Post by: TeonHarasymiv on March 07, 2005, 05:38:00 PM
I would just like to say that I am not going to be replying anymore. I have my views, others have their's, and neither side will convince the others.
But I still say this:
The attitude that if everyone can own a gun (a weapon designed soley for dealing death quickly and easily) society is somehow a safer place!?! That makes no sence to me what so ever!
And I would like to see some evidence (ANY evidence) that backs up that attitude. Something other than "but its my right!".
-Teon
Post by: pb2themax on March 07, 2005, 10:43:00 PM
Post by: The unProfessional on March 07, 2005, 11:28:00 PM
Post by: LenteSubigo on March 08, 2005, 12:26:00 AM
QUOTE(enderandrew @ Mar 7 2005, 04:16 PM)
I'm moving this debate out of the Xenon forums into an area where it belongs.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Spency234 on March 08, 2005, 12:26:00 AM
-
Post by: Spency234 on March 08, 2005, 12:26:00 AM
QUOTE(enderandrew @ Mar 7 2005, 04:16 PM)
I'm moving this debate out of the Xenon forums into an area where it belongs.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: LenteSubigo on March 08, 2005, 01:29:00 AM
-
One thing I can't stand is when people try to attack people with something they didn't say.
I nor any reasonable person opposed to gun control has ever said that more people owning guns will result in less gun deaths.
All that we are saying is that guns that are owned for the sole purpose of defence, hunting, or hobby are not the guns that kill people. The guns that kill people are the guns owned by gangs, criminals, and cops. Implementing gun control will not prevent gangs and criminals from getting guns. The number of unjustified (nondefence), deaths caused by guns owned for defence, hobby, or hunting is insignificant.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: TeonHarasymiv on March 08, 2005, 06:52:00 AM
-
Just curious, how can you say that? Do you have any proof, or are you just assuming?
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 08, 2005, 08:32:00 AM
-
Post by: LenteSubigo on March 08, 2005, 01:29:00 AM
I nor any reasonable person opposed to gun control has ever said that more people owning guns will result in less gun deaths.
All that we are saying is that guns that are owned for the sole purpose of defence, hunting, or hobby are not the guns that kill people. The guns that kill people are the guns owned by gangs, criminals, and cops. Implementing gun control will not prevent gangs and criminals from getting guns. The number of unjustified (nondefence), deaths caused by guns owned for defence, hobby, or hunting is insignificant.
Post by: TeonHarasymiv on March 08, 2005, 06:52:00 AM
QUOTE
The number of unjustified (nondefence), deaths caused by guns owned for defence, hobby, or hunting is insignificant.
Just curious, how can you say that? Do you have any proof, or are you just assuming?
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 08, 2005, 08:32:00 AM
QUOTE(Spency234 @ Mar 8 2005, 01:21 AM)
But there really is no reason for anybody to have a handgun, other then it can be consealed easily and hidden so you can take it into public places without causing attention.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: fishlord on March 08, 2005, 10:32:00 AM
-
Post by: fishlord on March 08, 2005, 10:32:00 AM
QUOTE(Wong Hung Lo @ Mar 8 2005, 03:38 PM)
I hunt with my handguns. Even my carry gun (S&W 357 Mag) can drop a deer easy. As for being concealed easily. I doubt my 44 Mag Smith & Wesson Performance Center Model 629 HUNTER PLUS would be easy to conceal. I've got 2 deer with it. And let me tell you. It knocked their asses down. 
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: fishlord on March 08, 2005, 10:36:00 AM
-
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: pepsik on March 08, 2005, 10:37:00 AM
-
"guns dont kill people, people kill people" - unknown
This statement has been the truth that binds this issue. Things like hollow point bullets and semi automatic high caliber weapons need to be restricted, but I believe every home in america should have a shotgun locked in a cabinet somewhere inside the home. There is nothing like a buck shot to make a burglar shit his pants.
Illegal weapons are the weapons that tend to appear in crimes, most stolen weapons will be used in a crime, sold to some other criminal and used in a different crime. When the unlucky sap that purchased the weapon from the umpteenth owner gets caught with it, he gets charged with all the murders they can trace to that particular gun.
Your probably safer with a gun in your home than you are without one, well atleast relatively speaking, if you live in the backwoods somewhere then you'll probably just shoot yourself in the foot while drinking. The point I was trying to make while the coffee kicked in is that the people behind the gun are always to blame not the gun.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: damam on March 08, 2005, 11:08:00 AM
-
And last but not least
And i can go on and on and on, these are only the ones that directly effect me. But, I will stop by saying this: their is a reason why gun control people stop after simply quoting raw deaths caused by firearm data and then compare it to traditionally peaceful cultures like Canada. They know that if they delve to deep they well be exposed.
@LenteSubigo - it should also be mentioned that 1998 was one of the worst years for homicides that we have ever had (thats why moore used 1998 stats in his film), and that that number also includes justifiable homicides (ie. self defense).
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 08, 2005, 12:19:00 PM
-
Post by: fishlord on March 08, 2005, 10:36:00 AM
QUOTE(LenteSubigo @ Mar 8 2005, 07:32 AM)
Post by: pepsik on March 08, 2005, 10:37:00 AM
This statement has been the truth that binds this issue. Things like hollow point bullets and semi automatic high caliber weapons need to be restricted, but I believe every home in america should have a shotgun locked in a cabinet somewhere inside the home. There is nothing like a buck shot to make a burglar shit his pants.
Illegal weapons are the weapons that tend to appear in crimes, most stolen weapons will be used in a crime, sold to some other criminal and used in a different crime. When the unlucky sap that purchased the weapon from the umpteenth owner gets caught with it, he gets charged with all the murders they can trace to that particular gun.
Your probably safer with a gun in your home than you are without one, well atleast relatively speaking, if you live in the backwoods somewhere then you'll probably just shoot yourself in the foot while drinking. The point I was trying to make while the coffee kicked in is that the people behind the gun are always to blame not the gun.
Post by: damam on March 08, 2005, 11:08:00 AM
QUOTE(Dr. John Lott Jr. @ Univ. of Chicago School of Law )
The national five day waiting period under the Brady Bill had no impact on murder or robbery, but slightly increased rape and aggravated assault rates by a few percent. For these two crime categories, the major effect was to delay law-abiding citizens from getting a gun for protection. The risks were greatest for crimes against women.
QUOTE(U.S. Dept. of Justice @ Law Enforcement Assistance Administration - Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979 )
Of the 250,000,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
QUOTE(Gary Kleck @ Criminologist, Florida State Univ)
Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 per day.
Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually ever fired.
Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually ever fired.
QUOTE(Fall 1995 @ Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology )
Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.
QUOTE(John Lott @ David Mustard: This study involved county level crime statistics from all 3,054 counties in the US)
When citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons:
* Murder rates drop 8%
* Rape rates fall 5%
* Aggravated assaults drop 7%
TYPE OF CRIME: HOW MUCH HIGHER IN RESTRICTIVE STATES
Violent Crime 81% higher
Murder .. 86% higher
Rape 25% higher
Assault 82% higher
Robbery .. 105% higher
Auto Theft .. 60% higher
* Murder rates drop 8%
* Rape rates fall 5%
* Aggravated assaults drop 7%
TYPE OF CRIME: HOW MUCH HIGHER IN RESTRICTIVE STATES
Violent Crime 81% higher
Murder .. 86% higher
Rape 25% higher
Assault 82% higher
Robbery .. 105% higher
Auto Theft .. 60% higher
And last but not least
QUOTE(FBI Uniform Crime Statistics @ 1994 )
Two-thirds of the people that die each year from gunfire are criminals shooting other criminals.
And i can go on and on and on, these are only the ones that directly effect me. But, I will stop by saying this: their is a reason why gun control people stop after simply quoting raw deaths caused by firearm data and then compare it to traditionally peaceful cultures like Canada. They know that if they delve to deep they well be exposed.
@LenteSubigo - it should also be mentioned that 1998 was one of the worst years for homicides that we have ever had (thats why moore used 1998 stats in his film), and that that number also includes justifiable homicides (ie. self defense).
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 08, 2005, 12:19:00 PM
QUOTE(fishlord @ Mar 8 2005, 12:38 PM)
Yes... and you COULD hunt with a swiss army knife taped to a stick. However all that hunting with a pistol ensures is the prolonged suffering of what you are hunting due to the lower accuracy of that firearm.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: gcskate27 on March 08, 2005, 12:25:00 PM
-
you truly are a man's man...
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 08, 2005, 12:28:00 PM
-
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: gcskate27 on March 08, 2005, 12:30:00 PM
-
just pointing out the double negative because im an ass...
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: damam on March 08, 2005, 12:46:00 PM
-
in america I have roughly a 1 in 50,000 chance of being murdered by a firearm if you take homicides to be purely random. But we all know they are not purely random. In actuality, that number is probably lower because I dont go out of my way to make myself more likely to be shot (for example: I have not joined any inner city gangs, nor do I deal coke, etc). I am comfortable with those odds.
this number would be higher if more women were like me, and willing to carry a gun. Im not sure what the stats are, but im willing to bet that women are in the minority when it comes to consealed hand guns. As for mace, I carry a full canister of bear mace in my car, it doesnt really work on bears, but it does work against most humans. I say most, because people can gain a tolerance to it. The other bad point about mace is that their is a lot of collataral damage that can occur when you using it due to even a slight breeze, and it is lethal for infants. I have a 9 week old daughter, I would never dare use it around her. Fortunately I live in a country that affords me another means of protecting myself.
I agree - lets look at pure crime statistics taken from nationmaster
total crimes per capita
United Kingdom - 86.04 per 1000 people (hmmm guess gun control isnt working to well their)
United States - 81.55 per 1000 people
Canada - 76.89 per 1000 people
These numbers assume that the US and Canada are just as likely to report crimes of course, but really the numbers are negligable.
Why dont you look at the other nation that the US buffers you from: Mexico.
They are world leaders in murders, firearm murders. Do you have anywhere near the influx migration from Mexico that we do?
Mexico:
6th in the world for murders (US is 24th)
5th in the world for fire-arm murders (US is 8th)
Also lets look at something a little more intertaining about canada:
Rapes per Capita:
Canada - 0.74 per 1000 people
US - 0.30 per 1000 people
Looks like you Canadian gals could use some concealed hand guns up there, ehhh
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: The unProfessional on March 08, 2005, 01:19:00 PM
-
For asking girls to come to a party? Where the hell do they live, Inglewood? As far as I know, it's perfectly safe to do that here.
In partial agreement with you though, assholes do ruin alot of the fun.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Ween311 on March 08, 2005, 02:40:00 PM
-
It says in her post, she found it at nationmaster.com. Does she have to do all the work for you?
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: damam on March 08, 2005, 02:43:00 PM
-
Not sure why you would find that odd. Its not like im yelling "hee-haw" and randomly shooting it in the air while doing a jig. To date, I have only used it at the firing range. But, I reserve the right to protect myself and my daughter if necessary, and right now mace is not a viable alternative as it can kill my daughter. Ive always carried both anyways, I believe in an escalation of defense rather than a full on show of your hand.
I'd like to see sources on all of this.
Actually, I did list the source for these in my post: - NationMaster (you even have it in your quote of my post)
here is a link to the Rape statistics in particular
LINK
Canada is 5, US is 9.
NationMasters source for this is "UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims."
The only real thing I dont like about NationMaster is that it does not do roling averages. Perhaps it will in the future.
As for the 1998 - I cant seem to find the site where i initially found that (it was a long time ago). Since I cant find support for it ill concede that point till I can. Still the stuff I pulled from nationmaster provides ample ammo (pun intended).
this is the best arguement for gun control i have ever read. but its still not enough for me to give up my gun.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: me_007x on March 08, 2005, 04:45:00 PM
-
, I realise that until all the nations come together to work on problems that effect everyone, shit happens.
[source]
http://www.connected...tics/index.html
If anyone reads the link above, I live in the West Midlands.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: fishlord on March 08, 2005, 09:30:00 PM
-
Post by: gcskate27 on March 08, 2005, 12:25:00 PM
QUOTE
I hit that SOB in the 1st vertabra where the head and neck join
you truly are a man's man...
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 08, 2005, 12:28:00 PM
QUOTE(Spency234 @ Mar 8 2005, 01:53 PM)
Post by: gcskate27 on March 08, 2005, 12:30:00 PM
QUOTE
I think you don't know jack sh*t about firearms
just pointing out the double negative because im an ass...
Post by: damam on March 08, 2005, 12:46:00 PM
QUOTE(Spency234 @ Mar 8 2005, 06:53 AM)
Sure you may have good morals, but what about that guy you just cut off on the freeway that's having a bad day with a glock under his drivers seat?
. . .
Well that makes it ok right? Have you ever heard of innocent bystanders?
. . .
Well that makes it ok right? Have you ever heard of innocent bystanders?
in america I have roughly a 1 in 50,000 chance of being murdered by a firearm if you take homicides to be purely random. But we all know they are not purely random. In actuality, that number is probably lower because I dont go out of my way to make myself more likely to be shot (for example: I have not joined any inner city gangs, nor do I deal coke, etc). I am comfortable with those odds.
QUOTE
7.7% is not a very high number, and I beleive that a bottle of mace would do the same trick as a handgun. I'm a little bit partial on this point though because I beleive these perverts really do deserve to get shot.
this number would be higher if more women were like me, and willing to carry a gun. Im not sure what the stats are, but im willing to bet that women are in the minority when it comes to consealed hand guns. As for mace, I carry a full canister of bear mace in my car, it doesnt really work on bears, but it does work against most humans. I say most, because people can gain a tolerance to it. The other bad point about mace is that their is a lot of collataral damage that can occur when you using it due to even a slight breeze, and it is lethal for infants. I have a 9 week old daughter, I would never dare use it around her. Fortunately I live in a country that affords me another means of protecting myself.
QUOTE
This seems rediculous to me. They aren't showing the crimes that these extra guns ARE comitting.
I agree - lets look at pure crime statistics taken from nationmaster
total crimes per capita
United Kingdom - 86.04 per 1000 people (hmmm guess gun control isnt working to well their)
United States - 81.55 per 1000 people
Canada - 76.89 per 1000 people
These numbers assume that the US and Canada are just as likely to report crimes of course, but really the numbers are negligable.
QUOTE
The question I'm going to throw back at you is what makes us so different? You say a "peaceful culture" like Canada, but we are literally right beside you. There has to be a reason there are so many crimes in your country compared to ours.
Why dont you look at the other nation that the US buffers you from: Mexico.
They are world leaders in murders, firearm murders. Do you have anywhere near the influx migration from Mexico that we do?
Mexico:
6th in the world for murders (US is 24th)
5th in the world for fire-arm murders (US is 8th)
Also lets look at something a little more intertaining about canada:
Rapes per Capita:
Canada - 0.74 per 1000 people
US - 0.30 per 1000 people
Looks like you Canadian gals could use some concealed hand guns up there, ehhh
Post by: The unProfessional on March 08, 2005, 01:19:00 PM
QUOTE
My American friends there freaked right out, because I guess you can't do that in the states, you might piss someone off and get shot? I find it difficult to have a good time down there.
For asking girls to come to a party? Where the hell do they live, Inglewood? As far as I know, it's perfectly safe to do that here.
In partial agreement with you though, assholes do ruin alot of the fun.
Post by: Ween311 on March 08, 2005, 02:40:00 PM
QUOTE
I'd like to see sources on all of this
It says in her post, she found it at nationmaster.com. Does she have to do all the work for you?
Post by: damam on March 08, 2005, 02:43:00 PM
QUOTE(Spency234)
Yeah, thank god you can wave that gun around your 9 month old instead. 
Not sure why you would find that odd. Its not like im yelling "hee-haw" and randomly shooting it in the air while doing a jig. To date, I have only used it at the firing range. But, I reserve the right to protect myself and my daughter if necessary, and right now mace is not a viable alternative as it can kill my daughter. Ive always carried both anyways, I believe in an escalation of defense rather than a full on show of your hand.
QUOTE(Spency234)
QUOTE
I agree - lets look at pure crime statistics taken from nationmaster
total crimes per capita
United Kingdom - 86.04 per 1000 people (hmmm guess gun control isnt working to well their)
United States - 81.55 per 1000 people
Canada - 76.89 per 1000 people
These numbers assume that the US and Canada are just as likely to report crimes of course, but really the numbers are negligable.
Why dont you look at the other nation that the US buffers you from: Mexico.
They are world leaders in murders, firearm murders. Do you have anywhere near the influx migration from Mexico that we do?
Mexico:
6th in the world for murders (US is 24th)
5th in the world for fire-arm murders (US is 8th)
Also lets look at something a little more intertaining about canada:
Rapes per Capita:
Canada - 0.74 per 1000 people
US - 0.30 per 1000 people
Looks like you Canadian gals could use some concealed hand guns up there, ehhh
total crimes per capita
United Kingdom - 86.04 per 1000 people (hmmm guess gun control isnt working to well their)
United States - 81.55 per 1000 people
Canada - 76.89 per 1000 people
These numbers assume that the US and Canada are just as likely to report crimes of course, but really the numbers are negligable.
Why dont you look at the other nation that the US buffers you from: Mexico.
They are world leaders in murders, firearm murders. Do you have anywhere near the influx migration from Mexico that we do?
Mexico:
6th in the world for murders (US is 24th)
5th in the world for fire-arm murders (US is 8th)
Also lets look at something a little more intertaining about canada:
Rapes per Capita:
Canada - 0.74 per 1000 people
US - 0.30 per 1000 people
Looks like you Canadian gals could use some concealed hand guns up there, ehhh
I'd like to see sources on all of this.
Actually, I did list the source for these in my post: - NationMaster (you even have it in your quote of my post)
here is a link to the Rape statistics in particular
LINK
Canada is 5, US is 9.
NationMasters source for this is "UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims."
The only real thing I dont like about NationMaster is that it does not do roling averages. Perhaps it will in the future.
As for the 1998 - I cant seem to find the site where i initially found that (it was a long time ago). Since I cant find support for it ill concede that point till I can. Still the stuff I pulled from nationmaster provides ample ammo (pun intended).
QUOTE(Gun Violence: The Real Costs)
Medical costs of gun violence put a terrible burden on health service providers and governments. When indirect costs of gun violence - loss of productivity, mental health treatment and rehabilitation, legal and judicial costs - are figured in, gun violence costs the US over $100 billion annually
this is the best arguement for gun control i have ever read. but its still not enough for me to give up my gun.
Post by: me_007x on March 08, 2005, 04:45:00 PM
, I realise that until all the nations come together to work on problems that effect everyone, shit happens. [source]
http://www.connected...tics/index.html
If anyone reads the link above, I live in the West Midlands.
Post by: fishlord on March 08, 2005, 09:30:00 PM
QUOTE(Wong Hung Lo @ Mar 8 2005, 07:25 PM)
I think you are one of those PETA folks talking out of your ass when it comes to the accuracy of a handgun and suffering. Most kills where I live are within 100 yards and my 44 is accurate in 100 yards. All I use is a shotgun and 44 mag with a 7.5" barrel. It is very accurate and lethal.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: The unProfessional on March 08, 2005, 10:12:00 PM
-
I've made that point before and people usually bite off my head for it. I agree with your post 100%. The level of diversity instills prejudice that runs so deep, in so many directions, that there is a great deal tension.
Only time will eradicate this prejudice. As generations grow older and younger, more tolerant generations are created.
I really hate it when people play the race card because it only keeps the cycle going. But much of the politics, especially on a local/city/state level, are controlled by racial issues. It's much of why california is in the shitter.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: pepsik on March 09, 2005, 05:45:00 PM
-
Post by: The unProfessional on March 08, 2005, 10:12:00 PM
QUOTE
So, with 3 times the diversity, I would expect 3 or more times the crime.
I've made that point before and people usually bite off my head for it. I agree with your post 100%. The level of diversity instills prejudice that runs so deep, in so many directions, that there is a great deal tension.
Only time will eradicate this prejudice. As generations grow older and younger, more tolerant generations are created.
I really hate it when people play the race card because it only keeps the cycle going. But much of the politics, especially on a local/city/state level, are controlled by racial issues. It's much of why california is in the shitter.
Post by: pepsik on March 09, 2005, 05:45:00 PM
QUOTE(K98 @ Mar 9 2005, 05:25 AM)
Somehow that second part would be impossible to to ever finish. I for one would never turn in what I have. NEVER.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: me_007x on March 09, 2005, 05:58:00 PM
-
That was my point
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 09, 2005, 08:21:00 PM
-
All we are saying...is give peace a chance!
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: LenteSubigo on March 09, 2005, 09:38:00 PM
-
Post by: me_007x on March 09, 2005, 05:58:00 PM
QUOTE
Somehow that second part would be impossible to to ever finish. I for one would never turn in what I have. NEVER
That was my point
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 09, 2005, 08:21:00 PM
Post by: LenteSubigo on March 09, 2005, 09:38:00 PM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Mar 9 2005, 08:27 PM)
All we are saying...is give peace a chance!
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Tony42077 on March 10, 2005, 12:53:00 AM
-
One of my favorite pro-gun statements is "All of you people that don't want guns in your house, put up a sign on your house stating - No guns in this house". the reason why I like this so much, is because it happened to me.
When I was at school, I heard that there was a lot more crime in that area than I was used to (from an all-white low crime suburb). I always wanted a gun, so I got my FOID card and bought myself a gun. Not 2 months after I got my gun, I was awakened by a sound coming from the lower floor. I got my gun, and went downstairs to check it out. Sure enough there was a brother holding one of my PC towers. I told him to put it down. I didn't realize I was in the way of his only exit route. He dropped the tower and lunged at me. I dodged his lunge, and started to fire. As soon as he was shot at, he went for the door. While going for the door I shot him in the legs and lower back several times (small calibur bullets). He went out the door and ran away (with the bullets in his legs - adrenaline is some powerful stuff).
After the cops showed up they took my statement and started to search the local hospitals for him. He was never found, so I don't know how he got fixed up or if he died. If he's alive, I'm sure how he wishes that he didn't rob MY house with every painful step, or roll in a wheelchair.
My point is that with the diversity that is in the U.S., the need for guns varys greatly. I thought that I might need one, and I ended up being right. I am sure glad that the burglar didn't wake me up with a knife to my throat. I don't know if I would have died without my gun, but I wasn't going to take that chance.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: damam on March 10, 2005, 11:01:00 AM
-
never would have happened in my state. I have the absolute right to defend my property. that includes shooting them in the back as they flee.
if you were burglar, you wouldnt go to the house you knew had a gun. Why? their are plenty of fish in the sea most of which are bigger than me. why put yourself in danger when you can rob my neighbor without any of the risk and get a greater return. Most criminals would rather move on to another home that isnt protected by any means what-so-ever. they are looking for easy targets, not a challenge. houses are a dime a dozen, why choose the one that is protected? I have those fake secuirty stickers on all of my windows, and i know for a fact that it has worked because my neighbor was robbed. but before he robbed my neighbor, a lady across the street said that he pulled his car into my driveway first hopped out ran to the door turned around, and then pulled into my neighbors. And yes, my neighbor did report it, yes the police did show up . . . about 2hrs later, and no the robbers were never cought (he was in a stolen vehicle).
which brings me to my next point
Police are not obligated to protect citizens - they are only obligated to protect criminals. How screwed up is that.
Warren v. District of Columbia
quote taken from this site - has several other examples as well
Just who exactly is supposed to protect us, if not ourself
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Tony42077 on March 10, 2005, 12:13:00 PM
-
Post by: Tony42077 on March 10, 2005, 12:53:00 AM
When I was at school, I heard that there was a lot more crime in that area than I was used to (from an all-white low crime suburb). I always wanted a gun, so I got my FOID card and bought myself a gun. Not 2 months after I got my gun, I was awakened by a sound coming from the lower floor. I got my gun, and went downstairs to check it out. Sure enough there was a brother holding one of my PC towers. I told him to put it down. I didn't realize I was in the way of his only exit route. He dropped the tower and lunged at me. I dodged his lunge, and started to fire. As soon as he was shot at, he went for the door. While going for the door I shot him in the legs and lower back several times (small calibur bullets). He went out the door and ran away (with the bullets in his legs - adrenaline is some powerful stuff).
After the cops showed up they took my statement and started to search the local hospitals for him. He was never found, so I don't know how he got fixed up or if he died. If he's alive, I'm sure how he wishes that he didn't rob MY house with every painful step, or roll in a wheelchair.
My point is that with the diversity that is in the U.S., the need for guns varys greatly. I thought that I might need one, and I ended up being right. I am sure glad that the burglar didn't wake me up with a knife to my throat. I don't know if I would have died without my gun, but I wasn't going to take that chance.
Post by: damam on March 10, 2005, 11:01:00 AM
QUOTE(Arvarden)
Btw Tony Martin served time for shooting an un armed burgular in the back, if he shot him in the face or the chest he could have claimed self defence and he wouldn't have served anytime.
never would have happened in my state. I have the absolute right to defend my property. that includes shooting them in the back as they flee.
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Mar 9 2005, 11:11 PM)
Tony, you shot an un armed man? Are you fucking stupid?
You do know that if this person decides to pay you a visit again he/she will prolly be packing because of your stupid stunt?
Letting joe public aquire fire arms for personnal protection, be it for home use or other is plain lunacy. Most petty criminals would rather be in and out of your property in a flash without causing harm to the owner and themselves.
If I was a burglar and I knew the home owner had fire arms I would turn up to the job carrying a firearm and if the home owner popped his/her head round the door they can wave goodbye to there face.
You do know that if this person decides to pay you a visit again he/she will prolly be packing because of your stupid stunt?
Letting joe public aquire fire arms for personnal protection, be it for home use or other is plain lunacy. Most petty criminals would rather be in and out of your property in a flash without causing harm to the owner and themselves.
If I was a burglar and I knew the home owner had fire arms I would turn up to the job carrying a firearm and if the home owner popped his/her head round the door they can wave goodbye to there face.
if you were burglar, you wouldnt go to the house you knew had a gun. Why? their are plenty of fish in the sea most of which are bigger than me. why put yourself in danger when you can rob my neighbor without any of the risk and get a greater return. Most criminals would rather move on to another home that isnt protected by any means what-so-ever. they are looking for easy targets, not a challenge. houses are a dime a dozen, why choose the one that is protected? I have those fake secuirty stickers on all of my windows, and i know for a fact that it has worked because my neighbor was robbed. but before he robbed my neighbor, a lady across the street said that he pulled his car into my driveway first hopped out ran to the door turned around, and then pulled into my neighbors. And yes, my neighbor did report it, yes the police did show up . . . about 2hrs later, and no the robbers were never cought (he was in a stolen vehicle).
which brings me to my next point
Police are not obligated to protect citizens - they are only obligated to protect criminals. How screwed up is that.
Warren v. District of Columbia
QUOTE
Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
quote taken from this site - has several other examples as well
Just who exactly is supposed to protect us, if not ourself
Post by: Tony42077 on March 10, 2005, 12:13:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Mar 10 2005, 11:11 AM)
Tony, you shot an un armed man? Are you fucking stupid?
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: schandtatmensch on March 10, 2005, 12:43:00 PM
-
Post by: schandtatmensch on March 10, 2005, 12:43:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Mar 10 2005, 11:11 AM)
Tony, you shot an un armed man? Are you fucking stupid?
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: pepsik on March 10, 2005, 12:52:00 PM
-
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: K98 on March 10, 2005, 12:54:00 PM
-
I read that twice and I still can't believe what you said. It's ok to let burgulars steal your valuables and let them get out the quickly. To help them maybe I should post up a floor plan and locations of all the expensive items on the frontdoor so they can get in and out without hassle. Hell I should put all my stuff on the front lawn and let people steal it.
I think if a criminal knew a home owner was armed he would go somewhere else even if he had a gun. Then that leads me to the fact what he is armed and you arent what do you do? If the homeowner was a female then maybe the burgular is lookign to rape her so you think it's ok for her to not resist and let the guy go about his business?
Tony Martin shot the guy after the third night in a row his house was broken into, and the cops two times beofre did nothing.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Tony42077 on March 10, 2005, 01:37:00 PM
-
Post by: pepsik on March 10, 2005, 12:52:00 PM
Post by: K98 on March 10, 2005, 12:54:00 PM
QUOTE
Tony, you shot an un armed man? Are you fucking stupid?
You do know that if this person decides to pay you a visit again he/she will prolly be packing because of your stupid stunt?
Letting joe public aquire fire arms for personnal protection, be it for home use or other is plain lunacy. Most petty criminals would rather be in and out of your property in a flash without causing harm to the owner and themselves.
If I was a burglar and I knew the home owner had fire arms I would turn up to the job carrying a firearm and if the home owner popped his/her head round the door they can wave goodbye to there face.
Slippery slope? I think so.
Btw Tony Martin served time for shooting an un armed burgular in the back, if he shot him in the face or the chest he could have claimed self defence and he wouldn't have served anytime.
You do know that if this person decides to pay you a visit again he/she will prolly be packing because of your stupid stunt?
Letting joe public aquire fire arms for personnal protection, be it for home use or other is plain lunacy. Most petty criminals would rather be in and out of your property in a flash without causing harm to the owner and themselves.
If I was a burglar and I knew the home owner had fire arms I would turn up to the job carrying a firearm and if the home owner popped his/her head round the door they can wave goodbye to there face.
Slippery slope? I think so.
Btw Tony Martin served time for shooting an un armed burgular in the back, if he shot him in the face or the chest he could have claimed self defence and he wouldn't have served anytime.
I read that twice and I still can't believe what you said. It's ok to let burgulars steal your valuables and let them get out the quickly. To help them maybe I should post up a floor plan and locations of all the expensive items on the frontdoor so they can get in and out without hassle. Hell I should put all my stuff on the front lawn and let people steal it.
I think if a criminal knew a home owner was armed he would go somewhere else even if he had a gun. Then that leads me to the fact what he is armed and you arent what do you do? If the homeowner was a female then maybe the burgular is lookign to rape her so you think it's ok for her to not resist and let the guy go about his business?
Tony Martin shot the guy after the third night in a row his house was broken into, and the cops two times beofre did nothing.
Post by: Tony42077 on March 10, 2005, 01:37:00 PM
QUOTE(pepsik @ Mar 10 2005, 07:58 PM)
Tony, your proffesor told you that because most states consider it self defense when an unknown assailant is within a person's home. -
Title: Gun Control
Post by: me_007x on March 10, 2005, 02:12:00 PM
-
Regarding the Tony Martin case, I think he was technically charged with owning an unlawful shotgun 'cause his licence had been revoked, this then led on to the other charges. It didn't matter that he shot the scum in the back, had he unloaded at point blank in his face the results would well have been the same. This is one of the absurd things regarding UK law, it is not legal to own a hand gun yet you can apply for a licence to own just about any shot gun or rifle (including machine guns).
Defending one's property has also recently come back in to the forefront of UK politics with the main political parties arguing over the definition of "reasonable force" in the event someone breaks into your house. Personally, and everyone I've spoken to about this, has said virtually the same thing, someone breaks into my house then all bets are off. I sleep with a knife within easy reach of my hand, and a few friends have admitted privately that they have similar weapons close by.
It would have been interesting in the Tony Martin case if he had smacked the low life around the head with an unloaded shot gun and killed him.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: damam on March 10, 2005, 02:27:00 PM
-
Their military doesnt role over, but their citizens sure do. I think socialism has made them a weeker populas, but I could be wrong. I had a british friend once tell me that they were comfortable with the arrangement of someone occasionally robbing them, and then collecting the insurance, so long as nobody got hurt. He was also comfortable with this arrangement as it applied to convienience stores, department stores, etc as well. Then a couple weeks later he was complaining about how his insurance was so high. He absolutely failed to see the connection.
glad to see not all of you brits are as compliant as averdeen. it sounds like you guys are just starting to realise you have a crime problem.
then why was not released because he is considered to be a "danger to burglars".
Link1
I dont really know a lot about the tony martin case, I had just heard a little bit here and their, so I could be totally off on this
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: me_007x on March 10, 2005, 02:40:00 PM
-
He was a danger to buglars cause he said he would have done the same thing again, this is not a good thing to say to the parole board when you are trying to be released, in effect saying prison had not worked, he was also charged with other things relating to shooting the burgler.
We are starting to have the same problem the US has with suing everyone. UK law is slightly different though, I have only read a few John Grisham books but in those it seems as though the lawyers take a cut of the payout, whereas in the UK the solicitor fees are paid by the person who looses, at least I think this is the situation but I am not a lawyer.
The attitude of your British friend is sadly one I have seen a number of times, normally from dole dossers (I am not saying your friend is one). My circle of friends is made up of people who work hard for a living, and will defend own property and person.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 10, 2005, 03:10:00 PM
-
It's just a song, bud.
But to say that peace is not a goal we can achieved is getting us nowhere even faster.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: schandtatmensch on March 10, 2005, 03:13:00 PM
-
As opposed to just getting us nowhere?
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: bluedeath on March 10, 2005, 03:25:00 PM
-
Post by: me_007x on March 10, 2005, 02:12:00 PM
Defending one's property has also recently come back in to the forefront of UK politics with the main political parties arguing over the definition of "reasonable force" in the event someone breaks into your house. Personally, and everyone I've spoken to about this, has said virtually the same thing, someone breaks into my house then all bets are off. I sleep with a knife within easy reach of my hand, and a few friends have admitted privately that they have similar weapons close by.
It would have been interesting in the Tony Martin case if he had smacked the low life around the head with an unloaded shot gun and killed him.
Post by: damam on March 10, 2005, 02:27:00 PM
QUOTE(K98 @ Mar 10 2005, 08:00 AM)
I read that twice and I still can't believe what you said. It's ok to let burgulars steal your valuables and let them get out the quickly. To help them maybe I should post up a floor plan and locations of all the expensive items on the frontdoor so they can get in and out without hassle. Hell I should put all my stuff on the front lawn and let people steal it.
. . . If the homeowner was a female then maybe the burgular is lookign to rape her so you think it's ok for her to not resist and let the guy go about his business?
. . . If the homeowner was a female then maybe the burgular is lookign to rape her so you think it's ok for her to not resist and let the guy go about his business?
Their military doesnt role over, but their citizens sure do. I think socialism has made them a weeker populas, but I could be wrong. I had a british friend once tell me that they were comfortable with the arrangement of someone occasionally robbing them, and then collecting the insurance, so long as nobody got hurt. He was also comfortable with this arrangement as it applied to convienience stores, department stores, etc as well. Then a couple weeks later he was complaining about how his insurance was so high. He absolutely failed to see the connection.
QUOTE(me_007x)
Defending one's property has also recently come back in to the forefront of UK politics with the main political parties arguing over the definition of "reasonable force" in the event someone breaks into your house. Personally, and everyone I've spoken to about this, has said virtually the same thing, someone breaks into my house then all bets are off. I sleep with a knife within easy reach of my hand, and a few friends have admitted privately that they have similar weapons close by.
glad to see not all of you brits are as compliant as averdeen. it sounds like you guys are just starting to realise you have a crime problem.
QUOTE(me_007x)
Regarding the Tony Martin case, I think he was technically charged with owning an unlawful shotgun 'cause his licence had been revoked, this then led on to the other charges.
then why was not released because he is considered to be a "danger to burglars".
Link1
I dont really know a lot about the tony martin case, I had just heard a little bit here and their, so I could be totally off on this
Post by: me_007x on March 10, 2005, 02:40:00 PM
QUOTE
then why was not released because he is considered to be a "danger to burglars".
He was a danger to buglars cause he said he would have done the same thing again, this is not a good thing to say to the parole board when you are trying to be released, in effect saying prison had not worked, he was also charged with other things relating to shooting the burgler.
We are starting to have the same problem the US has with suing everyone. UK law is slightly different though, I have only read a few John Grisham books but in those it seems as though the lawyers take a cut of the payout, whereas in the UK the solicitor fees are paid by the person who looses, at least I think this is the situation but I am not a lawyer.
The attitude of your British friend is sadly one I have seen a number of times, normally from dole dossers (I am not saying your friend is one). My circle of friends is made up of people who work hard for a living, and will defend own property and person.
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 10, 2005, 03:10:00 PM
QUOTE
You're joking right? I don't think anyone is nieve enough to believe that we will ever see peace, or that there is anything that we can do to foster peace. The best we can do is kill those who's lives are dedicated to terrorism, death, and crime. And be more tolerant of those we don't agree with, as long as they don't threated our lives or our way of live.
It's just a song, bud.
But to say that peace is not a goal we can achieved is getting us nowhere even faster.
Post by: schandtatmensch on March 10, 2005, 03:13:00 PM
Post by: bluedeath on March 10, 2005, 03:25:00 PM
QUOTE(schandtatmensch @ Mar 10 2005, 02:19 PM)
As opposed to just getting us nowhere?
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Ween311 on March 11, 2005, 08:36:00 AM
-
Soo...now we see where this is coming from. You don't want homeowners to have guns because you don't want to get shot when you break into THIER house to take THEIR property.
Does that statement mean that it's ok for someone who is having a hard time making ends meet to turn to a life of crime? What kind of reasoning is that? Lots of people fall on hard times and get through it without breaking into someone's house and stealing their stuff.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Ween311 on March 11, 2005, 09:35:00 AM
-
I think if you go on a robbing spree anywhere, the owner of that property has the right to pull a gun on you and tell you to stop and get out. If you then go after the property owner, he/she has every right to shoot you.
If you obey the law and don't steal people's things, then you don't have to worry about it.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: damam on March 11, 2005, 11:13:00 AM
-
woooo, easy fella, Ive read to many articles about the rocketing crime rates in britain to want to piss off a brit. Atleast if you decide to come over to the states and track me down, I will be able to shoot you before you can really do me any harm.
Accidents in the house are rare, thats already been addressed in this thread. You also appear to be ignoring all the statistics that show that when gun control is laxed, crime goes down which has already been addressed in this thread as well. The Economics Professor Jon R Lott is the foremost expert on this here in america. He did a detailed county by county analysis of guns and crime in america. And despite several attempts by the gun control/brady people his study has stood firm. You can download his raw data and scrutinize it yourself - just do a search.
whats scarry here is that you dont seem to think you were in the wrong here. Or maybe you do and you just dont care. Just a kid being a kid. Nothing changes the fact that you were wrong, and should feel remorse regardless of how you try to justify it.
so what your saying is I have to let someone rape me just because they are a confused 19 year old going through a bad patch. A women who carries a concealed weapon is about 83% more likely to successfully fend off an attacker and is less than 1/2 as likely to be injured in the process. I will pose this question again: Who will protect me, if not myself?
This appears to be a fundamental difference in our cultures. You brits appear to be tought to flee and/or comply. Americans believe we have the fundamental right to stand our ground and protect ourselves. Historically, over the last 200 years (study done by Eric Monkkonen) , our murder rates have always been roughly 5x the UK rate mostly due to this cultural difference. The funny part is this, since you guys have slowly been giving up your gun rights, our murder ratios have lessened. The last I read, it was at 3.5X.
As Benjamin Franklin implied would happen through natural law: By giving up your gun rights, you have losing both liberty and safety - so enjoy your high crime rate cause you asked for it
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Tony42077 on March 11, 2005, 11:37:00 AM
-
Post by: Ween311 on March 11, 2005, 08:36:00 AM
QUOTE
I've done the odd job here n there in my younger years and all I wanted was the home owners prorerty. I would not enter a person property armed to teeth but if I lived in the good old USA I would be armed to teeth.
Soo...now we see where this is coming from. You don't want homeowners to have guns because you don't want to get shot when you break into THIER house to take THEIR property.
QUOTE
Just because someone is going through a bad patch doesn't mean there life is void just because you are paranoid.
Does that statement mean that it's ok for someone who is having a hard time making ends meet to turn to a life of crime? What kind of reasoning is that? Lots of people fall on hard times and get through it without breaking into someone's house and stealing their stuff.
Post by: Ween311 on March 11, 2005, 09:35:00 AM
If you obey the law and don't steal people's things, then you don't have to worry about it.
Post by: damam on March 11, 2005, 11:13:00 AM
QUOTE(Arvarden)
Daman, spell my name correctly next time.
woooo, easy fella, Ive read to many articles about the rocketing crime rates in britain to want to piss off a brit. Atleast if you decide to come over to the states and track me down, I will be able to shoot you before you can really do me any harm.
QUOTE(Arvarden)
Crime is a problem where ever you go in the world as capitalism is the root of all evil ATM. Letting joe public defend there property with fire arms is not solving the problem only fueling the problem. Apart from accidents with firearms in the home etc potential burgulars will also seek firearms to protect themselves from the home owner.
Accidents in the house are rare, thats already been addressed in this thread. You also appear to be ignoring all the statistics that show that when gun control is laxed, crime goes down which has already been addressed in this thread as well. The Economics Professor Jon R Lott is the foremost expert on this here in america. He did a detailed county by county analysis of guns and crime in america. And despite several attempts by the gun control/brady people his study has stood firm. You can download his raw data and scrutinize it yourself - just do a search.
QUOTE(Arvarden)
I was 10 when I broke into a green house and robbed my neighbours lovely plants for my den , just because I was slightly out of control for a few years does that mean my life is void because I robbed a few pot plants?
whats scarry here is that you dont seem to think you were in the wrong here. Or maybe you do and you just dont care. Just a kid being a kid. Nothing changes the fact that you were wrong, and should feel remorse regardless of how you try to justify it.
QUOTE(Arvarden)
Just because someone is going through a bad patch doesn't mean there life is void just because you are paranoid.
so what your saying is I have to let someone rape me just because they are a confused 19 year old going through a bad patch. A women who carries a concealed weapon is about 83% more likely to successfully fend off an attacker and is less than 1/2 as likely to be injured in the process. I will pose this question again: Who will protect me, if not myself?
This appears to be a fundamental difference in our cultures. You brits appear to be tought to flee and/or comply. Americans believe we have the fundamental right to stand our ground and protect ourselves. Historically, over the last 200 years (study done by Eric Monkkonen) , our murder rates have always been roughly 5x the UK rate mostly due to this cultural difference. The funny part is this, since you guys have slowly been giving up your gun rights, our murder ratios have lessened. The last I read, it was at 3.5X.
As Benjamin Franklin implied would happen through natural law: By giving up your gun rights, you have losing both liberty and safety - so enjoy your high crime rate cause you asked for it
Post by: Tony42077 on March 11, 2005, 11:37:00 AM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Mar 11 2005, 04:10 PM)
So if you go to a high st store and go on a robbing rampage does that mean you should be shot on sight? Er no so what makes you think you have the right to take someone's life for petty theft?
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Arvarden on March 11, 2005, 11:57:00 AM
-
Count yourself lucky cus you would be prolly be the last person on "my list". 
Accidents with fire arms are rare but one child killed by the home owners fire arm is one too many. We have stun guns, pepper spray etc...non lethel weapons that home users can use to disable a person and give you time to move out of harms way but you would rather kill a person rather than help him/her?
It's also rare that burgulars enter property to cause you harm, I've been burgled atleast 8 times and caught the little buggers in the act, guess what? They ddin't attack me they wanted to get the hell out of dodge. I wouldn't want to kill them but I would love a stun gun
The only scary part Daman is that you are making crap again, at the time I didn't care but if I could go back in time to rectify my mistakes i would do without batting an eye lid.
If you think you are going to get mugged/burgled or rapped each time you go out don't think it's time to see a doctor or move to a more socialable nation?
Man...you guys are PARA!
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 11, 2005, 02:49:00 PM
-
Yes.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: damam on March 11, 2005, 04:07:00 PM
-
well if I was defenseless in england i would be able to rest slightly better at night now -
so i suppose england has never had a kid run with a knife and accidentally fall on it and kill themselves?
I guess we should ban knives.
stun guns have been proven to be more of a liability for women than an assett. As i said before, pepper spray is not a viable alternative for me. I do carry bear mace in my car, but I wont be ablet to use it so long as my baby is around. Also, robber that are repeatedly maced do build a tolerance to it rather fast. I do believe in an escalation of self defense, which implies killing my assailant is a last resort. i said most of this earlier
I do agree that robbers want to get in and out fast without a challenge. but, i also have other issues you dont have that make me more vulnerable than you, and also make the burgler more likely to challenge me. despite that fact, the amazing thing to me is that you have been robbed atleast 8 times, and you still think your not going to be hurt one of these days. Maybe your an 8th degree blackbelt or something. Im not an 8th degree blackbelt in case your wondering.
only making an observation - im glad that you clarified
actually, toronto is somewhat of an anomoly. it has the lowest crime rate of anywhere in canada as well. Why does Vancouver, BC have 5X the crime rate that toronto has? Or Montreal, QC has 3X?
Link
Also, I didnt really think saying our southern border is butted up to a violent nation, was really playing the race card. its a matter of fact using shear numbers. And we do have a massive influx of migration that you quite simply dont have from mexico. If this is what you were refuting, its not an apples to apples comparison.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: The unProfessional on March 11, 2005, 04:07:00 PM
-
Of course you're making a dangerous assumption - that the robber is unarmed, or unwilling to use force. I'd rather the robber dies than wait and see if he'll kill my family. If you don't want to die, don't break into houses. It's a simple equation.
"No Rob = No Die"
Are all the robbers in the UK "little buggers"? sound like harmless teenagers to me. Not necessarily the case here.
For the record, I don't keep a gun in my house, but I respect the right to do so for individual protection. I hate rednecks as much as the next guy, but what happens on that fateful day when some armed asshole breaks into your house and would rather kill than fail.
Also, "kid" or not, we all should take responsibility for our actions. I did stupid shit as a kid, and even got caught a few times. But I blamed no one but myself and delt with the consequences (granted, it wasn't breaking & entering).
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: me_007x on March 12, 2005, 08:59:00 AM
-
I was not trying to change the facts, I was stating them as to how I remembered them, I put in my original statement
So what you are saying is if Tony Martin HAD unloaded in the kids face at point blank range he would have been OK because it was reasonable force.
Yes, I do have other weapons in my house (including a pair of Nunchakus) but they are safely out of harms way. The knife is close to hand where I know it is and can get to it in a hurry.
You have been burgled 8 TIMES WTF, buy a burgler alarm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I'd caught the little bastards then they would have had a free ride in an ambulance (if they were lucky).
I'm going to have a break for a few minutes before this becomes a major rant against one person.
Can't do it.... must... leave.... keyboard..... no.... must.... stop... typing
You do realise there are places in the UK where you CAN'T GET house insurance cause the crime rate is so high.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 15, 2005, 07:50:00 AM
-
O Canada, we stand unarmed for thee.
God keep our land glorious and gun free!
O Canada, we stand unarmed for thee.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: damam on March 15, 2005, 10:28:00 AM
-
what could that be?
Top 10 things that Arvarden could possibly have access t0o that me_007x could only dream of using to protect himself-
10) 9 week old pastries from mom
9) Midichloreans
8) really really vicious gerbals
7) a really really thick sausage from the butcher
6) Montys Pythons joke that was so funny it caused death
5) Mutant powers (unfortunately Xavier didnt find you first)
4) your able to summon fire balls from your hands like they do in Street Fighter.
3) A girlfriend thats an 8th degree black belt to protect you
2) your letting superman and/or batman bugger you in exchange for protection
1) a gun
so im not a comedian - were all still waiting to know what you could possible have access too?????? Are you the local mob connection? Are you the link between the house of bush and the house of Saud? Were you the man behind the woodpecker signals?
on a more serious note . . .
@me_007x & @Arvarden & @melon & any other brit that happens to be reading this
ive been reading up on gun control in Britain and would like to know your take on why they decided to start restricting gun ownership in the early 1900's
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: damam on March 15, 2005, 11:21:00 AM
-
I find it hilarious that I use stats and facts to back my arguement, and you use emotions - it seems like a role reversal.
I am again asking for your secret to universal self defense. Tell us how a 130lb woman can fend off a 225lb rapist. I know of nothing more effective than a gun. So please share it with us.
as for my question about british gun control -
I would like to hear someones oppinion that is a part of the culture. Their appears to be evidence that suggests that gun control was used as a means to supress the masses. The British govt, fearing a prolitariate uprising similar to what was going on in Russia, started suppressing gun ownership. Like I said, Im not a part of the culture, consequently I may not fully understand the decision cylce.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Spency234 on March 15, 2005, 12:07:00 PM
-
Post by: Arvarden on March 11, 2005, 11:57:00 AM
Count yourself lucky cus you would be prolly be the last person on "my list". Accidents with fire arms are rare but one child killed by the home owners fire arm is one too many. We have stun guns, pepper spray etc...non lethel weapons that home users can use to disable a person and give you time to move out of harms way but you would rather kill a person rather than help him/her?
It's also rare that burgulars enter property to cause you harm, I've been burgled atleast 8 times and caught the little buggers in the act, guess what? They ddin't attack me they wanted to get the hell out of dodge. I wouldn't want to kill them but I would love a stun gun
The only scary part Daman is that you are making crap again, at the time I didn't care but if I could go back in time to rectify my mistakes i would do without batting an eye lid.
If you think you are going to get mugged/burgled or rapped each time you go out don't think it's time to see a doctor or move to a more socialable nation?
Man...you guys are PARA!
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 11, 2005, 02:49:00 PM
QUOTE
As opposed to just getting us nowhere?
Yes.
Post by: damam on March 11, 2005, 04:07:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Mar 11 2005, 07:03 AM)
Track you down? Count yourself lucky cus you would be prolly be the last person on "my list".
Count yourself lucky cus you would be prolly be the last person on "my list". well if I was defenseless in england i would be able to rest slightly better at night now -
QUOTE(Arvarden)
Accidents with fire arms are rare but one child killed by the home owners fire arm is one too many. We have stun guns, pepper spray etc...non lethel weapons that home users can use to disable a person and give you time to move out of harms way but you would rather kill a person rather than help him/her?
so i suppose england has never had a kid run with a knife and accidentally fall on it and kill themselves?
I guess we should ban knives.stun guns have been proven to be more of a liability for women than an assett. As i said before, pepper spray is not a viable alternative for me. I do carry bear mace in my car, but I wont be ablet to use it so long as my baby is around. Also, robber that are repeatedly maced do build a tolerance to it rather fast. I do believe in an escalation of self defense, which implies killing my assailant is a last resort. i said most of this earlier
QUOTE(Arvarden)
It's also rare that burgulars enter property to cause you harm, I've been burgled atleast 8 times and caught the little buggers in the act, guess what? They ddin't attack me they wanted to get the hell out of dodge. I wouldn't want to kill them but I would love a stun gun
I do agree that robbers want to get in and out fast without a challenge. but, i also have other issues you dont have that make me more vulnerable than you, and also make the burgler more likely to challenge me. despite that fact, the amazing thing to me is that you have been robbed atleast 8 times, and you still think your not going to be hurt one of these days. Maybe your an 8th degree blackbelt or something. Im not an 8th degree blackbelt in case your wondering.
QUOTE(Arvarden)
. . . at the time I didn't care but if I could go back in time to rectify my mistakes i would do without batting an eye lid.
only making an observation - im glad that you clarified
QUOTE(Spency234)
It's really hard to find valid CURRENT data on all of this, but I think this link pretty much takes care of the race card you guys decided to pull.
actually, toronto is somewhat of an anomoly. it has the lowest crime rate of anywhere in canada as well. Why does Vancouver, BC have 5X the crime rate that toronto has? Or Montreal, QC has 3X?
Link
Also, I didnt really think saying our southern border is butted up to a violent nation, was really playing the race card. its a matter of fact using shear numbers. And we do have a massive influx of migration that you quite simply dont have from mexico. If this is what you were refuting, its not an apples to apples comparison.
Post by: The unProfessional on March 11, 2005, 04:07:00 PM
QUOTE
So if you go to a high st store and go on a robbing rampage does that mean you should be shot on sight? Er no so what makes you think you have the right to take someone's life for petty theft?
Of course you're making a dangerous assumption - that the robber is unarmed, or unwilling to use force. I'd rather the robber dies than wait and see if he'll kill my family. If you don't want to die, don't break into houses. It's a simple equation.
"No Rob = No Die"
QUOTE
It's also rare that burglars enter property to cause you harm, I've been burgled atleast 8 times and caught the little buggers in the act, guess what? They ddin't attack me they wanted to get the hell out of dodge. I wouldn't want to kill them but I would love a stun gun
Are all the robbers in the UK "little buggers"? sound like harmless teenagers to me. Not necessarily the case here.
For the record, I don't keep a gun in my house, but I respect the right to do so for individual protection. I hate rednecks as much as the next guy, but what happens on that fateful day when some armed asshole breaks into your house and would rather kill than fail.
Also, "kid" or not, we all should take responsibility for our actions. I did stupid shit as a kid, and even got caught a few times. But I blamed no one but myself and delt with the consequences (granted, it wasn't breaking & entering).
Post by: me_007x on March 12, 2005, 08:59:00 AM
QUOTE
Me 007x, Tony Martin shot an unarmed teenager in the back. He was sent to prison because the burglar/s where making there getaway and therefore TM did not use reasonable force, it's all there in black and white and YOU can't change the facts.
I was not trying to change the facts, I was stating them as to how I remembered them, I put in my original statement
QUOTE
Regarding the Tony Martin case, I think he was technically charged with owning an unlawful shotgun 'cause his licence had been revoked, this then led on to the other charges. It didn't matter that he shot the scum in the back, had he unloaded at point blank in his face the results would well have been the same
So what you are saying is if Tony Martin HAD unloaded in the kids face at point blank range he would have been OK because it was reasonable force.
QUOTE
You say your "mates" have knifes next to there bed, don't you think thats a little paranoid considering you have weapons where ever you look in your household?
Yes, I do have other weapons in my house (including a pair of Nunchakus) but they are safely out of harms way. The knife is close to hand where I know it is and can get to it in a hurry.
QUOTE
I've been burgled atleast 8 times and caught the little buggers in the act, guess what? They ddin't attack me they wanted to get the hell out of dodge. I wouldn't want to kill them but I would love a stun gun
You have been burgled 8 TIMES WTF, buy a burgler alarm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I'd caught the little bastards then they would have had a free ride in an ambulance (if they were lucky).
I'm going to have a break for a few minutes before this becomes a major rant against one person.
Can't do it.... must... leave.... keyboard..... no.... must.... stop... typing
QUOTE
You have house insurance? Well fucking use it before picking up a gun and killing a child.
You do realise there are places in the UK where you CAN'T GET house insurance cause the crime rate is so high.
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 15, 2005, 07:50:00 AM
O Canada, we stand unarmed for thee.
God keep our land glorious and gun free!
O Canada, we stand unarmed for thee.
Post by: damam on March 15, 2005, 10:28:00 AM
QUOTE(Arvarden)
. . . Touch wood I havn't been attacked yet but if I was I've got a few suprises up my sleave, I have access to certain things you can only dream about
what could that be?
Top 10 things that Arvarden could possibly have access t0o that me_007x could only dream of using to protect himself-
10) 9 week old pastries from mom
9) Midichloreans
8) really really vicious gerbals
7) a really really thick sausage from the butcher
6) Montys Pythons joke that was so funny it caused death
5) Mutant powers (unfortunately Xavier didnt find you first)
4) your able to summon fire balls from your hands like they do in Street Fighter.
3) A girlfriend thats an 8th degree black belt to protect you
2) your letting superman and/or batman bugger you in exchange for protection
1) a gun
so im not a comedian - were all still waiting to know what you could possible have access too?????? Are you the local mob connection? Are you the link between the house of bush and the house of Saud? Were you the man behind the woodpecker signals?
on a more serious note . . .
@me_007x & @Arvarden & @melon & any other brit that happens to be reading this
ive been reading up on gun control in Britain and would like to know your take on why they decided to start restricting gun ownership in the early 1900's
Post by: damam on March 15, 2005, 11:21:00 AM
QUOTE(Arvarden)
You seem to know all the stats and facts why don't you tell us?
I find it hilarious that I use stats and facts to back my arguement, and you use emotions - it seems like a role reversal.
QUOTE(Arvarden)
*XBS Exclusive*You don't need a gun to protect yourself, besides if your attacker approached you with a gun there little you can do unless you have a firearm consealed on every body part.
I am again asking for your secret to universal self defense. Tell us how a 130lb woman can fend off a 225lb rapist. I know of nothing more effective than a gun. So please share it with us.
as for my question about british gun control -
I would like to hear someones oppinion that is a part of the culture. Their appears to be evidence that suggests that gun control was used as a means to supress the masses. The British govt, fearing a prolitariate uprising similar to what was going on in Russia, started suppressing gun ownership. Like I said, Im not a part of the culture, consequently I may not fully understand the decision cylce.
Post by: Spency234 on March 15, 2005, 12:07:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Mar 11 2005, 06:13 PM)
actually, toronto is somewhat of an anomoly. it has the lowest crime rate of anywhere in canada as well. Why does Vancouver, BC have 5X the crime rate that toronto has? Or Montreal, QC has 3X?
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: damam on March 15, 2005, 12:31:00 PM
-
Are you high? Perhaps you have been sampling some of the drugs from the pharmacy you live on top of. I guess we should throw out every drug produced in the last half of the 20th century since all of the evidence that they work is based on statistics. Not to mention that most of modern physics, chemistry, and biology disciplines are also based on statistics. So I guess by your statement, everything since the inception of quantum physics is basically bunk. Hey, i have an idea, why dont you go to the Casinos, they have based their entire industry on stats - by your reasoning its been absolute blind luck that they have been taking in money all these years
stats give probabilities for outcomes - I have never portrayed them as anything else. I have also been candid about the problems I see with certain studies I quote.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 15, 2005, 12:38:00 PM
-
Post by: damam on March 15, 2005, 12:31:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden)
Stats are not facts and should not portrayed as facts, only idiots use stats to back there argument/s.
Are you high? Perhaps you have been sampling some of the drugs from the pharmacy you live on top of. I guess we should throw out every drug produced in the last half of the 20th century since all of the evidence that they work is based on statistics. Not to mention that most of modern physics, chemistry, and biology disciplines are also based on statistics. So I guess by your statement, everything since the inception of quantum physics is basically bunk. Hey, i have an idea, why dont you go to the Casinos, they have based their entire industry on stats - by your reasoning its been absolute blind luck that they have been taking in money all these years
stats give probabilities for outcomes - I have never portrayed them as anything else. I have also been candid about the problems I see with certain studies I quote.
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 15, 2005, 12:38:00 PM
QUOTE(Spency234 @ Mar 15 2005, 02:13 PM)
Great job. That was the biggest cop killing in a CENTURY here in Canada. How does that prove that giving out guns like hotcakes would have prevented anything.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Spency234 on March 15, 2005, 12:59:00 PM
-
Post by: Spency234 on March 15, 2005, 12:59:00 PM
QUOTE(Wong Hung Lo @ Mar 15 2005, 02:44 PM)
As for me throwing that back in your face. All I can say is that the truth hurts.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Arvarden on March 15, 2005, 01:22:00 PM
-
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Arvarden on March 15, 2005, 01:24:00 PM
-
Daman, scientific stats are done undercontroled conditions and are more reliable than commercial, government "stats".
If you can't grasp that stay away from the crack..
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: A Different Kind of Train on March 15, 2005, 01:34:00 PM
-
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: damam on March 15, 2005, 01:35:00 PM
-
now whos pulling the race card
Im not racist against Mexicans. Or anyone else. Im making comments on a culture that happens to be prevalent in Mexico. Their is a difference. My statement also allows for the possibility that any race could grow up in mexico and be enculturated in the culture that I speak of. That would be like calling a black person racist against whites because they note that a certain culture that is prevalent in northern Idaho and is dominated by whites is very violent. The statement is true - but that does not mean that the black people are racist for observing it.
(these threads get so circualar) taken from nationmaster
Mexico has more homicides than the US
1. Mexico 0.13 per 1000 people
2. United States 0.04 per 1000 people
3. Canada 0.01 per 1000 people
Mexico has more gun related homicides than the US
1. Mexico 0.03 per 1000 people
2. United States 0.02 per 1000 people
3. Canada 0.00 per 1000 people
You asked how different our cultures could possibly be because we are butted up against you. My answer is very different because of the other nation we are butted up against. The US gets influences from all sides, not just the northern border. Plus, we are a culture all to our own that historically has been more violent than Britains.
Lastly, i really dont live my life in fear clutching my gun. But i do strongly believe in private home ownership of guns.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: damam on March 15, 2005, 02:18:00 PM
-
My numbers may not be rock solid when compared to statistical physics experiments, but I will take a good social science study over gut feel any day.
You have nothing to back up what your saying, so you just ignore the evidence that is presented. You implied that if you pulled a gun on anyone of your 8+ robbers they would come back with a gun and get you. Do you have any evidence to back this up with? Or is it just gut feeling? are you basing it on heresay? urban legends? it happened to a friend? what?
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: me_007x on March 15, 2005, 02:56:00 PM
-
I'd bet you a pound to a penny, if he had shot the kid in the face he still would have been charged, he had an illegal shot gun remember. All the kids running around with guns, they can shoot each other in the street cause it is self defence I think not.
So if someone breaks into my house and enters my bedroom I won't remember my knife that is within arms reach but I will be able to fashion a WMD out of a used toilet roll, some sticky back plastic and a glove. Someone breaks into my room whilst I'm asleep then they will run screaming (I sleep naked).
So alarms don't work, all those TV programs and police initiatives to get home owners to protect their houses are a load of rubbish. I agree a determined burgler can enter any house he/she wishes but why make it easy for them? Why don't you just put all your stuff on the pavement (sidewalk for our American cousins
) outside so that they don't have to break in. That way you can save money on repairs to your windows and doors.
I agree ( ) we should spend more money on the police force. Better still would be to reduce the amount of paperwork they have to do and, even better, increase the sentencing.
I apologise for the previous statement
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: The unProfessional on March 15, 2005, 03:46:00 PM
-
This is true, but if your house is better protected than the one next to it, who do you think is more likely to get robbed?
What bothers me is we're not allowed to have dogs who'll give hell to robbers. If we do, we lose our insurance and probably our dogs.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: me_007x on March 15, 2005, 03:56:00 PM
-
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: LenteSubigo on March 15, 2005, 04:34:00 PM
-
Race Issue:
Fact: The higher the level of diversity the higher the ammount of crime on average.
There are always going to be exceptions to every rule. I can find stats that show that a city with low or no diversity has a huge crime rate. I can find stats that show that a city with a very high diversity has almost no crime. But these are just exceptions to the rule. If you take a country or a state/province or any large region the rule will be valid.
The US has 3 times the diversity, and just over 3 times the gun deaths compared to canada.
Kiling Burglers
I believe that anyone stealing from me deserves what he/she gets. If you come into my house and try to steal something, I won't just shoot you, but I will point the gun at you, and hold you until the police arrive. If you don't obey my orders, I will shoot you in the leg or other nonlethal location. If you try to run, I will shoot you in both legs until you are immobile, then hold you until the police arrive. If you don't obey my orders, and reach into your pocket or do anything that can be considered threatening, I would put a billet between your eyes, and then one in your heart for good measure.
If you come onto my property inorder to commit a crime, you have just sacrificed every right you have, including your right to live. I won't take your life unless I have to, but I will not hesitate if it becomes my only safe option. This goes for anyone, if you are 6 years old or if your are 60 years old.
Being robbed 8 times:
I feel that allowing yourselft to be robbed 8 times is crime itself. It is ones duty to protect one's self and one's property. Allowing people to steal your property and having the insurance company pay is wrong and immoral. If you don't like guns, simply install a security system and put up a few camera's. If you don't want to spend the money, buy $5 worth of stickers and a few fake security cameras. Like it has been said before, criminals don't want a challenge. If they wanted a challenge they would get a real job. What they want is a quick easy $, usually to fund their drug habbit. If you give them the impression that you have security, and don't give them a huge target (hugely expensive stuff within view) then they will go to your neibor and rob them.
A law should be passed that says that if a person is robbed repeatedly and doesn't increase their security that they should face fines, and then jail time.
.50 Cal Rifle:
Any gun can kill, the real question is what guns are actually being used to kill. The .50 Cal rifle is not the type of gun that is being used to commit murders. The guns that are actually being used to kill are hand guns. Gangs and criminals use hand guns because they are easily hidden, but still have all the power needed to kill. I don't think you will find a very high percentage of gang members that have any accuracy with a .50 cal rifle. There is no reason to ban hand guns even though they are responsible for well over 90% of all gun related deaths, because the criminals don't buy guns legally.
So for a summary:
.50 Cal - No reason to ban because it isn't used for killing.
Being robbed 8 times - Should be a crime to allow yourself to be robbed repeatedly
Killing Burglers - You come on my property, you should know your life is in danger.
Race - High Diversity = High Crime - There are always exceptions to a rule, but when you look at a large area the rule will always show true.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: me_007x on March 15, 2005, 04:43:00 PM
-
I was hoping you'd pickup up on that. I am now going to buy an illegal gun safe in the knowledge that I can shoot anyone in my house. All I have to worry about is a small prison term should I kill someone.
Hang on, it sounds to me like you think that people should not have legal weapons to protect their homes, but its OK to have illegal ones.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Arvarden on March 15, 2005, 05:07:00 PM
-
Wow Lente you must be ex/special forces, special is debatable in your case imo.
If you read back a page or 2 you may see why we have a problem with non violent criminals.
Me x, no I don't agree with illegal firearms. Remember to shoot your attacker in the face chest or legs and if he/she dies you won't suufer the consiquences. Well apart from having an illegal fire arm. If you attack your attacker with a household object and kill the person you won't face any charge.
Please STFU.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: me_007x on March 15, 2005, 05:50:00 PM
-
These two quotes came from the same person, I wonder who?
I would also like to point out that a few pages back I said I was on the fence, cause I don't like banning stuff BUT CAN SEE SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR BANNING GUNS.
Back to you.
Oh, and try and come up with something more constructive than STFU please, I did apologise for my transgression
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: damam on March 15, 2005, 06:18:00 PM
-
the link might have been to a website that is biased - but they did accurately quote the case. Dont believe me, do a google yourself since you dont like my links. Its a well known landmark case.
you have given me a glance into your culture and perspective - I thank you for that - through dialogue i hope to gain a better understanding. maybe you dont have the same goals. if you take any of this personally - you shouldnt. I like to discuss, argue, challenge, and be challenged. its a part of who I am. I want to be challenged by your arguement, but before your last post to me it appeared to be based entirely on a dogmatic belief. Now it appears to be based on personal experience - which is fine. I sincerely hope luck continues to run in your favour.
My personal experience and studies have led me to the exact opposite conclusion.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: me_007x on March 15, 2005, 06:33:00 PM
-
Would you, if your the burgler, rock that sweet set up?
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: me_007x on March 16, 2005, 01:26:00 PM
-
Arvarden, I am amazed at your unprejudiced view of my home situation. Unlike you, I do not just assume things about another person that I do not know. The "average bedsit" you refer to is a three bedroomed house costing rather a lot of money - and, unlike you, we seem to have grasped the concept of PROTECTING our property as peacefully as possible. Yes, if some asshole gets past the camera, the locks, and the alarm then I will attack them, cos, quite honestly, that isn't some kid who has gone a bit astray - that is some loser who would rather free load than work his guts out like the honest men and women that most of us are - yourself included. (I admit I am assuming you're an honest person there - hope that's ok?!)
If you live above a shop, which I have no reason to doubt, and they are protecting their property, why are you NOT doing all you can to protect yourself if a business premises is more likely to be broken into?
Last thing - this isn't actually Me_007x writing. I've read with interest this thread, and whilst Me_007x is happy to let things slide, I'm kinda a bit annoyed at the things you've assumed about him and his family sitch. He hasn't said it, cos he won't, but he has martial arts training and I'm sure that should the situation demand it that someone broke into the house and tried to steal either from him or me (his sister) he would find a way to stop them without having to create a WMD from a toilet roll, or indeed a gun.
But as Me_007x would say - if a gun was there, it would make sense to point it at the guy trying to rob us - what constitutes "reasonable force" is anything that stops a person stealing from me!
(By the by, Me_007x watched me type this thread, but didn't stop me expressing my thoughts - any beef you have is with me, not him.)
And having said all that - I wish you a good evening!
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: me_007x on March 16, 2005, 07:00:00 PM
-
You will be pleased to hear this will be my last post on this topic, (unless I really feel the need to come back in). Basically, as much as I have enjoyed the discussions, I'm bored with this argument, I'm not going to change your view and you are not going to change mine. No hard feelings.
Oh and damam, I have no idea why the british government felt the need to start to bring in tighter gun controls back in the 1900's, sorry.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Ween311 on March 17, 2005, 09:13:00 AM
-
Let's change the direction of this thread for just a moment. Just for a different perspective. Let's move away from burglars and onto people who want to come into your house to assualt someone. It happens. Just a week or so ago, a little girl was taken from her house in Florida while the grandmother was asleep. Many people believe it was someone the family knew. If that person knew there were guns in the house, do you think they might have thought twice about going in there to take that little girl?
Or a woman at home late at night. Someone has been watching the house and knows what time the woman gets home from work and that there is no one else at home. Do you think that person would be as willing to try to come in and overpower the woman if he knew she had a gun and knew how to use it? It still might happen but the victim has the chance to not be a victim if they are able to protect themselves.
As for the metal detectors at school, these kids would still be able to get guns, because in most cases, the schools in the US with metal detectors are in inner city schools, where gangs that have access to illegal firearms are more prevelant.
That's awesome that your insurance company still covers you after that many incidents. I made one claim on my homeowners insurance (had the same company for 8 years and never had a claim) and they dropped me when it came time for renewal after just one claim.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 17, 2005, 10:02:00 AM
-
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: thewickedjester on March 17, 2005, 10:37:00 AM
-
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Arvarden on March 17, 2005, 10:43:00 AM
-
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Ween311 on March 17, 2005, 10:48:00 AM
-
Who are you calling a teenager?
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: thewickedjester on March 17, 2005, 10:48:00 AM
-
thanks
and i just want to say, its not that im AGAINST gun control, its just that due to the fact anyone who wants a gun could get one, and anyone who uses them illegally probably wouldnt be affected by gun control laws, i dont think they would help anything in the long run. sure, mabye prevent a couple of suicides, and MABYE (bit mabye here) we wouldnt have had columbine, but again the people willing to comit these attrocities probably wouldnt have made it much longer anyways, if you get my point.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Tony42077 on March 17, 2005, 11:12:00 AM
-
Post by: Arvarden on March 15, 2005, 01:22:00 PM
Post by: Arvarden on March 15, 2005, 01:24:00 PM
Daman, scientific stats are done undercontroled conditions and are more reliable than commercial, government "stats".
If you can't grasp that stay away from the crack..
Post by: A Different Kind of Train on March 15, 2005, 01:34:00 PM
Post by: damam on March 15, 2005, 01:35:00 PM
QUOTE(Spency234)
Also, it seems to me you are racist against mexicans. I bet whenever you see one you have your hand firmly planted on that gun of yours "just incase." PARANOYA.
now whos pulling the race card
Im not racist against Mexicans. Or anyone else. Im making comments on a culture that happens to be prevalent in Mexico. Their is a difference. My statement also allows for the possibility that any race could grow up in mexico and be enculturated in the culture that I speak of. That would be like calling a black person racist against whites because they note that a certain culture that is prevalent in northern Idaho and is dominated by whites is very violent. The statement is true - but that does not mean that the black people are racist for observing it. (these threads get so circualar) taken from nationmaster
Mexico has more homicides than the US
1. Mexico 0.13 per 1000 people
2. United States 0.04 per 1000 people
3. Canada 0.01 per 1000 people
Mexico has more gun related homicides than the US
1. Mexico 0.03 per 1000 people
2. United States 0.02 per 1000 people
3. Canada 0.00 per 1000 people
You asked how different our cultures could possibly be because we are butted up against you. My answer is very different because of the other nation we are butted up against. The US gets influences from all sides, not just the northern border. Plus, we are a culture all to our own that historically has been more violent than Britains.
Lastly, i really dont live my life in fear clutching my gun. But i do strongly believe in private home ownership of guns.
Post by: damam on March 15, 2005, 02:18:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Mar 15 2005, 08:30 AM)
Daman, scientific stats are done undercontroled conditions and are more reliable than commercial, government "stats".
My numbers may not be rock solid when compared to statistical physics experiments, but I will take a good social science study over gut feel any day.
You have nothing to back up what your saying, so you just ignore the evidence that is presented. You implied that if you pulled a gun on anyone of your 8+ robbers they would come back with a gun and get you. Do you have any evidence to back this up with? Or is it just gut feeling? are you basing it on heresay? urban legends? it happened to a friend? what?
Post by: me_007x on March 15, 2005, 02:56:00 PM
QUOTE
Yes, under British law if you shoot a burglar etc while he/she is making there getaway in the back that is classed as unreasonable force.
I'd bet you a pound to a penny, if he had shot the kid in the face he still would have been charged, he had an illegal shot gun remember. All the kids running around with guns, they can shoot each other in the street cause it is self defence
I think not. QUOTE
As I said before you have weapons left right and centre in your household, all you need is a little imagination. Besides if someone entered your room while you where sleeping and you awoke a bet you $100 you would forget you had a knife under your bed. Before you go to bed tonight think of word(no clues such as a clock or writng it down) and try and remember that word the following morning, you prolly won't remember until 2 days later wink.gif
So if someone breaks into my house and enters my bedroom I won't remember my knife that is within arms reach but I will be able to fashion a WMD out of a used toilet roll, some sticky back plastic and a glove. Someone breaks into my room whilst I'm asleep then they will run screaming (I sleep naked).
QUOTE
Prolly more i've lost count tbh..I live above a pharmacy and alarms, steal shutters won't stop someone entering your property..welcome to reality. Touch wood I havn't been attacked yet but if I was I've got a few suprises up my sleave, I have access to certain things you can only dream about wink.gif
So alarms don't work, all those TV programs and police initiatives to get home owners to protect their houses are a load of rubbish. I agree a determined burgler can enter any house he/she wishes but why make it easy for them? Why don't you just put all your stuff on the pavement (sidewalk for our American cousins
) outside so that they don't have to break in. That way you can save money on repairs to your windows and doors.QUOTE
So should we let the general populas bare arms for self protection or do we invest more money into our Police force, the inteligent response would be the later.
I agree (
) we should spend more money on the police force. Better still would be to reduce the amount of paperwork they have to do and, even better, increase the sentencing. QUOTE
Rant all you like I'll be here waiting to slap you down *again*
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
I apologise for the previous statement
QUOTE
I'm going to have a break for a few minutes before this becomes a major rant against one person. Can't do it.... must... leave.... keyboard..... no.... must.... stop... typing
, it was a bit out of order. I don't feel slapped down.
Post by: The unProfessional on March 15, 2005, 03:46:00 PM
QUOTE
So alarms don't work, all those TV programs and police initiatives to get home owners to protect their houses are a load of rubbish. I agree a determined burgler can enter any house he/she wishes but why make it easy for them
This is true, but if your house is better protected than the one next to it, who do you think is more likely to get robbed?
What bothers me is we're not allowed to have dogs who'll give hell to robbers. If we do, we lose our insurance and probably our dogs.
Post by: me_007x on March 15, 2005, 03:56:00 PM
QUOTE
What bothers me is we're not allowed to have dogs who'll give hell to robbers.
Post by: LenteSubigo on March 15, 2005, 04:34:00 PM
Fact: The higher the level of diversity the higher the ammount of crime on average.
There are always going to be exceptions to every rule. I can find stats that show that a city with low or no diversity has a huge crime rate. I can find stats that show that a city with a very high diversity has almost no crime. But these are just exceptions to the rule. If you take a country or a state/province or any large region the rule will be valid.
The US has 3 times the diversity, and just over 3 times the gun deaths compared to canada.
Kiling Burglers
I believe that anyone stealing from me deserves what he/she gets. If you come into my house and try to steal something, I won't just shoot you, but I will point the gun at you, and hold you until the police arrive. If you don't obey my orders, I will shoot you in the leg or other nonlethal location. If you try to run, I will shoot you in both legs until you are immobile, then hold you until the police arrive. If you don't obey my orders, and reach into your pocket or do anything that can be considered threatening, I would put a billet between your eyes, and then one in your heart for good measure.
If you come onto my property inorder to commit a crime, you have just sacrificed every right you have, including your right to live. I won't take your life unless I have to, but I will not hesitate if it becomes my only safe option. This goes for anyone, if you are 6 years old or if your are 60 years old.
Being robbed 8 times:
I feel that allowing yourselft to be robbed 8 times is crime itself. It is ones duty to protect one's self and one's property. Allowing people to steal your property and having the insurance company pay is wrong and immoral. If you don't like guns, simply install a security system and put up a few camera's. If you don't want to spend the money, buy $5 worth of stickers and a few fake security cameras. Like it has been said before, criminals don't want a challenge. If they wanted a challenge they would get a real job. What they want is a quick easy $, usually to fund their drug habbit. If you give them the impression that you have security, and don't give them a huge target (hugely expensive stuff within view) then they will go to your neibor and rob them.
A law should be passed that says that if a person is robbed repeatedly and doesn't increase their security that they should face fines, and then jail time.
.50 Cal Rifle:
Any gun can kill, the real question is what guns are actually being used to kill. The .50 Cal rifle is not the type of gun that is being used to commit murders. The guns that are actually being used to kill are hand guns. Gangs and criminals use hand guns because they are easily hidden, but still have all the power needed to kill. I don't think you will find a very high percentage of gang members that have any accuracy with a .50 cal rifle. There is no reason to ban hand guns even though they are responsible for well over 90% of all gun related deaths, because the criminals don't buy guns legally.
So for a summary:
.50 Cal - No reason to ban because it isn't used for killing.
Being robbed 8 times - Should be a crime to allow yourself to be robbed repeatedly
Killing Burglers - You come on my property, you should know your life is in danger.
Race - High Diversity = High Crime - There are always exceptions to a rule, but when you look at a large area the rule will always show true.
Post by: me_007x on March 15, 2005, 04:43:00 PM
QUOTE
remember he was in his home and not out on the street
I was hoping you'd pickup up on that. I am now going to buy an illegal gun safe in the knowledge that I can shoot anyone in my house.
All I have to worry about is a small prison term should I kill someone. Hang on, it sounds to me like you think that people should not have legal weapons to protect their homes, but its OK to have illegal ones.
Post by: Arvarden on March 15, 2005, 05:07:00 PM
If you read back a page or 2 you may see why we have a problem with non violent criminals.
Me x, no I don't agree with illegal firearms. Remember to shoot your attacker in the face chest or legs and if he/she dies you won't suufer the consiquences. Well apart from having an illegal fire arm. If you attack your attacker with a household object and kill the person you won't face any charge.
Please STFU.
Post by: me_007x on March 15, 2005, 05:50:00 PM
QUOTE
Er no so what makes you think you have the right to take someone's life for petty theft?.
QUOTE
If you attack your attacker with a household object and kill the person you won't face any charge.
These two quotes came from the same person, I wonder who?
I would also like to point out that a few pages back I said I was on the fence, cause I don't like banning stuff BUT CAN SEE SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR BANNING GUNS.
Back to you.
Oh, and try and come up with something more constructive than STFU please, I did apologise for my transgression
Post by: damam on March 15, 2005, 06:18:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden)
The so called links you provided are opinions, one of the links you provided is so biased it makes Fox News look like a News channel. So your factual quest is a farce from begining to end as you don't gather infomation from life expereince's but from the net. Sad.
the link might have been to a website that is biased - but they did accurately quote the case. Dont believe me, do a google yourself since you dont like my links. Its a well known landmark case.
QUOTE(Arvarden)
I give you a slight glimpse of what it's like for me when tackling crime in my country and you say I offer nothing?
you have given me a glance into your culture and perspective - I thank you for that - through dialogue i hope to gain a better understanding. maybe you dont have the same goals. if you take any of this personally - you shouldnt. I like to discuss, argue, challenge, and be challenged. its a part of who I am. I want to be challenged by your arguement, but before your last post to me it appeared to be based entirely on a dogmatic belief. Now it appears to be based on personal experience - which is fine. I sincerely hope luck continues to run in your favour.
My personal experience and studies have led me to the exact opposite conclusion.
Post by: me_007x on March 15, 2005, 06:33:00 PM
Would you, if your the burgler, rock that sweet set up?
Post by: me_007x on March 16, 2005, 01:26:00 PM
If you live above a shop, which I have no reason to doubt, and they are protecting their property, why are you NOT doing all you can to protect yourself if a business premises is more likely to be broken into?
Last thing - this isn't actually Me_007x writing. I've read with interest this thread, and whilst Me_007x is happy to let things slide, I'm kinda a bit annoyed at the things you've assumed about him and his family sitch. He hasn't said it, cos he won't, but he has martial arts training and I'm sure that should the situation demand it that someone broke into the house and tried to steal either from him or me (his sister) he would find a way to stop them without having to create a WMD from a toilet roll, or indeed a gun.
But as Me_007x would say - if a gun was there, it would make sense to point it at the guy trying to rob us - what constitutes "reasonable force" is anything that stops a person stealing from me!
(By the by, Me_007x watched me type this thread, but didn't stop me expressing my thoughts - any beef you have is with me, not him.)
And having said all that - I wish you a good evening!
Post by: me_007x on March 16, 2005, 07:00:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden post Mar 11 2005 @ 03:10 PM)
Daman, spell my name correctly next time.
you have repeatedly not spelt my name correctly, so who is the hypocrite?You will be pleased to hear this will be my last post on this topic, (unless I really feel the need to come back in). Basically, as much as I have enjoyed the discussions, I'm bored with this argument, I'm not going to change your view and you are not going to change mine. No hard feelings.
Oh and damam, I have no idea why the british government felt the need to start to bring in tighter gun controls back in the 1900's, sorry.
Post by: Ween311 on March 17, 2005, 09:13:00 AM
Or a woman at home late at night. Someone has been watching the house and knows what time the woman gets home from work and that there is no one else at home. Do you think that person would be as willing to try to come in and overpower the woman if he knew she had a gun and knew how to use it? It still might happen but the victim has the chance to not be a victim if they are able to protect themselves.
As for the metal detectors at school, these kids would still be able to get guns, because in most cases, the schools in the US with metal detectors are in inner city schools, where gangs that have access to illegal firearms are more prevelant.
That's awesome that your insurance company still covers you after that many incidents. I made one claim on my homeowners insurance (had the same company for 8 years and never had a claim) and they dropped me when it came time for renewal after just one claim.
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 17, 2005, 10:02:00 AM
Post by: thewickedjester on March 17, 2005, 10:37:00 AM
Post by: Arvarden on March 17, 2005, 10:43:00 AM
Post by: Ween311 on March 17, 2005, 10:48:00 AM
Post by: thewickedjester on March 17, 2005, 10:48:00 AM
and i just want to say, its not that im AGAINST gun control, its just that due to the fact anyone who wants a gun could get one, and anyone who uses them illegally probably wouldnt be affected by gun control laws, i dont think they would help anything in the long run. sure, mabye prevent a couple of suicides, and MABYE (bit mabye here) we wouldnt have had columbine, but again the people willing to comit these attrocities probably wouldnt have made it much longer anyways, if you get my point.
Post by: Tony42077 on March 17, 2005, 11:12:00 AM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Mar 17 2005, 09:27 AM)
Are you Daman aswell?
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: thewickedjester on March 17, 2005, 12:12:00 PM
-
Post by: thewickedjester on March 17, 2005, 12:12:00 PM
QUOTE(A Different Kind of Train @ Mar 17 2005, 01:05 PM)
He likes getting fucked in the ass literally, no wonder he was such a strong advocate of gay rights. A fucking door mat.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: pepsik on March 17, 2005, 05:46:00 PM
-
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: thewickedjester on March 17, 2005, 05:50:00 PM
-
Anyways, your right, I probably was being a bit rash, sorry bout that, no harm intended, Im not here to start a flame war.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: K98 on March 17, 2005, 08:53:00 PM
-
This thread lasted 4 more pages than I thought it would. 7 pages is a new record for this forum before trolls bring it down with name calling. Its sad really. I try personally to not make someone be progun because I dont want gun grabbing liberal idiots even learning how to shoot a gun. It's best they just keep being a tool.
Yes the second amendment was put into the Bill of rights to allow the people to be able to rise up against the govt if it starts to take out rights gauranteed to the people. First the govt will try to disarm the population(they are trying now) then go to the next step of removing freedoms of speech, religion and so on.
aarvarden I cant understand how after 8 times you still think that getting robbed is no big deal at all.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: fishlord on March 18, 2005, 11:44:00 AM
-
A fucking door mat. Post by: pepsik on March 17, 2005, 05:46:00 PM
Post by: thewickedjester on March 17, 2005, 05:50:00 PM
Anyways, your right, I probably was being a bit rash, sorry bout that, no harm intended, Im not here to start a flame war.
Post by: K98 on March 17, 2005, 08:53:00 PM
Yes the second amendment was put into the Bill of rights to allow the people to be able to rise up against the govt if it starts to take out rights gauranteed to the people. First the govt will try to disarm the population(they are trying now) then go to the next step of removing freedoms of speech, religion and so on.
aarvarden I cant understand how after 8 times you still think that getting robbed is no big deal at all.
Post by: fishlord on March 18, 2005, 11:44:00 AM
QUOTE(K98 @ Mar 18 2005, 03:59 AM)
Yes the second amendment was put into the Bill of rights to allow the people to be able to rise up against the govt if it starts to take out rights gauranteed to the people.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: fishlord on March 18, 2005, 11:45:00 AM
-
Post by: fishlord on March 18, 2005, 11:45:00 AM
QUOTE(fishlord @ Mar 18 2005, 06:50 PM)
Im not entirly sure i follow that sentence. however if these rights are gauranteed how are they going to be able to take them away? And futhermore what you are saying is that you think that if you went into civil war your country would recover?
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: thewickedjester on March 18, 2005, 12:07:00 PM
-
My point is, everyone prasises the second amendment as a reason to shoot big ass guns into watermelons, and that simply isnt the case. The right to bear arms is to protect ourselves from our own goverment in case they attempt to treat us less than humans.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Colonel32 on March 18, 2005, 05:17:00 PM
-
I'm a big supporter of the second ammendment but the original premise of it does not apply to modern warfare and/or govt. It is the ultimate red herring in the gun debate.
How is a gun going to help you 'rise up against the government' For all the raa-raa 'best military in the world' labels that are thrown around. There seems to be a lot of you that think a bunch of guns could defeat the US military.
Your house would blow up before you go the thing loaded
People should be able to own guns because they want to. It is as simple as that. It is not the govt's job to dictate what someone can and cannot do if they are not hurting anyone.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Colonel32 on March 18, 2005, 05:20:00 PM
-
What is deemed 'unconstitutional' yesterday may not be tommorrow. As a self proclaimed 'historian' you should brush up on your constitutional studies.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: A Different Kind of Train on March 18, 2005, 05:46:00 PM
-
Post by: thewickedjester on March 18, 2005, 12:07:00 PM
My point is, everyone prasises the second amendment as a reason to shoot big ass guns into watermelons, and that simply isnt the case. The right to bear arms is to protect ourselves from our own goverment in case they attempt to treat us less than humans.
Post by: Colonel32 on March 18, 2005, 05:17:00 PM
I'm a big supporter of the second ammendment but the original premise of it does not apply to modern warfare and/or govt. It is the ultimate red herring in the gun debate.
How is a gun going to help you 'rise up against the government' For all the raa-raa 'best military in the world' labels that are thrown around. There seems to be a lot of you that think a bunch of guns could defeat the US military.
Your house would blow up before you go the thing loaded
People should be able to own guns because they want to. It is as simple as that. It is not the govt's job to dictate what someone can and cannot do if they are not hurting anyone.
Post by: Colonel32 on March 18, 2005, 05:20:00 PM
QUOTE
They can't be taken away, at least not for Americans, because such an act would be deemed unconstitutional.
What is deemed 'unconstitutional' yesterday may not be tommorrow. As a self proclaimed 'historian' you should brush up on your constitutional studies.
Post by: A Different Kind of Train on March 18, 2005, 05:46:00 PM
QUOTE(Colonel32 @ Mar 19 2005, 12:23 AM)
Differenttrain. You said Sun Tzu no longer applies, but the second ammendment does?
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: thewickedjester on March 18, 2005, 08:00:00 PM
-
Post by: thewickedjester on March 18, 2005, 08:00:00 PM
QUOTE(Colonel32 @ Mar 18 2005, 06:23 PM)
I'm a big supporter of the second ammendment but the original premise of it does not apply to modern warfare and/or govt. It is the ultimate red herring in the gun debate.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: fishlord on March 18, 2005, 09:52:00 PM
-
Post by: fishlord on March 18, 2005, 09:52:00 PM
QUOTE(A Different Kind of Train @ Mar 18 2005, 07:20 PM)
Not much of a historian I take it? I think we recovered quite nicely, on a side note:
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: thewickedjester on March 19, 2005, 09:14:00 AM
-
Post by: thewickedjester on March 19, 2005, 09:14:00 AM
QUOTE(A Different Kind of Train @ Mar 19 2005, 02:12 AM)
I take back my previous comment about you being an anime tool. It's good to see that someone else enjoyed Freedom Fighters, it is one great game, and really works well to support your argument. I'd also like to add that fishlord is a fag.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: fishlord on March 19, 2005, 11:33:00 PM
-
Post by: fishlord on March 19, 2005, 11:33:00 PM
QUOTE(A Different Kind of Train @ Mar 19 2005, 08:12 AM)
I take back my previous comment about you being an anime tool. It's good to see that someone else enjoyed Freedom Fighters, it is one great game, and really works well to support your argument. I'd also like to add that fishlord is a fag.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Tony42077 on March 21, 2005, 12:09:00 PM
-
Post by: Tony42077 on March 21, 2005, 12:09:00 PM
QUOTE(A Different Kind of Train @ Mar 19 2005, 08:12 AM)
I take back my previous comment about you being an anime tool. It's good to see that someone else enjoyed Freedom Fighters, it is one great game, and really works well to support your argument. I'd also like to add that fishlord is a fag.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: dom0012 on March 21, 2005, 08:23:00 PM
-
Guns Should Be BANNED! We are way to irresponsible of a country to have guns! Only Hunting ranges is where guns should be used! Noone should own a gun!
As for self-defense get a tranquilizer or taser! Every day on the news you hear of someone or allot of people getting shot! When will the innocent stop dying????
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: The unProfessional on March 21, 2005, 08:48:00 PM
-
"Every day on the news..."
You know, things aren't exactly as they seem from politically biased news organizations.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: thewickedjester on March 22, 2005, 03:32:00 PM
-
Post by: dom0012 on March 21, 2005, 08:23:00 PM
As for self-defense get a tranquilizer or taser! Every day on the news you hear of someone or allot of people getting shot! When will the innocent stop dying????
Post by: The unProfessional on March 21, 2005, 08:48:00 PM
QUOTE
Every day on the news you hear of someone or allot of people getting shot!
"Every day on the news..."
You know, things aren't exactly as they seem from politically biased news organizations.
Post by: thewickedjester on March 22, 2005, 03:32:00 PM
QUOTE(dom0012 @ Mar 21 2005, 09:29 PM)
Guns Should Be BANNED! We are way to irresponsible of a country to have guns! Only Hunting ranges is where guns should be used! Noone should own a gun!
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: dom0012 on March 22, 2005, 03:52:00 PM
-
Also if they smuggle guns in they would eventually get turned in or caught, and they wouldnt be able to buy bullets in usa so they would be smuggling bullets and guns, if guns were outlawed.
I dont like the feeling that i may go to work the next day and get shot by a fellow employee or some deranged man, and then for them to take their own life after yours so they dont go to jail.
I feel like were in the western times where anyone can shoot anyone at any time.... this is not the way life in america should be!
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: thewickedjester on March 22, 2005, 07:17:00 PM
-
and no, the people wouldnt smuggeling guns in wouldnt stop, granted we would eventually catch the people doing it now, but what about the people who take their place....?
look at britain, they have no guns available for the general populace to buy, but their crime rate is just as high, what does that show? that your little utopia is nothing more than a hollywood carboard cutout.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: cmiz on March 22, 2005, 10:30:00 PM
-
a few points i'll throw in...
in a society where guns are more than likely not going to be banned, i feel that it is better to have a working knowledge of guns and gun safety than be sheltered from them. that way, when you encounter a gun, it is less likely you will do anything stupid to hurt somebody.
case in point: when i was in high school, a boy i know was hanging out with some friends. they found a rifle in one of the kid's basements, and one of them picked it up. he thought it would be funny to aim it at his friend and pull the trigger "just kidding around". the gun was of course loaded (or else the story wouldn't be worth telling) and the other boy took a bullet in the gut. (he ended up recovering well thank goodness).
some may argue that had the gun not been in the house, the boy could not have been shot. i would argue that personally growing up around guns, the phrases NEVER POINT A GUN AT SOMETHING YOU WOULDN'T MIND KILLING and NEVER ASSUME A GUN IS EMPTY have been hammered into my head. in that situation, the accidental shooter had never actually held a gun before.
as for completely banning guns. all of the tech-9's (until recently), submachine guns and the VAST majority of pistols found on the streets are black market and unlicensed. making guns that are currently legal, illegal, will not IMO stop the already illegal guns from trading hands.
for the record: i own a .22 rifle that i use for shooting at a target in a rifle range. i don't intend to use it for hunting, nor do i think i will ever need it for personal protection. if somebody DID want a gun for personal protection, get a 12 guage. nothing says "get out of my house" like a cloud of hot lead. i also don't think pistols are necessary unless you are in law enforcement or have a job where you may need to actually defend yourself from somebody else with a gun (bodyguard etc.).
sorry to harp on things that have, for the most part, already been said. i just figured i'd throw out my feelings.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 23, 2005, 08:21:00 AM
-
Post by: dom0012 on March 22, 2005, 03:52:00 PM
Also if they smuggle guns in they would eventually get turned in or caught, and they wouldnt be able to buy bullets in usa so they would be smuggling bullets and guns, if guns were outlawed.
I dont like the feeling that i may go to work the next day and get shot by a fellow employee or some deranged man, and then for them to take their own life after yours so they dont go to jail.
I feel like were in the western times where anyone can shoot anyone at any time.... this is not the way life in america should be!
Post by: thewickedjester on March 22, 2005, 07:17:00 PM
and no, the people wouldnt smuggeling guns in wouldnt stop, granted we would eventually catch the people doing it now, but what about the people who take their place....?
look at britain, they have no guns available for the general populace to buy, but their crime rate is just as high, what does that show? that your little utopia is nothing more than a hollywood carboard cutout.
Post by: cmiz on March 22, 2005, 10:30:00 PM
in a society where guns are more than likely not going to be banned, i feel that it is better to have a working knowledge of guns and gun safety than be sheltered from them. that way, when you encounter a gun, it is less likely you will do anything stupid to hurt somebody.
case in point: when i was in high school, a boy i know was hanging out with some friends. they found a rifle in one of the kid's basements, and one of them picked it up. he thought it would be funny to aim it at his friend and pull the trigger "just kidding around". the gun was of course loaded (or else the story wouldn't be worth telling) and the other boy took a bullet in the gut. (he ended up recovering well thank goodness).
some may argue that had the gun not been in the house, the boy could not have been shot. i would argue that personally growing up around guns, the phrases NEVER POINT A GUN AT SOMETHING YOU WOULDN'T MIND KILLING and NEVER ASSUME A GUN IS EMPTY have been hammered into my head. in that situation, the accidental shooter had never actually held a gun before.
as for completely banning guns. all of the tech-9's (until recently), submachine guns and the VAST majority of pistols found on the streets are black market and unlicensed. making guns that are currently legal, illegal, will not IMO stop the already illegal guns from trading hands.
for the record: i own a .22 rifle that i use for shooting at a target in a rifle range. i don't intend to use it for hunting, nor do i think i will ever need it for personal protection. if somebody DID want a gun for personal protection, get a 12 guage. nothing says "get out of my house" like a cloud of hot lead. i also don't think pistols are necessary unless you are in law enforcement or have a job where you may need to actually defend yourself from somebody else with a gun (bodyguard etc.).
sorry to harp on things that have, for the most part, already been said. i just figured i'd throw out my feelings.
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 23, 2005, 08:21:00 AM
QUOTE(dom0012 @ Mar 21 2005, 10:29 PM)
Guns Should Be BANNED! We are way to irresponsible of a country to have guns! Only Hunting ranges is where guns should be used! Noone should own a gun!
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 23, 2005, 08:31:00 AM
-
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 23, 2005, 08:31:00 AM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Mar 23 2005, 09:40 AM)
you need get physical(name that tune) -
Title: Gun Control
Post by: goathunter on April 22, 2005, 12:05:00 AM
-
I live in New Zealand. To own a gun here you need to get a licence. To get that you must do a gunsaftey course and have 2 people you know (one family, one non family) interveiwed by police to make sure you are not a nutta. Must have clean criminal record. Tha allows you to own hunting rifles and shottys (any manual loading and self loaders thats are not 'military style semi automatics') To get a pistol licence you must be in a pistol club and attend club shoots 6 times a year. I enjoy target pistol shooting so I have got a pistol licence. To own what american call 'assault weapons" eg ar-15 you need an e-cat licence. You need a 6mm plate steel safe bolted to the floor and you must go through the witness interview process etc etc. Now the silly thing about this is that none of the features they restrict the weapon on make it any more dangerous than what you can get on a standard licence. Things like pistol grips, folding stocks, 30 round mags don't make the gun shoot any faster or make it any easier to kill people with. However I enjoys service rifle competition, so I went through the bullshit and got an e licence.
Now lets see.
I have no criminal record.
People who know me have testified to a police arms officer that I am a fit and proper person to possess and use firearms.
I enjoy hunting and competition shooting as my sports.
These sports are non violent, and can only be attended by responsible citizens who meet the above requirements.
My guns are locked away seperate from bolts and ammo when not in use.
Members of my family have all been instructed in firearms saftey.
I don't carry weapons on me in public.
Now if some nutcase decides to make or steal a gun and kill people with it, how is it fair that i should be stripped of my hobby?
If some nutcase steals a car and drive it through a playground and kills 50 children deliberatly, is it fair that we should take away peoples right to own cars?
Another point, yes guns were designed to kill people. So what. Do you really think that a police vetted law abiding citizen is going to kill people through irresponsible use of a firearm? He/she is more likely to kill through irresponsible use of a car, something that you don't need a clean criminal rcord to own.
Now some of you think a society wher guns are illegal is a safe society. Bullshit. If you want to murder someone and you have a gun, would you hand it in when they are banned? Only law abiding citizens obey gun laws, or any laws for that matter. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
We had a murder recently in New Zealand. A P addict chopped off 2 womens hands with a sword and shot a guy with HOMEMADE sub machine gun. The fact that submachine guns are banned didn't stop this guy getting the plans off the net and making one up out of a few bits of pipe.
http://tvnz.co.nz/vi...646?format=html
Another fact to remember is NZ has high firearms ownership (as a % of popn) compared to aussi and britain, yet we have lower crime (as a %of popn). Go figure
Also a good site for antis to visit. http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: buttface96 on May 07, 2005, 08:44:00 PM
-
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: icedoutxbox on May 07, 2005, 09:25:00 PM
-
Post by: goathunter on April 22, 2005, 12:05:00 AM
Now lets see.
I have no criminal record.
People who know me have testified to a police arms officer that I am a fit and proper person to possess and use firearms.
I enjoy hunting and competition shooting as my sports.
These sports are non violent, and can only be attended by responsible citizens who meet the above requirements.
My guns are locked away seperate from bolts and ammo when not in use.
Members of my family have all been instructed in firearms saftey.
I don't carry weapons on me in public.
Now if some nutcase decides to make or steal a gun and kill people with it, how is it fair that i should be stripped of my hobby?
If some nutcase steals a car and drive it through a playground and kills 50 children deliberatly, is it fair that we should take away peoples right to own cars?
Another point, yes guns were designed to kill people. So what. Do you really think that a police vetted law abiding citizen is going to kill people through irresponsible use of a firearm? He/she is more likely to kill through irresponsible use of a car, something that you don't need a clean criminal rcord to own.
Now some of you think a society wher guns are illegal is a safe society. Bullshit. If you want to murder someone and you have a gun, would you hand it in when they are banned? Only law abiding citizens obey gun laws, or any laws for that matter. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
We had a murder recently in New Zealand. A P addict chopped off 2 womens hands with a sword and shot a guy with HOMEMADE sub machine gun. The fact that submachine guns are banned didn't stop this guy getting the plans off the net and making one up out of a few bits of pipe.
http://tvnz.co.nz/vi...646?format=html
Another fact to remember is NZ has high firearms ownership (as a % of popn) compared to aussi and britain, yet we have lower crime (as a %of popn). Go figure
Also a good site for antis to visit. http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/
Post by: buttface96 on May 07, 2005, 08:44:00 PM
Post by: icedoutxbox on May 07, 2005, 09:25:00 PM
QUOTE(buttface96 @ May 7 2005, 10:20 PM)
For anyone one here who thinks eliminating guns will fix all the death problems they are fucking wrong. If someone is going to kill someone they will gun or not. "There is more that one way to skin a cat," if you can't figure that out it means there is more than one way to get the job done, meaning there is more than one way,guns, to kill someone.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: ezraa123 on May 07, 2005, 11:41:00 PM
-
Ok, first off...I'm a sheriff's deputy working on the road. I deal with lots of guns and people who shouldn't even be around guns quite often. I don't like the thought of every shithead being able to get a gun, point it, and take out a hard working fellow american just because he doesn't want to pay cab fare or needs 100 bucks for his meth addiction. However, to say that guns have no place except for hunting is idiocy. The fact is, in todays society, this country or any other, guns will be accessible. If they can not be purchased, they can easily be made. As long as there is demand, there will be supply...legal or illegal.
Our founding fathers had been through oppression, persecution, revolution. They knew why the second ammendment had to be in there. Personal ownership of guns is not for hunting. Yes, it's a benefit and can be used as a tool for this, but the purpose is to protect ourselves, first from criminals, and second from the government if it becomes totalitarian. I've heard all kinds of nieve idealists say how society would be better and if people didn't have guns, crime would go down. Unfortunately, history has shown us otherwise. In many countries around the world, guns are totally banned, some still allow single shot rifles for hunting, but nothing that can be effective home protection. Austrailia banned most of their guns and the violent crime rate skyrocketed. Now thugs don't have to worry about the old grandpa putting a hole in them if they break in. They can just barge in, beat him with whatever, and take what they want. It's sickening. Many of our states that have allowed citizens to carry firearms and/or been liberal in issuing concealed weapon permits to people who have not been convicted of a felony or violent crime have lower crime rates. Michigan just recently changed the CCW laws so that any non criminal without a history of mental illness can take an approved safety/educational course and get a CCW. Any schmo that has a history of problems can not get one. I like this.
The problem normally comes when those people who would use the gun for the wrong reasons have one. Most of the people who screw up with guns that I've run into in my several years in law enforcement (at least 95%) did not have CCWs and were carrying illegally. Stricter gun laws help nothing, enforcing the ones we have and stiffer sentances for those that violate will. I know it's barbarric but I'd be all for saying bye bye to the bad guy's hands when he carries illegally and uses the gun for a crime. When he finally gets out of prison, no more gun problems with him. Anyway, back to what I was saying; guns are like anything else, good or evil depending on the person using them. They are good protection for those good people (the majority of americans bye the way), and evil tools for thugs that are already committing the crime anyway. Taking guns away will definitely escalate the violent crime short term. It may go down as time goes on, but not until a huge mess. It will leave those who are weaker in our society (females, elderly, handicapped) unable to defend themselves against shitheads who would victimize them. It is follly to think police can protect you. Most of the time, we can respond after the crime is done, investigate, and often catch the criminal. But, the crime is done, you may be dead or crippled for life and many times the criminal is not caught. Response time of police can very greatly. Where I work, we normally have 4 deputies covering an area of about 450 square miles. If we're lucky we have 6 and normally some are always on calls. Sometimes it takes 20-25 minutes running code to get to a call. That's a hell of a lot of time if someone's trying to kill you...especially if they have a gun and you have...a stick.
As a final thought, many Jews would still be alive today if the gun rights were not stripped away and guns remobed before the nazis started "clensing" their country in their mission of genocide.
I'm not a gun lover. I own a few guns, but not a "collection". I have them because I know they are a necessity to protect my family if needed. I don't believe in the violent overthrow of our government...yet. However, if our government ever becomes a totalitarian system that begins systematically eliminating people, I will. Guns are not REALLY NEEDED until someone tries to take them away. If you really want to kill someone, you can do it with a fork, nail, ruler...don't need a gun.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: pug_ster on May 09, 2005, 10:13:00 AM
-
Yes, but it doesn't explain why taking guns away will escalate violent crimes involving guns.
The problem with guns that the society as a whole accepts the use of guns. We hear music (mostly Rap) that gun violence is a way of life. We watch movies of people killing each others 'inspires' shootings in many high schools. Monkey see, monkey do. Unfortunately someone has to tell us that the use of guns is unacceptable.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: thewickedjester on May 09, 2005, 11:20:00 AM
-
So, my point exactly, if we take away guns from law abiding citizens, how would that help? he just said that 95% of them were illegal anyways, so how would it help exactly? the people commiting the crimes will still have their guns, so crime may not increase, but it certainly wouldnt decrease.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: AkumAPRIME on May 09, 2005, 12:57:00 PM
-
And if you take my guns away, I won't be able to fight the government when it gets too powerful. The third amendment is really to protect us from the govt, who we naturally distrust.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: AkumAPRIME on May 09, 2005, 12:57:00 PM
-
And if you take my guns away, I won't be able to fight the government when it gets too powerful. The third amendment is really to protect us from the govt, who we naturally distrust.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: pug_ster on May 09, 2005, 03:05:00 PM
-
Still, compared to other countries in the world, there are more people getting killed by Guns in the US compared to the other countries in the world. None of you could explain how can you we get rid of that problem except saying that reducing the amount of guns won't work.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: thewickedjester on May 09, 2005, 03:30:00 PM
-
right, like in britain, where the police dont even have guns, so that leaves who? the citizens? nope. the police? nope. the bad-guys who want to shoot you and probably aquired their guns illegally anyways? yup.
you cant exactly compare us to other countries altogether anyways, think about places like pakistan or iraq, ive seen 12 yr olds with ak's. now, if you see someone walking down the street in a business suit (ie someone in the us) and you wanted to rob them, there is a pretty good chance that they dont ahve a gun. now, look at other places in the world, would you rob a 12 year old kid holding an ak? if you say yes, your stupid, simply put.
also, in these "other countries" (name a few please, i beleive you, id just like some hard evidence), mabye the people there dont use guns... a knive might work just as well. and on that note, i can go into flea world right now and buy everything from a crossbow to a authentic german wwII knife for about less than $20.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Parsn!ps on May 10, 2005, 04:39:00 AM
-
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Arvarden on May 10, 2005, 07:27:00 AM
-
Doctor....
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: thewickedjester on May 10, 2005, 11:30:00 AM
-
Post by: ezraa123 on May 07, 2005, 11:41:00 PM
Our founding fathers had been through oppression, persecution, revolution. They knew why the second ammendment had to be in there. Personal ownership of guns is not for hunting. Yes, it's a benefit and can be used as a tool for this, but the purpose is to protect ourselves, first from criminals, and second from the government if it becomes totalitarian. I've heard all kinds of nieve idealists say how society would be better and if people didn't have guns, crime would go down. Unfortunately, history has shown us otherwise. In many countries around the world, guns are totally banned, some still allow single shot rifles for hunting, but nothing that can be effective home protection. Austrailia banned most of their guns and the violent crime rate skyrocketed. Now thugs don't have to worry about the old grandpa putting a hole in them if they break in. They can just barge in, beat him with whatever, and take what they want. It's sickening. Many of our states that have allowed citizens to carry firearms and/or been liberal in issuing concealed weapon permits to people who have not been convicted of a felony or violent crime have lower crime rates. Michigan just recently changed the CCW laws so that any non criminal without a history of mental illness can take an approved safety/educational course and get a CCW. Any schmo that has a history of problems can not get one. I like this.
The problem normally comes when those people who would use the gun for the wrong reasons have one. Most of the people who screw up with guns that I've run into in my several years in law enforcement (at least 95%) did not have CCWs and were carrying illegally. Stricter gun laws help nothing, enforcing the ones we have and stiffer sentances for those that violate will. I know it's barbarric but I'd be all for saying bye bye to the bad guy's hands when he carries illegally and uses the gun for a crime. When he finally gets out of prison, no more gun problems with him. Anyway, back to what I was saying; guns are like anything else, good or evil depending on the person using them. They are good protection for those good people (the majority of americans bye the way), and evil tools for thugs that are already committing the crime anyway. Taking guns away will definitely escalate the violent crime short term. It may go down as time goes on, but not until a huge mess. It will leave those who are weaker in our society (females, elderly, handicapped) unable to defend themselves against shitheads who would victimize them. It is follly to think police can protect you. Most of the time, we can respond after the crime is done, investigate, and often catch the criminal. But, the crime is done, you may be dead or crippled for life and many times the criminal is not caught. Response time of police can very greatly. Where I work, we normally have 4 deputies covering an area of about 450 square miles. If we're lucky we have 6 and normally some are always on calls. Sometimes it takes 20-25 minutes running code to get to a call. That's a hell of a lot of time if someone's trying to kill you...especially if they have a gun and you have...a stick.
As a final thought, many Jews would still be alive today if the gun rights were not stripped away and guns remobed before the nazis started "clensing" their country in their mission of genocide.
I'm not a gun lover. I own a few guns, but not a "collection". I have them because I know they are a necessity to protect my family if needed. I don't believe in the violent overthrow of our government...yet. However, if our government ever becomes a totalitarian system that begins systematically eliminating people, I will. Guns are not REALLY NEEDED until someone tries to take them away. If you really want to kill someone, you can do it with a fork, nail, ruler...don't need a gun.
Post by: pug_ster on May 09, 2005, 10:13:00 AM
The problem with guns that the society as a whole accepts the use of guns. We hear music (mostly Rap) that gun violence is a way of life. We watch movies of people killing each others 'inspires' shootings in many high schools. Monkey see, monkey do. Unfortunately someone has to tell us that the use of guns is unacceptable.
Post by: thewickedjester on May 09, 2005, 11:20:00 AM
QUOTE
Most of the people who screw up with guns that I've run into in my several years in law enforcement (at least 95%)
So, my point exactly, if we take away guns from law abiding citizens, how would that help? he just said that 95% of them were illegal anyways, so how would it help exactly? the people commiting the crimes will still have their guns, so crime may not increase, but it certainly wouldnt decrease.
Post by: AkumAPRIME on May 09, 2005, 12:57:00 PM
Post by: AkumAPRIME on May 09, 2005, 12:57:00 PM
Post by: pug_ster on May 09, 2005, 03:05:00 PM
Post by: thewickedjester on May 09, 2005, 03:30:00 PM
you cant exactly compare us to other countries altogether anyways, think about places like pakistan or iraq, ive seen 12 yr olds with ak's. now, if you see someone walking down the street in a business suit (ie someone in the us) and you wanted to rob them, there is a pretty good chance that they dont ahve a gun. now, look at other places in the world, would you rob a 12 year old kid holding an ak? if you say yes, your stupid, simply put.
also, in these "other countries" (name a few please, i beleive you, id just like some hard evidence), mabye the people there dont use guns... a knive might work just as well. and on that note, i can go into flea world right now and buy everything from a crossbow to a authentic german wwII knife for about less than $20.
Post by: Parsn!ps on May 10, 2005, 04:39:00 AM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ May 10 2005, 08:31 AM)
Post by: Arvarden on May 10, 2005, 07:27:00 AM
Post by: thewickedjester on May 10, 2005, 11:30:00 AM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ May 10 2005, 01:31 AM)
I would aquire a gun and shoot the little fluff in the face. If someone wish's you harm there is little you can do about it (unless you are Steven Seagal)armed or un armed.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: AkumAPRIME on May 10, 2005, 01:46:00 PM
-
Doctor Doctor, Arvarden is retarded, please give him an abortion!
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: SNMNMNM! on May 10, 2005, 03:06:00 PM
-
Post by: AkumAPRIME on May 10, 2005, 01:46:00 PM
Post by: SNMNMNM! on May 10, 2005, 03:06:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ May 10 2005, 08:59 PM)
"Right, so now youve used your 2nd amendment rights to protect yourself. Im honestly not sure if your trying to argue for or against gun rights but either way you kinda proved a point for both sides."
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: thewickedjester on May 10, 2005, 04:12:00 PM
-
Post by: thewickedjester on May 10, 2005, 04:12:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ May 10 2005, 02:59 PM)
How did I protect myself? I shot a 12 year old boy in the face because he was skipping along with his AK.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: thewickedjester on May 12, 2005, 11:07:00 AM
-
wait, let me get this strait... so by disarming those who get their guns according to the gun laws, that will get rid of the guns that those people who aqquired guns irregardless of laws?
sorry, doesnt make to much sense. i see what your saying, and i kind of agree, but in the end, disarming those who arm themselves legally wont really help with those few who get them illegally
its like saying stoping people from legally immigrating to our country will stop the illegal immigrants
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: thewickedjester on May 12, 2005, 11:26:00 AM
-
and again, i agree with you partly, we would have to start somewhere. i think the issue were on isnt so much gun control, its how to disarm those that wish ill intent upon anyone.
but i dont think disarming those who own guns legally is an answer, even a start to one.
well, at any rate, my just repeating myself, so are you, i dont think disarming those who are armed legally is an answer, you beleive its a start to fixing the problem. i dont beleive either of us will have our ideas changed so there really not much point in discussing it unless someone else brings something up. no offense, i just hate re-iterating
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: goathunter on May 20, 2005, 11:24:00 PM
-
Heres what happens when the only people who own firearms are governments and criminals
http://www.i2i.org/S.../lethal.htm#fn1[/code]
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: CattyKid on May 21, 2005, 08:25:00 PM
-
This does not mean that the average person has the right to own a gun. It says that a well-regulated militia (the Armed Forces b/c militias are illegal) has the right to be armed. However, since the Government
is runb by the NRA and tobacco companies through "generous donations" this will not change.
If you are hunting, use a bow or soimething, make it a challenge. Don't use a machine gun.
Or better yet, make it really fun. Use a sharp stick/spear. That would be great.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on May 28, 2005, 10:13:00 AM
-
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: SNMNMNM! on May 28, 2005, 10:32:00 AM
-
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: buttface96 on May 28, 2005, 11:29:00 AM
-
Arvarden,
Its people like you that really make this world suck with all ur little anti this and that, why dont u stfu and actually handle a gun, becuase Im sure you have probably never even touched a gun and u are a little girl hiding in a corner because you are afraid someone will shoot you
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: SNMNMNM! on May 28, 2005, 12:41:00 PM
-
Post by: thewickedjester on May 12, 2005, 11:07:00 AM
sorry, doesnt make to much sense. i see what your saying, and i kind of agree, but in the end, disarming those who arm themselves legally wont really help with those few who get them illegally
its like saying stoping people from legally immigrating to our country will stop the illegal immigrants
Post by: thewickedjester on May 12, 2005, 11:26:00 AM
but i dont think disarming those who own guns legally is an answer, even a start to one.
well, at any rate, my just repeating myself, so are you, i dont think disarming those who are armed legally is an answer, you beleive its a start to fixing the problem. i dont beleive either of us will have our ideas changed so there really not much point in discussing it unless someone else brings something up. no offense, i just hate re-iterating
Post by: goathunter on May 20, 2005, 11:24:00 PM
http://www.i2i.org/S.../lethal.htm#fn1[/code]
Post by: CattyKid on May 21, 2005, 08:25:00 PM
QUOTE
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This does not mean that the average person has the right to own a gun. It says that a well-regulated militia (the Armed Forces b/c militias are illegal) has the right to be armed. However, since the Government
is runb by the NRA and tobacco companies through "generous donations" this will not change.
If you are hunting, use a bow or soimething, make it a challenge. Don't use a machine gun.
Or better yet, make it really fun. Use a sharp stick/spear. That would be great.
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on May 28, 2005, 10:13:00 AM
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
QUOTE
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.
They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.
They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.
Post by: SNMNMNM! on May 28, 2005, 10:32:00 AM
Post by: buttface96 on May 28, 2005, 11:29:00 AM
Its people like you that really make this world suck with all ur little anti this and that, why dont u stfu and actually handle a gun, becuase Im sure you have probably never even touched a gun and u are a little girl hiding in a corner because you are afraid someone will shoot you
Post by: SNMNMNM! on May 28, 2005, 12:41:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ May 28 2005, 08:46 PM)
if someone wish's to attack me I will a)get the shit beat out of me b)kindly ask my assailant for another.
-
Title: Gun Control
Post by: Arvarden on May 30, 2005, 05:45:00 AM
-
quote=Arvarden,May 25 2005, 06:33 PM]
Post by: Arvarden on May 30, 2005, 05:45:00 AM