Jump to content

Gun Control


dangeresque

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 383
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's amazing how some people forget material possessions can be recovered, a human life can't. You *will* go to prison in almost all cases if you kill a robber in a western country.

 

 

 

Tis true, god the justice system is so [developmentally delayed] in some ways, but I would go to jail if I was trying to save my spouse or child tbh.

 

 

 

Didn't mean it like that... The point is you can always work to get more money. In many cases, a robber is dumb & gets caught and you get the property back & possibly even damages paid for by the criminal. However, you can *never* recover a human life if you choose to kill someone.

 

 

 

That's why it's "excessive" use of force. An LCD television is not worth more than a human life, no matter if he's trying to take it by force from you. Of course I would shoot a robber if he was trying to harm my kids (if I had any) or my friends, and go to jail for that... But not over material possessions.

 

 

 

There is a reason why even banks instruct the tellers to comply with robber's demands instead of trying to play hero. First of all, the money is federally insured. Second of all, it's just paper. Even if the robber gets away with $200k in cash, at least the customers and clerks stayed alive. There are tracking devices, dye packs, satellites that can trace amateur robbers and sometimes the entire loot can be recovered & the robber put behind bars for a decade or more.

 

 

 

I think it's a case of distorted values if a single item is placed as more valuable than a life. This kind of thinking just doesn't exist widely in any other western nation than the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ok, so there are well organized gov't agencies to protect you, such as Police, etc. That's all fine and dandy, the US has a fine law enforcement agency, but when an intruder walks in threatening your family, what are you gonna do? go get a bowling ball, chuck it at him and hope for the best? No, you should be able to go snatch your 9mm real quick and eliminate the problem, unless you want to talk it out, but what fun is that? :P (joke btw)

 

 

 

And to whoever was inferring that Americans solve everything through guns obviously didn't think of the Civil Rights movement, "this may come as a surprise". There are plenty of peaceful protests every day in America.

 

 

 

During the civil right movements if the Black protesters would even try to do it through violence whether it would've been mere fist fighting to full on gun battles, as soon as they were caught they would be beaten, locked up and knowing the time possibly even executed through death penalty.

 

 

 

It would've been illogical for them to fight back through violence as it wouldn't help their cause at all.

 

 

 

When you say eliminate the threat what do you mean? If you mean intending on actually killing the intruder that is pretty worrying, shows how little a life is valued at. I assume you mean you'd incapacitate him such as a shot to the leg and arm if necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I would shoot a robber if he was trying to harm my kids (if I had any) or my friends, and go to jail for that...

 

 

 

You wouldn't go to jail for that, at least, not in the UK. In fact, I think it would be perfectly possible to kill a robber just because he is on your land in the right circumstances and not go to prison at all. It all depends on the situation, and almost all of the cases of "man shoots robber, man goes to jail" have extra details the press conveniently ignores (read: Tony Martin).

 

 

 

On topic - guns...are an incredibly complex issue. I for one greatly enjoying clay pigeon shooting - a 12 bore shotgun is my shooter of choice, so I can see the argument for allowing guns for sport - its an incredibly enjoyable thing to do and highly rewarding when you shatter a clay at 400m in the fog (I exaggerate :lol:). On the flip side, I see no reason for a general member of the public to own a gun simply to keep in his wardrobe in case a robber should appear; not when the downsides (read: massive numbers of weapons circulating, often unchecked) are so obvious.

 

 

 

I think the UK's stance works well - we do not ban all guns, but we make them as hard as possible to get hold of without a good reason - criminal record checks, massive amounts of information and more are needed for a UK gun licence. The basis of banning handguns is also clear - they are the most easily concealable guns (even if my shotgun was sawn and the stock changed, which would make it nigh unshootable, there is still no way to conceal it) and thus the most likely to be involved in crime.

 

 

 

Also, correlational data sucks guys - showing countries without/with guns having higher/lower crime rates is pointless - you all know very well that hundreds of variables make up crime rates, don't be silly :lol: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing how some people forget material possessions can be recovered, a human life can't. You *will* go to prison in almost all cases if you kill a robber in a western country.

 

 

 

Tis true, god the justice system is so [developmentally delayed] in some ways, but I would go to jail if I was trying to save my spouse or child tbh.

 

 

 

Didn't mean it like that... The point is you can always work to get more money. In many cases, a robber is dumb & gets caught and you get the property back & possibly even damages paid for by the criminal. However, you can *never* recover a human life if you choose to kill someone.

 

 

 

That's why it's "excessive" use of force. An LCD television is not worth more than a human life, no matter if he's trying to take it by force from you. Of course I would shoot a robber if he was trying to harm my kids (if I had any) or my friends, and go to jail for that... But not over material possessions.

 

 

 

There is a reason why even banks instruct the tellers to comply with robber's demands instead of trying to play hero. First of all, the money is federally insured. Second of all, it's just paper. Even if the robber gets away with $200k in cash, at least the customers and clerks stayed alive. There are tracking devices, dye packs, satellites that can trace amateur robbers and sometimes the entire loot can be recovered & the robber put behind bars for a decade or more.

 

 

 

I think it's a case of distorted values if a single item is placed as more valuable than a life. This kind of thinking just doesn't exist widely in any other western nation than the US.

 

Yes of course I wouldn't shoot him if he was stealing something, that would be pointless.

 

 

 

During the civil right movements if the Black protesters would even try to do it through violence whether it would've been mere fist fighting to full on gun battles, as soon as they were caught they would be beaten, locked up and knowing the time possibly even executed through death penalty.

 

 

 

It would've been illogical for them to fight back through violence as it wouldn't help their cause at all.

 

Ever heard of the Black Panthers? They were a group dedicated to the overthrow of the government through use of force. OBviously it wouldn't of succeeded, and didn't for that matter, just thought I'd through that out there.

 

 

 

My point is, of course it would've been illogical to use violence, but that's not why they didn't use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about this, they once tried to ban alcohol from America, and golly, when they did ban it, there were THREE times as much illegal bars, as there were legal ones before :-#

 

Wouldn't this be the same with guns? (I live in holland (guns aren't allowed unless you are like a police agent or have other special duties) so I wouldn't know, but all I know it's easy enough to get a gun here illegally)

Headshotcatcher.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about this, they once tried to ban alcohol from America, and golly, when they did ban it, there were THREE times as much illegal bars, as there were legal ones before :-#

 

Wouldn't this be the same with guns? (I live in holland (guns aren't allowed unless you are like a police agent or have other special duties) so I wouldn't know, but all I know it's easy enough to get a gun here illegally)

 

A lot of those who advocate for gun control aren't suggesting outright prohibition. Immediate prohibition can have severe consequences and does not seem to deter demand/production. Gun culture needs to change before the laws do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lolamerica.png

 

[bleep] YEAH AMERICA!

 

 

 

YOU WANNA STOP CRIME? SOME NUTTER BREAKING INTO YOUR HOUSE? YOU WANNA DEFEND ALL YOUR JUNK, RIGHT? WANNA GET IN THE FACES OF THOSE ANTI AMERICAN TERRORISTS? THEY GETTING ALL UP IN YOUR [cabbage]? TRIED DECLARING WAR ON THEM? YOU HAVE? IT DIDNT WORK? GODDAMN. GET SOME SCOTTISH CABBIES, THEYLL SHOW 'EM WHATS WHAT.

 

lolterrorists.jpg

knkcopy.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lolamerica.png

 

 

 

 

Some people just refuse to acknowledge those figures. Massive proliferation of guns DOES lead to instability and violence, not protection.

 

 

 

It's hard to even start imagining how many of those murder victims would be still alive if there was stricter control of *especially* handguns. In the US, only a minority of murders happen with other tools like knives or bats.

 

 

 

You can't even assume the figures are just because the US has 300 million people. Any person capable of doing basic math can calculate that for example, the UK having less than 100 murders per year, and the US having over 11,000, just doesn't add up. And the UK has banned all types of handguns from civilian ownership.

 

 

 

How often are 'legitimate' weapons like hunting rifles used in murders? Stats speak for themselves:

 

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses ... urder.html

 

 

 

Of those incidents in which the murder weapon was specified, 70.3 percent of the homicides that occurred in 2004 were committed with firearms. Of those, 77.9 percent involved handguns, 5.4 percent involved shotguns, and 4.2 percent involved rifles.

 

 

 

Easily concealable firearms are a problem. Unlike shotguns and hunting rifles, they have been *designed* to kill humans.

 

 

 

The USA has only 5% of the world's population, but it has 30% of all the firearms in existence [1]. The US also has more murders than any other country in the world, including China & India put together (which have over 2.3 billion people). It really doesn't take a scientist to put two and two together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a little quote from Wikipedia.

 

 

 

Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.

 

 

 

I ask you all to read the above quote and please take heed.

 

 

 

Yes, guns in the wrong hands do bad things, but guns in the hands of the morally upright serve only to keep them safe in an increasingly dangerous world.

 

 

 

The 2nd amendment was brought about in the United States to ensure the public was protected from GOVERNMENT. This is massively overlooked in recent times and I believe it is something that will once again come to the fore very soon. It has been a regular occurrence throughout history for democratic, free governments to become corrupt and distanced from those without power and wealth. Googling the similarities between the United States and Rome is something I urge everyone to do.

 

 

 

I know the thought of having to protect yourself from Government is alien, but ask yourself why this is when history has proven again and again that if there's one group of people you can't trust, it's governments. An unarmed population is completely at the mercy of the ruling powers. Our freedoms are being erroded from every side with "anti-terror" legislation, in England it is frowned upon in many areas of London if you take pictures in public. Yes that's right, in Central London you're not allowed to take pictures. This isn't just happening in communist China anymore.

 

 

 

I grew up in an area that would be considered a "slum" area - in my borough last month there were 4 shootings, one of which was fatal. In case some of you aren't aware, England has many anti gun laws and we're not able to legally own weapons in the same way that Americans are. I find myself in a situation where it is likely at some point I will be accosted by someone with a gun who obviously doesn't care that it's not legal to own a weapon and brandish it at people. What position am I now in to defend myself? I'm not. Outlawing guns only takes them out of the hands of those who need them most to protect themselves - the law abiding citizen. All of those guys you should be worried about have their guns tucked under their belts because they don't give a [cabbage].

 

 

 

So in short, weapons are needed as one has the right under common law to defend themselves whether the assailant be foreign or domestic. If your enemies have guns, what do you want?

i_j00_m0m.png

The stars are matter, we're matter, but it doesn't matter.

-Don Van Vliet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I would like to add...

 

 

 

 

 

If "defense" is the reason given for the proliferation of Nuclear arms throughout the world, why is this same principle not applied to guns? If Nuclear armament is a requisite of safety in a nuclear age, why should guns be illegal when they are the weapon of choice for those that would take life and commit crime?

i_j00_m0m.png

The stars are matter, we're matter, but it doesn't matter.

-Don Van Vliet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a little quote from Wikipedia.

 

 

 

Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.

 

 

 

I ask you all to read the above quote and please take heed.

 

 

 

Yes, guns in the wrong hands do bad things, but guns in the hands of the morally upright serve only to keep them safe in an increasingly dangerous world.

 

 

 

The 2nd amendment was brought about in the United States to ensure the public was protected from GOVERNMENT. This is massively overlooked in recent times and I believe it is something that will once again come to the fore very soon. It has been a regular occurrence throughout history for democratic, free governments to become corrupt and distanced from those without power and wealth. Googling the similarities between the United States and Rome is something I urge everyone to do.

 

 

 

Be realistic, if a western government such as the US was *really* to perform a military coup, what is a .22 pistol going to do against tanks, fighter jets and soldiers with body armor & automatic assault rifles making sure you continue paying taxes? Are you going to fire rounds at them with your neighbours, or throw rocks at the tanks like the palestinians?

 

 

 

Firearms are completely different to daggers and swords used in Rome. A mob of hundreds of people armed with concealable daggers could do little damage at worst, other than making people run away and hide in their homes. They would've never been able to overwhelm the praetorian guard in Rome.

 

 

 

A group of 10 child soldiers in Congo armed with firearms can massacre an entire village of 1000 people within half an hour. There is no other portable, concealable weapon that is designed to kill human beings quickly than a handgun or a foldable automatic assault rifle. Governments in Africa have been overthrown since the 1970's by groups of a few hundred men and kids, by the use of firearms.

 

 

 

It has been a regular occurrence throughout history for democratic, free governments to become corrupt and distanced from those without power and wealth

 

 

 

There hasn't been a single military coup in industrialized western nations since the second world war, discounting the short-lived Greek military junta in the late 60's and the threatened coup by a French general in the 50's. Of the hundreds of coups that have happened, almost every single one of them occurred in unstable poor countries, not democratic free nations.

 

 

 

The "government turning against it's people" is a fantasy, utopia in Europe or the US propagated likely by the NRA and other pro-gun parties. It just doesn't happen in real free, uncorrupt democracies.

 

 

 

So in short, weapons are needed as one has the right under common law to defend themselves whether the assailant be foreign or domestic. If your enemies have guns, what do you want?

 

 

 

If you get robbed on the street by 2 or more muggers with handguns by surprise, you wont have the time to draw a firearm and kill them all. Even if you somehow do, you don't get an automatic pardon by self-defence. You'll get locked up for a long time regardless of being robbed. Think if that's worth a phone and a wallet with $40 dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hide=large pictures]

lolamerica.png

 

 

 

 

bradycampeigntopreventcpb5.jpg

 

 

 

brady2tj1.jpg[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

Statistics that everyone seems to ignore.

 

 

 

And the UK has banned all types of handguns from civilian ownership.

 

Not only has the UK banned guns, but they have banned toys that look like guns, toy swords, beer glasses, fire extinguishers, and are considering banning pointy kitchen knives. Why? Because despite banning more and more different objects, the violent crime rate in the UK continues to increase.

 

 

 

 

 

The basis of banning handguns is also clear - they are the most easily concealable guns

 

 

 

What is the point in banning law abiding citizens from buying handguns when, even with the bans in place, criminals can still easily buy, make or steal one? As this website shows, building a gun is incredibly easy - with access to basic hand tools and the local hardware store, you can build a sub machine gun in a few days. If you are too lazy to build one, I have not been to a single major city (including plenty in "gun free" parts of Europe) where it is impossible to easily illegally buy a handgun. Effective weapons in general are so simple that it is literally impossible to rid an entire country of them.

 

 

 

A group of 10 child soldiers in Congo armed with firearms can massacre an entire village of 1000 people within half an hour.

 

 

 

A group of armed soldiers fighting an unarmed village - exactly a situation that an armed populace prevents. This is an interesting (albiet long) quote that explains this:

 

 

 

The Gun is Civilization

 

 

 

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or make me do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

 

 

 

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

 

 

 

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

 

 

 

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

 

 

 

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

 

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

 

 

 

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

 

 

 

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

 

 

 

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

 

 

 

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is not reason that an ordinary citizen should own any king of automatic or semi-automatic firearm.

 

 

 

People who refer to their firearms as "weapons" (apart from law enforcement and military) are not psychologically fit to own a firearm, it is this mentality that leads to allot of the violence in America.

~Dan64Au

Since 27 Aug 2002

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is not reason that an ordinary citizen should own any king of automatic or semi-automatic firearm.

 

 

 

People who refer to their firearms as "weapons" (apart from law enforcement and military) are not psychologically fit to own a firearm, it is this mentality that leads to allot of the violence in America.

 

That's ridiculous logic. The main purpose of guns, whether we like it or not, is to kill something. Be it a deer, a turkey, or, unfortunately, a person. That makes it a weapon.

flobotst.jpg

Hegemony-Spain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the UK has banned all types of handguns from civilian ownership.

 

Not only has the UK banned guns, but they have banned toys that look like guns, toy swords, beer glasses, fire extinguishers, and are considering banning pointy kitchen knives. Why? Because despite banning more and more different objects, the violent crime rate in the UK continues to increase.

 

Oh get off. When I go on a caravan holiday, there's a fire extinguisher. When I go to the pub, it's usually in a glass. I can buy toy plastic swords at a theme park no problems. I can buy kitchen knives from any domestics store.

 

 

 

It's not half as authoritarian here as you make out. Can the pro-gun lobby actually come up with a decent argument against the UK's stance except from grasping straws?

 

 

 

Coming up with an image that says people still die from guns here, when the stat is only 73:11344 is a plainly ridiculous argument too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hide=cars]bradycampeigntopreventcpb5.jpg[/hide]

 

More people = more cars = higher likelyhood of incidents

 

Might as well say that america has murdered more cows for food than any other nation.

 

 

 

[hide=guns]brady2tj1.jpg[/hide]

 

What defines 'violent crime'? And was it worth sacrificing those 11k for however many could have been killed by those 'law abiding citizens'? Im sure those other people legally owned their guns.

 

Want to defend yourself? Learn a martial art, get a security system or remember that the best victory is the fight not fought. Or maybe you could get a similiar system to what we have over here, we call it the police.

knkcopy.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hide=cars]bradycampeigntopreventcpb5.jpg[/hide]

 

More people = more cars = higher likelyhood of incidents

 

Might as well say that america has murdered more cows for food than any other nation.

 

 

 

[hide=guns]brady2tj1.jpg[/hide]

 

What defines 'violent crime'? And was it worth sacrificing those 11k for however many could have been killed by those 'law abiding citizens'? Im sure those other people legally owned their guns.

 

Want to defend yourself? Learn a martial art, get a security system or remember that the best victory is the fight not fought. Or maybe you could get a similiar system to what we have over here, we call it the police.

 

 

 

 

 

Alright, seeing as to how I'm already here, I'll answer these.

 

 

 

1) a violent crime is a crime where something is done through force, be it from a fist, a baseball bat, or a rocket launcher. Anything that would involve hurting another person physically who didn't agree to it is a violent crime.

 

 

 

2) Those 11,344 people killed have a 95% chance of it being by an illegally obtained gun, and also likely because they either didn't have one, were caught by suprise, or done something stupid with their firearm.

 

 

 

3) Martial arts are only good when the person is within arm's reach. It is very easy for someone to blow you away from 2m off, take your stuff, and run like Hell. Unless if you have some means of fighting from a distance which you can get ready quickly, you're screwed.

 

 

 

4) Security systems only work when you're in a place with electricity, willing to shell out 100$+ a month, and are dealing with a very stupid crook. Aside from bells and whistles, the actual security is a couple minutes away. In that time, they could kill you, load everything not bolted down into a van, and take one of your children or a girlfriend along for a little "happy time" later.

 

 

 

5) We do have police. We are also realistic. In order for the cops to react to an armed criminal, they must be aware of the armed criminal. Chances are that by the time that YOU'RE aware of him/her, you will be unable to notify the police. Even if you could, they're not a heartbeat away. It's a similar problem to the situation above, only you don't have the added benefit of someone whose capable of reacting calmly to tell the cops your location. This can buy the armed criminal more than enough time to do whatever they want.

 

 

 

Any more complaints?

You never know which rabbit hole you jump into will lead to Wonderland. - Ember3579

Aku Soku Zan. - Shinsengumi

You wanna mess with me or my friends? Pick your poison.

If you have any complaints about me, please refer to this link. Your problems are important to me.

Don't talk smack if you're not willing to say it to the person's face. On the same line, if you're not willing to back up your opinions no matter what, your opinion may as well be nonexistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that time, they could kill you, load everything not bolted down into a van, and take one of your children or a girlfriend along for a little "happy time" later.

 

So much for America being a country which doesn't bow down to fear. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) a violent crime is a crime where something is done through force, be it from a fist, a baseball bat, or a rocket launcher. Anything that would involve hurting another person physically who didn't agree to it is a violent crime.

 

 

 

Oh, so 2 wrongs make a right now? You hit me with that bat and ill shoot a cap into you? Sounds about right.

 

 

 

2) Those 11,344 people killed have a 95% chance of it being by an illegally obtained gun, and also likely because they either didn't have one, were caught by suprise, or done something stupid with their firearm.

 

 

 

95%? Thats awfully specific. Any evidence/proof towards that? And the pictures say 'MURDER' so id assume they'd disregard anyone stupid enough to look down the barrel while cleaning it or something.

 

 

 

3) Martial arts are only good when the person is within arm's reach. It is very easy for someone to blow you away from 2m off, take your stuff, and run like Hell. Unless if you have some means of fighting from a distance which you can get ready quickly, you're screwed.

 

 

 

As long as you have something of weight/size, itd be fairly easy to throw something at them to disturb them and rush them/run. Of course, this will vary depending on environment and probably what kind of person you are. But I doubt everyone who uses a gun in this way plans to use it, all it does is generate a loud noise screaming HEY, LOOK! A CRIME! and dig themselves a deeper hole. Fear mongering is all they want. But if neither of you have guns, itd be harder to generate this fear.

 

 

 

4) Security systems only work when you're in a place with electricity, willing to shell out 100$+ a month, and are dealing with a very stupid crook. Aside from bells and whistles, the actual security is a couple minutes away. In that time, they could kill you, load everything not bolted down into a van, and take one of your children or a girlfriend along for a little "happy time" later.

 

 

 

100$ to protect your family, home and all its contents? Sounds a bargain to me. Besides, these 'stupid crooks' are liable to be the ones doing these sorts of crimes and therefore liable to trigger them. These alarms will alert the authorities, yes, but also you who is inside the house and probably many others around. Ever heard of neighbourhood watch? And as before, if they do kill you they are going to make a lot of noise only to add to your alarm and general disturbance. Since the alarm should have triggered the moment they begin, theyd have to move very, very fast to load anything, let alone everything, into a van. Would you honestly think "OH MY GOD THERES A BURGLAR! QUICK, EVERYONE RUSH DOWN AND TRY NOT TO GET KIDNAPPED"? No, youd say "Ok, theres a burglar downstairs, stay up here and safe." Most burglars would probably be disturbed by anyone rushing down and would likely scarper anyway. And 'when you're in a place with electricity'? Thats a pretty poor excuse to pull out now. Ive heard america was quite up-to-date but apparently I was wrong. And dont bring the armish into this, I dont think anyone would be foolish enough to burgle their house.

 

 

 

5) We do have police. We are also realistic. In order for the cops to react to an armed criminal, they must be aware of the armed criminal. Chances are that by the time that YOU'RE aware of him/her, you will be unable to notify the police. Even if you could, they're not a heartbeat away. It's a similar problem to the situation above, only you don't have the added benefit of someone whose capable of reacting calmly to tell the cops your location. This can buy the armed criminal more than enough time to do whatever they want.

 

 

 

If it is a house robbery and you have a security system, im sure theyll be there as soon as they can, but if you were to be attacked randomly outside, yes, there will be a delay. But its like that everywhere. If they use a gun all theyve done is added an extra offence to their list AND alerted anyone in the vicinity. If you used your gun on you on them, they could just as easily turn the tables and claim YOU injured them.

 

 

 

Any more complaints?

 

 

 

Guns dont kill people. People with guns kill people. AMIRITE

knkcopy.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2) Those 11,344 people killed have a 95% chance of it being by an illegally obtained gun, and also likely because they either didn't have one, were caught by suprise, or done something stupid with their firearm.

 

 

 

4) Security systems only work when you're in a place with electricity, willing to shell out 100$+ a month, and are dealing with a very stupid crook. Aside from bells and whistles, the actual security is a couple minutes away. In that time, they could kill you, load everything not bolted down into a van, and take one of your children or a girlfriend along for a little "happy time" later.

 

 

 

Any more complaints?

 

 

 

Yes, I have some.

 

 

 

2) Did you pull that statistic out of your backside? If not, I'd like to see a source and when you can't find one don't give me the "it's common sense" routine that everyone gives when they make baseless assertions. I don't get this belief that all criminals have illegal weapons, it isn't like they're getting them smuggled from Mexico - in fact Mexican cartels have to smuggle guns from USA. Criminals, despite the myth, actually tend to get guns via family or friends;

 

Firearmsources.svg[/hide]

 

Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ffo98.pdf

 

 

 

4) As far as I'm aware pretty most homes have electricity, definitely those who can afford to buy a gun. Secondly, most bunglers don't want to kill people and anybody who is willing to risk death in a gun fight over their TV and DVD player is a moron to begin with. The last sentence doesn't even deserve comment, it's just symptomatic of the climate of fear that is destroying America.

wild_bunch.gif

He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,

and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.

- Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that time, they could kill you, load everything not bolted down into a van, and take one of your children or a girlfriend along for a little "happy time" later.

 

So much for America being a country which doesn't bow down to fear. :roll:

 

 

 

America is quite possibly one of the most frightened nations of earth. A bomb goes off in a London Subway and they [cabbage] themselves, mean while the subway has reopened for business while Americans are still huddled in fear half a world away.

~Dan64Au

Since 27 Aug 2002

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just noticed the image with the 2004 statistics.

 

 

 

Australia has 20,000,000 population while the US has 300,000,000.

 

If Australia had the same population level as the US then we would have 840 deaths up from 56.

 

 

 

That really puts things in perspective.

~Dan64Au

Since 27 Aug 2002

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go ahead and ban guns, I still won't give my guns to the government. None are registered and none will ever be registered. The guns that are in my household are guns that have been passed down by my family and hold great sentimental value. You can pry them from my cold, dead fingers.

 

 

 

In the area of the country I live in (middle of nowhere Missouri) guns are a family activity. Hunting is VERY popular and I can guarantee that 99% of the people I know own some type of gun. And guess what, the cops aren't everywhere. When someone breaks into your house or threatens you, you can't say "hold on, ima call 911!!"...

 

 

 

And banning guns wouldn't stop anything, criminals would still be able to get them. The whole idea of disarming the public baffles me, seeing as how you're just taking a means of self protection away while NOT removing the threat. Guns are just a means to an end, without them we would still be swinging clubs at each others heads #-o .

 

 

 

 

 

~ The rants of a gun slinging country boy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.