Do guns kill so many Americans or do Americans kill so many Americans? (2147 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.39 on 167 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Beano (View user info) at 2006-10-05 08:05:11 EDT
So I was reading that in the US, there are around 17,000 murders a year, of which about 15,000 are committed with the use of guns.
By contrast, Britain, Australia and Canada combined see fewer than 350 gun-related murders every year.
And it's not just about murder. The non-gun-related suicide rate in the US is consistent with the rest of the developed world. But, factor in firearms, and the rate is suddenly twice as high as the rest of the developed world.
Children are affected particularly hard apparently with an American child being murdered with a firearm every four and a half hours on average. And an American youth committing suicide with a firearm every eight hours
I also read that dealers at gun shows are exempt from the federal law (that controls the sale of firearms to people with non criminal backgrounds), making it easy for criminals or children to lay their hands on whatever they want.
Apparently the semi-automatic TEC-9 machine pistols used by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold at Columbine were purchased at a Colorado gun show.
I believe there was some kind of ban on assault weapons in 1993 and since then gun deaths (certainly in NY) have fallen to one third their pre-1993 figures. However they are still astronomically higher than UK, Australia and Canada combined.
Is gun control doing enough to eliminated malicious use of weapons?
Should a ban on Firearms be investigated or is it far too late for that?
Do you believe in the right to protect yourself? (Though by default of course you'll be protecting yourself against someone who HAS A GUN and therefore you'll need a gun. I have the right in the UK to protect myself and not having a gun hasn't cause me any issues because no other fucker has one)
Do guns breed violence?
Do guns kill so many Americans or do Americans kill so many Americans?
![I-did-not-do-anything[1].jpg (13 kB)](http://stuff.ubersite.com/1160049911230015266/1/I-did-not-do-anything[1].jpg)
User Reviews
Submitted by maf54 (user info) at 2008-05-14 05:12:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Just to counter what that idiot Director did to you.
Submitted by Director (user info) at 2008-05-13 16:06:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2006-10-10 11:55:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, while I generally agree with you, there's something pretty glaring about that list. America is the only 1st world country on it. That means it has a problem. Just because it's not as bad as 3rd world countries doesn't mean its fine. A list on political corruption would probably have America even further down, does that make corruption in America fine?
He was comparing with other similar countries, comparing with 3rd world countries is pointless.
Submitted by ConorJS (user info) at 2006-10-09 20:58:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Guns don't kill people, gaping wounds in vital organs kill people.
If it was harder for us to kill each other, we would have fewer murders. I can't accept any other argument as true. Most murders occur because someone is angry and has access to a gun. If we just beat the shit out of one another instead of pulling out guns, we would have far fewer deaths.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:01:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-06 08:33:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-06 03:50:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:44:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:03:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
Cars ARE needed though. Guns are not.
NOBODY needs a gun. They are designed to kill people, end of story.
If you think that you NEED to kill people, than you actually NEED to be institutionalised.
---------------------------------
Why is alcohol needed. I promise you it kills more people than guns. It isn't needed why is it allowed (I know mostly it kills the user but combined with cars and you have a significant number of "innocent" deaths).
------------
Indo, people don't generally use cars to kill other people deliberately. I know it happens occasionally but it isn't a common method of murdering someone.
And you can't use alcohol at all to kill another person.... least not without a syringe.
-------------
Actually, another US related thing is: College students drinking themselves beyond the 0.5% level. Most of humanity, when 0.5% of their blood volume is alcohol will die. College students in the US seem especially prone to this. In a few cases, after the victim was very drunk and incoherent and on the verge of passing out friends continued to pour shots down their throats. Nice, huh?
--------------------------------
that's complete bullshit. i dare you to cite the source you used for that. .4% puts just about anyone in a coma, except for bobby brown.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:26:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's not gun ownership that is killing americans. It's the fact that 90% of gun-owning americans are fucking idiots.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:17:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Top Murder Rates (by country)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita#rest
There are 23 other countries with murder rates higher than the United States'. I suggest those of you who would like to fix the world's problems start with one of them.
#1 Colombia 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24 United States 0.042802 per 1,000 people
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:08:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-10-09 07:56:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
Every time I see an American quote the 2nd ammendment I have to laugh. A section introduced to appease a nasceant country which had just thrown off the yoke of British rule (ho ho) with an understandably paranoid populace.
Weapons control in the past was used by governments (of whichever sort) to ensure that the peasants couldn't rise up (see Japan) and so the ammendment then stood for the belief that the american people would not be subdued by an armed forces again.
Nowadays though - you will VERY RARELY have to shout 'the redcoats are coming,' lay down covering fire against invading Russians or prepare yourself to fend off Apaches on a hair cutting day trip. The stubborn insistence on keeping something which no longer has any relevance is utter bollocks.
Rad's 'the nazis were for gun control THEREFORE YOU ARE ALL NAZIS' argument is utter bollocks and unworthy of debate.
------------------------
It might surprise some of you to know that I am as tenaciously FOR the 2nd Amendment as I am for the First and Fourth Amendments.
The above author made the fallacy of assuming that keeping the right to bear arms is "stubborn" and that guns are "irrelevant" in checking overzealous governments.
Retaining the right to bear arms is an ESSENTIAL check on runaway government, particularly the kind that issues signing statements on practically every law Congress passes saying they have no intention of following these laws, or the kind that spies on its own citizens and fingerprints their children at school without their permission.
I am not concerned nearly as much about being invaded from without as I am having our rights and civil liberties eroded from within.
Keeping the right to bear arms keeps the threat of armed revolution alive for those that would overstep their Constitutional authority by spying on American people without warrants, or steal elections, or ignore the will of the people, or arrest, detain, and torture people indefinitely and without the rights afforded them under the Constitution of the United States and international human rights laws...*looks toward White House*....
Rad is right, I'm sorry to say. Guns will be the next to last thing to go.... And the last thing? Who knows.
Could be your right to peacefully assemble...("free speech zones" indeed)
Could be your right to freedom from illegal searches and seizures...(do I really need to go into this one? Patriot Act, Military Appropriation Act, Guantanamo Bay, etc...etc...etc...)
Could be your right to vote for who you want to represent you in Congress or in the White House...(continuity of government directives state that in the event of a disaster, the president can declare martial law and suspend elections. Just imagine if Flight 93 had hit the Capital building with all our Congressmen inside).
I could go on and on and on and on with what has happened to our government over the decades. One could practically go back and trace the dismantling of our Constitution and Bill of Rights probably down to the last article if he felt so inclined.
More people die every year on our highways than from gunshots, but that's not even what's at issue. What's at issue is EDUCATION. Young people need to learn that gun ownership is not to be taken lightly. They need to be taught gun safety and proper use, and they should be taught respect for these weapons. It is a right that is provided to us in our Constitution for the purpose of providing the ULTIMATE check on government...an armed citizenry.
The 15,000 deaths per year is certainly a tragedy, but the alternative, I assure you, is FAR more tragic.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-10-09 07:56:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Every time I see an American quote the 2nd ammendment I have to laugh. A section introduced to appease a nasceant country which had just thrown off the yoke of British rule (ho ho) with an understandably paranoid populace.
Weapons control in the past was used by governments (of whichever sort) to ensure that the peasants couldn't rise up (see Japan) and so the ammendment then stood for the belief that the american people would not be subdued by an armed forces again.
Nowadays though - you will VERY RARELY have to shout 'the redcoats are coming,' lay down covering fire against invading Russians or prepare yourself to fend off Apaches on a hair cutting day trip. The stubborn insistence on keeping something which no longer has any relevance is utter bollocks.
Rad's 'the nazis were for gun control THEREFORE YOU ARE ALL NAZIS' argument is utter bollocks and unworthy of debate.
Submitted by HurtByTheSun (user info) at 2006-10-09 07:08:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Guns don't kill people, rappers do,
I saw it in a documentary on BBC 2!
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-09 04:49:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by teakettle (user info) at 2006-10-08 08:02:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
The Big Question: Can America ever be weaned off its love affair with guns?
By Andrew Gumbel
04 October 2006 The Independent.
I recognised your source because you ripped off about half of your post almost directly from this article. Some of it was word-for-word copied.
--------------
Yeah, I do sort of mention that I read all the stuff in the post, but good for you for being such an observant fellow.
Submitted by teakettle (user info) at 2006-10-08 08:02:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The Big Question: Can America ever be weaned off its love affair with guns?
By Andrew Gumbel
04 October 2006 The Independent.
I recognised your source because you ripped off about half of your post almost directly from this article. Some of it was word-for-word copied.
Submitted by kuroneko_sama (user info) at 2006-10-08 05:38:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
guns dont kill people... bullets do... unless your pistol whipped
Submitted by LeaderOfMen (user info) at 2006-10-08 05:10:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Americans have a lot of problems: We all have an equally overwhelming sense of pride and entitlement, we think the Bill of Rights is open to our interpretation outside of the Judicial Branch, and people other than ideas represent our problems and the best way to remove them completely is with bullets.
23 year old Caucasian male
Seeking: cultural assimilation...
Preference: British or Australian; would donate left nut for Icelandic... or Scandinavian for that matter.
Submitted by YellowDragon (user info) at 2006-10-07 22:10:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Hypothesize about your own country. It's our goddamned constitution, and keeping other countries from fucking with our business is part of the reason we wrote the second ammendment.
Submitted by SilentRenegade (user info) at 2006-10-07 12:05:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Don't complain about America's Murder problem if you don't live here douchebag. That and Britain, Aussie Land and Canada combined have a smaller population...shut up SHUT UP!!! I LIKE GUNS!!!! I have a 1942 British Enfield MK III. I can knock a Dasani Water bottle off of the top of a target at 250 yards (228.6 Meters) using the iron sights.
Submitted by Aeneas (user info) at 2006-10-07 11:34:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-06 20:56:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Aeneas (user info) at 2006-10-06 19:47:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:40:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:35:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
Fuck that, I need my gun for when the zombies come.
-------------
I'd say an AK. 30 round magazines, low amount of kick, cheap ammo, lighter weight, can fire well even after getting dropped in mud, simplistic design and easy to clean... and Kalashnikov gives me a kickback everytime I recommend them as an anti-zombie weapon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without going all geeky about guns on you, but have you ever fired an AK47? I have in Prague and the accuracy with iron sights (they didn't have optical sights) is pretty shit. I spent about 4 hours zeroing the rifle and even at 100 metres wasn't getting a good grouping. The SA80 which I use near enough every week, on the other hand, is a much more accurate weapon. Though you need to put in A LOT of effort cleaning it (an hour per person easily) or else you get lots of stoppages, which ain't good when there's zombies coming.
----------------------------------------
Uh, yeah, I think I've fired that AK I own a few times.
My iron sites aren't too bad, at least not at up to 100 yards with steady hands. My eyesite isn't great, and I shoot without glasses, and yet at 25 and 50 yards I can keep a 90% on target grouping. Then again, like I said in a previous post, my AK is semi-auto only. I've never fired one full auto, but I have fired the German psuedo-Uzi, AR-15 and the Thompson Sub on full auto. I hate full auto, it is utter shit, unless you're looking to waste ammo.
----------------------------------------
Oh I see, but I guarantee you that the British military's SA80 is the most accurate assault rifle in the world but very hard to get your hands on. As for ANY rifle on automatic, it is simple a waste of ammo. Unless you're firing in automatic bursts of 2-4 rounds per burst. Or you're going into a room or building and want to spray rounds all over the place.
Submitted by Bob_Dole (user info) at 2006-10-07 05:57:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I think it's neither guns, nor americans- that kill americans. I'm not opposed to offing someone with my bare hands, and actually, it sort of appeals to me. So it's not the gun. People kill people all the time without the use of firearms. And a gun, sitting on a shelf, kills nothing. Which is a shame in and of itself.
The people however, ah, there's the issue. Man is a violent animal. We pretend to be civilized, yet there's rape, (baby rape?), murder, child abuse (that one's for you Mr. Foley), and all sorts of other attrocities.
All guns do is help us to communicate. In a more meaningful manner.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2006-10-07 00:52:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-06 20:56:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Aeneas (user info) at 2006-10-06 19:47:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:40:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:35:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
Fuck that, I need my gun for when the zombies come.
-------------
I'd say an AK. 30 round magazines, low amount of kick, cheap ammo, lighter weight, can fire well even after getting dropped in mud, simplistic design and easy to clean... and Kalashnikov gives me a kickback everytime I recommend them as an anti-zombie weapon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without going all geeky about guns on you, but have you ever fired an AK47? I have in Prague and the accuracy with iron sights (they didn't have optical sights) is pretty shit. I spent about 4 hours zeroing the rifle and even at 100 metres wasn't getting a good grouping. The SA80 which I use near enough every week, on the other hand, is a much more accurate weapon. Though you need to put in A LOT of effort cleaning it (an hour per person easily) or else you get lots of stoppages, which ain't good when there's zombies coming.
----------------------------------------
Uh, yeah, I think I've fired that AK I own a few times.
My iron sites aren't too bad, at least not at up to 100 yards with steady hands. My eyesite isn't great, and I shoot without glasses, and yet at 25 and 50 yards I can keep a 90% on target grouping. Then again, like I said in a previous post, my AK is semi-auto only. I've never fired one full auto, but I have fired the German psuedo-Uzi, AR-15 and the Thompson Sub on full auto. I hate full auto, it is utter shit, unless you're looking to waste ammo.
______________________
I take that back, these comments are hilarious.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2006-10-07 00:50:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-10-05 08:43:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
So, complete gun control and no murders/injury/deaths from firearms. Good for you. No, really.
The everyday American citizen is fucked as far as guns go, because regulation will only affect a law-abiding citizen. Let me explain why.
Lets say the USA bans firearms. A system is set up where people turn in their guns for, I don't know, money or drugs or pr0n or something. The penalties for gun ownership is what? Prison? Fines? Anywho, lets say this happens without a rebellion/revolution/civil war. The citizens are now unarmed, and depend solely on the police to protect them against the bad guys with the guns.
Fine. Now the gov'ment is cracking down on illegal firearms, which at this point have skyrocketed in value and has created a huge black market. People are out committing property crimes to get the funds for a firearm. Citizens are being victimized on a much higher level; armed thugs know their percentages are better that they have the only gun at the scene of their crime. Firearm related murder rates will go down, but all other crime will rise sharply.
Fine. Assuming the citizens don't rebel/revolt/become vigilantes with illegal arms, guns could eventually be phased out for the most part. They will still exist, however, in the hands of government officials. Enforcers of the law would have the right to be able to defend themselves from the very thing they are trying to eradicate, and you then would have an armed government ruling over an unarmed victim class. A populace who would be unable to overthrow the government if it failed to be of, by, and for the people.
If I were to draw historical parallels, I would have you look at Germany in the 1930s. The National Socialists under Hitler were all about gun control. Their theory was if they enacted their feel-good policies early on, stuff that made sense at the time, they could get their real agenda on later, after the population was cowed sufficiently. Imagine if the German people had the ability to fight against the Nazis. A bloody civil war, no doubt, but at what cost to the rest of the world?
I move, that in hindsight, better regulation of arms manufacturing would have eased a lot of the problems the US has with its firearm related crime rates, but we have passed the point of no return. It would put citizens at greater risk than we face now.
So, from an American perspective, while it is nice to have solutions to social problems that fit a set of ideals so perfectly, most people lose sight of further reaching implications of major shifts in rights afforded us by the government. Let me put it this way-if my government is willing to change its constitution in order to protect its citizens from firearms, what is to stop it from protecting its citizens against certain forms of speech, or due process rights, or the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment? How are we, the people of the United States, to defend ourselves against a homespun dictatorship?
I leave you with a quote from one of the founders of the US. I think he knows better by what they meant in the 2nd amendment than any of us.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Amendment II (an essential liberty)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
___________________________
Rad's comment should have stopped all commenting on this post, because I can't imagine anyone having the ability to justly argue this.
Submitted by IntangibleHands (user info) at 2006-10-07 00:08:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://sites.gizoogle.com/index2.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ubersite.com%2Fm%2F93970
Submitted by moneyshotforyou (user info) at 2006-10-06 23:12:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I have a slingshot.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2006-10-06 22:52:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
it doesn't bother me one way or the other if they ban guns because no matter what...
i will Always be allowed to keep mine
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-10-06 21:45:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's kinda silly that no one here mentioned WHY the Founding Fathers said the citizens should have firearms. It was to fend off the LEADERS, People!!! The assholes in charge!!!
Read the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, et al......
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-06 20:56:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Aeneas (user info) at 2006-10-06 19:47:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:40:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:35:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
Fuck that, I need my gun for when the zombies come.
-------------
I'd say an AK. 30 round magazines, low amount of kick, cheap ammo, lighter weight, can fire well even after getting dropped in mud, simplistic design and easy to clean... and Kalashnikov gives me a kickback everytime I recommend them as an anti-zombie weapon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without going all geeky about guns on you, but have you ever fired an AK47? I have in Prague and the accuracy with iron sights (they didn't have optical sights) is pretty shit. I spent about 4 hours zeroing the rifle and even at 100 metres wasn't getting a good grouping. The SA80 which I use near enough every week, on the other hand, is a much more accurate weapon. Though you need to put in A LOT of effort cleaning it (an hour per person easily) or else you get lots of stoppages, which ain't good when there's zombies coming.
----------------------------------------
Uh, yeah, I think I've fired that AK I own a few times.
My iron sites aren't too bad, at least not at up to 100 yards with steady hands. My eyesite isn't great, and I shoot without glasses, and yet at 25 and 50 yards I can keep a 90% on target grouping. Then again, like I said in a previous post, my AK is semi-auto only. I've never fired one full auto, but I have fired the German psuedo-Uzi, AR-15 and the Thompson Sub on full auto. I hate full auto, it is utter shit, unless you're looking to waste ammo.
Submitted by Aeneas (user info) at 2006-10-06 19:47:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:40:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:35:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
Fuck that, I need my gun for when the zombies come.
-------------
I'd say an AK. 30 round magazines, low amount of kick, cheap ammo, lighter weight, can fire well even after getting dropped in mud, simplistic design and easy to clean... and Kalashnikov gives me a kickback everytime I recommend them as an anti-zombie weapon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without going all geeky about guns on you, but have you ever fired an AK47? I have in Prague and the accuracy with iron sights (they didn't have optical sights) is pretty shit. I spent about 4 hours zeroing the rifle and even at 100 metres wasn't getting a good grouping. The SA80 which I use near enough every week, on the other hand, is a much more accurate weapon. Though you need to put in A LOT of effort cleaning it (an hour per person easily) or else you get lots of stoppages, which ain't good when there's zombies coming.
Submitted by Aeneas (user info) at 2006-10-06 19:33:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-06 15:33:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
Guns are efficient killers for suicide.
Unlike the media likes to portray (school shootings), most gun murders are gang and drug related.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's actually a good thing. I'd rather have gangsters and drug dealers/addicts dead than walking the streets.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-06 15:33:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Guns are efficient killers for suicide.
Unlike the media likes to portray (school shootings), most gun murders are gang and drug related.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-06 09:41:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2006-10-06 08:24:24 (#)
Ranking: 0
It would be best if no one had guns. But that's probably never going to happen, so as long as militaries in other countries have guns, the U.S. military should have guns, and as long as members of the U.S. military and law enforcement officials have guns, civilians should be able to purchase guns. I also think hunters have the right to continue using guns.
When you talk about stricter gun control, you have to worry about power issues. For example, if everyone in possession of a gun had to undergo extensive psychological evaluation, that might drastically reduce the size and power of the military. If this rule only pertained to civilians, then you might end up with a huge organization of people with guns in a society of largely gunless people
================
Lisa, the trouble is you cannot carry out extensive psychological evaluation on a criminal whom obtains his gun illegally.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-06 09:38:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-06 09:31:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
I never said deliberately, but the fact is, irresponsible car drivers kill more people than guns. I think (too lazy too look it up) that drunk drivers may kill more people than guns (hence alcohol kills).
May seem harsh but before you want to take the guns out of law abiding citizens hands and punish them, you should make it much more harsh for criminals to have them.
------
I appreciate that you didn't say deliberate but if you start to bring in accidental deaths then I don't think it has any bearing on an argument about murder, which by definition is deliberate.
On your last point.... I agree with you.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-06 09:31:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-06 03:50:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:44:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
Why is alcohol needed. I promise you it kills more people than guns. It isn't needed why is it allowed (I know mostly it kills the user but combined with cars and you have a significant number of "innocent" deaths).
------------
Indo, people don't generally use cars to kill other people deliberately. I know it happens occasionally but it isn't a common method of murdering someone.
And you can't use alcohol at all to kill another person.... least not without a syringe.
---------------------------------------------
I never said deliberately, but the fact is, irresponsible car drivers kill more people than guns. I think (too lazy too look it up) that drunk drivers may kill more people than guns (hence alcohol kills).
I appreciate the argument that more guns in a society make it more dangerous (especially with lax laws like we have in the US), but you can't argue against it based on "need".
But this is all intellectual rubbish. Serious gun control changes in the US has to begin with enforcing existing gun control laws, and increasing the penalties for criminals who use guns. I would support mandatory sentencing up to +15 years on any criminal who has an unliscenced gun while committing a crime, or 5 years for being caught with an unliscenced gun.
May seem harsh but before you want to take the guns out of law abiding citizens hands and punish them, you should make it much more harsh for criminals to have them.
Submitted by Bigmike (user info) at 2006-10-06 08:48:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 13:24:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
Nobody needs a gun. Ban them all, end of story.
I disagree only in the respect that I live out in the country and the infrequent rabid animal will come staggering out of the woods into my yard.
I'm certainly not going after it with a knife or a baseball bat.
And besides, if it ever comes down to it, I'll hunt for food.
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-06 08:39:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Mister (user info) at 2006-10-05 23:41:02 (#)
Ranking: 2
Gun control legislation will never work, because the single most powerful lobby in Washington is the NRA.
Add in the ingrained "It's my damn RIGHT to own an automatic" and the incorrect assumption that the 2nd Amendment give you the right to bear arms. (Folks who think that really should read the whole text for context, but they don't)
So it'll never happen, honest.
------------------
Automatics are the hardest guns to legally own. At least if you like the right to refuse to let the authorites on your property without a warrant. The licensing involved is interesting, and the cost is extreme.
Also, I believe you are correct about the entire 2nd amendment. Then again, I'll gladly join any socialist leaning, progressive militia group out there... oh wait, there aren't any.
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-06 08:33:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-06 03:50:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:44:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:03:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
Cars ARE needed though. Guns are not.
NOBODY needs a gun. They are designed to kill people, end of story.
If you think that you NEED to kill people, than you actually NEED to be institutionalised.
---------------------------------
Why is alcohol needed. I promise you it kills more people than guns. It isn't needed why is it allowed (I know mostly it kills the user but combined with cars and you have a significant number of "innocent" deaths).
------------
Indo, people don't generally use cars to kill other people deliberately. I know it happens occasionally but it isn't a common method of murdering someone.
And you can't use alcohol at all to kill another person.... least not without a syringe.
-------------
Actually, another US related thing is: College students drinking themselves beyond the 0.5% level. Most of humanity, when 0.5% of their blood volume is alcohol will die. College students in the US seem especially prone to this. In a few cases, after the victim was very drunk and incoherent and on the verge of passing out friends continued to pour shots down their throats. Nice, huh?
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2006-10-06 08:24:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It would be best if no one had guns. But that's probably never going to happen, so as long as militaries in other countries have guns, the U.S. military should have guns, and as long as members of the U.S. military and law enforcement officials have guns, civilians should be able to purchase guns. I also think hunters have the right to continue using guns.
When you talk about stricter gun control, you have to worry about power issues. For example, if everyone in possession of a gun had to undergo extensive psychological evaluation, that might drastically reduce the size and power of the military. If this rule only pertained to civilians, then you might end up with a huge organization of people with guns in a society of largely gunless people.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-10-06 07:36:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2006-10-05 19:20:46 (#)
Ranking: 2
Guns make pussies think they're bad ass.
=========
so does the internet
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-06 07:15:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
In other news, I have been +2BOMB'd by UnderOath.
Should I be afraid...I could understand if he -2'd me..... or has he given his account away AGAIN?
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-06 03:56:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:48:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
Should a ban on Firearms be investigated or is it far too late for that? Judging by the reviews on this thread, it's far too late for that. You can't take away someone's god given right unless you're prepared to defend yourself... who'll stop the intruders?
--------
I believe they were not God given rights
--------
Do you believe in the right to protect yourself? From what? All the other gunslinging maniacs in the neighbourhood? What's the point, regardless of how cautious or careful I am, the odds are stacked against my survival already.
---------
This is a valid point, you'd be defending yourself against OTHER gun totting people. No guns no need to defend yourself with a gun.
In the UK a man named Tony Martin shot a burgler in his house and was locked up for murder. While i believe this was somewhat harsh punishment it does demonstrate the attitude towards guns and their use in the UK.
I believe the reasoning behind his murder charge is just because as soon as it becomes OK to shoot people then we will all want guns and burglers will need them to defend themselves.... we all end up with guns and we all shoot one another. As per the US.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-06 03:51:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:35:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
I suppose the real question is, if everyone hates Americans so much why would they give a flying fuck if we run around killing one another?
Seems like a lot of wasted brainwork.
Beano - I wasn't heated earlier man, don't sweat it.
---------
That's cool.... I got off the thread myself and you were right, it went most heated. But my intentions were grounded.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-06 03:50:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:44:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:03:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
Cars ARE needed though. Guns are not.
NOBODY needs a gun. They are designed to kill people, end of story.
If you think that you NEED to kill people, than you actually NEED to be institutionalised.
---------------------------------
Why is alcohol needed. I promise you it kills more people than guns. It isn't needed why is it allowed (I know mostly it kills the user but combined with cars and you have a significant number of "innocent" deaths).
------------
Indo, people don't generally use cars to kill other people deliberately. I know it happens occasionally but it isn't a common method of murdering someone.
And you can't use alcohol at all to kill another person.... least not without a syringe.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-06 03:49:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Still-Life (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:18:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
-------
Still-Life, thanks for the reply dude.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-10-06 00:24:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:08:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
Can you defend your home from intruders with hookers, slaves, chemical weapon manufacturing facility, child pornography ring, spaceship etc. ---Nope
------------------------
I CAN BLOODY WELL TRY
Submitted by Mister (user info) at 2006-10-05 23:41:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Gun control legislation will never work, because the single most powerful lobby in Washington is the NRA.
Add in the ingrained "It's my damn RIGHT to own an automatic" and the incorrect assumption that the 2nd Amendment give you the right to bear arms. (Folks who think that really should read the whole text for context, but they don't)
So it'll never happen, honest.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2006-10-05 19:20:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Guns make pussies think they're bad ass.
Submitted by r1nce (user info) at 2006-10-05 19:20:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I like the Fisher Price "My first automatic".
Those who wish to defend themselves can do so without arms (or legs - hur hur hur). Peasants (read : white trash) all over the world and throughout history have developed ways and means of self-defence without weapons.
Not establishing gun control is just another iteration of America's big ego, small penis syndrome.
[By the way, Australia still holds the record for most people killed in a single shooting incident. Where's our Guinness World Record for that eh? Stupid biased Guinness people.]
Submitted by Maltese (user info) at 2006-10-05 18:43:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Australians don't use guns, dumbshit, they use STINGRAYS
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:42:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by jfreakman (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:35:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Still-Life (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:21:12 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Orgasmatron (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:10:51 (#)
Ranking: 1
Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills people.
-------------------------------
Chuck Norris is a fucking pussy. Bruce Lee will Fuck You Up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two words. Jackie Chan. You can't get better than that dude.
"Punching, Jumping...that makes me feel good."
That's Jackie Chan's own words on his acting.
Hi-larious.
Submitted by Still-Life (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:21:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Orgasmatron (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:10:51 (#)
Ranking: 1
Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills people.
-------------------------------
Chuck Norris is a fucking pussy. Bruce Lee will Fuck You Up.
Submitted by Still-Life (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:18:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'll stop myself before going on a tangent however a few things-
In the USA you have to have a series of background checks to own ANY firearm at all. You cannot have a record of a violent crime OR a felony or your "Gun Rights" are revoked for the rest of your life. Period. The only exception is if you get it exponged or defferred (which doesn't happen on violent crimes, etc) To put this in perspective.. if you went to vandalize someone's property and you did more than $250 in damages you'd have a felony and would no longer be able to own or possess firearms. (I would know.)
Now to own a handgun you have to go thru MORE checks, waiting periods, etc.
To CONCEAL the firearm on your person you must get a Carry/Conceal permit, which subjects you to a more intense background check, applications and essentially a review of said applications. If you don't need it they (ususally around here) wont let you have one. (I have a feeling this is due to police coming from Cali not wanting to be shot in retribution for the bullshit they pull such as shooting unarmed civilians and mentally ill. Yes, it happens. By the police)
Now after that we work up to automatic... Well, basically getting permits for your automatic firearms is not only expensive and time consuming, its hard. On top of that automatic weapons are expensive. You'd have to spend well over $1500 for an automatic rifle. A run of the mill shotgun or hunting rifle is $400 or less, same with standard/service issue handguns.
Think of it this way- Its like an exotic car or a sports car. You don't NEED something that can take that corner up the road at 90mph, you don't NEED a car which can travel at twice that speed- however some enjoy them, collect them, some even have clubs and racing tournaments to go and use their collection of toys. Firearms are the same. Some serve a purpose, some could be for collections, be it war memorabilia or even just for luxury.
People that slag gun owners down as crazed maniacs, why? Some people buy fast cars, some people build $6,000 computers, some own extravant houses with unnesscicary ponds. Some have giant drum kits or walls of guitar amplifiers... Some people like firearms.
My answer to the question- Americans are stupid. I'm an american- I have to sit through it every time I step outside of my cave into the real world. We need more education, we need a better school system, etc.
Submitted by DrSeussman (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:14:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Hey Ilikesteak here's another one for your list of quotes.....
Submitted by Orgasmatron (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:11:02 (#)
Ranking: 1
BLAMMO LIGHTS OUT BITCH
Submitted by Orgasmatron (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:11:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
BLAMMO LIGHTS OUT BITCH
Submitted by Orgasmatron (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:10:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills people.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:44:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:03:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
Cars ARE needed though. Guns are not.
NOBODY needs a gun. They are designed to kill people, end of story.
If you think that you NEED to kill people, than you actually NEED to be institutionalised.
---------------------------------
Why are cars needed? Why not have a nationwide public transportation system with highly trained drivers so less car accidents happen? They are something that you can live without, hence they are not needed. They do cause deaths, but their value is rated high enough that the deaths are acceptable to society.
Why is alcohol needed. I promise you it kills more people than guns. It isn't needed why is it allowed (I know mostly it kills the user but combined with cars and you have a significant number of "innocent" deaths).
No matter what WORD you capatalize these things aren't NEEDED. Fast food isn't NEEDED. There are countless things that are bad for you that aren't NEEDED. So it is pointless to say guns shouldn't ba legal because they aren't NEEDED unless you want to apply the same logic to everything.
Guns do have a valid, legal and safe use for hunting and home protection (not that safe for the burglar, but fuck them).
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:35:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I suppose the real question is, if everyone hates Americans so much why would they give a flying fuck if we run around killing one another?
Seems like a lot of wasted brainwork.
Beano - I wasn't heated earlier man, don't sweat it.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:24:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually, it should read American kill so many Iraqis.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:05:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:27:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
There are MILLIONS of different forms of home protection. Having a gun is probably the most dangerous and generates the most casualties.
It is not a valid reason for why people NEED guns. If you use a gun to protect your house, I need a gun to ransack it. One of us is probably going to end up dead. Let's hope it's me because if I kill you, I might as well kill the rest of your sleeping family as well before I make off with your TV and a couple of hundred bucks in trinkets.
I know, I know. That t.v and those trinkets were worth dying for and we all know how troublesome Insurance claims can be.
===
this reply was hilarious
Submitted by DrSeussman (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:05:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey I live in Dallas not far from where this http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=5493363 happened and his home town is about 10 minutes up 75. This kind of thing barely makes news here. We love our guns and if you remember the shooting that took place at Lubys http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/metropolitan/96/10/15/lubys.html it explains why the CHG law passed here in Texas. I don't hunt, am not a redneck, but do however own a pistol that I practice with fairly often since seeing the knife wielding psychopath get gunned down by Dallas police at the local 7-11 while I was the only patron inside and had almost walked out if not for the clerk. Let's hear it for gun control. Guns don't kill people, I do.
http://www.glock.com/body_g23.htm
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:03:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Cars ARE needed though. Guns are not.
NOBODY needs a gun. They are designed to kill people, end of story.
If you think that you NEED to kill people, than you actually NEED to be institutionalised.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:00:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:48:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
Do guns kill so many Americans or do Americans kill so many Americans? No, apparently cars kill Americans which somewhat intrigues me because (And I quote) "they have the intelligence, knowledge, and responsibility to handle such a thing."
What were we talking about again? Ahh, the legalities. They actually weren't part of the topic of this thread.
How interesting.
---------------------
Do you get it now or did everything fly over your head?
Guns much like cars are tools. People who use them safely and properly in a law abiding fashion pose little to no risk. If used irresponsibly or malisciously they can kill.
Granted cars are more useful, and you may believe that the usefulness of guns doesn't outweigh the risk for you personally or for society as a whole. But to dismiss the possibility of using them because they aren't NEEDED is not a reasonable argument.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:48:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Is gun control doing enough to eliminated malicious use of weapons? Probably not. Unless a government is really intent on eliminating something, it'll never happen. Tobacco is a great example of this.
Should a ban on Firearms be investigated or is it far too late for that? Judging by the reviews on this thread, it's far too late for that. You can't take away someone's god given right unless you're prepared to defend yourself... who'll stop the intruders?
Do you believe in the right to protect yourself? From what? All the other gunslinging maniacs in the neighbourhood? What's the point, regardless of how cautious or careful I am, the odds are stacked against my survival already.
Do guns breed violence? That's what they were designed for.
Do guns kill so many Americans or do Americans kill so many Americans? No, apparently cars kill Americans which somewhat intrigues me because (And I quote) "they have the intelligence, knowledge, and responsibility to handle such a thing."
What were we talking about again? Ahh, the legalities. They actually weren't part of the topic of this thread.
How interesting.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:40:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
guns don't kill people, aids does
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:38:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*sigh*
You're right. There is no reasoning behind my reasoning.
Maybe that should be my epitaph.
/leave
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:35:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:27:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
There are MILLIONS of different forms of home protection. Having a gun is probably the most dangerous and generates the most casualties.
It is not a valid reason for why people NEED guns. If you use a gun to protect your house, I need a gun to ransack it. One of us is probably going to end up dead. Let's hope it's me because if I kill you, I might as well kill the rest of your sleeping family as well before I make off with your TV and a couple of hundred bucks in trinkets.
I know, I know. That t.v and those trinkets were worth dying for and we all know how troublesome Insurance claims can be.
------------------
I forgot to point out the other lack of reason in your "reasoning". Just because I don't have a gun doesn't mean somebody breaking into my house doesn't either.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:33:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:27:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
There are MILLIONS of different forms of home protection. Having a gun is probably the most dangerous and generates the most casualties.
It is not a valid reason for why people NEED guns. If you use a gun to protect your house, I need a gun to ransack it. One of us is probably going to end up dead. Let's hope it's me because if I kill you, I might as well kill the rest of your sleeping family as well before I make off with your TV and a couple of hundred bucks in trinkets.
I know, I know. That t.v and those trinkets were worth dying for and we all know how troublesome Insurance claims can be.
That sounds like a good epitaph for you actually.
-----------------------------
Great point acanis, iI was trying to get across the same thing with cars. Nobody NEEDS a lot of things that are harmful if used wrong.
The other problem with your reasoninng Sphagnum apart from being wrong (I think we have established that the NEED shouldn't be a requirement for something being legal). Is the impossibility of implementing it. How would you take guns out of the hands of all the criminals? We can't even do it now and cops don't have to worry about otherwise law abiding citizens.
Ask me if I am for stricter gun control laws and i will say yes. ask me if i think we should double the jail terms for criminals caught with guns and I will say yes, but an outright ban won't take guns from criminals, and will only tie up police on people who weren't otherwise criminals.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:28:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:22:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
Slaves and spaceships can be simple and safe tools for self defence too.
Badass did not argue any of this. He said that he should be able to have a gun because he is smart/funny/handsome or whatever pathetic reason it was.
Just because you are endeared with the facilities to obtain and utilise something doesn't mean that you NEED to have it.
I still don't see a valid reason for why people NEED guns. It's probably because there isn't one.
----------------------------------
He didn't say that was the reason he should have a gun he said that was why there is no reason he shouldn't, there is a difference.
What about cars? People don't NEED cars. More people are killed by cars then guns.
If that is to severe why, do people need to be able to drive 50 miles an hour? Why not have everybody drive so slow they can't get hurt?
Yes cars have more uses but it comes down to a value judgement a society makes.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:27:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There are MILLIONS of different forms of home protection. Having a gun is probably the most dangerous and generates the most casualties.
It is not a valid reason for why people NEED guns. If you use a gun to protect your house, I need a gun to ransack it. One of us is probably going to end up dead. Let's hope it's me because if I kill you, I might as well kill the rest of your sleeping family as well before I make off with your TV and a couple of hundred bucks in trinkets.
I know, I know. That t.v and those trinkets were worth dying for and we all know how troublesome Insurance claims can be.
That sounds like a good epitaph for you actually.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:24:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There's also no reason for anyone to drink alcohol, either. Its prohibition didn't work, either. Much of it was still smuggled in.
Same for guns.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:22:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Slaves and spaceships can be simple and safe tools for self defence too.
Badass did not argue any of this. He said that he should be able to have a gun because he is smart/funny/handsome or whatever pathetic reason it was.
Just because you are endeared with the facilities to obtain and utilise something doesn't mean that you NEED to have it.
I still don't see a valid reason for why people NEED guns. It's probably because there isn't one.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:19:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 13:24:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd like to see ONE good reason why anyone needs to have a gun so that I can be finally be convinced that there really is an intelligent up-side to this argument.
---------------------------
Home protection.
Not everybody can live in a great neighborhood, if mine wasn't safe I would own a gun.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:18:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, that's right. A gun loaded up itself, aimed, and shot my cousin. Guns kill people.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:18:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not acting like it's some "crime free utopia".
I was justing making the statement that I think Americans are fucked and seeing as how this entire thread is devoid of any kind of justification for any of the statements that have been made, I don't think I'll bother explaining why.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:17:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:14:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Usually a deadlock and some fences will do that for you.
So I guess what you're saying is that all of the murders commited with guns in the United States are perpetrated by people who are defending their homes from intruders... That makes sense.
---------------------
Nowhere in my argument did I even suggest that, don't play dumb.
You said that being intellegent and having self control (to paraphrase badass) is no justification to have a gun any more than it is a justification for hookers, slaves etc. The key difference being that guns can be a tool for self defense that are simple and safe to use when common sense is used.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:14:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:06:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
Why did I even click on this thread?
Americans are fucked. What more can I say?
Hopefully they will all be involved in their own genocide before too long and the rest of the world can go on not giving a shit about what they do like we always have.
-----------------------------
We are fucked? An interesting choice of words from the rape capitol of the western world. My statements before about lack of guns and rape were a joke but please don't act like Australia is some type of crime free utopia simply because you have less gun violence.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:14:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:08:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 13:46:24 (#)
Ranking: 0
Nice argument, retard.
Having the intelligence, knowledge and responsibility to handle something is not valid justification for having it.
You could assign this ridiculous reasoning to just about anything. Hookers, slaves, chemical weapon manufacturing facility, child pornography ring, spaceship etc.
-------------------
Can you defend your home from intruders with hookers, slaves, chemical weapon manufacturing facility, child pornography ring, spaceship etc. ---Nope
-------
Usually a deadlock and some fences will do that for you.
So I guess what you're saying is that all of the murders commited with guns in the United States are perpetrated by people who are defending their homes from intruders... That makes sense.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:08:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 13:46:24 (#)
Ranking: 0
Nice argument, retard.
Having the intelligence, knowledge and responsibility to handle something is not valid justification for having it.
You could assign this ridiculous reasoning to just about anything. Hookers, slaves, chemical weapon manufacturing facility, child pornography ring, spaceship etc.
-------------------
Can you defend your home from intruders with hookers, slaves, chemical weapon manufacturing facility, child pornography ring, spaceship etc. ---Nope
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:06:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why did I even click on this thread?
Americans are fucked. What more can I say?
Hopefully they will all be involved in their own genocide before too long and the rest of the world can go on not giving a shit about what they do like we always have.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 14:03:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Nice! It is entirely what I expected.
Generalisations and zero substance. You should join the debating team with concrete rebuttals like that.
If you process again and test those comprehension skills of yours, you'll see that the question is not one of legality, it is one of justification.
If your argument was sound, I should be able to use the same argument for all of the other examples that I gave. Why not?
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-10-05 13:57:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
now sphagnum, don't you posses the ability to converse without acting like a child?
your examples shoot holes through your whole point, half of that stuff is illegal thus excluding intelligence and responsibility and the others are owning people and how smart do you think that is.
just because you start out calling someone a retard does not mean you're going to follow it up with a good point.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 13:54:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's not the American attitude of violence, it's the American attitude of ignorance and superiority.
People all over the world are ignorant. They just aren't so ignorant that they believe the most trivial of disputes should be settled with a bullet.
Throw away your guns and embrace humanity, you fucking imbeciles. It is not your duty/right/responsibility to deal out the punishment on the mistakes of others.
(I only bracket "Americans" through convenience. You obviously don't ALL subscribe to the same neanderthalic tenet)
Become like Australia. We don't give a fuck about anything.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 13:46:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-10-05 09:22:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
yes I believe I have the right to own a gun, but not for some hollow patriotic reason like 'I'm an American' but because I have the intelligence, knowledge, and responsibility to handle such a thing. And that wouldn't change regardless of where I was from or where I lived.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice argument, retard.
Having the intelligence, knowledge and responsibility to handle something is not valid justification for having it.
You could assign this ridiculous reasoning to just about anything. Hookers, slaves, chemical weapon manufacturing facility, child pornography ring, spaceship etc.
Submitted by kybernetikum (user info) at 2006-10-05 13:46:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Guns don´t breed violence. It is the american attitude which is inherently violent and thus the basic problem.
In Switzerland everybody is allowed to own guns, most men have served in the army and have their assault rifle including ammunition at home (you get it with you when you leave). Rarely it is heard of that crimes are committed using these weapons.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-10-05 13:24:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Nobody needs a gun. Ban them all, end of story.
Only fucked in the head retards like JGreening think they need to exercise their constitutional right to have a gun and that's because they're too fucking stupid to resolve issues by communication.
This topic is well used and annoying. I'd like to see ONE good reason why anyone needs to have a gun so that I can be finally be convinced that there really is an intelligent up-side to this argument.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-05 12:50:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-10-05 12:38:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
This has obviously turned into an arguement between common sense and teena
--------
Teenage?? I'm shocked.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-10-05 12:41:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
both.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-10-05 12:38:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This has obviously turned into an arguement between common sense and teenage Brits.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-10-05 12:37:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE! PEOPLE KILL GUNS!
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2006-10-05 12:33:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE!
PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-10-05 12:14:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-10-05 12:10:58 (#)
Ranking: 2
oh come on don't tell me you have the energy to go out and pop a cap in someone ass after sucking down a lungful of sweet sweet herb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I barely have the energy to pop a cap off a beer.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-10-05 12:10:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Maybe part of it is that the US is really just one huge insane asylum filled with all the rejects or descendents of rejects from all the other countries in the world. Maybe the real question is not why do so many of us kill but why more of us don't.
If they would just legalize weed then there would be less violence in this country.
it's true and you know it
oh come on don't tell me you have the energy to go out and pop a cap in someone ass after sucking down a lungful of sweet sweet herb
Submitted by ballsonurchin (user info) at 2006-10-05 12:10:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
americans are lazy. why would an american waste so much energy getting in to a fist fight when all they gotta do is pull a trigger.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-10-05 12:00:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:42:12 (#)
Ranking: 2
don't act like eugenics is a complex word.
TABLE!
OH I BET PEOPLE WILL LOOK THAT ONE UP!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could say it. But it's too obvious, and expected, and so I won't.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:59:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:29:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:19:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:09:22 (#)
Ranking: 1
As a gun owner, I'll chime in on a few things.
---snip snip----
Simple answer: People are stupid. There just seems to be more idiots per capita in the US.
------
If that is the simple answer then is removing the guns the simple solution? (though I realise that removed god knows how many millions of guns is not easy)
-------
No, Eugenics is the answer. (Googles gonna be getting a lot of hits for that word, and people without senses of humor are going to be on me like white on rice.)
---------
A. There are two groups of people that don't obey laws: the criminal and the very stupid. As such, only intelligent, law-abiding people, the ones who should own guns, will be unarmed. Except me. I don't care what white folk say; I'm keeping the hand cannon.
B. Eugenics IS and always has been the answer. Sicosemen should be the first uberite ushered into the showers, followed by any web-literate rednecks in my neighborhood. The problem is not privatizing eugenics, or allowing politicians or born-agains to jump on the bandwagon.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:51:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:44:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:42:12 (#)
Ranking: 2
don't act like eugenics is a complex word.
TABLE!
OH I BET PEOPLE WILL LOOK THAT ONE UP!
----------
Sorry. I naturally assume every time I say a word with two or more syllables that people will look at me in that uncomprehending way... just like at work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's true. Uber has a better vocabulary than real life.
On a side note, I'm pretty sure if I owned a gun it would give me a false sense of security right up until the time I shot myself in the foot.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:47:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"By contrast, Britain, Australia and Canada combined see fewer than 350 gun-related murders every year."
I find that incredibly hard to believe, seeing as Toronto along has about 50 to 100 every year. You also may want to look at this with a 'per capita' attitude. You need citations.
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:44:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:42:12 (#)
Ranking: 2
don't act like eugenics is a complex word.
TABLE!
OH I BET PEOPLE WILL LOOK THAT ONE UP!
----------
Sorry. I naturally assume every time I say a word with two or more syllables that people will look at me in that uncomprehending way... just like at work.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:42:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
don't act like eugenics is a complex word.
TABLE!
OH I BET PEOPLE WILL LOOK THAT ONE UP!
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:40:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:35:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
Fuck that, I need my gun for when the zombies come.
-------------
I'd say an AK. 30 round magazines, low amount of kick, cheap ammo, lighter weight, can fire well even after getting dropped in mud, simplistic design and easy to clean... and Kalashnikov gives me a kickback everytime I recommend them as an anti-zombie weapon.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:40:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Damn you BigMike. I should have known you'd beat me to it.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:35:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fuck that, I need my gun for when the zombies come.
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:29:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:19:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:09:22 (#)
Ranking: 1
As a gun owner, I'll chime in on a few things.
---snip snip----
Simple answer: People are stupid. There just seems to be more idiots per capita in the US.
------
If that is the simple answer then is removing the guns the simple solution? (though I realise that removed god knows how many millions of guns is not easy)
-------
No, Eugenics is the answer. (Googles gonna be getting a lot of hits for that word, and people without senses of humor are going to be on me like white on rice.)
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:26:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:19:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:09:22 (#)
Ranking: 1
Simple answer: People are stupid. There just seems to be more idiots per capita in the US.
===
With that in mind, don't you think it might be a good choice to restrict access to stupid people. Just because you are safe doesn't mean anyone is.
My neighbor in my hometown had a 30 guns collection. He dropped a bullet by accident on our lawn and my 9 years old brother slammed it with a hammer and was wounded in the leg, getting this close from severing his iliac artery and dying.
I was friend with that neighbor's kids and he didn't lock up his weapons. We would get on high grounds and fire on 18-wheelers trailers with hunting rifles. Or we'd get drunk and go shoot trees like idiot. My friend shot a magnum 12 gauge one inch from another guy's heel. We were fourteen, mind you.
Anyway, as soon as you get access to weapons, stupid people or kids will do stupid shit with them.
--------------------------
I believe that gun laws, as they stand in the US, are too permissive... but to change the subject:
Ever play with knives? I don't have any stupidity with guns stories, I grew up around them and didn't like being around them until I went to a gun range a few times a few years ago, but I've got a lot of being stupid with knives stories from childhood. Mumbleypeg, anyone?
Submitted by morontian (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:23:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Histrionic little pussies? I'll have to use that one.
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:21:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:23:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:13:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
I highly doubt that the gun thing has anything to do with the rape statistics. Maybe it's because Australian and Canadian rape victims are more likely to report the attack than their American counterparts? We do tend to blame the victim first when it comes to rape in this country.
----------------
Really? Ever hear of the Duke rape case?
Ever been to a fucking college? The system is geared 100% towards protecting the victims, even when their clame is complete BS. You might have preassure in small towns to cover up shit like that, but I don't think that is unique to the US.
----------------------------
Yeah, I've heard of that. It's one case. One case that should not have gotten to the point it was at, seeing as how the complaint and rape kit were done within hours, and the alledged assailants were cooperative and wound up not matching the DNA from the rape kit. Were it not for a stupid DA, you and I would not even be aware of the case. That's also the case where half of the people chiming in about it said "she's a liar!" and the other half said "No she's not!" Very divisive, very telling of the idea that Americans seem to have so little faith in their judicial system that they throw out verdicts in their own homes, blogs, radio shows without even weighing all of the evidence.
Small towns aren't the only place where complaints aren't filed. College campuses, large cities, etc. also see their share of unreported attacks. Icarus's alma mater has had 0 rapes, according to it's literature, for many, many years. It's kind of funny, I know three girls there who've told me about being attacked... of course none of it happened "on campus." All three happened at off campus housing. All three girls faced pressure from their circles of friends because they were acquainted with the attackers.
Most cases of rape won't see a courtroom in the US unless: no condom was used, a rape-kit is done in a timely fashion, or signs of battery are present. He said/She said cases are too hard to prosecute.
I don't think any of this is unique to the US, but I do believe it is far more likely than the "guns stop rape" idea. Then again, was the previous cited statistic about rapes the amount committed or the amount prosecuted and found guilty? It could very well be a statistic influenced by each countries laws and judicial systems. Perhaps it's easier to find a person guilty of sexual assault in Canada or Australia than the US.
Submitted by platonicchic (user info) at 2006-10-05 11:08:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Only a limey would post this. It's so original, too. I've never heard the "take the guns" debate before! Mmmmmm, I love the smell of idiocy in the morning.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:23:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:13:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
I highly doubt that the gun thing has anything to do with the rape statistics. Maybe it's because Australian and Canadian rape victims are more likely to report the attack than their American counterparts? We do tend to blame the victim first when it comes to rape in this country.
----------------
Really? Ever hear of the Duke rape case?
Ever been to a fucking college? The system is geared 100% towards protecting the victims, even when their clame is complete BS. You might have preassure in small towns to cover up shit like that, but I don't think that is unique to the US.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:22:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
restrict access to stupid people."""
this should be FROM stupid people.
though i wish stupid people were locked up in a restricted area.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:19:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:09:22 (#)
Ranking: 1
As a gun owner, I'll chime in on a few things.
---snip snip----
Simple answer: People are stupid. There just seems to be more idiots per capita in the US.
------
If that is the simple answer then is removing the guns the simple solution? (though I realise that removed god knows how many millions of guns is not easy)
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:19:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:09:22 (#)
Ranking: 1
Simple answer: People are stupid. There just seems to be more idiots per capita in the US.
===
With that in mind, don't you think it might be a good choice to restrict access to stupid people. Just because you are safe doesn't mean anyone is.
My neighbor in my hometown had a 30 guns collection. He dropped a bullet by accident on our lawn and my 9 years old brother slammed it with a hammer and was wounded in the leg, getting this close from severing his iliac artery and dying.
I was friend with that neighbor's kids and he didn't lock up his weapons. We would get on high grounds and fire on 18-wheelers trailers with hunting rifles. Or we'd get drunk and go shoot trees like idiot. My friend shot a magnum 12 gauge one inch from another guy's heel. We were fourteen, mind you.
Anyway, as soon as you get access to weapons, stupid people or kids will do stupid shit with them.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:16:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:10:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Uber always go back to rape. :-)
But really, I don't see how guns and rapes are automatically related.
Maybe you're too fat to fuck each others, maybe Australians and Canadians drink too much and end up raping their mothers.
Seriously, I doubt it's a simple gun-rape mathetical equation. There might be a lot more factors. Our persmissive juridical system certainly doesn't help. Sex offenders and even recidivists get pretty small sentences.
------------------------------------
Actually I don't buy the "gun law, rape" equation. I just wanted to bring rape stats up on a conversation here and see how far I got.
In all seriousness I do agree with canada's gun laws.
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:13:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:10:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:00:30 (#)
Ranking: 2
Caul, I would actually agree with Canada's gun laws, but your rapes are on par with Australia (see seventh UN survey on crime trends).
So when confronted with the choice of out of control gun ownership or the rampant rapings that go on without it, give me guns.
===
Uber always go back to rape. :-)
But really, I don't see how guns and rapes are automatically related.
Maybe you're too fat to fuck each others, maybe Australians and Canadians drink too much and end up raping their mothers.
Seriously, I doubt it's a simple gun-rape mathetical equation. There might be a lot more factors. Our persmissive juridical system certainly doesn't help. Sex offenders and even recidivists get pretty small sentences.
---------------
I highly doubt that the gun thing has anything to do with the rape statistics. Maybe it's because Australian and Canadian rape victims are more likely to report the attack than their American counterparts? We do tend to blame the victim first when it comes to rape in this country.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:10:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:00:30 (#)
Ranking: 2
Caul, I would actually agree with Canada's gun laws, but your rapes are on par with Australia (see seventh UN survey on crime trends).
So when confronted with the choice of out of control gun ownership or the rampant rapings that go on without it, give me guns.
===
Uber always go back to rape. :-)
But really, I don't see how guns and rapes are automatically related.
Maybe you're too fat to fuck each others, maybe Australians and Canadians drink too much and end up raping their mothers.
Seriously, I doubt it's a simple gun-rape mathetical equation. There might be a lot more factors. Our persmissive juridical system certainly doesn't help. Sex offenders and even recidivists get pretty small sentences.
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:09:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
As a gun owner, I'll chime in on a few things.
To own an automatic rifle in the USA legally, you must have licensing. The license includes a giant background search and such crap. Once granted you have agreed that the authorities may search your home and/or business (if you are a gun dealer) at any time with no notice.
I own an AK-47. It is a semi-auto. I didn't buy it for "protection." I bought it for target shooting at a gun range. It is under lock and key when not in use, actually, the main body of the gun is trigger locked in a closet. The firing mechanism and the piston for the gas chamber is hidden and locked up elsewhere. The magazines are in yet another place. The ammo in a fourth place. I'm paranoid when it comes to gun safety.
I have never shot anyone. Nor have I ever been arrested. I did have a firearms related injury a year ago; I cut my palm on the slide for the bolt of a Russian WWII service rifle.
As for answers about the high firearms related murder rate in the US, I can only guess. I think pride has a bit to do about it. People seem to be hurting and killing people for even the stupidest of percieved slights. A man beat an elderly lady to an inch of life recently because she "cut him off" or something in traffic. I once refused to make a right hand turn at a red light because I could not see on-coming traffic, the man behind me in a BIG truck started honking his horn. I gave him the bird. He followed me into my office parking ramp. When he pulled up next to me, I gestured to my cell phone and mouthed the word "police" to him from my locked car. He pulled away and left the ramp, and left me guessing what may have happened if I had gotten out of the car.
There is also a culture of violence in America. Just look at the music, movies and TV here. If someone wants to fight you and you back down, people look down on you. If you pick fights for no reason or the dumbest of reasons, you are a "bad-ass." You brag about killing people in song? You've just went platinum with your new album.
Simple answer: People are stupid. There just seems to be more idiots per capita in the US.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:00:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Caul, I would actually agree with Canada's gun laws, but your rapes are on par with Australia (see seventh UN survey on crime trends).
So when confronted with the choice of out of control gun ownership or the rampant rapings that go on without it, give me guns.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info)