Gun Control

[Solaris]

Actually statistically you're quite likely to survive getting shot, and a knife is more than capable of killing someone. I still doesn't matter, if either are used by someone with sufficient intent to cause harm to another person or kill them, that's what is going happen.

Would you rather an opportunistic burglar broke into your house with a gun or a knife?
Would you rather a crazed maniac had a gun or a knife?
Would you rather a mugger had a gun or a knife?
Would you rather the chavs on the street corner had guns or knives?
Would you rather your kids play with a gun or a knife?

 

[Mr Stabby]

Would you rather an opportunistic burglar broke into your house with a gun or a knife?

I see little difference in the 2 options, I'd much rather I was allowed a gun to shoot them.

Would you rather a crazed maniac had a gun or a knife?

Who said crazy people should be allowed guns or knives.

Would you rather a mugger had a gun or a knife?

At what range does a mugging happen?

Would you rather the chavs on the street corner had guns or knives?

The majority of Chavs are under 18 and harmless, if regulated I don't see much chance for them to get a gun, guns are quite expensive.

Would you rather your kids play with a gun or a knife?

They should never play with either

 

[Solaris]

I see little difference in the 2 options, I'd much rather I was allowed a gun to shoot them.

You'd be more likely to shoot a member of your own family.

Who said crazy people should be allowed guns or knives.

They will get hold of them if it is possible. By making guns legal it makes it a lot easier for them to kill alot more people.

At what range does a mugging happen?

It doesn't matter, haven't you seen the batman film. Where the mugger panics and shoots him.

The majority of Chavs are under 18 and harmless, if regulated I don't see much chance for them to get a gun, guns are quite expensive.

Not on da streets, and there will be more of them.

They should never play with either

No, but they will.

 

[Mr Stabby]

You'd be more likely to shoot a member of your own family.

How's that?

They will get hold of them if it is possible. By making guns legal it makes it a lot easier for them to kill alot more people.

They can still be blocked from acquiring a gun legally with proper regulation

It doesn't matter, haven't you seen the batman film. Where the mugger panics and shoots him.

There's like 4 batman movies, which one. Not that it matters, this is irrelevant.

Not on da streets, and there will be more of them.

Well legally a gun would be bought from a licensed gun shop, how would a legally registered guns end up on 'da street'.

No, but they will.

How, what kind of a moron let's a child near knives, let alone a gun. Do you work for the Daily Mail?

 

[CptStern]

about 75% of my friends own guns and not once did any of them have an accident.

oh my god youre right ..your friends have never had an accident so then guns must be 100% safe even babies should be carrying them ..guns for all they're safe ...shut up, your experience means nothing and is completely meaningless in proving anything besides the fact that your fiends havent had an accident yet

This is a culture war, and our gun culture should not be fooled around with.

or what? yuou'll shoot us? that argument is just ridiculous

The right to own a gun is simply what a free society in America is about,

the "right" to life is universal ..why does your "right" to own a gun supercede my right to life? answer me directly otherwise I wil nail you for it

I don't know about you but I don't like being told what I can't do.

I don't know about you but I don't like the idea of some half-wit having the power to decide if I live or die just because they want something that shouldnt be theirs to own

The last thing I have to say is that just because we live in the modern world, it doesen't mean that we wouldn't stand a chance against the military. The Soviet Union couldn't defeat the Afghans in the 1980's and they had some of the best weapons in the world. The Afghans used WW2 guns too, it proves that if our heart and soul is strong enough then nothing can stop us. Victory does not come at a high price though, but we would win in the long run if we make the right decisions.

you mean like how the insurgents are winning in iraq? there's only 150-180K soldiers in iraq yet the insurgents havent overthrown the government ..the soviets withdrew from afghinistan through atrition ..where would the US soliders retreat if faced with an insurrection in the US? and it's not like they wouldnt have all branch of law enforcement on their side ..oh and the media. how soon would you be labeled terrorists and traitors? you wouldnt last a week, anything else is just delusional wishful thinking

 

[Saturos]

Don't know about you guys, but I pity any would-be mugger that tries to break into our place.There a sign that I would like to get that says:
NO TRESSPASSING!
VIOLATORS WILL BE SHOT
SURVIVORS WILL BE SHOT AGAIN...and that's all I have to say about that. It's our right to own a gun and nobody's gonna take that right from me. Especially on my own property.

 

[Flyingdebris]

-if you are gonna use statistic, look at DC, LA, and chicago,statistaclly america's crime capitals. All of which have the most draconian of gun laws.
-If you are gonna use statistics, no one should be allowed to drive cars, because owning a car will make you more likely to die in a car accident.
-if you are gonna use statistics, we shouldn't be allowed to eat hamburgers, or smoke, or drink soft drinks, or go outside, or do anything remotely dangerous or fun.

Lets live our lives based entirely around insurance company reports!


Come on people.

let people make their own decisions and handle their own responsibilities. Thats what freedom is about. Not making decisions for them.

 

[Neo_Kuja]

Don't know about you guys, but I pity any would-be mugger that tries to break into our place.There a sign that I would like to get that says:
NO TRESSPASSING!
VIOLATORS WILL BE SHOT
SURVIVORS WILL BE SHOT AGAIN...and that's all I have to say about that. It's our right to own a gun and nobody's gonna take that right from me. Especially on my own property.

And this is why you shouldn't be able to own a gun - because of the gung-ho attitude you take towards it.

The military, whilst allowing you to fire guns at enemy combatants, will break you in boot camp, so, whilst firing away at terrorists/soviet ground troops/etc, if your commander says stop, you will stop. The high level of discipline and chain of command that military troops have is one of the sole things that gives them the ability to be on the field of battle. Even police officers have a chain of force to be administered to a non-compliant suspect, with lethal force being on the top of that chain (i.e LAST).

Whilst the american public should have some sort of access to non-lethal armaments to protect themselves with, the attitude shown above - "It's our right to own a gun and nobody's gonna take that right from me" - is exactly why you shouldn't be able to own a gun.

You simply aren't mature enough to be able to make the decision about life and death especially when it applies to someone else !

[[[But it does increase the ability of people to murder one another.]]]
As do Kitchen knives and just about every tool I can think of.

Kitchen Knives can, in addition to injuring people can :

• PRIMARY : Cut Vegetables
• PRIMARY : Cut Meat (Beef/Chicken/etc)
• SECONDARY : Be used to open letters (albeit difficultly)
• SECONDARY : Used to spread marmite/peanut butter on bread, etc

Screwdrivers can be used to :

• PRIMARY : Remove screws (Either variety)
• PRIMARY : Remove fuses/wires
• PRIMARY : Attach two bits of wood/metal/etc together with screws
• SECONDARY : Pop paintbox lids
• SECONDARY : Clear paper jams, etc

Guns can be used to :

• PRIMARY : Injure, maim or kill other human beings and animals, including yourself.
• SECONDARY : Target shooting

A gun has a whole lot of useful things that it can do apart from injuring, maiming and killing other people apart from yourself, doesn't it ? :hmph:

 

[Hondo]

I actually think the argument that guns have purposes besides violence, even though they often do, is self defeating as an argument against gun control. People don't fight for the right to bear arms for hunting and target shooting. The 2nd amendment wasn't created to protect hunters and target shooters. Gun owners do buy and collect guns for this reason, but the most important function of a firearm and the one that makes them so important to us is that they can be used for self-defense.

Yes. If a gun is pointed at someone and the trigger is squeezed, that person is injured or dies. For the majority of legal gun owners in the US, this is a good thing; this is a desirable thing. It allows us to protect our selves, our families, and our property in ways our government and police force can't always be trusted to.

I own a number of firearms that would be incredibly awkward to use for any sort of violent purpose or anything other than the non violent sporting purposes it's intended for. I also own several firearms not even for sporting purposes but merely because they are beautiful and highly collectible--they're almost never even fired. I also own an ugly, merely functional handgun designed to be carried conveniently and to fire ammunition specifically designed to injure human beings. I very, very much hope that I'll never have to use it for that purpose, but I'll fight for my right to own it in case I ever do.

Don't know about you guys, but I pity any would-be mugger that tries to break into our place.There a sign that I would like to get that says:
NO TRESSPASSING!
VIOLATORS WILL BE SHOT
SURVIVORS WILL BE SHOT AGAIN...and that's all I have to say about that. It's our right to own a gun and nobody's gonna take that right from me. Especially on my own property.

This, I'm sorry to say, is even sadder a post than the "GAY GAY GAY" thing that other idiot chattered out.

 

[Saturos]

I actually think the argument that guns have purposes besides violence, even though they often do, is self defeating as an argument against gun control. People don't fight for the right to bear arms for hunting and target shooting. The 2nd amendment wasn't created to protect hunters and target shooters. Gun owners do buy and collect guns for this reason, but the most important function of a firearm and the one that makes them so important to us is that they can be used for self-defense.

Yes. If a gun is pointed at someone and the trigger is squeezed, that person is injured or dies. For the majority of legal gun owners in the US, this is a good thing; this is a desirable thing. It allows us to protect our selves, our families, and our property in ways our government and police force can't always be trusted to.

I own a number of firearms that would be incredibly awkward to use for any sort of violent purpose or anything other than the non violent sporting purposes it's intended for. I also own several firearms not even for sporting purposes but merely because they are beautiful and highly collectible--they're almost never even fired. I also own an ugly, merely functional handgun designed to be carried conveniently and to fire ammunition specifically designed to injure human beings. I very, very much hope that I'll never have to use it for that purpose, but I'll fight for my right to own it in case I ever do.



This, I'm sorry to say, is even sadder a post than the "GAY GAY GAY" thing that other idiot chattered out.

If a man won't make a stand on his own property, how is he supposed to make a stand elsewhere in the world? A man can only back down so far before he can back down no more. Oh and f*** you for not liking my post. I don't like you either a$$ hole.

 

[Saturos]

And this is why you shouldn't be able to own a gun - because of the gung-ho attitude you take towards it.

The military, whilst allowing you to fire guns at enemy combatants, will break you in boot camp, so, whilst firing away at terrorists/soviet ground troops/etc, if your commander says stop, you will stop. The high level of discipline and chain of command that military troops have is one of the sole things that gives them the ability to be on the field of battle. Even police officers have a chain of force to be administered to a non-compliant suspect, with lethal force being on the top of that chain (i.e LAST).

Whilst the american public should have some sort of access to non-lethal armaments to protect themselves with, the attitude shown above - "It's our right to own a gun and nobody's gonna take that right from me" - is exactly why you shouldn't be able to own a gun.

You simply aren't mature enough to be able to make the decision about life and death especially when it applies to someone else !



Kitchen Knives can, in addition to injuring people can :

• PRIMARY : Cut Vegetables
• PRIMARY : Cut Meat (Beef/Chicken/etc)
• SECONDARY : Be used to open letters (albeit difficultly)
• SECONDARY : Used to spread marmite/peanut butter on bread, etc

Screwdrivers can be used to :

• PRIMARY : Remove screws (Either variety)
• PRIMARY : Remove fuses/wires
• PRIMARY : Attach two bits of wood/metal/etc together with screws
• SECONDARY : Pop paintbox lids
• SECONDARY : Clear paper jams, etc

Guns can be used to :

• PRIMARY : Injure, maim or kill other human beings and animals, including yourself.
• SECONDARY : Target shooting

A gun has a whole lot of useful things that it can do apart from injuring, maiming and killing other people apart from yourself, doesn't it ? :hmph:

F*** you too. Cry me a river while the world's smallest violin plays, "my heart bleeds for you". You'd be just like someone to hide behind the authorities while your family is in danger aren't you? Weasel. If someone was about to kill my parents, I'm the judge, jury, and my gun will be my executioners ax. No if, ands, or buts. I'm not a politician when it comes to family. If they threaten my family, they threaten me, so therefore, THEIR LIVES WOULD APPLY TO ME, NOT JUST THEM as in, kill them before the bastards kill my family. Do I need to break out the crayons now? Wait....

 

[Saturos]

I wonder, who are 'they' that such nuts always refer to.

The reptilian overlords?

Something like that. Actually I wouldn't mind being ruled by reptilian overlords, being that I like dragons. Next time, I'll be sure to be more specific for the slower audiences.:dozey:

 

[Jintor]

A) No triple posting.

b) You're a nut. That second post? Shoot everything that moves? That might working in Hollywood but here it just gets people killed. And I'm not just talking the ENEMY, I'm talking PEOPLE. REAL PEOPLE. Not faceless mooks on TV, not Combine Grunts in masks.

And I thought you were supposed to show compassion. Aren't you Christian?

There's a difference between 'Bleeding Heart' and 'Values the ****ing sanctity of human life'.

I also remember something in the Evolution thread about not being reduced to swearing at your opponents. I believe I called you an 'idiot'. You've outdone me already.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Kitchen Knives can, in addition to injuring people can :

• PRIMARY : Cut Vegetables
• PRIMARY : Cut Meat (Beef/Chicken/etc)
• SECONDARY : Be used to open letters (albeit difficultly)
• SECONDARY : Used to spread marmite/peanut butter on bread, etc

Screwdrivers can be used to :

• PRIMARY : Remove screws (Either variety)
• PRIMARY : Remove fuses/wires
• PRIMARY : Attach two bits of wood/metal/etc together with screws
• SECONDARY : Pop paintbox lids
• SECONDARY : Clear paper jams, etc

Guns can be used to :

• PRIMARY : Injure, maim or kill other human beings and animals, including yourself.
• SECONDARY : Target shooting

A gun has a whole lot of useful things that it can do apart from injuring, maiming and killing other people apart from yourself, doesn't it ? :hmph:

While I've already addressed this a dozen times, for those to lazy to read the whole thread.

1. Guns don't cause crime, crime requires intent.
2. Self- defence is a perfectly legitimate use for as gun.

 

[Jintor]

Surely the fact that guns are an incredible advantage in killing people is going to increase the amount of crime that occurs if they are more freely available?

Or at the very least more wounding and/or deaths...?

 

[Gunner]

F*** you too. Cry me a river while the world's smallest violin plays, "my heart bleeds for you". You'd be just like someone to hide behind the authorities while your family is in danger aren't you? Weasel. If someone was about to kill my parents, I'm the judge, jury, and my gun will be my executioners ax. No if, ands, or buts. I'm not a politician when it comes to family. If they threaten my family, they threaten me, so therefore, THEIR LIVES WOULD APPLY TO ME, NOT JUST THEM as in, kill them before the bastards kill my family. Do I need to break out the crayons now? Wait....

Wow, amazing.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Surely the fact that guns are an incredible advantage in killing people is going to increase the amount of crime that occurs if they are more freely available?

Or at the very least more wounding and/or deaths...?

Firstly define freely available. Lunatic shooting sprees are very rare, the majority of murders aren't impacted by the weapon used.

 

[Saturos]

A) No triple posting.

b) You're a nut. That second post? Shoot everything that moves? That might working in Hollywood but here it just gets people killed. And I'm not just talking the ENEMY, I'm talking PEOPLE. REAL PEOPLE. Not faceless mooks on TV, not Combine Grunts in masks.

And I thought you were supposed to show compassion. Aren't you Christian?

There's a difference between 'Bleeding Heart' and 'Values the ****ing sanctity of human life'.

I also remember something in the Evolution thread about not being reduced to swearing at your opponents. I believe I called you an 'idiot'. You've outdone me already.

I get emotional over some things more than others, especially over ones I care for the most. I just don't understand how someone could,"reason" with a criminal. I mean seriously. There is no reasoning to me. They are bastards. They are out to get you. What is there that no one seems understand? Sound pretty straight forward to me. There's a time for everything, even war. Look it up Ephesians if your interested. Or are you not "open-minded" enough to read such garbage? People complain to Christians about not being ,"open-minded" when really liberals want everyone to be, "one-sided" in their favor. Who are the tyrants now? I'm not a fundamentalist, I've barely even been going to church, I just know BS when I see it. Oh, and that guy called me an idiot. What goes around comes around. These guys are cut-throat and mostly bring it on themselves. Besides, "There's no being nice in the forums," remember?! Like I said above, I wouldn't make a very good politician. Too blunt. BTW: I'm neither conservative Republican or Democratic liberal and I didn't vote for either George Bush or John Kerry. They're both dicks, and I didn't know enough about Ralph Nader to make a decision. For all you Americans that want to know.

 

[HunterSeeker]

Firstly define freely available. Lunatic shooting sprees are very rare, the majority of murders aren't impacted by the weapon used.

The majority of murderers are not (visibly)insane either, so they will be able to get ahold of a gun legally and file the serial number of or something. And there is not doubt that allowing legal gunownership will increase the amount of illegal ownership as well, as the supply increases. There might be a few that sells their legal guns to the black market, or has their gun stolen etc...

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

FFS - if the US population rebbelled against the government, you would be smashed. Utterly annihalitated. The army has nukes, gases, dicipline, training, etc.
Anyone who thinks they could win is a nutter.

 

[Saturos]

FFS - if the US population rebbelled against the government, you would be smashed. Utterly annihalitated. The army has nukes, gases, dicipline, training, etc.
Anyone who thinks they could win is a nutter.

Your probably right, but why in the world would the US nuke their own soil in the first place? The geniuses who developed nuclear weapons had no common sense whatsoever. Did they not realize that the technology would eventually be reversed engineered by the enemies? When the Chernobyl plant exploded back in the 80s, there was massive fallout.(This was accidental, I know). They are still suffering from fallout. As so is the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims, whose deathtoll is still rising due to fallout. So nuking their own soil would be detrimental to say the least, stupid at the most.

 

[CptStern]

duh quote of the day:

I'm not a fundamentalist, I've barely even been going to church, I just know BS when I see it.

HahHAHahHAH*breathe*HahHaHahHAHHAHAHAHAHAH


right :dozey:

the rest of your post is just alarmist gibberish ..I love this bit of "well duh" reasoning:

I just don't understand how someone could,"reason" with a criminal. I mean seriously. There is no reasoning to me. They are bastards. They are out to get you.

omg have they set a date? :O


someone called you an idiot earlier, I think that was being somewhat kind

 

[Saturos]

duh quote of the day:



HahHAHahHAH*breathe*HahHaHahHAHHAHAHAHAHAH


right :dozey:

the rest of your post is just alarmist gibberish ..I love this bit of "well duh" reasoning:



omg have they set a date? :O


someone called you an idiot earlier, I think that was being somewhat kind

If you say so Stern. BTW:What is your definition of an alarmist? Nut? paranoid schizophrenic? What about, "heightened sense of awareness?" (and no not an overused insult which clearly defines someone's sheer lack of intelligence without blunt resoning i.e. stupid, idiot, etc. used in a simple phrase without a shadow of a doubt) Let me ask you this then. You wouldn't use a gun on someone that's about to hurt/kill someone you love? That's the ultimate question.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Your probably right, but why in the world would the US nuke their own soil in the first place? The geniuses who developed nuclear weapons had no common sense whatsoever. Did they not realized that the technology would eventually be reversed engineered by the enemies? When the Chernobyl plant exploded back in the 80s, there was massive fallout.(This was accidental, I know). They are still suffering from fallout. As so is the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims, whose deathtoll is still rising due to fallout. So nuking their own soil would be detrimental to say the least, stupid at the most.

It seemed like a good idea at the time

 

[CptStern]

If you say so Stern. BTW:What is your definition of an alarmist? Nut? paranoid schizophrenic? What about, "heightened sense of awareness?"

why would I have differente definitions for words than everyone else? alarmist means what the hell it means:

1.a person who tends to raise alarms, esp. without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities.

(and no not an overused insult which clearly defines someone's sheer lack of intelligence without blunt resoning i.e. stupid, idiot, etc. used in a simple phrase without a shadow of a doubt) Let me ask you this then. You wouldn't use a gun on someone that's about to hurt/kill someone you love? That's the ultimate question.

no that's a loaded question and completely idiotic ..seriously when would anyone face that choice?

"ok Mr Stern you're about to be shot, I have in my hand a handgun in case you choose to shoot first"

:rolling:



is this what passes for serious discussion?

 

[Mr Stabby]

The majority of murderers are not (visibly)insane either, so they will be able to get ahold of a gun legally and file the serial number of or something. And there is not doubt that allowing legal gunownership will increase the amount of illegal ownership as well, as the supply increases. There might be a few that sells their legal guns to the black market, or has their gun stolen etc...

Well the shooting spree people, all had rather insane personalities, that were known about before they went on shooting sprees. Other murderers may have previous criminal records, in which case they wouldn't be allowed guns. Those that commit single murders would probably be able to kill just as proficiently with a knife.

I also think it's an overreaction to ban all guns, because of a minority of individuals. It's like banning fertilizer because of terrorists. Obviously both should be regulated but not banned.


The black market will exists regardless of legal guns.

 

[Saturos]

why would I have differente definitions for words than everyone else? alarmist means what the hell it means:

1.a person who tends to raise alarms, esp. without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities.





no that's a loaded question and completely idiotic ..seriously when would anyone face that choice?

"ok Mr Stern you're about to be shot, I have in my hand a handgun in case you choose to shoot first"

:rolling:



is this what passes for serious discussion?

It's ok *pats Stern on back* let out all that anger. You don't hate me, just the current society.

 

[CptStern]

Well the shooting spree people, all had rather insane personalities, that were known about before they went on shooting sprees.

and? without a gun it wouldntnt have been a "shooting spree" now would it?

Other murderers may have previous criminal records, in which case they wouldn't be allowed guns. Those that commit single murders would probably be able to kill just as proficiently with a knife.

the majority of gun deaths are domestic violence ..the perps more often than not have no previous criminal records ..granted a case could be made that a knife could be used but it never is, the majority of those types of killings are by firearm ..simple logic dictates that if you do away with handguns you'll lessen deaths from domestic violence ...the gun is a weapon of opportunity, and are almost always deadly under any circumstance ..stabbing someone to death or choking them to death is far far more difficult to physically do than pulling a trigger once ..you can argue till you're blue in the face but the facts dont support your ideology ..you can chomp on the bit all you want but the reality is that a nation-wide ban on guns would drastically reduce the number og gun related deaths ..it's just that obvious

I also think it's an overreaction to ban all guns, because of a minority of individuals. It's like banning fertilizer because of terrorists. Obviously both should be regulated but not banned.

that's not an apt comparison ..the number of people using fertilizser in bomb making in north american is next to non existant .15,000 people are murdered every year in the US the majority by guns ..fertilizer s used for it's intended reasons by more than 99% of the population whereas a large majority of gun owners use their gun for killing things ..it's an apples to oranges comparison

The black market will exists regardless of legal guns.

except they wont sell guns ....do you understand what the black market is? I dont think you do ..i have a bag of pot, I sell it to someone .. that's the black market, there is no store there is no secret handshake needed to get in ..all it means is trade in illegal goods ..there is nothing that would be able to stop it because anything I sell can be construed as illgal in one for or another ..claim taxes of money made on selling items? no? that's the black market right there, part of that transaction is illegal ..it doesnt have to be illegal goods

 

[CptStern]

It's ok *pats Stern on back* let out all that anger. You don't hate me, just the current society.

:upstare: ...you dont understand anything I say do you?

 

[Saturos]

:upstare: ...you dont understand anything I say do you?

Wow, took you longer than usual. What kept ya? Had to make a sandwich? Your views and mine are totally different, but for the sake of keeping things quite for now, I'll say neither of us are right and we just have different opinions. Don't feel like getting into a flaming argument today.

 

[CptStern]

Wow, took you longer than usual. What kept ya? Had to make a sandwich? Your views and mine are totally different, but for the sake of keeping things quite for now, I'll say neither of us are right and we just have different opinions. Don't feel like getting into a flaming argument today.

"neither of us are right"? are you kidding me? how old are you? that's the kind of reasoning my son uses ..and he's 4 years old

please do us all a favour and remove yourself from the politics forum ..it's no fun debating people who havent a clue as to what they're talking about

 

[Saturos]

A shame that your 4-year old son is right. It's the parents job to teach their children what they think is right. But who's right and who's wrong is all a matter of opinion. AND QUIT HACKING MY POSTS!

 

[Mr Stabby]

and? without a gun it wouldntnt have been a "shooting spree" now would it?

Given that there mental state was known to be unstable, they should not have been allowed guns, find the concept of regulation confusing?

the majority of gun deaths are domestic violence ..the perps more often than not have no previous criminal records ..granted a case could be made that a knife could be used but it never is, the majority of those types of killings are by firearm ..simple logic dictates that if you do away with handguns you'll lessen deaths from domestic violence ...the gun is a weapon of opportunity, and are almost always deadly under any circumstance ..stabbing someone to death or choking them to death is far far more difficult to physically do than pulling a trigger once ..you can argue till you're blue in the face but the facts dont support your ideology ..you can chomp on the bit all you want but the reality is that a nation-wide ban on guns would drastically reduce the number og gun related deaths ..it's just that obvious

Rubbish, Guns do not cause the intent. It's not much more difficult to stab someone than shoot them. To say that domestic violence is caused by guns, is ridiculous.

that's not an apt comparison ..the number of people using fertilizser in bomb making in north american is next to non existant .15,000 people are murdered every year in the US the majority by guns ..fertilizer s used for it's intended reasons by more than 99% of the population whereas a large majority of gun owners use their gun for killing things ..it's an apples to oranges comparison

Does America have a domestic terrorism problem...no, America is irrelevant. Are you saying the majority of gun owners murder people?

except they wont sell guns ....do you understand what the black market is? I dont think you do ..i have a bag of pot, I sell it to someone .. that's the black market, there is no store there is no secret handshake needed to get in ..all it means is trade in illegal goods ..there is nothing that would be able to stop it because anything I sell can be construed as illgal in one for or another ..claim taxes of money made on selling items? no? that's the black market right there, part of that transaction is illegal ..it doesnt have to be illegal goods

Legal guns are not the only source of guns. Guns can be smuggled into a country, as can drugs. If someone smuggles a gun they got in Somalia into the UK and sells it on the streets of London, that's the black market.

 

[HunterSeeker]

But there would be much much fewer illegal guns.

 

[Mr Stabby]

But there would be much much fewer illegal guns.

That's an assumption, smuggling is more than capable in keeping up with demand, in the drugs trade, so it stand to reason it's capable of keeping up with demand in the arms trade.

 

[CptStern]

Given that there mental state was known to be unstable, they should not have been allowed guns, find the concept of regulation confusing?

only in the case of the V-tech murders ..every day common domestic homicide the perps are diagniosed (if at all) after the fact ..anyways you're supporting my pov

Rubbish, Guns do not cause the intent.

who said it did? you're putting words in my mouth ..I said guns are a weapon of opportunity

It's not much more difficult to stab someone than shoot them.

quantify "not much more" ..it is far more difficult, guns are nowhere near as personal as knifed to death or clubbed to death ..the person must be emotionally involved ..which is why you often see victems with multiple stab wounds ..which also proves that it's more difficult to kill a person with a knife

To say that domestic violence is caused by guns, is ridiculous.

again you're putting words in my mouth, I never said guns were responsible all I said was that guns are facilitators; they make it easy for just anyone to become empowered enough to turn the tables regardless of things like weight, size, hell even ability

Does America have a domestic terrorism problem...no, America is irrelevant.

what? what does thta have to do with anything? and from the very beginning we've been using the US as the example ..I've already pointed that out pages ago

Are you saying the majority of gun owners murder people?

what? where? point out where I say that

Legal guns are not the only source of guns. Guns can be smuggled into a country, as can drugs.

ok but at one point they were legal, crossing the border it becomes illegal ..those guns werent made for illegal markets, no one would do business with a company that makes guns for illegal markets ..your point doesnt have any revelancy to what we're talking about

If someone smuggles a gun they got in Somalia into the UK and sells it on the streets of London, that's the black market.

ok ..I fail to see your point, the items themselves dont have to be illegal, means of rtransaction alone can make something illegal ..in any event the majority of guns in criminal hands are either stolen from legit owners or are smuggled into the country ..crack down on border crossings, ban gns and you're sure to see a drop in gun related crime ..without guns there is no gun related crime

 

[Jintor]

A shame that your 4-year old son is right. It's the parents job to teach their children what they think is right. But who's right and who's wrong is all a matter of opinion. AND QUIT HACKING MY POSTS!

I don't understand how you can attempt to be so reasonable and yet be so obviously breathlessly insane.

If you didn't feel like getting into an arguement you shouldn't even have bothered entering the politics forum, let alone this thread, let alone posting in it.

 

[Kula Meenur]

Sterny i'm afraid you rule the politics board :|

also, i'm for gun control

 

[Mr Stabby]

only in the case of the V-tech murders ..every day common domestic homicide the perps are diagniosed (if at all) after the fact ..anyways you're supporting my pov

No you are in favour of banning all guns, I think that's ridiculous. Regulation is not the same as prohibition. How many people are normally killed in domestic murders...1. So they could have easily used a knife to kill 1 person. Finland has a high number of guns, yet only 14% of murders use guns.

who said it did? you're putting words in my mouth ..I said guns are a weapon of opportunity

I put it in italics, your argument is that reduce guns reduces crime, now either your saying guns cause crime, or that without guns, criminals can't be bothered to commit crimes.

quantify "not much more" ..it is far more difficult, guns are nowhere near as personal as knifed to death or clubbed to death ..the person must be emotionally involved ..which is why you often see victems with multiple stab wounds ..which also proves that it's more difficult to kill a person with a knife

I someone is sufficiently angry at someone, angry enough to kill them, do you honestly think they wouldn't be able to stabs someone, but could shoot them from a few feet away. Multiple stab wounds show that the perpetrator was angry.

again you're putting words in my mouth, I never said guns were responsible all I said was that guns are facilitators; they make it easy for just anyone to become empowered enough to turn the tables regardless of things like weight, size, hell even ability

Well again your blaming the gun, there is no laissez-faire murders, they require the intent of someone to kill another person, do you honestly believe that if someone has the sufficient intent to kill another person, that no access to a gun is the only thing stopping them.

what? what does thta have to do with anything? and from the very beginning we've been using the US as the example ..I've already pointed that out pages ago

So if the experience of anther country, contradicts your argument you'll discard it. We aren't just using America, other countries have guns too.

what? where? point out where I say that

whereas a large majority of gun owners use their gun for killing things

ok but at one point they were legal, crossing the border it becomes illegal ..those guns werent made for illegal markets, no one would do business with a company that makes guns for illegal markets ..your point doesnt have any revelancy to what we're talking about

So, actually there are a number of ex-soviet weapons that were produced for dubious reasons, hardly the point. There is a huge international illegal arms trade, there are dozens of sources for them to get guns. Many guns aren't made for markets at all, but they end up on the black market, the AK-47 is the most obvious example of this. The point is, that guns get on the black market that came from sources that have nothing to do with the legal trade in arms.

ok ..I fail to see your point, the items themselves dont have to be illegal, means of rtransaction alone can make something illegal ..in any event the majority of guns in criminal hands are either stolen from legit owners or are smuggled into the country ..crack down on border crossings, ban gns and you're sure to see a drop in gun related crime ..without guns there is no gun related crime

The borders are heavily cracked down on, in the war on drugs as well, it's next to impossible to stop due to the volume of traffic. Your idealistic view of no guns = no gun crime, is very unrealistic.

 

[Hondo]

again you're putting words in my mouth, I never said guns were responsible all I said was that guns are facilitators; they make it easy for just anyone to become empowered enough to turn the tables regardless of things like weight, size, hell even ability

This is a good thing. That a wheelchair bound old lady living in a bad neighborhood has the means to defend herself against one or more armed robbers is precisely why I am for accessible, affordable, fuctional firearms being widely available to the public.

Even if it's arguable that a wheelchair bound old lady could be seriously expected to make much of a defense, the fact that the criminals could be facing bullets instead of weak cries for help would be enough of a deterant to dissuade most criminals from entering.