PDA

View Full Version : GUNZ !!! BANG!



Alastair|UK
11-27-2006, 11:25 PM
What do you guys think of guns? I don't have a problem with them. Many people have informed me that they aren't allowed in the United Kingdom; however, that is not the case. I have a provisional license, meaning I can't buy one, but I can be given one, and I do have one. My dad has six. The rifle club we go to has eighteen members, each with at least three guns and one member has more than thirty! He's also a gunsmith.

Funny story about that! Every year you need to renew your license, and one year he was supposedly given the wrong forms, so a police officer comes a'knockin' and says, "'Ello, mate! I'm sorry to inform you but you will have to turn your guns into a gunsmith or you will be fined or sent to jail or some similar thing." And so the fellow replies, "They appear to have neglected to inform you that I am a gunsmith, ol' chap, so all that I will have to do here is pass my guns from my left hand to my right and put it back in my safe." And they both lol'd.

So, back to the topic, what do you think about guns? Do you own any?

theundeadhero
11-27-2006, 11:29 PM
<!--Run-on sentence!

What's the next English problem, teacher? (I thought I got out of class hours ago)-->*snip* That sort of commentary doesn't belong in this thread. ~Shlup


It's my job to know how to shoot, clean, put together, and troubleshoot many types of guns, among other things.

Martyr
11-27-2006, 11:32 PM
<!--Yeah, that was so bad that I stopped reading it.--> *snip* Off topic. ~Shlup I think you were asking about my Colt .45.

Let me explain: If I shoot you in the right part of your arm, I can blow your arm clean off.

And when a gun can do the same thing any sword can do, then it has become the ultimate weapon. (Except for the atomic bomb and the fist).

Breine
11-27-2006, 11:32 PM
I'm a strong supporter of gun control.

Jess
11-27-2006, 11:34 PM
I don't own a gun and I never will. It shouldn't be so easy to buy a gun. I don't like guns, at all. But, I think that because it is so easy for nasty people to get a hold of a gun that I don't blame nice people having them to protect themselves.

Nominus Experse
11-27-2006, 11:34 PM
<!--For the love of god, make use of periods. It's difficult to discern what you mean to say when there are no periods to be had. I'm not ranting or insulting you, simply telling you that not many are going to bother sifting through posts that have no periods.--> *snip* That sort of commentary belongs in PM. ~Shlup



As for my thoughts of guns, I am paranoid of them. It's a ridiculous notion, that a gun will go off at any given moment, but it's how I am. Due to this, it's exceedingly difficult for me to trust the things, even moreso when in someone's hands.

I really do not know why it is that way - it just is.

And I know how stupid the paranioa is, but it's there...

Ultima Shadow
11-27-2006, 11:35 PM
I, personally, hate guns.

Edit:


As for my thoughts of guns, I am paranoid of them. It's a ridiculous notion, that a gun will go off at any given moment, but it's how I am. Due to this, it's exceedingly difficult for me to trust the things, even moreso when in someone's hands.

I really do not know why it is that way - it just is.

And I know how stupid the paranioa is, but it's there...Actually... it's not stupid at all. It makes perfect sense.

McLovin'
11-27-2006, 11:36 PM
Only in my video games unfortunately.

:magus:

Shlup
11-27-2006, 11:44 PM
I like guns. One of my father's many guns is considered "mine" though it's legally his.

I plan to get my own someday. Considering getting a license to carry it in my purse too.

Levian
11-27-2006, 11:46 PM
I don't need a gun. I just put a bullet in my mouth and spit.

Psychotic
11-28-2006, 12:00 AM
I don't need a gun. I just put a bullet in my mouth and spit.I have a similar trick, but instead of spitting I swallow. It's a nice surprise for ninjas and butt rapists when they try to sneak attack my hindquarters.

Sylvie
11-28-2006, 12:03 AM
I didn't even bother reading this. Theres no punctuation in this thing. I don't even know what you're talking about. I'm going to take a wild guess and say "Whats your favorite gun?"

I like glue guns.

NorthernChaosGod
11-28-2006, 12:49 AM
And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle, so that Man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals.

Guns are great. I'm buying myself a shotgun for Christmas. :bigsmile:

I also plan on buying a Desert Eagle when I get the money for it.

escobert
11-28-2006, 12:54 AM
I live in Vermont, we have very lax gun laws, and I like it that way. We do however have to register our guns! :( This is a new thing in the state. I own several guns as do most of my family members.

Miriel
11-28-2006, 01:03 AM
Guns are scary and dangerous.

Vincent, Thunder God
11-28-2006, 01:13 AM
Aw... Shlup translated it already... and I was going to have fun doing it too, like last time.

Anyway, I think guns only do one thing: they create the need for more guns. They just increase the violence in this world; and guns are so proficient at violence that they are now the perfect option for executing said violence. The more guns people have, the more are needed as protection, but even those guns that are bought as protection usually just end up being abused once again. It's a vicious cycle.

I wish they had never been created.

Shlup
11-28-2006, 01:31 AM
Guns are scary and dangerous.

So is your boyfriend but that doesn't stop you from nothin'.

Frozen Phantom
11-28-2006, 01:42 AM
damn...I thought you were talking about Gunz the duel... :(

in real life no....what? you really think a 14 year old would have guns...stop looking at me I have nothing to hide....

Cruise Control
11-28-2006, 01:52 AM
Anyway, I think guns only do one thing: they create the need for more guns. They just increase the violence in this world; and guns are so proficient at violence that they are now the perfect option for executing said violence. The more guns people have, the more are needed as protection, but even those guns that are bought as protection usually just end up being abused once again. It's a vicious cycle.

I wish they had never been created.You hippie thumb-biter. :P

I am an advocate of guns, though impractical for the reasons usually cited (burglars and the like). Your likely to shoot your family in the dark. But, if your being threatened on the street, the mere show of a gun usually does an effective job on the noobs menacing you.

EDIT: Love the title. xD

Vincent, Thunder God
11-28-2006, 03:09 AM
Anyway, I think guns only do one thing: they create the need for more guns. They just increase the violence in this world; and guns are so proficient at violence that they are now the perfect option for executing said violence. The more guns people have, the more are needed as protection, but even those guns that are bought as protection usually just end up being abused once again. It's a vicious cycle.

I wish they had never been created.You hippie thumb-biter. :P

I am an advocate of guns, though impractical for the reasons usually cited (burglars and the like). Your likely to shoot your family in the dark. But, if your being threatened on the street, the mere show of a gun usually does an effective job on the noobs menacing you.

EDIT: Love the title. xD

That situation could all to easily spin out of control, and you know it. Just showing the gun could actually instigate violence. You might underestimate someone, and when you pull out the gun he could pull out his. From there it would be easy enough for either of you to die.

Like I said, any situation when a gun is being used for protection only can still lead to deaths.

Cruise Control
11-28-2006, 03:13 AM
True, but show of force is more effective than actual force. And even if someone died, who cares. One life is a drop in an ocean.

Vincent, Thunder God
11-28-2006, 03:17 AM
True, but show of force is more effective than actual force. And even if someone died, who cares. One life is a drop in an ocean.

That is where we disagree. One life is a symbol of all life; the gift we are given, the possibilities we have. One act and it's all ruined for one of us. If that kind of attitude was kept by everyone on Earth, there would be a lot less lives, and a lot less possibilities.

nik0tine
11-28-2006, 03:24 AM
What do I think of guns? I think guns are cool.

Although, it should be noted that it doesn't matter what you or I think about guns. Every individual should have the right to bear arms. Nothing more needs to be said.

NorthernChaosGod
11-28-2006, 03:29 AM
What do I think of guns? I think guns are cool.

Although, it should be noted that it doesn't matter what you or I think about guns. Every individual should have the right to bear arms. Nothing more needs to be said.

Except for the mentally ill and the mentally retarded.

Vincent, Thunder God
11-28-2006, 03:34 AM
What do I think of guns? I think guns are cool.

Although, it should be noted that it doesn't matter what you or I think about guns. Every individual should have the right to bear arms. Nothing more needs to be said.

That view is exactly why America had almost 12 000 murders with guns one year, when places like China had under 100.

This is a fact featured in the film Bowling for Columbine (or Farenheit 911, one of the two).

nik0tine
11-28-2006, 03:45 AM
That view is exactly why America had almost 12 000 murders with guns one year, when places like China had under 100.
Freedom isn't nice. Freedom isn't pretty. When people are free you can count on them abusing it. It's unfortunate that those people died, but without abriding personal freedom nothing could have been done about those murders. You forget that freedom is inalienable, regardless of how many people suffer because of it.


This is a fact featured in the film Bowling for Columbine (or Farenheit 911, one of the two).
that fact is wrong.

NorthernChaosGod
11-28-2006, 03:46 AM
That view is exactly why America had almost 12 000 murders with guns one year, when places like China had under 100.
Freedom isn't nice. Freedom isn't pretty. When people are free you can count on them abusing it. It's unfortunate that those people died, but without abriding personal freedom nothing could have been done about those murders. You forget that freedom is inalienable, regardless of how many people suffer because of it.


This is a fact featured in the film Bowling for Columbine (or Farenheit 911, one of the two).
that fact is wrong.

Pwned.

The Unknown Guru
11-28-2006, 03:48 AM
I don't mind guns, but I won't get one unless I need one. However, I am strongly against the statement, "guns kill people". That's like saying your pencil makes spelling errors.

nik0tine
11-28-2006, 03:49 AM
That's like saying your pencil makes spelling errors.You, sir, will forever have my respect.

Vincent, Thunder God
11-28-2006, 03:55 AM
That view is exactly why America had almost 12 000 murders with guns one year, when places like China had under 100.
Freedom isn't nice. Freedom isn't pretty. When people are free you can count on them abusing it. It's unfortunate that those people died, but without abriding personal freedom nothing could have been done about those murders. You forget that freedom is inalienable, regardless of how many people suffer because of it.

How freedom is defined depends on the person. To me, freedom is the ability to walk down a street without fearing who has a gun concealed on their person.


This is a fact featured in the film Bowling for Columbine (or Farenheit 911, one of the two).
that fact is wrong.

Before Northern Chaos God declares "pwned" like an immature child, I would like to see a source to the truth of this statement.

dodhungry
11-28-2006, 03:56 AM
I enjoy "guns" (though around here in Arkansas you dont call them guns. its either Rifle or pistol) I personly own 2 at the moment.

I have a 300 Win Mag Remington 710 Model :D or basicly an elephant rifle that I deer hunt with.

I also have a civilian version M16. (AR something rather) I use this to practice my marksmanship. Do note I am in the US Army so knowing how to shoot and keeping up my shooting is very important.

oh and
I also plan on buying a Desert Eagle when I get the money for it

Roto13
11-28-2006, 03:57 AM
I don't mind guns, but I won't get one unless I need one. However, I am strongly against the statement, "guns kill people". That's like saying your pencil makes spelling errors.

Guns don't kill children. Children kill children. (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2006/11/17/1118edinside.html)

Vincent, Thunder God
11-28-2006, 03:59 AM
I don't mind guns, but I won't get one unless I need one. However, I am strongly against the statement, "guns kill people". That's like saying your pencil makes spelling errors.

Guns don't kill children. Children kill children. (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2006/11/17/1118edinside.html)

Thank you. My point exactly, minus the sarcasm. :p

Hambone
11-28-2006, 04:02 AM
Guns bore me. They also kill squirrels. :(

Miriel
11-28-2006, 04:02 AM
I don't mind guns, but I won't get one unless I need one. However, I am strongly against the statement, "guns kill people". That's like saying your pencil makes spelling errors.

Oh god. I HATE when people HATE on that statement. It's like. Obviously guns don't walk around shooting people on their own accord but guns are dangerous, guns ARE used to kill people, guns do make it easier to kill people than back in the day when you had to like strangle people or cut them with a knife. Aaaaaahhrhrhrhrhggg!

dodhungry
11-28-2006, 04:02 AM
Guns bore me. They also kill squirrels
Squirrels make good eating:D

escobert
11-28-2006, 04:03 AM
That view is exactly why America had almost 12 000 murders with guns one year, when places like China had under 100.
Freedom isn't nice. Freedom isn't pretty. When people are free you can count on them abusing it. It's unfortunate that those people died, but without abriding personal freedom nothing could have been done about those murders. You forget that freedom is inalienable, regardless of how many people suffer because of it.

How freedom is defined depends on the person. To me, freedom is the ability to walk down a street without fearing who has a gun concealed on their person.


This is a fact featured in the film Bowling for Columbine (or Farenheit 911, one of the two).
that fact is wrong.

Before Northern Chaos God declares "pwned" like an immature child, I would like to see a source to the truth of this statement.

If you are walking down the street and I have a gun on me, how are you even going to know or be affected? You won't. If YOU don't cuase me trouble and try to rob me then you have nothing to worry about form me. Why take my right to protect myself.

Samuraid
11-28-2006, 04:19 AM
I don't mind guns, but I won't get one unless I need one. However, I am strongly against the statement, "guns kill people". That's like saying your pencil makes spelling errors.

Oh god. I HATE when people HATE on that statement. It's like. Obviously guns don't walk around shooting people on their own accord but guns are dangerous, guns ARE used to kill people, guns do make it easier to kill people than back in the day when you had to like strangle people or cut them with a knife. Aaaaaahhrhrhrhrhggg!
By the same token, cars can cause more violent and bloody deaths than guns can. Obviously cars don't drive around hitting people on their own Accord (wahahah, total pun here) but cars are dangerous, cars ARE used to kill people, cars do make it easier to kill people than back in the day when you had to like strangle people or cut them with <s>a knife</s> your bicycle.

Why don't we just do away with automobiles and stop all the mentally unstable from abusing them?

Vincent, Thunder God
11-28-2006, 04:22 AM
That view is exactly why America had almost 12 000 murders with guns one year, when places like China had under 100.
Freedom isn't nice. Freedom isn't pretty. When people are free you can count on them abusing it. It's unfortunate that those people died, but without abriding personal freedom nothing could have been done about those murders. You forget that freedom is inalienable, regardless of how many people suffer because of it.

How freedom is defined depends on the person. To me, freedom is the ability to walk down a street without fearing who has a gun concealed on their person.


This is a fact featured in the film Bowling for Columbine (or Farenheit 911, one of the two).
that fact is wrong.

Before Northern Chaos God declares "pwned" like an immature child, I would like to see a source to the truth of this statement.

If you are walking down the street and I have a gun on me, how are you even going to know or be affected? You won't. If YOU don't cuase me trouble and try to rob me then you have nothing to worry about form me. Why take my right to protect myself.

Because that right had been abused time and time again.

I'm not saying you necessarily will do it, but many have before, and many will still.

In Canada, we don't need to protect ourselves with guns because we don't need that kind of protection. There are other ways to protect one's self, and most of the time there is no need for protection.

We don't have that fear of needing protection, but you Americans do. Maybe if you weren't conditioned to fear through your TV news and didn't have guns around, you wouldn't think to need protection, just like us.

Raistlin
11-28-2006, 04:41 AM
Pretty much everyone agrees that carrying around a sharp stick is okay. Pretty much everyone agrees that having a nuclear bomb in your basement is not okay. Where you draw the line between those is ultimately arbitrary.

I think people should be allowed to have guns. Hunting rifles and handguns, at least. I can't think of any possible reason to allow automatic rifles or hand grenades or worse, so I would be okay with those being outlawed to the public.

New Hampshire is the only state I know which allows anyone in the public to carry a concealed weapon, and its crime numbers are very low.

nik0tine
11-28-2006, 04:43 AM
How freedom is defined depends on the person. To me, freedom is the ability to walk down a street without fearing who has a gun concealed on their person.That's not freedom. That's called safety, and there's a difference.


Before Northern Chaos God declares "pwned" like an immature child, I would like to see a source to the truth of this statement.If you've ever seen any of viators posts, you'd have known that was a joke.

Although, I imagine the amount of murders in those two countries are relatively similar, but I can't say for sure.

Although, I have been looking at murder statistics on the internet for the past 30 minutes or so, and I will say that they are not easy to come by.

Edit: Jeez this thread moves fast. Anyhow, I don't support gun ownership so that I can defend myself from some random criminal. The reason I support gun ownership is so that the government will think twice about stepping out of line. Guns should be easy to access so that revolutions arent hard to throw. I think fully automatic weapons should be legal for this reason. Although, I can't say for sure why I draw the line there instead of allowing personal nukes.

Roto13
11-28-2006, 04:55 AM
I don't mind guns, but I won't get one unless I need one. However, I am strongly against the statement, "guns kill people". That's like saying your pencil makes spelling errors.

Oh god. I HATE when people HATE on that statement. It's like. Obviously guns don't walk around shooting people on their own accord but guns are dangerous, guns ARE used to kill people, guns do make it easier to kill people than back in the day when you had to like strangle people or cut them with a knife. Aaaaaahhrhrhrhrhggg!
By the same token, cars can cause more violent and bloody deaths than guns can. Obviously cars don't drive around hitting people on their own Accord (wahahah, total pun here) but cars are dangerous, cars ARE used to kill people, cars do make it easier to kill people than back in the day when you had to like strangle people or cut them with <s>a knife</s> your bicycle.

Why don't we just do away with automobiles and stop all the mentally unstable from abusing them?

Oh come on. A car is for transportation. A gun is for killing. If a car couldn't hurt people it'd be better. If a gun couldn't hurt people it'd be pointless.

Miriel
11-28-2006, 04:56 AM
By the same token, cars can cause more violent and bloody deaths than guns can. Obviously cars don't drive around hitting people on their own Accord (wahahah, total pun here) but cars are dangerous, cars ARE used to kill people, cars do make it easier to kill people than back in the day when you had to like strangle people or cut them with <s>a knife</s> your bicycle.

Why don't we just do away with automobiles and stop all the mentally unstable from abusing them?

Because the purpose of cars isn't to hurt people. The purpose of guns is to hurt people. Bad people, good people, whatever. Purpose is pain.

That being said, I never ever said that we should do away with guns. All I said was that it annoys me when people get all uppity because people feel that guns are dangerous and lethal. They start ranting about people killing people and act like there's absolutely nothing wrong with guns. Of course people kill people. That's so freakin' obvious. But people kill people WITH GUNS.

fire_of_avalon
11-28-2006, 05:05 AM
How freedom is defined depends on the person. To me, freedom is the ability to walk down a street without fearing who has a gun concealed on their person.


There is a difference in the freedom to own a weapon and the freedom to carry a concealed weapon. It could be argued that weapon owners are more likely to carry concealed weapons if ownership is legal, but even if gun ownership were illegal the people who would be dangerous with the weapon would still have access to it.

Firearms are interesting weapons. I feel they are appropriate to use in marksmanship, hunting, and as a big show to defend your home. Because when it comes down to it, the vast majority of gun owners don't have the guts to shoot someone, even if that someone is a threat.

But I'm all for regulating the hell out of those bad boys.

dodhungry
11-28-2006, 05:11 AM
ok when people say regulate what kind of regulation are you talking about?

Personly if you mean keep them with a safety lock on them or in a locked gun safe Im all for that but like limiting how many you can own or something to that extreame then its a different story

Alastair|UK
11-28-2006, 05:08 PM
damn...I thought you were talking about Gunz the duel... :(

in real life no....what? you really think a 14 year old would have guns...stop looking at me I have nothing to hide....

im 13 :D

Huckleberry Quin
11-28-2006, 05:11 PM
3 snips on the first page. LOL.

To the squirrel lover upstairs: kill grey squirrels. They evil, and edible. Red squirrels are pretty and nice and not edible. Says I.

To the topic: Guns. Suck.

Roto13
11-28-2006, 05:32 PM
damn...I thought you were talking about Gunz the duel... :(

in real life no....what? you really think a 14 year old would have guns...stop looking at me I have nothing to hide....

im 13 :D

I don't like the fact that you have the means to kill people.

escobert
11-28-2006, 05:38 PM
Pretty much everyone agrees that carrying around a sharp stick is okay. Pretty much everyone agrees that having a nuclear bomb in your basement is not okay. Where you draw the line between those is ultimately arbitrary.

I think people should be allowed to have guns. Hunting rifles and handguns, at least. I can't think of any possible reason to allow automatic rifles or hand grenades or worse, so I would be okay with those being outlawed to the public.

New Hampshire is the only state I know which allows anyone in the public to carry a concealed weapon, and its crime numbers are very low.

New Hampshire is also ghey but that's because I'm in Vermont :p New hampshire is actually quite strict on buying guns and such and they are mean about guns period, however in teh state of Vermont I can carry a loaded pistol on my side anywhere except school grounds of a court house. Yes that means I can walk into the state house with my gun and they cannot take it away. This is why I lvoe vermont. In vermont personal freedoms > all. I can take my gun put it to your head and say "I'm going to kill you" and I can have 45 cops around and not one can do a thing about it. That is my right to say and do what I want as long as I am not killing that person. The cops couldn't legally touch me until I pull the trigger. now, yes this is very stupid in crime prevention but it shows Vermont values our freedom.

theundeadhero
11-28-2006, 05:41 PM
Simple subjectivism is no way to debate. I don't like something so it shouldn't be. :rolleyes2

Missouri allows concealed weapons, and I believe Florida and California does too.

Guns kill people, yes, but if that person wants to kill you they will do it. If not with a gun, then with a sharp stick or a car. Taking away the right to own one doesn't change that.

Guns do not go off at any given moment. They go off when the trigger is pulled, or when carelessly left loaded and then mishandled.

Miriel
11-28-2006, 05:49 PM
Guns kill people, yes, but if that person wants to kill you they will do it. If not with a gun, then with a sharp stick or a car. Taking away the right to own one doesn't change that.
I've always hated that arguement as well. As though everyone who is capable of killing with a gun is also capable of killing in a more... I guess "personal" manner. I don't think that's the case at all. Sure, if someone is really out to get you I'm sure they find some way to do it. But I don't think most gun-related deaths are about a "Omg I'm gonna kill you no matter what!!" vendetta.

I think many many many more people have the guts to just drive by and shoot someone than they have the guts to go up to their face and slit their throats or something.

And I don't see what's wrong with someone saying, "I don't like guns, I don't think they should be allowed." It's just their opinions, it's not like most people seriously think that just because they don't like something that it's gonna be abolished. It's not like they're arguing about it in front of congress. It's just a simple statement of personal opinion.

Alastair|UK
11-28-2006, 05:50 PM
damn...I thought you were talking about Gunz the duel... :(

in real life no....what? you really think a 14 year old would have guns...stop looking at me I have nothing to hide....

im 13 :D

I don't like the fact that you have the means to kill people.

dont worry as irresponisble as i can be im responsible when its something import like So

theundeadhero
11-28-2006, 06:02 PM
I think many many many more people have the guts to just drive by and shoot someone than they have the guts to go up to their face and slit their throats or something.How many of the people who do drive-byes aquire the gun illegally? How many would still aquire the gun illegally if all guns were illegal to own? I would say a majority.


And I don't see what's wrong with someone saying, "I don't like guns, I don't think they should be allowed." It's just their opinions, it's not like most people seriously think that just because they don't like something that it's gonna be abolished.If they're just stating their opinion then I agree it's fine. If being used as an argumentive statement, then it just doesn't make sense.

Shaun
11-28-2006, 06:13 PM
Bang bang - you're dead... fifty bullets in the head.

BarelySeeAtAll
11-28-2006, 06:14 PM
i wish i had a gun, you would all be even more scared of me then!

Ultima Shadow
11-28-2006, 06:51 PM
To all those who talk about guns and freedom and whatever:

So... do you guys want "absolute freedom"? ... in other words, being able to kill, rape, robe whoever you want whenever you want and always get away with it? Laws exist for a reason. While security may limmit our so-called "freedom", I think it's a fair trade. I'm not against ownership of guns. But being able to freely walk around with a concealed gun outside and point it at whoever you want is absolutely ridicolous. Owning a gun and being able to use it however you want is not freedom. It's insanity.

If the defination of freedom is "being able to do whatever you want and not having to take any responsibility", then complete freedom is nothing but chaos. And chaos is usually not a very good thing. Freedom IS better off being limmited to a certain extent, as long as you're still able to walk your own path trough life, make your own decisions, have your own oppinions and thoughts etc...

That's the only freedom anyone really needs. Being able to walk around with concealed guns really isn't needed.


Well, that's how I see it anyways.


Now, from a more personal point of view (and please note: I'm NOT debatting anything here, just speaking freely) I also disslike guns as a weapon because you have no controll over the amount of power that you're going to strike with. And I also consider them cheap. Being able to win a fight by simply pulling a trigger isn't fair-play in my book. A REAL man fights with a spoon! :greenie:

Edit:


In Canada, we don't need to protect ourselves with guns because we don't need that kind of protection. There are other ways to protect one's self, and most of the time there is no need for protection.
Same over here. And I'm glad for that.


Also, I remember someone saying something about "taking away the right to defend themselves" in this thread. I won't bother to scroll trough the thread again just to see who it was, but: Taking away your gun is hardly taking away your right to defend yourself. In fact, there's much better and more realible ways to defend yourself (if you'll actually ever even need to do that) than threatening, whoever you want to defend yourself from, with a gun.

Dell
11-28-2006, 07:00 PM
Guns are scary and dangerous.

Agreed. In addition, just hearing a gun's shot can make me faint. And to see a gun aimed at me could kill me before the gun can kill me.

NorthernChaosGod
11-29-2006, 06:57 AM
You need a permit to own a gun, period. You need a separate permit to be able to carry a concealed weapon.

They don't hand out permits to just anyone, they require background checks and that includes a check of a person's mental health. Quit your bitchin'.

Yamaneko
11-29-2006, 07:01 AM
People don't need guns. Should they be allowed to own guns? Yes. Within legislative restrictions, of course.

blackmage_nuke
11-29-2006, 07:15 AM
I don't mind guns, but I won't get one unless I need one. However, I am strongly against the statement, "guns kill people". That's like saying your pencil makes spelling errors.
Yes they do, thats why there are barely any spelling errors in hyroglyphics and other ingraved messages. The pencil causes people to make more spelling errors just as the guns cause people to kill people. If we didnt use pencils and ingraved all our writing we would probably have less spelling errors, if we didnt have guns and carried pointy sticks or stunners we would probably have less killings.

Of course spelling errors are not serious, murders are, thats why no one is against pencils.

Madame Adequate
11-29-2006, 09:33 PM
It disgusts me that society is so emasculated in this country as to deny people the chance to adequately defend themselves. I am a strong supporter of gun ownership, not just on moral grounds but because they have been proven (Kleck study) to significantly reduce crime.

theundeadhero
11-29-2006, 09:41 PM
I think the biggest problem in all of this is that so many people are focusing on the whole guns for defense, on both sides of the argument. On the side that's against the rights to own guns, I agree that it's stupid for civillians to carry around guns to defend themselves. On the side of defending gun rights, I agree that people should have the right to own firearms. The difference is in what the firearms are used for.

Ultima Shadow
11-29-2006, 10:56 PM
I think the biggest problem in all of this is that so many people are focusing on the whole guns for defense, on both sides of the argument. On the side that's against the rights to own guns, I agree that it's stupid for civillians to carry around guns to defend themselves. On the side of defending gun rights, I agree that people should have the right to own firearms. The difference is in what the firearms are used for.Wisely spoken. And I agree.

Araciel
11-29-2006, 11:22 PM
a gun cannot be used for defense...it's like saying
'we bombed them to defend ourselves'
...the defense becomes an offense as soon as you pull out your gun and point it at someone. using guns for defense is not even a last resort, it simply doesn't exist.

i own five guns, none of which are handguns, and none of which i would use to defend myself...indeed it would be impossible to use them for defense anyway, since they are locked and unloaded, and the ammunition is locked away elsewhere.

the laws 'up here' are pretty straightforward and effective, and strict as they are, i find them acceptable for owning such dangerous machines. outside of a war, people have no need for guns, period. i use them for recreation, such as marksmanship and hunting. i have a nice collection but these guns are locked away 11 months of the year.

guns are cool and sexy and dangerous, in film and tv they are portrayed as tools, weapons, symbols, etc. and they are very much a part of our modern lives due to conflicts, both real and imagined. guns have changed the face of our world for better and worse, and without them we wouldn't be where we are now, also for better or worse.

Madame Adequate
11-30-2006, 02:18 AM
a gun cannot be used for defense...it's like saying
'we bombed them to defend ourselves'
...the defense becomes an offense as soon as you pull out your gun and point it at someone. using guns for defense is not even a last resort, it simply doesn't exist.

Que? You may want to go to www.dictionary.com and double-check the respective meanings of the words "offense" and "defense".

Araciel
11-30-2006, 02:21 AM
a gun cannot be used for defense...it's like saying
'we bombed them to defend ourselves'
...the defense becomes an offense as soon as you pull out your gun and point it at someone. using guns for defense is not even a last resort, it simply doesn't exist.

Que? You may want to go to www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) and double-check the respective meanings of the words "offense" and "defense".

o. i just thought that pulling a gun on someone was an act of aggression, whether or not they had one pointed at you in the first place

oh wait...it is

Savern Volaco
11-30-2006, 02:23 AM
Gunz okay lets see um I have...um 25 different guns I own i collect all different kind of weapons along with ammo... I am a gun collector I have many rare ones and I am happy with it...I think I only use guns to hunt for survival and i rather use my fists to defend me.

Raistlin
11-30-2006, 02:28 AM
a gun cannot be used for defense...it's like saying
'we bombed them to defend ourselves'
...the defense becomes an offense as soon as you pull out your gun and point it at someone. using guns for defense is not even a last resort, it simply doesn't exist.

Que? You may want to go to www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) and double-check the respective meanings of the words "offense" and "defense".

o. i just thought that pulling a gun on someone was an act of aggression, whether or not they had one pointed at you in the first place

oh wait...it is

By that logic, there is no such thing as self-defense.

Araciel
11-30-2006, 02:33 AM
...which is why if someone is caught wearing a bullet proof vest they can be charged

Raistlin
11-30-2006, 03:07 AM
...which is why if someone is caught wearing a bullet proof vest they can be charged

... what?

Vincent, Thunder God
11-30-2006, 03:27 AM
How freedom is defined depends on the person. To me, freedom is the ability to walk down a street without fearing who has a gun concealed on their person.That's not freedom. That's called safety, and there's a difference.


Before Northern Chaos God declares "pwned" like an immature child, I would like to see a source to the truth of this statement.If you've ever seen any of viators posts, you'd have known that was a joke.

Although, I imagine the amount of murders in those two countries are relatively similar, but I can't say for sure.

Although, I have been looking at murder statistics on the internet for the past 30 minutes or so, and I will say that they are not easy to come by.


Safety: To me, safety is directly related to my rights and freedoms as a Canadian. I would easily see it as a freedom, a right, to know that my country has safe gun laws.

Stats: These are a comparison of gun-related homocides in 1998 for several countries (the very statistics featured in Michael Moore's film):

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).

Source. (http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm)

If your country had better laws around this issue, those deaths would likely be less.

Raistlin
11-30-2006, 03:31 AM
Michael Moore? Well there's an objective source of information.

nik0tine
11-30-2006, 03:35 AM
Those stats mean nothing if you can't provide me with how many murders in total each country had per year. Gun related murders mean nothing if the total amount of murders are the same.

Vincent, Thunder God
11-30-2006, 03:38 AM
Michael Moore? Well there's an objective source of information.

If you went to the source I gave you'd realize it's also on a respected Illinois facts page. I just remembered that the numbers themselves were the ones in the film.


Those stats mean nothing if you can't provide me with how many murders in total each country had per year. Gun related murders mean nothing if the amount of murders are the same.

Not really. It shows how important guns are to the American culture, and how many deaths are linked to it. Besides, you probably realize that, despite gun laws, guns are often still the leading cause of homocides in most developed countries.

Araciel
11-30-2006, 03:38 AM
...which is why if someone is caught wearing a bullet proof vest they can be charged

... what?

it was a bad way of saying yes you're right, by that logic there is no such thing as self defense. self defense is using force against force

Savern Volaco
11-30-2006, 03:45 AM
Huh! A guy got shot for his PS3 crazy! I wonder where?*ponders* and he does have a point i love guns hate killing and self defence with a gun is useless in close combat

nik0tine
11-30-2006, 03:51 AM
Not really. It shows how important guns are to the American culture, and how many deaths are linked to it. Besides, you probably realize that, despite gun laws, guns are often still the leading cause of homocides in most developed countries.That's because guns are easier to kill people with. Do you think that if all of a sudden guns disapeared people would stop murdering? Guns don't cause murder, they are used in murder because they are efficient. If I want to kill you and I don't have a gun I'm not going to say "well, okay. I was going to shoot you in the face, but since I don't have a gun I'll just give you a hug instead." I'm going to stab you. Or bludgeon you. Or poison you or run you over with my car. You're gettin' killed regardless. Getting rid of guns does nothing.

Raistlin
11-30-2006, 03:56 AM
...which is why if someone is caught wearing a bullet proof vest they can be charged

... what?

it was a bad way of saying yes you're right, by that logic there is no such thing as self defense. self defense is using force against force

... no duh. That's what I said: by your logic, there would be no such thing as self-defense. Self-defense is using force to protect yourself. If you can't pull a gun, you can't throw a punch or push someone off of you, either. Those are all acts of aggression.


If you went to the source I gave you'd realize it's also on a respected Illinois facts page. I just remembered that the numbers themselves were the ones in the film.

Too bad Michael Moore edited the US numbers to include legally justified homicides (self-defense, etc.) to bump the numbers up an extra couple thousand. Very legitimate.

Araciel
11-30-2006, 04:00 AM
yeah you're right. i just don't believe a gun should ever be used for self-defense. this is what i should have said in the beginning instead of trying to make it larger than that

Vincent, Thunder God
11-30-2006, 04:00 AM
Not really. It shows how important guns are to the American culture, and how many deaths are linked to it. Besides, you probably realize that, despite gun laws, guns are often still the leading cause of homocides in most developed countries.That's because guns are easier to kill people with. Do you think that if all of a sudden guns disapeared people would stop murdering? Guns don't cause murder, they are used in murder because they are efficient. If I want to kill you and I don't have a gun I'm not going to say "well, okay. I was going to shoot you in the face, but since I don't have a gun I'll just give you a hug instead." I'm going to stab you. Or bludgeon you. Or poison you or run you over with my car. You're gettin' killed regardless. Getting rid of guns does nothing.

But if there were no guns, the unintentional deaths would go down. A bullet can cut down someone by accident; a sword is virtually impossible to misuse and cut down an innocent. Besides, kids can get to them and set them off by accident...

And it's much easier and more efficient to use a gun. If someone wanted to murder someone from a distance it's easier... a melee weapon can't do that. The effeciency will create more deaths...

And sometimes just having a gun in the house can make the decision between a homocide or not. Mentally unstable or angry family members would more easily become victims of temptation.

The effeciency creating deaths, the unintended deaths, and temptation creating deaths would all be less without guns.

Furthermore, guns create the need for more guns. Every threat of a terrorist drives fear into you Americans, and you feel the need for guns. If someone takes out a gun even in self-defense, it will result in someone's death.

Violence begets violence; and guns make violence uneccesarily easy.

nik0tine
11-30-2006, 04:14 AM
But if there were no guns, the unintentional deaths would go down. A bullet can cut down someone by accident; a sword is virtually impossible to misuse and cut down an innocent. Besides, kids can get to them and set them off by accident...How often do innocent people get killed by stray bullets? Kids can kill themselves with kitchen knives.


And it's much easier and more efficient to use a gun. If someone wanted to murder someone from a distance it's easier... a melee weapon can't do that. The effeciency will create more deaths...I call BS. People murdered an asston before guns were ever invented, and people murder an asston now. If I want to kill you, give me one reason why I wouldn't kill you with a knife if I didnt have access to a gun? In fact, it happens all the time.
Also, when people are killed by guns it's at close range 99 percent of the time. How often do people randomly get sniped? Almost never.


And sometimes just having a gun in the house can make the decision between a homocide or not. Mentally unstable or angry family members would more easily become victims of temptation.You're creating a bunch of hypothetical situations that are very rare. You can't ban something over obscure, unpredictable events that happen once in a blue moon.


Furthermore, guns create the need for more guns. Every threat of a terrorist drives fear into you Americans, and you feel the need for guns. If someone takes out a gun even in self-defense, it will result in someone's death.I think this is a load of garbage personally, but what about criminals who get guns illegally? How am I supposed to defend myself against them?

And don't even start with the terrorist nonsense. Nobody is trying to defend themselves against terrorists.

Most importantly, however, when my government decides to step out of line, I'd like them to know that I have the ability to defend myself against them. In my opinion thats the really important issue here. I'm not worried about a random criminal. I want politicians to know that I have the ability to fight back if need be.

Not that I need to at the moment. However, guns give power to the people and subtract power from politicians. How can that be a bad thing?

Evastio
11-30-2006, 04:28 AM
Guns are overrated. :mad:

It's sad how some people value guns way more than they value life. It's even more sad how people always say "_____ should be shot". It goes to show how much society nowadays revolves around guns.

Casey
11-30-2006, 09:54 AM
If it's one thing that would keep me alive, the weapon's my life. I love shooting the 120mm main gun of the Abrams Tank, especially hearing it fire outside! It's like *KABOOM* and your like "WOOOH!".

Twilight Edge
11-30-2006, 10:55 AM
Guns kill people too fast. I'd rather use a knife and stab them. At least I get to hear them scream. And btw, guns don't kill people, I do! HAHA! :D

Huckleberry Quin
11-30-2006, 05:14 PM
Killing someone is not self-defence in my opinion. If you own a gun and they are pointing a gun at you, I don't think you should shoot them dead. I have no problem with disabling people who attack you, however, even if it's permanent. Self-defence is when you do something to your attacker so that you may escape in my opinion. It's not when you kill them.

Alastair|UK
11-30-2006, 06:14 PM
just so no one has the wrong idea i do purely target shooting with a lot of responsible adults rifle shooting only 1 shot guns no automatics or nothing

Ultima Shadow
11-30-2006, 07:52 PM
That's because guns are easier to kill people with.
Guns don't cause murder, they are used in murder because they are efficient.The fact that they are easy to kill with only makes them even more terrible tools. And seriously... it should be pretty obivious that something that's easy to kill with is more likely to cause deaths by accident than something that isn't.

Also, I think the fact that they are so easy to kill with actually DO encourage murderers. Trying to kill with, for example, a spoon is disscouraging because there's a high probability that you'll fail to kill the victim and get pwn'd yourself. Sure, a knife on the other hand isn't exactly hard to kill with either. But it IS still a lot harder and involves a greater risk than with a gun, and thus I DO think that some people who would kill you in an instant with a gun, actually would think twice before trying to do the same with a knife. And unlike guns, knifes serves other more useful purposes than killing.

Oh well... :greenie:

Huckleberry Quin
11-30-2006, 09:02 PM
This discussions as silly as "violent video games turn people violent". No. Just no. Be quiet you evil bastards*. *not aimed at EoFF members there. :bigsmile:

If you give someone a gun, whether or not they shoot you in the face with it has nothing to do with you giving them a gun. Usually. The exceptions are the less intelligent ones, and the insane power loving ones. The fact is that there is a trigger on a gun. The choice of squeezing it or not is up to the person who's hand the gun is in.

Reading that, I realise I haven't successfully been able to put into words what I mean. Sorry 'bout that, I'll edit it if I figure out a better way to say it. Basically I'm saying that humans have brains, and we have immense power with our brains. Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean they will go on some violent rampage, shooting everything that moves. The choice is the human's, not the guns.

Vincent, Thunder God
11-30-2006, 09:05 PM
But if there were no guns, the unintentional deaths would go down. A bullet can cut down someone by accident; a sword is virtually impossible to misuse and cut down an innocent. Besides, kids can get to them and set them off by accident...How often do innocent people get killed by stray bullets? Kids can kill themselves with kitchen knives.

Unintentional shootings are more prevelant in America than you think. See more further below.

And most kids of 3 and up would know the dangers of a sharp object. Guns are less obvious. A curious child could more easily die from a gun.




And it's much easier and more efficient to use a gun. If someone wanted to murder someone from a distance it's easier... a melee weapon can't do that. The effeciency will create more deaths... I call BS. People murdered an asston before guns were ever invented, and people murder an asston now. If I want to kill you, give me one reason why I wouldn't kill you with a knife if I didnt have access to a gun? In fact, it happens all the time.
Also, when people are killed by guns it's at close range 99 percent of the time. How often do people randomly get sniped? Almost never.

Think about it. Would you want to fight gang wars with swords and clubs, or guns with further ranges? The more efficient, the easier to kill, and this fact could lead to more deaths.



And sometimes just having a gun in the house can make the decision between a homocide or not. Mentally unstable or angry family members would more easily become victims of temptation.You're creating a bunch of hypothetical situations that are very rare. You can't ban something over obscure, unpredictable events that happen once in a blue moon.

This is only a limited number of ways gun ownership can go sour. And despite your arguments, these can happen more often than you may think. See more about unintentional deaths below.



Furthermore, guns create the need for more guns. Every threat of a terrorist drives fear into you Americans, and you feel the need for guns. If someone takes out a gun even in self-defense, it will result in someone's death.I think this is a load of garbage personally, but what about criminals who get guns illegally? How am I supposed to defend myself against them?
And don't even start with the terrorist nonsense. Nobody is trying to defend themselves against terrorists.
Most importantly, however, when my government decides to step out of line, I'd like them to know that I have the ability to defend myself against them. In my opinion thats the really important issue here. I'm not worried about a random criminal. I want politicians to know that I have the ability to fight back if need be.

Not that I need to at the moment. However, guns give power to the people and subtract power from politicians. How can that be a bad thing?

I was merely giving some examples of how gun ownership might spin out of control, and how it could at least partially have orchestrated those almost 12000 deaths. There are many other scenarios in which gun ownership can cause deaths. It doesn't matter how many I metion, though, the fact of the matter is that your country has more gun deaths than any other, and there's a reason for that. You may believe that there is no corellation between the laxer American gun laws and those murders have nothing to do with each other, that the murders would have occured anyway.

The fact of the matter is, something caused each of those gun deaths, and I do not think that all of those would have occured if your gun laws were stricter. In fact, I think the majority of them were at least partially related to the gun laws, and some of them may have been completely avoided with better gun laws.

Our arguments will always boil down to the same thing: you think that gun ownership laws have little or nothing to do with the causes of these deaths, and I think they are directly related.

However, before you say that my arguments are hypothetical only, think of your arguments. You basically said you want guns legalized in your country for these two reasons: 1) in the case of a rebellion against your government, you want to be prepared; and 2) in case criminals have obtained guns and plan to attack you.

How is an organized American rebellion against your government and an invading force of gun-bearing criminals not a hypothetical situation? Hell, that's not just hypothetical, that falls into the vein of highly unlikely. Even if you wanted a rebellion, I doubt anyone would join you, and I don't think you're adamant enough to wage a one-man rebellion. I also don't see a point in rebelling agasint the American government, as faulted as it is. And the chance that a criminal would be dumb enough to shoot you with a hard-to-obtain gun (assuming there were gun laws in place) is highly unlikely. We have strict gun laws in Canada, and it is rare to have someone with an illegally obatined weapon to attack innocent bystanders.

And furthermore, despite reason 2), you say that your fears of terrorism have nothing to do with your need for guns. If the fear of enemies who obtained guns illegally and who will possibly attack you isn't a form of terrorism (in which case you "need a gun for protection"), I don't know what is.

You're trying to sidestep the main point here. It doesn't matter how many possible situations I list in which a gun could cause a murder, the fact is your country had almost twelve thousand homocides with guns in 1998, and in 2003 there was a total of 30 000 gun-related deaths including homocides, unintentional shootings. suicides etc. (This is the source. (http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm))

730 of those 30 000 were unintentional, wihch means that guns themselves caused those deaths more or less. A sword couldn't cut down an unintended victim unless the wielder was blind, but with stray bullets, it's all too easy. Suddenly all those "hypothetical" possibilites aren't as far-flung as you would beleive.

Madame Adequate
11-30-2006, 09:35 PM
... maybe I'm real heartless, but I don't consider 730 deaths to be too many. Then again I don't consider any number to be too many seeing as I believe it's a right to own a gun, and the safety/security arguments are secondary IMO.

It's sad to see you don't understand nik's point about rebellion and defense against the government. That's one of the best reasons for owning a gun.

Vincent, Thunder God
11-30-2006, 09:41 PM
... maybe I'm real heartless, but I don't consider 730 deaths to be too many. Then again I don't consider any number to be too many seeing as I believe it's a right to own a gun, and the safety/security arguments are secondary IMO.

It's sad to see you don't understand nik's point about rebellion and defense against the government. That's one of the best reasons for owning a gun.

I think it's even more sad that you don't think 30 000 gun-related deaths (730 of which were accidents) aren't enough to see the problems with your gun laws. To me, one innocent death is more than enough, even if deaths are an enivatable part of our lives. To me, any way to cut down on innocent deaths are more important than feeding American paranoia with gun ownership.

Maybe I don't agree with rebellion because I don't think your government is out of line enough to justify the deaths a rebellion would cause. Maybe I think there are safer ways to rebel, like protesting, or peaceful grassroots organzing. Maybe my government is so well-functioning that I find rebellion against a democracy an odd notion. Maybe I think that many forms of leadership naturally corrupt over time, and that your possible rebellion wouldn't really improve leadership. There wouldn't be enough people to fuel your cause, and the new government is far beyond your costs to initiate. With all these problems, I find it odd someone of your age and maturity would entertain the notion. But it really doesn't matter what I think about that. It's common sense that saving innocent lives is more important than guns for a faulty rebellion.

Huckleberry Quin
11-30-2006, 09:44 PM
30000 out of 6 billion? Meh. *shrugs*

theundeadhero
11-30-2006, 10:45 PM
And most kids of 3 and up would know the dangers of a sharp object. Guns are less obvious. A curious child could more easily die from a gun.Yeah, it's just completely unimaginable to say a parent should be responsible enough to keep a gun somewhere where's there's no chance kids could get them.




An estimated 16,692 persons were murdered nationwide in 2005http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html
Stats straight from the FBI

about 9,000 of those were from firearms. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Also straight from the FBI

Numbers of murders in some states that do not allow concealed weapons for 2005:

Illinois: 736
Nebraska: 44
Vermont: 8
Wisconsin: 194

Murders in 2005 in some states that do allow concealed weapons:

Alabama: 374
Arkansas: 186
Idaho: 35
Montana: 18

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html
Also from the FBI

Vincent, Thunder God
11-30-2006, 10:51 PM
And most kids of 3 and up would know the dangers of a sharp object. Guns are less obvious. A curious child could more easily die from a gun.Yeah, it's just completely unimaginable to say a parent should be responsible enough to keep a gun somewhere where's there's no chance kids could get them.

Spare me the sarcasm please. It's happened before. I'm not saying it's a really prevelant occurance, but you've taken this out of context; it's just one of the ways innocents can die from gun ownership that I listed. Why do you people keep denying the several possible connections between increased gun ownership and increased gun-related deaths? It's simple logic! Anyway...

I remember being told of a case a while back (it might have been in Canada, I can't remember the specifics) when a child got into a gun cabinet that wasn't properly closed and died.

Also... I've been replying to nik0tine so much I missed some of these comments the first time. I'm going to reply to them even though they're a couple of pages old.





If you went to the source I gave you'd realize it's also on a respected Illinois facts page. I just remembered that the numbers themselves were the ones in the film.

Too bad Michael Moore edited the US numbers to include legally justified homicides (self-defense, etc.) to bump the numbers up an extra couple thousand. Very legitimate.

:rolleyes2 He didn't. I specifically remember that the numbers on the site are the same ones as in the film, 11789. I'm not 100% sure, but if there was a difference it was not several thousand. I'm sure that in the film it was almost 12000, just like on the page. You've got to start getting you facts straight.



That's because guns are easier to kill people with.
Guns don't cause murder, they are used in murder because they are efficient.The fact that they are easy to kill with only makes them even more terrible tools. And seriously... it should be pretty obivious that something that's easy to kill with is more likely to cause deaths by accident than something that isn't.

Also, I think the fact that they are so easy to kill with actually DO encourage murderers. Trying to kill with, for example, a spoon is disscouraging because there's a high probability that you'll fail to kill the victim and get pwn'd yourself. Sure, a knife on the other hand isn't exactly hard to kill with either. But it IS still a lot harder and involves a greater risk than with a gun, and thus I DO think that some people who would kill you in an instant with a gun, actually would think twice before trying to do the same with a knife. And unlike guns, knifes serves other more useful purposes than killing.

Oh well... :greenie:

Exactly. Efficiency is one of the main reasons that guns themselves can provoke violence.

theundeadhero
11-30-2006, 11:17 PM
Why do you people keep denying the several possible connections between increased gun ownership and increased gun-related deaths? It's simple logic! Anyway...Because you fail to see that other solutions would prevent the same thing in an effort to push stricter gun control.

Ultima Shadow
11-30-2006, 11:46 PM
But if there were no guns, the unintentional deaths would go down. A bullet can cut down someone by accident; a sword is virtually impossible to misuse and cut down an innocent. Besides, kids can get to them and set them off by accident...How often do innocent people get killed by stray bullets? Kids can kill themselves with kitchen knives.

Unintentional shootings are more prevelant in America than you think. See more further below.

And most kids of 3 and up would know the dangers of a sharp object. Guns are less obvious. A curious child could more easily die from a gun.




And it's much easier and more efficient to use a gun. If someone wanted to murder someone from a distance it's easier... a melee weapon can't do that. The effeciency will create more deaths... I call BS. People murdered an asston before guns were ever invented, and people murder an asston now. If I want to kill you, give me one reason why I wouldn't kill you with a knife if I didnt have access to a gun? In fact, it happens all the time.
Also, when people are killed by guns it's at close range 99 percent of the time. How often do people randomly get sniped? Almost never.

Think about it. Would you want to fight gang wars with swords and clubs, or guns with further ranges? The more efficient, the easier to kill, and this fact could lead to more deaths.



And sometimes just having a gun in the house can make the decision between a homocide or not. Mentally unstable or angry family members would more easily become victims of temptation.You're creating a bunch of hypothetical situations that are very rare. You can't ban something over obscure, unpredictable events that happen once in a blue moon.

This is only a limited number of ways gun ownership can go sour. And despite your arguments, these can happen more often than you may think. See more about unintentional deaths below.



Furthermore, guns create the need for more guns. Every threat of a terrorist drives fear into you Americans, and you feel the need for guns. If someone takes out a gun even in self-defense, it will result in someone's death.I think this is a load of garbage personally, but what about criminals who get guns illegally? How am I supposed to defend myself against them?
And don't even start with the terrorist nonsense. Nobody is trying to defend themselves against terrorists.
Most importantly, however, when my government decides to step out of line, I'd like them to know that I have the ability to defend myself against them. In my opinion thats the really important issue here. I'm not worried about a random criminal. I want politicians to know that I have the ability to fight back if need be.

Not that I need to at the moment. However, guns give power to the people and subtract power from politicians. How can that be a bad thing?

I was merely giving some examples of how gun ownership might spin out of control, and how it could at least partially have orchestrated those almost 12000 deaths. There are many other scenarios in which gun ownership can cause deaths. It doesn't matter how many I metion, though, the fact of the matter is that your country has more gun deaths than any other, and there's a reason for that. You may believe that there is no corellation between the laxer American gun laws and those murders have nothing to do with each other, that the murders would have occured anyway.

The fact of the matter is, something caused each of those gun deaths, and I do not think that all of those would have occured if your gun laws were stricter. In fact, I think the majority of them were at least partially related to the gun laws, and some of them may have been completely avoided with better gun laws.

Our arguments will always boil down to the same thing: you think that gun ownership laws have little or nothing to do with the causes of these deaths, and I think they are directly related.

However, before you say that my arguments are hypothetical only, think of your arguments. You basically said you want guns legalized in your country for these two reasons: 1) in the case of a rebellion against your government, you want to be prepared; and 2) in case criminals have obtained guns and plan to attack you.

How is an organized American rebellion against your government and an invading force of gun-bearing criminals not a hypothetical situation? Hell, that's not just hypothetical, that falls into the vein of highly unlikely. Even if you wanted a rebellion, I doubt anyone would join you, and I don't think you're adamant enough to wage a one-man rebellion. I also don't see a point in rebelling agasint the American government, as faulted as it is. And the chance that a criminal would be dumb enough to shoot you with a hard-to-obtain gun (assuming there were gun laws in place) is highly unlikely. We have strict gun laws in Canada, and it is rare to have someone with an illegally obatined weapon to attack innocent bystanders.

And furthermore, despite reason 2), you say that your fears of terrorism have nothing to do with your need for guns. If the fear of enemies who obtained guns illegally and who will possibly attack you isn't a form of terrorism (in which case you "need a gun for protection"), I don't know what is.

You're trying to sidestep the main point here. It doesn't matter how many possible situations I list in which a gun could cause a murder, the fact is your country had almost twelve thousand homocides with guns in 1998, and in 2003 there was a total of 30 000 gun-related deaths including homocides, unintentional shootings. suicides etc. (This is the source. (http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm))

730 of those 30 000 were unintentional, wihch means that guns themselves caused those deaths more or less. A sword couldn't cut down an unintended victim unless the wielder was blind, but with stray bullets, it's all too easy. Suddenly all those "hypothetical" possibilites aren't as far-flung as you would beleive.
Just wanted to say that I think this is by far the best post in this thread so far.

It's also one of the overall best posts I've seen in quite a while. :greenie:

Respect+

NorthernChaosGod
12-01-2006, 02:30 AM
... maybe I'm real heartless, but I don't consider 730 deaths to be too many. Then again I don't consider any number to be too many seeing as I believe it's a right to own a gun, and the safety/security arguments are secondary IMO.

It's sad to see you don't understand nik's point about rebellion and defense against the government. That's one of the best reasons for owning a gun.

I think it's even more sad that you don't think 30 000 gun-related deaths (730 of which were accidents) aren't enough to see the problems with your gun laws. To me, one innocent death is more than enough, even if deaths are an enivatable part of our lives. To me, any way to cut down on innocent deaths are more important than feeding American paranoia with gun ownership.

Maybe I don't agree with rebellion because I don't think your government is out of line enough to justify the deaths a rebellion would cause. Maybe I think there are safer ways to rebel, like protesting, or peaceful grassroots organzing. Maybe my government is so well-functioning that I find rebellion against a democracy an odd notion. Maybe I think that many forms of leadership naturally corrupt over time, and that your possible rebellion wouldn't really improve leadership. There wouldn't be enough people to fuel your cause, and the new government is far beyond your costs to initiate. With all these problems, I find it odd someone of your age and maturity would entertain the notion. But it really doesn't matter what I think about that. It's common sense that saving innocent lives is more important than guns for a faulty rebellion.

Why don't we outlaw cars while we're at it? A number of people are killed in automobile related accidents every year.

Then after that, let's go ahead and outlaw alcohol and cigarettes completely, alcohol impairs one's judgment and cigarettes can lead to lung cancer.

Oh, let's get rid of any heavy machinery too. People are maimed or crushed because of them, and even one innocent life being saved is worth the suffering of everyone.

This is a democracy, the greater good for the majority is law.

Oh yeah, let's not forget a little thing called The Constitution of the United States.

Amendment II


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.

Shlup
12-01-2006, 02:37 AM
I'm all for guns for everyone, but guns and cars are not comparible. You have to consider more things than just number of deaths.

Vincent, Thunder God
12-01-2006, 02:46 AM
Why don't we outlaw cars while we're at it? A number of people are killed in automobile related accidents every year.

Then after that, let's go ahead and outlaw alcohol and cigarettes completely, alcohol impairs one's judgment and cigarettes can lead to lung cancer.

Oh, let's get rid of any heavy machinery too. People are maimed or crushed because of them, and even one innocent life being saved is worth the suffering of everyone.

This is a democracy, the greater good for the majority is law.

Oh yeah, let's not forget a little thing called The Constitution of the United States.

Amendment II


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.

Why compare unrelated objects with the objects in question?

First of all, cars and machinery have another purpose than killing people. Guns don't.

And as much as I'm against the misuse of cigarettes and alchohol, there are already some laws in place restricting the use of them. In a perfect world, neither would exist, but it's much more difficult to "ban" those two (as you say) than it is to restrict gun use.

Why do you think Canada, a great democracry, has decided that better gun laws than yours are for our greater good?

Isn't it sort of odd that we in Canada have absoulutely no need for the protection a gun gives? Isn't it odd that you Americans still think that guns aren't just for killing people, and are worthy forms of protection, when your nation pays this ridiculous notion in full?

It's not for my greater good to have the concern that any pedestrian in Canada could have a gun; and I fail to see how it's for the greater good of Americans, when the only use for a gun is violence.

Besides, you people have been saying that a gun is necessary for your protection, but why don't you think about all those people who don't just want to use an easy-to-buy gun for protection? Wouldn't it just be better to know no one needs to protect themselves from the possibility of a criminal easily buying a gun, than wonder who might buy a gun and not just use it for protection? Will your gun save you when a criminal decides to rob a bank, and as you take your gun out he shoots you? Violence begets violence.

Personally I feel a whole lot safer not wondering who might easily buy a gun than I would with a gun. Besides, just having a gun might make someone think you're on the offensive, and shoot you when they see you have it.

You people are so paranoid it's actually making things worse.

Madame Adequate
12-01-2006, 03:31 AM
I think it's even more sad that you don't think 30 000 gun-related deaths (730 of which were accidents) aren't enough to see the problems with your gun laws. To me, one innocent death is more than enough, even if deaths are an enivatable part of our lives. To me, any way to cut down on innocent deaths are more important than feeding American paranoia with gun ownership.

Don't presume I'm American. I'm not; I'm British and I live in Britain. And let me tell you, this country is going to hell. The police can't keep people safe. The government are a pretty darn big threat to freedom and rights at this time. There are a lot of crimes committed by violent, sociopathic, practically feral children and teenagers. There is no reasoning with them, there is no way to be safe - except to be capable of defending yourself. But they don't care about laws, so they carry guns, and knives, and other things law-abiding citizens are not permitted to carry. Which brings me nicely to a point about criminals and guns;

If guns are illegal, most people won't carry/own them. Criminals will, because criminals don't care that it is illegal to do so.


Maybe I don't agree with rebellion because I don't think your government is out of line enough to justify the deaths a rebellion would cause.

Maybe deaths are a secondary consideration to principles.


Maybe I think there are safer ways to rebel, like protesting, or peaceful grassroots organzing.

Maybe you don't know what rebellion entails.


Maybe my government is so well-functioning that I find rebellion against a democracy an odd notion.

... aren't you Canadian? And you think your country is a well-functioning democracy? :chuckle:


Maybe I think that many forms of leadership naturally corrupt over time, and that your possible rebellion wouldn't really improve leadership.

And I'd agree with that. The threat of open, armed revolt is a pretty darn good incentive to make sure governments do not overstep their jurisdictions.


There wouldn't be enough people to fuel your cause, and the new government is far beyond your costs to initiate. With all these problems, I find it odd someone of your age and maturity would entertain the notion.

I'm not, you might note, actually planning a rebellion. Nor is nik or, as best I can tell, anybody else in this thread. But the possibility of a tyrannical, undemocratic government coming about is a very real one - look at the civil rights violations committed by both Blair and Bush over the last five years. Not enough to justify rebellion - yet.


But it really doesn't matter what I think about that. It's common sense that saving innocent lives is more important than guns for a faulty rebellion.

And saving innocent lives is exactly what guns do, which you will find more than adequately backed up by the Kleck Study. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.study.html

Also please stop the strawman, the possibility of rebellion is only ONE reason for gun ownership, don't make out like it's the only one and we're arguing in favor of firearms for some uncertain future possibility and all else be damned. We're arguing for that, but also a bunch of other stuff.

Alastair|UK
12-01-2006, 06:21 PM
Damn i have to settle for 101st post

Ultima Shadow
12-01-2006, 06:40 PM
And saving innocent lives is exactly what guns do
Major lol.

Yeah, sure. But the amount of lives saved by guns can't even compare to the amount of lives taken by guns. That fact can't be denied.

Also, that site only named amount of cases where someone was injured, not killed. There's quite a big difference between injury and death.


Also, problems with governments are most likely caused by a really bad election system (sorry, America). So I guess it would be better to simply change that instead.

aquatius
12-01-2006, 06:52 PM
I hate guns and think they are stupid and wrong.

Alastair|UK
12-01-2006, 06:57 PM
i find it funny all these people who have such a big problem with not the
Actual guns but the people behind them personally i dont have a problem with it as my Modern studies teacher keeps saying in Scotland we have just a big a problem but with knives

Vincent, Thunder God
12-01-2006, 07:06 PM
I think it's even more sad that you don't think 30 000 gun-related deaths (730 of which were accidents) aren't enough to see the problems with your gun laws. To me, one innocent death is more than enough, even if deaths are an enivatable part of our lives. To me, any way to cut down on innocent deaths are more important than feeding American paranoia with gun ownership.

Don't presume I'm American. I'm not; I'm British and I live in Britain. And let me tell you, this country is going to hell. The police can't keep people safe. The government are a pretty darn big threat to freedom and rights at this time. There are a lot of crimes committed by violent, sociopathic, practically feral children and teenagers. There is no reasoning with them, there is no way to be safe - except to be capable of defending yourself. But they don't care about laws, so they carry guns, and knives, and other things law-abiding citizens are not permitted to carry. Which brings me nicely to a point about criminals and guns;

If guns are illegal, most people won't carry/own them. Criminals will, because criminals don't care that it is illegal to do so.

So you are British; I was mistaken and I apologize. However, there must be better ways to lower gun ownership in Britian without having the whole population carrying guns for self-defence. To me, letting everyone have guns is completely side-stepping the problem.

First of all, do you really think that the innocents will stop dying when they now have the right to carry guns? A criminal is probably more likely to shoot someone who takes out a gun than stop whatever crime he is commiting.

Secondly, wouldn't it be better to actually address the problem (criminals with guns) than introduce something that, in the long run, will just make violence and deaths all the more likely? I'll say it again, in a gun fight between a criminal and an innocent who is protecting himself, who do you think will win? Someone with no experience and who is likely much less agressive, or someone who has experience and is already expressing agression?

There must be a way to better cure the problem. You're suggestion is just a temporary treatment of the problem which could end up worsening it or having no effect.



Maybe I don't agree with rebellion because I don't think your government is out of line enough to justify the deaths a rebellion would cause.

Maybe deaths are a secondary consideration to principles.

Principles, perhaps, but I've never heard of a moral that values innocent deaths over a rebellion. Besides, an American rebellion is pointless; if the rebellion you speak of was actually useful, I might agree that it's more important than a few deaths, but in this case I see no reason for American rebellion, and none in the forseeable future.



Maybe I think there are safer ways to rebel, like protesting, or peaceful grassroots organzing.

Maybe you don't know what rebellion entails.

Gandhi rebelled against the whole British colonizing forces in India wihout an ounce of violence. There is such thing as a passive rebellion.



Maybe my government is so well-functioning that I find rebellion against a democracy an odd notion.

... aren't you Canadian? And you think your country is a well-functioning democracy? :chuckle:

Yes I do. It's at least much better than the American democracy, which values a "melting pot" over multiculturalism and war over peace. Besides, I hardly think a Brit knows enough about our culture to really have a valid opinion on this.



Maybe I think that many forms of leadership naturally corrupt over time, and that your possible rebellion wouldn't really improve leadership.

And I'd agree with that. The threat of open, armed revolt is a pretty darn good incentive to make sure governments do not overstep their jurisdictions.

Ha! As if there's a threat of rebellion in America right now, or in any other democracy! That possibility is probably the furthest threat from the thoughts of the American government!



There wouldn't be enough people to fuel your cause, and the new government is far beyond your costs to initiate. With all these problems, I find it odd someone of your age and maturity would entertain the notion.

I'm not, you might note, actually planning a rebellion. Nor is nik or, as best I can tell, anybody else in this thread. But the possibility of a tyrannical, undemocratic government coming about is a very real one - look at the civil rights violations committed by both Blair and Bush over the last five years. Not enough to justify rebellion - yet.

Of course I realize neither of you are planning one... but nik0tine has said at least twice that the power to rebel is a good reason for increased gun ownership in America. That is why I have adressed the futility and unlikeliness of an American rebellion.

And just the fact that you two are arguing with me over it shows that you value the possibility of one in your countries. To me, it's rather childish wishful thinking, and it would never pull through, nor does it need to.



But it really doesn't matter what I think about that. It's common sense that saving innocent lives is more important than guns for a faulty rebellion.

And saving innocent lives is exactly what guns do, which you will find more than adequately backed up by the Kleck Study. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.study.html

Like Ultima Shadow said, guns save less innocent lives than they kill. In fact, if guns didn't exist that need for protection would already be much lower.


Also please stop the strawman, the possibility of rebellion is only ONE reason for gun ownership, don't make out like it's the only one and we're arguing in favor of firearms for some uncertain future possibility and all else be damned. We're arguing for that, but also a bunch of other stuff.

If you had read any of my other posts in this thread you'd realize this is only one of the "reasons" for increased gun ownership that I've argued. If anything you and nik0tine are the ones who brought it up, and you're the one who's still arguing with the obvious, so I don't see how I'm the one going on about it. At this point I'm not going to bother commenting on rebellions anymore; it's only one facet of the argument and it's already obvious that the possibility for rebellion is hardly justification for the negative aspects of increased gun ownership.

I Am Stoner
12-01-2006, 07:10 PM
Its quite easy to get a gun in the UK, just get a firearms licence, join a shooting club, then go out and by a shotgun. Easiest way really if ya wanna by one.

But you must remember, guns arn't evil, only as evil as thier users.

Mirage
12-01-2006, 10:37 PM
Considering getting a license to carry it in my purse too.
I don't have a problem with people having firearms in their homes, but I think this is taking it too far, and i sort of hope you're joking, and that you can't actually carry a gun on the streets legally. I would never want to live in a country where that is allowed.

Guns are allowed in Norway if you have a license, and a reason for having one. Meaning, you need to use it for hunting or be in a gun club of some sort that does practice at firing ranges. Furthermore, it must be locked in a reinforced steel locker when not in use. Having it in your desk drawer or anything isn't allowed. I've wanted to try firearms at a firing range a few times, just to have tried it out, and to be prepared in case of an undead invasion.

Madame Adequate
12-02-2006, 03:44 AM
So you are British; I was mistaken and I apologize. However, there must be better ways to lower gun ownership in Britian without having the whole population carrying guns for self-defence. To me, letting everyone have guns is completely side-stepping the problem.

Gun ownership in Britain is pretty low. And I don't consider everyone having guns to BE a problem, so I don't think there is one to sidestep.


First of all, do you really think that the innocents will stop dying when they now have the right to carry guns? A criminal is probably more likely to shoot someone who takes out a gun than stop whatever crime he is commiting.

First point; No, but fewer will. Second point; whilst that sounds reasonable enough, in fact it doesn't work that way and that criminals are dissuaded by the possibility of their targets, and other people around their targets, being armed.


Secondly, wouldn't it be better to actually address the problem (criminals with guns) than introduce something that, in the long run, will just make violence and deaths all the more likely? I'll say it again, in a gun fight between a criminal and an innocent who is protecting himself, who do you think will win? Someone with no experience and who is likely much less agressive, or someone who has experience and is already expressing agression?

I think a well-trained person with a direct, imminent interest in self-defense will be perfectly capable with a firearm and that arguments from ineptitude don't carry any weight anyway.


There must be a way to better cure the problem. You're suggestion is just a temporary treatment of the problem which could end up worsening it or having no effect.

You're suggesting it is a problem.


Principles, perhaps, but I've never heard of a moral that values innocent deaths over a rebellion. Besides, an American rebellion is pointless; if the rebellion you speak of was actually useful, I might agree that it's more important than a few deaths, but in this case I see no reason for American rebellion, and none in the forseeable future.

So... you presume that the future will continue exactly as today does? That there will never, ever be any circumstance where a government is corrupt, flawed, or downright evil, and thus there is no reason for any citizens to be concerned about that possibility?

Because not everyone has the right to trial by jury in Britain anymore. Seems to me like something to worry about.


Gandhi rebelled against the whole British colonizing forces in India wihout an ounce of violence. There is such thing as a passive rebellion.

Ghandhi's resistance was only one factor on the end of British rule in India (The massive economic harm caused by WW2 would be the main reason), and moreover do you think Ghandhi's methods would have been any use against a regime like Hitler's or Stalin's? No; he and everyone who sided with him would have been crushed under the treads of a T-34.


Yes I do. It's at least much better than the American democracy, which values a "melting pot" over multiculturalism and war over peace. Besides, I hardly think a Brit knows enough about our culture to really have a valid opinion on this.

I think it's facile to assume I'm incapable of knowing; whilst I admit I'm no expert everything I see about Canada suggests your government functions only because it DOESN'T function, and a stifled, inept government can't do much of anything. It's bizarre to suggest America values war over peace, they're one of the most pro-peace nations on the planet and if it weren't for that philosophy of theirs Europe would likely be fighting World War VII about now. Its fine, lrn20thC.history.


Of course I realize neither of you are planning one... but nik0tine has said at least twice that the power to rebel is a good reason for increased gun ownership in America. That is why I have adressed the futility and unlikeliness of an American rebellion.

And just the fact that you two are arguing with me over it shows that you value the possibility of one in your countries. To me, it's rather childish wishful thinking, and it would never pull through, nor does it need to.

Damn right I value the possibility of overthrowing a corrupt, evil government. Right now things aren't looking too great but those labels don't apply; they're tolerable and can be contested through legal means. Once again this does not guarantee they will always be so and it is jejune to believe otherwise.


Like Ultima Shadow said, guns save less innocent lives than they kill. In fact, if guns didn't exist that need for protection would already be much lower.

Guns exist. That cannot be undone, ever. Speculation about how good and peaceful the world would be without guns is wishful thinking at best, and overlooks that people would just use bows and arrows instead at worst. The only sensible recourse is to ensure ordinary, law-abiding citizens who want to go about their business in peace have the ability to do so. (And I've given a link which shows guns reduce crime rates. If you want to contest this, give me a source showing as much.)

Odaisť Gaelach
12-02-2006, 04:17 AM
Well, I've nothing against guns. I've never actually fired one yet, though. I'd like to. Give me a coin and a sniper rifle and let's see what I can do... :D

NorthernChaosGod
12-02-2006, 09:19 AM
Why don't we outlaw cars while we're at it? A number of people are killed in automobile related accidents every year.

Then after that, let's go ahead and outlaw alcohol and cigarettes completely, alcohol impairs one's judgment and cigarettes can lead to lung cancer.

Oh, let's get rid of any heavy machinery too. People are maimed or crushed because of them, and even one innocent life being saved is worth the suffering of everyone.

This is a democracy, the greater good for the majority is law.

Oh yeah, let's not forget a little thing called The Constitution of the United States.

Amendment II


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.

Why compare unrelated objects with the objects in question?

First of all, cars and machinery have another purpose than killing people. Guns don't.

And as much as I'm against the misuse of cigarettes and alchohol, there are already some laws in place restricting the use of them. In a perfect world, neither would exist, but it's much more difficult to "ban" those two (as you say) than it is to restrict gun use.

Why do you think Canada, a great democracry, has decided that better gun laws than yours are for our greater good?

Isn't it sort of odd that we in Canada have absoulutely no need for the protection a gun gives? Isn't it odd that you Americans still think that guns aren't just for killing people, and are worthy forms of protection, when your nation pays this ridiculous notion in full?

It's not for my greater good to have the concern that any pedestrian in Canada could have a gun; and I fail to see how it's for the greater good of Americans, when the only use for a gun is violence.

Besides, you people have been saying that a gun is necessary for your protection, but why don't you think about all those people who don't just want to use an easy-to-buy gun for protection? Wouldn't it just be better to know no one needs to protect themselves from the possibility of a criminal easily buying a gun, than wonder who might buy a gun and not just use it for protection? Will your gun save you when a criminal decides to rob a bank, and as you take your gun out he shoots you? Violence begets violence.

Personally I feel a whole lot safer not wondering who might easily buy a gun than I would with a gun. Besides, just having a gun might make someone think you're on the offensive, and shoot you when they see you have it.

You people are so paranoid it's actually making things worse.
Think about it for a second, protection from a criminal. Criminal, a person who breaks the law. Do you think that making it harder for the average citizen to own a gun will really stop a criminal from getting his/her hands on one? They already break the law in the first place, why not get a gun illegally to add a bit of flair?

And it is in the Bill of Rights to be able to bear arms, you don't like it, you don't have to live here.