Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: Master of Reality on 4 November 2003, 00:56
-
read about it:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/11/02/1729239.shtml?tid=103&tid=153&tid=99 (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/11/02/1729239.shtml?tid=103&tid=153&tid=99)
quote:
...Symantec's new Internet Security 2004 would block pro gun rights sites (i.e. NRA sites), while not blocking similar anti-gun rights web sites....
Apparently supporting Olympic Sports, Recreational Activities, and Food sources is what symantec is completely against.
Edit: changed the title of the topic.
[ November 07, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
Is this something you can turn off???
-
It blocks the NRA? Sounds good to me.
-
good?
so, one of the group that stands up for one of the few bits of the Bill of Rights that still remains have enemies in the technology industry?
You know what? Theres times I think about this country and wonder why anybody would ever want to wrong it. How good, and just and fair and free we are.
Then shit like this comes along and I realize that the United States is a shadow of what it once was. It's now a corporate oligarchy where big company 1 can compete with big company 2 by means of outright subterfuge, and immoral ways.
Fuck Symantec. I'm gonna go take my M1 over to the shooting range and enjoy owning my firearm responsibly.
If anybody has a problem with me having it, fuck off.
-
What's the use of firearms? I have lived my whole life in Canada without firearms. You can't do squat with a firearm if the thug pulls it out first (which will happen in most situations), and you'd probably get sued, anyway.
-
Another reason not to use Symantec's products. Fucking censorware.
Whatever your opinions on gun control are, you have to admit this is pretty low.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
What's the use of firearms? I have lived my whole life in Canada without firearms. You can't do squat with a firearm if the thug pulls it out first (which will happen in most situations), and you'd probably get sued, anyway.
Trap shooting, skeet shooting, very valid and entertaining sports. Hunting can be argued but I believe if you don't waste what you kill then there shouldn't be a problem (if your licensed properly and all that crap).
As far as the other guy pulling it out first...
would you pull out a gun and try to rob a bank, if you know that the 40 people in there could have guns too?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
would you pull out a gun and try to rob a bank, if you know that the 40 people in there could have guns too?
I whould use some creepy gas to kill them before they can shoot.
Guns do kill. ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
Trap shooting, skeet shooting, very valid and entertaining sports. Hunting can be argued but I believe if you don't waste what you kill then there shouldn't be a problem (if your licensed properly and all that crap).
You don't need to bear them in public for skeet shooting.
quote:
(if your licensed properly and all that crap)
Bowling for Columbine, anyone?
By the way, you can get a license in Canada as well, in case I mislead you. It's just more strictly regulated.
quote:
would you pull out a gun and try to rob a bank, if you know that the 40 people in there could have guns too?
So you think that money (banks) is more important than human lives (criminality)? Shows how crazy capitalism is in the States.
Also, you're not seriously telling me there are less bank robberies in the USA than in Canada, where firearms are more restricted?
-
You asked what the use of firearms is. Nothing about having one in public.
What does columbine have anything to do with this? They weren't hunting, and humans are not legal game.
quote:
So you think that money (banks) is more important than human lives (criminality)? Shows how crazy capitalism is in the States.
I said that? I think if we were all allowed to carry guns until we proved we can't handle it, there would be less roberies. If someone wants to get a firearm and use it against people, there is nothing you can do to stop them. All you can do is make it a little more difficult. And because it's difficult, a criminal can feel secure in knowing that nobody else around him has a firearm and can defend themselves.
and you didn't answer my question. If we could all have firearms carried with us, would you rob a bank? Would you feel more comfortable knowing that they probably don't have a gun - because it's a lot more difficult for them to get?
quote:
Also, you're not seriously telling me there are less bank robberies in the USA than in Canada, where firearms are more restricted?
I never said that. Are you telling me that because canada MAY (i've seen no proof) have less bank roberies, that the united states shouldn't worry about decreasing them?
quote:
I whould use some creepy gas to kill them before they can shoot.
Ok, that's great. Hope I never meet you.
quote:
Guns do kill.
really? A gun can unlock itself from storage, can unlock the ammo, can load itself, walk to a target, disengage the safety, and pull the trigger? Nearly every accident involving firearms can be prevented. I suggest taking a hunter's safety course... wether or not you plan to hunt, take the class it'll do you some good.
-
quote:
and you didn't answer my question. If we could all have firearms carried with us, would you rob a bank? Would you feel more comfortable knowing that they probably don't have a gun - because it's a lot more difficult for them to get?
Real robbers don't usually hold-up banks alone, they do it in small groups. And they could have machine guns, against which handguns would be quite ineffective, since a machine gun would shoot 6 bullets in your chest before you even have the time to reach your holster.
quote:
really? A gun can unlock itself from storage, can unlock the ammo, can load itself, walk to a target, disengage the safety, and pull the trigger?
You just proved my point. Such guns are totally useless against a robber with a ready gun. Even forty armed people would not stand a chance; they would never even have time to unholster the gun, let alone disengage the safety. Even if the safety is already disengaged, the robber will have time to either flee or shoot the person before he unholsters.
quote:
a criminal can feel secure in knowing that nobody else around him has a firearm and can defend themselves.
Since your point is about security, each individual person amongst the 40 might feel just as deterred by the gun of the robber than the robber might be by the people.
[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Real robbers don't usually hold-up banks alone, they do it in small groups. And they could have machine guns, against which handguns would be quite ineffective, since a machine gun would shoot 6 bullets in your chest before you even have the time to reach your holster.
There aren't very many real robbers then, most do it by themselves or with a partner. And you still didn't answer the question. And machine guns aren't very easy to get. It would be very stupid to hold up a bank when everybody in there has a gun. If I were to carry my gun around with me, it'd be loaded but have the safety on. And it doesn't take any effort to turn the safety off. I could shoot them just as fast as they could shoot me. But it doesn't matter, the robber wouldn't be there to begin with because he knows that SOMEONE in that bank would shoot him and it'd all be for nothing.
quote:
Since your point is about security, each individual person amongst the 40 might feel just as deterred by the gun of the robber than the robber might be by the people.
I wouldn't be too worried if I was in a room full of people defending me. I would be worried if a room full of people with guns wanted to kill me. But, I'm not a criminal. You may think I am because I enjoy my gun, and think people should have more rights to their firearms... but i'm not.
-
quote:
There aren't very many real robbers then, most do it by themselves or with a partner.
And get arrested quickly.
quote:
And machine guns aren't very easy to get.
Neither would handguns be if they were prohibited.
quote:
It would be very stupid to hold up a bank when everybody in there has a gun.
It would be very stupid to hold up a bank in the first place, since no one in the bank even knows how to open the vault (at least where I live).
quote:
because he knows that SOMEONE in that bank would shoot him and it'd all be for nothing.
See above. And security guards and cameras can live up to that task fairly well.
quote:
And you still didn't answer the question.
I would not be deterred by a room full of armed people, because I would never be stupid enough to rob any bank alone. And if I did, I would threaten to blow the shit up if anyone pointed a gun at me, because I would have to bring explosives to open the vault anyway.
[ November 04, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
If these pro-gun Americans think the right to own a firearm is such a fundamental one, why do they think it is that people in other countries that don't have such liberal gun laws never, ever complain that they don't have the same rights? In this country most people regard the American obsession with guns with amusement. Most people here can't conceive of wanting to own a firearm, but maybe that's because we don't need them because we never made them legal in the first place. In this country even the police aren't armed, because they don't need to be. Compare that to the US where "more people died from gunshot wounds in the last 2 years alone than the whole Vietnam War" (http://www.peace.ca/giftfeararticles.htm). Do you really think that's the mark of a civilised country?
[ November 04, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]
-
Very few people are killed accidently by a gun. Less than almost every other way you could die. People are murdered often, that's not something that'll change. People are stupid. And most people that rob a store are not caught, you are fooled into thinking that by the media. They won't announce anything like : "This week we haven't caught the guy that robbed that mini-mart on 23rd and 5th 6 months ago" but you may hear something like "We caught the guy that robbed the..." Most people get away with robery. That's not really the point, you got off subject with that remark.
Saying i'm not allowed to have a gun is just as silly as saying i'm not allowed to have a baseball bat. Both can kill someone, but none of them are dangerous by themselves. Both are used for sport. If you do not want to own a gun, i respect that and I will not try to convince you (or force you by legal means) to have one. You shouldn't do it to me. I, like most people in this country, am responsible with my firearms.
The difference between a baseball bat and a firearm, is that some people like to carry a firearm around with them. Why? It really doesn't matter, they just do. Maybe they feel safer, maybe it helps his self esteem, maybe it helps him with the chicks, maybe he likes showing people he meets, maybe he just does it to spite you. It's none of your business what a person does with it. It's not harming you.
I've taken the classes, earned the money... i've done what i've had to do to for my firearm. If you don't want one, fine... don't ruin it for everybody else. I'm done with this subject, people like you just piss me off (no offense) and I can't deal with it right now.
-
quote:
Saying i'm not allowed to have a gun is just as silly as saying i'm not allowed to have a baseball bat. Both can kill someone, but none of them are dangerous by themselves. Both are used for sport. If you do not want to own a gun, i respect that and I will not try to convince you (or force you by legal means) to have one. You shouldn't do it to me. I, like most people in this country, am responsible with my firearms.
You're missing the point. It isn't really a problem if people like you have a gun; presumably you only use it responsibly. The problem is that the mass availability of guns that your wild-west culture has produced allows criminals to easily get their hands on them. You may think it's "collective punishment" to stop law-abiding people from owning guns just because other people mis-use them, but there has to be a balance between individual rights and the overall good of society. The fact is that the gun culture in the US is completely out of control, and it engenders a type of violent crime that just isn't possible in other countries.
-
In my opinion the whole point of the firearms debate boils down to the following:
wether or not you can be responsible with your firearm (I'm sure most of the gun bearing posters here have no problems with that) is totally irrelevant because it matters not wether you can be/are responsible with a firearm. What matters is that if firearm possesion is so ubiquitous it is just too easy for people who lack the responsibility to attain one. For me this fact alone instantly justifies any law or regulation prohibiting firearms. The equation here is quite simple really: less people with guns = less gun related accidents will happen. Anyone who thinks this is irrelevant should just take a look at high school shooting incidents in the US and other countries with stricter gun laws. Shootouts such as the one which took place in Columbine are unheard of where I live (there has been one gun related high-school incident here in the Netherlands in the past that I can think of).
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the fact that you can easily own a gun is the cause for such incidents, because that is the human factor (people suck). But since we cannot eliminate the human factor we can only try to purge other factors.
Oh... and you actually *can* get a gun in the Netherlands but only for sport, and the rules gun posession are bound to would make most americans awe in disbelief (amongst other things you need to succesfully pass a psychological test and you must store the gun in a vault in your home(!) or risk paying a hefty fine).
my
-
.....nyways... i have another point.... i wonder if they block the olympics website, there is around 20 events that involve shooting. Its one of the safest sports in the world. I have never heard of an injury in competition shooting. I have heard of several injuries in other sports such as rugby, football, hockey, etc, etc.
-
quote:
....nyways... i have another point.... i wonder if they block the olympics website, there is around 20 events that involve shooting. Its one of the safest sports in the world. I have never heard of an injury in competition shooting. I have heard of several injuries in other sports such as rugby, football, hockey, etc, etc.
Uh, that's because they shoot targets, not at each other. At any rate, censoring is bad, whatever the cause is.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
Saying i'm not allowed to have a gun is just as silly as saying i'm not allowed to have a baseball bat. Both can kill someone, but none of them are dangerous by themselves. Both are used for sport.
I don't think those american contract-killers in Iraq are using baseball bats...
(Maybe that could resolve America's money problem..., you could also start using pro-teams as elite soldiers.)
-
quote:
would you pull out a gun and try to rob a bank, if you know that the 40 people in there could have guns too?
I wouldn't. Then again I'm not stupid, desperate or "slightly out of touch with reality." People robbing banks are quite often all 3 as well as pretty fucking twitchy and or on heavy drugs... face it, if youre desperate enough to rob a bank in the first place, the knowledge that you might die doing it isnt much more. You're saying theres a twitchy nutter pointing a shotgun at me and you want the guy beside me to reach for his revolver? WHAT THE FUCK? 40 people in one bank willing to gun down a psycho with a bigger gun? And you expect innocent people not to die in that situation? Sorry, I just want this guy to get his cash and leave. Cash isn't lives, and I feel safe in the banks where I live without owning a gun.
For sporting purposes why would you need anything as powerful as what you get in America? In Australia you can get guns but you cant get anything on the "too powerful" list. Why do I need a "big" gun to defend myself? If I wanted a gun to defend myslef all I need is something big enough to stop a guy moving at me or being coherent enough to shoot me. Less guns over here and yet a much lower crime rate... Strange huh?
quote:
Saying i'm not allowed to have a gun is just as silly as saying i'm not allowed to have a baseball bat.
Actually I would feel much safer if I was living in a country where the aforemementioned robber might have to "make do" with a baseball bat. Oh wait... I am. :)
I am sure that many gun owners in America are responsible... but some are not. By limiting the amount of guns (especially powerful guns) and their availability in Australia it is much more difficult for the occasional "evil doer" to get one. No, its not impossible but it is more difficult, which means it happens less often, which means there is far far less gun related deaths in Australia. Yeah if a guy is coming at me with a gun I would like to have one too... But I am willing to sacrifice my right to own a big arse gun easily because by doing so I know that there are less guns out there, and it is less likely that I will ever be in that situation where I want a gun. Its not impossible, but its less likely, and I happen to like my odds better this way. The violent crime statistics like my odds better this way too. You say that people will always be able to get powerful guns, but in Australia it doesn't happen often. In Bowling For Columbine there is a kid who brags about being able to sell guns for $1.50 each... Thats less than I would spend on my lunch. That doesnt happen in Australia, and I feel safer and am safer because of it, and I owe that to my countries stricter gun control.
That said, I dont like Symantecs censorship. I may not agree with the NRA but they have a right to be listened to. (Is there an "option" that clearly states "ticking this box will disallow access to pro gun sites?" If so it's a lot better IMHO.)
-
I've read some documents where violent crimes are higher in countries without hand weapons.
By censoring guns, you are censoring hunting, a pasttime that many enjoy in this country, and have a right to do, regardless of your political beliefs.
One could argue that porn is inapproriate for young users, so guns should be too. The difference is, you have youth hunting camps and groups. You don't have youth pornography groups and camps (AT LEAST NOT LEGALLY).
Even if you hate firearms, there are people who are legit for them. The police and public/private security officials would be screwed without them. Shoot or be shot. Bullet proof vests are like jello if you've got the right gun and ammunition (which, thank god, is illegal for public use). And if they're all you've got, good luck stopping a dangerous psycho from his killing spree.
[ November 05, 2003: Message edited by: anphanax ]
-
I, myself own two weapons, one is a vintage M1 Garand rifle that my grandfather had, and the other is a Magnum/IMI Desert Eagle.
You could say "whoa! why do you need a military rifle?"
Why? Because it's a very attractive object. Have you ever seen one?
http://www.memorableplaces.com/m1garand/ (http://www.memorableplaces.com/m1garand/)
It's very beautiful, being mostly walnut. Highly polished with a deep, red-brown stain. This is an original WWII era model built by Springfield Armory. The reissues are selling for nearly $2000. It's a .3006 gas-powered semi-auto rifle with an 8-round internal magazine. What do I do with it? Keep it on a rack unloaded. I have one box of shells for it. One box. Why only one box? Because all I'll ever do with it is take it to a shooting range and maybe out hunting. I don't even keep the things in the same room with it. The mechanism is also partially-disassembled for safety concerns.
As for my Desert Eagle... that's a different story. Why do I own a .50AE caliber handgun? I have to be honest... because I think it's cool, and I had $1500 to spend. The Desert Eagle has been featured in several movies lately, including Snatch (Bullettooth's gun), and The Matrix trilogy as the agents' handgun.
http://magnumresearch.com/old/xixpistols.html (http://magnumresearch.com/old/xixpistols.html)
What do I do with it? Have it. Again, I have one box of rounds for it... mainly because it's cost prohibitive to have much more. .50AE Magnum rounds are $25 to $30 for a box of 20 rounds. This thing sits around in a drawer with the magazine right next to it. It's not loaded, but that's nearly effortless to remedy. Slap it in, pull the slide. You're ready to roll. If someone busts into my place, the only way they'll get out is by dragging their legs out.
I've taken several courses in handgun use and ownership. I'm able to take someone down with an incapacitation shot. It's very hard to sue someone when you're caught in their home and they stop you by intentionally non-lethal means.
I enjoy action movies and games and all that crap, and therefore "guns are cool". There's ways that people can enjoy shooting guns responsibly and safely. In addition to my two real guns, I also own several airsoft replicas. Airsoft is a brilliant idea from Japan. Realistic gun replicas that fire harmless plastic BBs. The guns can be spring-powered single-shot, electric-powered, or gas-powered. Spring guns have to be cocked every shot, electric ones are realistic in their firing, and are powered by batteries and electric motors and gearboxes, while gas guns use one of several gases to blow the BB out. The worst injury you can sustain is a sting. Wearing proper safety gear will protect your face, eyes, and ears. There you have it, responsible, safe gun recreation. These replicas all carry a red-orange muzzle based on US laws.
Now... that doesn't answer many questions as to why it's important to Americans to have guns.
Let me tell you why.
IN 1776 WE FOUGHT A WAR WITH THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF ENGLAND TO WIN OUR INDEPENDENCE.
IN 1789, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS DRAFTED.
BY THE MID 1790S, THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS DRAFTED.
The founding fathers of our nation INTENDED for American citizens to be able to protect themselves. Not just from criminals, but, according to speeches and manuscripts, from the very government that they themselves were building.
I don't intend for you to understand, you're not from the United States, you grew up differently, it's not wrong or bad, or backwards of you to think the way you do. It's also not wrong or backwards of us to think the way we do. It's just different.
-
it is our second amendment right to bear arms. This right is being violated. We can no longer bear arms. They have to be under lock and key in most states.
I think a good solution will be mandatory gun ownership (and mandatory education too).
No one would fuck with anyone if everyone had a gun.
I think that idea would be crazy... but theoretically it would work.
I will be damned the day the damn liberals take away my second amendment rights.
-
quote:
If someone busts into my place, the only way they'll get out is by dragging their legs out.
So all the time you're at home you're within reach of your gun? If so, that almost doesn't sound stupid. And if you think guns are such a deterrent then why do you think burglary still actually ever happens in the US?
quote:
I think a good solution will be mandatory gun ownership (and mandatory education too). No one would fuck with anyone if everyone had a gun.
Good idea, genius. That's why the old american west was so peaceful. In fact that's why wars are so peaceful, because everybody has a gun, so naturally no-one dares to "fuck with" anyone else.
-
quote:
By censoring guns, you are censoring hunting, a pasttime that many enjoy in this country, and have a right to do, regardless of your political beliefs.
And you need a desert eagle for hunting right? In most countries people who say they need their guns for "hunting" cant get access to replica M16s. Easy access to guns sure helped the washington sniper hey?
quote:
Even if you hate firearms, there are people who are legit for them. The police and public/private security officials would be screwed without them. Shoot or be shot. Bullet proof vests are like jello if you've got the right gun and ammunition (which, thank god, is illegal for public use). And if they're all you've got, good luck stopping a dangerous psycho from his killing spree.
And exactly where did anyone say guns should be taken off police? You get what you need, and cops have a legitimate need for weaponry designed to kill people.
Yeah, you just said again how responsible you are with guns. Re read my post. Its not you I'm worried about.
quote:
it is our second amendment right to bear arms. This right is being violated
Just because its a law doesnt make it right.
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Merciless Darth Jimmy James:
If someone busts into my place, the only way they'll get out is by dragging their legs out.
...or shoot you before you can kill him.
If you're not armed, you can only lose money.
If you point a gun to a burglar you might end up dead.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
If these pro-gun Americans think the right to own a firearm is such a fundamental one, why do they think it is that people in other countries that don't have such liberal gun laws never, ever complain that they don't have the same rights? In this country most people regard the American obsession with guns with amusement. Most people here can't conceive of wanting to own a firearm, but maybe that's because we don't need them because we never made them legal in the first place. In this country even the police aren't armed, because they don't need to be. Compare that to the US where "more people died from gunshot wounds in the last 2 years alone than the whole Vietnam War" (http://www.peace.ca/giftfeararticles.htm). Do you really think that's the mark of a civilised country?
That's quite a broad statement you make. Alot probably do, or maybe they feel it's futile to complain, or maybe they don't understand the gun control issue enough. When they strengthened gun control laws in Canada, plenty of people complained.
quote:
Originally posted by Flap:
You're missing the point. It isn't really a problem if people like you have a gun; presumably you only use it responsibly. The problem is that the mass availability of guns that your wild-west culture has produced allows criminals to easily get their hands on them. You may think it's "collective punishment" to stop law-abiding people from owning guns just because other people mis-use them, but there has to be a balance between individual rights and the overall good of society. The fact is that the gun culture in the US is completely out of control, and it engenders a type of violent crime that just isn't possible in other countries.
Funny, the pro gun guys like to use UK as an example of how a lack of guns makes non-firearm related violent crimes more common! (http://smile.gif)
Gun culture related to insane amounts of violent crime? Why the hell would you blame that before you blame America's racial or social issues?(not saying that this is the cause, just saying that it's a much more logical then gun culture) Also, there is probabilities, not everything has a good reason for being. It's possible that the US is just the unlucky country that has more violence than a first world country should.
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
Neither would handguns be if they were prohibited.[/QUOTE}
This is a decent argument I've heard before. Why aren't automatic weapons nearly as common as semi-automatics? Supposedly, it's because most black market guns aren't imported, but stolen from legal gun owners. Automatic weapons are alot more hassle to own(and highly expensive), so people are less inclined to bother.
However, a firearm is technology, and very common low level technology at that; It's hard to totally control technology. Auto weapons are prohibited but there is probably plenty of them in criminal hands, even if they pale in comparison to the amount of illegal semi-autos.
So if guns were totally banned, they would still keep popping up, just not as often.
Originally posted by Flap:
So all the time you're at home you're within reach of your gun? If so, that almost doesn't sound stupid. And if you think guns are such a deterrent then why do you think burglary still actually ever happens in the US?
There are different home defense situations, a gun may or may not help. Why does burglary still happen? This is because many people in the US do not own a gun, due to anti-gun messages and anti-gun laws in many states. Furthermore, a gun is not a gurantee that a burglary will not happen. A person can be robbed while not home for example.
You probably think America is one giant pro-gun land, from what I've read on the net you are VERY WRONG.
quote:
Originally posted by Flap:
Good idea, genius. That's why the old american west was so peaceful. In fact that's why wars are so peaceful, because everybody has a gun, so naturally no-one dares to "fuck with" anyone else.
The wild west was a frontier with a lack of law enforcement! If there were no guns everyone would have carried a knife, wouldn't have changed a thing. Besides, people had the guns to protect themself against the criminals. Of course the criminals had guns too, that's why the citizens needed guns as opposed to knives. Basically, blame the criminals, not the idea of bearing arms.
Your war comment is totally illogical. People are fighting, trying to KILL each other. Due to the lack of guns, they can use swords and arrows and kill each other just as effectively. Swords and arrows not good enough for you? How about our hands and feet! Solider knocks his foe out, then kills him by crushing his windpipe with his foot!
If there are reasons for gun control, using wars and the wild west as an example doesn't help the cause.
So to the gun control people: Does gun control really make you feel alot safer? Would you suddenly feel good about walking through your local hood, in a society where there have been harsh gun laws for years? Most people would not. How is gun control making you alot safer if your local hood is still unsafe?
I look at guns as details, not the big picture. Guns can create alot of new issues(like that maryland sniper incident, or columbine), but in the overall day to day murders and injuries, would they really have a major effect? If 4 thugs have guns and attack you, you are fucked. If 4 thugs have baseball bats and attack you, you are still fucked(some people might not be, but most would). In the vast majority of cases, the victim would be dead or hospitalized. How would gun control help here?
I think that even when criminals have guns, having a gun might save your life. Situations vary, although in many cases having a gun will not help. However, lacking a gun means that a person has even less chance for survival overall.
quote:
...or shoot you before you can kill him.
If you're not armed, you can only lose money.
If you point a gun to a burglar you might end up dead.
With some robberies a burglar can be crazed, so he might kill a person anyways. You bring up a good point, having a gun can get someone killed. For example, running out of ammo against a group of attackers. Or getting shot while you shoot your foe.
[ November 07, 2003: Message edited by: lazygamer ]
[ November 07, 2003: Message edited by: lazygamer ]
-
quote:
And exactly where did anyone say guns should be taken off police? You get what you need, and cops have a legitimate need for weaponry designed to kill people.
Actually in the UK even the police (in the main) don't need guns.
quote:
That's quite a broad statement you make. Alot probably do, or maybe they feel it's futile to complain, or maybe they don't understand the gun control issue enough.
Believe me, there are all kinds of pressure groups in the UK (as in any other country) and none of them are campaigning for loosening of gun control laws. If they are then they're so small in number that they're not visible. Why would anyone (liberal or conservative) want to go from a situation in which shootings are rare and every one makes the national news, to one akin to the US where hundreds happen everyday and are accepted as commonplace?
quote:
So to the gun control people: Does gun control really make you feel alot safer? Would you suddenly feel good about walking through your local hood, in a society where there have been harsh gun laws for years? Most people would not. How is gun control making you alot safer if your local hood is still unsafe?
Yes, it does actually make me feel a lot safer. Even if my local "hood" is unsafe, it's still a lot safer than it would be with guns. If 4 thugs attack me and they have guns, as you say I'm fucked. There's absolutely no defence against a gun, not even having a gun myself. If they attack me and they have baseball bats, I can run away. It's as simple as that. The difference between firearms and knives or bats is that there's no effective defence against guns.
It's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun. A gun immediately affords a criminal a level of power that he simply wouldn't have with, say, a knife. You can't jack a car with a knife, and it's a lot more difficult (or impossible) to hold up a store or bank etc.
-
I find that the firearms issue is a very interesting topic. It boils down to important philosophical issues like individual vs society freedom, preemption vs retaliation and self-justice vs court justice. I agree with flap that proliferation of firearms only increases criminality; it is simply absurd to believe that handing out more firearms for people to protect themselves will ever solve the problem it causes in the first place. This thread being no longer about censorship, I am going to rename it in consequence.
-
Okay, I will solve this for all of you:
You should own firearms because they are cool.
You know I'm right! :rolleyes: (http://smile.gif) :D ;) (http://tongue.gif) :cool:
-
quote:
Just because it's a law doesn't make it right
it's not a law, dude. it's one of the cornerstones of our nation. it's one of the ORIGINAL FREEDOMS promised in the Bill of Rights, which is part of The Constitution of the United States of America.
Perhaps you might want to read it?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html)
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, [bold]the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[/bold]
The amendment exists for several reasons...
1) To protect the people from the government. YES. YOU HEARD RIGHT... TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT. The People of the United States hold the power, but they've let it lapse. It's no longer from the people to the leaders, but it has now become from the leaders to the people.
2) To protect the nation. Not everybody is in the military service. Those who are not can still fight if the battle comes to their homes, into their town, their city. If the United States were invaded, however improbable, if enemy troops set foot on our soil, there would be ordinary citizens dropping the fuckers as quickly as the US Military would be.
3) To protect the citizens from each other. Crime is a problem, there's no getting around it. We should have the right to defend ourselves against it. If someone breaks into your home, your place of living, where you, and your family reside, you were promised the right to dispose of him. It's only in today's immoral, shit-driven, money-powered social wasteland that a criminal or his family can take you to court. However, the instances of people winning cases like that are rare. A judge and jury will very seldom find in favor of the criminal. If someone breaks into a person's home and is killed... that is the way it should be.
Now, I've been cordial, and have given you foreigners the benefit of the doubt, but you seem pretty dead set that somehow you're more right than I am, that somehow, because I feel strongly about a matter, that I'm some kind of "fanatic"... no, I just actually believe in something.
Aww, does that douse your preconceptions of Americans as being dull, mindless people who follow everything unquestioningly? If so, GOOD. If not, then fuck off. Maybe if you knew anything about the fucking world, you'd know that we're all the goddamn fucking same. We're all humans.
But people who put down others simply because they believe in something sicken me. The mediocrity I see in these posts is appalling. I understand that where you're from is different. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE, IS IT, BUDDY?
No. The issue exists here. I believe in something. If you don't agree with it, that's fine. You don't have to. If you feel that you believe so strongly against it, then get up off your worthless, lazy ass, come to the United States and speak your mind to the Congress.
Now shut up with your whining, because that's all it is.
"Oh no, guns kill people. Boo hoo. I live in a country where there's no guns, and I'm going to belittle you for living in a country where they are... I'm going to insult you for standing up for something you believe in. I'm a whiney, crying, mediocre nancy boy who's too pussy to believe in jack."
If you don't agree, that's fine. That's your fucking choice to make, not mine. I'm not forcing a choice on you, don't fucking force one on me. I don't flame you for being a "fucking pussy ass peacenik" now do I? I don't respect you any less because you're anti gun, or because the nation you live in has limits on firearms. It doesn't affect you as a person.
Stop acting like a bunch of fucking babies. This isn't your country, so stop worrying and whining about it.
-
Bravo Jimmy. I have nothing to add to that. That is exactly my opinion.
Oh and Flap you took my quote way out of context. Right after I said that I said it would work in theory, but not in reality.
-
quote:
Now shut up with your whining, because that's all it is.
Who's whining? You're the one who's putting your view across in angry, overly-defensive posts. We don't really have any reason to whine or complain. We can be quite smug about the fact that we already live in a country where guns aren't legal.
quote:
If you don't agree, that's fine. That's your fucking choice to make, not mine. I'm not forcing a choice on you, don't fucking force one on me. I don't flame you for being a "fucking pussy ass peacenik" now do I? I don't respect you any less because you're anti gun, or because the nation you live in has limits on firearms. It doesn't affect you as a person.
What are you talking about? No-one is attacking anyone personally. Who, besides you, has insulted anyone else in this thread? There isn't a single flame here.
-
quote:
it's not a law, dude. it's one of the cornerstones of our nation. it's one of the ORIGINAL FREEDOMS promised in the Bill of Rights, which is part of The Constitution of the United States of America.
Oh so its written on a MORE IMPORTANT bit of paper? Completely changes the situation then... Words arent important, beliefs are. If the belief of the American people changes tomorrow, so should the constitution. Sorry, but I hope that a democratic person like you wouldnt want a piece of paper signed by a lot of dead people to be more important than democratic process... So in the mean time we can argue for beliefs and you can't try and justify them with a symbol OK?
Wasnt this the same constitution that was amended to prohibit "intoxicating liquors!" DEAR GOD! The constitution says you cant booze! Must obey, it was in the constitution and surely you cant argue with the constitution right? Stop reading from a useless description of the law only when it profits you please.
Oh and arms? Arms means weapons and you are saying that this amendment lets you own any weapon you want without restrictions from the government.
Should you have the right to own nuclear weapons or do you believe in restrictions? Restrictions, not complete loss, is all I think would help.
quote:
There are different home defense situations, a gun may or may not help. Why does burglary still happen? This is because many people in the US do not own a gun, due to anti-gun messages and anti-gun laws in many states
Do you have any evidence for this?
quote:
I look at guns as details, not the big picture. Guns can create alot of new issues(like that maryland sniper incident, or columbine), but in the overall day to day murders and injuries, would they really have a major effect? If 4 thugs have guns and attack you, you are fucked. If 4 thugs have baseball bats and attack you, you are still fucked(some people might not be, but most would). In the vast majority of cases, the victim would be dead or hospitalized. How would gun control help here?
A gun can kill someone a lot quicker than a baseball bat can. At least with baseball bats you can run, and there is more chance of a trained medic being able to save you. The columbine murderers used Tec-9 semiautomatic pistols. Dude they look more like mac-10s than pistols... There is NO NEED for you to have access to that gun. Its not useful for hunting and unless your being burgled by what, 20 or so guys you dont need something that powerful to defend yourself. If the columbine murderers didnt have access to guns as powerful as that then a lot less people would have died.
quote:
You should own firearms because they are cool.
This and the comment earlier about owning a desert eagle "because its cool." How responsible of you all.
quote:
If someone breaks into a person's home and is killed... that is the way it should be.
Again you are making it seem like you believe money is more important than life.
quote:
But people who put down others simply because they believe in something sicken me. The mediocrity I see in these posts is appalling. I understand that where you're from is different. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE, IS IT, BUDDY?
I'm not putting you down, I'm arguing for my beliefs. Sorry, but thats one of the freedoms I do believe in. If you cant take it then dont listen.
quote:
"Oh no, guns kill people. Boo hoo. I live in a country where there's no guns, and I'm going to belittle you for living in a country where they are... I'm going to insult you for standing up for something you believe in. I'm a whiney, crying, mediocre nancy boy who's too pussy to believe in jack."
I believe in a lot of things. One of those things is that your gun laws are too loose. If you dont like my beliefs, if you cant take me exercising my freedom of speech then you dont have to listen. Or you can argue back, we both have the right to free speech. But you're not going to solve anything with weak insults.
quote:
Stop acting like a bunch of fucking babies. This isn't your country, so stop worrying and whining about it.
Iraq isnt your country either, but a lot of you worried about that. China isnt my country either, but me and my Taiwanese friend worry about them. You live in a global community, and you cant just say that outsiders dont have a right to criticize your corner of it. Did outsiders have a right to criticize germanies treatment of jews?
-
Preamble to the Constitution
Recite:
WE the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility. PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE (I beleive that's far enough)
The 2nd ammendment guarantees the RIGHT to keep and bare arms which is based on the (oddly enough) second sentance of the preamble. Not law...it's a privaledge actually. If you're a felon, you can't have em. Although it was written with the intention of local and regional malitias in mind. I would say honestly the average malitia is degenerated quite a bit over the years into crazed survivalists and seperatists. However, it is our Constitutional right to keep and bare arms. The Idea is to provide home, state and country defense. If the citizens are armed, there is less incentive for large scale dissidence and hostility on our own shores. I have many guns. I deal with lots of people who have guns. I treat people with guns as if they want to kill me when on the job. Once I get their guns we talk and I decide whether to seize and arrest or give back and leave. That's part of the job. Although it can be a hell of an adrenaline rush...I would have it no other way. I see the bad side of peeps everyday. I own a PSG, Glock 22, Glock 25, Desert Eagle 500Mag, several derringers, Walther P228, Infield 30.06, Savage 308, Smith and wesson model 1200 12 ga on and on and on... I dare someone to try to take them from me. They are all registered and legal (even the silenced PSG- but I am law enforcement and have special permits being a sniper and all (http://smile.gif) )
-
quote:
Oh so its written on a MORE IMPORTANT bit of paper? Completely changes the situation then... Words arent important, beliefs are. If the belief of the American people changes tomorrow, so should the constitution. Sorry, but I hope that a democratic person like you wouldnt want a piece of paper signed by a lot of dead people to be more important than democratic process... So in the mean time we can argue for beliefs and you can't try and justify them with a symbol OK?
Wasnt this the same constitution that was amended to prohibit "intoxicating liquors!" DEAR GOD! The constitution says you cant booze! Must obey, it was in the constitution and surely you cant argue with the constitution right? Stop reading from a useless description of the law only when it profits you please.
Oh and arms? Arms means weapons and you are saying that this amendment lets you own any weapon you want without restrictions from the government.
Should you have the right to own nuclear weapons or do you believe in restrictions? Restrictions, not complete loss, is all I think would help.
No offense but please acknowledge past points rather than repeating what Jimmy James has already said.
edit:
Oh and its all nice and dandy how you all love these "rights" when they benefit you, but for other people (lets say David Hicks or anyone in Guantanomo) none of you think they exist. It's only you who are entitled to a fair trial or arrest without cause, so don't tell me you believe in your constitution when youre flouting it like this. Wasn't it said somewhere that those who really believe in free speech are those that let others say something they dont like? None of you believe in your constitution.
edit:
quote:
If the citizens are armed, there is less incentive for large scale dissidence and hostility on our own shores.
Wasn't the point for it to be possible for large scale dissidence against the government (as the only other holder of guns) to be possible?
[ November 08, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
-
It is solely because I am trying to prove a point. It's not just a symbol. It is what we use to determine our rights. It's what the supreme court is there for. it's not just a peice of paper written and signed by a bunch of dead guys. It sets the basis and foundation for the way our country is governed today. The insight the founding forefathers had was incredible. They wrote a document that set a basic enough outline to help shape our country. Yes it has been changed. It's supposed to be, it was written to be changed. What I said in theree wasn't simply "It's our right and if you don't like it tough." I explained why it was determined to be a right in America. The principle it's based on is somewhat outdated, and that particular amendment has been altered. Just try and purchase assault rifles legaly. there are certain handguns which can't be bought anymore. Only law enforcement and military are authorized the over capacity magazines. The NRA fought every one of these restrictions tooth and nail. Obviously, they lost.
I hate to break it down into simple-eeze. People are bad, not guns. A bad person with a gun in his hands is just as dangerous as a stupid person with a gun in his hands. Checks are done to screen gun buyers are legit. I am not saying the system isn't fucked. When my father passes I get about 20 guns. I was raised with guns in the house. I was raised handling and firing guns. I was tought by my father responsability with guns by a responsable adult (he spells better than me too). That is where the responsability lies. In the person, not the public. I now work with guns, alot of different kinds, 40mm Automatic grenade launchers, Sniper rifles, assault rifles, pistols, single shot grenade launchers, automatic rifles, machime guns...you name it. Knifes kill more peeps every year than guns do....where's the "Lets ban all knives" movement? punish the person, not the masses.
Just so you know, I do not support the belief that if I want a rocket launcher on the roof of my house I should have one. That's just retarded. But I see no problem with me having my PSG-1. Does it bother you that a citizen has a silenced sniper rifle as a personally owned weapon knowing now a little of my background and history with weapons? We don't punish the masses for hackers abusing computers and stealing identities and destroying peeps lives, we punish the individual. It's still a crime to use something for other than it was meant for (in regards to this conversation, obviously the police aren't going to kick in your door for using a butter knife as a screw driver).
All I hear from anti gun folk is "guns are bad andd guns kill people"
Not true, people kill people. Inanimate objects are niether good or bad, it's all about WHO is using them and WHAT they are using them for.
Anti-gun folks don't put up an effective fight of why guns should be banned. I could apply the same theory to cars. People drive poorly and wreck and diee, so cars should be banned. Aircraft and trains crash as well, lets get rid of them. Hammers can be used to kill too, why not them as well. Hammers are bad. I have never heard a valid reason why guns should be banned. I agree they should be limitted. But, how do you draw the line on what types of guns are legal or illegal. And by the way, I have used my pistol hunting. I find it a much more efficient way to finish off the suffering animal if I should only injure it rather than kill it with one of my rifles or shot guns. Or, would you rather I slice it's throat and wait for it to bleed to death?
-
quote:
Originally posted by AmericanBastard:
punish the person, not the masses.
And the whole anti-gun argument boils down to this:
prevent the masses from having to punish the person
the keyword here is (yup .. you guessed it) prevent
Another good solution would be to just remove all safety measures from guns ... then the problem would just solve itself ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
And you need a desert eagle for hunting right? In most countries people who say they need their guns for "hunting" cant get access to replica M16s. Easy access to guns sure helped the washington sniper hey?
Did you know that the primary purpose of the Desert Eagle is target shooting and hunting, not self defense? As for replica M16s, are you refering to the semi-auto civilian models? Semi-auto versions of automatic rifles are common. What are you trying to prove here? This guy owns a Garand actually, an EIGHT round .30-06 SEMI-AUTO rifle, what a wonderful choice for hunting. And yes, he does need something meaner than a .22LR for hunting big animals. ;)
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy James
2) To protect the nation. Not everybody is in the military service. Those who are not can still fight if the battle comes to their homes, into their town, their city. If the United States were invaded, however improbable, if enemy troops set foot on our soil, there would be ordinary citizens dropping the fuckers as quickly as the US Military would be.
This would be very applicable to Canada, Canada has shit for military, the US does not.
quote:
Originally posted by Lazygamer
There are different home defense situations, a gun may or may not help. Why does burglary still happen? This is because many people in the US do not own a gun, due to anti-gun messages and anti-gun laws in many states
quote:
Originally posted by Faust
Do you have any evidence for this?
Do I need evidence? Use your imagination.
1)Someone could be ransacking your house and the noise wakes you up.
2)Someone could confront you at gunpoint while you walk about.
3)Someone could smash the window to your house, alerting you.
4)Someone could start raping your wife, alerting you.
5)Someone could point a gun at you while you are asleep.
#2 and #5 are situations where a gun for sure wouldn't help. There is no doubt more situations then those listed.
What about anti-gun stuff in America? Let's see what our friends at the Brady campaign have to say.
http://www.bradycampaign.org (http://www.bradycampaign.org)
Let's show their report card!
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/related_documents/010703.asp (http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/related_documents/010703.asp)
Now look at that. Do you notice that there are states in the US that get good grades? Yes, it isn't just a straight line of D or F grades(of course there is plenty of low grades to go around in this report).
quote:
Orignally posted by Faust
A gun can kill someone a lot quicker than a baseball bat can. At least with baseball bats you can run, and there is more chance of a trained medic being able to save you. The columbine murderers used Tec-9 semiautomatic pistols. Dude they look more like mac-10s than pistols... There is NO NEED for you to have access to that gun. Its not useful for hunting and unless your being burgled by what, 20 or so guys you dont need something that powerful to defend yourself. If the columbine murderers didnt have access to guns as powerful as that then a lot less people would have died.
Good point, people can run from baseball bats, although in many cases they would not escape.
Your point doesn't take into account that fact that an attacker can hit you as many times as he wants with the bat when you are incapcitated.
Is there more chance of a trained medic being able to save you? I'd say so, except that the chance doesn't drasticly go down when bullets are used. What do you think would cause more damage to your bones though?
Yes, they used SEMI-AUTOMATIC Tec-9 pistols. You really messed up with this dude. So a pistol that LOOKS like a fully automatic weapon is useless for anything besides killing a large group of people? Can you please tell me about magazine capacities? I am not sure if these particular Tec-9s had magazines similar to pistols, or larger, like maybe 30 round magazines. IF they had 30 round magazines then your point has some credibility.
Oh and btw, you know why you need more than 10 rounds in a pistol? If that pistol is ever being used against multiple attackers, the shooter MUST be able to incapcitate all of them, otherwise the surviving attackers will for certain kill the shooter! Assuming the columbine shooters were using 30 round magazines, it would of made no difference because all the student and teachers were probably too terrified to try and attack. So a reload would by easy.
[ November 10, 2003: Message edited by: lazygamer ]
-
quote:
Do I need evidence? Use your imagination.
I think he was asking if you have any evidence to support this statement:
quote:
Why does burglary still happen? This is because many people in the US do not own a gun, due to anti-gun messages and anti-gun laws in many states
All of this hypothesising about different home-defence situations is largely irrelevant anyway. It's not necessary to theorise about the potential advantages of guns being legal, because we can already see the immense disadvantages by comparing the US with other countries. As I've said before, the US has a significant culture of death and violence that you just don't see in other countries, and that's down purely to guns being readily available. Even if you believe that guns do act as a deterrent, or make people feel safer, I don't see how you can feel that this outweighs the damage they do to society.
To quote from the page I mentioned earlier:
quote:
- in the USA, more people died from gunshot wounds in the last 2 years alone than the whole Vietnam War
- by contrast, Japan with a population of 120 million has lost the number of young men to gunshot wounds in a year that is lost in a single weekend in New York City
- armed robbery is 100 times the rate of Japan
It's fairly obvious that guns are a bigger aid to the criminals than they are to innocent people trying to defend themselves. And in reality home-owners and business owners having guns isn't really a deterrent anyway. The robber will always have the upper-hand as they're catching their victim off-guard. And since trained, alert and armed security guards in banks don't always deter criminals from robbing those, it's unlikely that a civilian having a gun in their home is going to put anyone off. The fact is that when someone breaks into a house they don't expect to be caught.
[ November 10, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]
-
guns do not kill people.
for anybody who has time, read "deadeye dick" by kurt vonnegut. i just finished it. it is not pro or anti gun but the main character accidentally kills a pregnant mother of two at age twelve, which features as one of the main themes in the novel.
anyway, guns don't kill people. get a few hundred guns together and nobody will die till some people start loading them with ammunition and pointing them at each other. of course, that's what guns are for so you will have a hard time stopping people from doing it. that's one part of it.
but the MAIN part of it is this:
people see people shooting each other on TV. they read about people shooting each other in the paper. They feel inadequate and fed up with modern life, living in shitty assed dumps and no government gives a fuck and people are nasty to each other on the streets for no reason. And they see guns on the TV. guns are cool when you see them on columbo or LAPD or something, you know? black kids see TV shows about blacks shooting people and think they can get recognised by doing it. white kids can afford guns, and maybe white kids read in the papers about white kids who shoot up their class in high school for a laugh and think it's big and clever.Not only that but in this fast paced high tension, high debt world of the US and its social colonies (of which the homogenous UK is one), people get a bit crazy under pressure.
In the same way as people divorce and fight and beat each other up and get pregnant at 13 and drink to excess in the UK because it is on TV, people in the US shoot each other because it's on TV. it is that simple. in canada, there are something like 4 times as many guns per head of population than there are in the US. guess what, there are a TENTH of the gun deaths. why is this? there's something unique about the USA's media and culture. This has in some ways affected other countries, but not to the same extent, especially while other countries can obsess over sex, drink, drugs etc. whatever tickles the local fancy.
anyway, go ahead, take your bestshot, but after you have let loose, please do think about what i said.
-
Guns are tools. A weapon is nothing more than a tool to accomplish a job. Whether the weapon is a knife, club or gun is regardless. ANYTHING can be used as a weapon, if modified properly in some cases and without any modification in others.
I also believe the history of America becoming what it is today is largley to blame for the "Gun related incidents." I've been in law enforcement for 12 years. Most shootings I have worked had alcohol/drug involvement. In a close second were cases of pride (you know, gang stuff, infidelity and rights of passage). America has been raised in a culture of violence. It's how we became a country. Even before the revolutionary war, we fought. We fought french, Spanish, American Natives, we fought along side and against them. Then we fought the British. Ever since, we've fought ourselves. With the occaisional bombing of some country which we deemed earned themselves one.
America is also comprised of many subcultures. The first one everyone seems to single out is black. Black violence is popular because the media have sensationalized it, the equal rights activists have dramatized it and the communities have accepted it. Fact is there's just as much white crime. The stats taken concerning the race of offenders, to no surprise, would be dominated by the dominate race of the area. I would be surprised to see whites as the dominant criminal in Spanish Harlem. That's just logical.
No one is surprised when "Rednecks" shoot each other, so it's not much for anything beyond local news, also they tend to happen in rural areas. People want to hear City news. It's where large portions of society live and visit. Honestly, lets compare the number of tourists to NYC against some small town like Nevada, Missouri (after you do a yahoo map just to figure it out where it is...then you should understand my point on that).
What the gun debate really boils down to is an issue of Public safety. Does the government have the right to restrict or take away a right that our founders wrote into the constitution if that act would improve public safety? Again I refer back to my experience as a Law Enforcement Officer. For every 1000 peeps I encounter in a day/week/month with guns, maybe 1 or 2 of them are "Bad Guys." That's only peeps with guns now, not the average "Joe." Most people in America are not gun owners. Correct me if I am wrong...but that makes gun owners a minority. So, back to logic. If the majority truely beleived guns were a problem wouldn't they have been banned or higher restrictions placed on them by now.
Freedom, Freedom, Freedom. We have the choice to make a choice. If you make good choices then you live your life in relative peace. If you make bad choices then you usually infringe on other peeps rights and should be ready to accept the consequences of your actions. It's what freedoms all about. Making your own choices and living with/accepting the outcome/consequences.
Should the minority speak for the majority? If the majority refuses to speak then they have empowered the minority over them. We see this everday in other issues as heated as the gun debate. There's always no winner debates floating around. Abortion, Religeon, Politics, Foriegn Affairs, Drugs, bla bla bla.
Back to the question I asked before...As I have said, I am a Police Officer. I am also a sniper. I own personally a PSG-1. It's a silenced sniper rifle. Because I am a police officer, I get a couple of documents which allow me to personally own that rifle. Should I be allowed to. My personal thought is, why should I be allowed to. It's subsonic, so it's really not effective for anything other than people. I can shoot a quarter sized target at 300 meters with it. I can also hit a 3 inch bullseye at 800 meters with it. Should it be legal for me to own that. Some would say "Well you're a cop, it's a tool for your job and for a specific duty you perform for your Department." If that were true, and it was a necessary tool for my job, then why wouldn't the Department keep and issue that to me as needed (For situations and training only). You have to be prepared when arguing any ethics based debate to plan for all contigencies. or leave the plan flexible enough to deal with them as they come up.
By the way, just for the record. Being shot is nowhere near as painfull as being bludgeoned by a bat, and not all shootings end in death. It's actually hard to kill with a gun if you're not placing your shots. Sure there are random stories of the one that went through a wall and killed the girl in bed. Rare and even more coincidental. Those are one in a billion. There are only about 5 places on your body where you can get shot and die almost immediately or instantaneously. With a bat, you just have lay there and continuously get hit with a bat over and over until they decide they've done a good enough job.
-
We just need to encourage a more civil and humane society in this country. And people should have to be trained or at least prove they know how to safely handle a gun, and have a license to buy or posess one. You have to do the same for cars, after all. (Cars or guns - which ones cause more deaths, that's a thought) Personally, I enjoy shooting. I live in the country and regularly go out with a shotgun and just blast things like rotten apples and beer cans and so on. Now that I'm in college I don't have a gun and simply play violent video games instead -- nothing wrong with a bit of harmless carnage if you ask me. It's in our human nature to enjoy violence to some extent, and if that emotion is directed at harmless activities it it can be a very positive experience. If you think we as a society can't enjoy violence and at the same time be non-violent then please think things through again.
-
I don't think that a gun is the problem, just a symptom. Many people have mastered many weapons including their own body. That doesn't mean that they are going out and hurting people. With proper knowledge anything can be turned into a weapon. Defending and attacking are not the same thing. Defending oneself at home or fighting in a war type combat doesn't mean the loss of values. When in war one doesn't have to rape and pillage. It's the character of the person that makes all the difference. However a gun in the hands of an 150lb man sure can help him defend his wife and kids against 2-200 n some lb men burglarizing his home with the intent of raping and killing his wife and kids. With better values those men wouldn't be in his house to begin with.
-
There's no need for this debate, guys. We should just shoot the people who wanna take away our guns. What can they do after they're dead? Nothing, that's what.
Er... I have to go play some more Unreal Tournament now.
-
Yea shoot em all and let god sort em out.
(This is X11 from some old trolling account one of my machines still had a cookie for).
-
quote:
Originally posted by Flap
I think he was asking if you have any evidence to support this statement:
Yes, and I was demonstrating that not every thing in the world needs evidence.
quote:
Originally said by Calum
In the same way as people divorce and fight and beat each other up and get pregnant at 13 and drink to excess in the UK because it is on TV, people in the US shoot each other because it's on TV. it is that simple. in canada, there are something like 4 times as many guns per head of population than there are in the US. guess what, there are a TENTH of the gun deaths. why is this? there's something unique about the USA's media and culture. This has in some ways affected other countries, but not to the same extent, especially while other countries can obsess over sex, drink, drugs etc. whatever tickles the local fancy.
As a Canadian Calum, I can tell you that Canada is not a vastly different place from America(ok I have not been to America (http://smile.gif) ). Canadians watch American movies, and American TV all the time. We speak the same language, our suburbs and towns look the same, alot of our slang is probably the same. I think both these countries are the same culture, but there is subtle differences and not-so subtle differences.
What I'm saying is that we are exposed to the same media, so why is Canada sane and America insane?
Oh and do you mean mean gun deaths per capita? Remember Canada has 30 million people, US 300 million. Furthermore, you should take into account violent deaths by non-gun means. All this proves is that gun control(which Canada has) reduces deaths from guns, not deaths in general. And remember, suicides and accidents do not count(I've heard that these are added to gun death tallies).
quote:
in the USA, more people died from gunshot wounds in the last 2 years alone than the whole Vietnam War
1)Last 2 years alone? So does this mean that every 2 years, for a long time, more people died from gunshot wounds than the whole vietnam war? What if the last 2 years have been unusually bad?
2)Oh and how much did the deathtoll exceed Vietnam? By 10 people? By 100 people? By 1000 people?
3)58000 Americans died in Vietnam. Is that alot? Before you think that is, consider ALL the other ways people die each year. Chances are the deathtoll for all other causes of death, when added up, greatly exceeds 58000. What am I refering to? Drug overdoses, car accidents, general accidents, blunt trauma, stab wounds etc.
quote:
- by contrast, Japan with a population of 120 million has lost the number of young men to gunshot wounds in a year that is lost in a single weekend in New York City
Yes, but have you ever considered that people are murdered by other methods? Such as knives, clubs, and fists. Maybe gun control, and a lack of long established gun culture, really does keep guns away from everyone. Great! But people really will find ways to kill each other.
quote:
- armed robbery is 100 times the rate of Japan
Ok now this I have no retort to. That doesn't mean it's an accurate statistic though. The site uses the previous two points incorrectly, so can they be trusted? I feel I have shown that the two points they used aren't as applicable when closely examined, what do you think Flap?
-
quote:
1)Last 2 years alone? So does this mean that every 2 years, for a long time, more people died from gunshot wounds than the whole vietnam war? What if the last 2 years have been unusually bad?
There's no reason why the number of gun-related killings would have been significantly higher in any recent 2 year period than in any other. And even if the 2 years in question were "particularly bad," unless you mean "1000s of times the norm" then the number is still going to be enormous.
quote:
2)Oh and how much did the deathtoll exceed Vietnam? By 10 people? By 100 people? By 1000 people?
3)58000 Americans died in Vietnam. Is that alot? Before you think that is, consider ALL the other ways people die each year. Chances are the deathtoll for all other causes of death, when added up, greatly exceeds 58000. What am I refering to? Drug overdoses, car accidents, general accidents, blunt trauma, stab wounds etc.
You must be joking, surely. Is almost 60,000 people "a lot"? Do you need me to answer that? And your point about the total deaths from other causes is irrelevant, since the whole point of that statistic is that this many died purely from gunshot wounds.
quote:
Yes, but have you ever considered that people are murdered by other methods? Such as knives, clubs, and fists. Maybe gun control, and a lack of long established gun culture, really does keep guns away from everyone. Great! But people really will find ways to kill each other
It isn't true that in other countries we have the same number of murders but by different means. As I've said before, this isn't the case because it's much more difficult to kill people with knives, fists etc. You can't do a drive-by stabbing, for example.
quote:
Ok now this I have no retort to. That doesn't mean it's an accurate statistic though. The site uses the previous two points incorrectly, so can they be trusted? I feel I have shown that the two points they used aren't as applicable when closely examined, what do you think Flap?
I don't see how the other points aren't applicable. I could understand you questioning the accuracy if there was only a small difference, for example if the armed robberies rate was quoted as being, say, 130% the American rate, but 1000%? How innacurate do you think they could be?
[ November 12, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Flap
There's no reason why the number of gun-related killings would have been significantly higher in any recent 2 year period than in any other. And even if the 2 years in question were "particularly bad," unless you mean "1000s of times the norm" then the number is still going to be enormous.
What I'm getting at, is that maybe 20 years ago the numbers weren't so high. Yet 20 years ago guns were probably still quite common in America. This only tells me that in the last two years there have been alot of deaths from guns.
quote:
You must be joking, surely. Is almost 60,000 people "a lot"? Do you need me to answer that? And your point about the total deaths from other causes is irrelevant, since the whole point of that statistic is that this many died purely from gunshot wounds.
Sorry, no joke here. I don't consider the other causes irrelevant, because alot of people die everyday from many different causes. If firearms killed more than all other causes combined, than you'd be on to something. This just shows me that close to 60000 people die from firearms.
Are you positive about 60000 people dying in two years from firearms? Adding up all homicide(and legal intervention)statistics for 1996, for age groups up to 44, I got 16717. Over two years(assuming for simplicity that the numbers stay the same) that is 33434 deaths. This does not take into account the 45+ age group because homicides are included as all other causes. Now when they say homicide, they mean all forms, not just firearms.
It's very possible that more people are dying in the last 2 years, but do you see how big of a jump 60000 homicides(from firearms alone) would be? Perhaps your website is padding this statistic with accients and sucides?
How many people overall died in 1996? 2,293,629 people. True, this is the total of all age categories, and I wasn't able to calculate the homicides for over 45. Even if we raised the number of homicides to 30000, that still doesn't account for even 2% of the deaths in 1996.
Well, at least I got evidence today. (http://smile.gif)
http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc (http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc)
quote:
Originally said by Flap:
It isn't true that in other countries we have the same number of murders but by different means. As I've said before, this isn't the case because it's much more difficult to kill people with knives, fists etc. You can't do a drive-by stabbing, for example.
That is a good point. Drive by shootings, efficient long range assasinations, full automatic
slaughtering, these are all examples of how guns are more of a danger to society. However, I'm thinking of homicides or confrontations. These would usually be at short ranges and on foot. In the end, someone is gonna get killed or badly injured.
Interesting thing I found http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm)
As you can see, despite guns being so popular in the US for crime, there have been a sizeable amount of murders commited by non-firearm weapons. Why?
quote:
Originally posted by Flap
I don't see how the other points aren't applicable. I could understand you questioning the accuracy if there was only a small difference, for example if the armed robberies rate was quoted as being, say, 130% the American rate, but 1000%? How innacurate do you think they could be?
Well you gave me a run for my money logic wise, so I had to re-examine my points. (http://smile.gif)
Sometimes anti-gun sites post misconceptions or even lie. In all fairness pro-gun sites probably do the same. If your statistic is definitly accurate, than that is very interesting! It's just that the difference seems so amazing, 100 times the rate of the US! I have trouble imagining that firearms could make such a huge difference, but it could be true.
-
Wow, does it bother you guys that all this debate is accomplishing absolutely nothing?
-
Isn't that exactly the point of any debate...all talk no action....it's why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
What, you mean how here we're thinking but not doing anything, and in those two cases it's been the other way around?
-
quote:
Originally posted by AmericanBastard:
Isn't that exactly the point of any debate...all talk no action....it's why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes, that IS the point of debate: to avoid having to resort to drastic action.
-
quote:
Originally posted by AmericanBastard:
Isn't that exactly the point of any debate...all talk no action....it's why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's the point of this entire website!
-
Right....
So no talks or attempts to come to manageable terms have been made with Iraq since Desert storm...Ok I gotcha, 10 yrars later, after ignoring them, for those ten years, we just up and invaded...you're right...DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...how mmuch talk you want???
And Afghanistan has been doing the same things since The USSR left in the early 80's...no one ever tried talking to them as they destroyed relevant perices of world history, masacred thousands over fanatic beliefs and oppressed anyone who didn't have exactly the same religeous beliefs as them for 20 years +.
Just a question, how much of a threat, and how many crimes against humanity does a regime have to do before we or any other nation for that matter can decide that the talks are useless...by the topics posted here, it's obviously more than a few hundred thousand deaths over a ten or 20 year period. Not to mention open hostility to neighbors and attempts to become worldwide players, or saturation of the globe with terrorist cells....What would you like to see...
I get it, let me melt down all my guns, convince all my freinds to go awol, and we all just quit. As long as we talk there is no need for a military. I would like to meet you in person, then take you a few places I've been, and let you see what I've seen. You probably would have a different view. Have you ever dealt with an entire culture that believes it's all about being the strongest??? Anything you do could be viewed as a sign of weakness and from the time it's observed you will be treated as an inferior?
How much death over how many years would be adequate to you? Or, as long as it's not you and yours getting killed, is it infinite? Look beyond your own front lawn.
-
quote:
So no talks or attempts to come to manageable terms have been made with Iraq since Desert storm...
In fact, that's why we wonder why the Bush regime suddenly wanted to attack them.
quote:
10 yrars later, after ignoring them, for those ten years, we just up and invaded
Again, why?
quote:
And Afghanistan has been doing the same things since The USSR left in the early 80's
Only because the CIA and the ISI planted them there. By the way, it was the Taleban who chased the USSR out of Afghanistan, and it was precisely for that dirty task that they were created and supported by the CIA.
http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/cia-talib.htm (http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/cia-talib.htm)
http://www1.minn.net/~nup/6nov2001.htm (http://www1.minn.net/~nup/6nov2001.htm)
quote:
Just a question, how much of a threat, and how many crimes against humanity does a regime have to do before we or any other nation for that matter can decide that the talks are useless...by the topics posted here, it's obviously more than a few hundred thousand deaths over a ten or 20 year period. Not to mention open hostility to neighbors and attempts to become worldwide players, or saturation of the globe with terrorist cells....What would you like to see...
You are absolutely correct. But there's no need yet to attack the United States to get rid of the Bush regime; just voting him and his PNAC goons out of office and bringing them to court should be enough.
quote:
convince all my freinds to go awol
Like George and Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, John Arsecroft and many others have done, you mean?
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html (http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html)
quote:
I would like to meet you in person, then take you a few places I've been, and let you see what I've seen. You probably would have a different view.
What would that change? I would only be even more disgusted with our western colonnial policies than I already am. The problem with your assessement of the political situation is that you have witnessed all the horrors, but you don't know understand the true cause of the problem.
quote:
Have you ever dealt with an entire culture that believes it's all about being the strongest???
I'm not sure what culture you're talking about.
quote:
How much death over how many years would be adequate to you? Or, as long as it's not you and yours getting killed, is it infinite? Look beyond your own front lawn.
Sometimes the problem lies not beyond the front lawn, but in the backyard.
[ November 14, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
I don't know much about gun laws. but as far as trigger happies are concerned. I think guns are a problem. The U.S. has prooven that on countless occasions.
For crying out loud, they the only people in this day an age to have a trigger happy president. If anything this alone has made america a moving target and maby a just one as well. So quite natrualy if the presedent can't even control himself then what does that tell the world about ordinary citizens?
I'm very glad though that people are just walking around with guns and not carrying WMD. Hay it could be possible... :D
Also, since america seems to be the only country with that law, its also has one of the highest records of homocides. So much of feeling safe eh?
Of course throw John 'voyer' Ashcroft in the mix and America has no real rights in the first place.
Thanks bush!
I'm personaly more worried about the control that M$ has over the dull population.
It seems the computer is more mightier than the gun and with billy g thats alota power!
just my two cents
-
The problem lies in World complacency and continuing talks over dead issues. I am by no means saying bush will go into the hall of fame...but at least he did something...and something is better than nothing. He risked and acheived political suicide to do what he believed right. Yes, his money is from oil. He probably will set up something to benefit him when he is elected out. That's unethical, and that is also life. The poor and middle class do not have the power, the wealthy do. Always have always will. Democratic governments were created by the wealthy. Maybe to disuade the middles and poor to beleive they actually are making a difference. Guns are legal in America. People die every day in every country by millions of different means. Who cares, honestly. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Who cares whomever doesn't like. Even if you don't agree, the real issue isn't what should we have done. It's what are we going to do now. The answer, nothing. We're going to sit and watch as politicians make themselves richer, the poor poorer and keep the middle class thinking they are something. whatever you believe, the only thing that can be done now is rebuild and leave, which we will. Just like Japan and Germany, we will do such a good job, they will threaten our all ready falterring economic strength. Don't worry, America shouldn't be around much longer, name one democracy that's survived more than a couple of thousand years...world society timeline speaking of course, a millenium or two isn't that long.
-
quote:
Originally posted by AmericanBastard:
Right....
Just a question, how much of a threat, and how many crimes against humanity does a regime have to do before we or any other nation for that matter can decide that the talks are useless...
Look at "Bush & co". After WWII, not a single dictator has done so many crimes against humanity.
Most people just follow "Bush & co" like sheep.
...wir haben es nicht gew
-
rightttttttttttt....comparing bush to hitler is like comparing the pope to jack the ripper....
if you must use analogies, please try and use ones that are at least close to fact.
-
Let me get this out of the way first. I believe that the way to get most people to act more maturely around guns is to push people to get them trained on how to use guns. Get that taken care of and then, maybe, people won't go killing each other over little shit.
Posted By Faust:
quote:
Oh so its written on a MORE IMPORTANT bit of paper? Completely changes the situation then... Words arent important, beliefs are. If the belief of the American people changes tomorrow, so should the constitution. Sorry, but I hope that a democratic person like you wouldnt want a piece of paper signed by a lot of dead people to be more important than democratic process... So in the mean time we can argue for beliefs and you can't try and justify them with a symbol OK?
If the belief changes tomorrow, I don't think the constitution should change right away. Why? Because (most) people aren't rational. And it's not like people can't be led by others with an ulterior motive either.