PDA

View Full Version : Guns are bad mmmkay...


Jah Warrior
05-24-2003, 05:31 AM
This could get nasty very quickly.

Do you think guns ought to be banned? (with the possible exception of Military use.)

My view is that anything that is designed to take another persons life should be taken out of the hands of the masses.

Example of what happens when guns are illegal:-
Less murders, by way of it being a damn site harder to kill people. For instance look at the murder rate in the u.s.a versus the U.K. :eek: shocking!!!

come on, whats your call?

Luc Solar
05-24-2003, 06:03 AM
LOL! God damn...I thought I was in the JA-section and voted a big fat NAY, eager to explain why especially MP games need guns, not just sabers. :D :o

Oh well. I voted no before I knew what this was about. Ban guns from the public, yes. Ban guns altogehter, no.

We (like most civilized countries, I assume) regulate guns pretty extensively. Only for collecting or hunting purposes can you get a license, I think. Otherwise you need really good reasons. The military, the police etc.

The NRA-thing you got going in the US is scary. "Freedom"...yeah right; freedom to kill and get shot. :rolleyes:

SkinWalker
05-24-2003, 03:17 PM
I don't think they should be banned, but I do feel strongly that the privilage of owning one should be more difficult to accomplish than an automobile.

Automobiles, in the hands of the inept and careless, are every bit as deadly as firearms. But at least there's a licensing process and a license can be revoked, suspended or refused for someone who shows a propensity to ignore common sense and established traffic laws.

Guns should have a similar process, only more stringent. One should have to prove that they are capable of operating a firearm in a safe and appropriate manner. They should also prove that they understand proper handling and storage, and they should be licensed according to class of firearm. A handgun, for instance, should be much more difficult to obtain a license for than a small bore shotgun for hunting.



These measures won't eliminate guns from the streets that are in the hands of criminals, but it should begin to help decline the statistics of gun violence in the long run. Most gun related deaths in the U.S. occur among those that are considered "non-criminal" elements. It's suburban kids shooting each other while playing with daddy's pistol found in his desk drawer that cause the big problems.

Criminals steal cars and drive without licenses, but when discovered, they face stiffer penalties. The same could apply with illegal gun ownership. No license, stiffer penalty.

Also, the manufacturers need to be more involved in the justice process. They could easily keep records of firearm sales to to dealers so that when a firearm is committed in a crime and traced, the responsibility can be placed upon the dealers to reveal the hows and whys of the end sale.

As it is, the manufacturers try very hard right now to stay out of the loop and bury their collective heads in the sand. They don't want to know what becomes of the guns they sell. They only want to sell. Like the ciggarette companies, these big corporations are the true enemies of the people. Not the people, who are merely following predictable patterns of behavior.

Thrackan Solo
05-24-2003, 06:43 PM
If you take away guns from honest law-abiding citizens then you are taking away there god-given right to protect themselves.

For Instance, a man is at home, a robber comes in the house possesing a gun that he received illegally, the man hears the robber but cant do anything to stop him, except call the police which will come in oh say 15 minutes, during this time the man has no way to protect himself or his family from the robber. So the robber could easily just shoot them all.
Now if the man had had a gun he could have shot the robber and stopped this all.
By taking away guns you just take them out of the hands of people who use them the right way. Criminals get most guns illegally anyway, so it doesnt matter.
And BTW, if you ban guns completely then people will just use knives and swords, etc. Its are human nature.

daring dueler
05-24-2003, 06:57 PM
ok....lets look at the 2nd amendment here, we(the public) have a rite to bear arms, and i think it is our rite.
although laws on sfety should be set and better enforced, banning guns!? you want another cival war?-(thats sarcastic)
on the street, dont carry guns, but hunting, and collecting, i collect knives, should those be banned too?

Luc Solar
05-24-2003, 08:32 PM
First of all: what the hell is "rite"?!

Second:

Let's just give guns to EVERYONE so that EVERYONE can shoot EVERYONE to protect themselves or like, make a point or something...

What is this stuff about "a burglar coming into your house"!? How often does that happen?

How often does it happen that you would actually be able to go get your gun? How often does it happen that you would actually be able to go get your gun and shoot at the burglar? How often does it happen that that you would actually be able to get your gun and shoot at the burglar without getting killed yourself or killing anyone in your family? How often does it happen that that you would actually be able to get your gun and shoot at the burglar without getting killed yourself or killing anyone in you family and it would be for the greater good of mankind that you killed the burglar who might have just been too drunk and bashed through the wrong door?

Does that happen often enough that it justifies the fact that anyone in the USA can get a gun for 5$ and shoot whatever he wants? Does that happen often enough that it makes the "gunz for everyone" policy grant a more peaceful enviroment than the "no guns for no-one" policy we got in the civilized world?

Wanna trade homicide-figures? :rolleyes:

munik
05-24-2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
A handgun, for instance, should be much more difficult to obtain a license for than a small bore shotgun for hunting.I'm not exactly sure on state laws for hand gun permits, but it is more difficult to purchase a handgun then a shotgun.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
The same could apply with illegal gun ownership. No license, stiffer penalty.There are laws for illegal possession of a firearm.Originally posted by SkinWalker
They could easily keep records of firearm sales to to dealers so that when a firearm is committed in a crime and traced, the responsibility can be placed upon the dealers to reveal the hows and whys of the end sale.This too also happens, as records are kept. But I disagree with the last person to sell the weapon being held responsible. I don't see how it would be my fault if I sold you a weapon and you commited a crime with it.

I don't think that guns should be banned outright. There are already numerous laws regulating firearms as it is. Yes, people get killed by guns. I don't think it's an outrageous amount, though.

The home invasion scenario described in an earlier post is a touchy one. Luc Solar, if someone knew how to properly use a firearm, then he would be capable of properly using it against an intruder. But, should he? That's what makes the "shoot the burgler" scenario a sketchy argument for guns. Guns are a tool for killing, and should only be used if you want to kill someone, or you need to kill someone before they kill you. In the far-fetched case of someone breaking into your home to kill you, I believe you are justified in using a firearm to kill him. But, if you have people breaking into your home to kill you, you have much greater problems in your life already. Because stuff like that doesn't happen, or rarely happens if it does. You are not justified in killing a burglar, regardless of the trespass committed.

Also, the hunting aspect must also be taken into consideration. While some people do it for sport, others do it out of necessity. While I don't believe any of you would know of the latter, people really do hunt to put food on the table. I've seen it, I've done it. Sport hunting also keeps the deer population in check. It helps protect crops from deer. Even in the northern parts of the States, where harsh winters kill off many deer, there are still plenty more that need to be killed. With man came the decline of natural predators, and the increase in deer population.


If you purchase a $5 handgun, you might as well just foul the barrel before your first shot, if it isn't already. If I'm gonna trust my life to something, I am definitely not gonna skimp on the price.

Jah Warrior
05-24-2003, 10:23 PM
where america went wrong is when they wrote their constitution.

The right to bare arms? Its the whole reason they have hundreds of thousands if not millions of handguns floating around.

In the UK, handguns have never been legal, we simply didnt need them, while burglary rates are most likeley very similar from country to country, the likelihood of having a burglar break into your house with a gun is between slim and none. Most burglars will nevert have even seen a gun and i would hazard a guess that virtually none own one.

Another point for you here:- In the u.s.a you seem to constantly have shootings at school, i suspect its kids that have taken daddies "weapon of self defence" and run amok killing fellow students and teachers. This don't happen in the civilised world, there are simply no guns to be had.

Hunting? well, while i see hunting as a barbaric activity it is certainly human nature to hunt for food, and as such i think that shotguns could be permitted to farmers and pest control people. Simply going out into the countryside to have "fun" shooting the wildlife is pathetic though really, its ultimately destructive. Hunt to survive not to amuse yourself.:rolleyes: hell, if you wanna have fun get a PC and a copy of ravenshield, yuo can tehn shoot things to your hearts content safe in the knoweldge that no creatures will be dieing at your whim.

Munik you say that "not an outrageous ammount of people are killed by guns," OK could you share with us what an outrageous figure would be. I believe i speak for most Europeans when i say that ONE death from a shooting is wholly un-acceptable.

SkinWalker
05-24-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by munik
I'm not exactly sure on state laws for hand gun permits, but it is more difficult to purchase a handgun then a shotgun.
There are laws for illegal possession of a firearm.

Yes, but neither are licensed. Therefore, anyone can own one. In fact, in most states of the U.S., it is legal to own a firearm, even if it was purchased illegally. As long as the firearm itself hasn't been involved in a crime (i.e. stolen, homicide, etc.)

Originally posted by munik
This too also happens, as records are kept.

Not sufficiently. In fact, the gun manufacturers have intentionally positioned themselves to be ignorant of "who, what, where, & when."

Originally posted by munik
But I disagree with the last person to sell the weapon being held responsible. I don't see how it would be my fault if I sold you a weapon and you commited a crime with it.

Because if one is required to have certain qualifications (i.e. age, licensing, training - all similar to owning a motor vehicle), then it would be incombant upon the seller to check my qualifications prior to the transaction. The type of gun-show sales that allowed Kleibold, et al to get their hands on firearms still exist today. They advertise on HUGE billboards in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex.

Originally posted by munik
I don't think that guns should be banned outright. There are already numerous laws regulating firearms as it is. Yes, people get killed by guns. I don't think it's an outrageous amount, though.

Between 1968 and 1991, there were 38, 000 firearm related deaths in the United States. This compares to 43, 000 motor vehicle related deaths and does not include injuries by either. I'd say that both of those numbers are outrageous. Motor vehicle restrictions need to be tightened. However, I think that if there were the same restricitons imposed upon firearm ownership/operatorship as with motor vehicles, this number would be significantly lower.

Originally posted by munik
The home invasion scenario described in an earlier post is a touchy one. Luc Solar, if someone knew how to properly use a firearm, then he would be capable of properly using it against an intruder.

The main problem is, MOST people do not know how to properly use a firearm. I used to train soldiers and officers in both the M16 and the 9mm pistol. I saw guys whose JOB it was to know how to operate them fail.


Your other comments about home break-in and hunting were very good. I shall ponder them further.

Sources
Deaths Resulting from Firearm- and Motor-Vehicle-Related Injuries - - United States, 1968-1991. (January 28, 1994). MMWR 43(03);37-42. Available at: http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/m0023655.asp

Thrackan Solo
05-24-2003, 10:53 PM
the likelihood of having a burglar break into your house with a gun is between slim and none.


Can You give me some evidence of this.


Does that happen often enough that it justifies the fact that anyone in the USA can get a gun for 5$ and shoot whatever he wants?


What the hell are you talking about? Guns dont cost $5 buddy. And we cant shoot whatever we want. USA isnt uncivilized, we cant run around shooting anything we want. Dont let your clouded view of America get in the way of the facts. We dont walk around with M-16's slung on our shoulders and grenades hanging off our belts.

munik
05-24-2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Jah Warrior
Munik you say that "not an outrageous ammount of people are killed by guns," You know, I thought on that sentence a bit before I wrote, as I was going to make it declaritive. Then I thought, "Hey, someone will jump my case if I do that, maybe even call for fact sources". So, I changed it to properly indicate that it was my personal opinion. And what happens? You twist it back into a declaritive sentence, with cute little quotation marks around it to make it appear that it's what I actually said. I think that an outrageous amount would be a whole helluva lot more then it actually is.

We also do not constantly have school shootings here in the States. I'm just guessing here, as I'm no news junkie, but I would say maybe around 10. Ever. Hardly anything to get worked up about, only a big deal because the news makes it a big deal. As for hunting, if you don't like, you don't like it. But I have sharp teeth, and god made meat taste so good, I just can't deny myself the pleasure. If you eat meat, how else are you going to get it? Animals don't just walk up to my dinner table and die.

As for Skin, you are probaly right about the licensing thing. The laws concerning firearms vary greatly from state to state, so I thing it's useless arguing what you can and can't do. But I concede that you do not need a license for purchase, just some other minor restrictions like age, felony status, etc.

Your comparisions to motor vehicles is good, but you don't have to have a license, or even know how to operate a car to own one. But I get you drift. I also know that most people have no fricken clue as to how to properly use a firearm, or have any knowledge of firearm safety. That's why I added the part about the proper use. Too many people believe that all you need to do is point and pull, when in fact there is much, much more to it then that. Safety is overlooked, which should be the main priority when using a tool that kills.

Thrackan Solo, you made that first quote up. No one said that, except for you.

Thrackan Solo
05-24-2003, 11:41 PM
I didnt make it up look


By Jah Warrior

In the UK, handguns have never been legal, we simply didnt need them, while burglary rates are most likeley very similar from country to country,the likelihood of having a burglar break into your house with a gun is between slim and none. . Most burglars will nevert have even seen a gun and i would hazard a guess that virtually none own one.


Dont accuse me until your sure;)

munik
05-25-2003, 12:22 AM
I thought it was in reference to my bit about burglery, sorry. While Jah Warrior may not know everyone who has broke into a house with the intent to steal, he can make that assumption on the almost non-existant (when compared to the States) charges of illegal possession of a firearm. Now, those who burgled and never got caught could possible be in possession of a firearm, but if you compared the B&E arrest numbers to those who never got caught, and then reference them with those arrest that also found a firearm, you can safely assume that his statement is true. But if you really want numbers, he could provide them if so inclined. I'm willing to bet that they don't break 1,000, I'm guessing on the high side.

Thrackan Solo
05-25-2003, 12:25 AM
I'm willing to bet that they don't break 1,000, I'm guessing on the high side.


I'm willing to bet its more.:)

Jah Warrior
05-25-2003, 12:34 AM
lol, this thread is comedy.


We need to find a site that has global crime stats.

Would it be sensible to assume that a country without firearms for sale has less gun-crime? I reckon so.

anyways 3.30am must sleep now havent been to bed since thursday :eek:

Thrackan Solo
05-25-2003, 12:36 AM
Good Night, Jah. Sleep well.:)

SkinWalker
05-25-2003, 12:38 AM
Jah did precede that paragraph with the words, "in the UK..." if memory serves correct.

I would think that, in the UK, burglars very rarely possess firearms. That would go along with the number of guns present in the UK, which, when compared to the U.S., is extremely negligible.

So Jah's comment was accurate.

Jah Warrior
05-25-2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
Jah did precede that paragraph with the words, "in the UK..." if memory serves correct.

I would think that, in the UK, burglars very rarely possess firearms. That would go along with the number of guns present in the UK, which, when compared to the U.S., is extremely negligible.

So Jah's comment was accurate.


my point exactly cheers skin, :D

good night for real now. zzzzZZZZzzzzz.


*starts sleep spamming*:D

munik
05-25-2003, 01:23 AM
Ok, I was looking at http://www.statistics.gov.uk which I guess I can assume is a reliable source. Now, I had a hard time reading the spreadsheets, and couldn't find a statistic directly addressing burglary and firearms, but I believe I was a little off with the assumption of 1,000. I did find that during 1999-2000 there were about 20,000 offences with reported use of firearms. In about that same time frame there were around 900,000 instances of burglary. I would have used a year closer to the current one, but that was the latest year I was able to compare those two statistics. Now, out of those 20,000 offences how many were involved in a burglary? I don't know, but I reckon I was wrong and it was more then 1,000.

If we assumed all 20,000 were related to burglary, then reference the 900,000 burglaries, we can say that the chance for a burglar to have a firearm is very small. Probaly more times then my guess of 1,000, but not many more I don't think.

Jah Warrior
05-25-2003, 03:41 AM
had a lil look at that site munik and you are right it is hard to gleen any good info from it. There are no overall figures and it doesnt make the distinction between armed robberies (banks etc) and armed burglaries (residential). the percentages are all well and good but without an overall figure they are prety pointless... good find though mate!:D


I seriously doubt that there are a thousand armed burglaries in the UK in a year. Most gun offences are armed robberies of post offices and banks or drug related killings. very rare to find people going into someones house with a gun, it really is unheard of over here and if it did happen it would be frontpage news (for months on end no doubt)

Strangely, there is a news topic over here about this farmer called Tony Martin, he shot two unarmed burglars in his house (one died) and he got sent to jail for it. It was a licensed gun being as he was a farmer and he is actually getting sued by the burglar that survived for loss of earnings. oh what a great judicial system we have. The surviving burglar is a career criminal and convicted heroin dealer (he is in jail for that right now) I dont fancy his chances of compensation, after all heroin dealing is far from being a legitimate trade. FYI he shot the burglar up the arse, great shot!!!:p

Thrackan Solo
05-26-2003, 07:02 PM
Actually here in the U. S of A, a burglar was robbing a family's house while they were on a week long vacation. He was snooping around the house when he went into the garage to see what he could steal. He walked in and shut the door. It locked.

So he was stuck in the garage for 3 days. He then sued the family for maltreatment and won!:eek:

I was thinking we should make duplicate keys or the code to our garages to robbers so they dont get locked in our houses:)

Dagobahn Eagle
05-26-2003, 07:11 PM
No country that I know about has banned guns, although there probably are quite a few that have.

The problem with the States is not that you can legally possess a firearm. You can in Norway too. The problem is that you can get them so easily, so many have them, law doesn't seem to require you to conceal them, and you can use them for self-defense so easily.

Scenario: A burglar comes into your house. He's got a gun. You shoot him and he dies.

In the States you'd probably get away with that.

In Norway you'd get away with it only if you could prove there was no other option than to shoot the burglar. If the burglar's gun was not loaded, but on safety, for example, you're in for murder. If you fired the first shot, you're probably in for murder too:). And after that, you'd be going trough the whole round of questions and bugging for keeping a gun so ready in your home that you could prepare it in time to confront the burglar with it.
Strict, yup. But we have a REALLY low crime rate:).

When they "banned" guns in the UK, crime rates soared, but then they went really far down. Same thing will happen in the States, if only those Constitution fanatics can admit that although something's in the Constitution, it could be wrong (too many consider the constitution the Word of God or something).

Jah Warrior
05-26-2003, 07:26 PM
(too many consider the constitution the Word of God or something).

show me an american that will admit their constitution is bullsh!t and i will show you a lochness monster-

to quote Flavour Flav - Don't belive the hype...

barinwashed beyond belief....

munik
05-26-2003, 10:03 PM
If one constitutional right is undermined, then that leaves the others open as well. We don't see it as the word of god, but it is part of the foundation of our country. If you can revoke one ammendment, why not others? Some of those ammendments we as americans feel are unalienable rights, things we never want to give up.

The 2nd ammendment was put there to help prevent the government from going bad, so to speak. Revolting against a corrupt government is much easier when you posses the firepower to do so. Also, the 2nd ammendment helps in defense of this country, as every citizen has the opportunity to be armed and partake in repelling any invasion.

Now, you can say that the ammendment is outdated, not relevant, or harmful. But, how many times has the government turned on it's citizens? How many times has the country been invaded (disregard the crazy canucks)? So, wouldn't it appear that the ammendment is doing what it was put there for? Yes, we can play the "what if" game, and talk for endless hours about how invasion or government corruption could be prevented without the 2nd, but if we were to revoke that ammendment and then things did turn bad, we'd be up sh*t creek without a paddle. That's not a chance some americans want to take.

A seatbelt is uncomfortable and restricting, but I wear it all the time because when and if I do get in an accident, having it save my life will be worth the years of wearing it. For me, the negative aspect is worth it, even if the chance of me getting in an accident is slim to none. I believe the same goes for the 2nd. It sucks that people use firearms on each other, but when and if a crisis happens and we are invaded, we will be well equiped to defend the nation. Failing in that regard because we revoked the 2nd would be terrible, because once you lose to an invader, that's it. Game over.

Jah Warrior
05-26-2003, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by munik
It sucks that people use firearms on each other, but when and if a crisis happens and we are invaded, we will be well equiped to defend the nation.

I'm glad you are coming round to the fact that guns r bad mmmkay!!!;) j/k

how many countries have a large enough navy to transport enough troops to invade the states?!?!!? errr none.

If however China and america bordered one another we would see...

munik
05-26-2003, 10:33 PM
The most logical way to invade america would be by land. If you were intent on invading, it's not like mexico or canada could stop you. Making a beachhead has got to be one of the most difficult ways to invade. Also, in the States the population on either coast is very large, and the military bases are plenty. If you enter from the south, there is plenty of empty desert to come through. From the north there isn't much for population, plus if you gain control of the st lawrence locks you have grabbed hold of the States by the balls, and given yourself a vital supply route.

Point is, we aren't immune to invasion...just cocky about it. 'Cause we got lots of guns.

munik
05-27-2003, 12:09 AM
Another thing I wanted to expound upon is the protection against the government. The 2nd ammendment helps with that, as well as many others. An example: The U.S. has this plan to accept and store nuclear waste from foreign countries. This is some deal for having these countries use plutonium in their reactors, or to encourage the use of nuclear energy. This is good and all for foreign countries, and good for the federal government. But, what about the states that have to store it? Or those states on the coast who must accept it, and have it transported through their state? This is not good, as the dangers are high for these states. So, what are they to do? Senators can argue in the senate, and work it out amongst themselves. But what if you are the governor? What can you do for your people who do not want this?

This is a good conflict to point out that a problem where the state and federal government can't come to an agreement might come down to a show of force. Now, if there was no 2nd ammendment, the best a state could do is use it's police force. While formidable, a police force is no match for the federal military. The feds would just roll right through the state, and they could do nothing to stop it. Now considering the 2nd, a state could protect it's interests with it's police force, any militias, and any citizen with a firearm. That is something that would give the feds pause. True, the military would most likely defeat anything the state had, but now the situation is different. Before, with no guns, the feds do what they want and people are upset, but that's about as bad as it gets. Now, if the feds want to get their way, they have to take military action and kill or destroy. Something like that causes instability in the nation.

I think that people foreign to the States forget that this country is the United States of America. While you may see the foreign policy of the federal government and judge us for that, you must remember that we also have our state governments. To other countries we are Americans, and proudly so, but to a Virginian I am a New Yorker. If my way of life, and other New Yorkers is threatened by the federal government, we can take up arms and protect it. And that is what's at the heart of the 2nd ammendment, protection of the State.

Darth Groovy
05-27-2003, 08:15 AM
Banning guns is futile, considering you can still buy them on the streets at a cheaper rate. Banning them would only make them move faster than merchandise at a Baghdad, post Saddam Hussein clearance sale.

Homuncul
05-27-2003, 08:43 AM
Eagle:
No country that I know about has banned guns, although there probably are quite a few that have.

Russia. Till lately it was not even questioned. Slow development + 70 years of communism I guess.

munik:
Now considering the 2nd, a state could protect it's interests with it's police force, any militias, and any citizen with a firearm. That is something that would give the feds pause. True, the military would most likely defeat anything the state had, but now the situation is different. Before, with no guns, the feds do what they want and people are upset, but that's about as bad as it gets. Now, if the feds want to get their way, they have to take military action and kill or destroy. Something like that causes instability in the nation.

I guess it's a lil bit restricted where I live. You try it to resist the feds you'll probably won't live it. I don't even understand this situation. Do you have right to fire the feds? Will you do this if such situation comes?

Breton
05-27-2003, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Darth Groovy
Banning guns is futile, considering you can still buy them on the streets at a cheaper rate. Banning them would only make them move faster than merchandise at a Baghdad, post Saddam Hussein clearance sale.

Not if you ban them completely, puts much effort into taking all guns back and stop gun smuggling, and of course, stops all illegal sale of guns. It will be hard, but when you have 10,000 dying from it each year, something has to be done. And in most other countries, illegal gun sale is far from any large problem, so it should be well possible to do the same in the States.

munik
05-27-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Homuncul
I guess it's a lil bit restricted where I live. You try it to resist the feds you'll probably won't live it. I don't even understand this situation. Do you have right to fire the feds? Will you do this if such situation comes? I'm not exactly sure of what you are asking. If you are asking if the State has the right, then yes, it does, as per the 2nd ammendment. Will it be necessary? Who knows, there would have to be a serious problem between the State and federal governments for something like that to happen.

I don't agree with the idea that we should ban guns just because thousands of people get killed by them. That's what guns do, that is their sole purpose. Guns are a tool for killing. The problem is not guns, but those people who murder with them. Maybe if there were no guns, these people might not kill, as the ease and simplicity of a gun make murder easier. But that is the what if game. People can always resort to other weapons, but we can't argue to ban them. Knives have other uses then killing, explosives have other uses then killing, etc. Guns have no other use then killing, which makes them easier to demonize.

We can also argue that we need to be more peaceful, so the less guns the less violence. While this may be possible, I don't believe it to be practical. Our country needs the violence, we need the brutality. That is what we are, America wasn't born from diplomacy, it was birthed in blood. Our foreign policy consists of manipulation, and when that doesn't work we use violence. Who here not from the U.S., or living in the U.S., believe americans to be barbaric or brutal because we allow our citizens to carry weapons of death? Does that not help us as a nation, an image that we would be a formidable opponent? Is that something we want to give up? How many nations on this planet gained their power from peace and diplomacy?

I found this at the FBI's webpage (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm). For every 100,000 citizens in the U.S., 5.6 are murdered (2001). There were 13,752 murders that year, 8,719 which were commited using firearms, a percentage of about %63.

In the UK, the population is approximately 58 million (2001) (http://www.statistics.gov.uk). I found that 792 people were murdered. That figures to around 1.3 in every 100,000 citizens get murdered.

If you were to take away all the murders by firearms in the U.S., we still would have more then twice as many murders then the UK per capita. So, is the problem firearms? To me, the problem is murder, not the tool used to commit it.

Wudan
05-27-2003, 06:35 PM
People need guns.

I'm not altogether 'down' with the idea of shooting at people, but I recognize the utility of guns.

But, hey, get rid of them altogether, and I'll be forced to learn more Kung Fu.

Thrackan Solo
05-29-2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Breton
Not if you ban them completely, puts much effort into taking all guns back and stop gun smuggling, and of course, stops all illegal sale of guns. It will be hard, but when you have 10,000 dying from it each year, something has to be done. And in most other countries, illegal gun sale is far from any large problem, so it should be well possible to do the same in the States.

And that my friends is a fantasy.

10,000 buddy isnt that much. People die in car wrecks mor ethan that so we should ban cars?

Breton
05-29-2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
And that my friends is a fantasy.


Why?

It's worked in other countries. Why shouldn't it work in US?

10,000 buddy isnt that much.

Isn't it? Sounds like much to me.

Well, if 10,000 isn't that much, then I guess 3,000 is irellevant.

People die in car wrecks mor ethan that so we should ban cars?

They do indeed. But cars are certainly not designed to kill people, and they are practically never used to actually kill someone. Guns, however, have no other use than killing. And, cars are more used than guns.

munik
05-29-2003, 09:48 PM
So it doesn't matter how many people something kills, as long as it has a redeemable quality it is ok? If you eliminate one of the most efficient tools for killing, something designed solely for that, you are not going to eliminate killing itself. In this case, we can clearly see that the chicken came first, not the egg. Guns didn't bring about killing, killing brought about guns.

Thrackan Solo
05-30-2003, 05:06 PM
Guns didn't bring about killing, killing brought about guns.

munikls right. It is are human nature to kill. Just like we are naturally greedy. Humans, are not naturally good. We think of ourselves before others. Killing will happen no matter what.

C'jais
05-31-2003, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by munik
If you eliminate one of the most efficient tools for killing, something designed solely for that, you are not going to eliminate killing itself.

'Course not.

But as you eliminate one of the most efficient tools for killing, something designed solely for that, I bet you'll see a decrease in deaths - accidents, murders of passion, "self defense excercising", school shootings etc.

El Sitherino
05-31-2003, 10:40 PM
too bad no gun bearing hill billy around here will give up his boom-stick.:( but i think it's a good idea but i doubt it will ever happen. too bad we can't go back to the days of swords. seeing your enemy as a rea human and not just some face in a gun sight, but as a real human upclose face to face. seeing the look in your foe's eyes.

Jah Warrior
06-03-2003, 07:50 PM
I think the problem stems from the fact that the u.s is a very young country in global terms. When the pioneers were heading west there were bandits and marauding Indians and yes they needed to shoot animals to eat and in this situation I can see the logic in having a weapon.

Now, its the 21st and there are no marauding natives and virtually nobody has to go out and shoot things so they can eat anymore, so... why guns?

a point i wanna address is Muniks mentioning of protection against the government.

Are you serious? It sounds like total fantasy to me, the thought of the Hillbilly militia picking up arms and taking on the u.s. governement is a joke surely?!?!

The main problem here is that so many guns are already in circulation that banning them would have no effect on gun-crimerates. I'm, afraid the states has missed the boat in terms of controlling guns, I think it would take 50+ years for a ban in guns to make a real difference to the ammount of killings.

SkinWalker
06-03-2003, 09:10 PM
Pity Munik can't reply..... let's hope his ban is only temporary..... But as they say, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. :p

Dagobahn Eagle
06-05-2003, 01:57 AM
Great post, Munik.

If one constitutional right is undermined, then that leaves the others open as well. We don't see it as the word of god, but it is part of the foundation of our country. If you can revoke one ammendment, why not others? Some of those ammendments we as americans feel are unalienable rights, things we never want to give up.
Hmmm.. with all due respect, what angers me is that you don't seem to speak up when the rights of minorities are run over. The civil rights movement of the 60's, for example, consisted mostly of dark-skinned people. Few wanted to help the darks get all the rights the light had. Same with people who want to marry someone of their own gender, and cannot, in complete violation of the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion (and common sense). I don't see much of a public outrage about the rights of your fellow citizens being run over, to say it that way. Also, freedom of speech is violated. You should be able to say something against the war in Iraq, for example, without being fired from your news station.

I know a lot of Americans really care. I've even done community work with Americans, you're a great bunch. But really, your rights are already run over. And you've gotta face the facts that the constitution is 200 years old, and thus, what might have been unalienable rights back then are today outdated.

The 2nd ammendment was put there to help prevent the government from going bad, so to speak. Revolting against a corrupt government is much easier when you posses the firepower to do so. Also, the 2nd ammendment helps in defense of this country, as every citizen has the opportunity to be armed and partake in repelling any invasion.
That's what I learned in American History and World History class while staying in the States. Good point indeed. In fact, the Scandinavian nations, especially Finland, take pride in our guerillas, which are almost the same as militias. However, times change. If the Norwegian HV guerilla shot 11 000 innocents a year, I'd be against it too.

Now, you can say that the ammendment is outdated, not relevant, or harmful. But, how many times has the government turned on it's citizens? How many times has the country been invaded (disregard the crazy canucks)? So, wouldn't it appear that the ammendment is doing what it was put there for? Yes, we can play the "what if" game, and talk for endless hours about how invasion or government corruption could be prevented without the 2nd, but if we were to revoke that ammendment and then things did turn bad, we'd be up sh*t creek without a paddle. That's not a chance some americans want to take.
Well, you're the one playing the "what if"-game here, answering the question of "what if we restrict guns?"
The government isn't that unstable. I cannot for the life of me understand how Americans brag that your government is so great and weak and that you're so free, while you are still so paranoid about it turning evil on you. If the Republic is so kind and loving, why do some Americans seem afraid of it?

A seatbelt is uncomfortable and restricting, but I wear it all the time because when and if I do get in an accident, having it save my life will be worth the years of wearing it. For me, the negative aspect is worth it, even if the chance of me getting in an accident is slim to none. I believe the same goes for the 2nd. It sucks that people use firearms on each other, but when and if a crisis happens and we are invaded, we will be well equiped to defend the nation. Failing in that regard because we revoked the 2nd would be terrible, because once you lose to an invader, that's it. Game over.
The second irony is that the country with the biggest army in the world seems to be the country that's the most paranoid. You've got by far the world's biggest army. Face it, if some coalition was to take down the US Armed Forces and actually start capturing the USA, do you really think that some untrained civilians with guns could accomplish what a $200 billion armed forces couldn't accomplish?

Oh, and the current situation is unconstitutional. The constitution specifically states that the militia should be well-regulated. The current US "militia" certainly is not well-regulated. If we started regulating guns, we'd be following the constitution, despite every ignorant who says we're violating it by restricting guns.

Taran'atar
06-16-2003, 03:36 AM
Do you think guns ought to be banned

No. That would merely make the law-abiding community defenseless to anyone that wants to rob, kill, rape, torture, or do whatever to them. The police and justice system in the US is a complete joke. The community needs to be able to defend itself, because if they don't, no one will.

Breton
06-16-2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Taran'atar
No. That would merely make the law-abiding community defenseless to anyone that wants to rob, kill, rape, torture, or do whatever to them.

We never talked about removing guns from the police or the military. I think the police still should have access to them.

But know this: The police here (in Norway) practically never have to even carry their guns. You know why? Because guns are so bloody rare amongst the common people, so the police simply does not need to have their guns raised all the time.

The community needs to be able to defend itself, because if they don't, no one will.

Defend themselves against what? The only reason for why the need of protection is larger in the states is that you have guns so easily accessible at all! I find it strange that many American people does not trust the police in ensuring their safety. Bullets do not deflect bullets, a gun will not make you more safe, actually the opposite. A gun is little but false security, and the easy access of guns is why you have to "defend" your home and family at all.