142 replies to this topic

[BillyChaka]

Kennesaw may have incredible low crime rates, but America has the most deaths related to guns in all of the world.

[Whitey]

And not because guns are legal. If we illegalize them, we will still have the highest gun-crime rates but with an added few stabbings, because most of the guns used in crimes are illegal, as me and Nuker have pointed out.

Remember prohibition? Imagine that, with guns.

[Eddy01741]

Personally, I would jump somebody if they had a gun (not that I'm going to, but if for any reason I was obliged to, I wouldn't hold back from doing it). I mean, say your "arch enemy" is walking down the street at midnight, nobody is around, I would aim, and fire, bam, they're dead or incapacitated, chances of fighting back at me? Very futile if any. So yes, it is like a "noob" weapon compared to swords, knives, bows, etc.

Anyways prohibition was the banning of alcohol, so all the alcoholics got pissed off and were willing to pay a ton of money for illegaly made alcohol, and different mobs competed for the best business in selling alcohol to "consumers" at very high rates, and there is where you got all those huge gang fights like the ones in Chicago with Al Capone. THe thing is, most people don't have a very dire neccesity for guns, you don't get addicted to them (or most people don't), and the gang wars were fought with guns, if guns were illegalized, it would be harder to get guns for the gangs themselves, and gangs wouldn't find much profit from selling guns, people know it's illegal and people wouldn't buy it unless they're fanatics.

[Rumpullpus]

i love how this is soooo political glad to see the admins are about as inforcive here as they were in the deep end XD

anyway illegalizing guns would only take guns away from respesctable people, it doesnt help at all with crime rate because seriously if i REALLY want to kill someone and i cant legally buy a gun im probably going to end up ether killing the guy with a homemade crossbow or buying a gun illegally. it doesnt stop me from killing anyone.

same thing goes for about everything, drugs, guns, alcohol whatever. if i REALLY want somthing laws wont stop me.

Edited by Rumpullpus, 03 May 2007 - 03:11.

[Whitey]

Eddy, what happens when all the people sleeping in their homes wake up at the sound of the gunshot? You get shot, that's waht happens.

And there are a lot of gun fanatics let me inform you. Me? I'd still buy em' at high price just because I feel the want to own them, don't ask me why.

[LCPL Carrow]

Eddy, you took the longbow thing way further than I was trying to go with it. A longbow is just a kind of bow, I could have just said "bow" or..."crossbow"...and it would still have been the same point. But, if you want to take that scenario...if guns are outlawed, what then becomes the best ranged weapon? Bows. People would be good at archery again because that would be the only ranged weapon they could legally own. Except for the criminals who don't give a flying fuck what you say anyway, and who will still have guns.

You must really not have any sense of self-preservation, or else you must not think that anyone else does. I got news for ya though, and its old news that I've said before: most people don't want to get shot, and that includes criminals. If you know that people have guns, and will pull their guns out at you if you pull yours out, you aren't quite as likely to unholster the weapon in the first place. It's the same policy the United States Government has had since the late 40's with regard to nuclear war: deterrence.

You underestimate the numbers of the NRA, rednecks, gun enthusiasts, ex-military personnel and currently serving military personnel who live off base, and honest homeowners with guns for home defense when you say that "prohibiting" guns would not meet with the same kind of reaction the alcohol "prohibition" met with. Not to mention prohibiting guns is unconstitutional, unlike in Japan, where they raid your house if they think you might have a weapon. Personally, that is what would drive me buy an automatic weapon.

Hang a WMD on your mantlepiece, Golan. Then maybe the UN inspectors will actually come and try to do their jobs! Oh wait, UN...haha...

Billy, America doesn't have the highest number of gun-related deaths in the world. And even if we did and guns were outlawed, we would still have the highest number of gun related deaths. Criminals who commit crimes with guns may not have gotten the gun illegally, but they're still criminals for breaking whatever other law they break. Do you honestly think they will bat an eye at the thought of breaking another law to get a gun? I don't see what you people don't understand about that. It's not high-level rocket science, y'all. All you'll do is kill innocent people by preventing them from defending themselves.

Edited by LCPL Carrow, 03 May 2007 - 17:51.

[Sgt. Nuker]

Sure, go ahead and take away our guns. Defile one of our Civil Rights. Oh, and while you're at it, you might as well give us plastic and wooden guns so we can re-enact the Revolutionary/Civil War, as well as WWI and WWII, because like it or not, the guns that Liberals want banned are the very same guns that helped to buy your freedom and our security.

So when re-enactors like myself go out to re-enact a battle such as Brandywine, we're in authentic and period clothing, but our rifles are made of a material that wouldn't be invented until the 1900's.....yeah, that makes sense -.- .

Guns are unjustly treated as animate objects. How stupid do you have to be to think "Oh, Johnny didn't kill that person, the gun did"?!?! It's the person pulling the trigger that causes the reaction that forces the bullet inside to shoot from the barrel at the thing or person the barrel was pointed at. A gun just sitting somewhere will NOT go off by itself. Something has to cause the mechanism inside to actuate and set off the chain reaction. It just doesn't work any other way.


Regards,

Nuker

[Golan]

Now if you people really think that your moral belief should be dictated by some lines on a landmap... so be it.

LCPL Carrow, on 3 May 2007, 17:49, said:

You must really not have any sense of self-preservation, or else you must not think that anyone else does. I got news for ya though, and its old news that I've said before: most people don't want to get shot, and that includes criminals. If you know that people have guns, and will pull their guns out at you if you pull yours out, you aren't quite as likely to unholster the weapon in the first place. It's the same policy the United States Government has had since the late 40's with regard to nuclear war: deterrence.

Deterrance works only when your coutnerattack is equivalent to the attack of your enemy. After beeing allready shot, it can be quite complicated to shoot back.
If any self-preserving mobster knows that you probably own a gun, he will gun you down before you even have a chance to react. That´s the thing with what you called deterrence. As soon as there is the opportunity to strike ultimatively, you have to take it.

Besides, police acts as real deterrance too. Quite well round here (germany).

LCPL Carrow, on 3 May 2007, 17:49, said:

Hang a WMD on your mantlepiece, Golan. Then maybe the UN inspectors will actually come and try to do their jobs! Oh wait, UN...haha...

Oh wait, philosopher´s corner, not deep end... haha...

Major Nuker, on 3 May 2007, 17:51, said:

Sure, go ahead and take away our guns. Defile one of our Civil Rights. Oh, and while you're at it, you might as well give us plastic and wooden guns so we can re-enact the Revolutionary/Civil War, as well as WWI and WWII, because like it or not, the guns that Liberals want banned are the very same guns that helped to buy your freedom and our security.

Are you kidding? First of, Civil war makes restrictions based on the protection of peaceful coexistence void as said peaceful coexistence doesn´t exist in a civil war. (Note: "peaceful coexistence" is a quite lacking term but there seems to be no better equivalent in the english language.)
Second, neither WWI nor WWII were fought with guns owned by civilians. Noone ´round here has been argueing for takign guns from police, miliatry etc.

Major Nuker, on 3 May 2007, 17:51, said:

Guns are unjustly treated as animate objects. How stupid do you have to be to think "Oh, Johnny didn't kill that person, the gun did"?!?! It's the person pulling the trigger that causes the reaction that forces the bullet inside to shoot from the barrel at the thing or person the barrel was pointed at. A gun just sitting somewhere will NOT go off by itself. Something has to cause the mechanism inside to actuate and set off the chain reaction. It just doesn't work any other way.

So what about other inanimate objects like nukes, moloto... WAAH, deja vu!!! They´re freaking changing the Matrix right un... *zapp*

[Eddy01741]

LCPL Carrow, on 3 May 2007, 13:49, said:

Eddy, you took the longbow thing way further than I was trying to go with it. A longbow is just a kind of bow, I could have just said "bow" or..."crossbow"...and it would still have been the same point. But, if you want to take that scenario...if guns are outlawed, what then becomes the best ranged weapon? Bows. People would be good at archery again because that would be the only ranged weapon they could legally own. Except for the criminals who don't give a flying fuck what you say anyway, and who will still have guns.

You must really not have any sense of self-preservation, or else you must not think that anyone else does. I got news for ya though, and its old news that I've said before: most people don't want to get shot, and that includes criminals. If you know that people have guns, and will pull their guns out at you if you pull yours out, you aren't quite as likely to unholster the weapon in the first place. It's the same policy the United States Government has had since the late 40's with regard to nuclear war: deterrence.

You underestimate the numbers of the NRA, rednecks, gun enthusiasts, ex-military personnel and currently serving military personnel who live off base, and honest homeowners with guns for home defense when you say that "prohibiting" guns would not meet with the same kind of reaction the alcohol "prohibition" met with. Not to mention prohibiting guns is unconstitutional, unlike in Japan, where they raid your house if they think you might have a weapon. Personally, that is what would drive me buy an automatic weapon.

Hang a WMD on your mantlepiece, Golan. Then maybe the UN inspectors will actually come and try to do their jobs! Oh wait, UN...haha...

Billy, America doesn't have the highest number of gun-related deaths in the world. And even if we did and guns were outlawed, we would still have the highest number of gun related deaths. Criminals who commit crimes with guns may not have gotten the gun illegally, but they're still criminals for breaking whatever other law they break. Do you honestly think they will bat an eye at the thought of breaking another law to get a gun? I don't see what you people don't understand about that. It's not high-level rocket science, y'all. All you'll do is kill innocent people by preventing them from defending themselves.

Your wrong on your first point by a mile. It took a very large man to just wield a longbow, and with a normal bow, it takes a lifetime of training to use one (not the cheap ass ones now with pulleys). I mean, I wanna see you hit a target 120m away with any kind of bow, then try it with a gun, it's so much easier it isn't even funny. Also, if you knew anything of midevil times, people didn't use bows for defense or as a primary weapon, it was too hard to use and always will be. If somebody comes charging at you with a switchblade you can't just quick draw it and shoot them like you could with a pistol, and for anybody to soot a bow with decent accuracy, you'd need them to be training with it, since they were a child, with a gun, pick it up, point it in the general direction, pull the trigger. So bottom line, 95% of the population couldn't be a decent archer if their lives depended on it, so your arguement is void.

However, the fact that it's so hard to use is why guns are good for self defense (yes, it may seem like i'm flip flopping, but i'm a conservative, just not a gun junkie (in the part of owning a gun at least) nor am I super conservative, i'm a moderate conservative). So, the good thing about guns is if Shaw comes up to you, and he's double your weight and 2 feet taller than you and charges at you with a knife and his fists, you can defend against him, that's a good thing, but it also applies the other way around. However, deterrence, eh? The reason we didn't go to nuclear war in the cold war was because of one thing, MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. If they nuke you even with all their might, we could nuke them back with ICBMs in hardened silos, airplanes on alert and on the way to the USSR and nuclear subs ready to pop up right on the shoreline. Guns? Not so much. By saying guns is a deterrence to criminals is like saying that nukes are a deterrence to terrorist (yes, it's exadgerated, but still). If a terrorist nukes you, you can't absolutely obliterate their country, they don't have a country, so you can't strike back at them, which is why we're so concerned about Russia and their not so well guarded nukes. For guns, the criminal can go up to you, looking totally unsuspicious, and just shoot you, you can't kill them when your dead, can you? Chances are they will get caught by the police and sentenced to prison for life, or to death row, but there is a chance that they won't, even serial killers like the Zodiac got away with multiple counts of first degree murder (his weapon of choice, a revolver and a flashlight, easy aiming in the night, fire the gun where the light is, that's why police use it today). If say Iran nukes Israel, we can decimate them with nukes, with a gun+criminal, they're likely to be punished, but with the death penalty withering away, and the fact that law enforcement can't be perfect, there is no deterrent. As long as they shoot you first, they win (at least until the government gets to them).

I'm not saying guns shouldn't exist, but deterrent is a stupid idea, and it'll never work. Unless you could somehow 100% insure that if you kill somebody (with intent, first or second degree murder), you yourself will be dead too, then the deterrent will never be the gun, the deterrent is the police and law enforcement.

Now, don't get me wrong here, I'm not against guns, I'm just saying that guns can be a equilizer for the physically weak when being attacked but at the same time, can be a very easy way to kill somebody else with intent.

Anyways, I'm not against guns, i'm just saying that all of you saying that the world will go into a 2nd prohibition with guns is stupid. People arn't addicted to guns (the people who are are very few). Most people wouldn't buy guns if their price increased tenfold and it was illegal. Also, less people would make guns knowing that they would be sent to prison by the government. The main reason that people still made beer durring the prohibition was because of the potential profit. In places like Chicago, EVERYBODY wants beer, they're desperate for it, they're willing to pay high prices for it, the market isn't that way for guns, people arn't desperate for them like they were for alcohol, and the profit you could make is very little as a gunmaker and the risk is pretty high. The reason selling alcohol illegally got by was because big time mobs could afford to pay police bribes and such not to arrest them, even bribing the mayor of Chicago at one point IIRC from the prohibition, and that nobody would squeal on them, why squeal on somebody that's giving you something you strongly desire? For guns, the majority of people don't care about guns that much already, and with the prohibition, and guns being illegal, then people that would buy a gun just for small purposes would no longer buy them since it was illegal, and that the price was rediculous. So bottom line, a gun prohibition would be nothing like the alcohol prohibition, it's just that there's so litle profit to be made, and the demand is too low for guns.

Anyways, I'm trying to say that we shouldn't be able to use rediculously powerful guns for "self/home-defense" or "hunting". I mean, you could shoot a lion with a .223 rifle and it would die, no animal would need to have a .50BMG sniper rifle used to kill it, none at all. Unless you enjoy shooting animals through cement or something, it's just not neccesary, .30-06 can already penetrate bulletproof jackets and helmets, .50BMG is just too far, penetrating lightly armored vehicles and such (APCs, light transports etc.). And of course why would you need a gun like that for home defense or self defense, I don't think many robbers wear bulletproof jackets anyways, and a .50cal rifle could easily go through one of those. Why do you need the ability to shoot through wall after wall to kill somebody? Oh, I know, if you want to assasinate them, but why would you assasinate somebody for home defense? I dunno, I dunno.

I say that guns like that should be banned if not already banned right now. I mean, nobody needs that kind of power for any GOOD purposes. It would be fine to allow them at shooting ranges, just to feel the kick and hte power of the .50 cal sniper rifle, but home protection or hunting with one of those is absolutely absurd.

In the end, this is what I'm trying to say:
Guns are easily the easiest killing weapon to use (don't have to be at point blank, don't need a lifetime of training, don't need much "technique")
THey can even up the odds (or turn the tables) against a large/strong attacker
They can give the attacker a huge advantage if they shoot first
A banning of guns would not bring a 2nd prohibition (if your looking for a 2nd prohibition ban smoking)
Huge calibers for rifles are not useful for any good purposes, but they should be allowed to at safe places just to feel the kick and the power of the beast.

[DerKrieger]

The final word on gun control:
http://www.michaelzw.../guncontrol.php
http://www.theothers...p/gunthing/126/

From the US Founding Fathers:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”-2nd Amendment of the US Constitution

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government.”—Alexander Hamilton.

“No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”—Thomas Jefferson.

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

“Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.”—John Adams.

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”— Tench Coxe (Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

And from some bad guys:

“Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You’ll pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”—Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, Mafia hit man

“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.”—Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”—Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler’s Table Talks 1941-1944)

[Whitey]

Well that about sums up all I have to say.

[Golan]

Don´t you find it a bit...unwise to quote someone whose aggressiveness meant the downfall of his whole country and culture?

Razgriz 1, on 11 May 2007, 03:38, said:

The final word on gun control:
http://www.michaelzw.../guncontrol.php
http://www.theothers...p/gunthing/126/

Did we really argue so superficially to deserve this idealistic bullshit?

Now before beeing roasted again...

Golan, on 3 May 2007, 19:32, said:

[...]Civil war makes restrictions based on the protection of peaceful coexistence void as said peaceful coexistence doesn´t exist in a civil war. (Note: "peaceful coexistence" is a quite lacking term but there seems to be no better equivalent in the english language.)
[...]Noone ´round here has been argueing for takign guns from police, miliatry etc.

[TehKiller]

Why the hell did Lenin ended up as an bad guy? Anyway i agree with Golan thats all bs

[Whitey]

Probably because Lenin started the Bolshevik revolution and murdered the tsars and their supporters.

And how can you say it is all BS without disecting any bit of it? Because THAT is BS. you need at least SOME form of argument against it other than "thats all bs".

[Golan]

As soon as statements like this:

Quote

That gun control works, which is why there are no illegal weapons in Northern Ireland or Beirut.
[...]
That the proper response to an attack is to call the police, but only unarmed police, because "Violence never settles anything."
[...]
That we should rehabilitate criminals and treat them as people, but never let them own guns, even if their crime was nonviolent.
[...]
That if there'd been a gun aboard American Airlines Flight 93, someone could have been hurt.
[...]
That car keys, umbrellas and hairspray are good tools for self-defense, despite the fact that police continue to carry guns.

arise, there´s no need to go on talking, as obviously noone´s listening.

[Whitey]

The perfect quote:

Quote

That guns cause crime, just like men cause rape.

Yeah, I'm all for outlawing men.

[TehKiller]

Lenin did started the Bolshevik revolution but he didnt murdered tsars....they attacked the reds....and also Lenin wanted a peaceful Russia but instead he got murdered and Stalins reign started

[Golan]

Leatherneck, on 11 May 2007, 21:54, said:

The perfect quote:

Quote

That guns cause crime, just like men cause rape.

Yeah, I'm all for outlawing men.

See? It´s bullshit.

[Athena]

That's two very different things.

[General]

Gun is something needed for today , I should like to carry one for myself but can't do it for a couple of reasons despite I need it too much , you can't even guess how much its needed if you live in a metropol , every corner is a potential thug nest and you need a better protection than your muscle

[Whitey]

And more than a knife.

Those quotes are bullshit in my favor.

Guns are not a cause of crime, only a means. And to outlaw all means of crime is to outlaw everything. So why outlaw guns? They make crime too easy? Too n00bish? Well no criminal cares for illegally using outlawed items. So no, the "Guns are for n00bs" argument won't work, because criminals will still have them, we'll only have umbrellas and carkeys to defend ourselves.

Outlawing guns may prevent a few crimes but it will end in a lot more deaths on the civilian side of the law.

[Golan]

Tazer pistols...

[Whitey]

Gawd, that's like spelling "laser" with a z...

Anyway, the taser is not exactly intimidating compared to a real pistol, and pistols can be concealed better than rifles anyway. This helps make them illegal... they are a "potentially" lethal "concealed arm". Which of course is totall bullshit.

[Golan]

Yeah I know that writing it with a Z is kinda idiotic, but I like the design that company uses... :chillpill2:

The taser is much more effective for defense as it renders the target unable to use any weapons. Also, as soon as a certain amount of people uses these, they will become intimidating faster than you think; a taser shock is quite "unpleasant" to say the least.. heh, every muscle in your body cramping...
Anyways, yeah, even a taser can be lethal. However, someone skilled enough to knowingly trigger this can just aswell kill someone by throwing tge Taser Cartridge at his head. Colateral damage is technically (almost) impossible.

[Whitey]

I support tasers as well for the record. Though a taser isn't ideal for overthrowing an oppressive government (its quite possible), hunting, or target practice.