Gun Control

This should be fun...

I'm completely against it. Discuss.

I agree, even though I'm accused of being liberal.

I guess the arguements for it are it prevents crime, school shootings, etc. But gunless societies like Japan aren't exactly crime free. They just use more primative measures. People without guns took out 2 towers. So I'm not so sure guns are the problem...

I do think it's interesting you're against this preventative measure. Is it only because liberals are for it? If you think about it, taking out terrorists is a preventative measure as well...

yeah, I'm against gun control in the main as well.  But I can see keeping assault weapons tightly controlled, or banned.  If you want to play with those, there's an army to join.

There are current laws in place which need only to be enforced; that is, we don't need new legislation on the matter.  HOWEVER, I can see where gun control people are coming from when they observe that a situation where you would legitamitely use a weapon, esp. handguns, in self defense, (successfully for that matter), is far less likely than a kid popping his head off.

I'm also against gun control. As the argument has been presented many times the only ones who lose their guns do to new laws would be the victims. Canada's violent crimes rate has gone up 60% since they instated the gun registry law and their murder rates are up almost 40%. Can't argue with numbers or logic there, unless you're a mindless anti-gun city hippie.

I'm also against gun control. As the argument has been presented many times the only ones who lose their guns do to new laws would be the victims. Canada's violent crimes rate has gone up 60% since they instated the gun registry law and their murder rates are up almost 40%. Can't argue with numbers or logic there, unless you're a mindless anti-gun city hippie.

As an European right-winger, I'm against letting people blow each other (European leftists might want to be liberal about this though). I would write 4 KB on why is letting people have guns wrong, but I'll just throw facts in: America has one of the highest crime rates of the civilized world, and the most school crimes by far.

But gunless societies like Japan aren't exactly crime free.
Lol, what the fuck. Japan has one of the lowest crimes rates in the world. Absolutely no society will be crime free, saying a gunless society should be crime free is asinine. America has many times more crime than Japan, and one of the reasons behind this is guns.

People without guns took out 2 towers. So I'm not so sure guns are the problem...
Another fallacy. "AIDS kills people. But people without AIDS dies too, so AIDS is not a problem."

Canada's violent crimes rate has gone up 60% since they instated the gun registry law and their murder rates are up almost 40%.
And yet another fallacy. "Last year, I stopped drinking Fanta. Pollution increased and we lost an forested area the size of Switzerland. Therefore drinking Fanta helps reducing pollution."

Get real. I know maw and paw gave you your first gun for your 10th birthday. But you ought to stop being rednecks some day. You can't allow such a threat. Any stupid emp kid goes and kill his mates at school. Any argument may end in guns just because you have them at home. And you're promoting a gun worshipping culture. Leave guns for the pros who undergo proper training and have a license. If there's some criminal shit to shoot, they are the ones for the job.

Once again you ignore the facts. 70% of murders in the US happen in just 3.5% of our counties. Regions with high ammounts of gang related activities have higher murder rates. Guns don't kill people, people kill people using them. Just like people use knives, clubs, poison, ect ect ect.

Furthermore, let's report on Britain and Australia's major success with gun control. Violent crime has doubled since 1997 in Britain. Meanwhile, in Australia, armed robbery has gone up 78% and overally crime is up 32%.

And finally, recent reports show crime rates in Great Britain and Autralia are HIGHER than ours despite your rumors about us.
"The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

Tell me, how much evidence can you possibly dismiss as either coincidence or fallacy? Oh yeah that's right, all of it. As a liberal fanatic you claim to be for freedoms but all you ever do is attempt to pass legislature to enforce your own views on morality and steal the freedom from others.

The crime rate in America doesn't have to do with how many people have guns as it does with our culture. Hip-hop and rap culture, for instance. 'Nuff said.

It still stands that if you take guns out of the hands of law-abiding people, it only puts them at the mercy of the law-breaking people with guns. And don't tell me that they can't get guns illegally, or hell, even make their own guns.

Put a gun into the hands of every person in the country and see how much the crime rate goes down cause that emo kid at school you're referring to won't have the chance to whip it out. The bastard robbing you at gun-point in your bedroom won't be there to know you have one pointed at his knee-cap. Your daughter being raped won't have to worry about being buried alive in a trash bag, cause little Jessica will be packin' heat with her MP5--... er, and, uh.. yeah, there you have it. :D

Amen! Great Post!

I see guns more as a deterrent than an actual defense measure.  A criminal will be more likely to assault someone on the street if he knows there's little chance that person on the street is going to be packing (even if the criminal himself doesn't have a gun).  So there's less deadly risk in going out and assaulting people.

I honestly believe that average people should have the right to weild deadly force (now just how deadly is a point of contention though).  Because bigger, stronger people already have that ability, even unarmed.  Sometimes when someone is being violated in an extreme situation, there's really no possible recourse other than to whip out a gun and threaten them with it.  To say just leave it to the police puts it in the hands of a beauracracy which often can't get anything done.

>>10
Well, I mean, let's not undermine the great work cops do, aside from the stuff like hand-cuffing and detaining a guy for selling a MARTA token to somebody so he can ride the train because the token machine wasn't working, or body-slamming a woman for accidently clipping the officer with her mirror, or pulling you over for going 5 over and ticketing you solely for income to the police department...

... But yeah, guns = deterrent.

Hmm... If it were possible for society to have no guns then it wouldn't be any different from a society where everyone had guns. If everyone on the street had guns don't you think the people who would've had guns in a gunless society would have bulletproof vests or a better gun. Then everyone in the gun-tote society would have to get a better gun and the bad guys would get even better ones...

Ex-police officers should be able to keep their guns, those in the army should not automatically be allowed personal firearms due to philosophical reasons, being they are not the police and should not carry out those roles under the orders of the military.

Anyone with a criminal record is not allowed to possess a fire arm whatsoever.

I believe people should volunteer for police work and do work in the community. You know the sort of thing. Putting on a flourescant vest with community warden written on it and patrolling the high street on friday night and calming down drunkards. etc etc..

After a year or so then the local police will decide whether this person is eligible for a side arm.

If someone wants a hunting rifle or some other guns they have to possess a side arm for a year, with a L sticker stuck onto it. As if they are learning to drive a car, but in this case learning to act responsibly.

Ask any psychologist. Community service brings out the best in people and exposes them to emotions and human behaviour that they will see in themselves and learn to control. I believe in this way, allowing guns into the public must cause a lot less fatalities than disallowing them completely.

>>13
That's a little overly-beauracratic, isn't it? You're still making it harder for the people that want a gun for non-criminal purposes to get one, increasing their risk of being a victim to someone wanting to use a gun 'for' a criminal purpose.

And as for hunters ... There's something wrong with someone that wakes up in the morning and says to himself as he tips back a beer, "Hooooo-WEE! I'ma gon' keel me a bootiful aminal tuhday jiss fer the sake'a killin' it! :B " And if you're a hunter, don't give me this "Oh, we only kill sickly deer to help the population" crap. Put any hunter in a field with two deer, one obviously emaciated and old and moldy, and one with a huge-ass rack of antlers, and see which one he shoots.

Most hunters don't think that way. Killing for sport is stupid and wrong. I've eaten everything I've shot.

Furthermore, the fact that you speak of "old and moldy" deer is a tribute to the fact you've never hunted them. Evenly slightly sick deer won't survive in the wild so you'll never come across any.

Because humans have removed predators such as wolves from the environment, deer will reproduce and reach a popluation higher than nature can sustain. This justifies hunting both buck and doe to keep the population low insuring food for the remaining deer.

>>13
You should have to learn to use a long arm before being able to carry a side arm if anything. Long arms are rarely used to commit crime. Pistols are far more likely to be used for crimes than a rifle or shotgun, not the other way around.

Furthermore, you've made  it far too difficult for honest people to acquire permits while in no way making an effort to reduce the ammount of people carrying unlawfully with the intent on criminal acts.

>>15
No, I never have hunted, and I would only blow away Bambi's mom if I needed to to feed myself. I work in an office full of hunters, and they all hunt for sport, regardless of whether they actually eat it or not, and that's the sort of mentality I see. It's like they get off talking about how an animal slowly suffocates from it's lungs filling up with blood when you shoot 'em in the side.

Or hey, just stick some more wolves back in the wild. :x

>>12
It's not about how good the gun is.  Little Johnny might still be able to get Soldier Boy with a pea shooter even though he's decked out in camo-everything and kevlar. 

>>13
What the fuck?  That's completely pointless and stupid.  Almost everyone has better things to do than dick around at night.   they'd just as soon put it in the hands of a police department, which isn't exactly a bad idea.

And besides, the people with guns would suddenly feel better than the people who aren't allowed to have them, sort of an arbitrary superiority.  They would then be ten times more arrogant and bragardly about it ("look at my gun, heh heh, wanna touch it heh heh") than police are (even doing good work, a police man is very authoritarian and vengeful with his authority...  though the difference is that he is given a task, and he knows it; a citizen suddenly allowed to carry a gun is just someon who the kind has decreed can).

>It still stands that if you take guns out of the hands of law-abiding people, it only puts them at the mercy of the law-breaking people with guns. And don't tell me that they can't get guns illegally, or hell, even make their own guns.

How ironic. These law-breaking people apparently can not be stopped. I'd like to know how they are different from terrorists. The fight against crime never ends. How can the war on terror end?

The gun situation is supposed to be solved by arming law-abiding  people. Then I suppose dealing with terrorists requires us to become terrorists well? I see the plan now.

>>14
>>15
>>17
I'm taking 2 logical premises concerning this issue and trying to find the best way to accomodate them both in order to do the most good. Consider these 2 problems with america's gun control system.

1: A paranoid psycho who has no criminal record wants to kill someone, he buys some hunting gear, joins a club. Says he wants to buy a deer rifle, waits 6 months or whatever. Gets his gun and goes out to shoot whoever he hates. Nothing can stop him if no one susepcts him, he can just lie out in a bush in front of the guy's home or something and shoot him when he walks out of the door in an ordinary morning in an ordinary suburb. Unless the victim is extremely paranoid and has sandbags and machine gun posts around his home he isn't going to stand a chance.

"And besides, the people with guns would suddenly feel better than the people who aren't allowed to have them, sort of an arbitrary superiority.  They would then be ten times more arrogant and bragardly about it ("look at my gun, heh heh, wanna touch it heh heh") than police are (even doing good work, a police man is very authoritarian and vengeful with his authority...  though the difference is that he is given a task, and he knows it; a citizen suddenly allowed to carry a gun is just someon who the kind has decreed can)."

If this guy spent a year doing community service he might learn something and if he decides to get a gun will be astronomically less likely to make the choice to go out and kill someone. One thing someone learns as a police officer is how good reasonable people are literally BETTER people than corrupt morons who think selling poison to kids is justified and other assholes. This may be a feeling of superiority but it is warranted, a disgruntled madman will certainly change his mind about committing a crime after dealing with these people. The feeling of superiority is due to the fact that YOU DO NOT COMMIT CRIME. As a result of course no person with a criminal record should ever be allowed a gun. If someone commits a crime, even unarmed violence or a serious traffic violation and is known to have a firearm, their right to bear arms isrevoked and they can never touch a gun legally again. What better incentive not to commit crime than the idea that if you do you will have wasted 1500 hours of your life?

2a: A crazy fuck walks straight through a school metal detector and starts blasting away. A teacher hears the gun fire, but left his gun at home out of fear of being arrested for carrying a gun in public. He can do nothing to stop this guy from killing some of his students.

2b: A teacher brings a gun into school and starts shooting his students.

Both these instances conflict, how can you not allow a law abiding citizen to carry a gun to exercise his right to protect himself and those around him and how can you allow madmen to be in a position to shoot children?

With this in mind it is obvious that there should be measures taken to ensure guns only get in the hands of those who will use it to do good, a certain level of restriction is needed otherwise madmen will get guns and a certain level of unrestriction is needed otherwise good people will be helpeless when they can do good. I think my year of community service is a good mediator between the 2 and can ensure that many psychos will either stop being psychos or get shot by good people with guns.

"You should have to learn to use a long arm before being able to carry a side arm if anything. Long arms are rarely used to commit crime. Pistols are far more likely to be used for crimes than a rifle or shotgun, not the other way around.

Furthermore, you've made  it far too difficult for honest people to acquire permits while in no way making an effort to reduce the ammount of people carrying unlawfully with the intent on criminal acts."

It only takes a year out of their lives, but it can ensure that guns get into the hands of honest people with the heavily reduced possibility of someone using the system to gain access to weapons. For the rest of their lives they can bear arms. Most people who want the right to bear arms are conservative who often believe that people should do 2 years in the military or some other work for the community in order to turn them into better people, of course some disagree, but there is some merit to this argument.

>>15
Correct.
>>16
In any group of human beings you will find a subset I call "Sick Fucks".

I'm a long-haired, hippie liberal.  Peace & love and all that.  I own firearms.  I've hunted and killed critters.  You don't squeeze the trigger if you don't have clean, one shot kill.  If I've killed it I've eaten it.  I also have a CWP (carry) permit and when the situation calls for it, I do.
Guns are like cars.  Both can kill.  Both require IMO training, background checks and periodic recertification.
Flame in 3...2...1...

Game is the finest meat around. Better than veal or lamb by far.

My cock is my gun and my game is a warm pussy. Yes, I am highly trained.

>>22
GTFO FURRY

( )O( )

>>18
That's another thread, or two, or five, buddy. Keep it in one of those, I'm about tired of bitching about that topic. -_-
But just to squeeze out what's left: You have a point. How do you "win" this war? By keeping the terror managed to a point where it's not a global crisis where everyone has to worry about being nuked. Same with violent criminals. So train the damn Iraqi's and close the damn U.S. borders and for god sake start profiling, because like I said in another thread that has to do with this topic "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims." Yeesh...

>>20  > "you will find a subset I call "Sick Fucks"."
Yeah, I guess so.

>That's another thread, or two, or five, buddy.
That's right friend, might as well make it six. It's a little difficult to spot the thread it should be in, but you and your contradictory ways are easily spotted.

I love it when presidents declare war on non-countries. War on drugs, crime, terror. Traditional wars could at least end with signing a treaty. Are you going to round up Zarqawi and friends to sign a piece of paper. There's no end to this "war." The president is too chickshit to say it.

Terror management does not end. The terror is already a global crisis, but by staying in Iraq the terror comes to us. Iraq is proving to be a surprisingly good buffer zone. It's a wonder why these terrorists don't spend their money more wisely and attack at the root of their problem. Winning the war would mean staying in Iraq FOREVER. Until the terrorists take a different approach anyway.

Do you even hear yourself? You want preventative measures, yet you don't. You want to police the world, yet you want isolation. You don't want people to fuck with you, but fucking other people over is just fine. If everyone had this immature self-centered world view terrorists wouldn't be the only immediate problem.

I'll tell you when this war will end: When we get someone with fiscal sanity back in the president's seat. While we're hemorrhaging money daily, our Chinese masters are preparing their steamroller.

>>26
So what in the hell would you suggest we do about terrorists that won't stop until we're all either dead or under the boot of a global Islamic nation?

"I'll tell you when this war will end: When we get someone with fiscal sanity back in the president's seat. While we're hemorrhaging money daily, our Chinese masters are preparing their steamroller."
I completely agree with you there.

Stop hijacking the thread! This is about gun control not the war in Iraq. Its okay to make a few metaphors but please get back the the topic at hand.

>>27
I'd let them win if it meant I could kill you.

I like where this thread is going.

Gun control does not reduce crime, therefore it is worthless.

Gun Control: An euphamism completely made up by insane totalitarian pacifists to make sure they're the only ones who control where they point. And that's usually at the former gun owners, not the criminal element nor an opposing nation. Always disguised under the arguments of being "for the children" or "for the good of the nation" to reduce some phantom statistic that scares old ladies.

And that's usually at the former gun owners

You're so persecuted.

Gun control does not increase crime, therefore it is useful.

Out here, gun control means being able to hit your target.

>>35
Out there, a run-over possum means dinner tonight.

>>36
Nonsense.  Run-over possum is too flat.  Now a deer or elk shot from just off the road is another matter.  (Oh, howdy, Mr. Game Warden.)