# Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives



## Toby Queef (Apr 7, 2009)

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives



Some very eye-opening statistics there.

_
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives._

_* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4 _

_* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."_

_* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 

* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole._



All this an many more at the above link.


----------



## BigPhi84 (Apr 7, 2009)

Interesting.


----------



## Groff (Apr 7, 2009)

Nice one, mods.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 7, 2009)

Guns rule, but spam does not.


----------



## Isan (Apr 7, 2009)

The good kind of spam


----------



## arktan (Apr 8, 2009)

That's a very neutral and scientific source. 

EDIT: It's like posting a site of potheads that's "based on facts" in a marijuana-discussion.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Apr 8, 2009)

arktan said:


> That's a very neutral and scientific source.
> 
> EDIT: It's like posting a site of potheads that's "based on facts" in a marijuana-discussion.



The difference is these potheads have credibility 



> 1 Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.
> Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology.
> Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188.
> Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls -- one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times -- that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997).
> ...


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Apr 8, 2009)

I'd like to know how many of these "defensive uses of firearms" are legitimate, and how many are some cunt choosing to escalate a situation because he thinks the gun in his pocket makes him tough, rather than backing down or getting out of it another way...


----------



## RenegadeDave (Apr 8, 2009)

You can look to this boards very own B Lopez and his use of a firearm for personal safety. He didn't have to fire it, but you can argue that he used it for self defense. I'd be more curious to see how many instances of a gun being used for self defense actually mean discharging the fire arm or simply presenting the threat of force to deescalate a situation. I've heard of a couple stories over my life where simply showing the gun was enough to diffuse a situation.


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Apr 8, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> You can look to this boards very own B Lopez and his use of a firearm for personal safety. He didn't have to fire it, but you can argue that he used it for self defense. I'd be more curious to see how many instances of a gun being used for self defense actually mean discharging the fire arm or simply presenting the threat of force to deescalate a situation. I've heard of a couple stories over my life where simply showing the gun was enough to diffuse a situation.



With 2.5 million "uses of firearms" and 75,000 gunshot injuries a year roughly in the USA, I'd say that I'm pretty sure most of those incidents don't involve actually firing a weapon...

...that or Americans are REALLY bad shots!


----------



## arktan (Apr 8, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> The difference is these potheads have credibility





I'm not one of those anti-gun people. I just find it funny how the whole thing appears on that site. I mean you expect something professional and neutral (like a study or something with pro's and cons) when you click and then BAM
"the only no-compromise gun *lobby* in Washington" 


I'm not arguing the content, dude. It just feels weird in the context of a rational discussion, that's all


----------



## Scali (Apr 8, 2009)

I don't really understand this debate on guns in the US anyway.
I mean, I'm from Europe, where most people don't have guns, and it's very hard to even legally own any firearms, let alone using them in self-defense. Even cops can't just use their firearms in self-defense, not unless the perpetrator shoots at them first.

Yet it isn't a political issue here.
As far as I know, it's like this in most of the world... the USA being one of the exceptions to have citizens own and legally use firearms.

So what is the debate all about, and does the US ever look to the rest of the world with issues like these?


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 8, 2009)

Scali said:


> I don't really understand this debate on guns in the US anyway.
> I mean, I'm from Europe, where most people don't have guns, and it's very hard to even legally own any firearms, let alone using them in self-defense. Even cops can't just use their firearms in self-defense, not unless the perpetrator shoots at them first.
> 
> Yet it isn't a political issue here.
> ...



Second. I don't get it either...


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Apr 8, 2009)

Man, I stay out of these threads, they never end up as anything good, or basically end up like this:

Pro gun : I need it for self defense, because other people have guns
Ant Gun: But what if noone else had guns?
Pro Gun: THe criminals would still have guns

etcetafuckingetera

Basically, my opinion, guns are just total shit. I never want to own one (and I have fired guns for fun) and I don't need one. 

Anywhere that does have guns should have psychological checks on all gun owners, and they need to pass a test. You wouldn't drive a car without a license or lessons, and it is not acceptable to do so.

Anything that is used for military assault (fully automatic weapons and all that shit) is not a self defense weapon.

Really, it's a case of the US just being the way it is. Too many guns in circulation to take them away, too many lobbies to consider gun control.

But hey, all these threads end up as a shit slinging competitions with pro gun people calling anti gun people a bunch of soft scaredy cat liberal fucks, while the anti gun call the pro gun people a bunch of aggressive dumb ass rednecks.

THat's my prediction for this thread anyway.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 8, 2009)

I'm pretty anti-guns, I'm the same as 7DT, I've never needed one nor will I ever want one. I love my shooting games on Xbox 360, but guns in real life I find to be really lame. I understand there are parts of culture which are different in the USA which is fair dos, but the way I see, it's easy for a coward to hide behind the power of a gun.


----------



## Scali (Apr 8, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> but the way I see, it's easy for a coward to hide behind the power of a gun.


 
Yea, just like how people on internet forums hide behind the anonimity of the net, or behind the 'endless' authority of a moderator-status.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 8, 2009)




----------



## Scali (Apr 8, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


>


 The real issue is not the flogging of the dead horse... but whether it was killed by a gun


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 8, 2009)

Scali said:


> The real issue is not the flogging of the dead horse... but whether it was killed by a gun



He's clearly European as he's resorting to using a club.


----------



## silentrage (Apr 8, 2009)

Guns don't kill people, stupidity kills people.
/Thread


----------



## playstopause (Apr 8, 2009)

+1 for 7DT's post.

That's all i'm gonna say, I know I need to keep out of here or it will degenerate.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 8, 2009)

silentrage said:


> Guns don't kill people, rappers do.
> /Thread



Fixed.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 8, 2009)

Scali said:


> Yea, just like how people on internet forums hide behind the anonimity of the net, or behind the 'endless' authority of a moderator-status.







silentrage said:


> Guns don't kill people, stupidity kills people.
> /Thread



guns definitely kill people. that's what they were made for.


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 8, 2009)

Scali said:


> Yea, just like how people on internet forums hide behind the anonimity of the net, or behind the 'endless' authority of a moderator-status.



Got a problem, Scali?


----------



## Scali (Apr 8, 2009)

eaeolian said:


> Got a problem, Scali?


 
I do actually... I'm not sure if I can justify buying a nice RG2228 secondhand, when I've just bought a Les Paul 7 last month...


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 8, 2009)

Scali said:


> I do actually... I'm not sure if I can justify buying a nice RG2228 secondhand, when I've just bought a Les Paul 7 last month...



Well, that is a dilemma, indeed. Then again, it's GAS - do you really *need* justification?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 8, 2009)

haha yeah most GAS is barely justified! I know for sure I want some guitars that I just _don't_ need.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Apr 8, 2009)

Scali said:


> I do actually... I'm not sure if I can justify buying a nice RG2228 secondhand, when I've just bought a Les Paul 7 last month...


You need it. Trust me. Listen to someone who's *cough* *cough* sensible 



eaeolian said:


> Well, that is a dilemma, indeed. Then again, it's GAS - do you really *need* justification?


Nope. Not in my book anyway!



Scar Symmetry said:


> haha yeah most GAS is barely justified! I know for sure I want some guitars that I just _don't_ need.


Aye


----------



## Tiger (Apr 8, 2009)

silentrage said:


> Guns don't kill people, stupidity kills people.
> /Thread



No, not at all.


----------



## arktan (Apr 8, 2009)

This thread turned out to be very confusing


----------



## Mr. S (Apr 8, 2009)

It's a nice change of pace from how gun threads normally turn out though isn't it.


----------



## Isan (Apr 9, 2009)

In the event of a corrupt government(Nazi Like), it makes revolting much easier, and that is good in my books.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 9, 2009)

ok i really like my guns. well the ones i used to have. i got divorced and had to sell them all. anyway, i definitly think it should be more like cars. well probably more strictly regulated. because although i would like to be able to shoot some crackhead who wants to rape my gf i still dont think EVERY person who can pull a trigger should be allowed to own a firearm. its a tool. a very deadly serious one. just like a car. i think you should have to get a license and to get it you should have to take classes and go through evaluations and background checks. 

and im in the army, so im pretty sure that if the whole nazi government thing ever did happen, the military would easily mow down a bunch of civilians with shotguns. i wouldnt even think of trying to fight that fight with guns youll just die.


----------



## B Lopez (Apr 9, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> You can look to this boards very own B Lopez and his use of a firearm for personal safety. He didn't have to fire it, but you can argue that he used it for self defense. I'd be more curious to see how many instances of a gun being used for self defense actually mean discharging the fire arm or simply presenting the threat of force to deescalate a situation. I've heard of a couple stories over my life where simply showing the gun was enough to diffuse a situation.



I don't own a rifle, pistol or any other firearm.

Nor do I own a gun, though it would be cool to have a Howitzer in my front yard.


----------



## Zoltta (Apr 9, 2009)

Those of you who are anti gun do you have a reason for being anti gun or is it because the media says they are icky evil killing machines?

Whats this, you have no use or see no use to own a gun? I do lets see

Self defense
Recreational shooting
Hunting
Competition
Collections

Im pro gun, a gun enthusiast, hunter, and collector. Have been for 15 years. Most of my money is spend on firearms, ammo, reloading equipment, parts and accessories etc etc. Why? Because its a hobby just like anything else. Its a hobby just like you guys collecting guitars and gear, just like women collecting 500 pairs of shoes. Just because i am a gun owner doesn't mean im a killer or intend for unlawful purpose. Its what i do for fun. I build and fix guns for recreational and competitive use. 

"Guns kill people"

yeah well guess what, so do cars and tobacco and guns are on the bottom of the list of unnatural causes of death FYI. Fact is guns dont kill people, if you take a gun and leave it sitting on the table, you know what i call that? A big piece of metal and plastic sitting on the table.....

"I rather spend a grand on a guitar than a useless gun"

I hear this alot. So do you like playing that guitar in your room all day, getting no where with it? Guess what i like to shoot my useless gun all day at the range, getting nowhere with it too. You may never be in a famous band and i may never be a professional marksman but HEY, its fun and we love it right?

As far as being able to carry. If you have the chance to obtain a CCW permit, why wouldn't you? You rather try and be a tough guy and say "Oh i dont need a gun, guns are for pussies" and risk your life than carry a piece where no one can see it and maybe one day you got robbed at gunpoint or knife point and it was either kill or be killed. 

As for you Europeans talking shit about Americans and their guns. We have something called the 2nd Amendment and you dont. If we didnt have that, TRUST me we wouldn't know ANY better about guns ANY more than you do.

Lighten up people, the ignorance of the media and the way they project firearms is getting to people way more than it should. I understand if some of you had a past incident with a firearm but you shouldn't take it out on the weapon used because you know damn well if firearms weren't available, they would just use something else.

Some of you just dont know the relationship between a man and his guns. It might sound corny but its a terrible addiction, trust me.


----------



## Isan (Apr 9, 2009)

possumkiller said:


> and im in the army, so im pretty sure that if the whole nazi government thing ever did happen, the military would easily mow down a bunch of civilians with shotguns. i wouldnt even think of trying to fight that fight with guns youll just die.



That is not the point, the Point is without them most people would be to cowardly to stand up. 
Although, I do not think a foot soldier would want tango with my friends psg-1, G3, rpk, m4, 9mm m4, Sl8, and m14, but yes they do have APCs lol


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 9, 2009)

Isan said:


> That is not the point, the Point is without them most people would be to cowardly to stand up.
> Although, I do not think a foot soldier would want tango with my friends psg-1, G3, rpk, m4, 9mm m4, Sl8, and m14, but yes they do have APCs lol


 
trust me man if it ever came to what you are talking about it most certainly wouldnt be "a foot soldier" tangoing with your friend. it would more likely be a platoon of heavily armed and body armored foot soldiers with 4 to 6 armored hmmwvs with heavy machineguns mounted on top and 2 ah64 apaches nearby for support. at least thats what we usually use to raid a house with some untrained people with beat up, unserviceable com-bloc relic weapons. its really sad that i knew a soldier who died in a training exercise because we camped out on the ground in the worst blizzard colorado saw in 25 years back in 2005 (he had bad complications with asthma and the medics thought he was trying to get out of doing the training) but there is no way we go into any kind of battle undergunned.


----------



## Zoltta (Apr 9, 2009)

possumkiller said:


> trust me man if it ever came to what you are talking about it most certainly wouldnt be "a foot soldier" tangoing with your friend. it would more likely be a platoon of heavily armed and body armored foot soldiers with 4 to 6 armored hmmwvs with heavy machineguns mounted on top and 2 ah64 apaches nearby for support. at least thats what we usually use to raid a house with some untrained people with beat up, unserviceable com-bloc relic weapons. its really sad that i knew a soldier who died in a training exercise because we camped out on the ground in the worst blizzard colorado saw in 25 years back in 2005 (he had bad complications with asthma and the medics thought he was trying to get out of doing the training) but there is no way we go into any kind of battle undergunned.



yeah well let me tell you if it ever came down to some country invading the US, they have something coming to them from our citizens alone. We might lose in the end but when it comes to an experience gun enthusiasts and marksmen here in the US, we will give them a run for their money. 

You'll be amazed how many people own guns in the US. Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun(thats about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for thier own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of american households owning 260 million guns). 

You never know who has a massive privately owned collection. The 20 year old kid working the cash register at Shop Rite might have a bigger collection than most mid age adults.


----------



## arktan (Apr 9, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> yeah well let me tell you if it ever came down to some country invading the US, they have something coming to them from our citizens alone. We might lose in the end but when it comes to an experience gun enthusiasts and marksmen here in the US, we will give them a run for their money.
> 
> You'll be amazed how many people own guns in the US. Most estimates range between 39&#37; and 50% of US households having at least one gun(thats about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for thier own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of american households owning 260 million guns).
> 
> You never know who has a massive privately owned collection. The 20 year old kid working the cash register at Shop Rite might have a bigger collection than most mid age adults.




Look, i stated earlier that i'm not against guns but that "defense" argument is pretty shortsighted. IF an enemy army invades the US than it must be some high-tech bullshit army since landing on a US-coast won't be that easy with an invasion force, right? 

So IF that high-tech army sees that a lot of civilians are armed, what part of the population will be it's main target?
The argument of defense is more or less a romantisation of geno-suicide.

But in your earlier post you brought up some good points. I for my part liked guns when i was younger but then i've seen what they can do (not some videos or tests, real people) and since then i have that association in my head.
If someone likes to have a handgun or a hunting rifle or a sniper rifle or one of those ugly sport rifles that these cross-country runners use (  ) then i don't care (well, except for the last, they're just  ). They were made for certain purposes.
But when someone comes to me and says that he uses his modded Sig552 with a fucking grenade launcher for recreational shooting then i have the urge to give him some free dental care. I'm also not driving around with a Mephisto VCAC for recreational purposes for christs sake.


----------



## Scali (Apr 9, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> As for you Europeans talking shit about Americans and their guns. We have something called the 2nd Amendment and you dont. If we didnt have that, TRUST me we wouldn't know ANY better about guns ANY more than you do.


 
I think you're missing the point... which is:
WHY do you have a 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the world doesn't?
In Europe there have been constructions similar to the 2nd Amendment in the past (partly to have civilians keep the peace when there was no adequade police force or army available). But not anymore. We do have the right of self-defense, just not with firearms. And as far as I know, there hasn't been any kind of lobby trying to get the right to bear firearms in Europe. So apparently we don't care.
Why do you?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 9, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> Those of you who are anti gun do you have a reason for being anti gun or is it because the media says they are icky evil killing machines?
> 
> Whats this, you have no use or see no use to own a gun? I do lets see
> 
> ...



firstly, I decided on my own that I don't like guns. you're probably more media influenced than I am.

secondly, guns are built for the sole purpose of taking other people's lives away, cars are not.

and third:



Scali said:


> WHY do you have a 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the world doesn't?
> We don't care.
> Why do you?



yes, why do you care? 

my guess is it's because you're hooked on the feeling of power that it gives you, which frankly, I find pathetic.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 9, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> secondly, guns are built for the sole purpose of taking other people's lives away, cars are not.



Nah, thats not true at all. Just as some cars are built for speed, others for offroad, others for safety, so too are firearms diversified. 

And its silly to say that gun owners keep them for the sake of self empowerment. I have a Benelli in the house because I live with my girlfriend and she should be protected.


----------



## Scali (Apr 9, 2009)

Tiger said:


> And its silly to say that gun owners keep them for the sake of self empowerment. I have a Benelli in the house because I live with my girlfriend and she should be protected.


 
I think the real question is:
When coming face-to-face with an attacker, will you shoot to kill, or merely to disable the attacker?

Or to put it another way: Do you think you can control yourself enough in such an intense moment to not just waste a human life on impulse?

I think that's an interesting debate. In a way, you US citizens have the right to shoot anyone on your own property. We don't. How do people see and handle that right?
I mean, let's face it... Cops and soldiers undergo various psychological tests and are trained to handle their weapon in stressful situations... Most citizens are 'untrained'.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 9, 2009)

Scali said:


> I think the real question is:
> When coming face-to-face with an attacker, will you shoot to kill, or merely to disable the attacker?



That of course is case dependent.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 9, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Nah, thats not true at all. Just as some cars are built for speed, others for offroad, others for safety, so too are firearms diversified.
> 
> And its silly to say that gun owners keep them for the sake of self empowerment. I have a Benelli in the house because I live with my girlfriend and she should be protected.



what does your gun fire, flowers and ponies?

guns were designed and made to KILL STUFF. be it rabbits, deers, buffalos, humans... they're there to take life away. they can be used by professionals such as policemen to disable a criminal, but citizens do not have that formal training.

I agree that your girlfriend should be protected, but I don't agree that owning a gun guarantees that protection.


----------



## Scali (Apr 9, 2009)

Tiger said:


> That of course is case dependent.


 
What does it depend on, exactly?


----------



## Nick (Apr 9, 2009)

all i know is that if someone broke into my house id be making for the nearest weapon i dont see what the difference would be whether it was a gun or a knife or any other object.

My objective would be to get hold of something that i could cause extreme damage/intimidation with. I dare say im not alone in that just the same that if the intruder were looking for a weapon before breaking and entering they would look for something that would cause extreme damage/intimidation.

Guns do not kill people

people kill people


----------



## Tiger (Apr 9, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> what does your gun fire, flowers and ponies?



People use firearms for different reasons. I know competition shooters who have never gone hunting a day in their life. By comparison, you should also be vilifying archers everywhere because while 99.999% of the time they are firing at targets, sometimes they might hit a gnat that was flying through the air when they fired.



Scali said:


> What does it depend on, exactly?



The situation, obviously. Thousands of thousands of unique situations.

If its a reaction taken by surprise shot you're going to just naturally shoot for center mass, training or not. Now, say I am able to walk into the room while homeskillet is trying to steal my TV. Of course I wont fire. But who knows! Pretty much no one on here will ever actually draw down on anyone in their life.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 9, 2009)

Tiger said:


> People use firearms for different reasons. I know competition shooters who have never gone hunting a day in their life. By comparison, you should also be vilifying archers everywhere because while 99.999&#37; of the time they are firing at targets, sometimes they might hit a gnat that was flying through the air when they fired.



I'm not vilifying gun owners or archers, my point was that weapons were made to kill. I can understand the shooting targets for sport, same goes for bows, but let's not forget what they were made for in the first place.



Nick said:


> Guns do not kill people
> 
> people kill people



guns are weapons. weapons kill people in a more violent and powerful way than just the human body can inflict, providing a disadvantage to the victim if unarmed themselves.

guns definitely kill people.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 9, 2009)

Isan said:


> In the event of a corrupt government(Nazi Like), it makes revolting much easier, and that is good in my books.



I'd like to see one legitimate case of this occurring. Red Dawn is not a sufficient answer...



Scali said:


> I think you're missing the point... which is:
> WHY do you have a 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the world doesn't?
> In Europe there have been constructions similar to the 2nd Amendment in the past (partly to have civilians keep the peace when there was no adequade police force or army available). But not anymore. We do have the right of self-defense, just not with firearms. And as far as I know, there hasn't been any kind of lobby trying to get the right to bear firearms in Europe. So apparently we don't care.
> Why do you?



Well said. I'd like to see an answer to this.


----------



## Nick (Apr 9, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> guns are weapons. weapons kill people in a more violent and powerful way than just the human body can inflict, providing a disadvantage to the victim if unarmed themselves.




true but so does a big stick.

Just because guns and other things are made as weapons doesnt mean they have to be used as such.

accountability is key in this sort of thing and sadly its something thats generally not paid much attention to anymore.

i dont want to own a gun but firing one at targets is fun and if that increases someones quality of life then as far as im concerned they can have at it.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 9, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> I'd like to see one legitimate case of this occurring. Red Dawn is not a sufficient answer...



Ever heard of two gentleman by the name of Fidel Castro and Ernesto Guevara?


----------



## Scali (Apr 9, 2009)

Tiger said:


> If its a reaction taken by surprise shot you're going to just naturally shoot for center mass, training or not.


 
Actually, you'd hope that because of training, people would shoot legs and such. That's exactly the point of training. To suppress your 'natural' reaction.
Cops over here are NOT to use their gun unless fired upon. So if they even shoot someone in the leg because they're 'taken by surprise', that's already unlawful. I know US cops are a bit more triggerhappy than we are over here, but still I hope they are instructed not to fire their weapon except as a last resort.



Tiger said:


> Pretty much no one on here will ever actually draw down on anyone in their life.


 
Well, if that is the case, pretty much no one on here would need to own a gun in the first place. QED.


----------



## Nick (Apr 9, 2009)

id also add that im sitting in an office right now and i could grab any number of items within about 10 feet that i could use to inflict horrific injuries upon anyone sitting nearby if i so desired. 

but i dont.


----------



## silentrage (Apr 9, 2009)

I live in Toronto, one of the relatively scarier places in Canada, yet I never lock the door when I go out and I've never felt the need to protect myself with anything, maybe you guys should be thinking about WHY you feel you need a gun on a level more than skin deep.


----------



## Scali (Apr 9, 2009)

Nick said:


> true but so does a big stick.


 
A gun is far more deadly than a stick.



Nick said:


> i dont want to own a gun but firing one at targets is fun and if that increases someones quality of life then as far as im concerned they can have at it.


 
Nobody needs to own a gun for that, or even have one at home. You could just rent/borrow them at the firing range.
In fact, it doesn't even have to be a 'real' gun. You can shoot with blanks and use some kind of electronics to determine what you hit, rather than shooting with live ammo.
Or like they use in the biathlon for example... air-powered guns with relatively harmless lead projectiles. Not deadly, but still all the fun of competition.
All that is possible in Europe aswell.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 9, 2009)

when obama won people started buying guns like crazy. i was in iraq at the time. my cousin and my father started going nuts. my cousin spent like 20000 dollars on 6 guns and ASSLOADS of ammo. me has an m4 with accessories, a version of an m4 in 7.62mm nato with accessories, 2 12 gauge tactical shotguns, a sig p226 in 40, and hes ordered the new barrett 338 lapua bolt rifle. he has THOUSANDS of rounds hes stockipiling. and i asked him when "the man" comes knocking at his door how many of those guns is he gonna shoot at one time? is he really gonna need all that ammo? if his house got raided he would probably be killed before he could even get a magazine emptied and he wouldnt likely be able to kill any of them. honestly i think that kind of idea is retarded. all i want is a sig p232 for concealed carry and defense and omg i really really really want a big old double rifle in 600 nitro express. do i NEED a double rifle in 600 nitro express? hell no after i paid for it i would never be able to afford a safari! still doesnt mean i dont want one. still doesnt mean i shouldnt be able to legally own one. 

so what if your right to play guitar was in question? what if they decided to ban music because people commit suicide listening to ozzy and manson and all that bullshit? you dont want to kill anybody you just want to play your guitar in peace right? you dont really need 27 guitars but that doesnt mean you dont want them. that doesnt mean you shouldnt be able to legally own them.

nobody needs to own a guitar or have one at home either. you can just go rent one.

i think a gun is a far more "humane" (if there is such a thing) way of killing someone than using my wooden esp pointed headstock. with a gun i can shoot you in the brain and its over for you. with my esp i would swing it at your head and use the body to knock you down. then i would use the headstock to gouge into your eye sockets or temple until you are fatally wounded and hemmorage and die. personally i would rather be shot if i were given a choice.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 9, 2009)

Nick said:


> id also add that im sitting in an office right now and i could grab any number of items within about 10 feet that i could use to inflict horrific injuries upon anyone sitting nearby if i so desired.
> 
> but i dont.



But what if you went nuts and did anyway?



Tiger said:


> Ever heard of two gentleman by the name of Fidel Castro and Ernesto Guevara?



You know, I was _just_ about to go back and edit my post to mention Cuba. Touche, Mr Tiger. Touche.

But my point still stands.


----------



## Scali (Apr 9, 2009)

possumkiller said:


> when obama won people started buying guns like crazy.


 
Uhhh, why?
Were they expecting WWIII?
Is that a black thing?



possumkiller said:


> so what if your right to play guitar was in question? what if they decided to ban music because people commit suicide listening to ozzy and manson and all that bullshit? you dont want to kill anybody you just want to play your guitar in peace right? you dont really need 27 guitars but that doesnt mean you dont want them. that doesnt mean you shouldnt be able to legally own them.


 
That's just nonsense. My little kid won't accidentally kill itself or its friends if it happens to find my guitars and picks one up.
When I mistake a friend or member of the family for someone sneaking around, I won't accidentally kill them by striking a chord on the guitar in panic.

People who commit suicide, do this by their own choice. It has nothing to do with a guitar at all.
If I shoot you in the face, you had no choice in that. It was my decision to shoot you in the face.
The fact that you even try to compare the two makes me worry about the fact that people like you are allowed to carry guns. I mean, wow, you have a warped sense of reality!

Aside from that, as far as I know, we *are* allowed to own and collect guns, but only when they are non-functional, which is usually done by filling the barrel with lead. If you are only interested in collecting guns, I see no objection to the guns not being functional.


----------



## Nick (Apr 9, 2009)

i have to agree with this.

until a gun jumps up and shoots someone on its own i think people need to re focus their attention on 'why are people killing each other'.

on the note of the air powered guns.

firing an air pistol is no where near as fun as shooting a .50 cal pistol. its not just about shooting a target its the whole experience.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 9, 2009)

Scali said:


> Uhhh, why?
> Were they expecting WWIII?
> Is that a black thing?
> 
> ...


 
would you want a non functional guitar?

yeah im probly just gonna get out of here because apparently some of you retards just cant crack those little minds open enough to let an outside opinion shine in for a moment. i dont want to get banned because of an idiot like you.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 9, 2009)

Nick said:


> true but so does a big stick.
> 
> Just because guns and other things are made as weapons doesnt mean they have to be used as such.
> 
> ...



accountability is key yes, but the weapon gives whoever is accountable that ability, that advantage, the means to kill someone or permanently damage their body.

does it not worry that people find firing a gun blows off steam though? the fact is that firing a gun makes whoever fired it feel powerful and that is dangerous in itself.


----------



## Scali (Apr 9, 2009)

Nick said:


> until a gun jumps up and shoots someone on its own i think people need to re focus their attention on 'why are people killing each other'.


 
Perhaps us Europeans have a different idea on that, and BECAUSE of that we don't want people to have guns.
Things like lack of responsibility, poor judgement, and all that. Better to be safe than sorry.
And as I already mentioned, accidents happen with guns around the house in the US. So I think we can add 'careless' to the list aswell.



possumkiller said:


> would you want a non functional guitar?


 
I'm a player, not a collector. So it's not a good analogy. That'd be more like giving non-functional guns to the police force and army.

But more to the point, I do know of people who can't really play guitar, but still like to collect them, because they think guitars look cool, and might be a good investment in some cases.
Which is very similar to collecting guns that you can't shoot.

I'd also like to add: Look at you, you're already losing your temper in a simple internet discussion. You don't show any respect for other people, and just start insulting them. I see no sense of self-control or restraint with you. Imagine what you would do if you had a gun in your hand, with that temper of yours!


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 9, 2009)

possumkiller said:


> would you want a non functional guitar?
> 
> yeah im probly just gonna get out of here because apparently some of you retards just cant crack those little minds open enough to let an outside opinion shine in for a moment. i dont want to get banned because of an idiot like you.



No, you're going to get banned through your aggressiveness which is _your_ own fault. Not his.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 9, 2009)

possumkiller said:


> would you want a non functional guitar?
> 
> yeah im probly just gonna get out of here because apparently some of you retards just cant crack those little minds open enough to let an outside opinion shine in for a moment. i dont want to get banned because of an idiot like you.



what a childish post.


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 9, 2009)

possumkiller said:


> would you want a non functional guitar?
> 
> yeah im probly just gonna get out of here because apparently some of you retards just cant crack those little minds open enough to let an outside opinion shine in for a moment. i dont want to get banned because of an idiot like you.



While a sensible idea, perhaps not the best way to say it?


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 9, 2009)

Scali said:


> Uhhh, why?
> Were they expecting WWIII?
> Is that a black thing?



Mostly crap from the right-wing commentators in the U.S., who yell and scream about Obama pushing a gun ban (he isn't, and won't be) 'cause he's one of them, y'know, damn lib-hur-alls...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 9, 2009)

Scali said:


> Actually, you'd hope that because of training, people would shoot legs and such. That's exactly the point of training. To suppress your 'natural' reaction.



I dont think thats the kind of training I get! If they start telling us in 3rd phase at BUD/S to shoot for the legs I'll be left scratching my head. 

'Training' is too broad a term, cause it could be your Dad, a military officer, a police officer, etc.



ZeroSignal said:


> You know, I was _just_ about to go back and edit my post to mention Cuba. Touche, Mr Tiger. Touche.
> 
> But my point still stands.




It happens.


----------



## DDDorian (Apr 9, 2009)

He does have a point, though - Scali, whether you realise it or not you're coming across as unnecessarily smug.


----------



## Scali (Apr 9, 2009)

eaeolian said:


> Mostly crap from the right-wing commentators in the U.S., who yell and scream about Obama pushing a gun ban (he isn't, and won't be) 'cause he's one of them, y'know, damn lib-hur-alls...


 
Well, that's interesting... So because of fear of a gun ban they stock up on weapons like maniacs?
Now... I assume that even though it is legal to own a gun in the US, these guns still have serial numbers, and each gun is registered to its owner, right?
Which would mean that the government has a full record of all legally-owned weapons.
So in the case of a gun ban, I assume they will do it as follows:
1) Have a 'grace' period where every gun owner can voluntarily turn in his or her guns at the local police station.
2) After this period, all the unaccounted-for registered gun owners will get a visit from the police to collect the guns.

What are they going to do, shoot the cops when they come for your guns?


----------



## silentrage (Apr 9, 2009)

For what it's worth I agree with possumkiller for the fact that guns are no more dangerous than the people who use them so it's better if we find a way to weed out those people than to ban it all together
. 
Carelessness is a good arguement against guns, but if you're stupid enough to kill 
yourself by accident you'd have found a way to do it with or without the help of a gun! 
This applies to killing other people as well. 
lawl.


----------



## Scali (Apr 9, 2009)

Tiger said:


> I dont think thats the kind of training I get! If they start telling us in 3rd phase at BUD/S to shoot for the legs I'll be left scratching my head.
> 
> 'Training' is too broad a term, cause it could be your Dad, a military officer, a police officer, etc.


 
Agreed, although I think the 'dad' can be left out... I was talking about formal training only. Where you actually get a certificate of some kind, when you passed the training.
But good point, the military or an assault team will have use guns in an offsensive way, rather than a defensive way.
But they have a license to kill, which regular cops or civilians won't have, except for self-defense.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 9, 2009)

Scali said:


> Well, that's interesting... So because of fear of a gun ban they stock up on weapons like maniacs?
> Now... I assume that even though it is legal to own a gun in the US, these guns still have serial numbers, and each gun is registered to its owner, right?
> Which would mean that the government has a full record of all legally-owned weapons.
> So in the case of a gun ban, I assume they will do it as follows:
> ...




Please dont forget we're talking about dumb as a brick white americans.



Scali said:


> Agreed, although I think the 'dad' can be left out... I was talking about formal training only. Where you actually get a certificate of some kind, when you passed the training.



Well for most American's, including me, thats the training they get.


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 9, 2009)

Scali said:


> What are they going to do, shoot the cops when they come for your guns?



Apparently, yes.


----------



## HighGain510 (Apr 9, 2009)

Scali said:


> I'd also like to add: Look at you, you're already losing your temper in a simple internet discussion. You don't show any respect for other people, and just start insulting them. I see no sense of self-control or restraint with you. Imagine what you would do if you had a gun in your hand, with that temper of yours!



I read the thread and I'll keep my thoughts on the topic out of the debate because I see a lot of silly examples being thrown around already, but I just wanted to say that your posts in this thread (particularly the one above) have a tendency to try to poke fun of or instigate people rather than contribute to the discussion in a more positive manner.  Just saying.


----------



## Nick (Apr 9, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> But what if you went nuts and did anyway?



then id kill someone with an object you would find in an office?.........i think your point has made mine really.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 9, 2009)

Nick said:


> then id kill someone with an object you would find in an office?.........i think your point has made mine really.



Which is easier... To beat several people to death or to simply shoot them?


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 9, 2009)

Scali said:


> Now... I assume that even though it is legal to own a gun in the US, these guns still have serial numbers, and each gun is registered to its owner, right?



Not in every state. And even in some states, its voluntary. You can sell guns you own to any person you so desires, assuming they're over 18, etc. with no paper work invovled.


----------



## Nick (Apr 9, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> does it not worry that people find firing a gun blows off steam though? the fact is that firing a gun makes whoever fired it feel powerful and that is dangerous in itself.



jumping off a crane with a massive elsatic band stuck to you does the same thing for some people.

some people just enjoy firing guns. Myself included. Its not something id do every day or even something id take up as a hobby if i could but it is fun. So is motor racing for some people, and deaths have occurred in that 2.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 9, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Which is easier... To beat several people to death or to simply shoot them?



Why arent you ragging on IEDs or something like that? Those are way more effective than guns? why dont we ban those instead? 


As far as this "Why do we have this second ammendment" thing. Why do we have the first? or the other 26? I guess those are as equally outdated, arent they? Fuck that whole "Freedom of speech" thing. Why dont we just repeal the 4th ammendment, too? I mean, if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldnt be concerned about search and seizure. Lets ix the third one two, since its between 2 and 4. The government will never put soldiers in my apartment anyway...


----------



## Nick (Apr 9, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Which is easier... To beat several people to death or to simply shoot them?




im not talking about physical fighting im talking about using something as a weapon and with that in mind if i went nuts my office with say... a guillotene(sp?) or a kitchen knife it would be just as bad either way.

this is getting a bit silly anyway.

my point is i dont think anyone should be restricted on doing something if they enjoy it and its not harming anyone else in any way.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 9, 2009)

Nick said:


> jumping off a crane with a massive elsatic band stuck to you does the same thing for some people.
> 
> some people just enjoy firing guns. Myself included. Its not something id do every day or even something id take up as a hobby if i could but it is fun. So is motor racing for some people, and deaths have occurred in that 2.



bungee jumping doesn't endanger anyone else though.

as I said earlier, I understand shooting targets for sport, but it's the power attachment that worries me.

comparing guns to sports that don't involve weapons of somesort seems silly to me.


----------



## Nick (Apr 9, 2009)

should we ban boxing and MMA then as those peoples fists are termed (by law, or so im told by a friend who boxes) as weapons?

i can see how being a monumental beast at either of these sports would give a feeling of power as well.

fencing?


----------



## Scali (Apr 9, 2009)

HighGain510 said:


> I read the thread and I'll keep my thoughts on the topic out of the debate because I see a lot of silly examples being thrown around already, but I just wanted to say that your posts in this thread (particularly the one above) have a tendency to try to poke fun of or instigate people rather than contribute to the discussion in a more positive manner.  Just saying.


 
Well I think, in an almost poetic way, it contributed to the discussion at hand in a significant way: people can be provoked easily, and may do impulsive things. Put a gun into that equation, and things can get dangerous.



Metal Ken said:


> As far as this "Why do we have this second ammendment" thing. Why do we have the first? or the other 26? I guess those are as equally outdated, arent they? Fuck that whole "Freedom of speech" thing. Why dont we just repeal the 4th ammendment, too? I mean, if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldnt be concerned about search and seizure. Lets ix the third one two, since its between 2 and 4. The government will never put soldiers in my apartment anyway...


 
Well, I think an interesting point was made earlier, although nobody really picked up on it...
In a way it's a cultural thing. Because you have it, you don't want to give it up, somehow it feels like giving up part of your freedom, part of your rights.
We didn't grow up with that right, so we don't really know any better, and as such, we don't desire it.
You grew up with the right, and want to defend it.

Are there any figures on how many people actually own guns in the US though? I mean, even though it's legal, I don't think that means that everyone in the US is packing heat, right? It's not like everyone in NL is a drug addict either, if you know what I mean


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 9, 2009)

I agree with you. However...



Metal Ken said:


> Why don't we just repeal the 4th amendment, too? I mean, if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't be concerned about search and seizure.



We pretty much have, given what counts as "probable cause" these days...


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 9, 2009)

Scali said:


> Well I think, in an almost poetic way, it contributed to the discussion at hand in a significant way: people can be provoked easily, and may do impulsive things.



Then again, you may just be being an ass, and trying to make yourself look better after the fact by constructing a psychological distraction...


----------



## Scali (Apr 9, 2009)

eaeolian said:


> Then again, you may just be being an ass, and trying to make yourself look better after the fact by constructing a psychological distraction...


 
Well, look at my rep status, it says I'm "just really nice"


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 9, 2009)

Scali said:


> Well, that's interesting... So because of fear of a gun ban they stock up on weapons like maniacs?
> Now... I assume that even though it is legal to own a gun in the US, these guns still have serial numbers, and each gun is registered to its owner, right?
> Which would mean that the government has a full record of all legally-owned weapons.
> So in the case of a gun ban, I assume they will do it as follows:
> ...


 
yeah i know right thats exactly what i said to my cousin. its a no win situation with that really. if they want to ban guns there is nothing you can do about it. and if you do try to do something about it you will probably get shot or go to prison for the rest of your life. honestly there is no point trying to fight them if they come to get your guns. and even if you have all you friends with you to shoot it out with them who do you think is going to win???? 

so i really think its people who are afraid that if they can take the guns like that they can take anything. cars, guitars, whatever they want. in 1933 they confiscated all the publics gold buillon when they were getting rid of the gold standard (your dollar was worth a dollars worth of gold and it was redeemable). they literally robbed the public of any gold bars or things that werent jewelry and such (basically any kind of stockpiled gold). they were given a grace period to turn it in. after that if people were found out to have it there was a 10 years in prison threat.

anyway, to veer crazily back on topic here. do guns make you safer? no. does anything really make you safer? no. a gun is an inanimate object that requires human control to operate. now, the question should be, why do we allow so many humans who have no control or responsibility or sometimes even common sense, to own and operate these firearms? i love my guns and im all for guns BUT, when i go to the local free to the public range i almost always see people who shouldnt be allowed to own guns just blazing away carelessly not paying attention to their surroundings. people like that scare me.

banning guns sucks. ok yeah nobody really needs them for anything as far as civilians goes. aside from personal shooting fun at the range, well and people like to hunt, and well i would definitly rather have a gun if some 7 foot tall 300 pound monster of a man was trying to beat me to death. anyway, its a shame that people would ban guns because of people who use them in stupid ways. just like it would suck if they banned guitars in a global effort to try and get rid of shitty music. what about the good bands? what about me? i want to play my music by myself for my own enjoyment and not bother anyone else.



and yeah im an ass. when people say things that upset me i tend to say things out of spite. especially when its about something i care deeply. not so much the guns because i currently dont own any, and because my gf hates them im not going to buy any until i can teach her more about them and show her they arent bad unless they arent cared for. what i care about is my freedom. honestly i dont think owning a gun SHOULD be a right. it should be a privelige just like driving. but i also dont want them to make them completely illegal. that would be wrong.


----------



## Scali (Apr 9, 2009)

possumkiller said:


> and yeah im an ass. when people say things that upset me i tend to say things out of spite. especially when its about something i care deeply.


 
No hard feelings...
I guess everyone can get upset if you push their buttons. We all have a breaking point.
But I guess it does give us something to think about, in the context of weapons and all.

Do you guys ever wonder how the outside world sees the US? I mean, every few months we hear about shootings at a high-school, at a university, a supermarket, or whatever. While it does occur occasionally in Europe, it seems far more common in the US. Would that have anything to do with the fact that these... well... psycho's can get their hands on (automatic) weapons far more easily than over here?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 9, 2009)

Nick said:


> should we ban boxing and MMA then as those peoples fists are termed (by law, or so im told by a friend who boxes) as weapons?
> 
> i can see how being a monumental beast at either of these sports would give a feeling of power as well.
> 
> fencing?



I personally think all 3 are fucking stupid but hey that's me.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 9, 2009)

Scali said:


> Do you guys ever wonder how the outside world sees the US? I mean, every few months we hear about shootings at a high-school, at a university, a supermarket, or whatever. While it does occur occasionally in Europe, it seems far more common in the US. Would that have anything to do with the fact that these... well... psycho's can get their hands on (automatic) weapons far more easily than over here?


 
yeah after i got old and wise enough to learn that the versions of history they teach us here and the versions they teach the rest of the world are completely different.... yeah i definitly think about what it looks like from the outside looking in. america is very strange. some of the largest most "civilized" cities on the planet. still i can take you back to my home in florida and you would think that we went to a third world country looking at how people live. 

and yeah it has a lot to do with it being too easy to get weapons. i never said it should be easy. i think it should be strictly regulated. just like politics. i think politicians should be very strictly regulated. after all they are "running" our country and supposed to be looking after us right? with everything it always comes down to a few bad people ruining something for everyone who just wants to mind their business and have fun in life.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 9, 2009)

possumkiller said:


> america is very strange..





the rest of the world are sort of bemused by you guys, I think we want to understand but we don't know where to start!


----------



## Scali (Apr 9, 2009)

possumkiller said:


> yeah after i got old and wise enough to learn that the versions of history they teach us here and the versions they teach the rest of the world are completely different.... yeah i definitly think about what it looks like from the outside looking in. america is very strange. some of the largest most "civilized" cities on the planet. still i can take you back to my home in florida and you would think that we went to a third world country looking at how people live.


 
The weird part is that Americans are basically descendants of European immigrants and their slaves. So only a few hundred years ago, you guys were basically the same as us.
But now there are both similarities and opposing aspects between European and American culture.



possumkiller said:


> and yeah it has a lot to do with it being too easy to get weapons. i never said it should be easy. i think it should be strictly regulated. just like politics. i think politicians should be very strictly regulated. after all they are "running" our country and supposed to be looking after us right? with everything it always comes down to a few bad people ruining something for everyone who just wants to mind their business and have fun in life.


 
Yea, that's basically the point. Owning a gun is a big responsibility.
I'm not saying our way is right... Technically it *is* possible to get a license and own a weapon as a civilian, but it is very difficult to get them, so most people don't.
But it shouldn't be too easy either.

Criminals have guns here aswell... obviously not obtained through legal channels... but if you want a gun, you can get one. A gun ban won't change that.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 9, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> the rest of the world are sort of bemused by you guys, I think we want to understand but we don't know where to start!



America thinks you guys are pretty humorous, too ;p


----------



## Rick (Apr 9, 2009)

I love British people, they're fucking hilarious. 

Here's my 2 cents: if a gun was sitting on the floor, it wouldn't kill someone. If a person picked it up and shot someone with the gun, whose fault is it? Is the gun arrested and charged with capital murder? Offuckingcourse not. It's the person who used it. 

It's similar to tennis. I see players throwing their racquets on the ground because they're upset with the shot they hit. It's not the fucking racquet's fault, maybe the person didn't followthrough properly, maybe their wrist wasn't turned correctly.


----------



## B Lopez (Apr 9, 2009)

Rick said:


> I love British people, they're fucking hilarious.



and half the time it's because you don't have a clue what they are saying, but it's still funny as hell


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 9, 2009)

Rick said:


> Here's my 2 cents: if a gun was sitting on the floor, it wouldn't kill someone. If a person picked it up and shot someone with the gun, whose fault is it? Is the gun arrested and charged with capital murder? Offuckingcourse not. It's the person who used it.



Yeah. we dont sue GM for car accidents. Though people have tried :/


----------



## Zoltta (Apr 10, 2009)

Im glad i stopped checking this thread after page 4, because after that i started reading some of the dumbest shit ive ever heard about peoples opinions on guns. Some of you think you know how shit works but you dont at all. You dont know about the culture until you are deep inside it yourself, i dont care how much shit you read on the internet or in books. Its not as simple as you think and at the same time its not as difficult as you think. Its much more in dept than just buying a gun and shooting it at a range. Its everything from mechanics to ballistics to physics to chemistry to calculus to reloading to blacksmithing to different powders and grains to bullet size and weights to all different scales and measurements to art to precision to customization etc etc. Even the guns themselves, the dimensions, name and size of every piece and part, how to fix it, clean it, mod it, customize it, refinish it, take it apart and put it back together etc etc. I can go on all day. Sounds simple but its not, its very in dept if you get into it and THATS where the addiction starts. And im not trying to say i know everything there is but take this from someone whos life is lived and based around it. You learn something new every single day, you wont stop learning until the day you die.

Fact is, everyone has mixed opinions about them and their history, their intentions and their purposes. Stereotypes will be Stereotypes and they will exist as long as this planet breeds the human race. Some of you make valid points as well as some retarded ones but like i said...opinions and assholes, weve all got them and they are our own and no one elses. 

Might i add there are so many laws and hidden restrictions none of you know about here in the US, for some of us its not as simple as walk into a gun store, say you want THAT one and leave with it in your hand

EDIT: and lol @ people thinking they know what they would do if they had to defend themselves with a gun. When someone surprises you with a gun and you whip your piece out to stop the other guy, chances are you wont have a fucking clue to THINK about what to do. All the training in the world doesn't help most people. Ever see those videos where the cop pulls up to the guys window, sees a gun and starts throwing lead and empties like 3 mags and never hits the guy once as hes running away? Thats because he PANICKED and didn't have time to sit there and "aim" while the other guy sprays with bullets. When it comes to self defense, especially with a weapon, you never know how you will react.


----------



## Scali (Apr 10, 2009)

Insulting other people and their opinions is always a great way to have a discussion...
Geez.
Just because you ridicule other people doesn't mean I think you're right and they're wrong.
In fact, I think it just makes you look like someone who thinks he knows everything better, but doesn't have the capacity to actually argue his opinions and beliefs, and doesn't have the decency to show any respect for people who have different opinions. This is usually because those people don't really have a deeper understanding of why they think something should be this way and not that way. It's just how they were taught (indoctrination).

You know, things aren't always black-and-white. People with a different opinion than yours aren't necessarily wrong, and they aren't necessarily dumber than you are. There isn't always a clear answer, and there may be something to say for both sides.

If you want to convince me you're right (or even that you have a valid point, regardless of whether I share your view or not), you will first have to show me respect and understanding, and then you'll have to show me some good arguments.
That's how a mature discussion works. This is not it.
If you start by calling people retarded, they probably won't even listen to whatever else you say, even if you may have some good points.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 10, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> America thinks you guys are pretty humorous, too ;p



USA and UK would be pretty good buddies if we took the time to understand each other IMO.


----------



## Scali (Apr 10, 2009)

Doesn't the UK hate everyone anyway?
I mean, you guys don't really consider yourselfs European to begin with... You speak of 'the continent' with disdain... You hate the French, the Germans...

For the UK it's just a way of life 

But yea, as I said, Americans are largely of European descent... Heck, they even speak English (well, sorta. An English friend of mine always says "Yanks don't speak English, they just use our words!"). New York was originally New Amsterdam, founded by Peter Stuyvesant... The dollar was originally a Dutch coin (daalder)... etc.
The declaration of independence is based on the Dutch declaration of independence from the Spanish crown a few hundred years earlier... etc.
One of the main religions is Christianity, which has its roots in Europe (mainly Italy/Vatican/pope).
Americans are just in denial about being European, or even English


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 10, 2009)

Scali said:


> Doesn't the UK hate everyone anyway?
> I mean, you guys don't really consider yourselfs European to begin with... You speak of 'the continent' with disdain... You hate the French, the Germans...
> 
> For the UK it's just a way of life
> ...



that's absolutely untrue 

The stupid people that live here don't understand anything or anyone so they hate everyone, but the intelligent people that live are only interested in anything that ISN'T going on their own country. 

For one I actually appreciate Germany a lot, they brought us ENGL, Necrophagist, Thomann, BMWs and Hans Zimmer, I have to respect them for that. The German people I've met have been a little weird but nice people.

As for France, I've met some really arrogant French and some really cool French, but again they brought us VHT, Gojira and Brie so I have to respect them for that too.



Scali said:


> "Yanks don't speak English, they just use our words!"



that is the only true part of your post in relation to England (no offence boys, but it is true!)


----------



## Scali (Apr 10, 2009)

Well I meant that the UK hate everyone in a tongue-in-cheek way.
They don't REALLY hate them, but they just love to take the piss. The UK just has a certain brand of humour that way. I guess the same goes for the Dutch, more or less.
That may be one of the reasons why Americans don't really 'get' us. They don't really seem to pick up on some of that tongue-in-cheek stuff.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 10, 2009)

oh yeah absolutely, it doesn't matter if we like someone or not, we take the piss out of EVERYONE.


----------



## Scali (Apr 10, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> oh yeah absolutely, it doesn't matter if we like someone or not, we take the piss out of EVERYONE.


 
Yea, which is not a problem if you have self-confidence and don't take yourself too seriously.
Otherwise you might get offended


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 10, 2009)

those are two things everyone should have


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 10, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> oh yeah absolutely, it doesn't matter if we like someone or not, we take the piss out of EVERYONE.



 EVERYONE.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 10, 2009)




----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 10, 2009)

I think you guys are a bunch of limey fucks, what with your monocles and top hats and all.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 10, 2009)




----------



## Zoltta (Apr 10, 2009)

Scali said:


> Insulting other people and their opinions is always a great way to have a discussion...
> Geez.
> Just because you ridicule other people doesn't mean I think you're right and they're wrong.
> In fact, I think it just makes you look like someone who thinks he knows everything better, but doesn't have the capacity to actually argue his opinions and beliefs, and doesn't have the decency to show any respect for people who have different opinions. This is usually because those people don't really have a deeper understanding of why they think something should be this way and not that way. It's just how they were taught (indoctrination).
> ...



Where is the arguement? I dont understand. Most people are just ranting about how guns are bad and they hate them because they kill people. Is the other side of the arguement "I like guns they are cool"? Is that it because thats all i see.

As far as opinions go, they cant be right or wrong simply because they are stating their opinions and not facts. Well here is a fact, half of the people here dont "respect and understand" firearms enough to put out a valid reason as to why they dont like guns and give these hate speeches about them. They simply dont know any better and thats how they were raised. If you dont know much about something, why try and make an argument about it with people who do know? Better off having a thread titled: "What do you think about guns?" Would be a little more ideal.

There are a few of us here that DO and make a good arguement.

"I think it just makes you look like someone who thinks he knows everything better, but doesn't have the capacity to actually argue his opinions and beliefs, and doesn't have the decency to show any respect for people who have different opinions. This is usually because those people don't really have a deeper understanding of why they think something should be this way and not that way. It's just how they were taught"

I really dont care how it makes me look because its my opinion just like everyone elses. No i dont know everything but i DO know alot. If you find me any valid arguement in this thread let me know or start one because like you said, some of these people are taught this way and DONT know any better. Opinions arent facts, but discussions between the experienced and inexperienced is like going to school. Some people will understand and some people wont, as if they have or have no learned these things before. 

If you want to have a serious discussion on matters like these i suggest you go to a proper forum such as AR15.com, one of the largest firearm communities in the world.

Im not trying to harass anyone or be a dick here but like i said if you think you have a valid arguement, im all ears because so far i havnt seen any.


----------



## Scali (Apr 10, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> Im not trying to harass anyone or be a dick here


 
You failed.

Now if you care to go back, I asked why people think the 2nd amendment is so important, given the fact that the US is pretty much the only country that has this.

So far, nobody has even *tried* to give any good reasons for it. You seem to have missed the point completely.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 10, 2009)

why are any of our constitutional rights important?? one is just as important as another and i dont want to see any of them taken away.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 10, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> Where is the arguement? I dont understand. Most people are just ranting about how guns are bad and they hate them because they kill people. Is the other side of the arguement "I like guns they are cool"? Is that it because thats all i see.
> 
> As far as opinions go, they cant be right or wrong simply because they are stating their opinions and not facts. Well here is a fact, half of the people here dont "respect and understand" firearms enough to put out a valid reason as to why they dont like guns and give these hate speeches about them. They simply dont know any better and thats how they were raised. If you dont know much about something, why try and make an argument about it with people who do know? Better off having a thread titled: "What do you think about guns?" Would be a little more ideal.
> 
> ...



I like how ironic your post is, you say that no-one else had made valid argument, yet all you have done in your posts is state how people who think guns are bad are wrong. you're not making a "good argument" at all, you're displaying the exact behaviour that you are condemning. there's DOUBLE STANDARDS written all over your posts.

YES WE GET IT, you like guns, but trashing other people's opinions and saying "they don't know any better" doesn't make you right in any way. 

there is one thing you are right about though: opinions aren't facts. so stop acting like yours is.


----------



## Rick (Apr 10, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


>





One of my favorite Family Guy episodes is when the family moves to England. 

"She rogered the boogley!"


----------



## Scali (Apr 10, 2009)

possumkiller said:


> why are any of our constitutional rights important?? one is just as important as another and i dont want to see any of them taken away.


 
This is known as a circular argument, a fallacy.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 10, 2009)

Rick said:


> One of my favorite Family Guy episodes is when the family moves to England.
> 
> "She rogered the boogley!"



glad someone finally picked up on that 

like I said, we take the piss out of EVERYONE


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 10, 2009)

Scali said:


> Well, that's interesting... So because of fear of a gun ban they stock up on weapons like maniacs?
> Now... I assume that even though it is legal to own a gun in the US, these guns still have serial numbers, and each gun is registered to its owner, right?
> Which would mean that the government has a full record of all legally-owned weapons.
> So in the case of a gun ban, I assume they will do it as follows:
> ...



Only a few of the very 'deep-end' states require registration of gun serial numbers. It's one of the few things that makes me happy about Ohio, that we don't require that here. None of my firearms are registered. 

Also,

http://www.gunslot.com/blog/how-make-gun-common-materials-self-defense

That won't have a serial number. Now what?



Scar Symmetry said:


> the rest of the world are sort of bemused by you guys, I think we want to understand but we don't know where to start!



Come to America. Tour around. Dress gay in the south, like a hard-boiled conservative on the west coast. Then visit the old people in Florida, and there you have it, your understanding of America! 



Metal Ken said:


> Yeah. we dont sue GM for car accidents. Though people have tried :/



Some won. 



Scar Symmetry said:


> oh yeah absolutely, it doesn't matter if we like someone or not, we take the piss out of EVERYONE.



Thus is the difference between the US and the UK. You take the piss, and we just, piss. On everyone. 



Scali said:


> You failed.
> 
> Now if you care to go back, I asked why people think the 2nd amendment is so important, given the fact that the US is pretty much the only country that has this.



I can't speak for everyone here that is pro-gun, but for me, the 2nd amendment is important because it gives the people the ability and right to revolt against the government if and when it becomes corrupt. The US government was designed to exist in the fear of it's termination by the people it represents, first by the ballot, and if that was tainted, then by the bullet.

We're about a century behind here, I know, but we'll have the revolution soon, hopefully sometime before our economy collapses entirely.


----------



## troyguitar (Apr 10, 2009)

All I have to say about the "fact sheet" is this:

Correlation does not imply causation.

Regarding the 2nd amendment - Who are we kidding? What are a bunch of civilians with assault rifles going to do against the US military in Washington? There is zero chance of a successful armed revolution in this country unless the military is on the side of the revolutionaries, in which case the civilians need not own firearms.

That being said, I don't think we ought to outlaw guns. I do, however, think that it ought be MUCH MUCH MUCH harder to legally own them.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 10, 2009)

troyguitar said:


> All I have to say about the "fact sheet" is this:
> 
> Correlation does not imply causation.
> 
> ...



I would confidently state that a majority of those in the armed forces would back the revolutionaries. And even if they aren't, we'll have these:


----------



## Tiger (Apr 10, 2009)

^ Great, we finally have the means to defend ourselves against 1 million pieces of plywood.

Good job metalstorm.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 10, 2009)

I don't know about you, but this is a great example of when a gun would have been great to have, even if you don't like them or agree with the reason for their creation. Even without training, when confronted with a situation such as this, having a gun gives you a fighting chance. And as for the right to bear arms, when that was created, I don't think that the authors had any idea of the power of our modern day military. When it was written, if the government did decide to have some sort of military law, a bunch of citizens with guns would have stood a chance of holding them off, but times have changed and that is not very likely now-a-days, especially considering that insane 1,000,000 rounds a minute bad mo-fugger. Notice a lot of the "high kill count" incidents where someone just looses it and kills a bunch of people occur in places where the victims are unarmed (malls, schools, etc). Take The virginia tech shooting...one guy with two pistols killed 33 people. Easy targets. unless you're chuck norris, or have a gun yourself, you aint doin shit to a crazy fuck with two pistols, except scraping the shit out of your pants and tossing it at him. I wonder what would have happened if just 4 or 5 of the students were armed (guns not allowed on campus, obviously).Now im not saying that Joe Schmo could stop a crazed gunman just because he was armed, but if he had a gun and a little experience with it (not necesarily training) it may even the odds a little bit...Just my view. let the flow like wine.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 10, 2009)

i just want to know when my right to bear dildos will be constitutionalized


----------



## Rick (Apr 10, 2009)

^

Good luck with that.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 10, 2009)

possumkiller said:


> i just want to know when my right to bear dildos will be constitutionalized



I do believe that to be part of the 2nd amendment.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 10, 2009)

sorry lol i got mixed up i meant my right to dildo bears 

my bad guys


----------



## oompa (Apr 10, 2009)

lets get statistics on how many rapes/murders/schoolshootings/etc is enabled by the easy access to guns.

that'd be pretty interresting as well.

also, towards the end they say ~half of the felons would hesitate to go head to head with someone carrying a firearm. is that supposed to be an argument? its pretty flawed if you take it a few steps further.

i accept the philosophical idea of everyone having the right to their own yada. but i dont believe guns save any more lives than an opiumaddiction saves you from a methaddiction.


----------



## Scali (Apr 11, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> That won't have a serial number. Now what?


 
Yea, and what if you just file off a serialnumber and pass the gun onto someone else?
Obviously it's not a catch-all, but a lot of guns would be traceable.



The Atomic Ass said:


> I can't speak for everyone here that is pro-gun, but for me, the 2nd amendment is important because it gives the people the ability and right to revolt against the government if and when it becomes corrupt. The US government was designed to exist in the fear of it's termination by the people it represents, first by the ballot, and if that was tainted, then by the bullet.


 
Well, in most cases, when a government is corrupt, they have full control over the army and police force aswell.
A corrupt government without an army won't last long 
Guns or no guns, civilians won't stand a chance. The more important thing is to have the army and police force on your side. And when you do, civilians won't need guns.

Also, there are many examples of rebel armies in corrupt countries. You can organize yourself and obtain guns. You don't need the 2nd amendment for that. If you're going to overthrow a government, the last thing on your mind is to do it by legal means, I'd say 



chaosxcomplex said:


> I don't know about you, but this is a great example of when a gun would have been great to have, even if you don't like them or agree with the reason for their creation.


 
What are you referring to? It's great that the madman had guns so he could shoot all those people?

I think that's the issue there.
These sort of things happen ALL THE TIME in the US (in fact, just this week there was another incident). They RARELY happen in the rest of the world.
In most cases the madmen shoot themselves anyway, so they aren't killed by some 'heroic' civilian with a gun.

So the question is: what is the disease, and what is the cure?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 11, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> I don't know about you, but this is a great example of when a gun would have been great to have, even if you don't like them or agree with the reason for their creation. Even without training, when confronted with a situation such as this, having a gun gives you a fighting chance. And as for the right to bear arms, when that was created, I don't think that the authors had any idea of the power of our modern day military. When it was written, if the government did decide to have some sort of military law, a bunch of citizens with guns would have stood a chance of holding them off, but times have changed and that is not very likely now-a-days, especially considering that insane 1,000,000 rounds a minute bad mo-fugger. Notice a lot of the "high kill count" incidents where someone just looses it and kills a bunch of people occur in places where the victims are unarmed (malls, schools, etc). Take The virginia tech shooting...one guy with two pistols killed 33 people. Easy targets. unless you're chuck norris, or have a gun yourself, you aint doin shit to a crazy fuck with two pistols, except scraping the shit out of your pants and tossing it at him. I wonder what would have happened if just 4 or 5 of the students were armed (guns not allowed on campus, obviously).Now im not saying that Joe Schmo could stop a crazed gunman just because he was armed, but if he had a gun and a little experience with it (not necesarily training) it may even the odds a little bit...Just my view. let the flow like wine.




while a very valid point, what you're saying is that you should be allowed to carry again to protect yourself from someone else with a gun. take both away, and you have neither problem, right? I agree with Scali on that one.

the idea of people being able to have a gun on them at all times is ridiculous, in a school? in a cafe? that's no place for a weapon, and who knows who could take it from the owner's bag or purse. if guns were harder to get hold of in the first place, these tragic shootings wouldn't take place. take Europe for example, those sort of things NEVER happen here in England, and if they do it's one instance in maybe two or three years, and it really shakes people up.

and I know it's already been said, but the Civilian vs Armed Forces outcome would be obvious, there would be no contest.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 11, 2009)

Sure, if you could eliminate ALL guns, then no one would need them for defense. I mean you'd also eliminate sport shooting, hunting, etc, but suppose you could actually eliminate all guns, then sure, no one having them would be better than absolutely everyone having them. But that's not likely to happen. They're out there, hell, people will make them themselves. The old argument is that if guns were magically outlawed tomorrow and everyone had to turn in their guns, then only law abiding people who would use them legitmately for defense or hunting and all that shit would turn them in. The criminals then would be the ONLY people who would have them because they don't give a shit about the law, hence them being criminals. You then have law abiding citizens with no guns, unable to defend themselves against the criminals, who have all the guns (except for the police of course) and the criminals know this, which is the worst part. 

The problem is that NO system is perfect. You can say that trying to take all the guns away will drop crime (I don't believe that) but there's no way to do it, and even if you did, then criminals MIGHT get more daring since they know the old lady behind the counter won't pull out a double barrel shotgun. I think more testing, certification and background checks are probably the better solution  It's hard to say, I'm Canadian. I don't own any guns, but I probably will own a shotgun some day.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 11, 2009)

What are you referring to? It's great that the madman had guns so he could shoot all those people?

Good try...
This lady owned a gun, had it soley (sp) for protection, and she just so happened to leave it in the car on the day that her parents were executed like lame horses. Her father (unarmed) rushed the guy and got one in the chest. game over. If he (or his daughter) were armed it would have leveled the playing field a bit. The outcome may have been the same. Or an all out gun fight could have ensued. But however slim the chance, I'd risk it to save someone I cared about. Otherwise it's like they were sitting ducks.


----------



## Scali (Apr 11, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Sure, if you could eliminate ALL guns, then no one would need them for defense. I mean you'd also eliminate sport shooting, hunting, etc, but suppose you could actually eliminate all guns, then sure, no one having them would be better than absolutely everyone having them. But that's not likely to happen. They're out there, hell, people will make them themselves. The old argument is that if guns were magically outlawed tomorrow and everyone had to turn in their guns, then only law abiding people who would use them legitmately for defense or hunting and all that shit would turn them in. The criminals then would be the ONLY people who would have them because they don't give a shit about the law, hence them being criminals. You then have law abiding citizens with no guns, unable to defend themselves against the criminals, who have all the guns (except for the police of course) and the criminals know this, which is the worst part.


 
It actually IS like this in most of the world.
I know it's like this in NL, and Europe in general.

So it's easy to make a comparison. The US doesn't have lower crime rates than the rest of the world... Instead, it actually has a higher rate of 'madman shootings' and firearm-related incidents.
The 2nd amendment seems to be doing more bad than good.



chaosxcomplex said:


> What are you referring to? It's great that the madman had guns so he could shoot all those people?


 
Well, that madman had a gun, which was legal (it wasn't concealed in his case). You're arguing in favour of this.



chaosxcomplex said:


> This lady owned a gun, had it soley (sp) for protection, and she just so happened to leave it in the car on the day that her parents were executed like lame horses. Her father (unarmed) rushed the guy and got one in the chest. game over. If he (or his daughter) were armed it would have leveled the playing field a bit. The outcome may have been the same. Or an all out gun fight could have ensued. But however slim the chance, I'd risk it to save someone I cared about. Otherwise it's like they were sitting ducks.


 
You think that's a good situation? Everyone has a gun, so when you go out to dinner, you can have a nice shooting? Bunch of cowboys.

Facts:
1) The madman had a gun because it was easy to obtain one. So when he got into a rage, or whatever it was, it was easy for him to just grab a gun and go out and randomly shoot people.
This occurs very often in the US, and rarely in any other countries.

2) So this one woman didn't happen to have her gun in her purse at the time... What about all the other people? Does this situation really depend on this one woman and her gun not being in her purse at the time? No I don't think so. Apparently nobody else brought a gun either, legally or illegally, so what did the 2nd amendment bring you? 

Besides, this is an isolated incident. In this case things MAY have been different if the woman had the gun in her purse (ofcourse chances are that she'd have been one of the first to get shot, before she even could grab her gun)... But if you base your entire argument on this single case, you're missing the bigger picture.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 11, 2009)

Scali said:


> It actually IS like this in most of the world.
> I know it's like this in NL, and Europe in general.



But the fact remains it ISN'T like that in the US, or even in Canada for that matter.


----------



## estabon37 (Apr 11, 2009)

You have to judge each situation on its own merits. We are fortunate in Australia that we have a small enough population to make major changes to our way of living very quickly.

On the 28th of April in 1996 Martin Bryant murdered 35 people and wounded 21 other people in Port Arthur in Tasmania. While you could certainly say that more people having guns would have meant some randomly armed person could have stopped him, I think our government made the right decision (does that ever happen?) by making it extremely difficult to obtain a weapon that can fire any more than one round inside of five seconds. Of course the weapons are still out there, but the massacre left our country bitter and in some cases angry. In my opinion NOBODY should be allowed to publicly or privately wield that kind of power (in Bryant's case an AR10). If you love guns, cool. Why do you need a clip that holds 20-30 rounds? That's how Bryant got away with it. He was shooting from the hip at times because he knew he had rounds to spare. How many of his victims could have gotten away if he was forced to reload every five rounds instead of every 20?

I realise that one situation doesn't mean the rest of the country or the rest of the world should have to change. But the people who need or use guns in this country were willing to accept the change to prevent criminals and arseholes from fucking up the lives of people who didn't deserve it.

Sorry if that sounded like a rant. I just remember how I felt when the massacre happened thirteen years ago this month. Our country is in better shape without these weapons.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 11, 2009)

I'm not saying that everyone should have a gun. I'm saying that we should have the right to bear arms. If you want to own a gun, you should be able to. And that right is, and should continue to be, protected by one of the most powerful documents in the world. I'm not saying that I agree with the ease of obtaining a gun. Maybe psychological tests, screening, something. But I don't agree with taking away any of our rights as Americans.

Say your friend, Knowing you disagree with guns, buys you a .38 or a shotgun, common for home defense, for your birthday or christmas or something. you argue with him that you dont want it blah blah blah. he tells you to just put it away on the top shelf of the closet or in a lock box or what have you. A few months later as youre sleeping, you hear more than one person sneaking through your house. You hear the unmistakable sound of a round being racked into the chamber. What do you do? Do you lie in wait for the inevitable? Or do you do the unthinkable and go to that top shelf or lockbox for the only defense you can have against a gun...another gun...

And I think in the case of just getting all guns off the streets...America is way beyond the point of no repair on that.


----------



## Scali (Apr 11, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> But the fact remains it ISN'T like that in the US, or even in Canada for that matter.


 
I was referring to this situation you described:
"You then have law abiding citizens with no guns, unable to defend themselves against the criminals, who have all the guns (except for the police of course) and the criminals know this, which is the worst part."

It's like this here, and it's not a problem.
So why shouldn't it be like that in the US or Canada?
Clearly there are problems with guns there.



chaosxcomplex said:


> But I don't agree with taking away any of our rights as Americans.


 
The rest of this world doesn't have this right...
Now since they are not Americans, do you think they should have this right or not?



chaosxcomplex said:


> Say your friend, Knowing you disagree with guns, buys you a .38 or a shotgun, common for home defense, for your birthday or christmas or something. you argue with him that you dont want it blah blah blah. he tells you to just put it away on the top shelf of the closet or in a lock box or what have you. A few months later as youre sleeping, you hear more than one person sneaking through your house. You hear the unmistakable sound of a round being racked into the chamber. What do you do? Do you lie in wait for the inevitable? Or do you do the unthinkable and go to that top shelf or lockbox for the only defense you can have against a gun...another gun...


 
I think the question is more:
A) Your wife cheated on you with your best friend
B) You got fired from work for incompetence
C) You took some drugs and had a bad trip
D) <whatever other possible reason>

Do you in a moment of blind rage grab the gun and randomly shoot people in the street to vent your frustration?

We know that the answer to that question is: yes
It happens in the US, a lot.
Don't forget, these people generally aren't criminals... They are normal citizens like everyone else. So you say they should have guns. Then one day they 'snap', and they kill 30-odd people. You think that's a good idea.

Here's another thing to think about:
Why was that person in your house? I assume he didn't just randomly want to kill you. He wanted to rob you.
As such, he would only carry a weapon to intimidate you. Why take the risk of killing someone? Being a burglar is one thing, being a murder is something completely different.
That goes both ways, by the way. Even if someone may break into your house for whatever reason, taking their life is a VERY serious act.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 11, 2009)

Scali said:


> I was referring to this situation you described:
> "You then have law abiding citizens with no guns, unable to defend themselves against the criminals, who have all the guns (except for the police of course) and the criminals know this, which is the worst part."
> 
> It's like this here, and it's not a problem.
> ...



Because over there the criminals DON'T have guns. No one has any, well, I'm sure some do, but not nearly in the numbers they have over here. Sure, some of those people got them legally, some not. The fact remains that they're out there.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 11, 2009)

Scali said:


> So it's easy to make a comparison. The US doesn't have lower crime rates than the rest of the world... Instead, it actually has a higher rate of 'madman shootings' and firearm-related incidents.
> The 2nd amendment seems to be doing more bad than good.



If you look solely at the crime rate. But in areas where guns were barred, like Washington DC was for about 20 years, their murder rate skyrocketed. Conversely, ever since the state of Florida allowed concealed carry in the mid 80s, the crime rate has been in a steady decline.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 11, 2009)

Scali, the key words in there are "blind" and "randomly". Under the influence of hallucinogens predictability goes out the window. But what do you do? Do you get the gun or put all those kung fu movies to work? And it is true that murder rates are generally higher in "gun free zones" as opposed to areas with carry permits. You dont hear of a random guy going into a shooting range and killing everyone. you dont even hear of someone trying it, because the people that go on these rampages are cowards and prey on the defenseless. In the shooting range everyone is armed. Even if the gunmen do usually take their own lives, I believe that they do what they do prior to doing so for the feeling of power and control. Cant over power 20 dudes with high power pistols and practice unless you are, again, chuck norris.

And if the guy is in my house in the middle of the night, uninvited, unarmed, im gonna do all i can to whoop that ass, regardless of his intentions. Now if I hear said guy ready a weapon, im gonna play the same game. I live in Florida, under Florida law, there is no "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a lawful right to be. Instead, you may stand your ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.


----------



## Scali (Apr 11, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Because over there the criminals DON'T have guns.


 
Uhh yes they do. You think we live in a fairytale or something? Obviously it's not THAT hard to get a gun, if you want to. It's just not legal.



Metal Ken said:


> If you look solely at the crime rate. But in areas where guns were barred, like Washington DC was for about 20 years, their murder rate skyrocketed. Conversely, ever since the state of Florida allowed concealed carry in the mid 80s, the crime rate has been in a steady decline.


 
I think these are things that can't be regulated per-state.
Even if guns are banned in Washington DC, it's very easy to get a gun in a different state.



chaosxcomplex said:


> Under the influence of hallucinogens predictability goes out the window. But what do you do? Do you get the gun or put all those kung fu movies to work?


 
If you don't have access to a gun, you don't have a choice.
The problem is that these people DO have access to guns.



chaosxcomplex said:


> And if the guy is in my house in the middle of the night, uninvited, unarmed, im gonna do all i can to whoop that ass, regardless of his intentions.


 
That's another thing.
Over here it isn't legal to kill someone just because he's in your home (not even if you legally own a gun).
So "regardless of his intentions" isn't going to save you in court. You'll be convicted for murder.

To me it sounds like Americans don't value human life as highly as Europeans do.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 11, 2009)

Scali said:


> I think these are things that can't be regulated per-state.
> Even if guns are banned in Washington DC, it's very easy to get a gun in a different state.



Well, Washington DC isnt a state. Its a district. Of columbia. 

And yeah, not all guns were banned, IIRC. Just handguns. But the point is, it was much harder for the average person to get a gun, and the penalty was stiffer if an average citizen was caught with a gun. After this ban went into effect, the crime rate escalated. 

For florida, now guns are legal to conceal carry. IE, you get a permit, and you can carry any handgun you legally own on you wherever you go, except court houses, federal buildings, and schools. And ever since this law was passed in the late 80s, the Florida crime rate has been dropping, like i said.



Scali said:


> That's another thing.
> Over here it isn't legal to kill someone just because he's in your home (not even if you legally own a gun).
> So "regardless of his intentions" isn't going to save you in court. You'll be convicted for murder.



Varies state to state here. In Florida, you can. It's called the Castle Doctrine. Anyone comes in your home uninvited, with the intent to steal/kill, you can shoot them, stab them, whatever. In your home you have no duty to retreat. This also applies to when you are in your car. However, not in either of these two situations, your duty is to try to avoid the situation if at all possible.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 11, 2009)

Personally I value my life over some scumbag that tries to come into my house with a gun, thinking that the sight of it will subdue me and make his goal a cakewalk.

Under Florida law, there is no "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a lawful right to be. Instead, you may stand your ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.


----------



## Scali (Apr 11, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> And ever since this law was passed in the late 80s, the Florida crime rate has been dropping, like i said.


 
What about random shootings, accidents involving firearms etc?


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 11, 2009)

Scali said:


> Uhh yes they do. You think we live in a fairytale or something? Obviously it's not THAT hard to get a gun, if you want to. It's just not legal.



So you're arguing that it's people who get guns legally and use them legally that are using them illegally over here? 

So all the criminals have guns over there and DON'T use them? It just seems to me that you're arguing from both sides of the fence now. Also if you're saying it's easy to get a gun illegally there, then what's the point of making them illegal?


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 11, 2009)

Scali said:


> What about random shootings, accidents involving firearms etc?



Nope:


> Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders.


 -Florida Dept. of State


----------



## Scali (Apr 11, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> So you're arguing that it's people who get guns legally and use them legally that are using them illegally over here?


 
Uhh, what?



JJ Rodriguez said:


> So all the criminals have guns over there and DON'T use them? It just seems to me that you're arguing from both sides of the fence now.


 
No, criminals have guns and DO use them.
The important fact there is they are *criminals*.
People who plan illegal deeds in advance. Not your average family man who breaks down at some point, and happens to grab a gun because it's there.



JJ Rodriguez said:


> Also if you're saying it's easy to get a gun illegally there, then what's the point of making them illegal?


 
The mere fact that it is illegal and not as simple as just walking into a store is enough to make sure that 99 out of 100 people won't have a gun at home (or in the car for that matter... road rage, highway shootings and all...). The fact that most people don't have access to a gun means that we don't have the kind of madman shootings and accidents with kids blowing themselves or their friends away that are common in the US.

Just look at drugs... the reverse situation. Drugs are legal here... they are illegal over there. Does that mean that nobody in the US has ever smoked pot? If you want to, it's not THAT hard to get it.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 11, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> while a very valid point, what you're saying is that you should be allowed to carry again to protect yourself from someone else with a gun. take both away, and you have neither problem, right? I agree with Scali on that one.



That would technically be correct. Technically being the operative word here. The black market ensures a constant supply of arms to those who deal in it. You can shut down every last legal gun manufacturer in the WORLD, confiscate and destroy ever last single legal gun IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, it still wouldn't matter, because anyone with access to a mill, some scrap metal, and black powder can build a gun and make ammunition. Laws will not stop these people. Ease of acquisition is NOT the issue for criminals, it only affects those of us who want to protect ourselves and others.



Scar Symmetry said:


> the idea of people being able to have a gun on them at all times is ridiculous, in a school? in a cafe? that's no place for a weapon, and who knows who could take it from the owner's bag or purse. if guns were harder to get hold of in the first place, these tragic shootings wouldn't take place. take Europe for example, those sort of things NEVER happen here in England, and if they do it's one instance in maybe two or three years, and it really shakes people up.
> 
> and I know it's already been said, but the Civilian vs Armed Forces outcome would be obvious, there would be no contest.



I would not send my children to a school where the teachers were unarmed.  What's more, I carry with me everywhere. Restaurants? Check. The grocery store? Check. Everywhere else I go? Check. 

Guns being harder to obtain would not matter one bit.  If someone is intent on killing people, that person will do whatever it takes to get their hand on a gun. PERIOD.

Also, don't sell the gun-wielding civilians short: We would, at the very least, give the armed forces a run for their money.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 11, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> That would technically be correct. Technically being the operative word here. The black market ensures a constant supply of arms to those who deal in it. You can shut down every last legal gun manufacturer in the WORLD, confiscate and destroy ever last single legal gun IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, it still wouldn't matter, because anyone with access to a mill, some scrap metal, and black powder can build a gun and make ammunition. Laws will not stop these people. Ease of acquisition is NOT the issue for criminals, it only affects those of us who want to protect ourselves and others.



absolutely, but gun crime and school killings would drop dramatically.



The Atomic Ass said:


> I would not send my children to a school where the teachers were unarmed.  What's more, I carry with me everywhere. Restaurants? Check. The grocery store? Check. Everywhere else I go? Check.
> 
> Guns being harder to obtain would not matter one bit.  If someone is intent on killing people, that person will do whatever it takes to get their hand on a gun. PERIOD.
> 
> Also, don't sell the gun-wielding civilians short: We would, at the very least, give the armed forces a run for their money.



you... wouldn't let your kids go to school where the teachers _weren't_ armed? man no offence, but that sounds like a fucked up place to live.

I think it's sad that you have to take a gun everywhere because that must mean there is enough shit going down where you live to cause you to do so.

and heroic as civilians may think they are, when faced with trained, hardened, armed forces they would not last for 5 seconds. look at riots, who always ends up winning there? that's just the police. Marines are a whole different ball game.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 11, 2009)

Scali said:


> So it's easy to make a comparison. The US doesn't have lower crime rates than the rest of the world... Instead, it actually has a higher rate of 'madman shootings' and firearm-related incidents.
> The 2nd amendment seems to be doing more bad than good.



I think you'll find that wherever there is a shooting, it's usually an area with a high-concentration of liberals, and therefore, a very low number of gun owners.



Scali said:


> 2) So this one woman didn't happen to have her gun in her purse at the time... What about all the other people? Does this situation really depend on this one woman and her gun not being in her purse at the time? No I don't think so. Apparently nobody else brought a gun either, legally or illegally, so what did the 2nd amendment bring you?



All the other people had the same problem, if you noticed by the video, she stated that a law was in effect at the time, prohibiting the possession of a firearm in public. (I am merely paraphrasing, I haven't looked up the specific law). So chances are, she may have been the only one that owned a gun, or perhaps every single person at the restaurant owned a gun, but left it at home so as not to get in trouble with the law. We'll never know now, but the outcome could have been radically different. Someone may have seen his weapon before he took the first shot, and shot and disabled/killed him.

And, IF everyone actually had a gun, you can be certain the death toll would have been a lot less than, 22 was it? 



estabon37 said:


> I think our government made the right decision (does that ever happen?) by making it extremely difficult to obtain a weapon that can fire any more than one round inside of five seconds.



What kind of gun is that? A muzzle-loader? Even 100+ year old revolvers, when properly maintained, can bat off 6 rounds in under 3 seconds. 



Scali said:


> To me it sounds like Americans don't value human life as highly as Europeans do.



I hold no value in the life of someone who holds no value in mine.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 11, 2009)

Except for the ass hats that go ballistic and just mow down the masses, a large bunch of people who commit crimes (along the lines of robbery) aren't even prepared to fire the weapon. They brandish it simply for the psychological effect that it has. I've seen many times reports of a would be robber using an UNLOADED gun just to have the scare factor on his side. Guns have a very powerful effect, on both the victim and the badguy. I'm sure that a lot of them are ready to fire and don't care if they take or ruin a life. But it seems logical that if someone threatens your life with a contraption that can blow your head off with the twitch of a finger, equal force should be available to push back, IMO. 

That'd be a funny one. See a surveillance video of a guy getting mugged at an ATM and the robber using a musket or something!!!


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 11, 2009)

Scali said:


> The mere fact that it is illegal and not as simple as just walking into a store is enough to make sure that 99 out of 100 people won't have a gun at home (or in the car for that matter... road rage, highway shootings and all...). The fact that most people don't have access to a gun means that we don't have the kind of madman shootings and accidents with kids blowing themselves or their friends away that are common in the US.



And yet, 80,000,000 (That's 80 MILLION), people in the U.S. own guns. Working, shooting, ready to maim and kill guns. But how many go on a rampage each DAY? These incidents are EXTREMELY rare, given the number of guns and gun owners.



Scali said:


> Just look at drugs... the reverse situation. Drugs are legal here... they are illegal over there. Does that mean that nobody in the US has ever smoked pot? If you want to, it's not THAT hard to get it.



Ahh, one of our eternal failings, that we have illegalized pot. 



chaosxcomplex said:


> That'd be a funny one. See a surveillance video of a guy getting mugged at an ATM and the robber using a musket or something!!!


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> I would not send my children to a school where the teachers were unarmed.  What's more, I carry with me everywhere. Restaurants? Check. The grocery store? Check. Everywhere else I go? Check.


 
I can't even imagine how you could ever get as far as WANTING to carry a gun everywhere, let alone actually doing it.
So you are basically afraid of going anywhere unarmed? You feel a constant threat of being robbed or killed etc?



Scar Symmetry said:


> and heroic as civilians may think they are, when faced with trained, hardened, armed forces they would not last for 5 seconds. look at riots, who always ends up winning there? that's just the police. Marines are a whole different ball game.


 
Yea, I assume that most civilians just have relatively simple handguns...
They wouldn't even penetrate the kevlar armour that is pretty much standard outfit for armed forces. Not to mention armoured vehicles.
In the meantime the armed forces can use their automatic weapons to cut down the unarmoured civilians by the dozens.



The Atomic Ass said:


> Someone may have seen his weapon before he took the first shot, and shot and disabled/killed him.


 
I hope not. You can't just shoot someone at the sight of a gun. You don't know his intentions. You don't know it's a real gun, if it's loaded etc...



The Atomic Ass said:


> And, IF everyone actually had a gun, you can be certain the death toll would have been a lot less than, 22 was it?


 
If nobody had a gun, you can be certain the death toll would be 0, because the whole thing never happened.
If everyone had a gun, the best possible case would still be 1 death (the madman himself), but quite possibly he would have killed a number of people before he would be stopped.
I don't think in any way it would be better than when nobody had a gun.



The Atomic Ass said:


> I hold no value in the life of someone who holds no value in mine.


 
That is where we differ.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> If nobody had a gun, you can be certain the death toll would be 0, because the whole thing never happened.
> If everyone had a gun, the best possible case would still be 1 death (the madman himself), but quite possibly he would have killed a number of people before he would be stopped.
> I don't think in any way it would be better than when nobody had a gun.



Cant say for sure. What if the dude, in lacking a gun, decided to just detonate a bomb instead? You know, those IED things that kill our soldiers by the handfuls in Iraq?


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> Cant say for sure. What if the dude, in lacking a gun, decided to just detonate a bomb instead? You know, those IED things that kill our soldiers by the handfuls in Iraq?


 
Nope.
He probably grabbed the guns because they were there anyway. In other words, he did it on impulse.
You don't build a bomb on impulse, and you generally don't have them lying around (they can't be used for self-defense either). So the threshold for doing something like this is far greater, and it can't be an impulsive action.
So yes, I can say for sure he wouldn't have detonated a bomb.

And if you don't want your soldiers getting killed in Iraq, then just get them out of there.
If there's anything good coming out of this crisis, it's that the US car industry is going bankrupt, and hopefully your stupid gas guzzling excuses for automobiles will be a thing of the past. This will both be a huge improvement for the environment, and also greatly decrease the dependency on fossil fuels. One less reason to send US soldiers to the Middle East.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> Nope.
> He probably grabbed the guns because they were there anyway. In other words, he did it on impulse.
> You don't build a bomb on impulse, and you generally don't have them lying around (they can't be used for self-defense either). So the threshold for doing something like this is far greater, and it can't be an impulsive action.
> So yes, I can say for sure he wouldn't have detonated a bomb.
> ...



Its not _that_ hard to build an improvised explosive device. you can do it for a lot less money than a gun and a box of ammo. 

And i dont have any power over where American soldiers go. You might want to call the Commander in Chief on that one.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> Its not _that_ hard to build an improvised explosive device. you can do it for a lot less money than a gun and a box of ammo.


 
You don't seem to get my point of impulsive action.
Building a bomb is a calculated, rational terrorist action.
The gun and ammo were not bought for the occasion, but were bought at an earlier time, for 'self-defense'. So they were already there, and they were just grabbed on impulse for this particular incident.

If this was a rational thing, then you'd think that more of these 'madmen' would use home-made bombs... Rational arguments speak in their favour: They're cheaper than guns, they can do more damage than guns... You could detonate them from a distance, so you would run less risk yourself, etc...
But it is NOT a rational thing, that's the point.
When people are in an irrational state, guns lying around the house are VERY dangerous.
People sometimes get in an irrational state. People who aren't terrorists, who aren't criminals... Just regular people with a regular family, job, etc.



Metal Ken said:


> And i dont have any power over where American soldiers go. You might want to call the Commander in Chief on that one.


 
What were those elections all about then? You just picked a Commander in Chief. I hope you picked one who thinks these wars are useless.
Or you could bring it to his attention by protesting, like they did against the Vietnam wars.
Iraq and Afghanistan are turning into yet another Vietnam. The US can't seem to win, and the people there don't want the US to win any wars for them anyway.
Because of US pressure, the UN also sends soldiers to those regions. Which means our soldiers get killed aswell, for a war our country never even wanted.
The US has a large responsibility to the rest of the world, it's time they take that responsibility.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 12, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> I don't know about you, but this is a great example of when a gun would have been great to have, even if you don't like them or agree with the reason for their creation. Even without training, when confronted with a situation such as this, having a gun gives you a fighting chance. And as for the right to bear arms, when that was created, I don't think that the authors had any idea of the power of our modern day military. When it was written, if the government did decide to have some sort of military law, a bunch of citizens with guns would have stood a chance of holding them off, but times have changed and that is not very likely now-a-days, especially considering that insane 1,000,000 rounds a minute bad mo-fugger. Notice a lot of the "high kill count" incidents where someone just looses it and kills a bunch of people occur in places where the victims are unarmed (malls, schools, etc). Take The virginia tech shooting...one guy with two pistols killed 33 people. Easy targets. unless you're chuck norris, or have a gun yourself, you aint doin shit to a crazy fuck with two pistols, except scraping the shit out of your pants and tossing it at him. I wonder what would have happened if just 4 or 5 of the students were armed (guns not allowed on campus, obviously).Now im not saying that Joe Schmo could stop a crazed gunman just because he was armed, but if he had a gun and a little experience with it (not necesarily training) it may even the odds a little bit...Just my view. let the flow like wine.




This is a joke, right? The man had a gun legally and so did she. If he DIDN'T have a gun then this never would have happened in the first place. If she didn't have a gun then it wouldn't have even mattered.

There is no logic to this post.


----------



## oompa (Apr 12, 2009)

Have to agree with Scali on impulse control. The difference with access is that its easy to argue for guns if you assume that 100% of the population always makes rational decisions and have epic impulse control. Wich is not true. What if 1% has shitty impulse control? Should they have guns?

Here's where social acceptance plays in: Is it socially accepted to shoot a guy or not. Social acceptance buries in our subconscious and this affects our impulse control. This i think is one of the harder things to change since it would involve changes on many levels in society, from cop behaviour to media discretion.

And yes, anyone can kill anyone if they really want to. This is rather an argument not to have guns. But you have to want it more to run up to a guy and stab him in the face several times, than to point your finger and go bang from 30 yards. Guns are the closest to effortless killing you get next to psychokinesis  and that's a bad combination with blind rage.

On top of that, the article states that 40% of felons dont mind a duel even when you have a gun. that sucks.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

oompa said:


> Here's where social acceptance plays in: Is it socially accepted to shoot a guy or not. Social acceptance buries in our subconscious and this affects our impulse control. This i think is one of the harder things to change since it would involve changes on many levels in society, from cop behaviour to media discretion.


 
Yea, that's why I said we seem to differ here. It seems that killing is less socially accepted in Europe than it is in the US. Another example would be capital punishment, which we abolished long ago.



oompa said:


> On top of that, the article states that 40% of felons dont mind a duel even when you have a gun. that sucks.


 
Yes, I guess there are simple arguments for that aswell:
- The felons go in prepared. You don't. They may catch you off-guard/by surprise.
- The felons have probably trained themselves thoroughly in handling their weapons, as this is part of their 'work', a random citizen hasn't.
So the odds are that the felon shoots quicker and more accurately than whoever he may randomly encounter.

I bet if it comes to an actual confrontation, the felon will win most of the time.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> Yes, I guess there are simple arguments for that aswell:
> - The felons go in prepared. You don't. They may catch you off-guard/by surprise.
> - The felons have probably trained themselves thoroughly in handling their weapons, as this is part of their 'work', a random citizen hasn't.
> So the odds are that the felon shoots quicker and more accurately than whoever he may randomly encounter.
> ...



Yea they really have that shooting sideways technique perfected.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

Carrying a gun doesnt necessarily imply fear...given the fact, that has been shown numerous times in this thread by those opposed to guns, that gun crimes are happening, carrying a gun implies preparation. Why not increase the chance that the "random citizen" that is selected is prepared and experienced with a firearm? When you die, thats it. no re-do's. Im sure that regardless of your standpoint youd want a fighting chance and in the case that you have a family, that youd want the ability to protect them.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 12, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> When you die, thats it. no re-do's.



really? this is upsetting news


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> Carrying a gun doesnt necessarily imply fear...


 
Then what does it imply?
Carrying a gun obviously implies that you think you may have to use it. Assuming you don't WANT to kill or injure people, I think you can say you FEAR you may have to use it.



chaosxcomplex said:


> Why not increase the chance that the "random citizen" that is selected is prepared and experienced with a firearm?


 
Because it also increases the chance that a "random citizen" turns into a shooting madman, or accidents happen with guns around the house.



chaosxcomplex said:


> Im sure that regardless of your standpoint youd want a fighting chance and in the case that you have a family, that youd want the ability to protect them.


 
I don't need a gun to have a fighting chance or protect others.
And I don't want to put a gun into the hands of others either.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

You'd certainly need a gun to protect yourself against someone with a gun.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 12, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> You'd certainly need a gun to protect yourself against someone with a gun.



we've been over this god knows how many times:

if the person you would need to protect yourself from didn't have a gun... well then you wouldn't to own a gun to protect yourself from them now would you?


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> I can't even imagine how you could ever get as far as WANTING to carry a gun everywhere, let alone actually doing it.
> So you are basically afraid of going anywhere unarmed? You feel a constant threat of being robbed or killed etc?



Actually, I don't. I feel quite safe in my area, as my county is fairly low on the crime list for the state of Ohio.



Scali said:


> Yea, I assume that most civilians just have relatively simple handguns...
> They wouldn't even penetrate the kevlar armour that is pretty much standard outfit for armed forces. Not to mention armoured vehicles.
> In the meantime the armed forces can use their automatic weapons to cut down the unarmoured civilians by the dozens.



My cousin has a gun that fires armor piercing rounds. 



Scali said:


> I hope not. You can't just shoot someone at the sight of a gun. You don't know his intentions. You don't know it's a real gun, if it's loaded etc...



Someone drives a truck INTO a crowded restaurant, it could be an honest mistaking of the gas pedal for the brake pedal. (We've had that happen too). But when the driver hops out with a gun, his intentions are fucking clear.



Scali said:


> If nobody had a gun, you can be certain the death toll would be 0, because the whole thing never happened.
> If everyone had a gun, the best possible case would still be 1 death (the madman himself), but quite possibly he would have killed a number of people before he would be stopped.
> I don't think in any way it would be better than when nobody had a gun.



We still come back to the age old problem of, if he wants the gun, he'll get it. Law or no law. And even without a gun, I cannot be certain the death toll would be 0, because he could just as easily have packed a bow and fucking arrows. 



Scali said:


> That is where we differ.



And it is that which profoundly confuses me, the desire to preserve the life of someone who has no regard for it themselves. 



Scali said:


> And if you don't want your soldiers getting killed in Iraq, then just get them out of there.
> If there's anything good coming out of this crisis, it's that the US car industry is going bankrupt, and hopefully your stupid gas guzzling excuses for automobiles will be a thing of the past. This will both be a huge improvement for the environment, and also greatly decrease the dependency on fossil fuels. One less reason to send US soldiers to the Middle East.



Well, at least we can agree on one point.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 12, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Actually, I don't. I feel quite safe in my area, as my county is fairly low on the crime list for the state of Ohio.



then why do you carry a gun with you at all times???



The Atomic Ass said:


> My cousin has a gun that fires armor piercing rounds.



that is worrying.



The Atomic Ass said:


> he could just as easily have packed a bow and fucking arrows.



come on now that's just silly.



The Atomic Ass said:


> And it is that which profoundly confuses me, the desire to preserve the life of someone who has no regard for it themselves.



therein is a very childish out look on things i.e. "fuck me? no way man fuck you!"


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

well its been said that the criminals "over there" use guns also. and that goes to show that even if they arent supposed to have them, they will get them. so the idea of "if there were no armed criminals you wouldnt need a gun" is ridiculous. They WILL never be eradicated, regardless of law or lack thereof.

And put it in the contexet of a srtaight up fist fight. If someone walks over to you and punches you in the face, you fight back...Correct? Now isn't that the same thing as someone comes to you with a gun and you just so happen to be strapped? Its basic human instinct. Survive. Pretty much "fuck me? no way man fuck you!" Youre not just gonna sit there and let someone beat your ass without fighting back. And im not gonna let someone shoot me with out at least giving them a run for their money. just because you fight back, and just because i shoot back, doesnt mean that we come out victorious, but its survival, on different levels (chances are youre not gonna die in a fist fight).


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 12, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> we've been over this god knows how many times:
> 
> if the person you would need to protect yourself from didn't have a gun... well then you wouldn't to own a gun to protect yourself from them now would you?



Logic error.

How do you keep the other person from having a gun? If you've found a way to make that happen, I honestly am all ears.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 12, 2009)

gun crime goes on "over here" yeah but it's a rare, rare occurance.

fact is, if there were no armed criminals, you wouldn't need a gun, coz if like you say, they get guns anyway, then they will have guns, which isn't at all a case of no armed criminals.



The Atomic Ass said:


> Logic error.
> 
> How do you keep the other person from having a gun? If you've found a way to make that happen, I honestly am all ears.



I see no logic error. sounds like you've run out of ways to defend guns to me. I bet you don't want criminals to stop bearing arms anyway, coz that would mean you'd lose the right to bear arms yourself.


----------



## oompa (Apr 12, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> You'd certainly need a gun to protect yourself against someone with a gun.



but if you dont have a gun that can kill him in an instant, what makes you think he will shoot you?


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Actually, I don't. I feel quite safe in my area, as my county is fairly low on the crime list for the state of Ohio.


 
I'd say you wouldn't feel the need to carry a gun if you felt safe.



The Atomic Ass said:


> My cousin has a gun that fires armor piercing rounds.


 
But is your cousin 'most civilians'?



The Atomic Ass said:


> Someone drives a truck INTO a crowded restaurant, it could be an honest mistaking of the gas pedal for the brake pedal. (We've had that happen too). But when the driver hops out with a gun, his intentions are fucking clear.


 
That was in this case.
I think where you go wrong is trying to build a case on a single isolated incident.



The Atomic Ass said:


> And it is that which profoundly confuses me, the desire to preserve the life of someone who has no regard for it themselves.


 
Let's just say that eye-for-an-eye is a rather archaic way of life. We like to think we've become more civilized since then. Things are not as black-and-white as that.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

Being civilized won't save your life  If it's between being nice to the madman with a gun, or shooting him, I think you can guess which one I'd rather do 

Sure, if NO criminals had guns, then fuck it, who needs a gun for self defense? Until you can suggest a viable way to magically make every single gun out there disappear, then it's not really a valid argument.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 12, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> then why do you carry a gun with you at all times???



The same reason most people wear seatbelts, and I wear a suit and full-face helmet while riding. You hope you never need them to do their jobs, but if you do, they're there.



Scar Symmetry said:


> that is worrying.



It's a fucking blast to shoot, it kicks you in the chest like a rampaging mule. 



Scar Symmetry said:


> come on now that's just silly.



But is it impossible?



Scar Symmetry said:


> therein is a very childish out look on things i.e. "fuck me? no way man fuck you!"



Believe it or not, someone insulting me cannot make me pull my gun. There's nothing they can say that will get me to draw my weapon. They can earn a right hook, but they'll never earn even one round. EVER.

It is when they decide to become a REAL (not PERCEIVED) threat to either myself or my family that we have a problem.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Being civilized won't save your life  If it's between being nice to the madman with a gun, or shooting him, I think you can guess which one I'd rather do


 
We don't have madmen with guns over here, because we don't put guns in their hands to erm 'defend themselves'.



JJ Rodriguez said:


> Sure, if NO criminals had guns, then fuck it, who needs a gun for self defense? Until you can suggest a viable way to magically make every single gun out there disappear, then it's not really a valid argument.


 
We may not have made ALL guns disappear over hear, but I think enough of them have disappeared to create a safer, more civilized society.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> We may not have made ALL guns disappear over hear, but I think enough of them have disappeared to create a safer, more civilized society.



I thought you said it was easy for criminals to get a gun over there. You can only argue it one way dude, either most of the guns have disappeared, or they're really easy to get


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 12, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I see no logic error. sounds like you've run out of ways to defend guns to me. I bet you don't want criminals to stop bearing arms anyway, coz that would mean you'd lose the right to bear arms yourself.



I would rather the world be a perfect, rosy place too, but the question is, how? I don't see how you can eliminate all the guns. And Europe right now is proving the point that you can only eliminate LEGAL guns.

Like I said, if you've got a solution that works, I'm all ears.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I thought you said it was easy for criminals to get a gun over there. You can only argue it one way dude, either most of the guns have disappeared, or they're really easy to get


 
There aren't that many armed criminals around. So they don't pose that big a threat to safety overall.
Guess you forgot about that angle.

In fact, most shootings here are between armed criminals, they mainly seem to kill eachother. Not a threat to the safety of regular law-abiding citizens.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

So despite an abundance of guns after you guys have gotten rid of most of them people don't buy them, despite the market which exists without a demand for them?


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Like I said, if you've got a solution that works, I'm all ears.


 
While neither solution is perfect, I do believe the European one is working better than the American one.


----------



## oompa (Apr 12, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I thought you said it was easy for criminals to get a gun over there. You can only argue it one way dude, either most of the guns have disappeared, or they're really easy to get



no you dont get it.

they are very rare. and fairly easy to obtain if you know who to ask. to make that work out you need to imagine a place where guns are not socially acceptable and shooting someone is not socially acceptable. people dont get them to "level the field" because people dont have them everywhere they look.

anyone can make a bomb to kill 20,30,40 people in a mall or a cinema. both here and across the pond. i mean basically anyone with 5 mins on google and $25, wich includes pretty much everyone. if you think about that risk that should make you never visit a mall... if it wasnt for the fact that you know that its rare enough to not even worry about it when you go to the mall


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> So despite an abundance of guns after you guys have gotten rid of most of them people don't buy them, despite the market which exists without a demand for them?


 
Does this make sense to anyone?


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

oompa said:


> no you dont get it.
> 
> they are very rare. and fairly easy to obtain if you know who to ask. to make that work out you need to imagine a place where guns are not socially acceptable and shooting someone is not socially acceptable.


 
Yup... I *could* get a gun. You don't just go to a store and buy one... but in the back of a shady pub, talking to the right people, they can supply you with one. Black market kind of thing.
So it isn't that hard if you wanted to. But our society makes us NOT want guns, so nobody gets one, except for the more aggressive/extreme type of criminals (not your average burglar/mugger/rapist/etc, they'll just use knives most of the time... or just physical force and intimidation).

Which means that indeed, MOST people don't have guns, and their threat is virtually non-existent.



oompa said:


> anyone can make a bomb to kill 20,30,40 people in a mall or a cinema. both here and across the pond. i mean basically anyone with 5 mins on google and $25, wich includes pretty much everyone. if you think about that risk that should make you never visit a mall... if it wasnt for the fact that you know that its rare enough to not even worry about it when you go to the mall


 
Exactly!



JJ Rodriguez said:


> My thoughts exactly.


 
I mean that the sentence doesn't seem to make any sense. I don't understand its meaning, if any (and that's the second time you seem to have made no sense whatsoever in a sentence). Perhaps you can rephrase it in a more comprehensible way?


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 12, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> I would rather the world be a perfect, rosy place too, but the question is, how? I don't see how you can eliminate all the guns. And Europe right now is proving the point that you can only eliminate LEGAL guns.
> 
> Like I said, if you've got a solution that works, I'm all ears.





Dude, you make it sound like _we're_ the ones with the gun problems.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> I mean that the sentence doesn't seem to make any sense. I don't understand its meaning, if any.



It was a quadruple negative sentence summarizing a lot of your statements


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> It was a quadruple negative sentence summarizing a lot of your statements


 
Well, rephrase it, because I think you have misunderstood my statements, as oompa also eluded to.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

Bottom line: There wil always (regardless of location, laws, rights, etc) be armed criminals, there will always be shootings (no matter how rare) and there will always be those who choose to protect themselves and those close to them at all costs. I think its got a lot to do with piece of mind. Its the possibility that it may allow you to save your life. just like a seat belt or riding gear or a fire suit that a race car driver wears.

" but if you dont have a gun that can kill him in an instant, what makes you think he will shoot you? " ---im not quite sure i understand that one...most any gun will kill in an instant...

Legal guns=guns purchased legally=guns that are eliminated...criminals still use them occasionally, right? and citizens cant own them? leagl guns eliminated.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 12, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> I would rather the world be a perfect, rosy place too, but the question is, how? I don't see how you can eliminate all the guns. And Europe right now is proving the point that you can only eliminate LEGAL guns.
> 
> Like I said, if you've got a solution that works, I'm all ears.



I'm not saying the situation in your or anyone elses country is ideal, I'm just saying if it were illegal in your country too, you wouldn't need to carry guns.

and yes, you can get guns legally in the UK but it's very VERY difficult.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> Bottom line: There wil always (regardless of location, laws, rights, etc) be armed criminals, there will always be shootings (no matter how rare) and there will always be those who choose to protect themselves and those close to them at all costs. I think its got a lot to do with piece of mind. Its the possibility that it may allow you to save your life. just like a seat belt or riding gear or a fire suit that a race car driver wears.


 
Which brings us back to the fear you guys seem to be living with.
A race car driver wears a fire suit because there's a reasonable chance that his car catches fire, he is taking a lot of risks.
When I drive my car, I don't take as many risks, so I don't feel the need to wear special protective clothing (although obviously I *may* still get into an accident where my car catches fire, so a fire suit WOULD be safer, I just don't feel that the low risk justifies it).

If you think you need a gun to protect yourself, you seem to be under the impression that you run a big enough risk of being shot.



chaosxcomplex said:


> " but if you dont have a gun that can kill him in an instant, what makes you think he will shoot you? " ---im not quite sure i understand that one...most any gun will kill in an instant...


 
I think the point was that a felon is less tempted to shoot an unarmed person than someone who points a gun back at him.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> Well, rephrase it, because I think you have misunderstood my statements, as oompa also eluded to.



Basically, you said before it's easy to get a gun, ie supply. Then you say there's no market for it because your criminals hardly use guns (not all obviously) so there's no demand. You also said that you got rid of a lot of your guns, obviously not all, but enough to make you guys safer, etc. I just don't understand your black market which doesn't apparently run on the universal rule of supply vs demand 

Another thing that doesn't get mentioned a lot is that Canada actually has more guns than the US, per capita obviously since we don't have the population they do. I got this from a Michael Moore movie so take it for what it's worth, but we do have a shit ton of rifles and shotguns, yet our murder rate and gun crime isn't nearly what the US's is. I do agree that no one needs an Uzi or big ass assault rifle for hunting, or self defense, although you could argue it for sport shooting, etc. I think the biggest difference is hand guns. It is an absolute pain in the ass to get handguns here. I don't know about illegally, I'm sure they're available but I've never exactly gone shopping on the black market  We don't have ANY concealed carry here, except for extreme cases where someone believes their lives are in danger, then they can get a special permit. I think less than 5 of those have ever been issued 

I'd be curious what the stats would be if Canadians had any kind of concealed carry, if our murder rates would be better/worse than the Americans.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

what about the blind rampages that we americans see oh so often where 20-30 UNARMED people are executed? I know for a cold hard fact that if put in that situation, and given the fact that the guy didnt just come up and shoot my face off, and i had a pistol, Id be doing my best to end him. Maybe thats just the american lack of civilization and disregard for life speaking.

Its pot. Thats the solution. Isnt pot legal in canada? and i believe Scali said it is legal there? Thats the answer. We all just need to sit back and blaze on down!!


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

Trust me, I'm Canadian and I feel the same way, although I only carry a knife  I guess you could say I have lack of respect for life, except for mine. I have oodles of respect for my life, and if anyone were to fuck with that, I'd do everything in my power to make damn sure they'd never threaten it again, although against an armed person I doubt I'd stand a chance.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Basically, you said before it's easy to get a gun, ie supply.


 
There's your logic error.
The demand and supply aren't large, but the possibility exists, albeit through illegal channels.
So if you have the desire to buy a gun, and you have the money, you can get one, relatively easily.
Since our society doesn't promote the desire to buy a gun, demand is very low, and as such supply is also very low.
Rules of supply and demand still in order.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

If supply is very low how is it very easy as you said to get a gun? The rarity usually implies difficulty in obtaining it.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> what about the blind rampages that we americans see oh so often where 20-30 UNARMED people are executed?


 
..executed by a person with no prior criminal record, using a LEGALLY owned gun.



chaosxcomplex said:


> Its pot. Thats the solution. Isnt pot legal in canada? and i believe Scali said it is legal there? Thats the answer. We all just need to sit back and blaze on down!!


 
Yea, pot/cactii/fungi are legal in NL (well I think some went back to illegal, or are going to be illegal again, because foreigners end up killing themselves on a bad trip), prostitution is legal in NL, gay marriage is legal in NL.
We're a very open and tolerant country. But not guns.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

Well in my experience, stoners are vastly more laid back than most drunks or meth/crack heads, which we have a lot of here. If only my best friend Mary Jane wasnt so...illegal...instead of going and killing 20 innocent people maybe that person would be more inclined to roll up a doober.
And i just got off of a years probation for getting arrested for smoking a joint before my concert. there wasnt much more that has ever made me want to shoot someone...nah but seriously, there was a lady before me in court, she had over $10,000 in worthless checks, giving a false identity and obstruction of justice, and she walke out with an order to pay with payments spread out for 2 years. I was smoking a joint (MAYBE a gram of weed) and they wanted to put me in jail for 45 days. I argued my way out of that and into a year of probation. I thikn that the way that a lot of things work over here may have something to do with why people just loose it and go buck wild.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> If supply is very low how is it very easy as you said to get a gun? The rarity usually implies difficulty in obtaining it.


 
You seem to be confusing absolute and relative ratios here.
The supply is low because the demand is low.
As long as the rate of supply meets or exceeds the rate of demand (so supply relative to demand), then there is little difficulty in obtaining a product, regardless of how low supply and demand are in an absolute sense.

In other words: Not many people go shopping for a gun, but the ones that do, succeed in obtaining one.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

Pot isn't legal here, I just read that.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> You seem to be confusing absolute and relative ratios here.
> The supply is low because the demand is low.
> As long as the rate of supply meets or exceeds the rate of demand (so supply relative to demand), then there is little difficulty in obtaining a product, regardless of how low supply and demand are in an absolute sense.
> 
> In other words: Not many people go shopping for a gun, but the ones that do, succeed in obtaining one.



Fair enough. 

But what do you think about the gun ownership ratio being higher in Canada than the US, yet our murder/gun crime rate being lower?


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

No? well damn.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> But what do you think about the gun ownership ratio being higher in Canada than the US, yet our murder/gun crime rate being lower?


 
Cultural difference, perhaps.
I don't think the murder/crimerate would go up if everyone in NL had a gun tomorrow.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

I think it might be decriminalized in some areas, but it's definitely not legal.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> Cultural difference, perhaps.
> I don't think the murder/crimerate would go up if everyone in NL had a gun tomorrow.



Okay, but then by that logic, what would a gun ban accomplish in the US? If the ownership rate doesn't jack the crime rate, then how can making them illegal drop it?

Like was said before, a gun is a tool. Without someone to pull the trigger, it's useless. So you can either blame it on the ownership of the tool itself, or the people who are using the tool. If people here in Canada have as many guns or more per capita and we're not going on a murder rampage every day, and you don't think handing guns to everyone in the NL would significantly affect your crime rate, then what you're REALLY arguing against are the citizens of the US.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Okay, but then by that logic, what would a gun ban accomplish in the US? If the ownership rate doesn't jack the crime rate, then how can making them illegal drop it?


 
You have to force a culture change some way. Taking away the guns will have a psychological/social effect.
The problem isn't the guns themselves, but the culture/society in the US. It seems it took you a while to get that.

In the long term, gun ownership might change the culture/society in NL aswell. But not overnight. And nothing may ever happen... but we don't have a problem with guns in the first place, so we don't have to take any action.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> You have to force a culture change some way. Taking away the guns will have a psychological/social effect.
> The problem isn't the guns themselves, but the culture/society in the US. It seems it took you a while to get that.



If you came right out and said you have a problem with Americans, the conversation would have been a lot shorter. We can easily just put all your statements to anti-US sentiment then  I mean it's clear from past threads you really don't like Americans, I don't know if they pissed in your corn flakes when you were a child or something, but you really do bring it up a lot.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> If you came right out and said you have a problem with Americans, the conversation would have been a lot shorter. We can easily just put all your statements to anti-US sentiment then  I mean it's clear from past threads you really don't like Americans, I don't know if they pissed in your corn flakes when you were a child or something, but you really do bring it up a lot.


 
Oh please.
That's like saying you're a racist if you have any criticism on a person who happens to be black, no matter how justified the criticism itself may be.
Your backward logic both amazes and scares me.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

Taking away americans guns=taking away a constitutional rights=pissing us off


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> Oh please.
> That's like saying you're a racist if you have any criticism on a person who happens to be black, no matter how justified the criticism itself may be.
> Your backward logic both amazes and scares me.



No, it's not actually. You've expressed anti-US sentiment plenty of times in the past, and you just said your problem isn't with the guns, it's with the US culture. If I said I had a problem with black people's culture, would that not be racist?


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> Taking away americans guns=taking away a constitutional rights=pissing us off


 
Yea, but that's only skin-deep.
Do Americans ever think about these constitutional rights, and wonder if some of those rights may or may not be a good idea in today's society?
The way Americans talk about the constitution makes me think like they see it as some sort of absolute truth, like a holy script... "Because the constitution says so!". People made up this constitution, they conceived these rights... People sometimes make mistakes, or as times move on, things may change that may make previous decisions not work well in current times, however good those decisions may have been at the time.

See what I mean?


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

Oh i def. understand your argument on that, but as the criminal element is already fully established and very powerful, it would be hard to convince them to give up their guns. and its a good idea IMO to have a gun to fend them off if needed.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> If I said I had a problem with black people's culture, would that not be racist?


 
Not necessarily. Depends on what you have a problem with, and how justified it is that you have a problem with it.

In this case, my 'problem' with the US is that it allows citizens to carry guns, which quite often results in 'madman shootings'.
So in essence my problem is that innocent US people get killed. How does that make me anti-US?
In fact, not all Americans carry guns, and quite a few of them even agree that guns should be outlawed.

Likewise if you said you don't like the whole criminal 'gangster'-aspect of black culture, I think that would be a justified problem.
If you had a problem because they were black or because they were just 'different' in general... that would be racist. But if it's because of the organized crime/violence... that's not a racist thing in itself (not all blacks are part of this culture anyway).


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

Having a problem with and not liking certain aspects of something are 2 different things. If I have a problem with someone, they probably did something that I take offense to. If I have a problem with a culture, it's something that causes offense to me, ie intolerance. If I don't like certain aspects of a person that's something different. I have friends that I have certain things about them I don't like, but I don't have a problem with them.

If I said I have a problem with black people, it sounds pretty ignorant  Anyone else want to chime in on this? I don't think I'd be alone in this


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

I never said "I have a problem with the US".
I said that 'the problem' (of guns and madman shooting and everything else we've been discussing) doesn't lie in the guns themselves, but how the US society/culture views guns.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to put you on ignore, because I'm tired of your trolling character assassination attempts.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to put you on ignore, because I'm tired of your trolling character assassination attempts.





Right on dude, don't bother trying to argue with someone, just ignore them


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Right on dude, don't bother trying to argue with someone, just ignore them


 
I am not going to argue with someone who puts words into my mouth, accusing me of things I never said or intended, and then expects me to defend this. This is not the first time you're doing this (heck even this very post... The entire thread I've been more than willing to respond to anyone, so don't say I didn't bother trying to argue).
It's over, and your behaviour has been reported to the moderators. I'll leave it to them to take the proper action.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

Alright man, I'm sorry I tried to have a civil conversation with you


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> I never said "I have a problem with the US".
> I said that 'the problem' (of guns and madman shooting and everything else we've been discussing) doesn't lie in the guns themselves, but how the US society/culture views guns.


Yet, what are germany's gun laws? ANd what just happened at a school in germany? 



Scali said:


> Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to put you on ignore, because I'm tired of your trolling character assassination attempts.



He's pretty much right, though.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> Yet, what are germany's gun laws? ANd what just happened at a school in germany?


 
I said that no system is perfect.
This is a fallacy... "But they do it too!".
Two wrongs don't make a right.
In fact, one can even argue that it's the effect of US culture on Europe. They've seen it from the US.
And again the *availability* of the weapons was an issue here...



Metal Ken said:


> He's pretty much right, though.


 
No he's not. And I refuse to be accused of being anti-US. Those are pretty harsh accusations anyway. I bet people wouldn't accept it if I randomly started accusing people of being racist either.
Everyone who ever said they don't like Greg Howe or Tony MacAlpine? Must be racists!


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

Pretty much, who the fuck wouldn't like Greg Howe or Tony MacAlpine?


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> I said that no system is perfect.
> This is a fallacy... "But they do it too!".
> Two wrongs don't make a right.


Its not a fallacy. Im not claiming wrongs make a right. I'm claiming that even with stricter gun laws, crazy fucking psychos still shoot shit.



Scali said:


> No he's not. And I refuse to be accused of being anti-US. Those are pretty harsh accusations anyway. I bet people wouldn't accept it if I randomly started accusing people of being racist either.
> Everyone who ever said they don't like Greg Howe or Tony MacAlpine? Must be racists!



then you should quit making horrificly overblown blanket statements and acting like individual americans are responsible for the horrors of the world.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

It's no use Ken, you might as well lose your temper and shoot him with your gun.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> Its not a fallacy. Im not claiming wrongs make a right. I'm claiming that even with stricter gun laws, crazy fucking psychos still shoot shit.


 
It's the same argument as the US one though.
His dad legally owned guns. And apparently he wasn't careful enough keeping them away from his depressed son.
His dad was an exception here. Most people do not own guns here, because the laws are more strict.
But well, he did have guns around the house, so then it can still happen.



Metal Ken said:


> then you should quit making horrificly overblown blanket statements and acting like individual americans are responsible for the horrors of the world.


 
A bit of rhetoric and thought-provoking discussion never hurt anyone.
This is that other cultural difference we discussed.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> A bit of rhetoric and thought-provocing discussion never hurt anyone.



Yet you report 2 of my posts when I'm discussing your views on the US?


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> I mean that the sentence doesn't seem to make any sense. I don't understand its meaning, if any (and that's the second time you seem to have made no sense whatsoever in a sentence). Perhaps you can rephrase it in a more comprehensible way?



That was the point he was trying to make, was that the point being made for Europe is nonsensical. I understood it completely.



ZeroSignal said:


> Dude, you make it sound like _we're_ the ones with the gun problems.



Dude, you are, you don't have any! 

/humor


----------



## oompa (Apr 12, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> Its not a fallacy. Im not claiming wrongs make a right. I'm claiming that even with stricter gun laws, crazy fucking psychos still shoot shit.



then why do you have guns? so that not crazy people can shoot eachother too? cus thats what i make of it 

we have concluded that idiots who really want to shoot people can do it no matter what. from beirut to bora-bora to bronx.

then why have them over there? it obviously leads to more killing. the point of banning them is to, over time, make shooting someone not socially accepted.

then argument is that then you might reach the point where yes, any idiot can get a gun but even then pretty few has one, wich is the case here. few enough for people to worry as much about being shot as you worry about being blown up by some random dude in a mall.

we have tried your method over here for centuries. turned out it we felt it was a shitty one so we went with this one instead


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

Ah, cool, people are neg-repping me again.
Ofcourse they don't dare to say who they are. How lame.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 12, 2009)

oompa said:


> then why do you have guns? so that not crazy people can shoot eachother too? cus thats what i make of it
> 
> we have concluded that idiots who really want to shoot people can do it no matter what. from beirut to bora-bora to bronx.
> 
> ...



we have a winner!


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 12, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> Its pot. Thats the solution. Isnt pot legal in canada? and i believe Scali said it is legal there? Thats the answer. We all just need to sit back and blaze on down!!



Amen brother.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> we have a winner!


 
No, he's just an anti-US bastard.
Let's all neg-rep him!


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 12, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> But what do you think about the gun ownership ratio being higher in Canada than the US, yet our murder/gun crime rate being lower?



It's because of those cold Canadia winters. You can't get food shipped that far north, so you have to hunt for meat. 

Fuck you and your igloos.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> It's the same argument as the US one though.
> His dad legally owned guns. And apparently he wasn't careful enough keeping them away from his depressed son.
> His dad was an exception here. Most people do not own guns here, because the laws are more strict.
> But well, he did have guns around the house, so then it can still happen.



And who's fault is that? Know how it works in florida? If you dont adequately secure your firearms, and your child does something, YOU are responsible. His dad was being a shitty parent. 




oompa said:


> then why do you have guns? so that not crazy people can shoot eachother too? cus thats what i make of it


Well, shit. I must be crazy, and shoot people. thats weird, cause i dont. 




oompa said:


> then why have them over there? it obviously leads to more killing. the point of banning them is to, over time, make shooting someone not socially accepted.


Cause, strangely, all the mass shootings that have happened recently happen in... _gun free zones_. schools, federal buildings, etc. So if a guy is gonna get a gun illegally, then it doesnt matter where they're banned at. And as said before, where guns are legalized for concealed carry here (Texas and Florida, for example) have had a decrease in violent crime at about the rate of around... 2% a year. Shooting people ISNT socially acceptable. But its even less acceptable to commit violent crimes. 



oompa said:


> we have tried your method over here for centuries. turned out it we felt it was a shitty one so we went with this one instead


And thats fine. Thats why you havent moved here and i havent moved there.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 12, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> If you came right out and said you have a problem with Americans, the conversation would have been a lot shorter. We can easily just put all your statements to anti-US sentiment then  I mean it's clear from past threads you really don't like Americans, I don't know if they pissed in your corn flakes when you were a child or something, but you really do bring it up a lot.



We do so love pissing in everyone's Wheaties.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> Ah, cool, people are neg-repping me again.
> Ofcourse they don't dare to say who they are. How lame.



Man, quit bitching about rep in threads. How many times to i have to tell people about complaining about neg reps? If you dont want neg rep, stop being so controversial.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> Man, quit bitching about rep in threads. How many times to i have to tell people about complaining about neg reps? If you dont want neg rep, stop being so controversial.


 
I'm not controversial, you are. The mere thought of legal guns!
You see how this is a cultural difference?
If the majority of the forum were European, you'd be the controversial one. Although Europeans tend to be pretty tolerant.



Metal Ken said:


> And who's fault is that? Know how it works in florida? If you dont adequately secure your firearms, and your child does something, YOU are responsible. His dad was being a shitty parent.


 
I'm sure he's going to be held responsible and lose his license at the least.
Does that make it right? I don't see your point in this line of argument really.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> I'm not controversial, you are. The mere thought of legal guns!
> You see how this is a cultural difference?
> If the majority of the forum were European, you'd be the controversial one. Although Europeans tend to be pretty tolerant.



Well, i'm rubber, you're glue. What you say bounces off of me and sticks to you. Thats about how absurd this is getting.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> Well, i'm rubber, you're glue. What you say bounces off of me and sticks to you. Thats about how absurd this is getting.


 
It's not, actually. You seem to have a completely closed mind. Things indeed DO bounce off you. I don't seem to be getting through to you at all. I don't get the idea that you're even thinking about the subject at all.
You just 'stick to what you know'.
You don't even seem to realize the possibility of other people having different beliefs, ideas, views etc. At least, that's the impression you're giving. As if you're just not listening to what anyone says.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali, why dont you stop talking for a while.


----------



## oompa (Apr 12, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> Well, shit. I must be crazy, and shoot people. thats weird, cause i dont.


You said 'with stricter gun laws crazies still shoot people' and i agree. I never said -you're- crazy  i said 'it then seems like you have guns so that not crazy people can shoot eachother' (since crazies do it both here and there no matter regulation anyway).

personally i could probably stay away from all kinds stuff bad stuff (in the condition and life situation i am in now), but that doesnt mean id be fine with legalizing everything and give everyone, in good times and bad times, sudden euforia and blind rage, access to everything.



Metal Ken said:


> And thats fine. Thats why you havent moved here and i havent moved there.



yes i agree and thats cool. i meant it as an argument - that we have tried both methods for a good while and this one works better for us.

i am just theorizing about your domestic politics from my far away point of view, because we have tried most of the things the US/EU differ in today. we still have rapists and muderers like every country, i just dont believe you're making it any harder for them by giving both you and them a gun. it just raises the stake in a completely unnecessary way.


----------



## Scali (Apr 12, 2009)

oompa said:


> i am just theorizing about your domestic politics from my far away point of view, because we have tried most of the things the US/EU differ in today.


 
I did the same thing. Apparently that's 'being controversial', because there is only one way, and that's the US way.



oompa said:


> i meant it as an argument - that we have tried both methods for a good while and this one works better for us.


 
That's what I was getting at. Most arguments seem to just go by him. He doesn't even seem to realize that they are arguments, because he's so set in his ways of thinking?
If you're not going to be open to arguments in a discussion, we might aswell just stop right here, because it's not getting anywhere.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 12, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> Cause, strangely, all the mass shootings that have happened recently happen in... _gun free zones_. schools, federal buildings, etc. So if a guy is gonna get a gun illegally, then it doesnt matter where they're banned at. And as said before, where guns are legalized for concealed carry here (Texas and Florida, for example) have had a decrease in violent crime at about the rate of around... 2% a year. Shooting people ISNT socially acceptable. But its even less acceptable to commit violent crimes.



Now, I was under the impression that the vast majority of guns that were used in mass shootings on both sides of the pond were legally owned and that their owner simply flipped out and went on a rampage... non?


----------



## CapenCyber (Apr 12, 2009)

I've been reading this thread for a while and I can sympathise with both sides here.

At school I used to be in the Army cadets and I did a lot of shooting, we did target shooting with .22 rifles indoors, 7.62 target rifles outdoors up to 500m, clay pigeon (skeet) with shotguns, went on exercises with SA80s and GPMGs (machine guns) and it was always extremely fun. I know it is a really exhilarating experience to go out and blast some targets (or animals whatever) with massive guns just like blowing stuff up is also really fun. 
Some of you guys here really like the whole culture of shooting/hunting/collecting etc and I totally get that, guns can be really fun and also really safe.


Now the other reason for gun ownership is for protection. This is where us "liberal" Europeans just don't get you guys at all. 

Maybe we're just more optimistic over here but we can't fathom how you guys can be SO paranoid that you walk around with the power and implied willingness to injure or kill. America is not Baghdad, it is supposedly a first world country and really pretty damn safe. If someone wants to kill you, they can, you can pretty much have as much protection as you want; but the chances are really fucking slim. Did being the most heavily guarded man on earth stop JFK and Reagan from getting shot?

Killing sprees happen on both sides of the pond, only more regularly over there, you supposedly have guns to protect yourselves, but this factor is clearly outweighed massively by the ease with which someone can get a gun and go on a killing spree. 

The second amendment; you guys go on about it all the time, I have 2 main problems with this:

1. It deigns to allow citizens to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a free state, not to stop people coming onto your property. If you walk around with a concealed handgun in order to take down the government at a moments notice (good luck with that one btw) then fine, but I really doubt that is the case.
But:
2. It is patently outdated, this was an amendment in itself ie: the constitution is not gospel it can be changed in law and it should change to keep with the times.

I have yet to hear of a good reason why gun ownership is a safer choice. You guys do not really need them, the evidence says countries without guns are safer and wouldn't you all feel a lot better with everyone not knowing their head could be blown off at a moments notice? 



oompa said:


> it just raises the stake in a completely unnecessary way.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

It comes down to if you were put in the middle of a rampage, would you want to have a gun? theres always gonna be the dick head who had a bad day and snaps. no matter where you are. And since the rampages do happen all too often over here, i think it right to have the right to carry a gun, so that the ones who dont flip out and go postal can protect themselves and theirs from the danger. 
Reminds me of a funny shirt...Guns dont kill people, People with mustaches kill people.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 12, 2009)

Scali said:


> I did the same thing. Apparently that's 'being controversial', because there is only one way, and that's the US way.



Way to misread it. You're being controversial not cause of your view, but because of your blatant anti-american slant. 



Scali said:


> That's what I was getting at. Most arguments seem to just go by him. He doesn't even seem to realize that they are arguments, because he's so set in his ways of thinking?
> If you're not going to be open to arguments in a discussion, we might aswell just stop right here, because it's not getting anywhere.



Yeah, im just gonna ban you. I think it'll work out better that way. I'm sick of your ad hominem bullshit.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 12, 2009)

CapenCyber said:


> I've been reading this thread for a while and I can sympathise with both sides here.
> 
> At school I used to be in the Army cadets and I did a lot of shooting, we did target shooting with .22 rifles indoors, 7.62 target rifles outdoors up to 500m, clay pigeon (skeet) with shotguns, went on exercises with SA80s and GPMGs (machine guns) and it was always extremely fun. I know it is a really exhilarating experience to go out and blast some targets (or animals whatever) with massive guns just like blowing stuff up is also really fun.
> Some of you guys here really like the whole culture of shooting/hunting/collecting etc and I totally get that, guns can be really fun and also really safe.



This is my main interest in it. I realize im probably _never_ gonna shoot at someone else. i just like going to ranges and shooting shit, cause, well, its fucking fun. If i lived in a more rural area, i'd probably hunt, too. BUt i cant, so thats a moot point.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 12, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> It comes down to if you were put in the middle of a rampage, would you want to have a gun? theres always gonna be the dick head who had a bad day and snaps. no matter where you are. And since the rampages do happen all too often over here, i think it right to have the right to carry a gun, so that the ones who dont flip out and go postal can protect themselves and theirs from the danger.
> Reminds me of a funny shirt...Guns dont kill people, People with mustaches kill people.



Oh, come on... No matter how many times we say it... If there were no guns then the guy going on said rampage wouldn't have a gun and as such no one else would need one either.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 12, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Oh, come on... No matter how many times we say it... If there were no guns then the guy going on said rampage wouldn't have a gun and as such no one else would need one either.



That's all good, but they do have them. How do you get rid of the ones that are out there?


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

so you are saying that there is some way to make all guns disappear? If you take the right from the average citizen, who is unlikely to do anything stupid, that doesnt change the criminals having the guns. the criminals are used to using guns to aid them in getting what they want. its like telling a 5 star chef "ok today were gonna switch to cooking in a chuck wagon. Were not gonna demolish your kitchen or anything, its still gonna be right in there, but you cant use it" his first instinct is gonna be fuck that, im going inside.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 12, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> so you are saying that there is some way to make all guns disappear? If you take the right from the average citizen, who is unlikely to do anything stupid, that doesnt change the criminals having the guns. the criminals are used to using guns to aid them in getting what they want. its like telling a 5 star chef "ok today were gonna switch to cooking in a chuck wagon. Were not gonna demolish your kitchen or anything, its still gonna be right in there, but you cant use it" his first instinct is gonna be fuck that, im going inside.





Dude... 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999&#37; of mass murderers are ORDINARY PEOPLE. Not criminals. These people are LEGAL gun owners or a member (or two) of their families who go off the deep end and commit murder on a massive scale and the vast majority of the time the target citizens don't seem to have weaponry to fight back with which negates the entire "gun ownership protects people from mass murderers" argument.



JJ Rodriguez said:


> That's all good, but they do have them. How do you get rid of the ones that are out there?



Efficient policing and border control. Yeah, I crack myself up too, sometimes.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 12, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Oh, come on... No matter how many times we say it... If there were no guns then the guy going on said rampage wouldn't have a gun and as such no one else would need one either.


 
if there were no guns the guy going on a rampage would probably have a knife or a bar or a chain and honestly i would rather just shoot him than fight with him and get injured or killed myself. why fight someone up close when you can kill them from a safe distance? 

you guys know that throughout time its ALWAYS going to be a weapon of some sort. it used to be swords and knives. now its guns. who the hell knows whats next? but im pretty sure whatever it is people will want to ban it as well. 

and yeah we can all go on and on and on and on forever and ever about how if there were no guns nobody would need guns. do i need a gun? no i dont. just like i dont need a guitar. guns are fun. i like the hobby and sometimes when i get the chance to hunt also. nobody can help what some idiot or some psycho does with ANY weapon be it a gun, a car, an airplane, a roll of toilet paper. children go to school every day armed to the teeth with razor sharp pencils. you know how many school stabbings there were when i was growing up? a LOT. my ex wife has a pencil lead stuck in her arm under her skin still from elementary school. 

people are naturally going to be violent. if its not guns its just going to be something else. i really dont see the point of arguing because it doesnt seem like anybody is going to come out on top. well except metal ken lol. 

i AM from a rural part of FL btw ken. its like shooting heaven lol there is nobody for miles and you can find big open places for long range shooting. colorado is pretty nice for it as well. i go to a free to the public range on the side of the mountains here by colorado springs. unfortunately being next to 5 military installations means there are a lot of younger uneducated about firearms guys that go up there and try to show off. and litter the place with everything from washing machines to motorcycles and computers.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 12, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Efficient policing and border control. Yeah, I crack myself up too, sometimes.



Yea thats great wishful thinking, but its completely impossible. We cant even keep illegal substances off the street, let alone an easily machined or purchase piece of metal.

So the solution is to make the best of what you got. Its great that the UK and elsewhere have such a small gun population. It should remain that way. But unfortunately its just not an option here.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

this could go in circles for ever. Putting my self in that situation i would prefer to have the right to have a gun in my possession. regardless of if "studies have shown" I know that I would not want to be sitting helpless with some ass belonker standing over me with a gun. I understand your argument, although i dont agree with it (I bet you couldnt tell) I'm not looking at it as They do protect people from mass murders. I'm looking at it as they COULD protect people. and the fact that the crime rate has declined here in florida since the 80's when it was decided to allow our residents to carry goes to show something. Let me ask you this. I'm not really familiar with your area of the world and the regulations about any aspect. Is there some unique right that you guys have that the rest of the world does not? Would you want that right to be abolished? regardless of what it is, it seems oppressive to take any right of a people away. Especially when the fact is that the event in question would happen with or without said right and when that right can possibly denote life or death.



possumkiller said:


> you know how many school stabbings there were when i was growing up? a LOT. my ex wife has a pencil lead stuck in her arm under her skin still from elementary school.
> 
> .


I actually was stabbed with a pencil and have a lead (graphite) piece in my left hand in that muscle between your thumb and index finger. That was in 7th grade. It was partially my fault, I was doing that shit where you get someone and you see who can break the other guys pencil by smacking it with yours...yeah, I broke his and he acted like he was gonna stab me. I put my hand up and there it was. went to the nurse and she sprayed some cheapo version of bactiene on it and sent me on my way. couldnt move my thumb for like 2 weeks.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 12, 2009)

CapenCyber said:


> 1. It deigns to allow citizens to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a free state, not to stop people coming onto your property. If you walk around with a concealed handgun in order to take down the government at a moments notice (good luck with that one btw) then fine, but I really doubt that is the case.
> But:
> 2. It is patently outdated, this was an amendment in itself ie: the constitution is not gospel it can be changed in law and it should change to keep with the times.



It is quite obviously not outdated, as our current state of over-government is the exact problem that we have the second amendment for! Some people in this country and a LOT of you guys across the pond have been brainwashed to really love big brother. 

[action=The Atomic Ass]puts on tinfoil hat and frowns whilst cleaning gun collection[/action]



CapenCyber said:


> I have yet to hear of a good reason why gun ownership is a safer choice. You guys do not really need them, the evidence says countries without guns are safer and wouldn't you all feel a lot better with everyone not knowing their head could be blown off at a moments notice?



The evidence says that area's of low gun ownership per capita in the U.S. are much less safe than most of Europe. It also shows that area's of high gun ownership are substantially lower than Europe. 



ZeroSignal said:


> Dude... 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of mass murderers are ORDINARY PEOPLE. Not criminals. These people are LEGAL gun owners or a member (or two) of their families who go off the deep end and commit murder on a massive scale and the vast majority of the time the target citizens don't seem to have weaponry to fight back with which negates the entire "gun ownership protects people from mass murderers" argument.



They're criminals after they go on the shooting rampages... 

And I have always wondered, but have not been able to determine through research, whether the people murdered did not have guns to fight back because they didn't want them, or they were prevented from having them.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 12, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> It is quite obviously not outdated, as our current state of over-government is the exact problem that we have the second amendment for! Some people in this country and a LOT of you guys across the pond have been brainwashed to really love big brother.
> 
> [action=The Atomic Ass]puts on tinfoil hat and frowns whilst cleaning gun collection[/action]
> 
> ...



Yeah, clearly. Because you and your gun toting buddies would last as split second against the might of the American war machine. 

And yeah, we love Big Brother. Which is why everyone is getting so pissed off at increased levels of surveillance by our various governments.

The US having a lower crime rate than most of Europe? What the hell have you been smoking?

No, they're usually mentally ill before they go on the rampage and are usually dead afterwards after taking their own lives.

How would they be prevented from having guns?

Man... your post is so devoid of logic...


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 12, 2009)

I think the bottom line for me comes down to this:
Its another personal freedom, of which we are having fewer and fewer of as time goes on. Every time we win something, we seem to lose something, and as such, i believe my rights end where someone else's begin. My owning a gun or two does not in any way infringe on anyone else's well being nor does it put anyone else in danger. Therefore, there should be no reason why I, as a responsible, law abiding citizen should not have the privilege/right of owning one denied, just as no one should be denied the right to use whatever drug they want, barring that it affects no one else.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 12, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Dude... 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of mass murderers are ORDINARY PEOPLE. Not criminals. These people are LEGAL gun owners or a member (or two) of their families who go off the deep end and commit murder on a massive scale and the vast majority of the time the target citizens don't seem to have weaponry to fight back with which negates the entire "gun ownership protects people from mass murderers" argument.



I still maintain that, denied guns, people would stll do crazy shit. You remember Timothy McVeigh? He was the guy that bombed the Oklahoma Federal Building back in '95. He was an Ex-Army trained soldier, and rather than relying on guns to do his bidding, he filled a Ryder Rental Truck up with fertilizer and gasoline, parked it outside the federal building and set a timer to the thing and walked away. 

Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## renzoip (Apr 12, 2009)

I keep reading people posting about how statistics show that in Florida crime has decreased since more people own guns. As a person who has been living in South Florida since the year 2000, I gotta say they must not be talking about my particular area. I watch the news and all I see is more and more robberies and murders every day. And I don't just watch the news, I actually go out there and see it with my own eyes (I work in an area that used to be decent and now it's filled with crime). 

Also, as a person who has live in another country besides the US, I can honestly tell you that those statistics may be circumstantial evidence at best. I have found that the Economy is actually a factor with a more direct relation to crime rates. It's a no brainier that when the economy is bad, people lose their job and can't pay their bills, they are much more prone to resource to crime than if they had money and stable jobs.


----------



## PnKnG (Apr 13, 2009)

Here is another great example why America needs a improved (harder) gunlaw:
Police Kill Woman With Toddler in Car During Pursuit

I mean WTF. I understand that you have to stop her BUT shot her to death is over the line. She was unarmed. Bet the cop gets away with it. How can you shoot an unarmed person. Ok she was drunk and didn't stop but still no reason to shoot her. Could he have it handled otherwise?

@renzoip:
I agree with you. its really more a bad Economy that leads to an Increase in crime. Peoples don't commit crimes because they want to (or most at least), they do it because they see no other way out. Its just natural instincts that kick in and make you think that you have to do everything possible in order to survive.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 13, 2009)

CapenCyber said:


> The second amendment; you guys go on about it all the time, I have 2 main problems with this:
> 
> 1. It deigns to allow citizens to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a free state, not to stop people coming onto your property. If you walk around with a concealed handgun in order to take down the government at a moments notice (good luck with that one btw) then fine, but I really doubt that is the case.
> But:
> 2. It is patently outdated, this was an amendment in itself ie: the constitution is not gospel it can be changed in law and it should change to keep with the times.



^^^ THIS.

the second amendment is over 200 years old... that's all I'm going to say.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 13, 2009)

PnKnG said:


> Here is another great example why America needs a improved (harder) gunlaw:
> Police Kill Woman With Toddler in Car During Pursuit
> 
> I mean WTF. I understand that you have to stop her BUT shot her to death is over the line. She was unarmed. Bet the cop gets away with it. How can you shoot an unarmed person. Ok she was drunk and didn't stop but still no reason to shoot her. Could he have it handled otherwise?



....What do gun laws for citizens have to do with cops shooting an unarmed woman? You could make everything including BB guns illegal and cops would still have their guns.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 13, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> I think the bottom line for me comes down to this:
> Its another personal freedom, of which we are having fewer and fewer of as time goes on. Every time we win something, we seem to lose something, and as such, i believe my rights end where someone else's begin. My owning a gun or two does not in any way infringe on anyone else's well being nor does it put anyone else in danger. Therefore, there should be no reason why I, as a responsible, law abiding citizen should not have the privilege/right of owning one denied, just as no one should be denied the right to use whatever drug they want, barring that it affects no one else.



I reserve the right to bare nuclear arms.



Metal Ken said:


> I still maintain that, denied guns, people would stll do crazy shit. You remember Timothy McVeigh? He was the guy that bombed the Oklahoma Federal Building back in '95. He was an Ex-Army trained soldier, and rather than relying on guns to do his bidding, he filled a Ryder Rental Truck up with fertilizer and gasoline, parked it outside the federal building and set a timer to the thing and walked away.
> 
> Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Yup. And how many bombings by crazy people happen over here?



JJ Rodriguez said:


> ....What do gun laws for citizens have to do with cops shooting an unarmed woman? You could make everything including BB guns illegal and cops would still have their guns.



Our police don't have guns with the exception of the Armed Emergency Response Teams who have to wear these big fuck-off red vests so you know who you're dealing with.

EDIT: and I live in one of the roughest areas of Dublin and I've only ever seen them... maybe once or twice.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 13, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> I think the bottom line for me comes down to this:
> Its another personal freedom, of which we are having fewer and fewer of as time goes on. Every time we win something, we seem to lose something, and as such, i believe my rights end where someone else's begin. My owning a gun or two does not in any way infringe on anyone else's well being nor does it put anyone else in danger. Therefore, there should be no reason why I, as a responsible, law abiding citizen should not have the privilege/right of owning one denied, just as no one should be denied the right to use whatever drug they want, barring that it affects no one else.



we don't have those rights... and we're quite happy without them 

maybe in time, Americans could appreciate the increased harmony that comes without a legal right to own weapons that are designed to take away someone elses "well being" 

and at the end of the day, guns = danger, you can't deny that.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 13, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Our police don't have guns with the exception of the Armed Emergency Response Teams who have to wear these big fuck-off red vests so you know who you're dealing with.
> 
> EDIT: and I live in one of the roughest areas of Dublin and I've only ever seen them... maybe once or twice.



As if cops didn't have enough to worry about, now even THEY shouldn't carry guns?  I'm pretty sure that shit wouldn't fly here in Canada, let alone the US


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 13, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> As if cops didn't have enough to worry about, now even THEY shouldn't carry guns?  I'm pretty sure that shit wouldn't fly here in Canada, let alone the US



Different culture here I guess. They don't need guns to apprehend perps. Pepper spray is a wonderful thing...


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 13, 2009)

I don't think they need them to apprehend people either, but to defend themselves. There still hasn't been a suggestion to get rid of all the guns that people already have that would actually work  Maybe you can stop the guns from leaving the country by stricter searching policies at the border, but that's about it.


----------



## phantaz (Apr 13, 2009)

It is the human moral will that saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of weapons.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 13, 2009)

phantaz said:


> It is the human moral will that saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of weapons.



Good luck with that.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 13, 2009)

Yup. And how many bombings by crazy people happen over here?

London...spain...those are the only two I know about recently as I dont really watch the news...

I havent heard of any here in a while...I could be way off, like i said i dont watch the news.

Two policemen die in Spanish car bombing - Europe, World - The Independent
17 hurt in Spanish university bombing - Europe- msnbc.com
Second car bomb discovered in London - Europe- msnbc.com
Coordinated terrorist attack hits London - Wikinews, the free news source
Greece: Bomb explodes at Citibank branch - USATODAY.com
Hmmm...Now for america (rather the US)
Doctor in critical condition after Arkansas bombing - CNN.com

Maybe im retarded, or google is bias'd, because it took me all of 2 minutes to find the first ones...but ive been looking for about 10 for the us ones, and this is the only one ive come up with.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 13, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Good luck with that.



Something we can both agree on


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 13, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> Yup. And how many bombings by crazy people happen over here?
> 
> London...spain...those are the only two I know about recently as I dont really watch the news...
> 
> ...



If we're going to play this game we might as well ignore the first two since they were terrorist attacks by the Basque separatist group ETA.

http://abajournal.com/news/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/
Woodburn bank explosion kills 2 officers | Local News | kgw.com | News for Portland Oregon and SW Washington

EDIT: Various bits and pieces here and there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_States#2000-present


----------



## Tiger (Apr 13, 2009)

WIS News 10 - Columbia, South Carolina | Man shot, killed while trying to rob Five Pts. AA meeting

Just happened not far from where I live.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 13, 2009)

my arguement, which at this point i think is almost completely useless, is that had we never had guns in the first place and had to fist fight (or even talk things out; gosh imagine that...) to solve differences people might be less likely to start shit in the first place. a man with a gun fears no one except someone with a bigger gun. but i'm sure people would be less likely to start shit if they thought they might get their ass kicked instead.

of course someone bigger than you could still rob you or do whatever other horrible thing they wanted to do to you. but i think guns for some is a way for pussies to feel powerful and for others it's a way to protect themselves from some reckless pussy with a gun. 

but now that we have them and there's nothing we can do to stop it, yes, they do save lives.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 13, 2009)

there's no ground that hasn't been covered on this thread. I suggest it gets closed.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 13, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> there's no ground that hasn't been covered on this thread. I suggest it gets closed.



Second. I'm bored.


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 13, 2009)

I can run with that.


----------

