Any of you girls want to defend gun control after watching this?

[Silverhandorder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgNUqtkXTQ8&eurl=http://ferfal.blogspot.com/

I have my doubts the emotional "men" or women can really grasp this. This is worth a try however.

[Niles]

People should not carry guns, let the SS... I mean police protect you.

[Rourke]

People should not carry guns, let the SS... I mean police protect you.

Spoken like a true pussy.

I will NEVER give up my guns. You can bank on that shit.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Spoken like a true pussy.

I will NEVER give up my guns. You can bank on that shit.

Your sarcasm detector may have been damaged by the collapse of Building 7.

[ejnomad07]

Those people carry too tiny of weapons....:(

[Rourke]

Your sarcasm detector may have been damaged by the collapse of Building 7.

I don't get it?

[Ultor83]

Is it to easy to get a gun though is a more interesting question.

[Carl Ragadamn]

I don't get it?

Reread what niles posted and pay extra attention to the last half. The Building 7 reference was a cross thread reference to the 9/11 thread where I had just told someone that their sarcasm detector was broken.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Is it to easy to get a gun though is a more interesting question.

One that is incomplete, because you need a qualifier to tell us if you mean legally or illegally.

[Ultor83]

One that is incomplete, because you need a qualifier to tell us if you mean legally or illegally.

One tends to lead into the other in some ways, so a insight into both sides would have been rewarding but as of itself the question is not incomplete your understanding might be though as the object of the question could be to incite either type off response.

Instead of answering you've asked a question that was not needed and as a result made me waste a post in replying, damn you I'm a busy person on the net I tell you.

[Carl Ragadamn]

One tends to lead into the other in some ways, so a insight into both sides would have been rewarding but as of itself the question is not incomplete your understanding might be though as the object of the question could be to incite either type off response.

Instead of answering you've asked a question that was not needed and as a result made me waste a post in replying, damn you I'm a busy person on the net I tell you.

Actually one doesnt always lead to the other, there are many non legal ways of obtaining weapons, including shipping them in illegally from other countries (see gang wars in Miami with full auto AK's brought in from Africa).

As for obtaining a gun legally being to easy, you do have to jump thru a few hoops even if you are a perfectly law abiding citizen, so the answer to your question is no.

I apologize for wasting your time, feel free to go back to your stretching exercises, as the main attraction you dont want any ripage during the gangbang you are hosting.

[Killuminati]

We need miniguns

[Carl Ragadamn]

We need miniguns

the tax stamp to get one isnt that expensive...

[Killuminati]

and bazookas

[Carl Ragadamn]

and bazookas

Why you can make your own, you should look into the wonders of model rocketry.

[StainlessSteelRat]

I watched it then starting browsing the self defense videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ad_cYOObwI&feature=related

Look at the dent in the table...

[Eoren]

What's so wrong about not being able to get weapons at all? There's lot of countries where you can't get weapons and guess what, ppl doens't kill each other as much as in the USA. I can let my house door open at night and still sleep well, but you need to have 5 locks and a gun under the pillow... Seems so paranoic to me. But if your country is alredy flooded with guns, you need more guns to defend yourself i guess, such a stupid loop.

And what's with the OP calling girls or emotional to ppl who would rather see no guns everywhere, we are not all fascists pricks.

[Kusghuul]

Tbh, as long as they don't try onager control, i'm happy.

[Phenax]

What's so wrong about not being able to get weapons at all? There's lot of countries where you can't get weapons and guess what, ppl doens't kill each other as much as in the USA. I can let my house door open at night and still sleep well, but you need to have 5 locks and a gun under the pillow... Seems so paranoic to me. But if your country is alredy flooded with guns, you need more guns to defend yourself i guess, such a stupid loop.

And what's with the OP calling girls or emotional to ppl who would rather see no guns everywhere, we are not all fascists pricks.

Yes, let the people in power (who consequently, have guns), decide what is or isn't a weapon.

YOUR FISTS ARE WEAPONS
GET RID OF THEM

[Kusghuul]

YOUR FISTS ARE WEAPONS
GET RID OF THEM

Your fists can be used to do worthwhile things, a gun can only fire a bullet. Sort of restricts its uses. That's why i'm all for hunting rifles, but against handguns etc.

[Carl Ragadamn]

What's so wrong about not being able to get weapons at all? There's lot of countries where you can't get weapons and guess what, ppl doens't kill each other as much as in the USA. I can let my house door open at night and still sleep well, but you need to have 5 locks and a gun under the pillow... Seems so paranoic to me. But if your country is alredy flooded with guns, you need more guns to defend yourself i guess, such a stupid loop.

And what's with the OP calling girls or emotional to ppl who would rather see no guns everywhere, we are not all fascists pricks.

Your understanding of the US is a bit flawed, but the argument is moot because there is no way to remove all guns from the US. If Britain cannot get the job done, then it just isnt happening in the US.

Your fists can be used to do worthwhile things, a gun can only fire a bullet. Sort of restricts its uses. That's why i'm all for hunting rifles, but against handguns etc.

Different set of rules over here, if you lived here you might just change your mind.

[StainlessSteelRat]

What's so wrong about not being able to get weapons at all? There's lot of countries where you can't get weapons and guess what, ppl doens't kill each other as much as in the USA. I can let my house door open at night and still sleep well, but you need to have 5 locks and a gun under the pillow... Seems so paranoic to me. But if your country is alredy flooded with guns, you need more guns to defend yourself i guess, such a stupid loop.

And what's with the OP calling girls or emotional to ppl who would rather see no guns everywhere, we are not all fascists pricks.

So where do you live? :D

[Largion]

If you pull out a knife Ill pull out a gun and if you have a gun Ill take out a.....

I wonder how all the outher countrys can survive without all the guns and fear that you guys have.

[Kusghuul]

Different set of rules over here, if you lived here you might just change your mind.

Not too sure, but won't say anything definite. East end of Glasgow seems safe enough, and introducing guns here would be amusing. The knife-stabbing capitol of the world gets guns as well. We'd have anarchy within days, then the English would be all over us again.

[Eoren]

So where do you live? :D

In Barcelona, Spain.

[Carl Ragadamn]

In the end it is really about force equalization, a gun requires some degree less skill and force to use, so it equalizes attacker and defender. The instinct to survive being stronger than the instinct to kill, the defender gets a minor advatage that wouldnt always be found in a knife or fist fight.

[StainlessSteelRat]

I wonder how all the outher countrys can survive without all the guns and fear that you guys have.

I wonder as well.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7501258.stm

[Largion]

I wonder as well.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7501258.stm

I agree that before news was to inform us about things but now it mostly about spreading fear.

[Ultor83]

Actually one doesnt always lead to the other, there are many non legal ways of obtaining weapons, including shipping them in illegally from other countries (see gang wars in Miami with full auto AK's brought in from Africa).

As for obtaining a gun legally being to easy, you do have to jump thru a few hoops even if you are a perfectly law abiding citizen, so the answer to your question is no.

I apologize for wasting your time, feel free to go back to your stretching exercises, as the main attraction you dont want any ripage during the gangbang you are hosting.

You might want to reread my post, as at no point did i say that one ALWAYS leads into the other I actually said in SOME. More legal guns means a bigger chance of those guns being obtained and used illegally, your example would be good if i had used the word ALWAYS but I didn't so its not really relevant to disputing my point. Good effort though, I'm proud off you.

I would say only having to jump through a few hoops to get a gun is to easy but thats me, there is the argument that tighter gun control all round would mean less gun crime resulting in less need for a gun to defend yourself. Its not full proof though as even illegal things can be obtained if you want them badly enough but neither is allowing everyone to arm themselves the ideal scenario. Both systems have their faults but I can see why some would want to Live in a society where a gun wasn't a must and the risk off gun violence was minimal.

+1 for the gangbang insult, its worth it for originality value alone... I hope yours wasn't broken by the collapse of Building 7.

[tallefred]

I wonder as well.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7501258.stm

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the stabbings were shocking and promised further measures to tackle knife crime would be announced on Monday.

I guess they're taking away knives now? Wonder what the "further measures" were.

You can't really stop people from making their own knives, so I'm not sure what he meant by that.

[StainlessSteelRat]

I agree that before news was to inform us about things but now it mostly about spreading fear.

Was being sarcastic. If people want to kill someone, they will w/ whatever means they have/need.

@Eoren - please be more specific. And do you own anything more valuable than a round trip plane ticket?

[Matriel]

Thread Validation.

[Largion]

Thread Validation.

And im out. :ohno:


But the need to have a gun is build on fear. ;)

[Matriel]

Built on being prepared. Which the unprepared take as fear because they are inept retards.

[Largion]

Built on being prepared. Which the unprepared take as fear because they are inept retards.

Ill ask just because Im bored, what are you prepared for?

[Rourke]

Ill ask just because Im bored, what are you prepared for?

rehtorical

[Carl Ragadamn]

Thread Validation.
Nice of you to visit.
Ill ask just because Im bored, what are you prepared for?
I cannot speak for Matriel but I personally am prepared for most anything. Must be my time in the Scouts, cannot shake the need to attempt to never be caught without a plan.

[Largion]

The thing is that I like guns and if it was legal here I would get a shitload of them but I still cant defend having one and to this day I have not seen any good reason. And fear/preparation is not a good reason. ;)


And beeing a good exampel is not something Im trying to be.

[Mneh]

How can you watch this and not think "lol propaganda",

srsly. It was like watching one of your reality tv shows, agony hurt hurt.

[Matriel]

Having actually used a handgun to deter a mugging, I think it's pretty straight forward what I'm prepared for. Unexpected bad shit happens. Do you have a fire extinguisher and smoke detectors in your house? If you do, then the exact same logic applies.

[Scully]

Propaganda at its best.

[Matriel]

Lol, I love how personal interviews of individuals that triumphed because they were prepared is propaganda, but nebulous blanket statements about guns being evil by the pro-gun control groups are not. Quit being pussies.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Having actually used a handgun to deter a mugging, I think it's pretty straight forward what I'm prepared for. Unexpected bad shit happens. Do you have a fire extinguisher and smoke detectors in your house? If you do, then the exact same logic applies.

What is this logic? That is like a dinosaur in forumfall these days.

[Silverhandorder]

And im out. :ohno:


But the need to have a gun is build on fear. ;)

Would you defend your self if you judge there is danger to your life? Shouldn't some one weak like a small man, a woman or elderly have the same right? These people don't usually posses the physical strength necessary to stop a thug. What are they to do? Thugs prey on the weak.

I live in NYC. We have the highest crime rates in the country. Guess what? I am not afraid when I walk on the street. I would be afraid if I had to walk on the street of a bad neighbor hood at night. The point is not fear, it is the rational conclusion to the fact that one should have he right to defend them selves in any way he can as long as he does not endanger the lives of others. Me carrying a gun does not endanger anyone's life. It has been proven that gun control does not stop the criminals. Even in Britain the guns are there. They may be reduced but they are still there. All that has done is given a criminal the advantage. Unlike the victim the criminal can pick his time and target. When criminals are reduced to knives, but know the avg citizen has no guns they pick on the weak who even with a knife would not be able to defend them selves.

My country might have more deaths from guns. The violence in my country however is far above the one that exist in Europe. I know this because I lived in Holland, Germany, Poland and Ukraine. What is a common security practice in those countries does not even come into consideration for Americans. You know why? Because in America there is so little crime that people have grow accustomed to its absence.

[Matriel]

Actually the UK has seen quite the increase in gun related crimes. After the guns were supposedly destroyed. But hey, pointless prohibition laws work. Just like the War on Drugs. :lmao:

[Carl Ragadamn]

Actually the UK has seen quite the increase in gun related crimes. After the guns were supposedly destroyed. But hey, pointless prohibition laws work. Just like the War on Drugs. :lmao:

Hey the War on drugs did work, it grew the government at a massive rate and filled all the prisons.

[Silverhandorder]

Actually the UK has seen quite the increase in gun related crimes. After the guns were supposedly destroyed. But hey, pointless prohibition laws work. Just like the War on Drugs. :lmao:

I don't have as a good knowledge of statistics on guns as you. I was giving UK people benefit of a doubt not wanting to say something that they can prove wrong.

[Desperado[1G]]

Yea, legalizing cocaine and obeying the second amendment are exactly the same issue

[Matriel]

;2671499']Yea, legalizing cocaine and obeying the second amendment are exactly the same issue

The point was that prohibition of wanted items doesn't work and has never worked. If people want something they will get it regardless of whatever laws the government has set about it. History backs this up time and again.

If people want cocaine they will buy cocaine even though it's illegal.
If people want guns in the UK, they get them even though they are illegal.

It's pretty straightforward.

[Silverhandorder]

Drugs and guns are two different discussions however. They both are wanted items but they are too different to combine into the same issue. No one can argue the drug is useful. People can only argue about the best way to minimize the spread and effects of drugs. This is where the similarity to a wanted item comes in. Lets not give emotional unstable any more reasons to combine different issues :D.

[AlvinHanson]

I live in NYC. We have the highest crime rates in the country. Guess what? I am not afraid when I walk on the street. I would be afraid if I had to walk on the street of a bad neighbor hood at night. The point is not fear, it is the rational conclusion to the fact that one should have he right to defend them selves in any way he can as long as he does not endanger the lives of others. Me carrying a gun does not endanger anyone's life. It has been proven that gun control does not stop the criminals. Even in Britain the guns are there. They may be reduced but they are still there. All that has done is given a criminal the advantage. Unlike the victim the criminal can pick his time and target. When criminals are reduced to knives, but know the avg citizen has no guns they pick on the weak who even with a knife would not be able to defend them selves.

I live in NYC too and have been for the last 11 years. I've lived in Ukraine/Denmark previously. After Bloomberg came down hard on gun laws and made it almost impossible for a regular civilian to acquire one, it didn't change a thing. Gun crime rate was still high, sirens continued to pass by my window every 2 minutes and the local news didn't get any brighter.

And this is not an attempt to flame. But do you think that if Bloomberg outlawed knives, would it really change anything?

[Jezrith]

What's so wrong about not being able to get weapons at all?


Its not wrong, its just impossible.


There's lot of countries where you can't get weapons


No there isn't. I'd put cold hard cash up against the fact that you could put me in any major city in any country and I would be able to acquire a firearm within 24 hours.

[Hyster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgNUqtkXTQ8&eurl=http://ferfal.blogspot.com/

I have my doubts the emotional "men" or women can really grasp this. This is worth a try however.

right to bear arm's, fuck off

[StainlessSteelRat]

right to bear arm's, fuck off

I think either you are confused or your post is just confusing....

[Hyster]

i think either you are confused or your post is just confusing....

usa

[Largion]

My country might have more deaths from guns. The violence in my country however is far above the one that exist in Europe. I know this because I lived in Holland, Germany, Poland and Ukraine. What is a common security practice in those countries does not even come into consideration for Americans. You know why? Because in America there is so little crime that people have grow accustomed to its absence.

I have no ide what your trying to say here.
And fear is still not a good reason to arm yourself and there is no propaganda that will make me see it like that.
And again I like guns but they will not bring down crime.

[Jezrith]

I watched it then starting browsing the self defense videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ad_cYOObwI&feature=related

Look at the dent in the table...

Awesome!

[Desperado[1G]]

The point was that prohibition of wanted items doesn't work and has never worked. If people want something they will get it regardless of whatever laws the government has set about it. History backs this up time and again.

If people want cocaine they will buy cocaine even though it's illegal.
If people want guns in the UK, they get them even though they are illegal.

It's pretty straightforward.

Of course they will, that goes without saying. I believe you oversimplify it, however.

From what I understand, you're attacking the war on drugs as a waste of tax dollars and an infringement on personal liberties. With that (hopefully) clarified, I will address your view.

I often hear advocates of drug legalization say that we're never going to win the war on drugs and that it would free up space in our prisons if we simply legalized drugs. While it's true that we may not ever win the war against drugs, we're not ever going to win the war against murder, robbery and rape either. Moreover, it's true that it would free up lots of space in our prisons if we legalized drugs, but you could say the same thing about most crimes. In fact, we could reduce the crime rate to zero and save enormous amounts of money on police, lawyers, and courts if we simply made everything legal. But, that doesn't mean it would be a net plus for society.

Another point that's often brought up is that if we legalized drugs, we'd be able to tax them and bring in more revenue for the state. But, how is that working out with alcohol and cigarettes? In 2004 and 2005, 39% of all traffic-related deaths was related to alcohol consumption and 36% of convicted offenders "had been drinking alcohol when they committed their conviction offense." When it comes to cigarettes, adult smokers "die 14 years earlier than nonsmokers." But, will we ever get rid of tobacco or alcohol? No, both products are too socially accepted for that and perhaps more importantly, the government makes enormous amounts of revenue from their sale. Do we really want to get into that same position with Crack, Acid, or Meth? Do we really want to be sitting around 10 or 15 years from now saying, "Gee, we'd like to get rid of heroin, but how could we replace the revenue we make from taxing it at an exorbitant rate?"

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ac.pdf

The drug legalization crowd claims that we can manufacture drugs here in the U.S., tax them heavily, thereby making money for the government, and yet still be able to sell the drugs cheaper than the dealers can. That would seem to be a dubious proposition. Drug dealers who pay no taxes, have no unions, and don't have to pay their labor the minimum wage, may very well be able to produce drugs more cheaply than corporations in the U.S. that will be under strict FDA guidelines (It typically costs a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market), that will be faced with a never ending stream of lawsuits, that will have to pay taxes, and then, additionally, will have to sell a product that will be taxed to the high heavens. That means it's entirely possible that the cost of illegal drugs could go up, not down, with the government running the show and that would be a problem in and of itself.

Logically, the number of people using what are currently illegal drugs would skyrocket if they were legalized, so we'd see a new wave of drug addled burglars if we "legalized it." Now, maybe you think that's not the case. Some people certainly argue that if illicit drugs were legalized, their usage would drop. However, the fact that drugs are illegal is certainly holding down their usage.

Certainly that's what happened in the Netherlands where "consumption of marijuana...nearly tripled from 15 to 44% among 18-20 year olds" after the drug was legalized.

http://www.justthinktwice.com/factfiction/LegalizationWorks.cfm

Some people may say, "so what if drug usage does explode? They're not hurting anyone but themselves." That might be true in a purely capitalistic society, but in the sort of welfare state that we have in this country today (which is only going to get worse under Obama), the rest of us would end up paying a significant share of the bills of people who don't hold jobs or end up strung out in the hospital without jobs.

[StainlessSteelRat]

I have no ide what your trying to say here.
And fear is still not a good reason to arm yourself and there is no propaganda that will make me see it like that.
And again I like guns but they will not bring down crime.

That's like saying people should not worry about walking alone at night in areas w/ no lighting. Crime exists everywhere, regardless of guns. Self defense preparedness is not fear. It's called being smart.

Having a gun for self defense is a great equalizer, as someone already posted, for people that can not defend themselves through strength alone. It's not just for defense against other people w/ guns.

[Jezrith]

;2671777'] While it's true that we may not ever win the war against drugs, we're not ever going to win the war against murder, robbery and rape either.


Had to stop reading right here with this cognitive failure. To commit murder, robbery, or rap an actual verifiable victim is identifiable. That is not the case with drug use, if there is no tort there should be no crime.

[Silverhandorder]

I live in NYC too and have been for the last 11 years. I've lived in Ukraine/Denmark previously. After Bloomberg came down hard on gun laws and made it almost impossible for a regular civilian to acquire one, it didn't change a thing. Gun crime rate was still high, sirens continued to pass by my window every 2 minutes and the local news didn't get any brighter.

And this is not an attempt to flame. But do you think that if Bloomberg outlawed knives, would it really change anything?

What is the disagreement? Are you trying to say the gun crime rate did not go up even though guns were banned? It certainly did not help either, now the citizens are disarmed while the rate remains high.

I have no ide what your trying to say here.
And fear is still not a good reason to arm yourself and there is no propaganda that will make me see it like that.
And again I like guns but they will not bring down crime.

Who is more afraid? What are you afraid of when you lock your door? Might as well stop doing that. Stop locking your car door too for that matter. Start taking a stroll through bad neighborhoods. What are you afraid of?

Americans catalyzed conditions where citizens are less afraid of a common petty thief then Europeans. The evidence is the lengths that Europeans go through about protecting their property in public.

[Desperado[1G]]

Had to stop reading right here with this cognitive failure. To commit murder, robbery, or rap an actual verifiable victim is identifiable. That is not the case with drug use, if there is no tort there should be no crime.

Thank you for your worthless 2 cents

If you had bothered to read the next paragraph, you would know that abusive substances DO have victims.

[Largion]

That's like saying people should not worry about walking alone at night in areas w/ no lighting. Crime exists everywhere, regardless of guns. Self defense preparedness is not fear. It's called being smart.

Having a gun for self defense is a great equalizer, as someone already posted, for people that can not defend themselves through strength alone. It's not just for defense against other people w/ guns.

I did say that you should not let everyone carry guns because they are afraid and not that you cant be afraid. There is no need for us to bang our heads in the wall trying to convince the outher because it will not happend so just call me a girlman and get it over with. ;)

[StainlessSteelRat]

I did say that you should not let everyone carry guns because they are afraid and not that you cant be afraid. There is no need for us to bang our heads in the wall trying to convince the outher because it will not happend so just call me a girlman and get it over with. ;)


I'll just call you logically challenged instead. And don't worry, you have a lot of company here in forumfall.

[Seesawmcgraw]

I think everyone needs to understand something

We aren't debating whether or not guns should be legal, that is protected by our second amendment right

We are debating whether or not to allow the right to carry

So to say that this would increase the number of people carrying illegal weapons is bullshit

The assholes who sell their legal guns illegally are not affected by not having a right to carry it is probably in their best interest not to sell someone a gun in public

And how many people who commit violent crimes with a gun have the license to carry

You wouldn't get a license to carry to commit a violent crime worst case scenario you get your license to carry and you feel like you did when you were 12 years old walking out of a bruce lee movie just waiting for someone to fuck with you and maybe walk around in a bad neighborhood just waiting for someone to victimize you

"So you shot 8 people in self defense fair enough"
"Now explain again why you were walking around in west LA wearing bed sheets"

[Macetotheface]

they can have my guns,but ill give them the bullets first!!!!!

[Vaalsha]

Ok this video is retarded. The amount of people who actually use a gun during an incident is less then 1% statistically. On the other hand 60% of murders are with guns, mostly among people who know each other. Some of the safest places in the world (like Auz) have strict gun laws.

[Carl Ragadamn]

And how many people who commit violent crimes with a gun have the license to carry

Licensed to carry people are one of the statically least likely to commit crimes of any segment of the population. I personally wouldnt do anything to risk my lifetime carry permit.

[heroshade]

My favorite part is the very white kid named Habib.:lmao:

[Vaalsha]

Licensed to carry people are one of the statically least likely to commit crimes of any segment of the population. I personally wouldnt do anything to risk my lifetime carry permit.

wheres the statistics for that?
The truth is that gun owners are more likely to murder, it has been studied.

[Silverhandorder]

Ok this video is retarded. The amount of people who actually use a gun during an incident is less then 1% statistically. On the other hand 60% of murders are with guns, mostly among people who know each other. Some of the safest places in the world (like Auz) have strict gun laws.

I am not even going to bother calling out your made up statistics.

If murder is often committed by people who know each other then how is restricting guns going to reduce the crime rate from this? Wouldn't people who know each other also know when they are alone and defenseless? So what does banning guns have to do with helping those who are tacked by some one they know?

One of the safest countries in the world is Switzerland. Guess what they require you to carry guns :).

Anything else emotional you want to throw at me? While you at it answer me how a physically inferior person to ensure their own protection?

wheres the statistics for that?
The truth is that gun owners are more likely to murder, it has been studied.

2-3 murders per 100k gun owners in Florida since they allowed to carry guns. Violent gun rate has went down in Florida ever since they passed the law.

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:kkV75-KGeckJ:gunowners.org/fs0404.htm+crime+rate+among+florida+gun+ owners&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rate in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.32 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period—thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.33

* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.

* During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.34

* And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.35

[heroshade]

wheres the statistics for that?
The truth is that gun owners are more likely to murder, it has been studied.

You can't generalize gun owners. The ones who get them illegally obviously taint the others who get them legally. They are two different groups.

EDIT: And yes, most murderers know there victim, and in most cases could probably get the job done without even using a gun because they could surprise them with any number of objects, knives included.

[StainlessSteelRat]

wheres the statistics for that?
The truth is that gun owners are more likely to murder, it has been studied.

Then link the study.

lol @ gun control

"BRITAIN may have slipped down many world league tables over the past few decades, but it beats all other rich countries except Australia in one activity: crime. According to a new victimisation survey of industrialised nations, people in England and Wales are at greater risk than anywhere else of having a car stolen. And apart from Australia, people who live in England and Wales are at greater risk of being assaulted, robbed, sexually attacked and having their homes burgled than are people in any other rich country. "

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=513031

[Carl Ragadamn]

wheres the statistics for that?
The truth is that gun owners are more likely to murder, it has been studied.

Sure if you want to make up facts feel free, but people licensed to carry are one of the least likely groups to commit crimes.

Here (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html) are the stats for Flordia which show that since '87 out of 1.4 million licensed people 3,794 have commited crimes serious enough to cause the revoking of their permit and 166 of those were crimes involving a firearm. This is a statistically tiny number. So feel free to show your studies now.

[Silverhandorder]

Then link the study.

lol @ gun control

"BRITAIN may have slipped down many world league tables over the past few decades, but it beats all other rich countries except Australia in one activity: crime. According to a new victimisation survey of industrialised nations, people in England and Wales are at greater risk than anywhere else of having a car stolen. And apart from Australia, people who live in England and Wales are at greater risk of being assaulted, robbed, sexually attacked and having their homes burgled than are people in any other rich country. "

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=513031

Lol did he mean Auz as Australia? If that so I wonder where he is going to look for statistics that can disprove your link.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Lol did he mean Auz as Australia? If that so I wonder where he is going to look for statistics that can disprove your link.

Australia makes perfect sense though, it's genetic...... :D

[Vaalsha]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Statistically its more likely for a murder to happen if the murderer owns a gun. Alot of murders or offenders would not have done it withought a weapon because of the ease of use.

[Spankytwo]

I live in Canada, somewhere where no one owns a gun (Except for hunting rifles)


I have yet to hear of someone in my town/city being robbed/assaulted/or killed with a gun.


So yeah...

But, you know, Have fun with your guns, and your robberies/thefts/murders etc.

[Carl Ragadamn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Statistically its more likely for a murder to happen if the murderer owns a gun. Alot of murders or offenders would not have done it withought a weapon because of the ease of use.

Ok first off you are talking about something different than me, and secondly those statstics include stats for all sorts of "gun crimes". You are just jumping to conclusions based on loose stats, so I will continue to believe you are retarded.

[Vaalsha]

Ok first off you are talking about something different than me, and secondly those statstics include stats for all sorts of "gun crimes". You are just jumping to conclusions based on loose stats, so I will continue to believe you are retarded.

Lol I come up with the stats you wanted and then you cry like a baby because I win.

Sorry guns influence crime its clearly shown.

Im not for taking everyones guns, I just dont think everyone should be allowed a gun. You need a valid reason to have one.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Lol I come up with the stats you wanted and then you cry like a baby because I win.

Sorry guns influence crime its clearly shown.

Im not for taking everyones guns, I just dont think everyone should be allowed a gun. You need a valid reason to have one.

No you come up with broad stats that make a gun crime any "crime" involving a gun. (example you beat your wife and have a gun in the house, its a gun crime; or if you shoot your self it is a gun related death) Then you bend them to a broad blanket statement. While I listed irrefutable facts supporting my argument. The end result is you look like a retard, so keep the hits coming.

[1998altima]

I live in Canada, somewhere where no one owns a gun (Except for hunting rifles)


I have yet to hear of someone in my town/city being robbed/assaulted/or killed with a gun.


So yeah...

But, you know, Have fun with your guns, and your robberies/thefts/murders etc.

WRONG!

My uncle owns a Norinco 1911 (pistol) and shoots in the Canadian IDPA. I own a Ruger 10/22 and a Grizzly Shotgun. I do not hunt. These are for fun and I enjoy shooting them. Please understand your nations firearm regulations before posting.

[Silverhandorder]

Lol I come up with the stats you wanted and then you cry like a baby because I win.

Sorry guns influence crime its clearly shown.

Im not for taking everyones guns, I just dont think everyone should be allowed a gun. You need a valid reason to have one.

Not true. You put up statistics that do not support what you advocate. Gun crimes in majority of the cases are done by illegal guns. Guns that were obtained on the black market, stolen or were unregistered. This goes on to prove one thing. That people who follow the law will not use guns to commit crimes. The only people who would want to commit gun crimes are criminals who will disregard gun ban if it is present. So there is no reason making it harder on a law abiding citizen to be able to defend them selves.

By initiating gun laws you let evil prevail by making it easier for evil to spread and abuse innocent people.

Btw it is not clearly shown that guns influence crime because it is completely untrue. Please take example from my post and paste parts you think prove guns increase crime and then explain how you came to such a conclusion.

[Spankytwo]

WRONG!

My uncle owns a Norinco 1911 (pistol) and shoots in the Canadian IDPA. I own a Ruger 10/22 and a Grizzly Shotgun. I do not hunt. These are for fun and I enjoy shooting them. Please understand your nations firearm regulations before posting.

Where do you live?


Also, I was mainly referring to handguns :bang:

[1998altima]

Where do you live?


Also, I was mainly referring to handguns :bang:

I live in Ottawa. A Norinco 1911 is a handgun. A semi-auto handgun to be precise. We had 10 deaths in Ottawa in the year 2008.

[Spankytwo]

I live in Ottawa. A Norinco 1911 is a handgun. A semi-auto handgun to be precise. We had 10 deaths in Ottawa in the year 2008.

...and?

[Sharuk]

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ~Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."~Jefferson


If the criminal is willing to kill someone, do you really think that not being able to buy a gun at a store will stop him, he can steal it, or buy it off the street,shoot down here near the border you can just go 2 hours south and grab an AK for a few bucks

[1998altima]

...and?

We have guns and only 10 murders. Connect the dots and what do you get.
GUNS AREN'T THE FUCKING PROBLEM!

[StainlessSteelRat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Statistically its more likely for a murder to happen if the murderer owns a gun. Alot of murders or offenders would not have done it withought a weapon because of the ease of use.

I don't see any support for your claim in those links. And I don't see any way for you to even come close to demonstrating that. Nobody could.

The only way to demonstrate that point would be to find people that didn't murder anyone but would have if they had a gun..... Good luck.

Your ease of use assumption is nothing more than that, an assumption.

[Vaalsha]

The fact is your wrong, most murders are commited by people who know each other and are domestic violence in usa. Care to prove illegal guns cause more deaths?

[Carl Ragadamn]

The fact is your wrong, most murders are commited by people who know each other and are domestic violence in usa. Care to prove illegal guns cause more deaths?

Lol you throw out ideas without support and just keep chugging along, you may want to stop skilling the fail tree.

[Vaalsha]

Lol you throw out ideas without support and just keep chugging along, you may want to stop skilling the fail tree.

I dont see any links from you. But in the threads you post in I dont believe I have ever once seen you back up your evidence just like now.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#relate
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
Weapon use
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/circumst.htm#circumgun


In 2005, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with 22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2005.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons.


Also statistically the states with the lowest number of gun laws have a much higher crime rate. The lowest rates are in the North east and cali which have stricter gun laws.

[Silverhandorder]

The fact is your wrong, most murders are commited by people who know each other and are domestic violence in usa. Care to prove illegal guns cause more deaths?

You clearly do not have a good grasp on the English language or for that matter logic. The only thing that "murders are most often committed by people who know each other" tells you is that you are more likely to be killed from a long conflict then by random person coming up to you and killing you for no reason. It is self obvious. This has no effect on how the murder is committed. Whether the person committing the murder decides to use a gun, poison, acid or numerous other methods of killing. Besides the person committing murder has the luxury of picking the weapon and time. In many cases gun is actually not a weapon of choice. However there is no connection that allowing people to carry guns, as is their right, will increase murder. For that matter it is irrelevant to the discussion. If anything it lends to my argument that little murder is made in heat of passion. Planned murder does not need guns.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:WqwHfWi-fM8J:www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm+gun+crime+is+committed+by+illeg al+guns&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Offenders

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
o a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
o a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
o family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

[Carl Ragadamn]

I dont see any links from you. But in the threads you post in I dont believe I have ever once seen you back up your evidence just like now.

Hmm then this post of mine in this thread didnt happen. I will address the rest of your false conclusions after I get off work.
Sure if you want to make up facts feel free, but people licensed to carry are one of the least likely groups to commit crimes.

Here (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html) are the stats for Flordia which show that since '87 out of 1.4 million licensed people 3,794 have commited crimes serious enough to cause the revoking of their permit and 166 of those were crimes involving a firearm. This is a statistically tiny number. So feel free to show your studies now.

[Vaalsha]

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

Majority of murders are with guns. From your very own link. Also most murders would not happen withought a gun present.
No I was diffusing your retarded argument that most gun crimes are from gang related violence and such things, the truth is most are domestic and you lied/didnt provide evidence.

Actually my logic is pretty sound, look at your last paragraph and have a second thought.
Idiot.

[Swendle]

I live in Canada, somewhere where no one owns a gun (Except for hunting rifles)


I have yet to hear of someone in my town/city being robbed/assaulted/or killed with a gun.


So yeah...

But, you know, Have fun with your guns, and your robberies/thefts/murders etc.

Duh they use knives in Canada did you hear about the guy on the Greyhound bus?

[Vaalsha]

Hmm then this post of mine in this thread didnt happen. I will address the rest of your false conclusions after I get off work.

thats 1 out of every 300 people and Im pretty sure thats above average!

[heroshade]

I could just as easily beat you to death with a guitar as I could shoot you. It ISN'T the gun. It the PERSON. The sooner people can get this through their heads, the sooner this debate can end. Unfortunately, there are two types of people in this world. 1)Those who believe that logic is the best argument and will actually admit when they are wrong or 2) those who believe that opinion is logic and will never admit their faults. The majority of gun control supporters are nummer zwei, and will never accept logic. Yes, they can say the same thing about those who don't support it. This is an argument that will NEVER be won. Although, gun control actually being put into place is more than likely to happen at some point in the near future.

[Vaalsha]

I could just as easily beat you to death with a guitar as I could shoot you. It ISN'T the gun. It the PERSON. The sooner people can get this through their heads, the sooner this debate can end. Unfortunately, there are two types of people in this world. 1)Those who believe that logic is the best argument and will actually admit when they are wrong or 2) those who believe that opinion is logic and will never admit their faults. The majority of gun control supporters are nummer zwei, and will never accept logic. Yes, they can say the same thing about those who don't support it. This is an argument that will NEVER be won. Although, gun control actually being put into place is more than likely to happen at some point in the near future.

Yea and I cant also kill you with a fracking spoon. But if Im standing there with a spoon vs with a gun I am more likely to cap you then to try to castrate you with a spoon. It makes the process alot easier.

[heroshade]

Yea and I cant also kill you with a fracking spoon. But if Im standing there with a spoon vs with a gun I am more likely to cap you then to try to castrate you with a spoon. It makes the process alot easier.

Which is why guns should be legal so I can shoot the dumbshit running at me with a spoon.

[Vaalsha]

Which is why guns should be legal so I can shoot the dumbshit running at me with a spoon.

WIN :rolleyes:

[Silverhandorder]

Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with 22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2005.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons.

So as I said you want to strip away the victims from using guns. Criminals don't follow law. Besides criminals prey on the weak. There is 2 million defensive uses a year by gun owners. That is 2 million crimes averted.



Also statistically the states with the lowest number of gun laws have a much higher crime rate. The lowest rates are in the North east and cali which have stricter gun laws.
Um humongous lie!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Cali ranked #25. DC ranked #1! If you notice all big cities with gun laws prohibiting guns have a much higher crime rates then their counter parts where the guns are allowed. The reason Cali and NY are so low and for that matter many blue states is because they have large populations in rural areas where guns are allowed.

[PirateGlen]

You should be more specific about what you mean by gun control. Gun control can ban guns, and can also be requiring a license for ownership. Are you of the position that any regulation is too much?

[heroshade]

You should be more specific about what you mean by gun control. Gun control can ban guns, and can also be requiring a license for ownership. Are you of the position that any regulation is too much?

More regulation is a good thing. Completely banning it is one of the most retarded concepts fathomable.

[Vaalsha]

So as I said you want to strip away the victims from using guns. Criminals don't follow law. Besides criminals prey on the weak. There is 2 million defensive uses a year by gun owners. That is 2 million crimes averted.



Um humongous lie!!

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0347.htm
some of the safest countries actually all of them have tougher gun laws then the USA

For the record I dont think you should ban guns. But there should be NO CONCEALED WEAPONS unless you actually NEED IT.
You should have to be a member of a shooting or hunting club.
No history of drugs / violence.
Be able to properly maintain and use it.
Be 18 years or older.

And I do know what I am talking about with guns here.

[PirateGlen]

More regulation is a good thing. Completely banning it is one of the most retarded concepts fathomable.

My point is that both of those are forms of "gun control".

[Silverhandorder]

You should be more specific about what you mean by gun control. Gun control can ban guns, and can also be requiring a license for ownership. Are you of the position that any regulation is too much?

Ideally I am against any regulation. However I would take regulation over a ban.

I would be willing to settle for regulation that makes some one who is carrying a gun to be registered. However to keep a gun at home it is not required. It really does nothing. Further more the same goes for stores. One should be able to buy the gun right away.

Only if you are carrying a gun in public should you register it.

[admiral awsome]

For all those who think the right to own guns is in the second amendment actually take a look at it. "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."

Just to look at the important part that so many of you ignore. "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" random people buying and concealing guns even legally is not constitutional. That is neither well regulated or necessary to the security of a free state.

[Silverhandorder]

thats 1 out of every 300 people and Im pretty sure thats above average!

Um 87! That is more than 20 years. That means its 1 per 6000.

[Silverhandorder]

For all those who think the right to own guns is in the second amendment actually take a look at it. "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."

Just to look at the important part that so many of you ignore. "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" random people buying and concealing guns even legally is not constitutional. That is neither well regulated or necessary to the security of a free state.

Not true but I will let some one with better grasp of English set you straight.

Random people buying guns for their own protection. Are you going to deny some one their right to defend them selves?

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

Majority of murders are with guns. From your very own link. Also most murders would not happen withought a gun present.
No I was diffusing your retarded argument that most gun crimes are from gang related violence and such things, the truth is most are domestic and you lied/didnt provide evidence.

Actually my logic is pretty sound, look at your last paragraph and have a second thought.
Idiot.
Want to provide a study for that ASSUMPTION?

Murders made by guns could be just as easily made with knives or any other type of weapon. Criminals attack the weak. By taking away the guns you expose more people to violence this way. Guns deter 2 million crimes a year.

[admiral awsome]

For all those who think the right to own guns is in the second amendment actually take a look at it. "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."

Those who simply quote "the right to bear arms" part and use that to defend gun control are misleading people. C

Random civilians buying and concealing guns even legally is not constitutional. That is neither well regulated or necessary to the security of a free state, like is required in our constitution.

[heroshade]

For all those who think the right to own guns is in the second amendment actually take a look at it. "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."

Those who simply quote "the right to bear arms" part and use that to defend gun control are misleading people. C

Random civilians buying and concealing guns even legally is not constitutional. That is neither well regulated or necessary to the security of a free state, like is required in our constitution.
What the fuck was the point of copying your post and making a thread out of it?

[Ozzy Wrong]

...
Does this mean free porn?

[BrainFire]

its so that the population could have arms to use in the fight for a revolution,

[Carl Ragadamn]

For all those who think the right to own guns is in the second amendment actually take a look at it. "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."

Those who simply quote "the right to bear arms" part and use that to defend gun control are misleading people. C

Random civilians buying and concealing guns even legally is not constitutional. That is neither well regulated or necessary to the security of a free state, like is required in our constitution.

Guess what the Supreme Court has ruled that it does mean an individual right to arms, so you lose. Game over, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

[Thorsin]

omg i ahte people who hate guns simple as that and the vid shows y lol

[TheDor]

http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery/images/1/medium/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

[Ozzy Wrong]

Guess what the Supreme Court has ruled that it does mean an individual right to arms, so you lose. Game over, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

I don't mean to set you straight, but actually when you do not pass go or collect $200 it usually means you have been sent to jail, not that the game is over.

[Thorsin]

For all those who think the right to own guns is in the second amendment actually take a look at it. "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."

Those who simply quote "the right to bear arms" part and use that to defend gun control are misleading people. C

Random civilians buying and concealing guns even legally is not constitutional. That is neither well regulated or necessary to the security of a free state, like is required in our constitution.

if you dont like it get out 38 states have the right to carry a gun, also cops cant always protect you dont be nieve.......also in thse states crime is lower did you think about that:eek:

[StainlessSteelRat]

I dont see any links from you. But in the threads you post in I dont believe I have ever once seen you back up your evidence just like now.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#relate
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
Weapon use
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/circumst.htm#circumgun


In 2005, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with 22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2005.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons.


Also statistically the states with the lowest number of gun laws have a much higher crime rate. The lowest rates are in the North east and cali which have stricter gun laws.

You just made a case against yourself.

ONLY 24% of incidents involved a weapon (not a gun, a weapon). That means less than 24% of violent crime involves the use of a gun. Banning guns would not affect violent crime in any significant manner. Clearly, most offenders don't use guns and those that do would simply choose a different weapon or no weapon at all.

There is 0 evidence in any of your posts that the presence of a gun was the cause of the incident.

[C++ Student]

Hes just saying that you aren't guarenteed by the second amendment the right to bear arms.

Also you don't have the right to free speech, just that the government can't make laws to limit your speech.

[Spankytwo]

Murders made by guns could be just as easily made with knives or any other type of weapon. Criminals attack the weak. By taking away the guns you expose more people to violence this way. Guns deter 2 million crimes a year.


Hey, bra, its easier to shoot a person then to stab them.

Just, ya know, FYI there broseph.

[PirateGlen]

Ideally I am against any regulation. However I would take regulation over a ban.

I would be willing to settle for regulation that makes some one who is carrying a gun to be registered. However to keep a gun at home it is not required. It really does nothing. Further more the same goes for stores. One should be able to buy the gun right away.

Only if you are carrying a gun in public should you register it.

That much is obvious, but it's kinda missing the point.

In any case, I think you're more likely to find a correlation between crime and economic conditions. And even then the results are still suspect because all statistics are based on reported crimes, not all crimes that actually occur.

[StainlessSteelRat]

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0347.htm
some of the safest countries actually all of them have tougher gun laws then the USA

For the record I dont think you should ban guns. But there should be NO CONCEALED WEAPONS unless you actually NEED IT.
You should have to be a member of a shooting or hunting club.
No history of drugs / violence.
Be able to properly maintain and use it.
Be 18 years or older.

And I do know what I am talking about with guns here.

No you don't. More crap statistics that DON'T support your argument.

You are making a huge ass assumption that guns cause violence. There are states where violence is worse than the US but gun violence is less. Explain that if guns cause violence.

[Swendle]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/31/greyhound-transcanada.html

Oh shit! Canada is crazy!

[Silverhandorder]

Hey, bra, its easier to shoot a person then to stab them.

Just, ya know, FYI there broseph.

Except when the victim is weaker then you and his only defense against you was a gun. Do you think it is hard for a thug to take on a 120 lb woman? On a cripple? On an elderly? On a small weak man? Who do you think a thug is going to attack? A guy that look like a marine or the previously mentioned? Use some rational reasoning.

That much is obvious, but it's kinda missing the point.

In any case, I think you're more likely to find a correlation between crime and economic conditions. And even then the results are still suspect because all statistics are based on reported crimes, not all crimes that actually occur.

My main motivation is people's right to protect them selves. There are many reasons why we should allow guns. Since the one most important to me is my right to protect me the way I see fit I can make compromises on registration of guns and back round checks and all that red tape.

However I do believe law abiding citizens should not have to go through so much problems to get a gun when a common thug will just get his illegally.

[PirateGlen]

Hes just saying that you aren't guarenteed by the second amendment the right to bear arms.

Also you don't have the right to free speech, just that the government can't make laws to limit your speech.

That was for federal purposes and only prior to the 14th amendment. Now the constitution applies to state laws also. But so far state gun laws have not really been visited by the supreme court, which gives states the liberty to develop their own laws on guns.

[StainlessSteelRat]

That was for federal purposes and only prior to the 14th amendment. Now the constitution applies to state laws also. But so far state gun laws have not really been visited by the supreme court, which gives states the liberty to develop their own laws on guns.

Insofar as they don't contradict the Constitution, yes.

[Carl Ragadamn]

thats 1 out of every 300 people and Im pretty sure thats above average!

No that is below average for any segment of the population.

It means that permit holders commit crimes with their firearms 7 time per year, out of an average 28k+ gun crimes per year committed. Based on the stats found in the original link and this one http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Crime_Statistics/.

[Carl Ragadamn]

I don't mean to set you straight, but actually when you do not pass go or collect $200 it usually means you have been sent to jail, not that the game is over.

It is clear that he would be raped to death on his first night in jail, and I dont play games with dead guys. You are right I should have explained it better.

[Spankytwo]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/31/greyhound-transcanada.html

Oh shit! Canada is crazy!

You know why that made headlines? Because stuff like that almost never happens in Canada. Because we dont have guns. Because we is cool guys who doesnt afraid of anything.

[Carl Ragadamn]

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0347.htm
some of the safest countries actually all of them have tougher gun laws then the USA

For the record I dont think you should ban guns. But there should be NO CONCEALED WEAPONS unless you actually NEED IT.
You should have to be a member of a shooting or hunting club.
No history of drugs / violence.
Be able to properly maintain and use it.
Be 18 years or older.

And I do know what I am talking about with guns here.

It is obvious you dont know what you are talking about when discussing guns.

[StainlessSteelRat]

You know why that made headlines? Because stuff like that almost never happens in Canada. Because we dont have guns. Because we is cool guys who doesnt afraid of anything.

The only place that 'stuff' happens w/ any frequency is the ME and even then it makes headlines.....

[Spankytwo]

Except when the victim is weaker then you and his only defense against you was a gun. Do you think it is hard for a thug to take on a 120 lb woman? On a cripple? On an elderly? On a small weak man? Who do you think a thug is going to attack? A guy that look like a marine or the previously mentioned? Use some rational reasoning.





Smart, lets give the crippled guy or the elderly man a dangerous firearm.

Or, you know, instead of putting someones life in danger, theres this little thing called pepper spray. Hurts like a bitch, but doesnt put anyones like in danger.


Besides, if a guy gets the jump on you, it doesnt matter if you have a gun or not.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Smart, lets give the crippled guy or the elderly man a dangerous firearm.

Or, you know, instead of putting someones life in danger, theres this little thing called pepper spray. Hurts like a bitch, but doesnt put anyones like in danger.


Besides, if a guy gets the jump on you, it doesnt matter if you have a gun or not.

Pepper spray is not effective against all people. Elderly people in the US have lots of guns, and have had them for decades so are probably far safer with them.

Also define someone getting the jump on you.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Smart, lets give the crippled guy or the elderly man a dangerous firearm.

Or, you know, instead of putting someones life in danger, theres this little thing called pepper spray. Hurts like a bitch, but doesnt put anyones like in danger.


Besides, if a guy gets the jump on you, it doesnt matter if you have a gun or not.

Did you watch the video linked by the OP? Of course it matters and pepper spray doesn't do shit and requires a precise 'hit'. I'm sure grandma would have better luck doing damage w/ a 9mm.

[Vaalsha]

It is obvious you dont know what you are talking about when discussing guns.

I lived in NZ in the countryside for 10 years. I went possum shooting and range shooting all the time idiot.

You obvously cant read stats.

[Silverhandorder]

Smart, lets give the crippled guy or the elderly man a dangerous firearm.

Or, you know, instead of putting someones life in danger, theres this little thing called pepper spray. Hurts like a bitch, but doesnt put anyones like in danger.


Besides, if a guy gets the jump on you, it doesnt matter if you have a gun or not.

So wait elderly and cripples do not deserve to protect them selves? What about women? What about weak men?

Pepper spray does not stop a determined attacked was proven already. IF you are old or a cripple you can't even run away. In many cases pepper spray gets into your eyes too. You have no defense if there is two of them.

Yes if some one gets the jump on you. So for that matter I should stop defending my self all together? Some one can get a jump on me when I am unarmed. What do I do then? Don't fight back? Are you familiar with a word logic at all? You are not using any.

[StainlessSteelRat]

I lived in NZ in the countryside for 10 years. I went possum shooting and range shooting all the time idiot.

You obvously cant read stats.

Sorry, you are the stat challenged.

Once again, your premise that guns cause violence is not upheld by any stats you posted. Not to mention, you fail to even understand the defined variables in your stats.

You cite links w/o even understanding what they truly mean.

[Silverhandorder]

I lived in NZ in the countryside for 10 years. I went possum shooting and range shooting all the time idiot.

You obvously cant read stats.

Not one stat you provided supported your point.

[Spankytwo]

Did you watch the video linked by the OP? Of course it matters and pepper spray doesn't do shit and requires a precise 'hit'. I'm sure grandma would have better luck doing damage w/ a 9mm.

When grandma just got shot in the head or stabbed in the back, she aint going to be doing much.

[Carl Ragadamn]

I lived in NZ in the countryside for 10 years. I went possum shooting and range shooting all the time idiot.

You obvously cant read stats.

Your stats are vague and poorly applied to your points. And shooting at the range is far different than carrying a handgun daily for 12 years like I have. Oddly enough I have never murdered anyone, nor committed a crime with my guns.

[Carl Ragadamn]

When grandma just got shot in the head or stabbed in the back, she aint going to be doing much.

Except for all the times she doesnt and instead saves her life by having a gun. Would you really deny the ones who have saved themselves the chance to do so?

[Silverhandorder]

When grandma just got shot in the head or stabbed in the back, she aint going to be doing much.

And otherwise she stands a chance?

[StainlessSteelRat]

When grandma just got shot in the head or stabbed in the back, she aint going to be doing much.

Stabbed in the back...possibly. But this is true of anyone. The point is, most violent crimes do not have murder as the intent. The criminal is usually after something else and does not simply assassinate their victims.

EDIT - Vaal - please apply a modicum of common sense when you read these tables. NY, PA, MA, CA etc. etc have huge population bases which diffuses the rate per 100k statistics. I mean look at Alaska. Do you really believe that Alaska is the 8th most violence riddled state in the US? No, it's not. But when 1 person commits a crime, that's 1% of their total pop. which leads to a high rate per 100k.

[PirateGlen]

Insofar as they don't contradict the Constitution, yes.

They can contradict it, and depending on who you ask they already do. It's a bit impossible to tell when all constitutional challenges of current laws fall on deaf ears.

[Silverhandorder]

They can contradict it, and depending on who you ask they already do. It's a bit impossible to tell when all constitutional challenges of current laws fall on deaf ears.

Constitution is the law of the land. It is the final say. The reason antis wanted the bill of rights was exactly for that reason.

[Vaalsha]

Wow a pack of idiots. I said guns make crime more likely, as proven by the statistics of gun crime vs other weapons.

Sorry the links are not vague - you obvously didnt look at them.
I even used the same website with a link YOU DID CARL, just ot prove a different point.

[StainlessSteelRat]

They can contradict it, and depending on who you ask they already do. It's a bit impossible to tell when all constitutional challenges of current laws fall on deaf ears.

Well, no they can't legally, technically, etc. etc. Hell, federal laws contradict the constitution. I know it can happen w/ all the revisionist bs but in principle nothing is supposed to.

[Sharuk]

For all those who think the right to own guns is in the second amendment actually take a look at it. "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."

Just to look at the important part that so many of you ignore. "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" random people buying and concealing guns even legally is not constitutional. That is neither well regulated or necessary to the security of a free state.

im sorry but you are reading that wrong im afraid

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
We the people can bear Arms, bear as in carry on our person,even if we are not in the "Militia"

[Silverhandorder]

Wow a pack of idiots. I said guns make crime more likely, as proven by the statistics of gun crime vs other weapons.

Sorry the links are not vague - you obvously didnt look at them.
I even used the same website with a link YOU DID CARL, just ot prove a different point.

Quote piece by piece the parts you disagree with. Provide your own statistics with quotes in them that disprove our statements and then explain why they do that. We did that and all you say wow you are idiots, wow you are wrong. You can't play this game here.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Wow a pack of idiots. I said guns make crime more likely, as proven by the statistics of gun crime vs other weapons.

Sorry the links are not vague - you obvously didnt look at them.
I even used the same website with a link YOU DID CARL, just ot prove a different point.

You cannot use the statistics to prove the point you are trying to prove, it is not possible to prove your point. The only way to do so would be with a study that has a similar population as a control group. You are taking liberties with the abilities of stats to prove a point that is not capable of being validated.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Wow a pack of idiots. I said guns make crime more likely, as proven by the statistics of gun crime vs other weapons.

Sorry the links are not vague - you obvously didnt look at them.
I even used the same website with a link YOU DID CARL, just ot prove a different point.

You still do not show that guns cause crime.

"proven by the statistics of gun crime vs other weapons." Sorry, this is not proof. You have to show that people committing crimes with guns would not have committed those crimes were no gun available. And the simple fact that most violent crime 75%+ from your statistics is committed without any weapon at all would lead most sane people to conclude that those using guns would most likely commit the crime w/o the gun, not the opposite.

[Aft3r-MiDn1Ght]

Spoken like a true pussy.

I will NEVER give up my guns. You can bank on that shit.

funny, saying "Spoken like a true pussy."

When you're a pussy if you have to use a gun, no one can fight anymore, now they all have to use a weapon.

I think you should be able to carry, because criminals are always going to find ways to get guns, and people need to protect themselves since criminals are pussys.

[Vaalsha]

And you point is what? Carrying a gun offers you protection? Show me the statistics that show carrying a gun on you deters or stops criminals. Stories dont count show me the statistics.

[Spankytwo]

funny, saying "Spoken like a true pussy."

When you're a pussy if you have to use a gun, no one can fight anymore, now they all have to use a weapon.

I think you should be able to carry, because criminals are always going to find ways to get guns, and people need to protect themselves since criminals are pussys.

No d00dz he is tuff guy who doesnt afraid of anything becaue he haz gun that go boom n shootz guys, so he is badass now cuz he uses gunz to defend himself, he toughest guy i kno, i bet he weighs an entire 120 and can bench press teh bar 2!



Guns are for weak people.

[Sharuk]

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ~Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."~Jefferson


If the criminal is willing to kill someone, do you really think that not being able to buy a gun at a store will stop him, he can steal it, or buy it off the street,shoot down here near the border you can just go 2 hours south and grab an AK for a few bucks

To back the point i made on page 10 im quoting this other post of mine

The Founding Fathers had the same idea's as us,and they were.....you know the guys that came up with the Bill of Rights

[Sharuk]

And you point is what? Carrying a gun offers you protection? Show me the statistics that show carrying a gun on you deters or stops criminals. Stories dont count show me the statistics.

Its common sense


Oh look that other guy is robbing the bank im at, he has a gun, he's threatining to shoot....

Ill pull out my Glock and cap him

Hey look i dont have a chance of being shot now

Im safe





:)


And most Stats are made up so who would want to see them

[Carl Ragadamn]

And you point is what? Carrying a gun offers you protection? Show me the statistics that show carrying a gun on you deters or stops criminals. Stories dont count show me the statistics.

Ok here http://utahshootingsports.com/usscstudy.htm

To back the point i made on page 10 im quoting this other post of mine


Learn to 100 post page or I will murder you.

[Silverhandorder]

And you point is what? Carrying a gun offers you protection? Show me the statistics that show carrying a gun on you deters or stops criminals. Stories dont count show me the statistics.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html There you go. 2 million defensive gun uses a year.

The link I gave is criticism of the study I read. The study is linked there too. However if one is to read the criticism is not very strong. So to show ho unbiased I am I provide this link for your benefit. If you see the main part of the criticism attacks personal bias. Which is like duh the whole point was to prove they were right.

[PirateGlen]

Well, no they can't legally, technically, etc. etc. Hell, federal laws contradict the constitution. I know it can happen w/ all the revisionist bs but in principle nothing is supposed to.
The mechanism by which one overturns laws (the supreme court) has elected not to hear any cases on the matter. The only exception was the DC gun ban.

Constitution is the law of the land. It is the final say. The reason antis wanted the bill of rights was exactly for that reason.

Only on federal laws. For which there are not many that infringe upon your ability to own and use guns. The bill of rights had nothing to do with a state's right to legislate.

[Desperado[1G]]

I wonder if vaalsha is airius droc?

[Carl Ragadamn]

;2674294']I wonder if vaalsha is airius droc?

Not even Airius is this stupid...Hell I would gladly argue with him. Also Airius is not ashamed of himself enough to make an alt (though he should be).

[Sharuk]

Founding fathers on gun rights

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...(IMPORTANT QUOTE RIGHT HERE!!)I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine


The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot


"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.


"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

And this great qoute can be related to gun control

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
American Statesman


Also did you know Hitler was pro Gun control?(No guns, huh sounds like something a Government gone wrong would do to subdue their people eh?)

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm


The Founding Fathers of our country are and were right

[Silverhandorder]

;2674294']I wonder if vaalsha is airius droc?

No Droc is simply a lost cause. Vaalsha shows his inability to read statistics. He said previously that he himself is for guns.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Only on federal laws. For which there are not many that infringe upon your ability to own and use guns. The bill of rights had nothing to do with a state's right to legislate.

Again, this may be semantics but this is wrong. It's the law of the land regarding any laws. Otherwise the southern separate but equal laws would not have been overturned...ever.

[Vaalsha]

Ok here http://utahshootingsports.com/usscstudy.htm



Learn to 100 post page or I will murder you.

Why dont you follow your buddies format and post the info along with the link?
Hypocrit..... du du du..... follow your own standards
The link says!
That there was no clear result prett much in the first section. Assualts fell while murders increased. Whos to say that it wasnt a result of economics or other factors? Point is this research means nothing.

[Silverhandorder]

Only on federal laws. For which there are not many that infringe upon your ability to own and use guns. The bill of rights had nothing to do with a state's right to legislate.

Federalists said that states had their own constitutions with their own bill of rights. The antis wanted it set in stone so no individual state should take it upon them selves to take away those rights.

[Sharuk]

Why dont you follow your buddies format and post the info along with the link?
Hypocrit..... du du du..... follow your own standards
The link says!
That there was no clear result prett much in the first section. Assualts fell while murders increased. Whos to say that it wasnt a result of economics or other factors? Point is this research means nothing.

Some people are never satisfied

[Silverhandorder]

Why dont you follow your buddies format and post the info along with the link?
Hypocrit..... du du du..... follow your own standards
The link says!
That there was no clear result prett much in the first section. Assualts fell while murders increased. Whos to say that it wasnt a result of economics or other factors? Point is this research means nothing.

So how are you going to argue the fact that less then 24% of crimes are committed by weapons. Guns being only 66% of those 24%.

Prove that guns made those people commit crimes and not those people them selves.

[Vaalsha]

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html There you go. 2 million defensive gun uses a year.

The link I gave is criticism of the study I read. The study is linked there too. However if one is to read the criticism is not very strong. So to show ho unbiased I am I provide this link for your benefit. If you see the main part of the criticism attacks personal bias. Which is like duh the whole point was to prove they were right.

1. It has to show how many defensive uses vs how many overall crimes.
2. You say guns should remain legal because legal gun owners who go through reg dont commit crimes in your opinion. Then later you say you want NO or 0 regulation on guns. Thats idiotic and rediculous. YOu would see violence rates skyrocket.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Why dont you follow your buddies format and post the info along with the link?
Hypocrit..... du du du..... follow your own standards
The link says!
That there was no clear result prett much in the first section. Assualts fell while murders increased. Whos to say that it wasnt a result of economics or other factors? Point is this research means nothing.

You are mis reading the info provided which given your posts in this thread is hardly surprising.

esults: Crime rates against personal property continued to decline after the passage of the concealed legislation of 1995. Violent crime rates showed mixed results; assaults and robberies decreased, rape increased, and murder increased among young men. Incidence of unintentional firearm injuries fell from1992 to 1997. Crimes of assault, rape and murder did not increase or decrease in months after gun shows. The rate of revocation of conceal carry permits remains below the level before the adoption of conceal carry law. Assaults and weapons possession in schools had mixed trends. Assaults and weapons possessions increased in elementary school, but remained unchanged in secondary schools.

Conclusion: Passage of concealed carry legislation in Utah does not fit the trends in crime rates experienced by other states that have passed similar laws. Previous research indicates that crimes against individuals decrease while crimes against property involving stealth increase after passage of conceal carry laws. In Utah:
1. Murder rates decreased overall after 1995. However, there was a marked increase in the murder rates committed by males in the 10-24 age group, probably due to gang violence.
2. Assault rates decreased at an accelerated rate.
3. Rape rates do not appear to be affected by the law.
4. Robbery rates decreased at a greater rate.
5. Crimes against property involving stealth (burglary, larceny, auto theft) did not increase as predicted and do not seem to be affected by the law.
6. The unintentional firearm injury rates decreased despite a 17-fold increase in permit holders, which indicates that responsible individuals carry guns.
7. Assaults and weapons possession in elementary schools show that these schools may be developing into a more hostile environment, while secondary schools do not appear to have changed.
8. Permit revocation reasons shows that permit holders do not use their firearms to commit crime.

You read the bolded part but failed to continue reading where it states that the difference is that in Utah the crime rate against people dropped and so did the crimes against property, where in other states the crimes against property had raised after concealed carry was enacted. Your reading comprehension skills are low.

[ninkanpoop]

and how many people will abuse this ? more than being saved, that is for sure.

[Vaalsha]

Some people are never satisfied

No thats just the standards they put on me, they should also apply the same standards to themselves right?

I already posted the stats, I wont repost them go back and read. The countries with the toughest gunlaws are the safest. Guns were used in 65% of violent crimes, your assertion that it is 28% is not backed up.

[Carl Ragadamn]

YOu would see violence rates skyrocket.

Show me evidence please? Here is a hint, there isnt any.

[Vaalsha]

You are mis reading the info provided which given your posts in this thread is hardly surprising.



You read the bolded part but failed to continue reading where it states that the difference is that in Utah the crime rate against people dropped and so did the crimes against property, where in other states the crimes against property had raised after concealed carry was enacted. Your reading comprehension skills are low.

Ya then post the statistics for those states. This is ironic because your evidence contradicts your point.

[Vaalsha]

Show me evidence please? Here is a hint, there isnt any.

You just said that the reason gn crime is high is because criminals can get there hands on guns. If you remove all regs then its easier for them to get guns.
Logic ftw
idiot.

[StainlessSteelRat]

and how many people will abuse this ? more than being saved, that is for sure.

How is that for sure? Everything in this thread says otherwise.

[Silverhandorder]

1. It has to show how many defensive uses vs how many overall crimes.
2. You say guns should remain legal because legal gun owners who go through reg dont commit crimes in your opinion. Then later you say you want NO or 0 regulation on guns. Thats idiotic and rediculous. YOu would see violence rates skyrocket.

1) Overall crime was 2 million. So basically we broke even.
2)
a) Yes I have proven by that that gun owners who follow law, AKA people who you would be disarming or making it hard on to obtain weapons do not commit crimes.
b) The reason why I think we need 0 regulation is because people who are interested in committing crimes will not follow regulation in the first place. The regulation does not prevent crime.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Ya then post the statistics for those states. This is ironic because your evidence contradicts your point.

It doesnt contradict anything, the researchers were noting that they found a deviation in the trend. They still found that crime rate against people dropped in the Utah study as it had in the previous states. They were merely noting that in Utah they didnt see the rise in property crimes that the other states experienced. You need to learn to read.

[PirateGlen]

Federalists said that states had their own constitutions with their own bill of rights. The antis wanted it set in stone so no individual state should take it upon them selves to take away those rights.

No. The fear was of an overbearing Federal government, not some concern that States would not look after their own citizens. The constitution did not effect state laws what so ever untill the 14th amendment.

Again, this may be semantics but this is wrong. It's the law of the land regarding any laws. Otherwise the southern separate but equal laws would not have been overturned...ever.

That's why they made the 14th amendment. It was not untill the 14th amendment that the scope of the US Constitution went beyond federal laws.

[Spankytwo]

I will state it again, only pussies need guns.

[Silverhandorder]

I will state it again, only pussies need guns.

That proves what exactly?

No. The was of an overbearing Federal government, not some concern that States would not look after their own citizens. The constitution did not effect state laws what so ever untill the 14th amendment.

Then why do we have an amendment that says that states have primacy in all laws that are not given to the federal government? I mean you can argue that states can always claim their sovereignty and be like fuck off to the constitution. As long as they are part of the union they are obligated the follow the contract.

[Carl Ragadamn]

I will state it again, only pussies need guns.

Go take a stroll thru the Getto in any major US city and see if you change your mind about want a gun.

[Vaalsha]

Go take a stroll thru the Getto in any major US city and see if you change your mind about want a gun.

You live in a getto?
I always knew it...

[Carl Ragadamn]

You live in a getto?
I always knew it...

Nope but starting monday I will be working in one. But good luck with attacking me since you have run out of any credibility.

[Vaalsha]

Nope but starting monday I will be working in one. But good luck with attacking me since you have run out of any credibility.

lol It was a joke chill.
Actually you just provided ad hominen attacks and hypocritical statements. Have no idea why there are so many rednecks here.

O and instead of working in a getto and needing a gun the easier solution is to simply not work there genius.

[Carl Ragadamn]

lol It was a joke chill.
Actually you just provided ad hominen attacks and hypocritical statements. Have no idea why there are so many rednecks here.

O and instead of working in a getto and needing a gun the easier solution is to simply not work there genius.

I wont be carrying on my job, but if I worked there at night I might. Oh and triple the money of my current job is enough of a reason to go work there.

[1998altima]

lol It was a joke chill.
Actually you just provided ad hominen attacks and hypocritical statements. Have no idea why there are so many rednecks here.

O and instead of working in a getto and needing a gun the easier solution is to simply not work there genius.

In this economy you are expect someone to quit their job and look for a new one? I thought you were smarter than that Vaalsha.

[PirateGlen]

Then why do we have an amendment that says that states have primacy in all laws that are not given to the federal government? I mean you can argue that states can always claim their sovereignty and be like fuck off to the constitution. As long as they are part of the union they are obligated the follow the contract.

Your point doesn't really make sense. Have you read the constitution? Tell me where in the first amendment it has anything to do with state laws?

In any case, regarding your point:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/282/716/case.html
The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people, at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the states or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified, and has no limited and special operation, as is contended, upon the people's delegation by Article V of certain functions to the Congress.

[Silverhandorder]

Your point doesn't really make sense. Have you read the constitution? Tell me where in the first amendment it has anything to do with state laws?

In any case, regarding your point:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/282/716/case.html
The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people, at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the states or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified, and has no limited and special operation, as is contended, upon the people's delegation by Article V of certain functions to the Congress.
I was referring to the tenth. But it was more to point out that the amendment was made to protect the states. In original generation states had most of the power. However not all the power. They still had to follow the constitution.

States are obligated to follow the powers that were appropriated to the union or the fed government. For that matter any amendment ratified by the union is to be followed by even the states that do not ratify it.

[PirateGlen]

I was referring to the tenth. But it was more to point out that the amendment was made to protect the states. In original generation states had most of the power. However not all the power. They still had to follow the constitution.

States are obligated to follow the powers that were appropriated to the union or the fed government. For that matter any amendment ratified by the union is to be followed by even the states that do not ratify it.

You still don't get it. READ THE FIRST AMENDMENT. It's painfully obvious why it did not apply to state laws. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our early government.

edit: your response makes it sound like you didn't even read the source I quoted.

[Vaalsha]

In this economy you are expect someone to quit their job and look for a new one? I thought you were smarter than that Vaalsha.

Whats the point of a job when your dead or injured?

If he is the area warrants a gun I wouldnt work there.
But I dont work either so its a no brainer :rolleyes:

[Silverhandorder]

Whats the point of a job when your dead or injured?

If he is the area warrants a gun I wouldnt work there.
But I dont work either so its a no brainer :rolleyes:

Right to persuite happiness.

You still don't get it. READ THE FIRST AMENDMENT. It's painfully obvious why it did not apply to state laws. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our early government.

So what are the laws in the constitution for if they are not to be obeyed by everyone?

[Vaalsha]

Right to persuite happiness.



So what are the laws in the constitution for if they are not to be obeyed by everyone?

Where does the right to *pursue* happiness apply?
Is persuit a new type of jacket?

[Silverhandorder]

Where does the right to *pursue* happiness apply?
Is persuit a new type of jacket?

I wondered why it didn't sound right :).

He has the right to do w/e he can to pursue his happiness as long as he does not initiate force at any one else except for self defense.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Whats the point of a job when your dead or injured?

If he is the area warrants a gun I wouldnt work there.
But I dont work either so its a no brainer :rolleyes:

Gee I would have never guessed you were a teenager who knew nothing about the world...

I am going to work there because triple what I make now is enough of a lure to go work there. its simply risk vs reward, like everything else in life.

[PirateGlen]

So what are the laws in the constitution for if they are not to be obeyed by everyone?
They WERE for the Federal government. You don't understand: At the time, there wasn't a fear of the state governments that'd lived in all their lives. The issue was whether they might be just trading in one crown for another. That's why the bill of rights was intended to protect the people from an intrusive federal government. It provided zero protection from an intrusive state government, except where otherwise specified in the constitution.

[Vaalsha]

I wondered why it didn't sound right :).

He has the right to do w/e he can to pursue his happiness as long as he does not initiate force at any one else except for self defense.

Ya no problem I make spelling errors all the time. pretty cheap shot on my part :p

I swear carl, we already discussed this, I have more world experience then most people here I gurantee. If you mean world experience is working in KFC or mc donalds thats another matter.

[dinkfall]

I'm an emotional man but I don't support gun control :/

[Silverhandorder]

They WERE for the Federal government. You don't understand: At the time, there wasn't a fear of the state governments that'd lived in all their lives. The issue was whether they might be just trading in one crown for another. That's why the bill of rights was intended to protect the people from an intrusive federal government. It provided zero protection from an intrusive state government, except where otherwise specified in the constitution.

That is all I was saying. That the constitution has the last say.

I have to apologize for explaining the bill of rights in such a convoluted way. Yes they feared the federal government. You are absolutely correct. However now that it is on the books as an amendment not even state governments can do anything about those amendments. It would actually be the role of the FED government to enforce the constitution if states violate it.

[Carl Ragadamn]

I swear carl, we already discussed this, I have more world experience then most people here I gurantee. If you mean world experience is working in KFC or mc donalds thats another matter.

Must be someone else, but you lack the wisdom that comes with age and it is quite obvious.

[Vaalsha]

Must be someone else, but you lack the wisdom that comes with age and it is quite obvious.

Ahh ok I see. Considering your age I would say you are less mature then I am. Love how you feel you need to insult people on a online games forum, pretty pathetic tbh.

[Silverhandorder]

Ahh ok I see. Considering your age I would say you are less mature then I am. Love how you feel you need to insult people on a online games forum, pretty pathetic tbh.

How old are you? If you are teen I assure you there is a big difference in the way you think and the way you will think several years from now.

[Vaalsha]

How old are you? If you are teen I assure you there is a big difference in the way you think and the way you will think several years from now.

My age is my buisness good sir :ninja:

I am sure I will think differently in the future, but for now I would consider myself mature for my age. Although this is not my strong suit I can hold my own in any argument involving science or religion, gun control not so much since Im pretty international. Point is age is not an issue. If he wants to make it an issue I would ask him why a 30 year old is on a games forum all day.

[Special K]

Carrying a handgun as a form of self-defense is certainly applicable, but it's often unreliable since usually the the gun is used against the victim by the attacker. I wouldn't advise carrying one unless you actually have the will to use it. I also wouldn't recommend it unless you are extremely cool-headed or you are more liable to become the offender yourself unwittingly and can get into a lot of trouble. That said, if you're one of the handful of people who are very mild-tempered, but have enough willpower and initiative to pull it off then by all means do so. That said, while I do believe that very few people should actually be carrying around guns, I think that just about every sane family should at least own a rifle. It's a useful tool for a number of reasons.

I usually tend to side with the more liberal-minded, but this is one of those occasional issues where I simply cannot agree. Guns are an integral part of our(I speak from an American perspective here) structure of government, and by the theories that govern our society an unarmed populace is an oppressed one. This may not be true of all societies, but under the Lockean theory of democracy that our society strives to adhere to, physical protection from tyranny is expected. So for our current form of government the second amendment is absolutely critical. They can pull it off fairly well in some European countries, but I presume there is a difference of social temperament there that makes it work better than it would in America.

[Vaalsha]

Carrying a handgun as a form of self-defense is certainly applicable, but it's often unreliable since usually the the gun is used against the victim by the attacker. I wouldn't advise carrying one unless you actually have the will to use it. I also wouldn't recommend it unless you are extremely cool-headed or you're liable to become the offender yourself unwittingly and can get into a lot of trouble. That said, if you're one of the handful of people who are very mild-tempered, but have enough willpower and initiative to pull it off then by all means do so. That said, while I do believe that very few people should actually be carrying around guns, I think that just about every sane family should at least own a rifle. It's a useful tool for a number of reasons.

I usually tend to side with the more liberal-minded, but this is one of those occasional issues where I simply cannot agree. Guns are an integral part of our(I speak from an American perspective here) structure of government, and by the theories that govern our society an unarmed populace is an oppressed one. This may not be true of all societies, but under the Lockean theory of democracy that our society strives to adhere to, physical protection from tyranny is expected. So for our current form of government the second amendment is absolutely critical. They can pull it off fairly well in some European countries, but I presume there is a difference of social temperament there that makes it work better than it would in America.

I understand your basis although in the modern error it is flawed. I doubt a militia could do anything against the military. Like said europe pulls it off, so does australia withought an armed populace. The governent now is fundamentally different.

[Special K]

I understand your basis although in the modern error it is flawed. I doubt a militia could do anything against the military. Like said europe pulls it off, so does australia withought an armed populace. The governent now is fundamentally different.

A national military is also not going to be particularly crazy about gunning down American citizens either, but even a fringe element of society like a private army or police force (like the Gestapo in Germany under Nazism) can control an unarmed populace with ruthless efficiency.

[Vaalsha]

A national military is also not going to be particularly crazy about gunning down American citizens either, but even a fringe element of society like a private army or police force (like the Gestapo in Germany under Nazism) can control an unarmed populace with ruthless efficiency.

Good point. On the other hand it wasnt just the gestapo in germany.
Going off topic - the most horrendous thing about the gestapo was that the jews they murderd considerd themselves germans first and jews second. They thought they wouldnt be persecuted because they saw themselves as loyal germans, many served in ww1 :(

[Special K]

Good point. On the other hand it wasnt just the gestapo in germany.
Going off topic - the most horrendous thing about the gestapo was that the jews they murderd considerd themselves germans first and jews second. They thought they wouldnt be persecuted because they saw themselves as loyal germans, many served in ww1 :(

Naturally, it is merely an example to illustrate the ease with which an unarmed populace may be controlled. This differs between different societies and different cultures but my point is that through all of history a militia has essentially never defeated a standing army (only exception I can think of is the Boer Wars) when the actual full weight of that standing army was put to bear. But it doesn't have to be able to defeat an army but rather to not be helpless. So long as there is some organized resistance public opinion and civilization will do the rest, just as it did in the American Revolution. We put up a stiff enough resistance and distracted England long enough for the French to see the opportunity, give them trouble in Europe, and ease the strain on our battered army.

[Honest Bill]

I want a gun. A big fucking Dirty Harry style hand cannon

[Dyrrn]

I want a gun. A big fucking Dirty Harry style hand cannon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_.50_Beowulf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_500

have fun. :sly:

[Honest Bill]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_.50_Beowulf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_500

have fun. :sly:


The Smith & Wesson looks more badass. I'd take that one

[Jezrith]

;2671942']Thank you for your worthless 2 cents

If you had bothered to read the next paragraph, you would know that abusive substances DO have victims.

Cognitive Failure: Revisited
Drug abuse may have victims, but to break the law using drugs no victim is required. Please spend a few minutes on wiki learning what a tort is.

[Hael]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgNUqtkXTQ8&eurl=http://ferfal.blogspot.com/

I have my doubts the emotional "men" or women can really grasp this. This is worth a try however.

Your argument is something like this:
(1) More guns makes people safer
(2) It does too!
(3) This website proves it!
(4) Therefore, everyone should carry a gun.

:lmao:

[StaticBlack]

(1) More guns makes people safer


Hehe, it's such a sad irony that guns are the solution to illegal gun use.

[Painweaver]

What's so wrong about not being able to get weapons at all? There's lot of countries where you can't get weapons and guess what, ppl doens't kill each other as much as in the USA.

2 problems.

1: The guns have already been distributed, and taking them back without a hassle? That ain't gonna happen.

2: I seriously doubt any american would ever let anyone touch the documents on which their empire was founded. (is it the 2nd amendment that allows you to carry guns?) Not saying it wouldn't lead to something better though.

Isn't there even a state that allows you to shoot people that illegaly enter your property? The number of ways that could be bended.

[blemm]

The good old state of Texas.

Also, is that gun up there named the Beowulf? That is so awesome.

Also also, in the video in the first post, I love how proud the husband is while he's talking about how his wife pulled a gun on that robber.

[Largion]

It must hard for the Americans to be so afraid that they feel the need to carry guns around with them.
I bet they soon will attack outher countrys because they feel afraid for no apperent reason and when thats not enough and they want to go after outhers that are from different countrys they will come up with a way to spread fear into the citizens so that they can break the constitution start torture people and hold them without a trial.
Then Im sure the will feel safe!

God bless America (but only north because south are aliens).

[Painweaver]

Edited as I just replaced the batteries in my sarcasm detector.

[ace livion]

I have to tell you all about the meny times Kid shoot themself....
Wops i didden know i left my gun there...

you know normal ppl dont need guns... you wonder why criminals always can get a gun?
simple amarica are making a mass produktion of them...

and the raped victem need a gun?... so she can be a murder if he returns... that is better how? (dont anser you are making a fool of your self)

so it a Rober vs murder.... ohh no it better to kill a person then getting robed and call the cops afterward...

you see the rest of the world dont need guns... why? only americans are so stupped they dont know how to talk about shit...

[Arkh]

I have to tell you all about the meny times Kid shoot themself....
Wops i didden know i left my gun there...
There are less accidental death of children by guns than by drowning. Ban water IMO.

you know normal ppl dont need guns... you wonder why criminals always can get a gun?
simple amarica are making a mass produktion of them...
Normal people are intitled to be able to defend themselves or people in need. A gun is a good tool for that as it allows women, elderly and handicapped people to do it.

and the raped victem need a gun?... so she can be a murder if he returns... that is better how? (dont anser you are making a fool of your self)
No one should defend a criminal. If a rapist die, the world is better. But hey, when you're used to defend theft of others money by force, you don't have any problem to defend other type of criminality.

so it a Rober vs murder.... ohh no it better to kill a person then getting robed and call the cops afterward...
Yes. It's better, the more people can defend themselves, the less there are robbers. Deterrent effect = the win.

you see the rest of the world dont need guns... why? only americans are so stupped they dont know how to talk about shit...
Say it to any brazilian, tough guy.
I'm sure you would feel safe everywhere in your country at anytime : you don't need a gun. Your wife/sister/mother neither.

[88Chaz88]

'There's too much gun crime'

'What shall we do?'

'Get more guns!'

'Progress!'

[Painweaver]

There are less accidental death of children by guns than by drowning. Ban water IMO.

But they still happen.

Normal people are intitled to be able to defend themselves or people in need. A gun is a good tool for that as it allows women, elderly and handicapped people to do it.

A tazer would do just fine...or pepper spray. Non-lethal self-defense, you know?

No one should defend a criminal. If a rapist die, the world is better. But hey, when you're used to defend theft of others money by force, you don't have any problem to defend other type of criminality.

If YOU kill the rapist...we lost a rapist, but gained a murderer.

Yes. It's better, the more people can defend themselves, the less there are robbers. Deterrent effect = the win.

..Or you could spawn more criminals, seeing as a gun is easier to get. Again, non-lethal self-defense.

Say it to any brazilian, tough guy.
I'm sure you would feel safe everywhere in your country at anytime : you don't need a gun. Your wife/sister/mother neither.

And how was this problem created? And in contrast, how did the problem never occur in europe?

[IthroZada]

But they still happen.
Drownings still happen to? Accidental gun death of children is no different from children drinking cleaning chemicals, the parents fault for being careless.


A tazer would do just fine...or pepper spray. Non-lethal self-defense, you know?
A tazer is good for one shot, one gun can intimidate a whole group.



If YOU kill the rapist...we lost a rapist, but gained a murderer.
It is not murder to defend yourself. A person being basically tortured is better then a sadistic animal not living?


..Or you could spawn more criminals, seeing as a gun is easier to get. Again, non-lethal self-defense.
There are a hundred links proving crime rates drop in states where civilians are allowed to carry licensed guns, criminals can get guns ridiculously easy from Mexico.


And how was this problem created? And in contrast, how did the problem never occur in europe?
Never occurred? Are you ignoring the rising crime rates in Britain because licensed firearms were outlawed?

.

[Painweaver]

Drownings still happen to? Accidental gun death of children is no different from children drinking cleaning chemicals, the parents fault for being careless.

And this makes the gun innocent...how?

A tazer is good for one shot, one gun can intimidate a whole group.

A gun is for killing people, not making threats. You can't keep a group at bay for long by just pointing a gun at them... And odds of them having guns as well are...how big? So now it may be 5 guns vs 1...GL, dirty harry.

It is not murder to defend yourself. A person being basically tortured is better then a sadistic animal not living?

It's still murder. And life can not be filtered like that. It's not your call to choose who has to live, and who has to die. You have a jacked up sense of justice.

There are a hundred links proving crime rates drop in states where civilians are allowed to carry licensed guns, criminals can get guns ridiculously easy from Mexico.

And those sites propably have the NRA seal of approval. And what is the difference between a licensed north american gun, and a gun from Mexico? they still have the same stopping power.

Never occurred? Are you ignoring the rising crime rates in Britain because licensed firearms were outlawed?

Do note: LEGAL firearms WERE outlawed, meaning they have been legal at some point, meaning the problem was there to begin with. Like I said, you won't take the guns away from them without a hassle, once they've been distributed.

In denmark it's the freaking headline of the year if someone breaks into a house.

[Attau]

Edit: Never argue on forumfall.

[Natdaprat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKFKAIT1auI

[Painweaver]

What planet do you live on? Just wondering because the places have the same names but obviously different populations.

Planet earth, you should visit once in a while.

[Attau]

Planet earth, you should visit once in a while.

Lawl you caught me... but I didn't feel like pulling up stats on violent crime... and people are just going to make insane accusations about crime rates that have no correlation to gun laws. You win this round because I'm too fucking lazy.

[Sabbathius]

And this makes the gun innocent...how?

A gun is innocent. It's an inanimate object. It can't be liked or disliked. It can't be guilty. It is incapable of action or reaction. If I take a loaded gun, and put it on a table here, in front of me, how long will it take before my gun "goes bad" and shoots me or someone I love? I'll give you a hint: never. Until someone, a living agency, comes and interacts with this inanimate object. At which point, it is no different from my kitchen knives, baseball bat, tire iron, etc.

The way I see it, the ONLY reason a government would prevent its citizens from owning and carrying a firearm is the assumption that the MAJORITY of this country's citizens are either cretins or criminals. If they're cretins, they'll shoot innocents and eachother, which is bad. If they're criminals, they'll use those guns in crimes. And since it's the MAJORITY of the population that are cretins or criminals, then perhaps they SHOULD be given guns to take the population down a bit.

If we're not, MAJORITY of us, cretins or criminals, then there's no reason NOT to give us guns. If we're not cretins, we're smart, or at least average. Where's the harm in giving a smart person a gun? If we're not criminals, we're law abiding citizens, where's the harm in giving a law abiding citizen a gun? None, none whatsoever.

Imagine a world where, the MOMENT someone anywhere points a weapon at another human being to demand that human being do something unlawful (give them money, sex, whatever), that person is GUARANTEED to pull a weapon of their own. IMAGINE it. Just for a MOMENT. Close your eyes, and imagine it. A mugger stops a father, a mother and a 12 year old daughter. He wants to rape the daughter, while parents watch. If they try to do something, they both get shot dead, and girl still gets raped. That's real life. That's what happens out there every day. Now imagine if, the moment he brandished a gun, EVERYONE, INCLUDING the 12 year old, pulled a gun of their own? Would a criminal stand a chance? Would he even ATTEMPT to take that chance if he KNEW, 100% certainty, that he would be looking down THREE gun barrels?

That's what they're so afraid of, the criminals and the politicians. Try to jack up taxes 20%, and EVERYONE will draw guns on you, kick your ass out and replace you with someone reasonable. Do that in a country that has been systematically disarmed, like Great Britain, and what can they do?

But okay, fine, set all I said above aside. Forget it. Answer me this instead: why, if you can't handle the responsibility or gun ownership, do you try to prevent me from having it? Isn't that kind of childish. I don't have one, I don't want one, but I don't want HIM to have one either? If you don't want one, and don't have one, then why the frack would you care? I'll tell you: simple, childish jealousy. You see someone with the balls, skills, knowledge and guts to take personal responsibility for the safety of himself and those around him. You can never rise up to it. So you want to disarm that other guy, lest he show you up in public.

[Arkh]

But they still happen.
And this makes the gun innocent...how?
So ? Is water outlawed because accident happen ? Are knives outlawed ? Are cars outlawed ?
A tool don't have any will, it can't kill on purpose hence it can't be guilty of anything.

A tazer would do just fine...or pepper spray. Non-lethal self-defense, you know?
A tazer work only on one person. And if you miss you're screwed.
A pepper spray : try using it against a crackhead.

A gun is for killing people, not making threats. You can't keep a group at bay for long by just pointing a gun at them... And odds of them having guns as well are...how big? So now it may be 5 guns vs 1...GL, dirty harry.
Long enough to call 911.
And 5 guns against 1 is better than 5 against 0.

If YOU kill the rapist...we lost a rapist, but gained a murderer.
Are you, seriously saying that self-defense is a crime ? Are you saying you'd prefer to be butt rapped than put one or more bullets in the rapist ?



..Or you could spawn more criminals, seeing as a gun is easier to get. Again, non-lethal self-defense.
Criminals are present in countries where guns are outlawed.
A group of teenager is life threatening even for a 30 old guy. Criminals exist and always will. What is spawning them ? Tools or a combination of their sick mind and their life condition ?

And how was this problem created? And in contrast, how did the problem never occur in europe?
I was asking you, living in Europe : do you feel safe everywhere at anytime in your country ?

It's still murder. And life can not be filtered like that. It's not your call to choose who has to live, and who has to die. You have a jacked up sense of justice.
And is it the criminal call then ? YOU have an interesting sense of justice. If someone act threatening me, if I fear for my life, I prefer him or her dead than myself. Self-sacrifice for the sake of criminals is not my cup of tea.

And those sites propably have the NRA seal of approval. And what is the difference between a licensed north american gun, and a gun from Mexico? they still have the same stopping power.
When you want to discuss a subject, you should know the two sides data. A good start would be "More guns, less crime" from Jhon Lott. The guy didn't have a gun before he got the stats discussed in this book.

In denmark it's the freaking headline of the year if someone breaks into a house.
Sure ?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
#23 : worst than Switzerland where people have rifle at home.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
#4 : woot, feeling safe != being safe it seems.

[Mo0rbid]

stupid POS american movie!

ARE THEY STUPID OR SOMETHING? GIVING THEM A RIGHT TO CARRY A FIREARM DOES NOT HELP THEM AGAINST CRIMINALS WITH FIREARMS. THAT WAS THE REASON THE CRIMINAL HAD A GUN IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE

[Bakkos]

If there was gun control in the US, criminals won't get guns that easily. And a lots of accident could be avoided.

In other countries where guns are illegal, we don't have that kind of problems. I've never seen someone else than a policeman or soldier carrying a gun in my life.

[Mo0rbid]

If there was gun control in the US, criminals won't get guns that easily. And a lots of accident could be avoided.

In other countries where guns are illegal, we don't have that kind of problems.

THIS is what a lot of americans does not get

[bluthorn]

stupid POS american movie!

ARE THEY STUPID OR SOMETHING? GIVING THEM A RIGHT TO CARRY A FIREARM DOES NOT HELP THEM AGAINST CRIMINALS WITH FIREARMS. THAT WAS THE REASON THE CRIMINAL HAD A GUN IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE

Criminals buy guns illegally. Illegalizing guns helps prevent criminals from getting them....how? Wheras I, law-abiding-citizen, would be unable to get one.

If a group of yahoos tried to break into my house to steal my stuff (like what happened to some of the poor folks who were around after Hurricane Katrina) they might be deterred from their scheme if they see one of the gang fall over with a few .45 rounds in his sternum. The point of the weapon is as a deterrent and, should the worst come, as a way to prevent the criminal from harming more people.

[inox]

stupid POS american movie!

ARE THEY STUPID OR SOMETHING? GIVING THEM A RIGHT TO CARRY A FIREARM DOES NOT HELP THEM AGAINST CRIMINALS WITH FIREARMS. THAT WAS THE REASON THE CRIMINAL HAD A GUN IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE

Wow.

[Mo0rbid]

Wow.

read it in it's context you scrub, read the following sentence

[Mo0rbid]

Criminals buy guns illegally. Illegalizing guns helps prevent criminals from getting them....how? Wheras I, law-abiding-citizen, would be unable to get one.

If a group of yahoos tried to break into my house to steal my stuff (like what happened to some of the poor folks who were around after Hurricane Katrina) they might be deterred from their scheme if they see one of the gang fall over with a few .45 rounds in his sternum. The point of the weapon is as a deterrent and, should the worst come, as a way to prevent the criminal from harming more people.

in sweden, only hardcore fucking criminals have guns, I'm yet to see a gun in my life

[inox]

read it in it's context you scrub, read the following sentence

Refer to bluthorn's post above mine. He explains it nicely.

[Mo0rbid]

Refer to bluthorn's post above mine. He explains it nicely.

I've already answered it, l2read

[bluthorn]

in sweden, only hardcore fucking criminals have guns, I'm yet to see a gun in my life

And if you meet one, what can you do? Grovel before them and beg for mercy, that's what.

[Bakkos]

Criminals buy guns illegally. Illegalizing guns helps prevent criminals from getting them....how? Wheras I, law-abiding-citizen, would be unable to get one.

If a group of yahoos tried to break into my house to steal my stuff (like what happened to some of the poor folks who were around after Hurricane Katrina) they might be deterred from their scheme if they see one of the gang fall over with a few .45 rounds in his sternum. The point of the weapon is as a deterrent and, should the worst come, as a way to prevent the criminal from harming more people.

Then they should hire more policemens or something to prevent people breaking into your house. Not selling guns to every weirdo.

[Mo0rbid]

And if you meet one, what can you do? Grovel before them and beg for mercy, that's what.

the mob are not petty thieves , son.

can someone post USAs and Swedens criminal rate? I'm not so interested that I'd search for it but I'm guessing it's higher in the US

[Painweaver]

So ? Is water outlawed because accident happen ? Are knives outlawed ? Are cars outlawed ?
A tool don't have any will, it can't kill on purpose hence it can't be guilty of anything.

...Yes, just another tool. I haven't seen kids kill their classmates with a super soaker, but then again, I'm not american. Having JUST ANOTHER TOOL in the drawer for your kids to kill themselves is alright, seeing as water has THE HIGHEST body count. Grow a brain, now.


A tazer work only on one person. And if you miss you're screwed.
A pepper spray : try using it against a crackhead.

his muscles will be paralyzed, and he will fall to the ground. point being?

Long enough to call 911.
And 5 guns against 1 is better than 5 against 0.

Oh yes...you call 911 while holding 5 people at gunpoint. Surely that won't pressure them enough to make a quick decision and try to punch you in the face. Would you still shoot? If you did, it isn't self defense, seeing as he did not land the hit.


Are you, seriously saying that self-defense is a crime ? Are you saying you'd prefer to be butt rapped than put one or more bullets in the rapist ?

...Non-lethal, self-defense. Stop acting dumb.

Criminals are present in countries where guns are outlawed.
A group of teenager is life threatening even for a 30 old guy. Criminals exist and always will. What is spawning them ? Tools or a combination of their sick mind and their life condition ?

The latter. But guns sure make their lifes easier. And gun possession where guns are outlawed will put them away for much longer.

I was asking you, living in Europe : do you feel safe everywhere at anytime in your country ?

Due to my situation, I can not answer that question.

And is it the criminal call then ? YOU have an interesting sense of justice. If someone act threatening me, if I fear for my life, I prefer him or her dead than myself. Self-sacrifice for the sake of criminals is not my cup of tea.

I'll attend your execution in the electric chair, if you keep that up.



http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
#4 : woot, feeling safe != being safe it seems.

covering the period 1998 - 2000.

GG, you just failed. Again.

[bluthorn]

Then they should hire more policemens or something to prevent people breaking into your house. Not selling guns to every weirdo.

That would be putting my life and the lives of those I love in the hands of the government (police= state/federal government employee). If they can't run a country correctly, why on earth would I trust them with my life? With my child's life?

EDIT: also, Sweden has how many people compared to the U.S.? Comparing crime rates (especially considering how many large cities with gangs and such America has) seems a little silly.

[Painweaver]

If there was gun control in the US, criminals won't get guns that easily. And a lots of accident could be avoided.

In other countries where guns are illegal, we don't have that kind of problems. I've never seen someone else than a policeman or soldier carrying a gun in my life.

Apparently they're easy to get in Mexico, which is then another problem.

[Mo0rbid]

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita


wheres sweden on the crime rate list?

[Largion]

And if you meet one, what can you do? Grovel before them and beg for mercy, that's what.

But the chance to get a gun stuck in your face if your not a criminal is less then winning big on the lotto here but you might get a knife tho. Most of the ones here that carry guns are in gangs that even if you have a gun you dont pull it up.

[Arkh]

the mob are not petty thieves , son.

can someone post USAs and Swedens criminal rate? I'm not so interested that I'd search for it but I'm guessing it's higher in the US
If the stats are using similar method : http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims
snap !