Gun Rights

[Socrates]

I am, If guns are the most convinient way, taking them away will make it more DIFFICULT for criminals. This is a good thing, no?
[/color][/size][/font][/i]

Taking guns away wouldn't make it difficult at all for criminals to get guns, I think you have good intentions, but it just doesn't work that way.

You see, if Criminals would be affected by gun control, then I'd be all for it, the problem is they will remain almost unaffected. Think about it, marijuana is illegal yet it finds its way in the hands of teenagers all over America. Granted of course marijuana is a drug, and a gun is a tool.

 

[Deleted member 176]

I point to the Uk as an example.

Gun crime is MUCH LOWER here than in the US, because guns are HARDER TO GET. this is because of STRICT GUN CONTROL.

Make sense now?

You saying "oh that wouldn't happen" is just an opinion, not a fact. I see no evidence for it at all.

Show me an island with strict gun control which has higher gun crime than an island with lax gun control.

(I say that because if a landmass is beside another landmass, and one has no gun control, criminals will just cross the border. See criminals smuggling US guns into canada as an example.)

 

[Socrates]

I point to the Uk as an example.

Gun crime is MUCH LOWER here than in the US, because guns are HARDER TO GET. this is because of STRICT GUN CONTROL.

Make sense now?

You saying "oh that wouldn't happen" is just an opinion, not a fact. I see no evidence for it at all.

Show me an island with strict gun control which has higher gun crime than an island with lax gun control.

(I say that because if a landmass is beside another landmass, and one has no gun control, criminals will just cross the border. See criminals smuggling US guns into canada as an example.)

What I'm about to say say requires no evidence, thanks for answering my question. The U.K has fewer illegal firearm crime because its an island, as such sneaking guns in, is much harder, the U.S is a landmass, and smuggling guns in won't cease simply by making guns harder to get, in theory your comparing two completely different places.

Also Americans sadly are more violent then people from the U.K, but as such this works in correlation with your argument. Why? Because what your saying makes sense.

Guns as you mentioned do not cause violence, but they do make killing easier. That however isn't the problem, if nobody had the desire to cause harm to somebody else then so many deaths wouldn't result. As such smuggling illegal stuff into the U.S isn't hard to do at all, this is why the criminal won't be affected, and thats why it won't work. This doesn't require an expert to calculate, or to point out.

Now, heres what your saying give or take. Your basically saying because in the U.K guns are so hard to get, gun crime is low. Gun crime isn't high in the U.S because theres so many guns available, its because Americans are violent. But then this leads back to your arguement about "then why should they have access to such things", well, your missing the fact that the U.S isn't an island, and illegal fireams will always sadly but surely find their way into the U.S. and that is why it won't work. If we truly want to end gun crime in the U.S it will involve alot more then gun control.

As far as finding an island with lower gun crime with lax gun control then the U.K ill have to spend some time on that one .

~ Socrates the Great

 

[Deleted member 176]

*sigh*

If so many weapons weren't brought into and produced legally INSIDE the US, then it WOULD be an island, and it WOULD be just as difficult from criminals to get guns. You see the problem with your argument now?

 

[Socrates]

*sigh*

If so many weapons weren't brought into and produced legally INSIDE the US, then it WOULD be an island, and it WOULD be just as difficult from criminals to get guns. You see the problem with your argument now?

Your argument is speculation, and is purely "what-if". I wasn't talking about weapons being legally produced in the U.S, I was talking about illegal weapons being smuggled into the U.S. You didn't answer that, and instead proved an invalid point.

~ Socrates the Great

 

[Deleted member 176]

The entire thread is "What-if" it's about whether or not gun control should be implemented!!!

Did you just get the wrong bus and miss the entire point of the thread?

 

[Socrates]

The entire thread is "What-if" it's about whether or not gun control should be implemented!!!

Did you just get the wrong bus and miss the entire point of the thread?

I never said your what-if was flawed. I merealy pointed out it was a what-if.

Stop avoiding the issue i've presented please.

~ Socrates the Great

 

[Deleted member 176]

*sigh* this is impossible.

I'm just going to make this one point, and leave you to talk round in circles.

Gun control makes it more difficult for criminals to get guns, by reducing the supply of guns. Having less guns makes it more difficult for criminals to commit gun crime. SInce guns are the easiest way for criminals to kill and seriously wound, this is a good thing.

The end.

 

[Socrates]

*sigh* this is impossible.

I'm just going to make this one point, and leave you to talk round in circles.

Gun control makes it more difficult for criminals to get guns, by reducing the supply of guns. Having less guns makes it more difficult for criminals to commit gun crime. SInce guns are the easiest way for criminals to kill and seriously wound, this is a good thing.

The end.

It does WHERE YOU LIVE, but it wouldn't not here. What you say is true, but your ignoring alot of other factors.

You debated well, and I admire you for that

~ Socrates the Great

 

[Rockman X]

Alrighty, lately I've been watching this nifty show called Crisis Point. It's in the same vein as shows like COPS and things like that, showing in-car cameras of police, surveillance cams, first person accounts, etc. There have been several clips on it of robberies in stores, and guess what? The robberies were stopped because *shock and awe* the store owners had guns! Let's watch some clips shall we? Here's the first, the second, and my favorite one.

Now, I understand the general argument being repeatedly thrown around here: ban guns, make it so only law enforcement has it, and gun crime will magically lower in numbers. Like your argument here, Decado:

Gun control makes it more difficult for criminals to get guns, by reducing the supply of guns.

Just what makes you think it would make it more difficult? The unwanted members of society with the guns usually get them illegally. And back on page six you say this:

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!!!!

Do you not understand how smuggling works? It doesn't just go from our borders into Canada or Mexico, it goes both ways. America has been fighting the "war on drugs" for over thirty years and guess what? Plenty of drugs are still making it across the American border. Supplies may dwindle occasionally, but that in turn only makes demand higher and the traffickers make more profit, and there are still plenty of drugs getting into the US. People who smuggle illegal items are doing it as their living, as such, they depend on it and are going to do everything they can to come up with new ways to avoid detection. If things come down to it, the cocaine suppliers and other sorts of traffickers will merely smuggle guns up into the US from Central and South America. It's a nice thought that guns are magically going to disappear with stricter gun control, but it's simply unrealistic.

Also, let's stop all logic and picture this scenario for a moment. Guns are illegal, only cops have them. But wait, criminals are going to have them too. It's not as if they'll just willingly give up their guns, they'll find ways to hide them, or just obtain new ones. So now that's one less law abiding demographic in the country devoid of guns, a means to protect themselves. Now who's going to get the chance to fire first at a robbery? A cop? Nope, the robber. The cops won't find out and arrest the person before damage has already been done. What would have happened in that first clip I linked to if the woman didn't have a gun? She would have been killed. Until there is a way found to completely prevent criminals from obtaining guns, I believe it is a necessary tool of defense for upstanding citizens.

Of course all of our arguments are merely speculation, which is why I would appreciate it Decado if you didn't come in here again acting like every single thing you say is fact, it's obnoxious and it's becoming tiresome. What I have presented is merely a logical case for my argument, it is by no means the only possible outcome and I don't claim it as such, but I think I know slightly better than you do how things would work in America because I actually live here and you don't.

 

[Deleted member 176]

Exactly. You don't live in a country with gun control, so you don't know just how effective gun control can be.

Obviously you're going to think it won't work, because you live in a place with plenty of gun crime and you can't just imagine that going away.

But i've backed what i say up with evidence, i even said if someone can show me 5 contained places with gun control, and 5 contained places without gun control, and show me that those WITHOUT gun control have lower gun crime, then i'll accept their arguement.

Even if its places with border control between them and their neighbours, that'll do.
Fact is, even that source trying desperately to prove guns are good, even though it was picking individual countries to prove individual points, it couldn't show a country with strict gun control, that had more gun crime than the USA.

To me, that validates my arguement. Please feel free to present evidence to the contrary if you can find some

Remember, no one is saying BAN ALL GUNS IMMEDIATELY! or anything liek that. No one is saying it's some magic cure all, i'm not even saying it would be easy, or make a huge difference in your lifetime. What i am saying is that it would, in the long term, make life more difficult for criminals, and lead to less gun crime (which is the most deadly form of weapon-violence)

Oh and just a small addition: There are plenty of drugs in the UK as well, but many less guns. It's much easier to smuggle in a powder or a liquid than it is to smuggle in several hundred pounds of metal firearms. You can swallow £20,000 of drugs to get through customs, you can't swallow £20,000 of guns my friend. Transporting firearms is MUCH more difficult than transporting drugs. The comparison isn't very valid.

 

[Socrates]

I thought you were done posting here =P. Don't take what im about to say as an attack, but instead as constructive criticism .

Exactly. You don't live in a country with gun control, so you don't know just how effective gun control can be.

Again you don't live in the U.S, you cannot simply assume stricter gun control would work, because it does in your place, note what I said about Universal Healthcare.

Obviously you're going to think it won't work, because you live in a place with plenty of gun crime and you can't just imagine that going away.

And obviously you think it will because it works in the U.K, please don't even go there.

But i've backed what i say up with evidence, i even said if someone can show me 5 contained places with gun control, and 5 contained places without gun control, and show me that those WITHOUT gun control have lower gun crime, then i'll accept their arguement.

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

No you haven't, you've done what me and Meta-Knight have done and simply speculated. Above are your three souces, aka your "evidence". Your first source is unfairly bias, the source name even gives that way, some are twisted facts, or worded to anger the reader, 1 kid does die in the U.S every 3 hours, but that kid is usually a Juvenile, they neglect to mention that, and instead use the word kid, this leads people to assume it was a poor innocent kid. Your second source is a story aimed at upsetting the reader, and doesn't really support your arguement. And your third source is a simple mix of things, and is not really needed. Other then that you've just went on with how "it works here, so it works everywhere" philosophy, not evidence at all. .

Secondly by contained places, I'm going to assume your reffering to islands, with that in mind(i apologize if thats not what you meant) is kind of contradictory, because you want a 5:5 island comparison, but also think gun control will work would work in a non-island area. Maybe that explains why it works in the U.K and Japan?

Even if its places with border control between them and their neighbours, that'll do.
Fact is, even that source trying desperately to prove guns are good, even though it was picking individual countries to prove individual points, it couldn't show a country with strict gun control, that had more gun crime than the USA.

I fail to see how what your saying makes sense here. How come its ok for you to say "zomg U.K = less gun crime then U.S, gun control ftw", but when the fact that Switzerland a place with less homicide then the U.K is put in front of you its not valid? Sure it doesn't work in comparison to the U.S, but it instead shows that the U.S has something that these places do not. Don't even say or claim Switzerland has less gun availability than the U.S because it doesn't, they are the same, if not almost identical.

To me, that validates my arguement. Please feel free to present evidence to the contrary if you can find some

You haven't so why should we ?

Remember, no one is saying BAN ALL GUNS IMMEDIATELY! or anything liek that. No one is saying it's some magic cure all, i'm not even saying it would be easy, or make a huge difference in your lifetime. What i am saying is that it would, in the long term, make life more difficult for criminals, and lead to less gun crime (which is the most deadly form of weapon-violence)

You've argued your point with alot of passion, and have been very adamant with what you think, as such you've said a few times it will work, and that we need it, clearly nobody except you has claimed its a magic cure all . Of course it won't be easy, but then again you never said it would be.

You kind of sound like you doubt your own words, If its effects are long-term you and I probably won't be alive to see whether it truly worked or not.

Oh and just a small addition: There are plenty of drugs in the UK as well, but many less guns. It's much easier to smuggle in a powder or a liquid than it is to smuggle in several hundred pounds of metal firearms. You can swallow £20,000 of drugs to get through customs, you can't swallow £20,000 of guns my friend. Transporting firearms is MUCH more difficult than transporting drugs. The comparison isn't very valid.

I fail to see how its an invalid comparison. Millions of American teenagers have used and have access to illegal drugs, your also working under the assumption that people carry the guns with them when they transport them, thats ridicolous, and as such thats where your arguement kind of fails.

We're not comparing the way these two items are smuggled, were comparing the fact that they both manage to make there to U.S Soil, you cannot declare the comparison invalid because you can't swallow a gun.

~ Socrates the Great

 

[Serah]

Hey guys. Some of the staff have been discussing this and this debate is getting just a little heated here. How about we cool down, okay? No need for us to get worked up over something like gun control. I really don't want to have to close the thread. Thanks for understanding!

 

[Socrates]

First of all, i EXPLAINED what i meant by contained in my post, you even QUOTED it

Please read my posts properly.

Since more or less all of the rest of your post was you a) refusing to give evidence and b)claiming somehow that just because my source uses the CORRECT TERM for something, it's lying, i'm just going to counter what tiny "evidence" you gave - that switzerland has less gun crime than the UK.

WRONG. 6.2 people died of bullet wounds in Switzerland in 2005 per 100,000 of population, second only to the US figure of 9.42, and more than double the rate of Germany and Italy.

o.o wow, i guess that... Prove my point. You just supplied a country as evidence to your point, without even checking if it was correct, well done. Thanks for proving me correct though.

(see bottom for link to source)

If you're going to give "facts" to back your point, please don't just make them up, make sure they are TRUE.

Seriously, you ended your post with an arguement that smuggling drugs is the same as smuggling firearms. That says it all.

Now for the last time, PLEASE PRESENT EVIDENCE. And by evidence i *categorically do not* mean "make stuff up about switzerland" mkay? Seriously, not even kidding. E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E please.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rise-in-gun-crime-forces-swiss-to-reconsider-right-to-bear-arms-446946.html

Amazing, I said "I apologise/apologize if this isn't what you meant" for a reason.

Switzerland a place with less homicide then the U.K

Heres what I said, did I mention anything about less gun crime? No I did not. Please read before you jump the gun.

According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, an anti-gun organisation based in the UK, 6.2 people died of bullet wounds in Switzerland in 2005 per 100,000 of population, second only to the US figure of 9.42, and more than double the rate of Germany and Italy.

Wow did I read that correctly, an Anti-Gun Organization did this study? Not to mention your article is more than a year old.

Do me a favor and quit telling me to post evidence when you yourself haven't done that, your article was another invalid point, and doesn't make your arguement any more factual, it just makes you look more desperate.

We're not comparing the way these two items are smuggled, were comparing the fact that they both manage to make their way to U.S Soil, you cannot declare the comparison invalid because you can't swallow a gun.

I never said smuggling guns and drugs are the same, although I could be a smartass and say they are because they both involve smuggling , but what I did say was they both manage to get to U.S soil. Are you sure your literate? Maybe YOU should read my posts properly.
Now, before you read this post and respond do me a favor and get yourself a hefty magnifying glass and read it again.

Secondly I choose not to post evidence because its not neccesary. I'm not trying to justify bad behavior with more bad behavior.

Now I hope your response has some kind of relevance to the topic at hand and that it isn't some pointless rant like this one.

And Sayuri, perhaps a cooldown is in order ^^, ill take a cold shower and drink some iced lemonade.

~ Socrates the Great

 

[Socrates]

Socrates, you do realise that everyone can see that you edited the word gun out of your homicide statement AFTER i posted, right? (p.s, it says at the bottom, edited at 1:55am)

Nice try at lying though.

You got me! /sarcasm, no I fixed a few grammatical errors. Notice my edited post for my second post was more than my first .

Now, if you think my sources figures are incorrect, please present some of your own. It should be noted my sources was not a "survey" It was just that group which collated the information. Also, i'd appreciate it if you didn't edit words out of your posts in future when you are proven wrong, thanks.

Now, I just presented you with some evidence, here i'll present some more (link at the bottom)

I never said your sources were incorrect. I simply pointed out a few minor problems with them.

In the US, there are roughly 17,000 murders a year, of which about 15,000 are committed with firearms. By contrast, Britain, Australia and Canada combined see fewer than 350 gun-related murders each year. And it's not just about murder. The non-gun-related suicide rate in the US is consistent with the rest of the developed world. Factor in firearms, and the rate is suddenly twice as high as the rest of the developed world.

Im on to you , nobody is going to dispute that they're gun related deaths in the U.S are higher than those places, but you forget to factor in other things like for example how rape has increased in Britain in Australia post gun-control.

Secondly, your sources are at times up to a decade out of date. figures from the last 5 years are so are as recent as we are going to get, and thus are perfectly valid.

The problem with saying this, is that I haven't posted any =P. Unless your reffering to my information, in which case you'd be wrong.

Now please present evidence that countries with lax gun control have less firearm crime than those with strict gun control. If you cannot do this, please stop posting in the thread, because it looks like your flamebait posts are going to get it closed, and possibly both your accounts in trouble at the same time.

I'm just going to flat-out say that your saying is illogical because places with guns, are obviously going to have less gun crime then those without it, this isnt me contradicting myself, im simply pointing out that places with less guns, will have crime with something else. I don't have two accounts?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ned-off-its-love-affair-with-guns-418597.html[/quote]

This source raises more of a question, and doesn't answer any questions.


~ Socrates the Great

 

[Serah]

Do people just not listen to me when I ask them to do something? I'm feeling very inclined to close this thread.

 

[Socrates]

I'll listen to Sayuri and wait until tommorow to give you a response.

But Decado, I never admitted gun control was a good idea, and your still ignoring many things. And you still haven't proven anything

This is far from over.

~ Socrates the Great

 

[Serah]

I'm sorry, but comments like "this is far from over" don't fly with me. It seems as though you're actually NOT going to listen to what I asked. So therefore, I'm closing out this topic. We really don't need people constantly being at each other's throats. If you can't hold a proper debate without acting in such a manner, then you shouldn't be debating at all. Sorry Erythritol. I hate that I had to close your thread.

*closed*

 

[poker king46]

gun rights

what are your opinions on this subject?

i myself and all for anyone and everyone owning a gun(provided they are a legal adult)

 

[Donald Trump]

what are your opinions on this subject?

i myself and all for anyone and everyone owning a gun(provided they are a legal adult)

Why should people be allowed to own guns, their sole purpose is killing. Allowing people to stock up on them is like allowing civilians to be able to buy grenades.

I think that people should be allowed rifles for hunting. Bolt action rifles, not automatics or semi-automatics.