Gun Rights

[Sephiroth Crescent]

You're doing the same by comparing criminals to law obiding citizens. Criminals and dictators aren't on the same level, but the same logic applies.

I can see what you mean, but i clearly compared how the two parties would obtain a firearm, as such no I'm not doing the same. Ok maybe I am XD. But think about it...Black Market....Wal-mart....hmm...

It will, less guns = less guncrime.
It's not just criminals who shoot people, who commit crimes.
Liek Eryth said, gun control stops ordinary people from becoming killers. Husband comes home, finds his wife in bed with another guy, he pulls out his colt .45( He is dirty harry obviously) and blows his wife's and her lover's head to little bits.
Or Postal worker goes postal, and there are 10 people leaking like colanders.
You and VR raise a fair point about using alternative weapons, but short of running around injecting people with smallpox, it won't be as effective at killing. I'd much rather fight a person with a knife than a person with a gun.

Thats a very naive thing to say, but it is your opinion, and who am I to say your wrong. Now lets be realistic here. Lets say Billy Joel Wilson(random name ftw), comes home, and finds his wife cheating on him, with another man, he could kill them in the heat of the moment with whatever is closest to him, maybe he'll think its "kinky" and join in XD. And..yeah I'd rather fight a guy with a knife also, karate kick and BAM!

There is nothing stopping people buying guns and killing. Besides, of course morals.
Being fat is unattractive so people don't like to be fat, and in Japan fat people get taxed more now.
The faster your car goes, the more you pay in insurance.
None of these deterrents exist for guns.
So it's reasonable, and logical even to limit and control guns.

...Well I agree with a few aspects of gun control, I read a gun magazine, and they were selling Bullets with a teflon coated head, or something like it, such a thing shouldn't be sold because its only purpose is too penetrate a flak jacket, or body armor, you don't need that or a automatic carbine to kill a damn deer. However no its not logical to control guns, because your going to cause Prohibition Era II, look what a failure that proved to be. Honestly theres nothing wrong with supporting a cause you believe in, but this idea just won't work, will it lower deaths caused by guns? Yes it will, but not by much, it will be a short fix. And again I bring up my Criminal vs Law Abiding Citizen argument, and I want a response from you on it. Why should a criminal with no regard for the law have access to a gun, but a law abiding citizen cannot? No B.S about comparing it to heroine, or nukes, ITS NOT THE SAME.

On a side note, I thought of something, and I want an answer, Note I'm not trying to make you look dumb, or hypocritical.

Now you stated in another thread you were "drunk", your mood is also that, which I can only assume means you like to drink, now what If i said we should ban alchohol? Alchohol is responcible for killing WAY more people then a damn gun, and hey alot of criminals drink, if your intentions truly are to save lives, then surely you'll be in favor of this? If not, then...please explain. if your against banning alchohol, dont tell me gun control and banning alchohol are different, because they are the same, both lead to deaths in one way or another. And no I'm not trying to make you look dumb, im just trying to prove how your logic to this topic has too many loopholes. If your against it, then surely you have to be against gun control.

Note: I don't own a gun, nor have i ever shot one, I'm not against gun control because I'm a red-neck with a shotgun rack in my pick-up truck, I'm against it because the idea wont change much, and will lead to bigger problems, which will deny me freedom, in desperation to make peoples lives better, when in fact it wont.

Honestly...heres a scenario

If guns are controlled, then people will stock up on something else to defend themselves with, while criminals will be able to easily obtain them. A gang-leader can go buy an Ak-47, and be thrown in jail if he/she is caught, and guess what? He/she can go right ahead and buy another one when he/she gets out. We should crack down on Black Markets that sell these illegal fire-arms. Plus people can make their own hand-made guns, like some hobos make their own home-made knives. And like me and Vegeta have stressed, people will just find a new thing, from knives to rat poison, will it get to the point, where I have to eat with my hands because some bureuocrat thinks eating utensils(chopsticks included) are weapons? Come on dude, be realistic, not illusional. As such this idea will affect the common man, while criminals remain unaffected. Yes I realize that the common man is capable of commiting a crime, and as such thats why im sure you want this idea to be passed, but seriously a Husband coming home to a cheating wife/spouse is only a work of Hollywood, it doesn't happen that much, plus theres also a chance the man doesn't even own a gun, if gun control was passed, he'd use something else, like oh I dont know his fists? Or....a letter opener? I apologize for not adressing your point sooner.


Well Buenas Noches, sorry if I sound a bit angry, I'm just tired, and kind of annoyed at all the bills I have to pay. I await your response with anticipation !


- Kuja

 

[Donald Trump]

Thats a very naive thing to say, but it is your opinion, and who am I to say your wrong. Now lets be realistic here. Lets say Billy Joel Wilson(random name ftw), comes home, and finds his wife cheating on him, with another man, he could kill them in the heat of the moment with whatever is closest to him, maybe he'll think its "kinky" and join in XD. And..yeah I'd rather fight a guy with a knife also, karate kick and BAM!

Okay then, lets say he goes into the kitchen and grabs a knife. This takes time, he will more rationaly, as opposed to the small amount of time it takes him to get his gun. Furthermore like I said before, Wife and lover can get away. Perhaps not always but a hell of a lot more often than if Mr Husband had his gun.
I'm not saying that gun control would reduce crime a lot, but it would reduce it. Any reduction is a good one right?

...Well I agree with a few aspects of gun control, I read a gun magazine, and they were selling Bullets with a teflon coated head, or something like it, such a thing shouldn't be sold because its only purpose is too penetrate a flak jacket, or body armor, you don't need that or a automatic carbine to kill a damn deer. However no its not logical to control guns, because your going to cause Prohibition Era II, look what a failure that proved to be. Honestly theres nothing wrong with supporting a cause you believe in, but this idea just won't work, will it lower deaths caused by guns? Yes it will, but not by much, it will be a short fix. And again I bring up my Criminal vs Law Abiding Citizen argument, and I want a response from you on it. Why should a criminal with no regard for the law have access to a gun, but a law abiding citizen cannot? No B.S about comparing it to heroine, or nukes, ITS NOT THE SAME.

On a side note, I thought of something, and I want an answer, Note I'm not trying to make you look dumb, or hypocritical.

Now you stated in another thread you were "drunk", your mood is also that, which I can only assume means you like to drink, now what If i said we should ban alchohol? Alchohol is responcible for killing WAY more people then a damn gun, and hey alot of criminals drink, if your intentions truly are to save lives, then surely you'll be in favor of this? If not, then...please explain. if your against banning alchohol, dont tell me gun control and banning alchohol are different, because they are the same, both lead to deaths in one way or another. And no I'm not trying to make you look dumb, im just trying to prove how your logic to this topic has too many loopholes. If your against it, then surely you have to be against gun control.

The economic arguements gun control, don't really compare to prohibition.
Guns you buy once, and you buy bullets, lets say once a month. However with alcohol it's an everyday thing. Men were coming home from work and going to 'speakeasies' and drinking probably 3+ pints on average.
Guns and gun paraphernalia aren't purchased on a scale that comes close to that.

The difference between alcohol and guns is that alcohol is not inherently dangerous. You can die of alcohol poisoning, which is an overdose, it can lead to car crashes, and long term over indulgence leads to liver problems. But drinking responsibly is not dangerous. Guns on the other hand are designed for only one purpose, and that is to kill.
Prohibition didn't start because people were complaining how dangerous alcohol was, but because middle aged women(I'm generalising here) wanted a cause. Temperance societies were always popular in the US, but alcohol was banned because the consumption of alcohol was seen as immoral.

If guns are controlled, then people will stock up on something else to defend themselves with, while criminals will be able to easily obtain them. A gang-leader can go buy an Ak-47, and be thrown in jail if he/she is caught, and guess what? He/she can go right ahead and buy another one when he/she gets out. We should crack down on Black Markets that sell these illegal fire-arms. Plus people can make their own hand-made guns, like some hobos make their own home-made knives. And like me and Vegeta have stressed, people will just find a new thing, from knives to rat poison, will it get to the point, where I have to eat with my hands because some bureuocrat thinks eating utensils(chopsticks included) are weapons? Come on dude, be realistic, not illusional. As such this idea will affect the common man, while criminals remain unaffected. Yes I realize that the common man is capable of commiting a crime, and as such thats why im sure you want this idea to be passed, but seriously a Husband coming home to a cheating wife/spouse is only a work of Hollywood, it doesn't happen that much, plus theres also a chance the man doesn't even own a gun, if gun control was passed, he'd use something else, like oh I dont know his fists? Or....a letter opener? I apologize for not adressing your point sooner

I don't disagree, the roots need to be tackled, but that is very difficult. I do believe it was Reagan who declared a war on drugs, and very little progress has been made. Surely the first is to get rid of as many guns as you can. Gun control is the best way to do this.
Like I said, people will use alternatives, but they will be less deadly than guns.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Okay then, lets say he goes into the kitchen and grabs a knife. This takes time, he will more rationaly, as opposed to the small amount of time it takes him to get his gun. Furthermore like I said before, Wife and lover can get away. Perhaps not always but a hell of a lot more often than if Mr Husband had his gun.
I'm not saying that gun control would reduce crime a lot, but it would reduce it. Any reduction is a good one right?

Again this works under the assumption he has a gun, he just as easily grab a candlestick(assuming theres one in there). As such its unfair to say what a cheating husband would grab. Also if he has a gun, what are the chances its so convieniantly in the drawer next to him?

The economic arguements gun control, don't really compare to prohibition.
Guns you buy once, and you buy bullets, lets say once a month. However with alcohol it's an everyday thing. Men were coming home from work and going to 'speakeasies' and drinking probably 3+ pints on average.
Guns and gun paraphernalia aren't purchased on a scale that comes close to that.

What you say is true, and I cannot argue that. But bear in mind it will happen.

The difference between alcohol and guns is that alcohol is not inherently dangerous. You can die of alcohol poisoning, which is an overdose, it can lead to car crashes, and long term over indulgence leads to liver problems. But drinking responsibly is not dangerous. Guns on the other hand are designed for only one purpose, and that is to kill.
Prohibition didn't start because people were complaining how dangerous alcohol was, but because middle aged women(I'm generalising here) wanted a cause. Temperance societies were always popular in the US, but alcohol was banned because the consumption of alcohol was seen as immoral.

A gun isn't dangerous either, its only dangerous in the hands of somebody who intends to do harm with it. A gun was originally designed to protect yourself, like all good ideas, they are ruined by bad people. Prohibition started because some religous people saw drinking as wrong, and claimed people who drink are this and that, so yes what you said more or less. But bear in mind those religous people are no different from the people who favor gun control, Carrie Nation comes to mind when I think of the Prohibition.

I don't disagree, the roots need to be tackled, but that is very difficult. I do believe it was Reagan who declared a war on drugs, and very little progress has been made. Surely the first is to get rid of as many guns as you can. Gun control is the best way to do this.
Like I said, people will use alternatives, but they will be less deadly than guns.

Reagan was the best U.S president! The War on Drugs isn't easy to tackle, and is very complicated, but some progress has been made, not "very little". Again getting rid of guns that law abiding citizens possess isn't going to change anything! Alternatives won't be less deadly, bear in mind people kill with whatever, not just guns because of negative emotion, people wouldn't kill if such emotions weren't present.

- Kuja

 

[Donald Trump]

Again this works under the assumption he has a gun, he just as easily grab a candlestick(assuming theres one in there). As such its unfair to say what a cheating husband would grab. Also if he has a gun, what are the chances its so convieniantly in the drawer next to him?

Firstly, a candlestick is not as dangerous as a gun. It's a lot harder to beat someone to death with a candlestick than it is to shoot someone.
Secondly you're quite right, he may not have a gun. And what ensures he doesn't have one? Gun control.

A gun isn't dangerous either, its only dangerous in the hands of somebody who intends to do harm with it. A gun was originally designed to protect yourself, like all good ideas, they are ruined by bad people. Prohibition started because some religous people saw drinking as wrong, and claimed people who drink are this and that, so yes what you said more or less. But bear in mind those religous people are no different from the people who favor gun control

Guns are inherently dangerous. Alcohol is not, you say a gun is a form of self defense. But it only works if you use it, and if you do, serious injury and death can and do happen as a result.
Comparing temperance to gun control is unfair. Gun control is an attempt to reduce crime and make society safer. Temperance movements didn't like alcohol, there reasoning didn't really exist beyond that.

Reagan was the best U.S president! The War on Drugs isn't easy to tackle, and is very complicated, but some progress has been made, not "very little". Again getting rid of guns that law abiding citizens possess isn't going to change anything! Alternatives won't be less deadly, bear in mind people kill with whatever, not just guns because of negative emotion, people wouldn't kill if such emotions weren't present.

Not always though. Having a gun provides a would be killer with the means to murder. Take away guns and crime will drop.
Gun control doesn't combat the underlying causes of crime, but it reduces the frequency that they can manifest themselves.

 

[aerocrystal]

Actually...there is a lot of evidence that alcohol introduced into societies where it didn't exist before has caused a lot of depression and crime, although there are other factors that are introduced with the alcohol. The middle aged women who started prohibition weren't just bored housewives. Many many people at the time leading up to prohibition were seriously addicted to alcohol and depressed. Many of these women worked first hand with lower class people who were often alcoholics, used all their money for alcohol, beat their families while the drank, destroyed public property, ect. It is very very naive to think that alcohol isn't dangerous or as potent as many other types of drugs. Just talk to a family with a drunk mother or father, or someone who knows someone killed by a drunk driver.

However, alcohol has been a part of western society for thousands of years while guns have only been there for a few hundred. Far more people drink than use a gun, and as Placebo pointed out, alcohol is consumed more often then you need to by gun parts. Furthermore, guns are designed specifically to kill things easily.

No offense but I don't stomach that bs that they are for 'protection." A shield is for protection, a flak jacket is for protection, an alarm system, hell a force field is protection. But a gun is designed specifically to make killing easy. When the first guy invented the gun he didn't think WOOHOO we're gonna be so safe now, he thought, sweet now I don't have to train my armies in sword fighting, I give them a gun and they easily blow the other guy's head off. If you use a gun on someone, you are either going to kill them or seriously injure them.

 

[Deleted member 176]

Just my input into this:

Regardless of your opinion on this, there are a few facts that need to be taken into account.

In countries where guns are readily available, murder rates are almost always higher than in similar countries where they aren't.

A child is killed by a gun every 3 hours in the united states.

Approx 30,000 people are killed a year by guns in the US. 3% of those are accidental. Thats 1,000 people.

Forty per cent of American households own guns, but those guns are 22 times more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting, or 11 times more likely to be used in a suicide, than in self-defence. On average, more than 80 Americans are killed by gunfire every day.


Two thirds of ALL homicides in california are committed with firearms. I've not seen anything to suggest that statistic changes elsewhere.

High school shootings - impossible without a gun. You can overpower someone with a knife long before they can kill 20 people with it.

Drive by shootings - impossible without a gun.

Kids shooting themselves when playing with a gun - impossible without a gun. A knife or something sharp or dangerous will hurt a child before it kills it. A gun won't. Poisons taste bad, fire burns, knives cut, the human body is designed to let children know when something is bad for them. Guns just kill, no second chances.

My opinion: If people have easy access to guns, using guns becomes easy. Guns are possibly the most convinient way of killing someone that most people have. it should NEVER be easy and convinient to take a life. It only takes a split second to kill someone with a gun. Easier to kill people = Higher homicide rate. Easy access to a deadly weapon = kids dying in accidents with them.

One more thing - If someone breaks into your house, and they know you don't have a gun, you panicking and moving around won't bother them as much as if they thought you were going to grab a gun and shoot them with it. Trying to kill someone just increases your chances of dying. In countries where guns are outlawed, the number of "burglaries gone wrong" are significantly lower than in the US.

As for the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" No they won't. Thats why the police force exists.


EDIT: sources

http://www.wagv.org/gun-violence.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/22/usgunviolence.usa
http://www.thechildrensinitiative.org/didyouknow.htm

There is plenty of other interesting information in there (such as how more domestic murders are commited by firearm than by every other method combined (there goes the candlestick theory ;-) ) But i felt the points i made were strong enough on their own. Those pages should definetely be read though

And yes, i did corroborate the facts as best as i could with other sources

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Just my input into this:

Regardless of your opinion on this, there are a few facts that need to be taken into account.

In countries where guns are readily available, murder rates are almost always higher than in similar countries where they aren't.

A child is killed by a gun every 3 hours in the united states.

Approx 30,000 people are killed a year by guns in the US. 3% of those are accidental. Thats 1,000 people.

Forty per cent of American households own guns, but those guns are 22 times more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting, or 11 times more likely to be used in a suicide, than in self-defence. On average, more than 80 Americans are killed by gunfire every day.


Two thirds of ALL homicides in california are committed with firearms. I've not seen anything to suggest that statistic changes elsewhere.

High school shootings - impossible without a gun. You can overpower someone with a knife long before they can kill 20 people with it.

Drive by shootings - impossible without a gun.

Kids shooting themselves when playing with a gun - impossible without a gun. A knife or something sharp or dangerous will hurt a child before it kills it. A gun won't. Poisons taste bad, fire burns, knives cut, the human body is designed to let children know when something is bad for them. Guns just kill, no second chances.

My opinion: If people have easy access to guns, using guns becomes easy. Guns are possibly the most convinient way of killing someone that most people have. it should NEVER be easy and convinient to take a life. It only takes a split second to kill someone with a gun. Easier to kill people = Higher homicide rate. Easy access to a deadly weapon = kids dying in accidents with them.

One more thing - If someone breaks into your house, and they know you don't have a gun, you panicking and moving around won't bother them as much as if they thought you were going to grab a gun and shoot them with it. Trying to kill someone just increases your chances of dying. In countries where guns are outlawed, the number of "burglaries gone wrong" are significantly lower than in the US.

As for the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" No they won't. Thats why the police force exists.


EDIT: sources

http://www.wagv.org/gun-violence.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/22/usgunviolence.usa
http://www.thechildrensinitiative.org/didyouknow.htm

There is plenty of other interesting information in there (such as how more domestic murders are commited by firearm than by every other method combined (there goes the candlestick theory ;-) ) But i felt the points i made were strong enough on their own. Those pages should definetely be read though

And yes, i did corroborate the facts as best as i could with other sources

Hey Decado, thanks for your input on my other thread!

http://www.wagv.org/gun-violence.php - The information in this article or w/e you want to call it is mostly cherry-picked. Like Placebo mentioned in another threads, conservative or liberal sources will only tell you what supports their argument. As such people who are in favor of Gun Control will say things much like whats in that article.

http://www.fff.org/comment/ed1298g.asp Heres a source that explains why gun control would make us less safe. As such it proves my point that sources only tell you what supports their argument.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006...unviolence.usa - Again the use of sympathy, its apparent the man who shot that poor boy was crazy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-304432/Toddler-dies-obesity.html - heres the story of an unfortunate toddler who met his demise from something that kills 400,000 americans a year, more than 10 times that of a gun.


As for the "a gun in a household in 22 more likely to...blah blah blah" is a 10 year old presumption so to speak. Studies are done everywhere by plenty of people. There have been studies done on circumcision, and how it can prevent Aids. As such other studies have been done which discredit that study, in the end nobody is right.

I bolded the part in your statement which is so wrong, I question why you put it there. If guns are outlawed yes criminals/outlaws/hooligans whatever you want to call them will have access to guns, what do you think they sell in the Black Market(lots of illegal stuff guns included). Will the Police have access to guns with gun control? It depends on who you ask. Some supporters of gun control, dont even want police to use nightsticks, and even if they are permitted to use a gun, it won't level the playing field.

So...if somebody breaks into my house, and wants to steal my television I should bend over submissively and just let them take it? Well if thats what you'd do thats fine, but not me. If somebody breaks into your house, and wants to steal something, the chances of them letting you live are VERY low, secondly, how does a criminal magically know you don't have a gun? Please spare me

Well of course a gun is the number 1 choice for a murder. I don't see how my example is a theory all of a sudden , your info doesn't discredit my example as its just an example . Statistically according to you, you claim 40% of houses have a gun, so...theres 60% of households which dont own a gun. If a husband comes home and finds his wife cheating theres a 60% chance the guy doesn't even own a gun. Sorry but your own facts led to discrediting yourself a bit there .

Well...sorry if i sound upset, or like I'm attacking you, I'm just annoyed at this subject, and once again I got bills to pay XD. Good/Interesting response.

- Kuja

 

[Donald Trump]

Hey Decado, thanks for your input on my other thread!

http://www.wagv.org/gun-violence.php - The information in this article or w/e you want to call it is mostly cherry-picked. Like Placebo mentioned in another threads, conservative or liberal sources will only tell you what supports their argument. As such people who are in favor of Gun Control will say things much like whats in that article.

http://www.fff.org/comment/ed1298g.asp Heres a source that explains why gun control would make us less safe. As such it proves my point that sources only tell you what supports their argument.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006...unviolence.usa - Again the use of sympathy, its apparent the man who shot that poor boy was crazy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-304432/Toddler-dies-obesity.html - heres the story of an unfortunate toddler who met his demise from something that kills 400,000 americans a year, more than 10 times that of a gun.

Then surely that same point applies to those, with the exception of the last. I don't see how pointing out that other things are dangerous is a arguement against gun control, unless guns are going to 'protect' us from them.
Over 10,000 americans per year are injured by toilet seats, etc.

I bolded the part in your statement which is so wrong, I question why you put it there. If guns are outlawed yes criminals/outlaws/hooligans whatever you want to call them will have access to guns, what do you think they sell in the Black Market(lots of illegal stuff guns included). Will the Police have access to guns with gun control? It depends on who you ask. Some supporters of gun control, dont even want police to use nightsticks, and even if they are permitted to use a gun, it won't level the playing field.

But some pro-gun people would have us believe that AR-15s, hollow points and magazines taped to each other for instant reloading are necessary for hunting dear. Using extremists as an example weakens an arguement rather than strengthening it. No one here is advocating that the police should be armed only with smiles.

So...if somebody breaks into my house, and wants to steal my television I should bend over submissively and just let them take it? Well if thats what you'd do thats fine, but not me. If somebody breaks into your house, and wants to steal something, the chances of them letting you live are VERY low, secondly, how does a criminal magically know you don't have a gun? Please spare me

It's safer and smarter to let them steal it. You are insured so no real loss. But if people are insecure and feel that having stuff stolen from them is similar to them being raped then that is their own problem. So it's unfair to blame gun control.

Well of course a gun is the number 1 choice for a murder. I don't see how my example is a theory all of a sudden , your info doesn't discredit my example as its just an example . Statistically according to you, you claim 40% of houses have a gun, so...theres 60% of households which dont own a gun. If a husband comes home and finds his wife cheating theres a 60% chance the guy doesn't even own a gun. Sorry but your own facts led to discrediting yourself a bit there

Rather the opposite I think. 40% is a huge amount. Must be about 120 million people. Now if there was gun control there would be 0% chance that he has a gun. Ergo it is safe.

Actually...there is a lot of evidence that alcohol introduced into societies where it didn't exist before has caused a lot of depression and crime, although there are other factors that are introduced with the alcohol. The middle aged women who started prohibition weren't just bored housewives. Many many people at the time leading up to prohibition were seriously addicted to alcohol and depressed. Many of these women worked first hand with lower class people who were often alcoholics, used all their money for alcohol, beat their families while the drank, destroyed public property, ect. It is very very naive to think that alcohol isn't dangerous or as potent as many other types of drugs. Just talk to a family with a drunk mother or father, or someone who knows someone killed by a drunk driver

I said I was generalising. I know a lot about prohibition and the causes of it

 

[Erythritol]

Kuja, not to be rude, but your arguments are so flawed, it makes my head spin. I can't even comprehend how you think what you're saying is logical.

A crazy man killed a toddler? Here's a thought: if guns weren't readily available, he wouldn't have been able to OBTAIN a gun. Wow, see how easily that one was solved? Some kid died of obesity? Yeah, gun violence and obesity are TOTALLY comparable. Oh wait, that's right, they aren't even SIMILAR. Being gunned down and dying because you don't have enough self control to stop eating are completely different. Stop trying to bring in different things like alcohol and obesity. It's completely irrelevant. The cold hard fact is that THOUSANDS of death in America are caused by guns and are completely avoidable. The statistic that Decado posted-- 1,000 people are killed accidentally by guns-- that means 1,000 unnecessary deaths. And those are just ACCIDENTS; that doesn't factor in murders.

Anyway, I don't know where you heard that if someone breaks into your house to steal something, they won't let you live, but that's a dumb assumption. I've heard of many robberies where the people were just robbed. No one was killed. I'd also like to point out that in many cases, I've heard of people's firearms being used against them. Here's another thought: if guns were more difficult to get, the robber wouldn't even have a gun. Oh wow, see how that situation was just used against you?

Ever heard of Columbine? Virginia Tech? Completely preventable. Yes, the Yakuza here use guns, but only on each other. Oh yeah boohoo, someone who willingly became involved in organized crime got gunned down. If guns were difficult to obtain in the United States, I don't doubt that some gangs would be able to access them on the black market, but they would use those guns against rival gangs-- much like in Japan. It would prevent school shootings, work shootings, crimes of passion, etc. Sure, you could just "grab whatever is nearby" to attack someone. But really, what's more deadly, a gun or a chair? Hmmm.

 

[aerocrystal]

To go off of what Eryth said about robberies, most robbers want to avoid killing someone. Think of it this way, if you got caught, would you rather be charged with robbery or murder? Also, just because someone steals things doesn't mean they want to kill someone. There is a big difference between the mindset and morals of a robber and someone who kills strangers. When people have time to think, they don't want to kill people, whether its natural or taught, killing isn't something the vast majority of people enjoy doing. Sure there are people who kill people every day, like solidiers. But think of what they have to go through to get ready to kill--basic training, sub-par living conditions. Current studies on violence and murders by many anthropologists suggest that most people need to be psychologically shocked into feeling okay with killing other people.

Which brings me to another point; most murders are crimes of passion. It is much easier to kill someone in the heat of the moment than if you have time to think about it and realize what you are doing. Guns kill so quickly that you have no time to stop and think

 

[Deleted member 176]

Wow Kuja, that post just... wow....


Seriously, your big arguement is "Oh yeah thats all true, but those sites want guns banned so we can't listen to them!!!"

Instead of discrediting my sources, why not present some of your own? As i said, i corroborrated my sources as much as was possible, i'd like to see you present some of your own to support your arguements.

You have never conducted one of these studies, you are not a public representative, you are not an expert on firearms. Your opinion on those studies therfore, doesn't mean anything. The opinion of someone who is one of the above (and has evidence to show for it) would be. Thats why i presented them.

Beyond that, Eryth basically said what i was going to.

Now to counter your arguement with a similar one of my own: People kill more people than any other mammal, so uh, since that kills more people than guns, lets ignore guns and ban people!... /sarcasm.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Wow Kuja, that post just... wow....


Seriously, your big arguement is "Oh yeah thats all true, but those sites want guns banned so we can't listen to them!!!"

Oh stop it , thats not what I said, I merely stated that sources only support their argument, I never said we shouldn't listen to them, you did(just now). Please do not post such lies .

Instead of discrediting my sources, why not present some of your own? As i said, i corroborrated my sources as much as was possible, i'd like to see you present some of your own to support your arguements.

Discrediting your sources lol? I did no such thing, I was proving my point about sources. Please read what I say before jumping to conclusions.

You have never conducted one of these studies, you are not a public representative, you are not an expert on firearms. Your opinion on those studies therfore, doesn't mean anything. The opinion of someone who is one of the above (and has evidence to show for it) would be. Thats why i presented them.

/sigh, I simply gave an example, of a study that went both ways, What you said was uneccessary & ridicolous considering I never claimed to be any of those things.

Beyond that, Eryth basically said what i was going to.

Now to counter your arguement with a similar one of my own: People kill more people than any other mammal, so uh, since that kills more people than guns, lets ignore guns and ban people!... /sarcasm.

Actually I think(key word) the deer is the most dangerous Mammal(in the U.S), no more venison for me =(.

Honestly Decado I said your statistics were valid, I didn't attack you, some of the stuff you might've perceived as negative i was just kidding around, and yet here you are posting crap about meh, that clearly is uncalled for, maybe i should put less effort on my posts, maybe then you'll understand them better(zomg im kidding!!).

- Kuja

Kuja, not to be rude, but your arguments are so flawed, it makes my head spin. I can't even comprehend how you think what you're saying is logical.

But you are being rude! But meh, I dont mind, your opinion is your opinion, just be respectful of mine, as i've been about yours.

A crazy man killed a toddler? Here's a thought: if guns weren't readily available, he wouldn't have been able to OBTAIN a gun. Wow, see how easily that one was solved? Some kid died of obesity? Yeah, gun violence and obesity are TOTALLY comparable. Oh wait, that's right, they aren't even SIMILAR. Being gunned down and dying because you don't have enough self control to stop eating are completely different. Stop trying to bring in different things like alcohol and obesity. It's completely irrelevant. The cold hard fact is that THOUSANDS of death in America are caused by guns and are completely avoidable. The statistic that Decado posted-- 1,000 people are killed accidentally by guns-- that means 1,000 unnecessary deaths. And those are just ACCIDENTS; that doesn't factor in murders.

Lets pretend he didn't have a gun. Instead lets pretend he had a bow and arrow, he could've killed the boy, or seriously injured him, just as he could've with the gun. Yes a bow and arrow is less deadly, but the outcome would've been similiar. I wasn't comparing guns and obesity, I was merely stating that if your intention if to save lives, why aren't you tackling bigger fish, alchohol included. Please dont respond with a statistic that says very few deaths result with a bow and arrow, I was merely giving an example. Moving on

Anyway, I don't know where you heard that if someone breaks into your house to steal something, they won't let you live, but that's a dumb assumption. I've heard of many robberies where the people were just robbed. No one was killed. I'd also like to point out that in many cases, I've heard of people's firearms being used against them. Here's another thought: if guns were more difficult to get, the robber wouldn't even have a gun. Oh wow, see how that situation was just used against you?

You've "heard" ok, by heard, I hope you mean "heard" on the news(no i'm not saying this to be an ass). Again you fail to understand how a robber would get a gun? Do you honestly think he/she goes to Wal-Mart or a gun shop? *loud buzzer goes off* Wrong! They either steal or get it illegally, why? So the gun cant be traced to them. If guns were more "difficult" to get, the robber would be unnaffected, you fail to see that. On a side note:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/03chicago.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10052007/news/nationalnews/robber_kills_two_guards.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/aug/04/nation/na-vegas4

Granted the robbers didn't break into a house, but in the third thanks to the guard having a gun he was able to stop the robber from doing further harm, imagine if the guard didnt have a gun? Guns work as a positive and a negative, but to simply say its a negative is wrong, think of the foundations of the U.S.

Ever heard of Columbine? Virginia Tech? Completely preventable. Yes, the Yakuza here use guns, but only on each other. Oh yeah boohoo, someone who willingly became involved in organized crime got gunned down. If guns were difficult to obtain in the United States, I don't doubt that some gangs would be able to access them on the black market, but they would use those guns against rival gangs-- much like in Japan. It would prevent school shootings, work shootings, crimes of passion, etc. Sure, you could just "grab whatever is nearby" to attack someone. But really, what's more deadly, a gun or a chair? Hmmm.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breaki...07-117408/Gun-violence-jumps-in-Japan--police According to this little article, gun violence in Japan in increasing, while its mostly gang violence, its still gun violence.

The guns those boys used in Columbine were ILLEGAL, The last I checked, you dont go to Wal-mart and buy a damn Tech-9, but ok, lets assume the Tech-9 was legal, those boys would've just used more bombs? Preventable? Yes, but not with gun control. By issueing gun control your promoting the obtaining of guns illegally, and in theory would be turning several million people into criminals under the law, as such not only would gangs do so. What Placebo said was true, but it doesn't excuse the fact that people gang members or not will obtain the weapons anyway. Again if gun control were issued kids who want to shoot up the school will probably get the guns illegally anyway, you fail to see that, and you argue this form an emotional standpoint.

I think your a kind-hearted person with good intentions, but you need to think about those things I said. I'll admit in some parts of the U.S getting a gun is ridicolously easy, In one state, they offer you a free rifle for signing up with a bank. But background checks are done, as such no guns are sold to criminals.

http://listverse.com/health/top-10-ways-to-commit-suicide/, I apologize if these images disgust you, but I do agree suicide is a sad thing, and that gun control would without a doubt help with this, but consider that there are these 9 other methods, rope control so people cant hang themselves? Answer me this in your response, what do we do about the other suicide methods to prevent them? As quickly after another method will become more common then a gun shot.

- Kuja

 

[Deleted member 176]

just a few things here

As i said, i corroborrated my sources as much as was possible, i'd like to see you present some of your own to support your arguements.

That still stands. I've provided plenty of evidence of the damage guns cause, and named other countries with stricter gun laws where the related crime is MUCH lower.

Also, the reason it is so easy to get illegal guns in the US is BECAUSE there are so many legal ones. Guns are coming in and out all of the time, which makes slipping illegal ones in with them easier. Take a look at countries with gun laws, the number of gun-assissted robberies are TINY (less than 1%) of what they are in the US. That throws your arguement *right* out of the window.

If you are going to make silly statements like that, *PLEASE* back them up with some sort of evidence! *Well I think this would happen because in my mind it would, but i have no evidence of it ever happening elsewhere* Isn't a valid argument.

 

[Deleted member 176]

Okay, Canada has a TINY gun crime problem compared to US, which proves my point.

With more than three dozen gang-related killings in the Vancouver area in the last year and 11 murders in Toronto in the first six months of 2008, police and politicians say illicit American weapons fuel much of the deadly gun play.

So lets just get this right. There are 36 gun killings in a YEAR in vancouver. There are american CITIES with more killing than that in a MONTH.

Not to mention it's AMERICAN guns coming into canada. If it wasn't for americas gun laws, it would be significantly harder to get the guns into canada!

Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

Uh, EXCEPT FROM MURDER!?.. that means that America has a significantly WORSE murder problem, because of guns.

The site doesnt define "major crimes" It doesn't even give statistics! PLEASE find some statistics based on relevant crimes. I.E crimes involving guns, Attempted murder and acutal murder, since thats where guns are usually involved in crimes!

You realise by just saying "major crimes" crimes, that could mean things like fraud, being drunk and disorderly, and other such things, right?

Can you please find a comparison of GUN CRIME. getting rid of guns wont stop crime that DOESNT INVOLVE GUNS... your suggestion that it should is..well...kinda dumb, no?

Your post is basically: America has more murders and gun crime than the UK, but you guys have more drunk people, so gun control doesnt work!

Um...what?

Your own site proved you wrong. This is quoted from the canada gun controls law site:

• There are an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which are restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the U.S., there are approximately 222 million firearms; 76 million of the firearms in circulation are handguns.
• For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada
• For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.
• For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
• For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.

• That proves ME right, not you! We're nowhere near square one! Seriously, you provided NO statistics to back up what you are saying. You listed 3 sites. One of which had statistics that backed up what i was saying. One of what had NO statistics backing up your claim that Guns prevent violent crime, or countering my claim that america has a much higher murder rate than countries with strict gun control. And the last site just showed that Guns are so easy to get in america, that people are even smuggling them into your neighbours countries!!!!

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Okay, Canada has a TINY gun crime problem compared to US, which proves my point.

So lets just get this right. There are 36 gun killings in a YEAR in vancouver. There are american CITIES with more killing than that in a MONTH.

Not to mention it's AMERICAN guns coming into canada. If it wasn't for americas gun laws, it would be significantly harder to get the guns into canada!

Uh, EXCEPT FROM MURDER!?.. that means that America has a significantly WORSE murder problem, because of guns.

The site doesnt define "major crimes" It doesn't even give statistics! PLEASE find some statistics based on relevant crimes. I.E crimes involving guns, Attempted murder and acutal murder, since thats where guns are usually involved in crimes!

You realise by just saying "major crimes" crimes, that could mean things like fraud, being drunk and disorderly, and other such things, right?

Can you please find a comparison of GUN CRIME. getting rid of guns wont stop crime that DOESNT INVOLVE GUNS... your suggestion that it should is..well...kinda dumb, no?

Your post is basically: America has more murders and gun crime than the UK, but you guys have more drunk people, so gun control doesnt work!

Um...what?

Your own site proved you wrong. This is quoted from the canada gun controls law site:

• That proves ME right, not you! We're nowhere near square one! Seriously, you provided NO statistics to back up what you are saying. You listed 3 sites. One of which had statistics that backed up what i was saying. One of what had NO statistics backing up your claim that Guns prevent violent crime, or countering my claim that america has a much higher murder rate than countries with strict gun control. And the last site just showed that Guns are so easy to get in america, that people are even smuggling them into your neighbours countries!!!!

I feel so stupid now /yawn I posted that when I was barely awake, and now that I look at the sources I posted I realize(Cono!), so yeah I deleted my half-assed post.

I only said Back to square 1 because I could swear I posted a comical video about our touchy subject, it seems I must've forgotten.

Here are the statistics you so greatly desire.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Gun-Facts-Download

Ery in there it has an argument that proves your assumption about guns being used against the user in self-defense to be false.

And Decado Im sure you'll find the stuff in there to be to your liking =)

- Kuja

 

[Deleted member 176]

=P it's cool. The post, if it had made sense, would have been a good one lol.

You cited your arguement and your sources. A few more stats would have been good, but apart from that it was a definite improvement. Feel free to check up some other sources and post again

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

=P it's cool. The post, if it had made sense, would have been a good one lol.

You cited your arguement and your sources. A few more stats would have been good, but apart from that it was a definite improvement. Feel free to check up some other sources and post again

Ty sir, I'll admit sometimes I go off-topic but I feel like I delivered the Knockout-Punch with that source I posted XD. Heres the video I thought I posted.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=penn+and+teller+bullshit+gun+control&search_type=&aq=f

- Kuja​

 

[Deleted member 176]

im reading that site Kuja, have you actually looked at that document? its hilarious

Fact: Guns prevent an
estimated 2.5 million
crimes a year, or 6,849
every day.65 Often the gun
is never fired and no blood
(including the criminal’s) is
shed.

I checked up on the "sources" the document states - it MASSIVELY misrepresents the information it uses. Perhaps you should check them as well, then post again

it says things like

Fact: Even banning guns does not slow down criminals. In the U.K., where private ownership of
firearms is practically forbidden, criminals have and use guns regularly, and even build their
own. One enterprising fellow converted 170 starter pistols to functioning firearms and sold them
to gangs. Hundreds of such underground gun factories have been established, contributing to a
35% jump in gun violence.82

Without pointing out that the 35% increase, is the equivalent of LESS THAN A 1% INCREASE in the US.

That document just takes figures, and twists them to suit its purpose. I asked for statistics lol, not a document that takes one statistic then makes up its own meaning for it.

Show me number of gun crimes in the US compared to Canada. Or the UK. Or France. Show me that countries with guns laws have more gun crime than countries with few gun laws. THAT is the only way you can prove your point.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

im reading that site Kuja, have you actually looked at that document? its hilarious

Fact: Guns prevent an
estimated 2.5 million
crimes a year, or 6,849
every day.65 Often the gun
is never fired and no blood
(including the criminal’s) is
shed.

I checked up on the "sources" the document states - it MASSIVELY misrepresents the information it uses. Perhaps you should check them as well, then post again

it says things like

Fact: Even banning guns does not slow down criminals. In the U.K., where private ownership of
firearms is practically forbidden, criminals have and use guns regularly, and even build their
own. One enterprising fellow converted 170 starter pistols to functioning firearms and sold them
to gangs. Hundreds of such underground gun factories have been established, contributing to a
35% jump in gun violence.82

Without pointing out that the 35% increase, is the equivalent of LESS THAN A 1% INCREASE in the US.

That document just takes figures, and twists them to suit its purpose. I asked for statistics lol, not a document that takes one statistic then makes up its own meaning for it.

Show me number of gun crimes in the US compared to Canada. Or the UK. Or France. Show me that countries with guns laws have more gun crime than countries with few gun laws. THAT is the only way you can prove your point.

Alright my friend,

You wanted statistics I gave them to you, along with polls, and graphs. The document has plenty of valid points, and a FEW exaggerated ones. Much like the one you posted about gun facts. While its true for example a Kid gets killed by a gun every 3 hours, the "kid" is often a juvenile(according to my source). Alot of the polls, graphs, and statistics are perfectly fine, just because theres a few things that you may perceive to be inaccurate doesnt mean the whole thing is wrong, I believe you mentioned that, so why does it only apply to your sources .

In other words, what I gave you was valid, its just not to your liking . Believe me, the source is fine. By the way what happened to the "Zomg that source doesn't want guns banned we shouldn't listen to it!"

So lastly, your asking me to provide you with a document or statistic that does not exist, and one does I'll be looking for it.

I believe in the end it falls down to my opinion vs yours, as it seems both of us find little itty bitty problems with each-others sources regardless of how factual they are(yours included). And no I'm not saying your sources lack factual evidence


- Kuja

 

[Deleted member 176]

All i'm asking for is that you show me statistics that support your point, not link me to a propaganda leaflet lol.

Quote the relevant statistics from the relevant countries.

Number of gun murders in the US compared to countries with gun control for instance.

Not a document that says "Oh well, um, we think that this stops 5000 rapes a day!" Without any proof.

All you really done was link me to the documentation equivalent of you lol. Lots of words, very few actual comparable statistics.

That document just says things like GUN CRIME INCREASED x% OVER THERE! without telling you what that %age is (Because if it DID tell you that, it would completely destroy its point)

That document has almost no hard stats, just lots of "This %age increased over here!"

Show me actual crime statistics, not "our survey of 100 people told us..." crap done by the NRA lol.

Thankies.