actually and honestly willing to listen to common sense or interpret the II Amendment simply as written by our founders, please let me know. I’m still looking for one.
On April 05 2009 07:42 Brett wrote: 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.
The amount of people who die in school and mall shootings is minuscule. More people die from police tazers. no one seems to care about that though
Also the population of the US is greater than many other western countries combined. You would have to add all school and mall shootings from Britain and a bunch of other European countries, throw in Australia for free, to be able to compare the two.
If more people die in police tazers you have some fucking bad police. I don't think anyone has died in a police tazer in many many many years in Sweden.
That might have alot to do with the swedish police not having any tazers.
. Doesn't the US have many more guns and higher murder rates than Canada?
The higher murder rate in the USA is not caused by citizens owning firearms. If a prohibition could somehow eliminate all firearms, and, therefore, all firearm-related homicides, without _any_ weapon substitution, the US murder rate would still be roughly _double_ the Canadian murder rate. If a USA without firearms would have many more murders per person than a Canada with firearms, there must be many other factors at work. (If the firearms in the USA cause its higher murder rate, then the above example must show that firearms make Canada safer. Obviously the answer cannot really be so simple.)
One must also consider that the number of firearms per person in Canada and the USA is similar, and that the laws in the USA vary greatly from state to state, with the states having fewer restrictions on law-abiding citizens also most often having lower murder rates.
The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause. If firearms caused murder, then Switzerland, Israel and Norway would have murder rates similar to the US, and places like Ireland, Scotland, Mexico, Jamaica, Bermuda, Bahamas and Sri Lanka would have low rates.
One needs only to look at WHY the firearms are owned. Canada is more rural and therefore each firearm owning household (roughly 26%) has a variety of firearms (at least 3) for different uses. In the US, firearm owning households (about 50%) are more likely to have only one or two because they own them for self-defence and not hunting, predator control, etc.
This further indicates that while fewer Canadian households have a firearm, those that do, have more. This confirms most government estimates of 15 to 20 million firearms in Canada, while in the US, there are about 200 million (giving both countries similar per capita rates of firearm ownership). If the rates of firearm ownership are similar in countries with drastically different murder rates, then it's probably not the firearms that are the problem.
Even within the US, there is no correlation between firearm ownership and murder rates. After the LA riots, there was a huge increase in sales. The following year, sales slumped because the market was saturated, yet the murder rates continued to _fall_. The US murder rate peaked in 1992 and has been decreasing. It dropped 8% from 1994 to 1995. Even as ownership increases in the US, the murder (and accident) rates decrease. Allowing citizens to possess and acquire firearms doesn't seem to be the problem.
If one ignores Washington DC and the US cities that are larger than Canadian cities, the murder rates in the US are not much higher than Canadian homicide rates. Also, roughly 14 states have murder rates similar to or below the Canadian average homicide rate. Additionaly, if one compares the states next to Canada to their neighbouring provinces, the states more often have lower murder rates. [StatCan, the USDoJ and the FBI Uniform Crime Reports]
comparison of Canada and the US: Province / State Homicide rate/100,000 ---------------- --------- B.C / Washington 3.7 / 5.0 Alberta / Montana 3.6 / 2.9 Saskatchewan / North Dakota 3.2 / 1.9 Manitoba / Minnesota 2.6 / 1.9 Ontario / Michigan w/o detroit / w/detroit 2.4 / 4.1 / 9.9 Quebec / NY w/o NYC / NY w/ NYC 2.4 / 3.7 / 13.2 Quebec / New Hampshire 2.4 / 1.6 New Brunswick / Maine 1.5 / 1.7 Territories / Alaska 17.8 / 7.5 [taken from: Brandon S. Centerwall, "Homicide and the prevalence of handguns: Canada and the United States, 1976 to 1980," _American Journal of Epidemiology_, 134 (11), pp 1245-60, Dec 1, 1991.]
Continue to:
* prev: 7. Does gun control work? * Index * next: 9. But if anyone could get a gun, like in the US, wouldn't we have higher murder rates, just like the US?
not true.. i noe fora fact in korea guns r fukin hard to acquire... it's ridiculously hard... friggin drugs r ezier than guns... maybe even money printing plates r ezier.. but guns... no can do it's just ridiculously hard...nvr heard of a gun crime in korea in my 10 yrs of living there whilst america... i think everyday there is one?
. Doesn't the US have many more guns and higher murder rates than Canada?
The higher murder rate in the USA is not caused by citizens owning firearms. If a prohibition could somehow eliminate all firearms, and, therefore, all firearm-related homicides, without _any_ weapon substitution, the US murder rate would still be roughly _double_ the Canadian murder rate. If a USA without firearms would have many more murders per person than a Canada with firearms, there must be many other factors at work. (If the firearms in the USA cause its higher murder rate, then the above example must show that firearms make Canada safer. Obviously the answer cannot really be so simple.)
One must also consider that the number of firearms per person in Canada and the USA is similar, and that the laws in the USA vary greatly from state to state, with the states having fewer restrictions on law-abiding citizens also most often having lower murder rates.
The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause. If firearms caused murder, then Switzerland, Israel and Norway would have murder rates similar to the US, and places like Ireland, Scotland, Mexico, Jamaica, Bermuda, Bahamas and Sri Lanka would have low rates.
One needs only to look at WHY the firearms are owned. Canada is more rural and therefore each firearm owning household (roughly 26%) has a variety of firearms (at least 3) for different uses. In the US, firearm owning households (about 50%) are more likely to have only one or two because they own them for self-defence and not hunting, predator control, etc.
This further indicates that while fewer Canadian households have a firearm, those that do, have more. This confirms most government estimates of 15 to 20 million firearms in Canada, while in the US, there are about 200 million (giving both countries similar per capita rates of firearm ownership). If the rates of firearm ownership are similar in countries with drastically different murder rates, then it's probably not the firearms that are the problem.
Even within the US, there is no correlation between firearm ownership and murder rates. After the LA riots, there was a huge increase in sales. The following year, sales slumped because the market was saturated, yet the murder rates continued to _fall_. The US murder rate peaked in 1992 and has been decreasing. It dropped 8% from 1994 to 1995. Even as ownership increases in the US, the murder (and accident) rates decrease. Allowing citizens to possess and acquire firearms doesn't seem to be the problem.
If one ignores Washington DC and the US cities that are larger than Canadian cities, the murder rates in the US are not much higher than Canadian homicide rates. Also, roughly 14 states have murder rates similar to or below the Canadian average homicide rate. Additionaly, if one compares the states next to Canada to their neighbouring provinces, the states more often have lower murder rates. [StatCan, the USDoJ and the FBI Uniform Crime Reports]
comparison of Canada and the US: Province / State Homicide rate/100,000 ---------------- --------- B.C / Washington 3.7 / 5.0 Alberta / Montana 3.6 / 2.9 Saskatchewan / North Dakota 3.2 / 1.9 Manitoba / Minnesota 2.6 / 1.9 Ontario / Michigan w/o detroit / w/detroit 2.4 / 4.1 / 9.9 Quebec / NY w/o NYC / NY w/ NYC 2.4 / 3.7 / 13.2 Quebec / New Hampshire 2.4 / 1.6 New Brunswick / Maine 1.5 / 1.7 Territories / Alaska 17.8 / 7.5 [taken from: Brandon S. Centerwall, "Homicide and the prevalence of handguns: Canada and the United States, 1976 to 1980," _American Journal of Epidemiology_, 134 (11), pp 1245-60, Dec 1, 1991.]
Continue to:
* prev: 7. Does gun control work? * Index * next: 9. But if anyone could get a gun, like in the US, wouldn't we have higher murder rates, just like the US?
dude.. it's a friggin personal webpage... by a guy w/ no credible name... y r we even believing this thing? also it only makes it worse that he cites sources in his other works but he doesn't in this one... actually that particular page has zero quotes...
oh wow i just found out the guy was vietnamese i thought all along he was indian ~_~
The apparent motivation for the incident was Wong's feelings of being "degraded and disrespected" for his poor English language ability, and his inability to find work in New York.
On April 05 2009 05:40 KaasZerg wrote: 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.
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.
Ehm...not enterily true I'm afraid. The european Union basically has no internal borders between countries, so "importing" illigal guns isn't that hard. Countries like former Yugoslavia and Czech republic are good sources for guns.
edit: The Dutch NRA has 42000 members so it is safe to say that they all have a permit for at least one firearm. But this is for sporting/hunting purposes and certainly not for self defense. You will get in a lot of trouble if you shoot a burglar
What's with all the shootings? There were at least 2-3 other in 2009. Well.. USA has 300 million people, so it's "still not much"... but I think it will be getting worse and worse.
The discussion that such things also happened in EU is quite funny - take a look at countries with real gun control - did such things happen in China, or Korea? I dont think so... The truth is that it is impossible to prevent 100% of such killing sprees, but allowing everyone to have a gun definitely does not help to stop it.
Also - what I dont understand - is why did the police NOT enter the building for 60-90 minutes. Ok, I know that noone is an idiot and will not enter a building where some guy is shooting, but well, isnt it the job of police officers in the first place? I mean, shouldnt the police enter the building ASAP? I think they would enter if there was a shootout between mafia. And even if they consider this guy a "terrorist", you should think how many terrorist attacks did america have? I remember only 9/11 and it did not include any guns..
Binghamton's police chief, Joseph Zikuski, said that until a month ago Wong had taken English classes at the immigration centre but quit after complaining that he had been made fun of.
Mr Zikuski said Wong felt other students had mocked him because of his poor English.
Damn I'd think twice about mocking other people's English EDIT: and so do you
On April 05 2009 17:54 closed wrote: What's with all the shootings? There were at least 2-3 other in 2009. Well.. USA has 300 million people, so it's "still not much"... but I think it will be getting worse and worse.
The discussion that such things also happened in EU is quite funny - take a look at countries with real gun control - did such things happen in China, or Korea? I dont think so... The truth is that it is impossible to prevent 100% of such killing sprees, but allowing everyone to have a gun definitely does not help to stop it.
Also - what I dont understand - is why did the police NOT enter the building for 60-90 minutes. Ok, I know that noone is an idiot and will not enter a building where some guy is shooting, but well, isnt it the job of police officers in the first place? I mean, shouldnt the police enter the building ASAP? I think they would enter if there was a shootout between mafia. And even if they consider this guy a "terrorist", you should think how many terrorist attacks did america have? I remember only 9/11 and it did not include any guns..
It's not even possible to have 100% prevention of killing sprees or 100% of prevention of deaths or 100% prevention of violence. It is just impossible. Ban guns and most murders are knife crimes - eg UK. And it doesn't address the most prevalent evil of intimidation by aggressive threat of force in society. While most people in China don't have guns, they have a lot of violence and intimidation. Most of the violence is done with knives or fists rather than with guns. Most of the intimidation is done by corrupt government officials that have the backing of the communist government.
The problem with police is today is that they are more concerned about their own safety. The progression of rules concerning proper police behavior highlights the fact that policemen think their line of work is "dangerous" and aren't willing to put themselves in danger or they get trigger happy at the slightest hint of danger. That is why private citizens should have the power to fend for themselves. So that they have a chance against violent criminals and to ward off intimidation. Trusting the powers that be to defend them in times of danger is folly.
Most people here don´t feel the need to defend themeselves with a gun, nor would they feel more secure if gun control would be abolished. I, for one, am glad about that.
I don't know if this is confirmed within the thread, but just so you know "Jiverly Wong" did not get laid off from IBM. Neither his first or last name show up on the internal user database.
I'm scared nonetheless. I went to the liquor store the other day in a not so great area in Westchester, and I felt scared because of this attack. The fact that this could happen an hour and a half away from me disturbs me a bit. Binghamton isn't really a bad place either, it's just a normal town in upstate New York.
On April 05 2009 17:54 closed wrote: What's with all the shootings? There were at least 2-3 other in 2009. Well.. USA has 300 million people, so it's "still not much"... but I think it will be getting worse and worse.
The discussion that such things also happened in EU is quite funny - take a look at countries with real gun control - did such things happen in China, or Korea? I dont think so... The truth is that it is impossible to prevent 100% of such killing sprees, but allowing everyone to have a gun definitely does not help to stop it.
Also - what I dont understand - is why did the police NOT enter the building for 60-90 minutes. Ok, I know that noone is an idiot and will not enter a building where some guy is shooting, but well, isnt it the job of police officers in the first place? I mean, shouldnt the police enter the building ASAP? I think they would enter if there was a shootout between mafia. And even if they consider this guy a "terrorist", you should think how many terrorist attacks did america have? I remember only 9/11 and it did not include any guns..
sry apparently there's no clear indication on how long it latsed...
but it seems to be roughly 3 min ish since police arrived within 2 min and Wong shot himself when he heard the sirens
That's more disconcerting. That's protection against getting killed by the police on a single shot to the body. He'd have to be a lot stronger than he looks to avoid getting knocked out and bruised by the bullet. Maybe he wanted to get into a shootout. Horrible stuff.
If being broke is all it takes to go apeshit and kill your whole family including yourself when your wife cheats on you then... You know what, nevermind, the economic crisis didn't cause that, the recessive "crazy-motherfucker-gene" caused that. :p
On April 05 2009 07:42 Brett wrote: 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.
The amount of people who die in school and mall shootings is minuscule. More people die from police tazers. no one seems to care about that though
Also the population of the US is greater than many other western countries combined. You would have to add all school and mall shootings from Britain and a bunch of other European countries, throw in Australia for free, to be able to compare the two.
If more people die in police tazers you have some fucking bad police. I don't think anyone has died in a police tazer in many many many years in Sweden.
If anything, that's more indicative of stupid righteous dipshits who think they have some kind of authority over... authority?
On April 05 2009 07:42 Brett wrote: 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.
The amount of people who die in school and mall shootings is minuscule. More people die from police tazers. no one seems to care about that though
Also the population of the US is greater than many other western countries combined. You would have to add all school and mall shootings from Britain and a bunch of other European countries, throw in Australia for free, to be able to compare the two.
If more people die in police tazers you have some fucking bad police. I don't think anyone has died in a police tazer in many many many years in Sweden.
If anything, that's more indicative of stupid righteous dipshits who think they have some kind of authority over... authority?
Arrogant self-righteous cops. Those cops should be put on trial for involuntary manslaughter. They won't though because the police union will protect their own. But that's your typical government agent.
Someone your "kind, wonderful, benevolent, moral authority" is here to help. Run away in fear.
1. tools by definition :Something used in the performance of an operation 2. Guns are tools designed to kill (1) 3. Humans are the operators of the tool: gun 4. Guns do not have free will to preform their intended operation (1 & 2) 5. people who own guns have the intention to preform the intended operation of killing. (1,2,3 &4) 6. Gun is not the only tool that can preform the operation of killing 7. Therefore, removal of the tool "Gun" does not stop or prevent the intention nor the operation of killing (5 & 6)
On April 05 2009 07:42 Brett wrote: 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.
The amount of people who die in school and mall shootings is minuscule. More people die from police tazers. no one seems to care about that though
Also the population of the US is greater than many other western countries combined. You would have to add all school and mall shootings from Britain and a bunch of other European countries, throw in Australia for free, to be able to compare the two.
If more people die in police tazers you have some fucking bad police. I don't think anyone has died in a police tazer in many many many years in Sweden.
If anything, that's more indicative of stupid righteous dipshits who think they have some kind of authority over... authority?
Arrogant self-righteous cops. Those cops should be put on trial for involuntary manslaughter. They won't though because the police union will protect their own. But that's your typical government agent.
Someone your "kind, wonderful, benevolent, moral authority" is here to help. Run away in fear.
Oh yeah, that's right. Every instance where some twit got tazered for resisting arrest was the cops fault! Silly me!
On April 05 2009 07:42 Brett wrote: 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.
The amount of people who die in school and mall shootings is minuscule. More people die from police tazers. no one seems to care about that though
Also the population of the US is greater than many other western countries combined. You would have to add all school and mall shootings from Britain and a bunch of other European countries, throw in Australia for free, to be able to compare the two.
If more people die in police tazers you have some fucking bad police. I don't think anyone has died in a police tazer in many many many years in Sweden.
If anything, that's more indicative of stupid righteous dipshits who think they have some kind of authority over... authority?
Arrogant self-righteous cops. Those cops should be put on trial for involuntary manslaughter. They won't though because the police union will protect their own. But that's your typical government agent.
Someone your "kind, wonderful, benevolent, moral authority" is here to help. Run away in fear.
Oh yeah, that's right. Every instance where some twit got tazered for resisting arrest was the cops fault! Silly me!
Maybe in your world, it's morally A-OK to for an agent of the government to kill criminal suspects on suspicion alone. Forget the legal system!! Kill them on the spot!! Now the policeman is Judge, Jury, and Executioner!! And all crimes big and small are punished with the Death Penalty!!
Once upon a time there was something called rule of law. Now policeman are above the law. Get punished for irresponsible use of tasers!? No way! Morally reprehensible!? No way! Policemen by definition are morality.
That said there are rare individual cops out there that are decent people and moral. But more often than not the policeman is a mediocre specimen of society with a predilection to demand, "Respect My Authoritah!!" "AUTHORITAH!!"
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
They argued with each other because they disagreed, i doubt it's because of their post counts, although i could be wrong, It's a bit arrogant to assume things about peoples underlying intentions, when in fact they are both posting well above the standard ... albeit a bit derogatorily.
However, i do agree it is kind of pointless to argue about something , you won't change your views over.
I asked a guy who got shot what he thought, and instead of the typical yes! guns for safety" response, he answered unbiasedly, that there should be stricter gun control laws because he said honestly that if he had a gun that nigger would've be dead. (statically , twice or well, at least a higher death rate by shootings)
... and Ok fine, you have these rare... well not so rare i guess, mass shootings in the U.S. but still you have FAR more ... individual killings( than 5 per month ), which can easily turn into two dead men. Now correct me if i'm wrong.. but when u get shot you don't die right away... you can reach for your gun and shoot back (this is my assumption) However if suppose every murder that takes place is a professional shot to the back of the head, my argument is invalid. Cause if i had a gun, and someone i knew.. i pissed off, hatred, different clique / gang or w/e starting walking up on me I'd be clicking that safety off and u know backing up a little, right?
Also about outlawing guns, the whole they're still easy to get even if they are outlawed thing, because... mary jane is illegal and its easy to get, or whatever really.
Imo, this would be a doubledged sword because... you're giving people an even worse incentive to get a gun, i'm not big on statistics arguing , but i'm going to take a stab here and say most shootings occur because of gang -related activities , -cough- teenagers, and they'll just have to have a gun to feel HNIC (head nigger in charge)
I don't want a strict gun control because then we won't have the right to bear arms... and they'll have to amend the constitution to do that! and i hate memorizing them for class lolol ok that was a bad one sorry..
EPT
