142 replies to this topic

[Golan]

Leatherneck, on 15 May 2007, 21:26, said:

How do you not notice a second guy without him being at a range?

By focusing on the guy threatening you with a knife? By thinking the other one would be one of these cowardly bystanders that´d even walk past you when you lie face down, covered in blood and screaming like hell? There are so many possibilites...

Leatherneck, on 15 May 2007, 21:26, said:

The guns already in circulation would get around and get into the hands of the criminals.

The majority of guns used in crimes in the US are illegal. So no, banning would not reduce criminals that much. But would increase them with all the gun-owners like myself. I woundl't give them up, I'd sell them illegal or not, for a great profit. Think prohibition of alchohol.

Please re-read my post. You will find that I adressed this topic allready.
It takes time to phase out guns. Banning guns would take approximately 50-100 years in which gun production and possesion would have to be strictly regulated and minimized.

[LCPL Carrow]

...and thus freedom is abridged, constitutional rights are violated, and the not-so-long slide into communism begins. And then, convieniently, we are unable to overthrow the now-oppressive government because they took our goddamned guns away.

Hell no. I'm not giving up my guns, and, just like everyone else who likes them, I will not stop buying weapons and ammunition if it is made illegal. I guess that will just make me a criminal, then. Oh well, tough shit. And hey, since I'm already a criminal anyway, why not go rob a store at gunpoint, or waste that fool who popped off at the mouth?

Think of that one yet?

You people are ridiculous.

And as for stopping production of guns...sweet lord Jesus I can't believe you.

Let me put it this way. What is something you like to make? Cake? Art? Poetry about dick-in-ass? OK, well now imagine that you decide to be an entrepreneuer and start your own business making and selling whatever it is that you like to make. Hey, now you've got what everyone wants: money that is coming from a job that you enjoy.

And then the government comes along and says, "We're outlawing dick-in-ass poetry, you have to stop producing it." What would you say, what would you do? You would be pissed, and in a non-communist society (we DID lose the Cold War, after all, apparently) you would raise holy hell about your freedom to decide what you want to make and sell being abridged. In the US, you would also raise holy hell about constitutional guarantees of freedom being abridged.

The government has no right to tell you that you cannot make cake, art, or dick-in-ass poetry. Neither do they have the right to tell you or anyone else that they are not allowed to manufacture weaponry and ordinance.

Also, if you shut down the gun companies, who the hell is gonna make the guns for your military? Oh wait, you don't care, you'd rather bitch about it in the UN until your new owner tells you you can't anymore, since that's SO effective.

EDIT (afterthought): Maybe you'd spend your military funding on a white flag for each citizen. I think I know a continent that specializes in their production, and makes some really sturdy, stain-resistant, high-quality white flags...

Edited by LCPL Carrow, 16 May 2007 - 13:19.

[Athena]

LCPL Carrow, on 16 May 2007, 15:13, said:

...and thus freedom is abridged, constitutional rights are violated,

You keep bringing up your constitution. It does not apply to any other countries outside the US, why can't you try to see things from any other country besides the US for once, don't keep bringing your constitution and political issues into this discussion.

LCPL Carrow, on 16 May 2007, 15:13, said:

and the not-so-long slide into communism begins.

o_O.

LCPL Carrow, on 16 May 2007, 15:13, said:

The government has no right to tell you that you cannot make cake, art, or dick-in-ass poetry. Neither do they have the right to tell you or anyone else that they are not allowed to manufacture weaponry and ordinance.

They have the right to tell you not to make something that could kill or harm another human being. It is their job to protect the citizins of the country. If you were to make a gun that could solely kill the owner..

[Golan]

@LCPL Carrow
You know, I´ve actually written a post. I suggest you read it before answering.

LCPL Carrow, on 16 May 2007, 13:13, said:

...and thus freedom is abridged, constitutional rights are violated, and the not-so-long slide into communism begins. And then, convieniently, we are unable to overthrow the now-oppressive government because they took our goddamned guns away.

Firstoff, this isn´t the DE so I can calmly give a fuck about your constitutional law aswell as you give a fuck about other countries laws and consitutions. Secondly, government regulations have nothing to do with your communism bugbear, every government has to be regulative else it would be non-existant. Thirdly, if your government is able to exist without it´s people support, then you have my commiseration.

LCPL Carrow, on 16 May 2007, 13:13, said:

Hell no. I'm not giving up my guns, and, just like everyone else who likes them, I will not stop buying weapons and ammunition if it is made illegal. I guess that will just make me a criminal, then. Oh well, tough shit. And hey, since I'm already a criminal anyway, why not go rob a store at gunpoint, or waste that fool who popped off at the mouth?

Think of that one yet?

No, I haven´t thought of this one yet, as you abviously have not aswell.
Have fun in buying guns produced half a century before as there aren´t any others produced for disposal. Even if there´s a small percentage of these newly produced ones getting in the wrong hands, you wont be able to afford it.
And know what? If you´re allready a criminal by having a gun then you are most likely so fucking clever to not let the cops know this by going on a killing spre... jeez...

LCPL Carrow, on 16 May 2007, 13:13, said:

[cut]

LCPL Carrow, on 16 May 2007, 13:13, said:

And as for stopping production of guns...sweet lord Jesus I can't believe you.

Let me put it this way. What is something you like to make? Cake? Art? Poetry about dick-in-ass? OK, well now imagine that you decide to be an entrepreneuer and start your own business making and selling whatever it is that you like to make. Hey, now you've got what everyone wants: money that is coming from a job that you enjoy.

And then the government comes along and says, "We're outlawing dick-in-ass poetry, you have to stop producing it." What would you say, what would you do? You would be pissed, and in a non-communist society (we DID lose the Cold War, after all, apparently) you would raise holy hell about your freedom to decide what you want to make and sell being abridged. In the US, you would also raise holy hell about constitutional guarantees of freedom being abridged.

The government has no right to tell you that you cannot make cake, art, or dick-in-ass poetry. Neither do they have the right to tell you or anyone else that they are not allowed to manufacture weaponry and ordinance.

I guess you then know a good spot in your neighborhood where I might set up my sarin production facilities. You know, in the morning I produce chemical warfare agent, dump some hazardous wastes in the next river, invest some money in my asbestos-facilities for products that violate the 1989 EPA ban on these and in the evening I just come by and stay for a drink or two.

LCPL Carrow, on 16 May 2007, 13:13, said:

Also, if you shut down the gun companies, who the hell is gonna make the guns for your military? Oh wait, you don't care, you'd rather bitch about it in the UN until your new owner tells you you can't anymore, since that's SO effective.

Dunno. Perhaps that´s why I clearly said that production for military, police etc. would stay, only more strictly controled. Yeah, guess that would make sense...

LCPL Carrow, on 16 May 2007, 13:13, said:

EDIT (afterthought): Maybe you'd spend your military funding on a white flag for each citizen. I think I know a continent that specializes in their production, and makes some really sturdy, stain-resistant, high-quality white flags...

[insert random allready stated answer here. *warms up some macaroni with cheese and tomato sauce*]

Edited by Golan, 16 May 2007 - 15:00.

[Stinger]

Carrow, this forum is for discussion, not for ranting. There is a difference.

I'm also not happy about your use of language so tone it down.

[DerKrieger]

Golan, on 11 May 2007, 20:39, said:

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.

What's the matter, your argument can't stand up against logic and facts?

[Areze]

Razgriz 1, on 20 May 2007, 23:33, said:

Golan, on 11 May 2007, 20:39, said:

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.

What's the matter, your argument can't stand up against logic and facts?

You do realize everyone of those points Golan has in that quote are the biggest pile of shit I ever heard?

That gun control works, which is why there are no illegal weapons in Northern Ireland or Beirut.
---
There's a nasty cival war going on between Northern and normal Ireland last time I checked. And Beirut is in Lebanon, Lebanon is in the Mid-East> And we all know how stable the Mid-East is.
______________________________________________
That we should rehabilitate criminals and treat them as people, but never let them own guns, even if their crime was nonviolent.
---
Many crimenals don't give a shit how you treat them, actually if you treat them nicely, they'll just waltz right out of jail and commit crimes again. Because they know that you won't actually punish them properly.
_______________________________________________
That if there'd been a gun aboard American Airlines Flight 93, someone could have been hurt.
---
I can hardly dignify that with a response. Whoever pulled that out of their ass needs to have their head examined.
_______________________________________________
That car keys, umbrellas and hairspray are good tools for self-defense, despite the fact that police continue to carry guns.
---
oh thats a GREAT IDEA! Let's all go against armed criminals with petty household items! Perfect!
_______________________________________________
That the proper response to an attack is to call the police, but only unarmed police, because "Violence never settles anything."
---
That is disgusting. If police weren't armed, 3/4 of all crimes with armed criminals would be unresolved. Like the one with the 2 robbers with modified AK-47s and Body armor, dout they would have been scared of a Billy Club.
________________________________________________
"Violence never settles anything."
---
Did a hell of a job stopping Hitler, did it?

[Golan]

Razgriz 1, on 21 May 2007, 03:33, said:

What's the matter, your argument can't stand up against logic and facts?

No, the matter is someone actually thinking this would be logic and facts. Read Nightshadows post and... ah, damnid, just can´t keep from replying.

Quote

That gun control works, which is why there are no illegal weapons in Northern Ireland or Beirut.

None of these have a stable/effective government and police to ban weapons and enforce this. The comparison is about of the quality as saying "human immune system can´t cope with AIDS , so it obviously doesn´t work at all".

Quote

That the proper response to an attack is to call the police, but only unarmed police, because "Violence never settles anything."

NOONE said a damn word about taking arms of police officers, the military etc. NOONE made one of these bloody "live in peace and no harm can be done to you, brother. Want a spliff?" comments.

Quote

That we should rehabilitate criminals and treat them as people, but never let them own guns, even if their crime was nonviolent.

This argument is in itself bullshit. You can´t rehabilitate someone and then treat them restrictively, that´s just antagonism.
Also, whoever wrote that never talked to a psychiatrist...

Quote

That if there'd been a gun aboard American Airlines Flight 93, someone could have been hurt.

DO YOU HAVE ANY FUCKING IDEA WHAT HAPPENS TO ANY PLANE WHOSE HULL GETS PENETRATED BY A BULLET??? Giving guns to air-marshals or pilots will likely resullt in many more deaths than that little [cut out] when the need of defense in airplanes arises on a larger scale. Give them CS-gas, tasers or whatever if you want...

Quote

That car keys, umbrellas and hairspray are good tools for self-defense, despite the fact that police continue to carry guns.

The average citizen will never encounter the threats police has to deal with. Also, due to the fact that police is identifyable by their uniforms, they also attract much more violent attacks. Also, there´s a shitload of other defensive weapons out there which the author seems to "forget" about coincidentally...

Edited by Golan, 21 May 2007 - 07:10.

[Stinger]

Quote

There's a nasty cival war going on between Northern and normal Ireland last time I checked.

Get your facts right about my country before you use it as an example.

You also forget that this is not the Deep End.

Edited by Stinger, 21 May 2007 - 22:08.

[Overdose]

I agree about the umbrella. That baby is the ultimate self defense weapon. One day I was driving back from school and this biker driving a kawasaki ninja decides to cut in front of me at a sharp turn at least 80 kilometers over the speed limit.

Obviously he didn't like the look I gave him, so he decided to park in front of my car and when I braked he pulled a switchblade from his jacket and walked over to my car and fisted my hood. Man it smashed it pretty badly, I still regret not thrashing his bike for what he done to it.

I immediately stepped out the car with my umbrella and managed to keep guy away from me for like 5 minutes. He eventually got careless (not that he actually ever had finesse with a blade) and I thrusted the umbrella into his extensor muscle with all my might and managed to make him lose grip of the knife and slapped it off his hand.

I still brag about this story over at bars xD

[AllStarZ]

Guns make violence real easy. You don't need particular skill if you're going to shoot at someone a few feet away.

And OD, how do you think your story would turn out if the perp had a gun?

[Vaughan]

This may be a bit unrelated, but there's a funny quote about Rosie O'Donnell and her anti-weapon regime...

"Blaming guns for people being killed is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat." - Brad Stine

[Overdose]

AllStarZ, on 21 May 2007, 19:57, said:

Guns make violence real easy. You don't need particular skill if you're going to shoot at someone a few feet away.

And OD, how do you think your story would turn out if the perp had a gun?

I'd be dead.

[Whitey]

Yes, you would. And chances are, the gun would be illegally owned and thus not applied to laws at all.

Gun control only works if gun production and distribution is severely limited. This violates one's fundamental right to defend his/her self.

A gun is an extended knife. The bullet the blade.

A gun, without ammo, is a fancy clubbing stick and a GREAT intimidation piece.

A bullet without a gun is just pretty stupid.

A knife without a hand is also pretty useless.

A bullet is a projectile propelled by a force (gunpowder) no? A gun is simply a means of keeping the thing straight and safe to the holder of the weapon. A metal tube with a hammer could serve as a "gun" per se'.

Perhaps it is lethal projectiles that need to be outlawed? Or projectiles that travel at over X meters per second? Because guns themselves are just jazzed up metal tubes with a hammer that strikes the cartridge.

I'm not for outlawing metal tubes, mind you.

Guns make crime easy, but they make resolving them even easier. Or even preventing them.

(Sorry for the out aof order, I' mnot feeling too great right now, kinda wasted-like yoknow?

[AllStarZ]

Gun control would mean pulling weapons out of circulation.

Pulling weapons out of circulations means fewer guns around.

Fewer guns around would mean easier control of existing weapons.

Besides many crimes are committed with legal weapons.

And Boidy, your argument is stupid and relies on our wording. You know what? Fine we'll outlaw bullets and guns, even though one basically entails the other.

----

As to the Constitutional Amendment part of "necessary for the existence of a free state", the meaning is inherently ambigious in today's context.

Furthermore, if you experience a change in government, it is because you wanted it. More than any force of arms, change of government happens because the majority desires it. Coups don't tend to last long, or quickly get overthrown by the populace, with or without easy access to guns.

Also if you decided to revolt, what chances do you, the average Joe, have against a likely better trained and equipped soldier? Actually, why isn't this soldier helping you? Maybe in some dystopiac future the army decides to revolt and seize power, and send the governmental system crashing to the ground?

And in any case, people are more liable to misuse guns or use them for recreational purposes than the aforementioned "protection". And the liberalization of guns go both ways. It would make it easier to maintain the current government but would make it easier to overthrow it.

Edited by AllStarZ, 22 May 2007 - 05:08.

[Alias]

Leatherneck, on 22 May 2007, 12:56, said:

Guns make crime easy, but they make resolving them even easier. Or even preventing them.

Only if your definition of "resolve" is to harm another human being. Many things can be resolved with this brand spanking new thing called "words".

[Golan]

These aren´t very reliable though... you can talk to you opponent for as long as you want, if he isn´t listening it won´t do you any good.

[Sgt. Nuker]

Since you guys can't seem to grasp the notion of NO POLITICS IN THE PHILOSOPHER'S CORNER, I am locking this topic. Hate me for doing so, but I don't care. There were rules layed down for a reason, and since one of the main reasons this forum was created was to get AWAY from politics and that taboo subject has been brought into this topic, it will be locked.


Regards,

Major Nuker

and