Of course, I am referring to undocumented guns, of types which -- at the moment -- require registration in the jurisdiction within which they are owned. That being said, there's no real crime being committed. So called, "illegal" gun owners are really just trying to better their lives and the lives of their families in America, a nation which was founded upon the principles of the second amendment. The way I see it, no gun is "illegal". People who want existing gun laws enforced are just ignorant bigots.

"Progressives" have a deficiency in bravado and male sex hormones, they do not want a world where people get hurt and men take risks for themselves. They favor a much more "motherly" government that would prefer to put it's citizens in a puncture-resistant bubble and love them all equally so as long as none of them do anything adventurous or dangerous and everyone gets along and become friends with one another. Firearms are contraindicating to this kind of thing so naturally they despise them.

Liberals want all guns in the hands of the military and the police. Liberals have as much respect for the constitution as Bush has.

Are you very familiar with US gun laws? Laws vary, and only a small fraction of the jurisdictions in the US require gun registration.

Are you very familiar with US gun laws? Laws vary, and only a small fraction of the jurisdictions in the US require gun registration.

I know, I know, my post was intended to satirize leftist beliefs on gun control and illegal immigration, the exact laws and jurisdictions don't really matter.

This liberal happens to believe the 2nd ammendment is all the gun permit he should ever need. So please take your offensive generalizations someplace better suited to rightwing circle jerks about "dirty liberals".

They know how to make ordinary guns "illegal", or make them a real cunt to get/keep.

"oh wow, illegal guns on the streets. this politician will save us from these mystical beasts". Then they get most of the votes from the average moron voter and hey presto, your ordinary shit is either banninated OR a cunt to register/get a license for (because licensing and registration for weapons will eventually allow them to be taken away).

Right, it should be like automobile licenses and registration, to show you can use a gun responsibly and that you have not stolen it. That's all.

PROTIP: using the phrase "you [collective adjective]" to describe people really doesn't formulate an effective argument. It just makes you sound like a moron, you morons.

Ultra lulz @ the first couple posts.

Registration really doesn't work for keeping track of stolen firearms. They're just too small and easy to smuggle, not to mention there's a huge worldwide black market; you might as well try to serialize bullets, it's just about as worthwhile a pursuit. It's never been shown to work in places where it's been implemented (not even Canada :eek: !). The only thing it's realistically good for is showing oppressive regimes where to look when they go to confiscate firearms.

Licensing might cut down on accidental injuries (though they are already extremely rare), but then you get into the whole quandary of who gets to assign the licenses and what's stopping them from making the tests prohibitively difficult for those without connections. They did it with blacks and poll tests, they can certainly do it with firearms. On the other hand, a gun is much easier to use responsibly than a car.

The government gives you an entire booklet to teach you how to drive. Gun safety is a matter of following four rules.

I think the current state of licensing and registration for people who carry guns is pretty good as it stands now. Just to own and keep them in your home, however, shouldn't require any licensing or registration. As long as you're not taking your gun out into the public sphere, you can't realistically infringe upon other people's rights, and as such, there's no reason for you to be treated like a potential criminal (or, in some cases, like a full-on criminal).

Gun ownership is not in danger in the U.S.

The illusion created by Willie Horton syle right wing campaign managers over the years, and is only believed to be real, by either the most tin-foil hat wearing schizo, or the uneducated, bible thumping, middle americans who make the base for the right wing.

Gun ownership is not in danger in the U.S.

That's just what sons of hell like you want us to think. You think if you take our guns, you can pick us all off like flies.

Gun ownership is not in danger in the U.S.

The illusion created by Willie Horton syle right wing campaign managers over the years, and is only believed to be real, by either the most tin-foil hat wearing schizo, or the uneducated, bible thumping, middle americans who make the base for the right wing.

Yeah right, it wasn't in any danger over here back in 96 either ;)

It's interesting to look at liberals and gun control. A liberal will blame the object aka the gun rather than the person who used the object. The object itself is harmless. If you put a gun on the table and look at it, it will do nothing. But put that gun in a person's hand and it has the potential to be a deadly weapon. What liberals fail to comprehend or understand is a gun can't kill a person, a person using a gun kills a person. But try telling that to a liberal.

IMO liberals are against guns (all guns) for the same reason people are against gay marriage and evolution being taught in schools and that is base ignorance. They don't understand it they fear it they try to ban it simple.

Off subject kinda but a funny thought, with Obama entering office soon the has been a huge increase in gun sales and ammunition, so in a way even before he gets into office hes stimulating the economy (kinda):rolleyes:

This liberal happens to believe the 2nd ammendment is all the gun permit he should ever need.

Amen to this.

Gun ownership is not in danger in the U.S.

In immediate danger of getting all of our weapons confiscated at threat of death or imprisonment? It's not on the horizon. However, gun rights have been steadilly eroding for a long, long time due to incompetance and malice, and I seriously doubt it will not stop. As far as incompetance is concerned, just look at what we civilians gave up just to have ammunition freely shipped via the federal postal system in 1986. The Democrats, decidedly, will not save us, and the Republicans are too idiologically motivated to give any sort of concessions to the Democrats in order to expand or regain our rights again.

The dark clouds are coming you know.

It's interesting to look at liberals and gun control. A liberal will blame the object aka the gun rather than the person who used the object. The object itself is harmless. If you put a gun on the table and look at it, it will do nothing. But put that gun in a person's hand and it has the potential to be a deadly weapon. What liberals fail to comprehend or understand is a gun can't kill a person, a person using a gun kills a person. But try telling that to a liberal.

This.

A gun is just a tool; it's all in how the person wielding it uses it. Just like a car, in the wrong hands (say a drunk person), a car can be just as deadly as a gun, but we don't run around screaming "zomg we must ban cars!!"

PROTIP: using the phrase "you [collective adjective]" to describe people really doesn't formulate an effective argument. It just makes you sound like a moron, you morons.

Ultra lulz @ the first couple posts.

Registration really doesn't work for keeping track of stolen firearms. They're just too small and easy to smuggle, not to mention there's a huge worldwide black market; you might as well try to serialize bullets, it's just about as worthwhile a pursuit. It's never been shown to work in places where it's been implemented (not even Canada :eek: !). The only thing it's realistically good for is showing oppressive regimes where to look when they go to confiscate firearms.

Licensing might cut down on accidental injuries (though they are already extremely rare), but then you get into the whole quandary of who gets to assign the licenses and what's stopping them from making the tests prohibitively difficult for those without connections. They did it with blacks and poll tests, they can certainly do it with firearms. On the other hand, a gun is much easier to use responsibly than a car.

The government gives you an entire booklet to teach you how to drive. Gun safety is a matter of following four rules.

I think the current state of licensing and registration for people who carry guns is pretty good as it stands now. Just to own and keep them in your home, however, shouldn't require any licensing or registration. As long as you're not taking your gun out into the public sphere, you can't realistically infringe upon other people's rights, and as such, there's no reason for you to be treated like a potential criminal (or, in some cases, like a full-on criminal).

First of all, a very good post. Secondly, I laughed at "serialize bullets". Good job.

Lastly, could you kindly explain what the difference is between "registration" and "licensing"? To me they sound very similar..?

Also, just to add one thing. I personally think that even if one were to take his gun into the public sphere, he wouldn't be infringing on anybody's rights, in my opinion. Like I stated earlier, a gun is just a tool. Carrying concealed is no different from say, when someone carries a swiss knife in his pocket. As long as it stays with/on the person and is not actively being used to inflict harm on others, I don't see what's wrong with it.

Amen to this.

In immediate danger of getting all of our weapons confiscated at threat of death or imprisonment? It's not on the horizon. However, gun rights have been steadilly eroding for a long, long time due to incompetance and malice, and I seriously doubt it will not stop. As far as incompetance is concerned, just look at what we civilians gave up just to have ammunition freely shipped via the federal postal system in 1986. The Democrats, decidedly, will not save us, and the Republicans are too idiologically motivated to give any sort of concessions to the Democrats in order to expand or regain our rights again.

You probably have a very positive view of human nature.

I tend to think that the Republicans refuse to take a stand on the issue of gun rights/ownership etc because they are largely controlled/influenced/ by the Jews, probably via lobbying/campaign donations.

I haven't seen any real liberal responses yet, so I'll try.

Illegal guns are commonly used for crime. By illegal you mean untraceable. If a gun crime is committed and the gun is unregistered and left behind, you'll never find the perpetrator.
Try robbing a store with just your wits. You'll fail.

I also think bullets can be traced back to a gun. I think, I don't know.

As for the people who say "people kill people", guns empower people to kill. Columbine, Vtech, etc, wouldn't have been nearly as bad if the kid didn't have a gun. If firearms weren't so readily available, 33 people wouldn't have been murdered at Virginia Tech.

The problem is that fire-arms have been developed to be ultra deadly and efficient. Firearms in the 18 century were splintered pieces of wood that you need 60 seconds to reload. The founding fathers didn't have sniper rifles, TEC-DC9's, magnums, etc, in mind when that amendment was written.

To be honest though, I'm completely on the fence with this issue. Both sides have good points.

I haven't seen any real liberal responses yet, so I'll try.

Illegal guns are commonly used for crime. By illegal you mean untraceable. If a gun crime is committed and the gun is unregistered and left behind, you'll never find the perpetrator.
Try robbing a store with just your wits. You'll fail.

I also think bullets can be traced back to a gun. I think, I don't know.

As for the people who say "people kill people", guns empower people to kill. Columbine, Vtech, etc, wouldn't have been nearly as bad if the kid didn't have a gun. If firearms weren't so readily available, 33 people wouldn't have been murdered at Virginia Tech.

The problem is that fire-arms have been developed to be ultra deadly and efficient. Firearms in the 18 century were splintered pieces of wood that you need 60 seconds to reload. The founding fathers didn't have sniper rifles, TEC-DC9's, magnums, etc, in mind when that amendment was written.

To be honest though, I'm completely on the fence with this issue. Both sides have good points.

I'm all for children learning martial arts and teens learning how to responsibly use weapons. It's about time we eradicate the scared shitless bystander culture we have now. The santa massacre, colombine, 9/11 and vtech all show you what can happen when one individual has disproportionate power over the other. The double-think is that the government can completely stop events like that from happening. The result is irrational public paranoia (http://io9.com/5119166/teen-with-home-chemistry-lab-arrested-for-meth-bombs) Every gripe that liberals have(intolerance, poverty, crime) should be fought with education, not by creating dependencies on the government for everything.

You probably have a very positive view of human nature.

I have heard it said in less sarcastic vernacular. :D

Illegal guns are commonly used for crime. By illegal you mean untraceable. If a gun crime is committed and the gun is unregistered and left behind, you'll never find the perpetrator.
Try robbing a store with just your wits. You'll fail.

It is perfectly legal to make a firearm for personal use and bearing no indication or serial markings. Untraceable, and perfectly legal.

I haven't seen any real liberal responses yet, so I'll try.

Illegal guns are commonly used for crime. By illegal you mean untraceable. If a gun crime is committed and the gun is unregistered and left behind, you'll never find the perpetrator.
Try robbing a store with just your wits. You'll fail.

I also think bullets can be traced back to a gun. I think, I don't know.

As for the people who say "people kill people", guns empower people to kill. Columbine, Vtech, etc, wouldn't have been nearly as bad if the kid didn't have a gun. If firearms weren't so readily available, 33 people wouldn't have been murdered at Virginia Tech.

The problem is that fire-arms have been developed to be ultra deadly and efficient. Firearms in the 18 century were splintered pieces of wood that you need 60 seconds to reload. The founding fathers didn't have sniper rifles, TEC-DC9's, magnums, etc, in mind when that amendment was written.

To be honest though, I'm completely on the fence with this issue. Both sides have good points.

Those attacks were planned well in advance, cho bought his guns months out from when he attacked his university. If there was a "licensing" system he would have been able to get one anyway, he passed his NICS check so what exactly would've happened?

Also, the most people killed in attack on a school in the USA were not killed with bullets. It was done with explosives.

Those attacks were planned well in advance, cho bought his guns months out from when he attacked his university. If there was a "licensing" system he would have been able to get one anyway, he passed his NICS check so what exactly would've happened?

Also, the most people killed in attack on a school in the USA were not killed with bullets. It was done with explosives.

The point I made with columbine and Vtech was that guns are too readily available. That argument was against guns in general. And as far as the Bath School Disaster, and explosives in general, they have nothing to do with guns. Bombs are illegal no matter what and you can't buy them at a bomb shop or whatever.

Maybe buying guns needs to be even more difficult?

The point I made with columbine and Vtech was that guns are too readily available. That argument was against guns in general. And as far as the Bath School Disaster, and explosives in general, they have nothing to do with guns. Bombs are illegal no matter what and you can't buy them at a bomb shop or whatever.

Maybe buying guns needs to be even more difficult?

So what would've prevented cho from buying a gun in your perfect world? He was able to pass his NICS check. What grounds would you have denied him on?

You don't need a bomb shop to be able to build something like what was used in the bath school disaster.

You don't need a bomb shop to be able to build something like what was used in the bath school disaster.


I'm not too familiar with the Bath incident, but McVey used Fertilizer to make his bomb, should we ban that too?

I have heard it said in less sarcastic vernacular. :D

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was being euphemistic. I didn't want to say "you are wrong Argon. It has nothing to do with party ideologies; it has to do with Jews having control over the two major parties".

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was being euphemistic. I didn't want to say "you are wrong Argon. It has nothing to do with party ideologies; it has to do with Jews having control over the two major parties".

Well, I am a misanthrope. But yea... fucking sneaky Jews. :mad:

So what would've prevented cho from buying a gun in your perfect world? He was able to pass his NICS check. What grounds would you have denied him on?

You don't need a bomb shop to be able to build something like what was used in the bath school disaster.

How about not being able to buy a gun, period? Or atleast a deeper reformed background check which would have uncovered how freaking sick Cho is. In my opinion, 33 lives aren't worth normal people being able to buy a gun without a hassle.

And again, bombs are irrelevant. I bet I could build a bomb out of my computer if i wanted to. No one wants to ban computers and electricity.

And as far as fertelizer, I think there are restrictions...heh...

I'm going to spout off here about how if I was CC in a mall/school/santa's house and some fucker started shooting I would gladly and efficiently drop him. Maybe I couldn't, but it'd be a far fairer game than me running away with my hands over my head. I can't say I mean this in a "Everyone carrying CC would solve everything" way, but it sure wouldn't hurt for responsible, normal and of-age individuals to be packing.

How about not being able to buy a gun, period? Or atleast a deeper reformed background check which would have uncovered how freaking sick Cho is. In my opinion, 33 lives aren't worth normal people being able to buy a gun without a hassle.

And again, bombs are irrelevant. I bet I could build a bomb out of my computer if i wanted to. No one wants to ban computers and electricity.

And as far as fertelizer, I think there are restrictions...heh...

I want more guns. More guns in the hands of more people will hopefully mean more people carry them. Someone pulls a gun and starts shooting and he gets his dome caved in by someone nearby. Crime is still rampant in Britain even after they banned guns. Gun control does nothing in stopping violence.

Fertilizer? Not really, although some stores will alert the authorities if you are seen buying a large amount of it.

Like I said, I'm on the fence with this issue. You both provide some very good points. Especially "making it even". If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have them, and no one else would have a chance. Crime is stopped by someone with a gun all the time. But then again, a lot of massacres are carried out with guns...

SEE? I CANT FUCKING DECIDE!

I want more guns. More guns in the hands of more people will hopefully mean more people carry them. Someone pulls a gun and starts shooting and he gets his dome caved in by someone nearby. Crime is still rampant in Britain even after they banned guns. Gun control does nothing in stopping violence.

And maybe this is the difference between liberals and conservatives.

The liberal wants to empower the government and the conservative wants to empower the people.

Too bad liberal and conservative are two terms that have flown so far from their original meanings that they no longer mean anything.

conservative wants to empower the people*.

*Corporations.

Too bad liberal and conservative are two terms that have flown so far from their original meanings that they no longer mean anything.

I just ask people their positions on issues rather than ask their party affiliation or their ideology.

How about not being able to buy a gun, period? Or atleast a deeper reformed background check which would have uncovered how freaking sick Cho is. In my opinion, 33 lives aren't worth normal people being able to buy a gun without a hassle.

And again, bombs are irrelevant. I bet I could build a bomb out of my computer if i wanted to. No one wants to ban computers and electricity.

And as far as fertelizer, I think there are restrictions...heh...

Yeah sure, you could pretend that a country is just a big classroom where you can keep everyone in at lunch because a couple of people have screws loose. Or you could fix your problems in the first place by taking the APPROPRIATE action when someone acts like a psycho. Cho had done some shit which landed him in court before and there were some things that were supposed to happen then. Because he was sent to outpatient treatment for his mental problems that was not flagged on the NICS. In my opinion they should've institutionalised him against his will, since that would mean he was adjudicated mentally defective and therefore would be unable to pass a background check. Because the judge wasn't ready to do the correct thing cho was free to do as he wished.

You could also be smart enough to think about how unsecure your country's educational facilities are. Oh wow, there's some laws and policies on the books to 'stop' people bringing guns to school or campus. How well is that working out for you guys? Any static security measures that students are subjected to are almost worthless as well. Anyone who's subjected to security will eventually find ways to subvert it easily.

33 lives lost is what happens when no one fires back or fights back. I think about 6 years ago a psycho pulled some weapons out in a lecture room and started shooting over here in Australia, he didn't manage to kill many people because the people in the class that he hadn't managed to kill yet took him down. When cho decided he wanted to use people for reactive targets most were just lying down on the floor hoping he'd go away.

You could build a bomb or toxic weapon with much more readily available supplies and kill a lot more people, so why the hate for guns? I think the only reason you care about guns is that you would not be effected if there were more restrictions in a place. There's a lot of easier, simpler and more effective ways to save lives but you're missing that because you're focusing on the very emotional school shootings and thinking that doing the same thing again and again will give you a different result.

Hint: Where I live you there are some pretty fucking draconian gun laws, but they don't stop people getting them and they don't guarantee that criminals will pay high prices for their weapons either.

Yeah sure, you could pretend that a country is just a big classroom where you can keep everyone in at lunch because a couple of people have screws loose. Or you could fix your problems in the first place by taking the APPROPRIATE action when someone acts like a psycho. Cho had done some shit which landed him in court before and there were some things that were supposed to happen then. Because he was sent to outpatient treatment for his mental problems that was not flagged on the NICS. In my opinion they should've institutionalised him against his will, since that would mean he was adjudicated mentally defective and therefore would be unable to pass a background check. Because the judge wasn't ready to do the correct thing cho was free to do as he wished.

You could also be smart enough to think about how unsecure your country's educational facilities are. Oh wow, there's some laws and policies on the books to 'stop' people bringing guns to school or campus. How well is that working out for you guys? Any static security measures that students are subjected to are almost worthless as well. Anyone who's subjected to security will eventually find ways to subvert it easily.

33 lives lost is what happens when no one fires back or fights back. I think about 6 years ago a psycho pulled some weapons out in a lecture room and started shooting over here in Australia, he didn't manage to kill many people because the people in the class that he hadn't managed to kill yet took him down. When cho decided he wanted to use people for reactive targets most were just lying down on the floor hoping he'd go away.

You could build a bomb or toxic weapon with much more readily available supplies and kill a lot more people, so why the hate for guns? I think the only reason you care about guns is that you would not be effected if there were more restrictions in a place. There's a lot of easier, simpler and more effective ways to save lives but you're missing that because you're focusing on the very emotional school shootings and thinking that doing the same thing again and again will give you a different result.

Hint: Where I live you there are some pretty fucking draconian gun laws, but they don't stop people getting them and they don't guarantee that criminals will pay high prices for their weapons either.

Don't tell me what you think I think. No one needed a gun until we decided to let everyone get one. It's like the nuclear arms race. Countries only feel protected when they finally have a nuke because their neighbors already have one. And if guns weren't so readily available in the first place a lot of these shootings wouldn't have happened. If you think Australians are so great at deflecting massacres and you think guns aren't a problem, then you must be unaware of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

that would mean he was adjudicated mentally defective and therefore would be unable to pass a background check

Because the "mentally defective" don't deserve to be able to protect themselves, amirite?

Because the "mentally defective" don't deserve to be able to protect themselves, amirite?

No more than an intoxicated person deserves to be able to drive himself home.

No more than an intoxicated person deserves to be able to drive himself home.

So what do you propose we do to them? Lock them inside their homes? Forced institutionalization? If everyone were able to stop drunks from driving the problem would be solved. Likewise, if everyone were to be able to stop mentally unstable people from harming others, the problem would be solved.

Don't tell me what you think I think. No one needed a gun until we decided to let everyone get one. It's like the nuclear arms race. Countries only feel protected when they finally have a nuke because their neighbors already have one. And if guns weren't so readily available in the first place a lot of these shootings wouldn't have happened. If you think Australians are so great at deflecting massacres and you think guns aren't a problem, then you must be unaware of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

Yeah sure thing buddy. I think having a gun would be beneficial for other things too, like people with blades or some other weapon ;)

Life isn't supposed to be fair.

You think I'm unaware of the event that sent my country down the gurgler? No one fought back there, just like the VA tech shooting you seem to love mentioning so much. I was trying to point out that if you DO fight back you have a better chance of living, and an even better one if you've got a gun to call your own.

Weapons are here, they're available. That isn't going to change no matter how much you and your kind wish it would. You can either remain as ignorant as you are and pretend that passing some laws or making the background checks harsher will help, or you could go for a more practical and realistic answer. Bad people will get hold of weapons no matter where they are, so staying defenceless while that is true is a lousy idea.

*Corporations.

I consider myself politically conservative, but I don't want corporations to run our government or to fight our wars (Blackwater, etc.).

But corporations control our broken two party system. I voted 3rd party.

I want more guns. More guns in the hands of more people will hopefully mean more people carry them. Someone pulls a gun and starts shooting and he gets his dome caved in by someone nearby.

So, you're suggesting that once every Dick and Jane starts carrying a gun, crime will decrease? There's a reason when people think of the Wild West, the word "lawlessness" come to mind...

So, you're suggesting that once every Dick and Jane starts carrying a gun, crime will decrease? There's a reason when people think of the Wild West, the word "lawlessness" come to mind...

Correlation vs. causation.

On the other hand, EVERYONE carrying a gun would probably increase crime. I don't like it when people suggest things like that because, frankly, there are some dumb shits out there. I don't want every alcoholic or every jackass I knew in highschool to be armed. Owning a gun is an inalienable right, but carrying one in public is a privilege. If we just gave everyone a gun and said "good luck, mister" the country would be like 300 million little mousetraps all ready to go off.

Everyone being allowed to do so, however, statistically has the opposite effect. Or no effect at all.

I think that's really the main issue here. Guns and crime are related, but one doesn't cause or effect the other.

Yeah sure thing buddy. I think having a gun would be beneficial for other things too, like people with blades or some other weapon ;)

Life isn't supposed to be fair.

You think I'm unaware of the event that sent my country down the gurgler? No one fought back there, just like the VA tech shooting you seem to love mentioning so much. I was trying to point out that if you DO fight back you have a better chance of living, and an even better one if you've got a gun to call your own.

Weapons are here, they're available. That isn't going to change no matter how much you and your kind wish it would. You can either remain as ignorant as you are and pretend that passing some laws or making the background checks harsher will help, or you could go for a more practical and realistic answer. Bad people will get hold of weapons no matter where they are, so staying defenceless while that is true is a lousy idea.

Of course making background checks harsher will help. Why wouldn't it? Giving everyone a gun isn't the answer. I don't need a gun to protect myself from someone with a blade.

So, you're suggesting that once every Dick and Jane starts carrying a gun, crime will decrease?

I think what he was saying is either one of the following: 1. would-be mass murderers/school shooters like Cho or the Columbine kids would probably think twice before doing the deed, or failing that 2. they would be stopped much quicker than if the public were not armed.

Correlation vs. causation.

On the other hand, EVERYONE carrying a gun would probably increase crime. I don't like it when people suggest things like that because, frankly, there are some dumb shits out there. I don't want every alcoholic or every jackass I knew in highschool to be armed. Owning a gun is an inalienable right, but carrying one in public is a privilege. If we just gave everyone a gun and said "good luck, mister" the country would be like 300 million little mousetraps all ready to go off.


Why?

Carrying a gun, which is a tool, is no different from than say, carrying a knife in public. Although I just want to add that I believe in the screening of potential firearm owners.

Why?

Carrying a gun, which is a tool, is no different from than say, carrying a knife in public. Although I just want to add that I believe in the screening of potential firearm owners.

A gun is NOT a tool. Give me a break. What does it do? Oh yeah, it was designed to kill people. A screwdriver, while could be used to kill people, was designed to drive screws. THATS a tool.

Also, I think that if we did just arm the public, mass killers would know that shooting would be out of the picture and just rig bombs or find some other way to mass kill.

A gun is NOT a tool. Give me a break. What does it do? Oh yeah, it was designed to kill people. A screwdriver, while could be used to kill people, was designed to drive screws. THATS a tool.

Are weapons not tools?

Are weapons not tools?

tool
   /tul/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tool] Show IPA Pronunciation ,
–noun
1. an implement, esp. one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file, for performing or facilitating mechanical operations.
2. any instrument of manual operation.
3. the cutting or machining part of a lathe, planer, drill, or similar machine.
4. the machine itself; a machine tool.
5. anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose: Education is a tool for success.
6. a person manipulated by another for the latter's own ends; cat's-paw.
7. the design or ornament impressed upon the cover of a book.
8. Underworld Slang.
a. a pistol or gun.

Ok, I guess if you want to stretch definition 5, you could say Weapons are a tool for killing. Or if you're an underworld mobster, you could say "You got da tools?"

tool
   /tul/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tool] Show IPA Pronunciation ,
–noun
1. an implement, esp. one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file, for performing or facilitating mechanical operations.
2. any instrument of manual operation.
3. the cutting or machining part of a lathe, planer, drill, or similar machine.
4. the machine itself; a machine tool.
5. anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose: Education is a tool for success.
6. a person manipulated by another for the latter's own ends; cat's-paw.
7. the design or ornament impressed upon the cover of a book.
8. Underworld Slang.
a. a pistol or gun.

Ok, I guess if you want to stretch definition 5, you could say Weapons are a tool for killing. Or if you're an underworld mobster, you could say "You got da tools?"

No "stretching" is needed. The killing of people ( or rather, people who threaten our basic rights and/or freedoms, as some might argue) is indeed a task or a purpose to be accomplished.

I can't think of a situation outside of war or something that already involves law enforcement (like a stand-off) that can't be resolved without guns or a gun would be useful. Even if you walk by a rapist in the middle of his act, you could resolve that without a gun.

You want to see what it's like where everyone has an illegal undocumented gun? Go to a ghetto. Bring a gun if you like. You might extend your life expectancy by a couple seconds.

So, you're suggesting that once every Dick and Jane starts carrying a gun, crime will decrease? There's a reason when people think of the Wild West, the word "lawlessness" come to mind...

When I think of the lawless Wild West, I think of the lack of police officers. There are lots of them everywhere now.

Of course making background checks harsher will help. Why wouldn't it? Giving everyone a gun isn't the answer. I don't need a gun to protect myself from someone with a blade.

Really? What else would you include as an addition to what's there?

Background checks will not do a thing for black market sales, which is where most bad characters get their stuff from.

I'm glad you're confident enough to think you don't need to bring a gun to a knife fight. If you don't want to carry a gun, then don't. Leave the rest alone.

No, because I don't want to worry about some nut who was able to get a gun because of lax laws required to get a gun. It's harder to change my freaking address on my license than it is to get a gun. Thats fucked up.

No, because I don't want to worry about some nut who was able to get a gun because of lax laws required to get a gun. It's harder to change my freaking address on my license than it is to get a gun. Thats fucked up.

Sure..by banning weapons and/or making them more difficult, you are harming the law-abiding citizen. Criminals will get firearms not matter what because..they are criminals. If a man convicted of murder wants to get a gun he's not going to submit to a background check. He'll get one off of the black market


I hate people who want gun bans.

I hate people who think that arming everyone and their dead uncle is the best way to prevent crime. Seriously. The black market will always exist whether guns are legal or not.

Furthermore, I only know one guy who owns a gun. One. And I really doubt he needs it.

No, because I don't want to worry about some nut who was able to get a gun because of lax laws required to get a gun. It's harder to change my freaking address on my license than it is to get a gun. Thats fucked up.

Where I am it is easier, quicker and cheaper to buy a gun illegally.

Where I am it is easier, quicker and cheaper to buy a gun illegally.

And this problem would have been solved had it not been for the NRA's lobbying. Unless you mean some guy selling an AK-47 brought in by a Russian immigrant who bribed port authority. That'll always be a problem.

Look, I support the right to own a gun. I don't think the government has the right to come in an take peoples guns. The argument that people need guns to protect themselves from some sort of government incursion is enough to convince me.

People don't need to carry them around though. People don't need high-powered rifles, assault rifles, automatics, whatever. There should be extensive background checks. There should be very steep penalties for people who violate these laws.

People don't need high-powered rifles, assault rifles, automatics, whatever

What is a "high powered rifle"? Why does my necessity of a firearm hinge on its cosmetics? Why should I not be able to have a fully automatic weapon? Why should gun ownership depend on necessity?

There should be extensive background checks.

And what's it going to check? All the government knows about me is a name, number, and a set of prints, and those haven't even made it to the FBI yet. They know nothing of my mental health and political views, and I intend to keep it that way.

What is a "high powered rifle"? Why does my necessity of a firearm hinge on its cosmetics? Why should I not be able to have a fully automatic weapon? Why should gun ownership depend on necessity?



And what's it going to check? All the government knows about me is a name, number, and a set of prints, and those haven't even made it to the FBI yet. They know nothing of my mental health and political views, and I intend to keep it that way.

By high-powered I meant anything capable of sniping or something. I don't know what the terms are. Fully automatic weapons are ridiculous and only have a use in war. No one needs a gun that powerful. As far as background checks, at least mental state should be checked. Of course political views are absolutely private. DNA and fingerprints should be ran.

By high-powered I meant anything capable of sniping or something.

Protip: We had sniper teams in the Revolutionary War.


I don't know what the terms are. Fully automatic weapons are ridiculous and only have a use in war. No one needs a gun that powerful. As far as background checks, at least mental state should be checked. Of course political views are absolutely private. DNA and fingerprints should be ran.

If you don't know what the terms you are using you better damn well educate yourself before you go spouting off these ignorant ideas.

Again, why should the firearms I can be able to own hinge upon need? Why can't I own a fully automatic weapon because I simply have a desire? Why do you think that people shouldn't have a fully automatic weapon anyway? Why does no one "need" them?

By high-powered I meant anything capable of sniping or something. I don't know what the terms are.

You realize that most sniper rifles are just hunting rifles painted black, right?

No one needs something so pointless and dangerous. If it didn't have the capacity to kill a lot of people I wouldn't give a shit.

Imagine law enforcement trying to stop someone with an automatic gun.

And please, I don't need to educate myself with terms before I can have an opinion. I can educate myself with statistics.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/International.gif

Look at the fucking US, and look at England. One has lenient gun control laws, one has strict gun control laws. One has more gun related homicides, one has much less gun related homicides.

The united states has about 300 million, the UK has 60 million. The murder rate for the UK, as of 2005, is 15 per Million, only 9% are committed by firearms. The murder rate for the US is 55 per Million. 70% are committed by firearms.

And you're going to tell me that firearms don't enable more murder and that allowing MORE people to have firearms is the right answer. k.

This is why liberals are against guns.

source (http://www.mail-archive.com/firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu/msg00867.html)

What's so bad about dead people?

What's so bad about dead people?

Pubes. Lots of pubes no one knows what to do with.

No one needs something so pointless and dangerous. If it didn't have the capacity to kill a lot of people I wouldn't give a shit.

Imagine law enforcement trying to stop someone with an automatic gun.

And please, I don't need to educate myself with terms before I can have an opinion. I can educate myself with statistics.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/International.gif

Look at the fucking US, and look at England. One has lenient gun control laws, one has strict gun control laws. One has more gun related homicides, one has much less gun related homicides.

If you can't be arsed to educate yourself as to proper firearm terminology, I don't suppose you can be arsed to educate yourself anything about statistics, your lack thereof, and why your graph is fundamentally flawed.


The united states has about 300 million, the UK has 60 million. The murder rate for the UK, as of 2005, is 15 per Million, only 9% are committed by firearms. The murder rate for the US is 55 per Million. 70% are committed by firearms.

And you're going to tell me that firearms don't enable more murder and that allowing MORE people to have firearms is the right answer. k.

This is why liberals are against guns.

source (http://www.mail-archive.com/firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu/msg00867.html)

Are you some sort of fucking moron? Seriously, are you?

The US has 300M people, and the UK has 60.
The murder rate of the UK is 15/60 = %25.
The murder rate of the USA is 55/300 = %18

Given your own statistics, I'd say that firearms lead to a decrease in crime, even if crime is more easilly commited with them.

If you can't be arsed to educate yourself as to proper firearm terminology, I don't suppose you can be arsed to educate yourself anything about statistics, your lack thereof, and why your graph is fundamentally flawed.




Are you some sort of fucking moron? Seriously, are you?

The US has 300M people, and the UK has 60.
The murder rate of the UK is 15/60 = %25.
The murder rate of the USA is 55/300 = %18

Given your own statistics, I'd say that firearms lead to a decrease in crime, even if crime is more easilly commited with them.

Im an old drunk guy. I don't know if your math is right, but even if it is, it's "fundamentally flawed". Regardless, 70% of 55 is 38.5, rounded up to 39. 55-39 is 16. 16 homicides per million times 300 is a lot lower.

And this problem would have been solved had it not been for the NRA's lobbying. Unless you mean some guy selling an AK-47 brought in by a Russian immigrant who bribed port authority. That'll always be a problem.

Look, I support the right to own a gun. I don't think the government has the right to come in an take peoples guns. The argument that people need guns to protect themselves from some sort of government incursion is enough to convince me.

People don't need to carry them around though. People don't need high-powered rifles, assault rifles, automatics, whatever. There should be extensive background checks. There should be very steep penalties for people who violate these laws.

Really? I didn't know we had a decent NRA in Australia :P

Supporting the right to own a gun is a little hard if you make it excessively difficult to buy one, or limit the types people can own. Most "high powered" weapons aren't that bad. Most of the guns you think people don't need are LESS powerful than many 'safer' hunting weapons and are often not as long ranged. Any gun you can use for accurate shooting (like killing an animal quickly, cleanly and without damaging too much of the meat) can be used for 'sniping'.

Having a gun for protection is as useless as owning a car and not driving it anywhere. You can't USE the gun if it's back home in a safe or disassembled. I think your problem is that you don't like to acknowledge the times where using a weapon is the right thing to do and assume that anytime anyone gets shot it's because the shooter was just a psycho. Not everyone's built like a tank, not everyone's able to fight it out with groups of attackers or waste time wrestling with a guy with a knife and a bad attitude. If you've ever had a back injury in your life you might know where I'm coming from.

What would you screen people for that isn't screened for now? Do you know of any additional indicators of "being a psycho" that aren't already looked for?

Actually, Argon, your math is off. BY your math, your telling me that 25% of the US population got murdered. Uh...

It's 55 per million, not 300. Multiply 55 by 300 (Because you multiply 300 by a million) and its 16500 homicides for the year, 11550 of those carried out by firearms.

Stretch out the UKs homicides to America's population. Its 15 per million. (not 15 per 60)

15 times 300 is 4500 homicides per year, 405 of them carried out by firearms (9%) if the UK was the size of the United States. Thats more than 2/3's less.

Id say gun prohibition definitely cut down homicides. If that happened here, that 70% of American homicides would still be alive.

Again, this is why liberals are pro gun-control.

Actually, Argon, your math is off. BY your math, your telling me that 25% of the US population got murdered. Uh...

It's 55 per million, not 300. Multiply 55 by 300 (Because you multiply 300 by a million) and its 16500 homicides for the year, 11550 of those carried out by firearms.

Stretch out the UKs homicides to America's population. Its 15 per million. (not 15 per 60)

15 times 300 is 4500 homicides per year, 405 of them carried out by firearms (9%) if the UK was the size of the United States. Thats more than 2/3's less.

Id say gun prohibition definitely cut down homicides. If that happened here, that 70% of American homicides would still be alive.

Again, this is why liberals are pro gun-control.

Well, you got me there. (I was initially wondering why my figures were off. :o)

Anyway:

16500/300M == %0.0055
4500/60M == %0.0075

Statistically, you are pretty damn safe in either country, moreso in the US. (If only very, very slightly) In Britain, almost a tenth of all homicides are performed with a firearm. Just think about that... Britain, a country with some of the strictest gun control laws on the planet still has ten percent of it's murders performed with firearms.

No one needs something so pointless and dangerous.

What people need or don't need is not determined by you.

People should be allowed to own whatever things, and this includes firearms, just because they want to.

Seriously, tell me. Why does anybody have to convince you, or the government, or anybody else for that matter, that they have a genuine "need" for something in order to be granted approval/permission? In other words, who the hell are you/the government, telling people what they can or cannot own?

will they ban knives too?

People don't need to carry them around though. People don't need high-powered rifles, assault rifles, automatics, whatever. There should be extensive background checks. There should be very steep penalties for people who violate these laws.

Why not? People get robbed with guns all the time.

Why not? People get robbed with guns all the time.

at first i thought this problem stemmed from some macho egotistical bullshit america has. However what you are saying is that you live in constant fear from the guns that you are fighting so hard to keep on the streets.

No one needs something so pointless and dangerous. If it didn't have the capacity to kill a lot of people I wouldn't give a shit.

Apparently the Constitution, Supreme Court, several Congressional hearings, and a President disagree with you on firearms. The President was JFK, by the way....

Also, cars and swimming pools kill more people every year than firearms. Who really needs a pool?


Imagine law enforcement trying to stop someone with an automatic gun.

Um, normal citizens in many of the states in the US can own automatic weapons. Want to know how many legal, registered ones on the NFA registry have been used in crimes? 2. One was used by a police officer to kill and informant.

Also, I've seen footage of LE stopping two individuals armed with automatic weapons and body armor. Twice. The first time was probation, the second was known colloquially as the North Hollywood Shootout. Guess what? Despite 1750 rounds being fired during this shootout, the only people killed were the two bad guys.

I just want you to know that I strongly feel as though you are drawing a conclusion not supported by the bulk of evidence on the topic of firearms violence. More guns do not equal more crime. I do not go so far as to claim more guns equates to less crime, but here is contradictory evidence.

Numerable other sources often claim that crime rates were decreasing before gun control measures were put in place in countries such as Britain, spiked dramatically after the ban where law-abiding citizens were disarmed, and then rose yet remained under-reported. This just makes it even more difficult to compare statistics, and I'm inclined to believe that access to firearms likely does not necessarily affect crime because it is a human behavior distinct from property ownership issues.

In Kennesaw, GA. Residents are legally mandated to own guns, yet a google search will show their crime rate is extremely low.


“Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis”, by Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University claims he found countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates.

Mexico: low guns, high crime. US: high guns, high crime. Swiss: high gun, low crime. Japan: low gun, low crime

Texas specifically did a study and found that permit holders who in their state are less likely to be arrested. I know you mentioned them as weird, but here you go: http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm.

Also, North Carolina only revoked .245213309% of their concealed carry permits within the past twelve years:
http://sbi2.jus.state.nc.us/crp/public/Default.htm

I'm also interested in your statistics because the UN found that after Scotland, "[b]oth Australia and New Zealand had the next highest proportion of assaults among their population at 2.4%, exactly double the level reported for the United States." This is in comparison to "3% of people in Scotland had suffered an assault, while the figure for England and Wales was second highest at 2.8%." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4257966.stm

The FBI crime stats of 1992 found that for that given year overwhelmingly in the US, violence was decreased overall in states with less strict firearms regulations. "Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the (gun) restrictive states (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (183.1 per 100,000) [...] Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the (gun) restrictive states (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000) [...] The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the (gun) restrictive states (455.9 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (398.3 per 100,000) [...] The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the states which restrict guns (798.3 per 100,000 pop.)than the less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000)"

At University of Utah, students who meet the requirements for getting a concealed weapon permit may carry on campus if they are permit holders. They've done so for over a year now. It was late '06 when they allowed it, and they have no increase in violence, much less gun violence on campus. This is among college students, fraternities, binge drinking, etc. Students at Blue Ridge Community College have done so as well, as well as other schools, such as Colorado State.

I haven't seen any real liberal responses yet, so I'll try.

Illegal guns are commonly used for crime. By illegal you mean untraceable. If a gun crime is committed and the gun is unregistered and left behind, you'll never find the perpetrator.

No. You can legal untraceable weapons and traceable illegal weapons. You don't know what you're talking about.


Try robbing a store with just your wits. You'll fail.

Fallacious. Ever hear of strong armed robbery? How about robbery with a weapon other a firearm?


As for the people who say "people kill people", guns empower people to kill. Columbine, Vtech, etc, wouldn't have been nearly as bad if the kid didn't have a gun. If firearms weren't so readily available, 33 people wouldn't have been murdered at Virginia Tech.

But they purchased them illegally in the first case, violating something like 19 federal laws, and in the second case, the guy didn't have his mental illness noted to prevent him from buying a handgun due to state law. Because the individual was not forcibly stuck in a padded cell, he was clear on the federal level. It's a side effect of a privacy thing.

Also, you're not necessarily right yet again. High order explosives are ridiculously easy to make. Look at the whole July 7 2005 UK bombings.


The problem is that fire-arms have been developed to be ultra deadly and efficient. Firearms in the 18 century were splintered pieces of wood that you need 60 seconds to reload. The founding fathers didn't have sniper rifles, TEC-DC9's, magnums, etc, in mind when that amendment was written.

They don't need to have thought that up. They didn't consider the internet, telephone, or movies with the First Amendment. As long as a weapon is categorized as "arms" or "armament" and not "ordinance" (spelled correctly), or explosive artillery.

Besides, you obviously don't understand what a "sniper rifle" is. You need precise, scoped rifles to hunt or target shoot. You need largebore magnum handguns for hunting.
To be honest though, I'm completely on the fence with this issue. Both sides have good points.
I strongly disagree.
The point I made with columbine and Vtech was that guns are too readily available. That argument was against guns in general. And as far as the Bath School Disaster, and explosives in general, they have nothing to do with guns. Bombs are illegal no matter what and you can't buy them at a bomb shop or whatever.

Maybe buying guns needs to be even more difficult?

Making firearms less legal to purchase isn't going to stop people who violate multiple laws to buy them anyway. None of the Columbine weapons were legal for Eric or Dylan to possess.

Also, explosives can be legal to possess under certain circumstances. Look up destructive devices permit.

Ugh, im not going to argue everything because theres too much, but I read it all.

I don't care who disagrees with me. Give everyone a gun. Do it. See what happens.

Ugh, im not going to argue everything because theres too much, but I read it all.

I don't care who disagrees with me. Give everyone a gun. Do it. See what happens.

In Kennesaw, GA. Residents are legally mandated to own guns, yet a google search will show their crime rate is extremely low.

You read it all, you say?

You read it all, you say?

lol argon.


On a serious note:

While I am all for gun ownership, I find that county's (referring to Kennesaw, GA) law fucking bullshit. You can't force someone to own something/legislate someone into possessing certain things just because the law makers think they have good enough a reason to. In fact, I am pretty sure there's some kind of constitutional law being broken here. I mean, and I am repeating myself, you CAN"T legally compel people to own certain things.

What a fucking load.

lol argon.


On a serious note:

While I am all for gun ownership, I find that county's (referring to Kennesaw, GA) law fucking bullshit. You can't force someone to own something/legislate someone into possessing certain things just because the law makers think they have good enough a reason to. In fact, I am pretty sure there's some kind of constitutional law being broken here. I mean, and I am repeating myself, you CAN"T legally compel people to own certain things.

What a fucking load.

Actually I agree. The Constitution says the government shall not infringe on the right to bear arms, but says nothing about the govenrment forcing the population to take up the right. The onus was always upon the people to take up their rights, never the government. It is no more the government's job to make sure you expercise your first amendment rights as your second.

In my inebriated stupor, I do not know if such statutes eminate from a state or local ordinance, which are completely legal. Remember, the Bill of Rights restricts the government in terms of the rights of the people. It says nothing that the government ordained by the voting public may institute laws upon themselves. I think it is entirely legal to force the population to, say, tell the public their views on government etc., in accordance to the first amendment. This is because the ordinance comes from a local mandate, not from the federal government. (I am opposed to such measures, however. Luckilly, I am not being forced to live there. ;))

Regardless, it is great to know a place I can point to where everyone is, by law, a Calamity Jane and John, ready to strike fear in the hearts of criminals within township geographical limits. :D

lol argon.


On a serious note:

While I am all for gun ownership, I find that county's (referring to Kennesaw, GA) law fucking bullshit. You can't force someone to own something/legislate someone into possessing certain things just because the law makers think they have good enough a reason to. In fact, I am pretty sure there's some kind of constitutional law being broken here. I mean, and I am repeating myself, you CAN"T legally compel people to own certain things.

What a fucking load.

As opposed as I am to mandating ownership, I do love the fact that the statistic is out there.

Yes, I read it all. Good for Kennesaw. I'm glad that one town can do that. You think the entire world can handle that? Pfft. Again, try it. See what happens.

Besides, after 5 minutes of google research, it looks like Kennesaw's statistics are disputed anyway. Im not putting anymore time into reading about this though.

I'm bored of this thread. Gun ownership, tbh, i dont really give a shit about and i only got involved in this because no one did. I declare Argon, RL, and everyone else the winner. I concede defeat.

Yes, I read it all. Good for Kennesaw. I'm glad that one town can do that. You think the entire world can handle that? Pfft. Again, try it. See what happens.

I never said the entire world could handle that, nor do I have the power or desire to try "that."

I was just demonstrating that more guns don't mean more crime, and that when the right to bear arms is lawfully respected, there is no crime rate statistic that can realistically be used to try and argue against private firearm ownership, even in ignorance of the Constitution.

Right, it should be like automobile licenses and registration, to show you can use a gun responsibly and that you have not stolen it. That's all.

What would prevent the licensing system from becoming prohibitively difficult, expensive, etc., as was done with blacks and poll tests in this country?

What would prevent registration from leading to confiscation?

What would be the point of licensing and registration? Would someone who was willing to steal a gun then proceed to register it with the police? :rolleyes:

So, you're suggesting that once every Dick and Jane starts carrying a gun, crime will decrease? There's a reason when people think of the Wild West, the word "lawlessness" come to mind...

There was actually low crime in the wild west. Don't confuse movies with reality.

I also think bullets can be traced back to a gun. I think, I don't know.

It doesn’t. “Ballistic fingerprinting” is junk science, a hoax designed to make gun registration socially acceptable so they can be confiscated.

If you think Australians are so great at deflecting massacres and you think guns aren't a problem, then you must be unaware of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

You’re actually arguing against yourself here. It is illegal to carry guns there, which means the shooter could strike with impunity.

A gun is NOT a tool. Give me a break. What does it do? Oh yeah, it was designed to kill people.

Sometimes people need to be killed. Like the mugger trying to take your wallet, or the rapist trying to rape your girlfriend, or the government agents trying to force you into a boxcar.

I can't think of a situation outside of war or something that already involves law enforcement (like a stand-off) that can't be resolved without guns or a gun would be useful. Even if you walk by a rapist in the middle of his act, you could resolve that without a gun.

Please explain how a 110 lb woman defends herself from a 220 lb rapist without a gun.

You want to see what it's like where everyone has an illegal undocumented gun? Go to a ghetto. Bring a gun if you like. You might extend your life expectancy by a couple seconds.

Most of those shootings can be written off under the “good riddance” factor. It’s mostly gang members and drug dealers killing each other off, and it’s almost always related to the drug trade.

If you’re interested in reducing the rate of common crime in this country, you should be calling for the abolishment of drug prohibition, not increased victim disarmament laws.

Look at the fucking US, and look at England. One has lenient gun control laws, one has strict gun control laws. One has more gun related homicides, one has much less gun related homicides.

You’re comparing two totally different countries with different populations, demographics, cultures, etc. Not exactly a valid comparison. And again, many of our murders can be written off under the “good riddance” factor.

Unless you're a young black man in the 'hood who is involved in the drug trade, you probably have nothing to worry about.

You want to see what it's like where everyone has an illegal undocumented gun? Go to a ghetto. Bring a gun if you like. You might extend your life expectancy by a couple seconds.

I've lived in several of the "murder cities" in the US, not by choice. I've been in the ghettos. I used to know my friends in the PD were patrolling, so I was a little safer with their cell numbers.

I've carried firearms when I've had to go through a bad part of town. I honestly believe that I quite probably saved a young woman's life, and her from rape, once while I was escorting her from a party in a bad side of town.

IM DONE! STOP QUOTING ME! It's like 10 against 1 and I'm completely exhausted from arguing this!

IM DONE! STOP QUOTING ME! It's like 10 against 1 and I'm completely exhausted from arguing this!

because your arguments are shit! That's why you fail.

because your arguments are shit! That's why you fail.

Fuck you, kiddo. I've been respectful throughout this entire thread.

These kinds of topics are pointless anyway. Chimro asked a simple question, the conservatives answered, a liberal (me) tried to answer, and then this. I could go on and on, you guys could go on and on, but I don't feel like discussing this anymore. Maybe my arguments ARE shit, or maybe your arguments just seem better because theres like 6 people on your side. The internet is full of biased anti-gun control websites, including this one idiot who has a 24/7 webcam (or gif, idk) of a gun with a caption OH LOOK ITS JUST SITTING THERE ITS NOT HURTING ANYONE COME TAKE IT BLAH BLAH BLAH.

I post some facts to help my side, and Argon fucks up the math and calls my graph fundamentally flawed. Someone else also posted bullshit like "the UK is different!! you cant compare the two!!!". That is why I dont want to argue this topic.

Im not even going to look in this thread anymore. Fuck this shit. It's a joke.

Fuck you, kiddo. I've been respectful throughout this entire thread.

These kinds of topics are pointless anyway. Chimro asked a simple question, the conservatives answered, a liberal (me) tried to answer, and then this. I could go on and on, you guys could go on and on, but I don't feel like discussing this anymore. Maybe my arguments ARE shit, or maybe your arguments just seem better because theres like 6 people on your side. The internet is full of biased anti-gun control websites, including this one idiot who has a 24/7 webcam (or gif, idk) of a gun with a caption OH LOOK ITS JUST SITTING THERE ITS NOT HURTING ANYONE COME TAKE IT BLAH BLAH BLAH.

I post some facts to help my side, and Argon fucks up the math and calls my graph fundamentally flawed. Someone else also posted bullshit like "the UK is different!! you cant compare the two!!!". That is why I dont want to argue this topic.

Im not even going to look in this thread anymore. Fuck this shit. It's a joke.

And the media is full of biased pro-gun control news articles whining about how the sunset of the AWB was going to lead to blood running in the streets (almost exact wording), despite the fact there was a slight increase in violent crime rates after the AWB passed into law, and a decrease in crime rates after its sunset.

Since I don’t believe more guns equates to less crime, this supports the idea that firearms, a tool, are not linked with violence, a behavior.


Also, the fact you can't argue against one person who thinks your views are false should tell you something. It's funny how you showed your true feelings around the end there. When you don't know what you're talking about (and you definitely don't), you need to either educate yourself or stfu on the matter... or risk looking really stupid.

Maybe my arguments ARE shit

Pretty much. One that I noticed was where you defined a "high powered" rifle as "one capable of sniping."

At-range precision ballistic placement is essentially entirely dependant on the workmanship of a firearm (or other piece of equipment), and has almost nothing whatsoever to do with its power. A .22 rimfire (essentially a cap gun that actually has a pellet in it) would in theory perform admirably with a chamber reamed quite carefully to a specific manufacture of ammunition, while a .50 caliber pistol (aka "more gun than Rambo could handle," the kickback is probably going to sprain your wrist unless someone starts inventing low-powder .50 ammo) would spray wildly - and would spray like a smooth-bore eighteenth century dueling pistol if manufactured with some of the shitty tolerances which have categorized the "pistols under twenty bucks" market of the US 1970s...

So your definition of "high powered" had nothing to do with the amount of powder in the cartridge, and much more to do whether it was prone to firing randomly without someone pulling the trigger, or whether the round was going to go 30 degrees wide and spray some bystander instead of the person the cop was shooting at.

Speaking of "your arguments are shit," I believe both new york city and washington DC have stricter gun control laws and lower rates of gun ownership than Canada as a whole. You can fail to control your variables as a propaganda tactic all you want, and insert whatever fallacious conclusion you might choose through the logical fallacy known as equivocation - but the trouble with that is that other people can turn around and do it to you, too. NYC and DC have higher murder rates than the Canadian average, which itself has more crime than Kennesaw; ergo there is only one possible conclusion, and that is that you are a racist bastard trying to kill america's black children by increasing the rates of gun violence through the same right-wing gun control policies advocated by hitler and the ku klux klan. Period. The data is there.

But... while your arguments are in fact shit - and I can't blame you that much, the chances of your having a knowledge of firearms equal to people who love them (who tend to be on the pro side as regards their own hobby, usually) are rather miniscule, and I have to give you credit that before your breakdown in the last few posts, you did seem to try to be simple, honest, and respectful.

Not only is this to your credit, but it's a lot more that can be said about the god-damned bullshit the thread-starter spewed. The first gun-control laws were instituted by conservative right-wing monarchists, whereas the first notion of a right to bear armament by the common people was invented by secular progressives instituting the world's first liberal democratic republic. Speaking of progressive social-justice reformers, the very first modern-style gun control laws were implemented after the fall of the reformation anteceding the civil war as a means to maintain and advance white supremacy against the human rights and social justice reforms championed by the liberal northeast, and taken to new extremes in the twentieth century by adolph hitler as a means to maintain a rigid degree of public order, whereas by contrast, modern advocates of an armed populace have included Bobby Seale, Tookie Williams, Patricia Hearst, Ryan Wood, William Ayers, Hakim Bey, and more.

Kinda takes a disgusting sort of chutzpa to be at the gun-grabbing forefront for five hundred fucking years and more and then turn around, point at the advocates of armament equality irrespective of race or social class - most of whom, you will note, actually took up arms against their government, from the 1700s to the present day - and shout "no u!"

That is why, despite the fact that your arguments are shit and that you're demonstrably dead wrong, you have my respect. You conducted yourself in a decently respectable fashion. The thread-starter, on the other hand, has and will have nothing more than my contempt.

I loathe those who accuse others of their own shortcomings. You have my commendations, sir.