Wait, I thought Guns were Banned in the UK...

[Matriel]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6265952.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084

Any morons from Yurope want to argue that prohibitions work? I'm semi-bored at work and want to destroy some eurotrash.

[Barbarossa]

Ahhh, a classic gun thread from Matriel.

Consider yourselves owned already...:D

BTW, good to see you.

[Kossako]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6265952.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084

Any morons from Yurope want to argue that prohibitions work? I'm semi-bored at work and want to destroy some eurotrash.

Wait... are you saying that not recognizing gun shoots (they thought it was fireworks) is a bad thing?

I know what are you thinking... Do you realize that selling guns to 'bad guys' is illegal even in US ?

[Sqarak]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6265952.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084

Any morons from Yurope want to argue that prohibitions work? I'm semi-bored at work and want to destroy some eurotrash.

Gun control works, because some stupid old cunt would eventually shoot in her own leg or foot and become dependent on the rest of the family.
In such case killing of stupid old cunts should be legal as well, then at least the family can finish her off and be rid of it.

[Scully2k]

Europe > America

/thread

[Glaive]

Greater Manchester had gone 12 months without a gun murder, for the first time in a decade. Gang-related firearms discharges had also fallen by 92 per cent over the same period.

That's a pretty good record...

[Barbarossa]

Europe filthier than America

/thread

Fixed for truth.

[Kusghuul]

While having a large amount of civilian owned guns, Norway has a low gun crime rate.

To obtain a hunting license, the applicant must complete a 30 hour, 9 session course and pass a written multiple choice exam with 80% fail rate.[4] The course includes firearm theory, firearm training, wildlife theory and environment protection training.

Gun ownership is a non-controversial subject in Norwegian politics, even when gun crime is at an all time high. This is because most illegally used guns are stolen from larger, often military, storage facilities. Break-ins in private homes seldom leads to the theft of weapons, unless the owner does not follow the regulations. Thus, the private ownership is not under scrutiny. By far, the most crimes are committed with stolen weapons, not legally obtained ones.

Am i shooting myself in the foot by aiding Matriel in a gun discussion (No pun intended).

[Matriel]

Wait... are you saying that not recognizing gun shoots (they thought it was fireworks) is a bad thing?

I know what are you thinking... Do you realize that selling guns to 'bad guys' is illegal even in US ?

No, I'm saying that in a country with gun prohibition of handguns to the point that Olympic athletes have to train elsewhere for the pistol event having gun crimes and expected increase in gun crimes is patently hilarious.

And yes, I'm well versed in the NICS system of America and it's supposed stop-gaps on convicted criminals and those committed to mental institutions against their will from stopping the purchases of firearms. It doesn't work, no prohibition does.

Gun control works, because some stupid old cunt would eventually shoot in her own leg or foot and become dependent on the rest of the family.
In such case killing of stupid old cunts should be legal as well, then at least the family can finish her off and be rid of it.

Right because said old lady (I think that's what you're getting at) can't walk off a curb and break her ankle ending up with the same result. Any more dumb arguments?

Europe > America

/thread

Europe may be greater than Ohio, but definitely not greater than America as a whole unless you like being a smelly beta male puss.

That's a pretty good record...

So, let me get this straight. These tools are banned. Any incidents of a failure of the ban is just that. A failure of the ban. And as the article states, they are expecting an increase in these "crimes" involving banned objects. So, if this ban works, why are these crimes happening and why are they expected to increase?

I mean, are you seriously suggesting a prohibition works?

[Barbarossa]

Why ya gotta use Ohio as an example when New Jersey is far worse a state? :D

[Matriel]

Why ya gotta use Ohio as an example when New Jersey is far worse a state? :D

New Jersey doesn't border my state and have its shitty drivers and idiots running around inconveniencing me. :)

[Kusghuul]

Always thought gun violence more of a culture thing. Uncultured people are the root of the problem, but easily available weapons doesn't help matters.

[Jezrith]

Always thought gun violence more of a culture thing. Uncultured people are the root of the problem, but easily available weapons doesn't help matters.

Weapons are always easy to get...

[Kusghuul]

Weapons are always easy to get...

Aye, but there are degrees and how much they will cost if they're restricted.

[Glaive]

So, let me get this straight. These tools are banned. Any incidents of a failure of the ban is just that. A failure of the ban. And as the article states, they are expecting an increase in these "crimes" involving banned objects. So, if this ban works, why are these crimes happening and why are they expected to increase?

No one has claimed that all gun violence will stop with prohibition. The argument that can be made for prohibition is that it will lessen gun violence. There may be more violence with knives due to this, but knives are statistically not as dangerous as guns.

[Jezrith]

No one has claimed that all gun violence will stop with prohibition. The argument that can be made for prohibition is that it will lessen gun violence.


For prohibition to do either one of them it has to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, as with the prohibition of anything that has demand, it fails to do so.


There may be more violence with knives due to this, but knives are statistically not as dangerous as guns.

And you would be getting these statistics from where?

Aye, but there are degrees and how much they will cost if they're restricted.

For the most part I would say your right, but even if every gun on the planet disappeared tomorrow, you could still make these fairly cheap and fairly easy.

Take for instance:
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/

[Justinian]

No one has claimed that all gun violence will stop with prohibition. The argument that can be made for prohibition is that it will lessen gun violence. There may be more violence with knives due to this, but knives are statistically not as dangerous as guns.

Yeah, who needs Habeas Corpus and privacy laws when you can prosecute and write laws/ban things based on statistics?

Lord knows statistics worked out for the big banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, mortgage brokers, and the Federal Reserve System in the 2000s. Right? Right?

[Matriel]

Always thought gun violence more of a culture thing. Uncultured people are the root of the problem, but easily available weapons doesn't help matters.

You mean shitty people do violence regardless of tools... What a revelation.

Aye, but there are degrees and how much they will cost if they're restricted.

Stolen guns are cheaper than storebought guns in America. That argument doesn't wash.

No one has claimed that all gun violence will stop with prohibition. The argument that can be made for prohibition is that it will lessen gun violence. There may be more violence with knives due to this, but knives are statistically not as dangerous as guns.

Actually some retards have claimed that it will stop all gun violence. You may not be one of those, but the argument has been made and used as part of the reasoning for the prohibition in the first place. Oh noes, Dunblanes will never happen again if we ban metal objects. 1111one. And obvious the prohibition hasn't lessened gun violence and the UK government even changed it's reporting standards to make it look like it had after the face. It's hilarious.

The dangerous argument is false. Both are equally dangerous. One is just used more often to kill. Which makes sense as it's a force equalizer. It doesn't make knives any less dangerous, they are still deadly. Those things are mutually exclusive.

[Kusghuul]

For prohibition to do either one of them it has to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, as with the prohibition of anything that has demand, it fails to do so.


Different cultures can't be compared when it comes to gun laws. Canada's got one helluva lot more guns than the U.S. per capita, but somehow nowhere near as much gun crime. So it's just the U.S. lacking culture tbh.

[Justinian]

New Jersey doesn't border my state and have its shitty drivers and idiots running around inconveniencing me. :)

Hey man. Jersey drivers are damn sure better than Philadelphia drivers. I feel like I'm on crazy pills driving over here now. I didn't know what road rage was until moving into Philly.

New Jersey isn't so bad, it's just, you know... really bad.

[Kusghuul]

Stolen guns are cheaper than storebought guns in America. That argument doesn't wash.

in the U.S., yes. Not so in Norway, afaik.

[Matriel]

Different cultures can't be compared when it comes to gun laws. Canada's got one helluva lot more guns than the U.S. per capita, but somehow nowhere near as much gun crime. So it's just the U.S. lacking culture tbh.


No it doesn't dumbs.

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

And on that note, the amount of guns in America and the amount of crimes committed with said guns is such a low percentage that anyone saying we have some kind of gun crime problem should probably kill themselves out of sheer stupidity.

[Jezrith]

Different cultures can't be compared when it comes to gun laws. Canada's got one helluva lot more guns than the U.S. per capita, but somehow nowhere near as much gun crime. So it's just the U.S. lacking culture tbh.

I agree completely, I was just pointing out more the ineffectiveness of the prohibition of anything.

[Badem]

In Ireland you ahve to pay 30 pound for a license to buy fireworks, setting them off for fun is liable to get some paddy phoning the police screaming 'shooting at em shootig at me' adn armed police at your house in moments

then the pikeys and chavs will turn up with their scarves covering their mouths and start throwing petrol bombs and shit at the armoured Land Rovers

[Kusghuul]

No it doesn't dumbs.

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

And on that note, the amount of guns in America and the amount of crimes committed with said guns is such a low percentage that anyone saying we have some kind of gun crime problem should probably kill themselves out of sheer stupidity.

Small arms, Matriel. Hunting rifles wouldn't be in that list.

[Matriel]

You said pikeys. I like you.

[Kusghuul]

I agree completely, I was just pointing out more the ineffectiveness of the prohibition of anything.

Aye, a law that can't be enforced shouldn't be a law. So says Giacomo Casanova and i must say i agree.

[Matriel]

Small arms, Matriel. Hunting rifles wouldn't be in that list.

Yes they are. The vast majority of firearms in the US are hunting rifles and shotguns. I mean seriously... :lmao:

[Justinian]

You said pikeys. I like you.

you haven't met Badem yet? this guy's English is gold. And he's from ENGLAND

[SSguy]

No one has claimed that all gun violence will stop with prohibition. The argument that can be made for prohibition is that it will lessen gun violence. There may be more violence with knives due to this, but knives are statistically not as dangerous as guns.

Knives are quieter. Theres nothing as dangerous as a quiet weapon.

[Kusghuul]

Yes they are. The vast majority of firearms in the US are hunting rifles and shotguns. I mean seriously... :lmao:

this number is not a representation of the percentage of people who possess guns in each nation.

?

[Haeso]

So, let me get this straight. These tools are banned. Any incidents of a failure of the ban is just that. A failure of the ban. And as the article states, they are expecting an increase in these "crimes" involving banned objects. So, if this ban works, why are these crimes happening and why are they expected to increase?

I mean, are you seriously suggesting a prohibition works?

Wasn't it the first gun crime there in a year? I don't give a fuck either way, just seems like a weak argument.

[Matriel]

this number is not a representation of the percentage of people who possess guns in each nation.

?

It reflects people like me who have multiple firearms. I belive the last household ownership survey (in the 90's) put it at 40% of the households containing a firearm. That number is probably horribly low now that the Obama gun buyout is still going on though.

90 private guns per 100 people ftw.

[Barbarossa]

New Jersey doesn't border my state and have its shitty drivers and idiots running around inconveniencing me. :)

You should try having Indiana as your closest state border then, you haven't seen true idiot yet...:D

[Matriel]

Wasn't it the first gun crime there in a year? I don't give a fuck either way, just seems like a weak argument.

So, what about the other regions (the size of counties btw) that have had multiple? This article was more about the expected increase of them.

[Jakkar]

Speaking from South Wales in the UK - Gun control works insofar as I've never seen a gun aside from deactivated/replica/unloaded military at recruitment stands.

And that I've only had one contact with someone with real gun experience - a local scum landlord who is locally famous for having been pistol-whipped into a coma during a drug deal in Bristol.

Admittedly, this could simply be that the Welsh are too poor to afford guns.

Worth noting is that without guns, the British still manage to be disgustingly violent. We just don't kill as often, because clubs with nails in are less reliably lethal than bullets. Permenant scarring, on the other hand.. :sly:

[Matriel]

Speaking from South Wales in the UK - Gun control works insofar as I've never seen a gun aside from deactivated/replica/unloaded military at recruitment stands.

And that I've only had one contact with someone with real gun experience - a local scum landlord who is locally famous for having been pistol-whipped into a coma during a drug deal in Bristol.

Admittedly, this could simply be that the Welsh are too poor to afford guns.

Worth noting is that without guns, the British still manage to be disgustingly violent. We just don't kill as often, because clubs with nails in are less reliably lethal than bullets. Permenant scarring, on the other hand.. :sly:

The one redeeming quality of your country's soccer fascination is that you kill each other over it.

[jonyak]

Permenant scarring, on the other hand.. :sly:

is awesome??

[Kusghuul]

It reflects people like me who have multiple firearms. I belive the last household ownership survey (in the 90's) put it at 40% of the households containing a firearm. That number is probably horribly low now that the Obama gun buyout is still going on though.

90 private guns per 100 people ftw.

Right, i'll concede that point.

But somehow the U.S. still has more gun violence per capita than any other western country, and i also presuming it's got less restriction on guns. Whether there's any connection's between guns per capita, restrictions and violence is debatable i guess.

[Matriel]

Right, i'll concede that point.

But somehow the U.S. still has more gun violence per capita than any other western country, and i also presuming it's got less restriction on guns. Whether there's any connection's between guns per capita, restrictions and violence is debatable i guess.

Eh, the US has always had more gun violence per capita than any other Western nation even when the other Western nations had no gun restrictions. Circa 1900's UK vs US for example.

Cultural violence problems are not the fault of inanimate objects.

[Glaive]

For prohibition to do either one of them it has to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, as with the prohibition of anything that has demand, it fails to do so.

Well, not necessarily for the latter. Yes, criminals will almost always have guns, but when the civilian population doesn't have guns, there's at least less guns stolen. I don't have time to read up on more statistics right now, but I'm sure it affects criminal ownership in other ways too.

And you would be getting these statistics from where?

http://books.google.com/books?id=_6kJWGgXi4wC&pg=PA55
"Various studies have similar findings: robberies and assaults with guns are three to five times more likely to result in death than robberies and assaults with knives, six to ten times more likely to result in death than robberies or assaults with other weapons, and some forty times more likely to result in death than if no weapon were used."

There you go.


I have to write a long as marketing paper that's due tonight, so no more posting for me for a while :D

[Kusghuul]

Eh, the US has always had more gun violence per capita than any other Western nation even when the other Western nations had no gun restrictions. Circa 1900's UK vs US for example.

Cultural violence problems are not the fault of inanimate objects.

Aye, that's why i've been saying cultural problems in half my posts;p

But shouldn't cultural violence be a reason to get a wee ban on them since you're not grown enough to handle them? And i know you're gonna say "knives are just as bad" etc.;p

[ZeaL-]

People that seem to always be concerned with owning guns and waving them around are usually really trying hard to compensate for their lack of manhood. If you are comfortable with your masculinity you wouldn't have to impress people with big weapons. I wonder if you guys can even get it up...

[Ziegler]

There may be more violence with knives due to this, but knives are statistically not as dangerous as guns.

And yet....England wants to ban those too....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6419913.stm



When Knives are banned...can we use sporks?

[Silverhandorder]

In other news I got my gun license in NYC :P the liberal capital!

[Badem]

And yet....England wants to ban those too....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6419913.stm



When Knives are banned...can we use sporks?

They are already clapming down on spoons

apparntly someone was attacked and killed with one so they are on the 18+ list at Tescos and Asda

[Matriel]

Aye, that's why i've been saying cultural problems in half my posts;p

But shouldn't cultural violence be a reason to get a wee ban on them since you're not grown enough to handle them? And i know you're gonna say "knives are just as bad" etc.;p

Or they could actually use resources to fix the problem itself instead of wasting resources on something that's not the problem and definitely not a cure.

People that seem to always be concerned with owning guns and waving them around are usually really trying hard to compensate for their lack of manhood. If you are comfortable with your masculinity you wouldn't have to impress people with big weapons. I wonder if you guys can even get it up...

You're about to get popped for ban evasion Killuminati. Owned.

Well, not necessarily for the latter. Yes, criminals will almost always have guns, but when the civilian population doesn't have guns, there's at least less guns stolen. I don't have time to read up on more statistics right now, but I'm sure it affects criminal ownership in other ways too.

So what if there are less guns stolen? There are no guns to steal in the UK, but they haven't had a problem with gun crime going up there.

[Skyborn]

Holy fuckballs...you are alive...

[Jezrith]

http://books.google.com/books?id=_6kJWGgXi4wC&pg=PA55
"Various studies have similar findings: robberies and assaults with guns are three to five times more likely to result in death than robberies and assaults with knives, six to ten times more likely to result in death than robberies or assaults with other weapons, and some forty times more likely to result in death than if no weapon were used."

There you go.


I really wish I could see his sources for that, because it contradicts the 21 foot rule, and what law enforcement officers have learned in the field about how dangerous knives can be. Unfortunately the page with that particular citation is omitted... :(

[Matriel]

I really wish I could see his sources for that, because it contradicts the 21 foot rule, and what law enforcement officers have learned in the field about how dangerous knives can be. Unfortunately the page with that particular citation is omitted... :(

All the studies listed but Kleck's are old as fuck also. Although that arguably doesn't change anything maybe.

[Haeso]

So, what about the other regions (the size of counties btw) that have had multiple? This article was more about the expected increase of them.

I don't know or care about those other regions, just a cursory glance over the material and the posts up till then and it seemed like a weak starting point, there are better cases to be made against gun bans than this story is all.

[TrikkyMakk]

Now the cops in England wear knife vests.

Once the ban knives they will wear club vests.
Once they ban clubs they will wear head butt vests.
Once they ban head butts I don't know what they are going to do!

[Nevron]

You should try having Indiana as your closest state border then, you haven't seen true idiot yet...:D

He's in Kentucky, which borders Indiana. You just emphasized his point, and I just negated yours.

[Sqarak]

Right because said old lady (I think that's what you're getting at) can't walk off a curb and break her ankle ending up with the same result. Any more dumb arguments?





I was aiming at my mother who would actually buy one and actually shot herself.

Also, my argument is still valid in the sense that it lessens the likelihood of random people doing stupid things.
Someone who wants a gun, will find a gun, regardless of local laws, but blocking it somewhat lessens the possibility of the majority doing incredible stupid things.

[Kusghuul]

Or they could actually use resources to fix the problem itself instead of wasting resources on something that's not the problem and definitely not a cure.

So what would a cure be? i agree the guns aren't the problem, it's mostly poverty imo.

[Matriel]

I don't know or care about those other regions, just a cursory glance over the material and the posts up till then and it seemed like a weak starting point, there are better cases to be made against gun bans than this story is all.

Better points will troll in less responses...

I was aiming at my mother who would actually buy one and actually shot herself.

Also, my argument is still valid in the sense that it lessens the likelihood of random people doing stupid things.
Someone who wants a gun, will find a gun, regardless of local laws, but blocking it somewhat lessens the possibility of the majority doing incredible stupid things.

So, your entire reasoning is on a what-if scenario... Nice.

And I think the vast majority of American gun owners (60 million +) that have no accidents daily completely refutes your argument.

So what would a cure be? i agree the guns aren't the problem, it's mostly poverty imo.

Hell if I know, I'm not a psychologist.

Although considering the American Wild West was arguably the lowest crime period in US history, maybe we should be more like that.

[WhiteF1ame]

Guns aren't the problem, hip hop culture is.

[Matriel]

Guns aren't the problem, hip hop culture is.

Certainly an argument there I reckon. Considering 8% of the population in America accounts for 30+% of the murders.

[jonyak]

Although considering the American Wild West was arguably the lowest crime period in US history, maybe we should be more like that.

:lmao:

[Sqarak]

And I think the vast majority of American gun owners (60 million +) that have no accidents daily completely refutes your argument.


Why does it refute my argument that gun control is a partial way to try as much as possible to keep guns out of the hands of idiots.

Like I said gun control will not prevent anyone to get one if the really want one.
It like having a firewall on a computer. I will not prevent a real hacker of entering it, but it will stop stupid little scriptkiddies.

For someone waving around with statistics you sure are unable to get the whole idea behind probability.

I'm also fairly sure, i have no proof readily at hand though, that the US has a higher rate in gun related incidents than the average Western European nation.

Promoting free gun ownership over here might make it just as worse.

[Matriel]

:lmao:

It's factually true. I can link you in a study if you want. Or you could keep believing Hollywod...

Why does it refute my argument that gun control is a partial way to try as much as possible to keep guns out of the hands of idiots.

Like I said gun control will not prevent anyone to get one if the really want one.
It like having a firewall on a computer. I will not prevent a real hacker of entering it, but it will stop stupid little scriptkiddies.

For someone waving around with statistics you sure are unable to get the whole idea behind probability.

I'm also fairly sure, i have no proof readily at hand though, that the US has a higher rate in gun related incidents than the average Western European nation.

Promoting free gun ownership over here might make it just as worse.

Idiots across America buy guns all the time and yet have no problems with them. Your entire argument is a what-if based upon your own fears.

http://www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm Smacks of this really...

The US has a higher rate of gun incidents than other nations because it has more guns than other nations. That doesn't address issues of violence or anything else for that matter. It's trying to pin a cultural problem on inanimate objects. Which is hilarious if you look at the situation from a pragmatic angle instead of with knee-jerk emotional responses to the evil guns.

[ZeaL-]

You're about to get popped for ban evasion Killuminati. Owned.

I always knew your jewish ass was a mod.

*jumps off cliff*

[Sqarak]

with knee-jerk emotional responses to the evil guns.

I have nothing against guns, I'm very certain that in capable hands of responsible people they can make the difference between a shitload of misery and one less asshole in this world.

I however just have not as much faith in the average individual their capabilities to handle such things with proper care.

I also think that it basically depends on what one is used to. If you grow up somewhere were gun ownership is completely constitutional you will likely pick up some responsibility along the way.

I'm fairly sure you'll just keep on refuting my posts, but at least my post count will go up

[Poacher]

I am content with the gun and knife laws in the UK. What I'm not content with is the lenient punishment you get for carrying knives. :( Off with their writing hand I say!

[jonyak]

7 year old killed for "tresspassing" (http://news.aol.com/article/texas-trespassing-shooting/472454?icid=main|hp-desktop|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol. com%2Farti%20cle%2Ftexas-trespassing-shooting%2F472454)

[Matriel]

7 year old killed for "tresspassing" (http://news.aol.com/article/texas-trespassing-shooting/472454?icid=main%7Chp-desktop%7Cdl1%7Clink3%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fnew s.aol.com%2Farti%20cle%2Ftexas-trespassing-shooting%2F472454)

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

[Barbarossa]

He's in Kentucky, which borders Indiana. You just emphasized his point, and I just negated yours.

Closest to him?
No

He lives in Lexington.

I live in Dayton so technically Indiana border is closer to me than Matriel.


Besides, most eastern border Indiana residents are Ohio refugees. Richmond is full of Ohio pedo's who can no longer live in Ohio.


Hopefully you're not one of them...

[Barbarossa]

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

Of course you don't get the whole story of why the attacker did what he did.

Most likely the ex wife was letting the attackers brother buttsex her and the attacker got pissed because he tried buttsexxing her for years but to no avail.

I'd be pissed enough to knife the bitch too....

[Silverhandorder]

Actually thats kinda what happened. I think from the past I remember this video going into details and saying that he was her ex being pissed over being dumped.

[Barbarossa]

Actually thats kinda what happened. I think from the past I remember this video going into details and saying that he was her ex being pissed over being dumped.

Yeah, it's like I don't agree with nor would I do what O.J. did, but I totally fucking understand why.

Totally understand.

[Glaive]

Just finished my marketing paper! Hooray! Now, if you guys are done swapping anecdotes, I'll reply...

Knives are quieter. Theres nothing as dangerous as a quiet weapon.

So what if they are quieter? All it does is it gives the perpetrator some time to run away before someone discovers the body. It does not make it any deadlier. I'm not really interested in debating this, though as I already posted the link to the statistics.

They are already clapming down on spoons

apparntly someone was attacked and killed with one so they are on the 18+ list at Tescos and Asda

That is incorrect, actually. There was just some mix-up in the computer system + an idiot cashier.


So what if there are less guns stolen? There are no guns to steal in the UK, but they haven't had a problem with gun crime going up there.

If there are less guns stolen, then criminals have less guns. I'm not sure where you're going with the second part of that post, though.

I really wish I could see his sources for that, because it contradicts the 21 foot rule, and what law enforcement officers have learned in the field about how dangerous knives can be. Unfortunately the page with that particular citation is omitted... :(

Well, the author is a respected Harvard professor, so I'm sure he chose valid sources. I'm also sure his book would have been utterly destroyed already by some pro-gun site if he had used shitty sources.

Knives can be dangerous, especially in the hands of someone who knows how to use them. The argument however was that guns are deadlier than knives when used in crime, which the evidence I posted proves.

All the studies listed but Kleck's are old as fuck also. Although that arguably doesn't change anything maybe.

If they were done correctly, it shouldn't be any less valid today. If anything, guns have become more technologically advanced and therefore even deadlier with time. Knives, well, they haven't evolved very much :D


Although considering the American Wild West was arguably the lowest crime period in US history, maybe we should be more like that.

Hey, Somalia is pretty safe, right? Everybody has guns, therefore there is no violence!

Guns aren't the problem, hip hop culture is.

Yes, those Columbine shooters sure were the hippest of the hoppers.

Certainly an argument there I reckon. Considering 8% of the population in America accounts for 30+% of the murders.

Poor people commit crimes??? No way!

As I already had this entire argument a couple months ago on another board, I'm not really too interested in arguing very much (unless someone posts something very stupid!).

[Jezrith]

Well, the author is a respected Harvard professor, so I'm sure he chose valid sources.


I'm not. He wouldn't be the first Professor to use half truths and lies to promote an anti-gun agenda, Google Michael Bellesiles when you have some free time. Not saying this guy did the same thing but I generally confirm sources myself before buying into what a paper says.


I'm also sure his book would have been utterly destroyed already by some pro-gun site if he had used shitty sources.


Maybe, maybe not, people would have to pay attention to this guys work before they did that.

[SirStalker]

No one has claimed that all gun violence will stop with prohibition. The argument that can be made for prohibition is that it will lessen gun violence. There may be more violence with knives due to this, but knives are statistically not as dangerous as guns.

Just wait till people start getting their hands on bows,arrows, and throwing knives, its gonna be like fucking runescape irl in Europe:idea:

Except perma death is applied and it is FULL LOOT!!!! so more people will move there and thus the developers of such shitty games will run out of people who pay for them to stay in business.

Maybe gun control isnt so bad after all?:confused:

[lilyeti]

What the fuck about bow and arrows? Almost anyone can make their own, (evn Ohio-ers), and they can be just as effective as a handgun (if you can am well). Also, what's more intimidating? Seeing your buddy shot in the face with a pistol, have a small hole and a blood fountain, or watching him be shot in the chest with an arrow. Seeing the 3 foot long shaft quivering in his chest.

Ban bows while you are at it.

[Aleucard]

What the fuck about bow and arrows? Almost anyone can make their own, (evn Ohio-ers), and they can be just as effective as a handgun (if you can am well). Also, what's more intimidating? Seeing your buddy shot in the face with a pistol, have a small hole and a blood fountain, or watching him be shot in the chest with an arrow. Seeing the 3 foot long shaft quivering in his chest.

Ban bows while you are at it.
As has been said previously, most guns currently under US civilian control are hunting rifles and shotguns. So, really, your friend's face would be blown off, presuming that the blast didn't remove his head entirely. Pretty fucking intimidating. Still, an arrow can bring a similar amount of intimidation if done right. A bow by itself isn't very good against multiple targets, though. HOWEVER, if you took one of those aluminum arrows, hollowed it out CAREFULLY, then loaded it with some sort of hard contact explosive, it could be WAY more intimidating than almost any gun, especially if they think at first it's just a normal arrow. Seeing (and feeling) one of your friends get blown apart entirely in one shot should prove to be the biggest mindfuck you could ever get from someone who didn't pull some sort of Jigsaw shit.

ANYWAY, back on topic. Banning guns entirely isn't one of the best ideas. While you might put a noticeable dent in the number of criminals with guns (~5% of gun crimes, if I remember correctly (heard it on another board), used legal guns), the stuff that DOES happen will probably be more severe on average. Why? Because the responsible people aren't able to keep stupid/desperate people from doing stupid things if they can't defend themselves.

[Seesawmcgraw]

What the fuck about bow and arrows? Almost anyone can make their own, (evn Ohio-ers), and they can be just as effective as a handgun (if you can am well). Also, what's more intimidating? Seeing your buddy shot in the face with a pistol, have a small hole and a blood fountain, or watching him be shot in the chest with an arrow. Seeing the 3 foot long shaft quivering in his chest.

Ban bows while you are at it.

People with handguns conceal them so they can go into a building and take a small group as hostages you aren't going to sneak a shortbow and several arrows in your anus and hold people hostage and you aren't going to walk in there dressed in a tunic and some tights and hope nobody calls the police out of suspicion also bows suck at melee because somebody can easily knock your arrow off

also you need 2 hands to operate a bow you can't be like take the money and put it in my pocket or I'll fire this arrow at you

I still don't agree with antigun laws though

[shadowy]

What the fuck about bow and arrows? Almost anyone can make their own, (evn Ohio-ers), and they can be just as effective as a handgun (if you can am well). Also, what's more intimidating? Seeing your buddy shot in the face with a pistol, have a small hole and a blood fountain, or watching him be shot in the chest with an arrow. Seeing the 3 foot long shaft quivering in his chest.

Ban bows while you are at it.


Bows and knives are useless compared to firearms, handgun doubles as a close combat weapon(you can still shoot someone just as easily as stab them) and rifle is a lot more effective than a bow in pretty much every way, it's more lethal, more accurate and it's more effective in close combat.

No reason to ban guns imo, the way it works here is pretty decent compromise with no guns allowed in urban areas(outside of your property that is) unless you got a good reason.

Just annoying that with the recent school shootings all the idiots think that guns should be banned to prevent stuff like that.

[Nevron]

Closest to him?
No

He lives in Lexington.

I live in Dayton so technically Indiana border is closer to me than Matriel.


Besides, most eastern border Indiana residents are Ohio refugees. Richmond is full of Ohio pedo's who can no longer live in Ohio.


Hopefully you're not one of them...

I was just sayin', he's about equal distance from Indiana and Ohio, yet he still cited Ohio as the example. Your remark to that was that he just hadn't met anyone from Indiana, or something in that regard, which is improbable considering the similar distance I just referred to. Indiana's no gem, but the only state in the area that makes Ohio look good is Michigan.

And no, I'm not an Ohio reject. I'm closer to Illinois than Ohio. Hell I'm closer to Tennessee than Ohio. State pride is kind of ridiculous, but the ratio of cool Ohioans to shitbag Ohioans I've run into throughout my life lead me to conclude that Ohio genuinely sucks. Not to mention adding emphasis to "The" in the title of a university sounds retarded.

[Lictor]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6265952.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084

Any morons from Yurope want to argue that prohibitions work? I'm semi-bored at work and want to destroy some eurotrash.

You, your life revolving (literally) around guns and your Christmas sig in the beginning of summer suck.
Sorry, pal.

[Spineless_DoO]

Why ya gotta use Ohio as an example when New Jersey is far worse a state? :D

I live in NJ. Have my entire life. The population is so dense here making it very different from other states. We have nearly state wide what most states only see in city areas.

The root of the problem in NJ is not guns or crime. Its the welfare system breeding these cock sucking fuckers. Mom sits home cranking out babies. Dad keeps knocking her up. They are to buisy watching BET for the newest thug vid to give a fuck about the kids. The kids end up herding together without adult supervision and it always ends up with a bunch of retards wearing baggy jeans, white T-shirts who then later populate our jails and later on take over the role of there parents as baby making asshats. Its a wonderfull system.

Yay for change!

[Paralda]

Gun control depends on the area. In a rural environment, such as Georgia or Lousiana, it wouldn't be very effective (or very ineffective). But, if you take an urban area and implement strict gun control, gun crime does down immensely.

Take Japan, for instance. It has the most strict gun control laws of the developed world, and only has around 200 violent crimes committed per year by a handgun (in retrospect, most cities in America have a worse record).

[Barbarossa]

I was just sayin', he's about equal distance from Indiana and Ohio, yet he still cited Ohio as the example. Your remark to that was that he just hadn't met anyone from Indiana, or something in that regard, which is improbable considering the similar distance I just referred to. Indiana's no gem, but the only state in the area that makes Ohio look good is Michigan.

And no, I'm not an Ohio reject. I'm closer to Illinois than Ohio. Hell I'm closer to Tennessee than Ohio. State pride is kind of ridiculous, but the ratio of cool Ohioans to shitbag Ohioans I've run into throughout my life lead me to conclude that Ohio genuinely sucks. Not to mention adding emphasis to "The" in the title of a university sounds retarded.

Dude, I just live here, I don't like living here but moving elsewheres is not an option at this stage in the game. I'd much rather live someplace like southern New Mexico but I fear that'll have to wait `til retirement.

I know this state is full of idiots but unfortunately idiocy is not against the law and idiot hunting season has yet to be implemented.

When that particular hunting comes about, I am sure Matriel will be the first in line for a FIFO[Fucking Idiot From Ohio] Hunting License. :D

Credit where credit is due, I first heard FIFO from Matriel.

[Matriel]

If there are less guns stolen, then criminals have less guns. I'm not sure where you're going with the second part of that post, though.

If your first statement was true, then the UK would be literally unable to have increasing amounts of gun crimes because criminals wouldn't be able to get as many guns.



If they were done correctly, it shouldn't be any less valid today. If anything, guns have become more technologically advanced and therefore even deadlier with time. Knives, well, they haven't evolved very much :D

They've both evolved about the same amount. The most popular handgun calibers in America were created at the dawn of the 20th century for example. There have been advances in bullet technology, but in the grand scheme of things firearm, pistols are still weak as hell. Knives have come a long way in quality of metal, fast access (spring assist, etc), and more ergonomic lethal varieties. It's about the same across the board. And there has arguably been some changes in US crime approaches since the peak heyday of the 70's was my real point.


Hey, Somalia is pretty safe, right? Everybody has guns, therefore there is no violence!

Well, this study compares the Wild West to the cities in the East...but hey unrelated tangents for 500 Alex.



Poor people commit crimes??? No way!

I was referring to the demographic of black males. Which would meet your argument of poor people I suppose, yet the Great Barrens (poorest region of America) is predominately white and doesn't have near the crime rates...

You, your life revolving (literally) around guns and your Christmas sig in the beginning of summer suck.
Sorry, pal.

Clever. Good job.

Gun control depends on the area. In a rural environment, such as Georgia or Lousiana, it wouldn't be very effective (or very ineffective). But, if you take an urban area and implement strict gun control, gun crime does down immensely.

Take Japan, for instance. It has the most strict gun control laws of the developed world, and only has around 200 violent crimes committed per year by a handgun (in retrospect, most cities in America have a worse record).

Japan had the same low violent crimes when they had no gun control. Japanese-Americans also have the same very low occurance of violent crimes within America even though it has in comparison almost no gun control. Make a smart argument for fuck's sake.

[Seesawmcgraw]

I was referring to the demographic of black males. Which would meet your argument of poor people I suppose, yet the Great Barrens (poorest region of America) is predominately white and doesn't have near the crime rates...

Are you referring to the great lakes barrens in Michigan? I'm just curious that bit of information is interesting

[Butcher]

Yeh it does work, I for one know that if guns were legal here i'd get one and use it a few times in situations where I had to resort to other things instead.

And I dont need to be a "Yuro moron" to argue with you, im not even going to argue because facts speak for themselves, there is no reason to argue over something that has already been proven.

And really, dont quote this and start arguing with me, you already made a dick of your thread with your first post and the Religion heading.

[Jezrith]

Yeh it does work, I for one know that if guns were legal here i'd get one and use it a few times in situations where I had to resort to other things instead.


The only reason you didn't have one is because you don't want one. I guarantee you can get one now if you wanted one. It works the same way when guns are legal.


And I dont need to be a "Yuro moron" to argue with you, im not even going to argue because facts speak for themselves, there is no reason to argue over something that has already been proven.


You are delusional. There is nothing self-evident about control working.


And really, dont quote this and start arguing with me, you already made a dick of your thread with your first post and the Religion heading.

Like anyone is going to actually do what you tell them do...

[Fro]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6265952.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084

Any morons from Yurope want to argue that prohibitions work? I'm semi-bored at work and want to destroy some eurotrash.

Guns aren't banned in the U.K They're just not as easy to get a licence for as in the U.S.A

What are all you twats doing back here anyway? I hoped you'd fucked off for good.

[Kusghuul]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8043688.stm

May be of some interest

[Dakeus]

I skimmed through the whole thread and didn't notice anyone agreeing with Matriel. Conclusion?

[Silverhandorder]

I skimmed through the whole thread and didn't notice anyone agreeing with Matriel. Conclusion?

Lets correct that.

I agree with Matriel.

[PrimalSign]

I skimmed through the whole thread and didn't notice anyone agreeing with Matriel. Conclusion?

Matriel already auto-wins gun threads. This is fact.

[Matriel]

Are you referring to the great lakes barrens in Michigan? I'm just curious that bit of information is interesting

I meant the Great Plains/Basin. My Forumfall is rusty. My fault on the misnomer.
http://cfra.blogspot.com/2005/12/poorest-part-of-america.html

Although it probably bears mentioning that the poorest actual place is in Louisiana.


Guns aren't banned in the U.K They're just not as easy to get a licence for as in the U.S.A

What are all you twats doing back here anyway? I hoped you'd fucked off for good.

Handguns are indeed banned. The hoops that a private citizen with no connections must jump through to have even a simple shotgun where it can't even be used for self-defense is so ridiculous it is in effect a complete ban.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8043688.stm

May be of some interest

So, why then support legislation that doesn't address the problem and instead targets pieces of metal/plastic?

I skimmed through the whole thread and didn't notice anyone agreeing with Matriel. Conclusion?

I read your whole inane post and didn't find a single argument.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Matriel doesn't need any help in gun threads. Everyone that supports him just sits back and enjoys the popcorn.

Assuming prohibitions do reduce gun violence, what's the point? That's a stupid goal that solves nothing. The idea is to reduce violence of any kind.

Gun bans only take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens who will then be defenseless in situations where a gun would have saved their life, their money, their virginity, their sphincter..........

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

[1998altima]

I can't wait until somebody goes on a killing spree with a bow and then pulls out a pistol to kill themselves.

That would make everyone think wouldn't it?

[Kusghuul]

Handguns are indeed banned. The hoops that a private citizen with no connections must jump through to have even a simple shotgun where it can't even be used for self-defense is so ridiculous it is in effect a complete ban.

So, why then support legislation that doesn't address the problem and instead targets pieces of metal/plastic?


Odd, handguns are for sale at Crockets where i live. Goddamn criminals! - Being Scottish here.

Matriel, my country's gun laws are stricter than yours. For some reason we don't have anywhere near as much violence as yours. i believe that's due to the difficulty of getting handguns (because i'm all for hunting equipment and the like) and a more civilised culture. Having weapons as freely distributable as they are Stateside is imo one of the reasons for a much higher rate of gun violence. - Norwegian here btw.

[Rathynas]

I think you should be more scared of this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00549/1_549309d.jpg) than a gun.

[dinkfall]

Blaming crime and social problems on lifeless items is fashionable as admitting that people have responsibility over their actions would be admitting that not everyone likes this little society of ours, something most people don't want to do.

[Matriel]

Odd, handguns are for sale at Crockets where i live. Goddamn criminals! - Being Scottish here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_(Amendment)_(No._2)_Act_1997#Ba ckground

Sounds like you're describing something that's ineffective at best...

Matriel, my country's gun laws are stricter than yours. For some reason we don't have anywhere near as much violence as yours. i believe that's due to the difficulty of getting handguns (because i'm all for hunting equipment and the like) and a more civilised culture. Having weapons as freely distributable as they are Stateside is imo one of the reasons for a much higher rate of gun violence. - Norwegian here btw.

Your country didn't have loads of gun violence when you didn't have any gun control... Please make another correlation that doesn't add up...

[lilyeti]

OT is fucking slow without e.

[SirStalker]

I can't wait until somebody goes on a killing spree with a bow and then pulls out a pistol to kill themselves.

That would make everyone think wouldn't it?

:lmao::lmao: yes hahahaha

[Sharuk]

Guns dont kill people

People kill people

Ban Guns, watch as Knive murders go up

Killers are Killers

[Sqarak]

Why is this still being argued over.
People who want one, have one.
People who don't, don't.

Living in the US apparently means needing a gun to go safely to the post office and do groceries
In the UK it's preferable to carry a butcher knife or a broadsword, same goes for the most of Europe, except Finland, there US rules apply.

[Glaive]

Guns dont kill people

People kill people

Ban Guns, watch as Knive murders go up

Killers are Killers

I always laugh when people post this. More people are killed when guns are involved in a crime, than when knives are used.

[Badem]

ban guns, knives, sporks, frozen turkeys, chain saws etc etc

fuck it, ban life

and a story in the UK papers made me laugh today, three youths burst into a shop and pulled a gun on the shop keeper, some guy walks up to teh gunman and say 'what the hell are you doing' disarms the gunman and restrains him while waiting for the police to arrive

the gunman was begging and pleading for the guy to let him go, take away the weapon and they become the biggest Cowards ever

The UK is becoming populated with Chavs with no Morals, easiest way to cure it is to make it as economically unviable as possible for the little sluts in school to get pregnant and get free money, free houses and shit

make them live in 'single mother homes' make it an embarrasment to be a single mother

fuck these chavs walking around with 4 kids by 8 different blokes make me sick, or these cocksure lads who go round impregnating women left and right and not having to worry about providing for the kid cos they on the dole and the taxman picks up the bill

fucking scum

[Sqarak]

ban guns, knives, sporks, frozen turkeys, chain saws etc etc

fuck it, ban life

and a story in the UK papers made me laugh today, three youths burst into a shop and pulled a gun on the shop keeper, some guy walks up to teh gunman and say 'what the hell are you doing' disarms the gunman and restrains him while waiting for the police to arrive

the gunman was begging and pleading for the guy to let him go, take away the weapon and they become the biggest Cowards ever

The UK is becoming populated with Chavs with no Morals, easiest way to cure it is to make it as economically unviable as possible for the little sluts in school to get pregnant and get free money, free houses and shit

make them live in 'single mother homes' make it an embarrasment to be a single mother

fuck these chavs walking around with 4 kids by 8 different blokes make me sick, or these cocksure lads who go round impregnating women left and right and not having to worry about providing for the kid cos they on the dole and the taxman picks up the bill

fucking scum

Just hope their daughter become thight little sluts, then we can fuck them senseless in return for some cider and a bit of coke, which is washing powder, but they don't care.

The dregs of humanity is just a resource we failed to put into use properly.

[Matriel]

I always laugh when people post this. More people are killed when guns are involved in a crime, than when knives are used.

You say it like the difference is some kind of epidemic. It's a minuscule amount regardless of the spin attack on an inanimate object. The idea that murders need to be categorized by object used is hilarious in and of itself.

And even if researchers have found that guns can be more deadly than knives via criminology, it doesn't make knives any less deadly. What you're akin to saying is that "hey, it's more likely you'll survive a stabbing, so let's ban the one tool that allows a 90lb woman to defend herself from a 200lb man because maybe he'll stab her instead and she'll live."

[Sqarak]

"hey, it's more likely you'll survive a stabbing, so let's ban the one tool that allows a 90lb woman to defend herself from a 200lb man because maybe he'll stab her instead and she'll live."

It's equally likely that the 200lb man might be carrying a shotgun and blow her head off before the woman can even grab for hers.
It's also possible that said woman is self-confident and adept in self-defence and kick in the mans face as he tries to aim his gun.

These are all "what ifs" and quite pointless. There is no way one can prove that having a gun saves more lives than not having one. The thing a gun can do beyond any doubt is resolve a given situation faster than a knife would regardless of the users skill.
Because it can go so fast with a gun people might kill someone unintentional and have to live with it for the rest of their lives and use the burglar or rapist thing as a counter example. Plenty of people have killed or permanently injured people in petty arguments with guns as well.



Your arguments are just as flawed as ours as in the end we are not talking about facts but opinions and preferences.

[Glaive]

You say it like the difference is some kind of epidemic. It's a minuscule amount regardless of the spin attack on an inanimate object. The idea that murders need to be categorized by object used is hilarious in and of itself.

And even if researchers have found that guns can be more deadly than knives via criminology, it doesn't make knives any less deadly. What you're akin to saying is that "hey, it's more likely you'll survive a stabbing, so let's ban the one tool that allows a 90lb woman to defend herself from a 200lb man because maybe he'll stab her instead and she'll live."

You clearly do not understand my argument. I'll give you a hint: my argument is not that knives can't kill as well as guns.

[Kusghuul]

Your country didn't have loads of gun violence when you didn't have any gun control... Please make another correlation that doesn't add up...

Norway never had ANY guns, we just needed the legislation in modern times to prevent people from having guns, as you don't want vikings with guns. Last time we had weapons we sent half our people to iceland due to blood feuds and what not. Figured we were better off without guns, go figure.

[Matriel]

It's equally likely that the 200lb man might be carrying a shotgun and blow her head off before the woman can even grab for hers.
It's also possible that said woman is self-confident and adept in self-defence and kick in the mans face as he tries to aim his gun.

No amount of magical made up scenarious will change the force equalization aspect of firearms. Throughout history the largest brute has always had an advantage with all weaponry until the invention of the firearm. This is indisputable fact and that you had to create a few far-fetched scenarios (90lb kung fu woman destroying a 200lb man or a criminal walking around with a shotgun headshotting women) is hilarious.

These are all "what ifs" and quite pointless. There is no way one can prove that having a gun saves more lives than not having one. The thing a gun can do beyond any doubt is resolve a given situation faster than a knife would regardless of the users skill.
Because it can go so fast with a gun people might kill someone unintentional and have to live with it for the rest of their lives and use the burglar or rapist thing as a counter example. Plenty of people have killed or permanently injured people in petty arguments with guns as well.

Of course there are. There was a study done in the US that showed that more crimes are prevented with firearms than are commited with them. If you're using cold hard numbers to support your argument and not wishful thinking this is all you need to realize they are a net benefit.

“Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995.

Plenty of people have killed or permanently injured people with no weapons at all in petty arguments. Please find an argument that holds water and isn't some kind of emotional plea.

Your arguments are just as flawed as ours as in the end we are not talking about facts but opinions and preferences.

Funny, I haven't seen you link a single study in this thread...

You clearly do not understand my argument. I'll give you a hint: my argument is not that knives can't kill as well as guns.

You clearly do not understand my argument. That the tool used to kill with is irrelevant.

Norway never had ANY guns, we just needed the legislation in modern times to prevent people from having guns, as you don't want vikings with guns. Last time we had weapons we sent half our people to iceland due to blood feuds and what not. Figured we were better off without guns, go figure.

So, you're saying that Norway had exactly 0 guns until the Firearms Act thing was passed? Also, all the Vikings emigrated to America. That's why Scandinavia is full of pussies now.

[Glaive]

You clearly do not understand my argument. That the tool used to kill with is irrelevant.


OK, so you're saying we should allow people to own bazookas and heavy MGs, since the tool used to kill is irrelevant. Great.

[dinkfall]

OK, so you're saying we should allow people to own bazookas and heavy MGs, since the tool used to kill is irrelevant. Great.

Yes? What is the problem?

[shadowy]

Plenty of people have killed or permanently injured people with no weapons at all in petty arguments. Please find an argument that holds water and isn't some kind of emotional plea.

Stab wounds aren't nearly as deadly as a gunshot wound and wounds from fist fight etc. are even less dangerous.


You clearly do not understand my argument. That the tool used to kill with is irrelevant.


Effectiveness of the tool isn't irrelevant because it directly affects the wounded/dead ratio, key here is to prevent deaths not necessarily prevent the act itself because that's pretty much impossible by bans on tools.

So, you're saying that Norway had exactly 0 guns until the Firearms Act thing was passed? Also, all the Vikings emigrated to America. That's why Scandinavia is full of pussies now.

Ever been in scandinavia? :)

[Badem]

Ever been in scandinavia? :)

Scandanavian pussy is some of the finest in the world

[Fro]

Handguns are indeed banned. The hoops that a private citizen with no connections must jump through to have even a simple shotgun where it can't even be used for self-defense is so ridiculous it is in effect a complete ban.

No. Anyway i wonder why america has such high gun crime compared to in he U.K? It must be the ******* because theres no black people in the U.K.

[ZeaL-]

No. Anyway i wonder why america has such high gun crime compared to in he U.K? It must be the ******* because theres no black people in the U.K.

What about cribble?

[inox]

Guns dont kill people

Agreed. This guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk) kills people.

[Kusghuul]

So, you're saying that Norway had exactly 0 guns until the Firearms Act thing was passed? Also, all the Vikings emigrated to America. That's why Scandinavia is full of pussies now.

Pretty much, and i said handguns, not guns. We've always been good at hunting. Outside the army i don't believe anyone, aside from a few ex-nobles with flint-lock rifles or summat, had weapons aside from hunting rifles. We just didn't need them.

As for who went to America from Norway; mainly religious fucknuts, and not of the Odin-worshipping type. Prudes from all over Europe went there.

[ejnomad07]

Also, all the Vikings emigrated to America. That's why Scandinavia is full of pussies now.

:lmao:

/threaded

[Sharuk]

I always laugh when people post this. More people are killed when guns are involved in a crime, than when knives are used.

Yea because i couldnt go into a crowded street and kill the same amount of people as i could with a gun

Just because you have to move 2 feet to the next target doesnt make it harder, idiot

[Kusghuul]

Yea because i couldnt go into a crowded street and kill the same amount of people as i could with a gun

Just because you have to move 2 feet to the next target doesnt make it harder, idiot

Killing people in a desert is easier with a gun, they'd run if they saw you with a knife.

[Sqarak]

Killing people in a desert is easier with a gun, they'd run if they saw you with a knife.


Mind to be a good sniper, 2500m +/- it is said to be the record, no one runs from that, as you don't even see it coming.

Fucking asshole campers

[Kusghuul]

Read this article about snipers in Afghanistan, was some Norwegian using some funny, semi-illegal bullets. Ripped an insurgent in half with a torso hit.

[Glaive]

Yea because i couldnt go into a crowded street and kill the same amount of people as i could with a gun

Just because you have to move 2 feet to the next target doesnt make it harder, idiot


You are the idiot here, sir. I posted actual proof that said more people get killed in crimes where guns involved. If you want, you can continue to argue with statistics. I'll just have a seat over here and laugh my ass off.

[Matriel]

OK, so you're saying we should allow people to own bazookas and heavy MGs, since the tool used to kill is irrelevant. Great.

Yes, I'm not a petty tyrant coward worried what someone else might do...

Stab wounds aren't nearly as deadly as a gunshot wound and wounds from fist fight etc. are even less dangerous.

Actually stab wounds can easily be more traumatizing than a bullet. That's how arrows are able to kill animals even though their foot pounds of energy are nothing compared to a bullet.

Bullets are very small. Fractions of an inch versus an inch plus blade. Fact of the matter is that either one has to hit something that will incapacitate a human being before it is deadly.



Effectiveness of the tool isn't irrelevant because it directly affects the wounded/dead ratio, key here is to prevent deaths not necessarily prevent the act itself because that's pretty much impossible by bans on tools.

No it doesn't. If you want to prevent wounded or dead people change human nature so that we no longer kill each other. I wonder if in the Middle Ages pussies like you guys were advocating for no advanced in sword technology because it was too deadly.

Ever been in scandinavia? :)

Yes, largest group of beta males in the world.

No. Anyway i wonder why america has such high gun crime compared to in he U.K? It must be the ******* because theres no black people in the U.K.

Yes, the law is exact on this you dumbs. And that's certainly a viable argument as they commit much more crime than their slice of the population would indicate.

Pretty much, and i said handguns, not guns. We've always been good at hunting. Outside the army i don't believe anyone, aside from a few ex-nobles with flint-lock rifles or summat, had weapons aside from hunting rifles. We just didn't need them.

There's a large ownership ratio of handguns in Norway as it's a big sporting thing. At least according to sourced wiki.

As for who went to America from Norway; mainly religious fucknuts, and not of the Odin-worshipping type. Prudes from all over Europe went there.

Odin worshipping types wouldn't be huge vaginas like what is left in Scandinavia now...

Killing people in a desert is easier with a gun, they'd run if they saw you with a knife.

So, they run away and die from the sun. Cruel. I like the way you think.

You are the idiot here, sir. I posted actual proof that said more people get killed in crimes where guns involved. If you want, you can continue to argue with statistics. I'll just have a seat over here and laugh my ass off.

If guns are so much more deadly, then how come the court system in America stands by the Tueller Drill? Let me know when you want to quit being dumb and clinging to studies done in the 70's that don't change anything.

[Justinian]

Hey man, South Jersey/Philadelphia has a strong Swedish/Norwegian cultural influence still running underneath of it, even linguistically. The people who came here were most definitely not the sandy vaginal canals that stayed behind for their shitty weather and shittier food.

[Kusghuul]

Actually stab wounds can easily be more traumatizing than a bullet. That's how arrows are able to kill animals even though their foot pounds of energy are nothing compared to a bullet.


You claim to have been a marine (and i believe you) but you do know that one hit with a lot of the stuff they're using now basically means your body's ripped in half?


There's a large ownership ratio of handguns in Norway as it's a big sporting thing. At least according to sourced wiki.


No, we've got rifles and shotguns used for grouse. Handguns are a bitch to get.


Odin worshipping types wouldn't be huge vaginas like what is left in Scandinavia now...


Aye, our mindsets changed somewhat since the viking age. We developed.


So, they run away and die from the sun. Cruel. I like the way you think.


Yep.

What's funny is that my 15 year old brother goes up to the Royal Guards' HQ a few minutes away and practices using a handgun, being instructed by Georgi Something-inski, a Russian;p

[Glaive]

Yes, I'm not a petty tyrant coward worried what someone else might do...


My God, you are so detached from reality... Allowing people to have all kinds of destructive weapons would have terrible consequences.


Actually stab wounds can easily be more traumatizing than a bullet. That's how arrows are able to kill animals even though their foot pounds of energy are nothing compared to a bullet.

Bullets are very small. Fractions of an inch versus an inch plus blade. Fact of the matter is that either one has to hit something that will incapacitate a human being before it is deadly.


ANYTHING can be deadly, but that's not the point. Again, good job on continuing to achieve those epic fails.



No it doesn't. If you want to prevent wounded or dead people change human nature so that we no longer kill each other. I wonder if in the Middle Ages pussies like you guys were advocating for no advanced in sword technology because it was too deadly.


It is completely relevant. It's the reason why you are not allowed to own a nuclear weapon, for example. Human nature will not change (at least in the foreseeable future) and people will continue killing each other. We have to find ways to mitigate the damage a person can do. You are of the opinion that the way to do it is by letting everyone have guns.


Yes, largest group of beta males in the world.


You've been to Scandinavia? Which country? When?

It's funny though that all the chicks find these "beta males" incredibly hot. Much more so than your ugly mug.


And that's certainly a viable argument as they commit much more crime than their slice of the population would indicate.

Yes, there's clearly something wrong with black people. :bang:



Odin worshipping types wouldn't be huge vaginas like what is left in Scandinavia now...


Keep telling yourself that.





If guns are so much more deadly, then how come the court system in America stands by the Tueller Drill? Let me know when you want to quit being dumb and clinging to studies done in the 70's that don't change anything.

Holy shit you just don't stop, do you? THE STATISTICS SAY THAT CRIMES WHERE A GUN IS USED ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO RESULT IN DEATH. Now, read it again. And, again.

The Tueller Drill is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

edit- I just don't understand why you keep arguing about the gun and knife thing if you really think the tool used has no significance.

[StainlessSteelRat]

My God, you are so detached from reality... Allowing people to have all kinds of destructive weapons would have terrible consequences.

They will do terrrrahbul things to you! - Jar Jar

ANYTHING can be deadly, but that's not the point. Again, good job on continuing to achieve those epic fails.

The point is, gun laws have zero effect on crime. Gun laws don't take guns out of the hands of criminals, only law abiding citizens. Who gives a fuck if an idiot shoots himself? All of a sudden Darwinism is thrown out the door?

It is completely relevant. It's the reason why you are not allowed to own a nuclear weapon, for example. Human nature will not change (at least in the foreseeable future) and people will continue killing each other. We have to find ways to mitigate the damage a person can do. You are of the opinion that the way to do it is by letting everyone have guns.

Uh, no. We don't have to do shit. Law abiding citizens don't go around killing people and/or blowing shit up for no reason. If the gov't give them a reason, then that's the gov't fault for being dickheads.

Yes, there's clearly something wrong with black people.

It's culture, not race. Are you suggesting that guns are the reason the crime per capita of blacks is higher than other races?

Holy shit you just don't stop, do you? THE STATISTICS SAY THAT CRIMES WHERE A GUN IS USED ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO RESULT IN DEATH. Now, read it again. And, again.

The Tueller Drill is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

The stats also show that gun bans/restrictions don't reduce crime. So, either the criminals still get guns or they just kill people w/ other weapons.

[Glaive]

The point is, gun laws have zero effect on crime. Gun laws don't take guns out of the hands of criminals, only law abiding citizens. Who gives a fuck if an idiot shoots himself? All of a sudden Darwinism is thrown out the door?


Gun laws have zero effect on crime? Is that why Japan and England have such low amounts of crime committed with guns? There may very well be an increase in crime with other weapons, but if these weapons do not cause as much death, then I'd say it's a pretty good trade off.


Uh, no. We don't have to do shit. Law abiding citizens don't go around killing people and/or blowing shit up for no reason. If the gov't give them a reason, then that's the gov't fault for being dickheads.

Yes, law abiding citizens might not do that, but that doesn't stop a delusional idiot from firing a bazooka into a building or car. Lots of people get guns legally in the US and then use them in terrible crimes.


It's culture, not race. Are you suggesting that guns are the reason the crime per capita of blacks is higher than other races?


I don't know very much about the statistics on this matter, but I think the majority of the blacks that commit crimes are pretty damn poor.

And no, I'm not saying nor suggesting that guns are the reason for that. I think poverty and other factors (perhaps a history of being oppressed) are the reason for the higher crime.

[Ziegler]

Gun laws have zero effect on crime? Is that why Japan and England have such low amounts of crime committed with guns? There may very well be an increase in crime with other weapons, but if these weapons do not cause as much death, then I'd say it's a pretty good trade off.

I'll give up my guns...when the government does.

The right to bear arms has absolutely nothing at all to do with protecting yourself or crime or hunting.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Gun laws have zero effect on crime? Is that why Japan and England have such low amounts of crime committed with guns? There may very well be an increase in crime with other weapons, but if these weapons do not cause as much death, then I'd say it's a pretty good trade off.

Not for me, its not. I'd rather have a gun and be able to defend myself then rely on the hope that the guy w/ the knife isn't really gonna hurt me since it's not a gun in his hand.........


Yes, law abiding citizens might not do that, but that doesn't stop a delusional idiot from firing a bazooka into a building or car. Lots of people get guns legally in the US and then use them in terrible crimes.

Uh, no. Already been linked a thousand times. FBI tracked the stats for 3 years and gave up b/c there was minimal crime committed by legally owned weapons.

I don't know very much about the statistics on this matter, but I think the majority of the blacks that commit crimes are pretty damn poor.

So? The majority of any and every immigrant population that came to the US was poor. Guess what? They worked their way out of it. At the time, they had no choice. Today, we subsidize poverty so there is no longer an incentive. Of course poverty is a source of crime but it's something deeper in the culture when it continues on for decades. And I'm not refering to 'black culture', I'm refering to black/urban-american culture. And this is quickly becoming urban culture. Look at rap and its evolution. Music has always been a reflection of culture.

And no, I'm not saying nor suggesting that guns are the reason for that. I think poverty and other factors (perhaps a history of being oppressed) are the reason for the higher crime.

What history? None of the people in jail today or committing crimes today were oppressed.

[Matriel]

You claim to have been a marine (and i believe you) but you do know that one hit with a lot of the stuff they're using now basically means your body's ripped in half?

Uh no. About the only round that has a chance of that kind of damage is .50BMG or some of the heavier dangerous game African hunting rounds. Expanding rifle ammo causes quite a bit of trauma via hydrostatic shock and expansion, but a .30 caliber round is lucky to get to .60 expansion with soft/hollow point ammunition. That's still a very small hole in the grand scheme of things torso sized.


No, we've got rifles and shotguns used for grouse. Handguns are a bitch to get.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway#Types_of_civilian _owned_guns

Doesn't really sound that way.


Aye, our mindsets changed somewhat since the viking age. We developed.

Developed into vaginas.



My God, you are so detached from reality... Allowing people to have all kinds of destructive weapons would have terrible consequences.

Right. That's why the US had such a problem with private captains of warships blowing up towns in the late 18th century and early 19th century. Oh wait. Please seriously make up more excuses for being a cowardly sumbitch.


ANYTHING can be deadly, but that's not the point. Again, good job on continuing to achieve those epic fails.

You don't even have a point at this juncture.

It is completely relevant. It's the reason why you are not allowed to own a nuclear weapon, for example. Human nature will not change (at least in the foreseeable future) and people will continue killing each other. We have to find ways to mitigate the damage a person can do. You are of the opinion that the way to do it is by letting everyone have guns.

Human nature is that most people do no harm to others and never will. There are over 200,000,000 firearms in America and 10,000 or so murders with them. Do the fucking math jackass. Just in case you're too lazy, that makes 0.005% of firearms used for murder and that's lowballing the number of firearms in America.

Criminals have proven time and again that they get what weapons they want regardless of legislation. The only thing weapon control does is give the criminals and government an advantage over normal people.


You've been to Scandinavia? Which country? When?

It's funny though that all the chicks find these "beta males" incredibly hot. Much more so than your ugly mug.

Sweden, Denmark, and Norway for a summer in 1999.

Chicks don't like beta males. Please age more than 15.

Yes, there's clearly something wrong with black people. :bang:

I never said anything was wrong with them. There are however statistics to back up that they commit far more crimes than other demographics in America. I personally believe that it is related to poverty, but there aren't many social studies as to the reasoning. No amount of politically correct crying changes the numbers.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_05.html

Do the math stoops.


Holy shit you just don't stop, do you? THE STATISTICS SAY THAT CRIMES WHERE A GUN IS USED ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO RESULT IN DEATH. Now, read it again. And, again.

The Tueller Drill is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

edit- I just don't understand why you keep arguing about the gun and knife thing if you really think the tool used has no significance.

None of that makes knives non-deadly weapons or a problem in crimes? It just means that firearms are more successful. Doesn't stop that a large portion of our murders are with knives. I'm sure dead stab victims are comforted to know that they were more likely to die if their attacker had used a knife.

The Tueller Drill is completely relevant. If knives were so inferior to firearms, then the court system wouldn't uphold that you can shoot a knife wielding attacker at 7 yards with a firearm. You're trying to use a happenstance in crime statistics as an argument against an inanimate object that is used more often to stop crimes than it is to commit them. As evidenced in the study Kleck did (The guy that did a study you're using in your argument btw) that I pasted into this thread.

Go educate yourself before you argue guns with me son.

[Glaive]

I'll give up my guns...when the government does.

The right to bear arms has absolutely nothing at all to do with protecting yourself or crime or hunting.

OH OK THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP FOR ME BUDDY.

Not for me, its not. I'd rather have a gun and be able to defend myself then rely on the hope that the guy w/ the knife isn't really gonna hurt me since it's not a gun in his hand.........


Oh, so at this point you're just willing to completely ignore the statistics and just go with what you think is right. Got ya. Nothing I can argue in this scenario.



Uh, no. Already been linked a thousand times. FBI tracked the stats for 3 years and gave up b/c there was minimal crime committed by legally owned weapons.


Minimal, but not non-existent. That's why it's important to take into account the amount of destruction a weapon can do.


So? The majority of any and every immigrant population that came to the US was poor. Guess what? They worked their way out of it. At the time, they had no choice. Today, we subsidize poverty so there is no longer an incentive. Of course poverty is a source of crime but it's something deeper in the culture when it continues on for decades. And I'm not refering to 'black culture', I'm refering to black/urban-american culture. And this is quickly becoming urban culture. Look at rap and its evolution. Music has always been a reflection of culture.



What history? None of the people in jail today or committing crimes today were oppressed.

Well, I'm sure there are people in prison today who were alive prior to 1964-1965. Also, I think it would be silly to say that this hasn't influenced today's young blacks in some way. Anyway, like I said I don't really know very much about this issue, so I'm not gonna pretend I do.




Right. That's why the US had such a problem with private captains of warships blowing up towns in the late 18th century and early 19th century. Oh wait. Please seriously make up more excuses for being a cowardly sumbitch.

That's a pretty bad analogy.

I'm a coward? That's news to me. Oh, right, anyone who is a liberal is a coward. I forgot.


You don't even have a point at this juncture.

What? I've stated it several times and every time you have replied to it you have posted something that is completely nonsensical, demonstrating that you really don't have a clue what I'm talking about.


Human nature is that most people do no harm to others and never will. There are over 200,000,000 firearms in America and 10,000 or so murders with them. Do the fucking math jackass. Just in case you're too lazy, that makes 0.005% of firearms used for murder and that's lowballing the number of firearms in America.

Criminals have proven time and again that they get what weapons they want regardless of legislation. The only thing weapon control does is give the criminals and government an advantage over normal people.

If criminals can get guns so easily even if they are banned, then how come there are so many less crimes where guns are used in countries where they are harder to get?



Sweden, Denmark, and Norway for a summer in 1999.

Chicks don't like beta males. Please age more than 15.

If you'd know anything about Finland, you'd know we aren't even part of Scandinavia (and we were never Vikings).

What? "Please age more than 15". WTF is that supposed to even mean? I'm 21 years old and 6'4" 205lbs and did my mandatory military service. I'd say I'm pretty far away from a so called "beta male".



None of that makes knives non-deadly weapons or a problem in crimes? It just means that firearms are more successful. Doesn't stop that a large portion of our murders are with knives. I'm sure dead stab victims are comforted to know that they were more likely to die if their attacker had used a knife.

The Tueller Drill is completely relevant. If knives were so inferior to firearms, then the court system wouldn't uphold that you can shoot a knife wielding attacker at 7 yards with a firearm. You're trying to use a happenstance in crime statistics as an argument against an inanimate object that is used more often to stop crimes than it is to commit them. As evidenced in the study Kleck did (The guy that did a study you're using in your argument btw) that I pasted into this thread.

Go educate yourself before you argue guns with me son.

I've explained it so many times that I just can't do it again.


Anyway, looking at statistics (again), there actually doesn't even seem to be an increase in non-firearm homicides if there are less guns in an area. So, if there are less firearm homicides and non-firearms homicides don't increase, then there are less overall homicides! You can look at the various studies done on Australia since it's a pretty good example of this.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Anyway, looking at statistics (again), there actually doesn't even seem to be an increase in non-firearm homicides if there are less guns in an area. So, if there are less firearm homicides and non-firearms homicides don't increase, then there are less overall homicides! You can look at the various studies done on Australia since it's a pretty good example of this.

Then why is knife murders such a huge deal in England today? Why are they looking for ways to make knives illegal?

I think your statistics are skewed. Do you realize, for example, that most homicide stats you find will include suicides?

And btw, minimal to the point of negligible indicates that it was a complete waste of time tracking the use of legally purchased firearms in crimes. We've already established that criminals don't care about laws so gun bans won't deter them. Legally purchased firearms are not used in crimes so what's the point in banning guns again?

And in all honesty, I couldnt' give a rats ass what England or Finland or any other country does. Every country is different. What works in one will not necessarily work in another.

Not to mention, 'working' = less crime; not less gun crime.

[Sqarak]

Every country is different. What works in one will not necessarily work in another.



this is a pretty decent closure.

[Kusghuul]

Uh no. About the only round that has a chance of that kind of damage is .50BMG or some of the heavier dangerous game African hunting rounds. Expanding rifle ammo causes quite a bit of trauma via hydrostatic shock and expansion, but a .30 caliber round is lucky to get to .60 expansion with soft/hollow point ammunition. That's still a very small hole in the grand scheme of things torso sized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway#Types_of_civilian _owned_guns

Doesn't really sound that way.



Sniper rifle ammo. And the ammo being used isn't "approved" or summat. But doesn't matter for handguns.

And find me the quote. Read the article, nothing on the ratio. http://www.brreg.no/english/registers/hunter/facts.html

1/10th of the population are registered hunters.

[Seesawmcgraw]

Too bad the pilots have to be federal flight deck officers to have firearms. But hey how would we keep guns out of the hands of criminal airline pilots.

[Matriel]

Sniper rifle ammo. And the ammo being used isn't "approved" or summat. But doesn't matter for handguns.

And find me the quote. Read the article, nothing on the ratio. http://www.brreg.no/english/registers/hunter/facts.html

1/10th of the population are registered hunters.

Sniper rifle ammo is generally .30 caliber. 7.62 NATO. I've used my sniper rifle (DPMS 308 SASS) against deer and it doesn't even come close to cutting them in half with expanding soft point ammunition. Small .30 entry hole and a larger .50ish exit wound. Shreds everything in the path, but doesn't tear up anything else. So, if it goes through the lungs, the heart will still be intact as well as the liver. Bullets don't cause near as much trauma as you're believing in anything short of cannons basically.

My link said the handgun group was for competitions and not hunting. Not sure how your link is applicable.

[Kusghuul]

Sniper rifle ammo is generally .30 caliber. 7.62 NATO. I've used my sniper rifle (DPMS 308 SASS) against deer and it doesn't even come close to cutting them in half with expanding soft point ammunition. Small .30 entry hole and a larger .50ish exit wound. Shreds everything in the path, but doesn't tear up anything else. So, if it goes through the lungs, the heart will still be intact as well as the liver. Bullets don't cause near as much trauma as you're believing in anything short of cannons basically.

My link said the handgun group was for competitions and not hunting. Not sure how your link is applicable.

Was a special forces sniper, regardless it doesn't matter for handguns.

Aye, handguns are available for competitions, but there's no statistics on it that i could see, and as almost 1/10 of Norwegian are qualified hunters and you're saying we have a lot of handguns in relation to hunting weapons you'd imagine i'd at least heard of someone who competes in these competitions.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Was a special forces sniper, regardless it doesn't matter for handguns.

Aye, handguns are available for competitions, but there's no statistics on it that i could see, and as almost 1/10 of Norwegian are qualified hunters and you're saying we have a lot of handguns in relation to hunting weapons you'd imagine i'd at least heard of someone who competes in these competitions.

There is nothing related to whether people compete. 'Sport Shooting' is simply the reason used to buy the gun and does not require that one actually compete.

btw, did you notice the the # of registrations more than doubled from 07 to 08?

[Kusghuul]

There is nothing related to whether people compete. 'Sport Shooting' is simply the reason used to buy the gun and does not require that one actually compete.

btw, did you notice the the # of registrations more than doubled from 07 to 08?

Think it was referred to that the reason for allowing handguns would be to compete in competitions? Not sure though. What about the number of registrations?

[StainlessSteelRat]

Think it was referred to that the reason for allowing handguns would be to compete in competitions? Not sure though. What about the number of registrations?

Sport is one of the reasons used to buy hanguns (one that works); self-defense is not a viable reason. lulz

Didn't see a number.

[Glaive]

Then why is knife murders such a huge deal in England today? Why are they looking for ways to make knives illegal?

Making knives illegal? I thought it was just that you can't have a knife on you in a public place. At least here you can't unless the blade is short enough (forgot what max. length can be).


I think your statistics are skewed. Do you realize, for example, that most homicide stats you find will include suicides?

Actually, in the study I looked at that was made on Australia, the suicides were taken out of the calculations.


And btw, minimal to the point of negligible indicates that it was a complete waste of time tracking the use of legally purchased firearms in crimes. We've already established that criminals don't care about laws so gun bans won't deter them. Legally purchased firearms are not used in crimes so what's the point in banning guns again?

My point was just that if every kind of firearm is allowed (as some here have implied they should), then it only takes one paranoid person to do tons of damage quite easily. This is why the destructiveness of a weapon should be taken into account.

And in all honesty, I couldnt' give a rats ass what England or Finland or any other country does. Every country is different. What works in one will not necessarily work in another.

That is true. I don't live in the US so I don't really care about how you handle it. However, I do find the arguing fun and interesting.


Not to mention, 'working' = less crime; not less gun crime.

*sigh* :rolleyes:

[Kusghuul]

Sport is one of the reasons used to buy hanguns (one that works); self-defense is not a viable reason. lulz

Didn't see a number.

We don't need them for self-defense.

[Matriel]

Was a special forces sniper, regardless it doesn't matter for handguns.

Aye, handguns are available for competitions, but there's no statistics on it that i could see, and as almost 1/10 of Norwegian are qualified hunters and you're saying we have a lot of handguns in relation to hunting weapons you'd imagine i'd at least heard of someone who competes in these competitions.

Doesn't matter who's using the ammo, it doesn't change outside of SAAMI specs mang. Catridges just aren't that powerful.

You don't exactly strike me as someone that's around the gun crowd in Norway either...

[Kusghuul]

Doesn't matter who's using the ammo, it doesn't change outside of SAAMI specs mang. Catridges just aren't that powerful.

You don't exactly strike me as someone that's around the gun crowd in Norway either...

i'm 21; half my pals are in the Army. The Marine Hunters have me on their list for national service when i leave uni. My pals are in the paras, Royal Guard, Militia (home guard or something, heimevernet, doesn't translate properly i think), Staff Sergeants, Aghanistan etc due to military service. Half my family hunts, my granddad being an excellent shot (been hunting from Russia to Alaska) and my cousin being one of the best shots in his age group (according to his fellow hunters). My brother regularly fires handguns as well, practices every Thursday, in keeping with the militia malarky we've got on the go.

[Yin]

We should legalise rape as obviously prohibiting it doesnt work.

You loose skill Matriel, that was one pathetic attempt of a post. Come back when murder and specificaly gun violence statistics in US would be better then in our barbaric countries.

[Nevron]

We should legalise rape as obviously prohibiting it doesnt work.

You loose skill Matriel, that was one pathetic attempt of a post. Come back when murder and specificaly gun violence statistics in US would be better then in our barbaric countries.

Terrible argument. Just because something illegal still happens doesn't mean that it being illegal isn't working. Do you honestly believe that if rape was legalized, there'd be no increase in the level that it occurs?

A better example that goes against your point is the prohibition of alcohol.

[Matriel]

We should legalise rape as obviously prohibiting it doesnt work.

Rape actually hurts another individual. My owning a weapon does not hurt you. Well, it probably does hurt you mentally because you're a giant vagina, but I'm sure you get my point.

You loose skill Matriel, that was one pathetic attempt of a post. Come back when murder and specificaly gun violence statistics in US would be better then in our barbaric countries.

I loose skill eh? God damn you're dumb. Come back when you can use basic English and then we'll have a real discussion on your blanket statements being stupid and not directly comparable. Especially from one of the country's in Europe with the highest amounts of firearms crime, thus proving my argument that gun control doesn't work.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Actually, in the study I looked at that was made on Australia, the suicides were taken out of the calculations.

OK. Point still stands. A study done in Australia is moot w/ no comparison study done elsewhere. The data gathering techniques and 'definitions' vary worldwide. Thus, comparing data w/o examining the variations is not necessarily a productive endeavor.

My point was just that if every kind of firearm is allowed (as some here have implied they should), then it only takes one paranoid person to do tons of damage quite easily. This is why the destructiveness of a weapon should be taken into account.

And it only takes 1 law-abiding, gun-toting good samaritan to stop/prevent extensive damage.

*sigh* :rolleyes:

So the goal is not overall crime prevention? The goal is to stop criminals from using guns while comitting crimes? And by disarming the population make it easier for criminals to prey on the weak? /boggle

[inox]

i'm 21; half my pals are in the Army. The Marine Hunters have me on their list for national service when i leave uni. My pals are in the paras, Royal Guard, Militia (home guard or something, heimevernet, doesn't translate properly i think), Staff Sergeants, Aghanistan etc due to military service. Half my family hunts, my granddad being an excellent shot (been hunting from Russia to Alaska) and my cousin being one of the best shots in his age group (according to his fellow hunters). My brother regularly fires handguns as well, practices every Thursday, in keeping with the militia malarky we've got on the go.

I support you in this. Of all the people I know, none of them have a pistol. Closest thing is one of my friends father having one, but I guess that is closer related to being an officer reservist than self-defence.

I must admit, most of the people I know don't have any kind of firearm at all, but rifles and shotguns seem to be vastly more popular than pistols. I think we simply don't have a culture for it, apart from gangs, but as far as I know, Oslo (our capital) is the only place with something I would call a gang environment.

One of the reasons for this might be the lack of violent crime. I'm not saying we don't have it, but it seems to be mostly concentrated around Oslo, and it's rarely deadly. I understand people living in big cities in North America and more densely popluated parts of Europe carry guns for self-defence, I would maybe have done it myself if living in a troublesome neighbourhood. However, in my town, people rarely get attacked. As far as I can remember, there has not been a single murder here in my lifetime.

I'm not against common Norwegians having pistols, but to be honest, I think the amount of people getting killed by pistol accidents (note; not pistol murders) would be bigger than the amount of people saved by pistols.

Edit; By pistols, I mean handguns.