Gun Control

[das1330]

I find it strangely hypocritical you ask me for a source, and then fail to provide any to back up your own 'stats', snipersas.

 

 

 

What have I forgot to source?

 

 

 

 

 

However, like guns, they are statistically proven to work in reducing the risk for which they are designed.

 

Except for a few hypothetical scenarios, where is the evidence for this?

 

 

 

Where is there not evidence for it? Studies done have put the number of times a gun is used in self defence in the US at 2 million. (source)

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the contrary, homicide rates are higher in countries with least gun control. Switzerland has Europe's least restrictive firearms laws, and has one of the highest corresponding gun murder rates.

 

Not according to the BBC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now obviously, there are more factors than simply gun control. Capital punishment and cultural differences are also partially to blame. However, it is evident that when a country has lower gun control, its citizens feel more free to settle their differences, or achieve their goals using such weapons.

 

 

 

Again, I ask you to source that. since everything I have ever read says otherwise.

 

 

 

 

If you say to a criminal "You can own a gun, and because of our constitution, we have no right to take it away from you", you will have higher homicide rates involving guns. It is plain common sense.

 

 

 

Once again, involving guns, not overall. The source is above. It makes no difference if you were killed with a gun, or knife, or a rock. You are still dead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The way to reduce crime is to make it socially and culturally unacceptable to use a weapon in any other circumstance than self-defence. Amending the constitution will have to be a part of that.

 

 

 

Amending the bill of rights is unacceptable. Like the other rights listed there, the right to bear arms is a basic human right, on the same level as the right to free speech or religion. Getting rid of any of those rights for the general populace is a movement from a fair democracy to a police state.

[Range_This11]

 

Amending the bill of rights is unacceptable. Like the other rights listed there, the right to bear arms is a basic human right, on the same level as the right to free speech or religion. Getting rid of any of those rights for the general populace is a movement from a fair democracy to a police state.

 

Although you bring up very sound pro-gun arguments, I have to draw the line with this statement. Bearing arms is not even in the same league as freedom of speech or religion. Since I have the freedom of speech, I can say (within reason) anything I want to say about our government. Since I have freedom of religion, I can practice something I want to in my own home, or organize a gathering of like-minded individuals. Since I have the right to bear arms I now have the ability to kill someone? That seems to be overstepping a few bounds there. Laws that are 230 years old NEED to be amended. We don't live under the same circumstances we did when the Constitution was written. The Constitution was written by rich, white land and slave owners who cared about nothing but personal gain, you can see it in the original bill of rights. So when you say amending the Constitution is unacceptable, you're saying the right for women to vote or say, banning slavery is unacceptable too, right? Give it 30 years and I can 99% guarantee you that the generation of pro-war, pro-gun, and anti-progression will be all dead and we'll finally get some laws that fit a modern society.

[jackattack]

How can you say they cared about nothing but personal gain? At the constitutional convention several of the delegates went bankrupt from being away from home. Do any of our politicians today show that kind of dedication? Just because it's 230 years old doesn't make it any less valuable. They made a document that could stand the test of time.

[Range_This11]

How can you say they cared about nothing but personal gain? At the constitutional convention several of the delegates went bankrupt from being away from home. Do any of our politicians today show that kind of dedication? Just because it's 230 years old doesn't make it any less valuable. They made a document that could stand the test of time.

 

Did you not read anything I said? White male slave and land owners created this constitution. Notice how they left out any rights to people that could challenge them: Slaves and women. They made it so they could stay in power, and they did for over 90 years until a CIVIL WAR had to occur to stop the atrocities of slavery. Hell, women didn't even get the right to vote until the 1900s. Take off your blinders and look at the facts for once. Our founding fathers gave us a lot of good things, but their motives were not always as they seem.

[jackattack]

Did you get that from watching the simpsons episode where marge goes to college?

[Range_This11]

Did you get that from watching the simpsons episode where marge goes to college?

 

I don't watch The Simpsons, but from what I've heard, it actually has some pretty good social commentary. I read books; things that educate me that were written by people who use critical thinking and logic as virtues. Reading a book is something that you might want to try doing sometime.

[jackattack]

Sure you don't. ;)

[jackattack]

Our founding fathers gave us a lot of good things, but their motives were not always as they seem.

 

 

 

What was George Washington's motive when he decided not to become a king?

[Range_This11]

 

What was George Washington's motive when he decided not to become a king?

 

Yeah, considering he was elected by the Electoral College :roll:

[jackattack]

Whats wrong with the electoral college?

[Giordano]

Whats wrong with the electoral college?

 

Its the worse subsitute for democracy there would ever be. Its crap man! *plugs nose*

 

 

 

Canidate A can have 5000 less votes than Canidate B and still win. Wheres the democracy in that? If you really wanted to make it fair, do one man one vote.

[zdavenz]

Whats wrong with the electoral college?

 

Its the worse subsitute for democracy there would ever be. Its crap man! *plugs nose*

 

 

 

Canidate A can have 5000 less votes than Canidate B and still win. Wheres the democracy in that? If you really wanted to make it fair, do one man one vote.

 

=D> NIck 6464 for Pres. =D>

 

 

 

(no sarcasm)

 

 

 

jk im no suckup

[jackattack]

Whats wrong with the electoral college?

 

Its the worse subsitute for democracy there would ever be. Its crap man! *plugs nose*

 

 

 

Canidate A can have 5000 less votes than Canidate B and still win. Wheres the democracy in that? If you really wanted to make it fair, do one man one vote.

 

 

 

 

 

I meant in regards to George Washington.

 

 

 

And about the electoral college I wouldn't call it crap. There are some things wrong with it like how in some states are just gimmies and peoples votes don't even matter. It does give states a say in voting. I think that because America is a union of states that the state of South Dakota should have more of a say than the city of Oakland. I'm not in love with it but it's not too bad.

[mmmcannibalism]

the electoral college thing is very flawed, though I would say George Washington was a good choice.

 

 

 

on the issue of gun control

 

 

 

I would rather be secure knowing that i can deal with any threat be it gun blade or rock then hope the cops will show up before im dead.

 

 

 

--If you dont stand up for yourself noone will stand up for you--

 

 

 

--If God didnt create all men equal Samuel Colt did--

[Orpheus]

i also think a person who can make a sentece without swearing is cool, but that is not how i am. i swear because people thinks i'm dumb when i do so. so i let them think i'm dump and then kick there behinds with valid points and semi good grammar :D like on this other tread i called some a [developmentally delayed] talking like an 8(z0mg j4g3x i5 in asia n0t usa) so i called him a [developmentally delayed] 8 year old who compared to a monkey on typewrite still seems to be more dumb. he then talked about how clever he was and how stupid i was. but i kicked his little behind with my valid points and grammar.

 

 

 

PLEASE, tell me that was a joke? That was probably the worst "grammatically correct" paragraph in the world.

 

 

 

Again i will say this, guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun is not what makes these numbers so high. Its the amount of crazy people living in this country.

 

 

 

The US has about 4 times the population the UK does. So given that, murder numbers are going to be higher. Makes sense. If you take guns away, it will be just like prohibition. People will want guns even more, and find ways to get guns. So another what if scenario....what if a guy in the UK gets a hold of a gun, are the everyday local municipal police going to run up and beat them with their little sticks? I feel much safer with guns legalized personally. Knowing that i can protect myself at any given time, and that the police can protect me where ever i am.

 

 

 

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

 

 

 

Uh, don't insult him based on his grammar. It's perfectly fine considering where he lives. You present valid points, but how will a pea shooter like a pistol stop a skilled assassin with a rifle?

[Kriegsmier]

i also think a person who can make a sentece without swearing is cool, but that is not how i am. i swear because people thinks i'm dumb when i do so. so i let them think i'm dump and then kick there behinds with valid points and semi good grammar :D like on this other tread i called some a [developmentally delayed] talking like an 8(z0mg j4g3x i5 in asia n0t usa) so i called him a [developmentally delayed] 8 year old who compared to a monkey on typewrite still seems to be more dumb. he then talked about how clever he was and how stupid i was. but i kicked his little behind with my valid points and grammar.

 

 

 

PLEASE, tell me that was a joke? That was probably the worst "grammatically correct" paragraph in the world.

 

 

 

Again i will say this, guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun is not what makes these numbers so high. Its the amount of crazy people living in this country.

 

 

 

The US has about 4 times the population the UK does. So given that, murder numbers are going to be higher. Makes sense. If you take guns away, it will be just like prohibition. People will want guns even more, and find ways to get guns. So another what if scenario....what if a guy in the UK gets a hold of a gun, are the everyday local municipal police going to run up and beat them with their little sticks? I feel much safer with guns legalized personally. Knowing that i can protect myself at any given time, and that the police can protect me where ever i am.

 

 

 

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

 

 

 

Uh, don't insult him based on his grammar. It's perfectly fine considering where he lives. You present valid points, but how will a pea shooter like a pistol stop a skilled assassin with a rifle?

 

 

 

If he brags about it being so good, i have the right to criticize it when its not, regardless of where he lives. He made the argument in English.

 

 

 

How many true "assassins" are out there? Only cops in places like New York carry so called pea shooters.....aka 9mm. Guns are not only used for that very instance. They are also used as a deterrent. Same concept of police having tazers and putting out all the videos of people being tazed. After seeing that are you going to jump in line for it? I seriously doubt it, hurts like a [bleep] btw....first hand knowledge. Are you going to actively go rob someone carrying a gun on their person? It'd be much more appealing to rob the guy not carrying...so in essence the gun is a deterrent.

[x1992x]

 

PLEASE, tell me that was a joke? That was probably the worst "grammatically correct" paragraph in the world.

 

 

 

Again i will say this, guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun is not what makes these numbers so high. Its the amount of crazy people living in this country.

 

 

 

The US has about 4 times the population the UK does. So given that, murder numbers are going to be higher. Makes sense. If you take guns away, it will be just like prohibition. People will want guns even more, and find ways to get guns. So another what if scenario....what if a guy in the UK gets a hold of a gun, are the everyday local municipal police going to run up and beat them with their little sticks? I feel much safer with guns legalized personally. Knowing that i can protect myself at any given time, and that the police can protect me where ever i am.

 

 

 

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

 

 

 

Uh, don't insult him based on his grammar. It's perfectly fine considering where he lives. You present valid points, but how will a pea shooter like a pistol stop a skilled assassin with a rifle?

 

 

 

If he brags about it being so good, i have the right to criticize it when its not, regardless of where he lives. He made the argument in English.

 

 

 

How many true "assassins" are out there? Only cops in places like New York carry so called pea shooters.....aka 9mm. Guns are not only used for that very instance. They are also used as a deterrent. Same concept of police having tazers and putting out all the videos of people being tazed. After seeing that are you going to jump in line for it? I seriously doubt it, hurts like a [bleep] btw....first hand knowledge. Are you going to actively go rob someone carrying a gun on their person? It'd be much more appealing to rob the guy not carrying...so in essence the gun is a deterrent.

 

 

 

Mit engelsk er ikke det bedste. så nu snakker jeg dansk. Det er meget bedre. men når det er sådan du vil have det, så får du det sådan. glad nu. Jeg har ikke det bedste engelsk og dette er et forum så jeg høvs ikke at værre på toppen konstant.

 

Og nej jeg oversætter ikke, det kan i fandme selv gøre -.-

[zdavenz]

Mit engelsk er ikke det bedste. så nu snakker jeg dansk. Det er meget bedre. men når det er sådan du vil have det, så får du det sådan. glad nu. Jeg har ikke det bedste engelsk og dette er et forum så jeg høvs ikke at værre på toppen konstant.

 

Og nej jeg oversætter ikke, det kan i fandme selv gøre -.-

 

Translate?

[x1992x]

Mit engelsk er ikke det bedste. så nu snakker jeg dansk. Det er meget bedre. men når det er sådan du vil have det, så får du det sådan. glad nu. Jeg har ikke det bedste engelsk og dette er et forum så jeg høvs ikke at værre på toppen konstant.

 

Og nej jeg oversætter ikke, det kan i fandme selv gøre -.-

 

Translate?

 

 

 

he wonted a PERFECT sentece, i made him a [bleep]ing perfect one. he can translate that himself -.-

 

 

 

ps. there is no insult in that -.-

[Flodder450]

On the G W part:Get over it,it was more that 200 years ago,the need of wearons has been decreased,then in the days,it was needed to shot wild animals foor food and a living,nowadays

 

They shoot eachoter to pieces if the one dont likes the other :wall:

[Schedl]

Amending the bill of rights is unacceptable. Like the other rights listed there, the right to bear arms is a basic human right, on the same level as the right to free speech or religion. Getting rid of any of those rights for the general populace is a movement from a fair democracy to a police state.

 

 

 

So you're trying to tell that states which have anti-gun laws like England, Denmark or Germany are not democracies but police states?

[x1992x]

Amending the bill of rights is unacceptable. Like the other rights listed there, the right to bear arms is a basic human right, on the same level as the right to free speech or religion. Getting rid of any of those rights for the general populace is a movement from a fair democracy to a police state.

 

 

 

So you're trying to tell that states which have anti-gun laws like England, Denmark or Germany are not democracies but police states?

 

 

 

lol. i just know you're going to get flamed in 1 minute :ohnoes: lol Denmark as a police state :lol: we have the most childish form of democracy(if you don't like we have a revote :P )

[mmmcannibalism]

On the G W part:Get over it,it was more that 200 years ago,the need of wearons has been decreased,then in the days,it was needed to shot wild animals foor food and a living,nowadays

 

They shoot eachoter to pieces if the one dont likes the other :wall:

 

 

 

if no citizens had guns what is to stop the government from sending in the army and saying no more voting. Look at countries like north Korea, do you think it would be a dictatorship if the citizens could fight the army?

 

 

 

The second amendmant in America was put in place to prevent the government from using the army on civilians

[Laura]

You can't just "ban" guns. If our government just came out plainly and said "No more guns.",it would be like a temperance movement. Riots against the government, bootlegging, etc. Only criminals would then have guns, and law abiding citizens would have no means of protection. While I can't justify carrying a handgun in everyday situations, you cannot justify a complete ban on guns. Certain guns should be banned, yes. We wouldn't want every average joe carrying around a flamethrower, eh? That being said, I have 5 guns in my household. With one in every major room in the place. And when I move out here soon, I will sure do the same thing, to protect my family if the time should arise.

[Ginger_Warrior]

if no citizens had guns what is to stop the government from sending in the army and saying no more voting. Look at countries like north Korea, do you think it would be a dictatorship if the citizens could fight the army?

 

That's funny. I voted in our May Local Elections and there was no army standing outside. Ironically enough, the anti-war candidate won too.