"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Massy · Apr 19, 2002

Mainly because I'm sick to death of religon topics, let's split people right down the middle and start a Debate Hall jihad. Or something. Maybe. Anyway, as you have probably guessed by now unless you're braindead, my issue is gun control.

The thread title is the standard defence of the right to own firearms. (A firearm, lest we forget, is an object that has no practical purpose other than killing things. None.) Now, if we admit the (admittedly pedantic) fact that of course guns don't kill people, blood loss kills people, we're left with one simple idea. I don't know, to me it seems like common sense to limit the number of lethal objects in one's possesion. You've probably realised I live in Britain. Here, handguns (Shotguns and Rifles are still fine, which to be honest, I don't have asmuch of a problem with compared to handguns or assault rifles, as long at they're strictly registered and licenced.) have been banned since the Dunblane massacre. The likelihood of anyone I know being shot is infinitesimally small. Point by point, I plan to show why I think this should be the case pretty much everywhere (At least in our civilised little Western world.)

1. We need our guns to protect us from tyranny!
Other than the obvious right-wing quick-maw-the-feds-are-coming paranoia on display here, I find this paticularly funny coming from the people who have just used the standard defence outlined in the thread title. You see, it works both ways. Guns don't stop tyranny, people stop tyranny. Ghandi didn't need an M16 with a clip-on grenade launcher, I can't see why anyone else would either. If the government does decide it wants to cleanse the country of "undesirable elements" (Unlikely) does anyone really believe that their Uzi is seriously going to scare the armed forces of which you are so proud?

2. We need guns to protect ourselves from criminals.

Do you really? Why not a taser, or pepper spray or even a tranquiliser gun? Possibly these aren't as effective as a .45 magnum, but if someone were to invent a non-lethal weapon that was, I doubt anyone would buy it. Even a crossbow would be a better idea than a pistol, seeing as you can't use one to effect mass-murder very easily. No, guns are big, powerful toys. Where's the fun in a taser? Does self-defence really include the need to send a piece of lead hurtling with the force of a stampeding elephant through the internal organs of a burglar? I don't believe so. I'm fairly sure the majority of lethal shootings are offensive rather than defensive, but don't quote me on that one.

3. Banning them is impractical, it simply wouldn't work.b

Partially, I concede on this one. The fallacious idea that a gun is necessary for the preservation of life and liberty is ingrained into so many people's minds that taking them away would be difficult to say the least. However, compulsory regulation could be acheieved (If you need a license to own a car, I see no reason why you shouldn't need one to own a firearm.) and incentives given to people willing to give up their shiny tool o' death. Plus, just because something is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try and do it if it's the right thing to do, and I believe it is.

*Exhales* I predict getting flamed to fook for this one...

Oh, and an addendum. I don't like putting restrictions on debates, but I really feel that it would go along better if everyone just refrained from using statstics. Both sides throw up the same set of stats each time and they completely contradict each other. Even if the original information is correct (Which it often isn't) they can be used to mislead to the point that lying is the most appropraite word for it. For example:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
"In Australia, after almost completely banning guns, crime skyrocketed.
In Switzerland, where automatic rifles are everywhere, crime is low."<hr /></blockquote>What does this even ****ing mean?

In Australia, which is a large country, the population density is low.
In Switzerland, which is a small country, the population density is high.

I therefore humbly propose that the further up in the alphabet your country gets, the higher the population density! IT'S A FACT, PEOPLE!!!

Edit: Thanks to Toasterleavings (Who I don't know, and nor do you, but I've partially cut-n-pasted.)

[ May 24, 2002, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Gideon ]

BinkysEvolution · Apr 19, 2002

I couldn't agree more. I've always thought that in the very least the US should have better gun control laws. I wish I had something to add to that, but it likes you covered everything.
Surely there is someone out there who will debate this topic.

XDaDePsak · Apr 20, 2002

Actually people don't die from the loss of blood, they die from the lack of oxygen in the brain.

wait, no they die from their braincells dying from lack of oxygen...

no...they die because without braincells to interact, the synapses stop firing...

[ May 24, 2002, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Gideon ]

Gamer4Fire · Apr 20, 2002

I could make a similar post on how millions die each year due to auto accidents, how the government should license and restrict every one, and have them contracted out for business and personal use to save billions of dollars in medical, highway and other costs...

1, We need our guns to protect us from tyranny.

Before I answer this question, I would like to point out that every one of the ten rights were written specifically because of something the British did to the colonial Americans. They stripped them of their weapons, took over their houses and treated them badly. These were people who considered themselves proud British citizens under the Crown, and felt, and in fact, were betrayed by their own government.

Although the odds of the government trying anything now are less than nil, we don't know about twenty, fifty or a hundred years from now. Our [The American] government is already on a path of high state security, low personal privacy. That is scaring a lot of people, and for good reason.

To protect from tyranny now, no. Tyranny in the near future, possible but unlikely. Tyranny for the continuation of the U.S? Yeah. We do not know what the future holds, but we embrace it with eyes open and our thumbs on the hammers.

2, We need to protect ourselves against criminals.

Yeah, even our [the American] cops admit that they cannot be everywhere at once, and they prefer citizens to be armed to protect themselves and even police. Hereâ€™s a statistic that I will use. In all the years, any and all States of the U.S. have had concealed carry, not one single citizen with concealed carry rights have ever shot a police man, or other lawman. In fact, numerous times have they actually saved the lives of those people, who swore to protect and serve them.

It is well known that even the site of a gun will turn most criminals. As stupid as they are, they know that being dead would suck, and they usually run for it (because being in prison sucks, too. But not as much). Contrary to popular belief, outlaws are not super commando style raiders with impeccable aim and martial arts skills. Most are dumb punks and teenagers hoping to get some money to do whatever they do with it. Drugs, hookers, what have you. A gun scares them, especially when pointed any where near their general direction.

This is extremely helpful for people who couldn't usually defend themselves. The elderly and most women come to mind. Yes, I'm a large guy that can intimidate a one hundred eighty pound man to give up before I smash his face in with my boot. A one hundred ten pound women couldn't do that. A gun held by a one hundred ten pound women could make the toughest guy piss his pants. So yes, guns are useful against crime. When my police tell me that, and want me to do that, I have to take their word for it. It's their job and their necks on the line when it all goes down.

3, Banning them is impractical, it simply wouldn't work

Not to mention, that in the U.S. it is also illegal.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As I said before, every right we have is because somebody proved to us that we needed them. A militia is any group of people with any weapons protecting their community. Whether that community is a city, state, or farm, it doesn't matter. They have the right to do so with any resource to protect themselves and others against those who would harm them.

For that reason we made it illegal to ban them a long time ago to ensure that it would never happen again.

Sorry for using a statistic, Massy. j/k I wonder if this was the type of response you were expecting. Or were you expecting a more gungho approach? I'm, of course, awaiting you reply. Make it a good one so we can both enjoy this debate, because I'm as sick as you are of all these religious topics.

Tidus10 · Apr 20, 2002

GUNS SHOULDN'T BE BANNED BECAUSE... In the first place Guns were really only meant for the Millitary and police to use but people some how get them and use them illegely for people to kill other inosent people and then it turns into a big disaster and thats why we think about this now.

Nuff Said

Gamer4Fire · Apr 20, 2002

Are you stupid or just brainwashed? Guns were originally made by people for people. Gun powder was invented by the Chinese, Europe used it to make guns. Rich people who could afford them had them, eventually they became popular and cheap enough for a lot of people to have them.

Guns aren't some military secret that accidently got out and killed people.

S_O_B_SlasherZ · Apr 20, 2002

For once i can agree with Gamer here. And why Massy would be worried about the U.S gun control and he doesnt even live here is beyone me....anyways. Guns are tools made by humans for humans. They have more uses then just for killing people for example,hunting and compettion or just going down to the range to shoot skeets.And I for one have never seen a gun walk up to somebody and shoot them. Have any of you? Like i mentioned earlier guns are tools.A person could use anything else to kill somebdy with.The person has to make the decision to kill them.Not the gun,the gun just doesnt say "hey see that guy shoot it would be cool." Its the person with the willingness to kill. Also I think its kinda funny to hear someone from Britian saying we dont need them to protect us from Tyranny.Like Gamer said anything could happen. We'll thats me 2 cents

Gamer4Fire · Apr 20, 2002

Nice point. Get a gun, load it, **** it and set it on a table. In that state it is not a danger to anyone until someone picks it up and uses it. Guns don't kill people. A gun is an inanimate object. A tire iron, baseball bat or pencil can be used to kill someone. But until someone does point a gun at you, there is no danger.

Massy- Tell us American and Canadian folks about the wacko that went into a church and sliced up a bunch of people with a sword. Should swords be banned as well? And tell us about the two teenagers who killed the toddler just outside London. They didn't use a gun, but the toddler is just as dead.

I would like to point out that guns have been used to put food on the table in the U.S. for over two hundred years. People have hunted to augment their food supply ever since they came to America. A twenty cent bullet can get a good hunter two, three hundred pounds of fresh meat. We've been, and still do hunt for food here. That's how a lot of us out west [Western United States] save on money. We hunt. Venison jerky, quail, duck, a large stable of our diets come from food that we went out and got ourselves. I'm not sure if it's the same in the east [Eastern United States], but that's how itâ€™s always been here.

Yes, guns are used primarily for killing things. But it is still only a tool used for a job. Whether to get food, protect ourselves or compete, that is our business. Why should you worry or care what we do with them? Most of us are just peaceful Americans. A car in the hands of a drunk driver is just as, if not more dangerous. A wacko with a sword in England is just as dangerous. A couple of evil teenagers out for fun are just as dangerous. Guns don't matter in the equation. People have been killing each other since before the start of history. Bare hands, rocks, clubs, swords, water, poison, pistols, cars, assault rifles. Does it really matter what they use, since, in the end the person is still dead?

jameslocke · Apr 20, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gamer4Fire:
 A tire iron, baseball bat or pencil can be used to kill someone. But until someone does point a gun at you, there is no danger.
Massy- Tell us American and Canadian folks about the wacko that went into a church and sliced up a bunch of people with a sword. Should swords be banned as well? And tell us about the two teenagers who killed the toddler just outside London. They didn't use a gun, but the toddler is just as dead.<hr /></blockquote>As a brit currently living in the united states, i tend to agree with massy that guns are a problem here(US). in england, guns are restricted and people dont tend to kill each with guns. here, people can walk into crowded place and start firing away at a large number of people. the arguement about the sword is flawed because the sword can be used by one person, to attack a few people. a gun can be used by one person to kill a much larger number of people. could the students of the columbine shooting have been killed in such a large number if the two attackers had only swords instead of guns and pipe bombs? absolutely not. and now for some Taoist wisdom:
[Start]
Weapons are tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.

Weapons are tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.[End]

now ask yourself, are you a decent [person]?

Massy · Apr 20, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I could make a similar post on how millions die each year due to auto accidents, how the government should license and restrict every one.<hr /></blockquote>Ummmm...last time I checked, cars are licensed and registered.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />1, We need our guns to protect us from tyranny.

Before I answer this question, I would like to point out that every one of the ten rights were written specifically because of something the British did to the colonial Americans. They stripped them of their weapons, took over their houses and treated them badly. These were people who considered themselves proud British citizens under the Crown, and felt, and in fact, were betrayed by their own government.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not going to debate History here, suffice to say I'm no great fan of what was the British Empire. But it is not the 18th century any longer. America is by far the most powerful military nation on the planet. The chances of it getting invaded are nil, and the chances of it getting beaten so that it has to rely on its citizens, is lower than that.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Although the odds of the government trying anything now are less than nil, we don't know about twenty, fifty or a hundred years from now. Our [The American] government is already on a path of high state security, low personal privacy. That is scaring a lot of people, and for good reason.<hr /></blockquote>Possibly. But guns don't stop tyranny. People stop tyranny. Resisting with M16s just provides further incentive to "clamp down on these terrorists." Look at the middle east. The intifidah throwing stones brought down Benyamin Netanyahu. Intifidah 2.0 with AK47s resulted in mass slaughter. A gun will not protect you, a social conscience and the ability to see opression will.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />2, We need to protect ourselves against criminals.

Yeah, even our [the American] cops admit that they cannot be everywhere at once, and they prefer citizens to be armed to protect themselves and even police. Hereâ€™s a statistic that I will use. In all the years, any and all States of the U.S. have had concealed carry, not one single citizen with concealed carry rights have ever shot a police man, or other lawman. In fact, numerous times have they actually saved the lives of those people, who swore to protect and serve them.<hr /></blockquote>Again, this is misleading. A small number of people (I'm fairly sure not all states allow concealed carry, correct me if I'm wrong. However, it's still a minority.) have not yet killed another small proportion of people. Registered gun owners who only kill civilians are an irrelevancy to the accuracy of the statistic, but entirely relevant to the argument.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It is well known that even the site[sic] of a gun will turn most criminals. As stupid as they are, they know that being dead would suck, and they usually run for it (because being in prison sucks, too. But not as much). Contrary to popular belief, outlaws are not super commando style raiders with impeccable aim and martial arts skills. Most are dumb punks and teenagers hoping to get some money to do whatever they do with it. Drugs, hookers, what have you. A gun scares them, especially when pointed any where near their general direction. This is extremely helpful for people who couldn't usually defend themselves. The elderly and most women come to mind. Yes, I'm a large guy that can intimidate a one hundred eighty pound man to give up before I smash his face in with my boot. A one hundred ten pound women couldn't do that. A gun held by a one hundred ten pound women could make the toughest guy piss his pants. So yes, guns are useful against crime. When my police tell me that, and want me to do that, I have to take their word for it. It's their job and their necks on the line when it all goes down.<hr /></blockquote>A criminal is unlikely to be fazed by a gun when he's holding one too. He is however, likely to shoot you when you whip that beretta from your pocket. And what of the non-lethal weapons? Are they not likely to be just as effective. Not for shock value admittedly, but when it's crunch time that's not what counts.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />3. Banning them is impractical, it simply wouldn't work

Not to mention, that in the U.S. it is also illegal.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<hr /></blockquote>Despite the legion free states that function without a militia, the constitution is, and always will be, vague. A militia could easily be interpreted in modern terms as the National Guard.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />As I said before, every right we have is because somebody proved to us that we needed them. A militia is any group of people with any weapons protecting their community. Whether that community is a city, state, or farm, it doesn't matter. They have the right to do so with any resource to protect themselves and others against those who would harm them.<hr /></blockquote>But do they have the right to kill them? Could you look the son or daughter of the burglar you just shot dead in the eye and tell them that their Daddy deserved it?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />For that reason we made it illegal to ban them a long time ago to ensure that it would never happen again.<hr /></blockquote>But times change.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Sorry for using a statistic, Massy. j/k I wonder if this was the type of response you were expecting. Or were you expecting a more gungho approach? I'm, of course, awaiting you reply. Make it a good one so we can both enjoy this debate, because I'm as sick as you are of all these religious topics.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, I was hoping SlasherZ would reply first to strengthen my argument.

[ April 20, 2002, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Massy ]

Massy · Apr 20, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />For once i can agree with Gamer here. And why Massy would be worried about the US gun control and he doesnt even live here is beyone[sic] me....anyways. Guns are tools made by humans for humans. They have more uses then just for killing people for example, hunting and compettion or just going down to the range to shoot skeets. And I for one have never seen a gun walk up to somebody and shoot them. Have any of you? Like I mentioned earlier guns are tools. A person could use anything else to kill somebdy[sic] with. The person has to make the decision to kill them. Not the gun,the gun just doesnt say "hey see that guy shoot it would be cool." Its the person with the willingness to kill. Like Gamer said anything could happen. We'll thats me 2 cents.<hr /></blockquote>If you look at my post, you won't see any mention of the US anywhere. Of course, from what I've seen of your posts the world starts in Los Angeles and ends in New York, so I'm not paticularly surprised. Of course, the US situation is implied, but if I made a topic about UK gun control, I can see it sinking to the bottom of the hall fairly quickly. It needs to be relevant to the people that visit the room, predominantly Americans. This however, it an issue everywhere, so please stop assuming the US is the centre of the universe.

Of course the gun doesn't kill anyone by itself. But it is a tool for killing people. (Your point about hunting was moronic, because that still involves killing things, and various non-lethal weapons will suffice for target shooting.)

"Also I think its kinda funny to hear someone from Britian saying we dont need them to protect us from Tyranny."

I take issue with this. Granted the US deserved its independence, just like India and the African colonies, and possibly the taxation was over-zealous. But tyranny? Bull****. It's not like they had the Union Jack hanging in classrooms where the children would be made to swear allegiance to it like they do in fascist states, it's not like there was an iron curtain stretching across the continent. Get your facts straight and stop watching The Patriot for your historical sources.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Massy- Tell us American and Canadian folks about the wacko that went into a church and sliced up a bunch of people with a sword. Should swords be banned as well? And tell us about the two teenagers who killed the toddler just outside London. They didn't use a gun, but the toddler is just as dead.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, a guy walked into a church naked and wielding a sword, killed two people. Thank **** he didn't have a gun. As for the other one, assuming you're talking about the Bulger murder, what's your point? The fact is, knives, cars, baseball bats, whatever all have a legitimate purpose outside killing things. (And last time I checked, knives over a certain length were also controlled by law.) A gun is a machine whose sold purpose it to make killing quicker and easier. (Oh, and fyi it wasn't "just outside London" - Liverpool is a couple of hundred miles away.)

Also, it's worth considering the psychological element of a gun. With a sword, knife, whatever, you have to push it into the victim. You have to feel their ribs break, their organs puncture. You have to really want your victim dead. A gun removes this. Pull the trigger, and they're down, no problem. It removes you entirely from the act of killing.

About the hunting thing, sure, a gun can be used to put food on the table. However, I contend that it's only a tiny fraction compared to what one buys from their local Walmart. It's not really essential. Aditionally, for hunting one uses Rifles and Shotguns. As I've said, they're legal here, and I don't have much of a problem with them as long as they're controlled, regulated and registered properly. What I can't see is why anyone really needs to own an Uzi, M16 or Grenade Launcher.

[ April 20, 2002, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Massy ]

Gamer4Fire · Apr 21, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> <blockquote>quote:<hr />1, We need our guns to protect us from tyranny.

Before I answer this question, I would like to point out that every one of the ten rights were written specifically because of something the British did to the colonial Americans. They stripped them of their weapons, took over their houses and treated them badly. These were people who considered themselves proud British citizens under the Crown, and felt, and in fact, were betrayed by their own government.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not going to debate History here, suffice to say I'm no great fan of what was the British Empire. But it is not the 18th century any longer. America is by far the most powerful military nation on the planet. The chances of it getting invaded are nil, and the chances of it getting beaten so that it has to rely on its citizens, is lower than that.<hr /></blockquote>What does that have to do with tyranny? Tyranny is usually from with in the government not out.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Possibly. But guns don't stop tyranny. People stop tyranny. Resisting with M16s just provides further incentive to "clamp down on these terrorists." Look at the middle east. The intifidah throwing stones brought down Benyamin Netanyahu. Intifidah 2.0 with AK47s resulted in mass slaughter. A gun will not protect you, a social conscience and the ability to see opression will.<hr /></blockquote>That would merely depend on the governments resolve. As I recall, Hitler had no problem killing his people in the millions. He confiscated all their guns first, of course.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> <blockquote>quote:<hr />2, We need to protect ourselves against criminals.

Yeah, even our [the American] cops admit that they cannot be everywhere at once, and they prefer citizens to be armed to protect themselves and even police. Hereâ€™s a statistic that I will use. In all the years, any and all States of the U.S. have had concealed carry, not one single citizen with concealed carry rights have ever shot a police man, or other lawman. In fact, numerous times have they actually saved the lives of those people, who swore to protect and serve them.<hr /></blockquote>Again, this is misleading. A small number of people (I'm fairly sure not all states allow concealed carry, correct me if I'm wrong. However, it's still a minority.) have not yet killed another small proportion of people. Registered gun owners who only kill civilians are an irrelevancy to the accuracy of the statistic, but entirely relevant to the argument.
<hr /></blockquote>Every State has some form of concealed carry. In the states that it is more pronounced (Rural Center and Western United States) the majority of people carry guns, they enjoy very low crimes compared to the areas without, and the majority has yet to kill a police officer yet.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />A criminal is unlikely to be fazed by a gun when he's holding one too. He is however, likely to shoot you when you whip that beretta from your pocket. And what of the non-lethal weapons? Are they not likely to be just as effective. Not for shock value admittedly, but when it's crunch time that's not what counts.<hr /></blockquote>A criminal would just shoot you if you have a taser. You would have to get within arms length to harm him, and he can be anywhere. Massy, did you suddenly go stupid? And as I said, most criminals don't have guns, and the ones who do aren't exactly the best shots. Of course when he can just keep shooting at you, because you just have a taser, his odds rise rapidly.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Despite the legion free states that function without a militia, the constitution is, and always will be, vague. A militia could easily be interpreted in modern terms as the National Guard.<hr /></blockquote>National Guard is controlled by the governor. By definition, that doesn't make them a militia. Though they could function as one.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />But do they have the right to kill them? Could you look the son or daughter of the burglar you just shot dead in the eye and tell them that their Daddy deserved it?<hr /></blockquote>Yes. I would have no qualms with telling a kid exactly why his dad died.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> <blockquote>quote:<hr />For that reason we made it illegal to ban them a long time ago to ensure that it would never happen again.<hr /></blockquote>But times change.
<hr /></blockquote>Yes, sometimes for the worst. Or did you forget that?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Yes, a guy walked into a church naked and wielding a sword, killed two people. Thank **** he didn't have a gun. As for the other one, assuming you're talking about the Bulger murder, what's your point? The fact is, knives, cars, baseball bats, whatever all have a legitimate purpose outside killing things. (And last time I checked, knives over a certain length were also controlled by law.) A gun is a machine whose sold purpose it to make killing quicker and easier. (Oh, and fyi it wasn't "just outside London" - Liverpool is a couple of hundred miles away.)<hr /></blockquote>You must be mistaken. I was referring to the one just outside London, a couple of teenagers enticed a toddler behind a shopping mall where they brutally tortured and killed the kid. I noticed it in the world news, it had half a paragraph and that's all the info it gave us Americans.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Also, it's worth considering the psychological element of a gun. With a sword, knife, whatever, you have to push it into the victim. You have to feel their ribs break, their organs puncture. You have to really want your victim dead. A gun removes this. Pull the trigger, and they're down, no problem. It removes you entirely from the act of killing.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not going to explain how stupid this is. They have counseling for SWAT, police and military forces because of the effects of shooting someone. Watching as the bullet tears through flesh, bone and marrow, spraying blood across meters. Pulling the trigger is just as hard psychologically as the first stab. It doesn't remove you from anything. The fact that you think it does means you have no understanding of it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />About the hunting thing, sure, a gun can be used to put food on the table. However, I contend that it's only a tiny fraction compared to what one buys from their local Walmart. It's not really essential. Aditionally, for hunting one uses Rifles and Shotguns. As I've said, they're legal here, and I don't have much of a problem with them as long as they're controlled, regulated and registered properly. What I can't see is why anyone really needs to own an Uzi, M16 or Grenade Launcher.<hr /></blockquote>Uh, Wal-Mart is a drug store. You get more meat out of a rabbit than you do every Wal-Mart in the U.S. And, as I said before, out in the rural west, hunting is a way of life. Some people never buy meat at the stores because they prefer to hunt for it all. They live the entire year off of several good kills, augmented by the occasional rabbit. It is a staple for many people. You really should come over here to hunt with these people sometimes; they'll tell you of the harmony of nature and the true meaning of the hunt.

As for automatic weapons and grenade launchers, you require a class A license to own and operate those weapons, and only people who have a real interest in them get one. An M16, set to single shot, might be used for hunting, but other than that it's more of a hobby/competition weapon. Of course full auto competitions are really a sight to see. Awesome is an understatement.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />"Also I think its kinda funny to hear someone from Britian saying we dont need them to protect us from Tyranny."

I take issue with this. Granted the US deserved its independence, just like India and the African colonies, and possibly the taxation was over-zealous. But tyranny? Bull****.<hr /></blockquote>Bull? The tyranny was absolute!

They wouldn't let you critique the government or worship in a certain religion.
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

They disarmed every American they came upon and gave it to their army, and killed any who refused.
Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

British soldiers could force you to feed them, give them room and board or demand anything!
Amendment III: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
They regularly demanded horses, which we were forced to give up, and food. And when that was over, if the owner had a problem, the soldier would tell them to bill the Crown... Who never paid.

They could come in and rip the place apart looking for anything they wished.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Again, all they had to say was bill the Crown.

They would accuse people of treason or any other high crime without proof, and charge them, several times, taking prisoners, anybody they felt like and ship them off to Britain, to wait months before they held a trial.
Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

They would also charge these people outrageously for the simplest of crimes, and hold them in prison where they could not pay.
Amendment VII: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

No tyranny? Who here is full of bull? The victims or the assailants?

YET ANOTHER SHAMELESS PLUG: How well do you know the mods of this room, specifically me? Take the test: "<a href="http://gamer4fire.friendtest.com/" target="_blank">How well do you know the Gamer4Fire?</a>" Use your SWF name, get 100%, and win an incredible prize!

Subject to limitation, all rights reserved, not FDIC insured, deal with it.

[ April 21, 2002, 02:01 AM: Message edited by: Gamer4Fire ]

dejavu3k · Apr 21, 2002

a gun is an inanimate object. it was made to kill, but it itself does not kill. the person who wields it does the killing, just like any other tool. a gun is just a tool to kill with. therefore, i do not think guns should be banned, but i think that they should have greater security measures put around them.

XDaDePsak · Apr 21, 2002

LOL@massy

Yeah, Suuuuuuure you guys weren't tyrants... you were just... angelic.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, maybe guns should be sacrificed for the ultimate good, but when it comes down to it, that aint gonna happen unless the government imposes martial law and forcefully removes guns form our nation-- none of that sissy voting/democracy crap.

Massy · Apr 21, 2002

Tyranny

The government or authority of a tyrant; a country governed by an absolute ruler; hence, arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government.

Angelic...like you were to the natives then? As far as I know the British (I have no wish to use the term "we") didn't resort to genocide. No, it wasn't nice, I know that, but I hardly think it was on a par with Soviet Russia. Perhaps we attatch different connotations to the word tyranny. I, however, will stick with Webster.

Gamer - True, it's not directly relevant, but I was pointing out that the original accusation of tyranny was hypocritical, and that 200 years later, my nationality has no bearing upon this argument. (Then again, It was made by Slasher, who I should probably have learned to expect that from.) Additionally, the crown had lost almost all its power by the 1700s, and the country was controlled by parliament.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />That would merely depend on the governments resolve. As I recall, Hitler had no problem killing his people in the millions. He confiscated all their guns first, of course.<hr /></blockquote>As far as I remember, he did the same to the not-inconsiderably armed Poles.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Every State has some form of concealed carry. In the states that it is more pronounced (Rural Center and Western United States) the majority of people carry guns, they enjoy very low crimes compared to the areas without, and the majority has yet to kill a police officer yet.<hr /></blockquote>The burden of proof is upon you here. Granted that kinda obliterates the whole "no statistics" plea, but you can't make statements like that with no real backing. Aditionally the "lower crimes in area without guns" statement is completely moronic, failing to take into account any other factors. Where is your control group? Where is your repetition to weed out anomalous results? Nowhere, merely an unsupported statement presented as fact.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Yes, guns are used primarily for killing things. But it is still only a tool used for a job.<hr /></blockquote>I just noticed this. Yes, a gun is merely a tool. But so is a howitzer. A Challenger tank will not hurt anyone on its own. And ICBM is no threat without people to operate it. The thing is, you have to draw the line somewhere. I draw it pretty much at the point where one can inflict mass murder with a minimum of effort. You can't with a knife or tyre iron, which have other purposes anyway.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Uh, Wal-Mart is a drug store. You get more meat out of a rabbit than you do every Wal-Mart in the U.S. And, as I said before, out in the rural west, hunting is a way of life. Some people never buy meat at the stores because they prefer to hunt for it all. They live the entire year off of several good kills, augmented by the occasional rabbit. It is a staple for many people. You really should come over here to hunt with these people sometimes; they'll tell you of the harmony of nature and the true meaning of the hunt.

As for automatic weapons and grenade launchers, you require a class A license to own and operate those weapons, and only people who have a real interest in them get one. An M16, set to single shot, might be used for hunting, but other than that it's more of a hobby/competition weapon. Of course full auto competitions are really a sight to see. Awesome is an understatement.<hr /></blockquote>My bad, thought it was some kind of superstore thing. But the point still stands. Again, I'm not against hunting weapons per se. They're single shot, cumbersome, and can't be hidden under a trenchcoat. For hunting, an M16 has no purpose over a normal rifle. Yes, it's a hobby weapon. A toy. A ***** enhancement. A ***** enhancement capable of tearing your flesh into ground beef style chunks, which is its entire purpose in the first place.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Anyways, I think you need to brush up on your history of what happens when you register weapons; the government has this habit of confiscating them without reparation. Itâ€™s whatâ€™s been bothering people for generations, and one of the major bugs ups the NRA's butt. Because of this, we've had a strict policy of no registration.<hr /></blockquote>Then oppose the confiscation, not the regestration. There's no reason why a car should be registered and a gun should not. One could possibly justify, as you are trying to, that one needs a gun, or should be allowed to own one, but unregulated? **** that.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Efforts trying to reduce crime and violence etc. would all be in vain in the end.<hr /></blockquote>Well, we won't need one of those "police forces" then.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The real problem with banning guns is that any criminal who really wanted one could still get one. Plenty of items have been banned before (such as drugs), yet still easily make their way to those who really want them.<hr /></blockquote>Possibly, which is why banning them outright tomorrow would not work. But the difference between a gun and a drug, is that the drug will hurt the person taking it, and not someone else.

*Breathes deeply*

[ April 22, 2002, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Massy ]

Gamer4Fire · Apr 21, 2002

We never argued that we were perfect, but you did argue that Britain wasn't tyranical...

You're pulling points out from nowhere.

Elfish Panda · Apr 21, 2002

I hunt, and personally I own a 20-gauge shotgun and a .22 repeating rifle. I am licensed to own these weapons, and I use them only for hunting. I am not an NRA freak and I support gun-control fully. Being a hunter, I feel hunting weapons (aka rifles and shotguns) should be sold publicly, provided the buyer has a license to hunt and has been placed on a waiting list and subjected to background checks. Same thing with handguns. However, assault weapons (aka auto, semiauto, and sniper weapons) have no real purpose except to kill other human beings- G4f, you can't hunt with an M16 because it uses a .50 caliber bullet (what they use in antiaircraft guns). In other words, if you hunt w/ an M16 you will bruise so much meat on large-game animals you won't be able to eat them or mount them, and you will blow small-game animals off the face of the earth. Autos, semiautos and sniper rifles should definitely NOT be sold in public. There are exceptions, though. A family friend of ours used to be in the Secret Service, and, to protect himself and his family after he left, he acquired an automatic weapon. Under circumstances like these, I think possession of assault weapons is ok. I am totally against collective ownership of weapons (when large groups are allowed to own weapons stockpiles). Just look what happened at Waco because the Branch Davidians were allowed to collectively own autos. Because of the right to collectively bear arms, neo-nazi groups in Idaho that might have been using bebe guns and molotov cocktails are in possession of uzis and kalishnikovs. Sick.

McFox · Apr 21, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gamer4Fire:
A twenty cent bullet can get a good hunter two, three hundred pounds of fresh meat. We've been, and still do hunt for food here. That's how a lot of us out west [Western United States] save on money. We hunt. <hr /></blockquote>Heh, you have a lot of hunting down south too.

It's true guns can be used for other purposed than to kill people, althuogh there aren't many.

Competition, the are many other things you could shoot at a target. An arrow, for example.

Hunting is IMHO the most useful purpose for guns. A lot of people here (Louisiana) hunt and fish so they have a meal without having to buy it. We have a lot of deer and ducks around here.

In my opinion, guns should stay around, but maybe raise the price. Not everyone needs a gun. But a lot of people feel they do.

Gamer4Fire · Apr 21, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Elfish Panda:
However, assault weapons (aka auto, semiauto, and sniper weapons) have no real purpose except to kill other human beings- G4f, you can't hunt with an M16 because it uses a .50 caliber bullet (what they use in antiaircraft guns). In other words, if you hunt w/ an M16 you will bruise so much meat on large-game animals you won't be able to eat them or mount them, and you will blow small-game animals off the face of the earth.<hr /></blockquote>My friend, you must be thinking of another gun, the M16 is calibered at .223, not .50. Are you thinking of the M60? It's at 7.62mm NATO or .30 caliber.

Anyways, I think you need to brush up on your history of what happens when you register weapons; the government has this habit of confiscating them without reparation. Itâ€™s whatâ€™s been bothering people for generations, and one of the major bugs ups the NRA's butt. Because of this, we've had a strict policy of no registration.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by McFox9:
Heh, you have a lot of hunting down south too.

It's true guns can be used for other purposed than to kill people, althuogh there aren't many.

Competition, the are many other things you could shoot at a target. An arrow, for example.

Hunting is IMHO the most useful purpose for guns. A lot of people here (Louisiana) hunt and fish so they have a meal without having to buy it. We have a lot of deer and ducks around here.

In my opinion, guns should stay around, but maybe raise the price. Not everyone needs a gun. But a lot of people feel they do.<hr /></blockquote>I knew there was some hunting, but I wasnâ€™t sure to the extent... But why raise the costs of a rifle? So only the elite can own them? That is an entirely un-American attitude.

McFox, I ask you, how would you like it if your hunting license cost $5000 dollars instead of $50 (I'm not sure how expensive it is there, sorry). Wouldn't you think that was totally unfair? Or what if a good shotgun cost $20,000 instead of $200? Wouldn't you be mad at the companies for price gouging?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Massy:
Tyranny

The government or authority of a tyrant; a country governed by an absolute ruler;

The crown was absolute, and their armies rule was absolute.

hence, arbitrary or despotic exercise of power;

The way they kicked us around, demanding what they wanted, and sending whomever they wished to jail, for any or no reason.

exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government.

ditto

Angelic...like you were to the natives then? As far as I know the British (I have no wish to use the term "we") didn't resort to genocide. No, it wasn't nice, I know that, but I hardly think it was on a par with Soviet Russia. Perhaps we attatch different connotations to the word tyranny. I, however, will stick with Webster.

Tyranny is tyranny, just because some were more tyrannical than others doesn't make the people who were least so, not-tyrannical

Gamer - True, it's not directly relevant, but I was pointing out that the original accusation of tyranny was hypocritical, and that 200 years later, my nationality has no bearing upon this argument. (Then again, It was made by Slasher, who I should probably have learned to expect that from.)

Please, don't bring slasher into our discussion. If you have a problem with his politics, please direct them towards him, instead of all us Americans as a whole. <hr /></blockquote>

Samus_2021 · Apr 22, 2002

Banning of guns? What would this accomplish? Sure, most of us would vote for lower crime rates and such matters, but is it all possible? What would it serve? How long would it last?

As mentioned before, what would happen if martial law was enforced and had all the guns in America taken away? Wouldn't all the criminals and murderers find other ways of making the kill? Not that they already do.

My point is, the idea of having violence, crime, and terrorism all abolished would be great. But everyone is human, with very human instincts, and sadly to say that killing, and intelligence is some of them.

Efforts trying to reduce crime and violence etc. would all be in vain in the end.

Kokichi · Apr 22, 2002

Why not ban guns from regular people and give them other guns, like the electron guns that can paralyze people. Or why not invent better home security so you wouldn't need to use a gun. The policemen should have a gun, however.

the_puff · Apr 22, 2002

The real problem with banning guns is that any criminal who really wanted one could still get one. Plenty of items have been banned before (such as drugs), yet still easily make their way to those who really want them. With guns banned, the only people an armed criminal would have to fear would be the police, and they can't be everywhere at once.

Banning guns would shift more power to the criminals, while offering no real benefit to the average citizen.

Keaten · Apr 22, 2002

I think thats true, but you have to look at the options available to kill people.

If a person has access to a gun, when they become irrational, they're more likely to pick up the gun than to chase the person and punch them. So if we take away the easy access to guns for those who aren't mature enough and mentally stable enough to have them, then we lose a major threat of people dying from gun shots, etc.

S_O_B_SlasherZ · Apr 22, 2002

My politics about foriegn people telling us how to run our country is just, look at what happened when our President went to France people were throwing stuff and acting fool just because were not socialist.It grows tiring to see that other Countries have nothing better to do then to mess with American politics there are more worldy issues that effect us internationally or talk about gun control period but every statement Massy made had to do with U.S policy as he so kindly stated that Britian doesnt do this or that....anyways.Some people here made comments about using other "non-leathal" weapons for competition,like an bow and arrow.Last time i checked if i shot someone with an arrow to the chest odds are they arent getting back up.Belive it or not there are lots of Gun competitons ranging from Handguns to rifles to automatics.Now why should someone who shoots for competition change to a "non-lethal" weapon?They arent shooting people.Look at the Olympics there is an event where people Ski from on target range to another and try to shoot as many targets they can with as little bullets as possible.Should they change that event to a "non-lethal" weapons?Like a paintball gun?Why?Also to another one of Massy points, you noted that in some small country somewhere the citizens over thrown the goverment with stones.Ummm if the U.S government were to take total control i doubt a whole bunch of guys could stop it. I dont think they would make to the White House. Massy also said dont get all your history info. from The Patriot. We'll Massy the Patriot is very accurate. Its actually based on a real unit that did the same thing to British soldiers.Minus a couple over exaggerted things btu thats another argument.Lets pretend here(bear with me) that no Americans can have guns POOF all gone not a single person owns a gun except Officers,Army..blah..blah..etc..etc.Anyways now instead of Drug dealers we have Gun dealers.Now lets so for instance Joe wants to go burgalize a Neighborhood.He goes to his local Gun dealer and picks up a Glock.Now he goes to the Neighborhood where the law abiding citizens are sleeping.It gets in and holds up the Man of the house but WAIT! Its ok he has his handy dandy TASER!The guy steps back and blows him a new one.We'll maybe if he had pepper spray it could have been different or umm a bat?Massy also said that pointing a gun at a criminal with a gun wouldnt affect him much he is just going to shoot you.We had a incedent last summer in my neighborhood where someone would break in at 2 o clock in teh morning steal something and leave.Every house he went to cooperated because he had a gun.We'll a guy 4 houses down from me owns a handgun.And the guy broke in one night.He pulled it out pointed it at him and told him to get out the guy jumped out the window!True story.We'll thats my two cents or pounds for the British folk.

Massy · Apr 22, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />We'll Massy the Patriot is very accurate.<hr /></blockquote>AHAHAHA! Ahahaha! *Breathe...in...out, in...out* HAHAHAHAHAHA! I was seriously expecting you to deny that... but sticking by it? Accurate? Hahahaha!

As to the rest of your points, rendered helpless and flailing by that one: Why not use paintball guns for competition? If they can be made to replicate the action of a real gun, does it really matter if it can actually kill someone? As you so rightly pointed out, it's not like they're going to be used to shoot anyone, so as far as target shooting is concerned, where's the issue?

That "small country somewhere" is called Palestine. As the events of last September have shown, this is directly relevant to everyone - try reading up some more. My point is that resisting with protest is more effective than resisting with firearms. Guns don't stop tyranny, people stop tyranny. Gamer is right in that it depends on the resolve of the government. But not every repressive regime is going to have protesters executed en masse. However they will take lethal action to deal with armed insurgents.

The taser/pepper spray was merely an example of a non-lethal weapon, I'm not suggesting you can take on a guy who has glock with one. But if say, some non-lethal weapon as effective (Or even more effective, like incapacitating them if you hit in the leg.) as a firearm, perhaps a tranq gun or something, it would not gain widespread appeal, because people want the kill. Guns are for killing. They are machines designed to kill. That is their primary purpose, and that for which they are most often used.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Massy also said that pointing a gun at a criminal with a gun wouldnt affect him much he is just going to shoot you.We had a incedent last summer in my neighborhood where someone would break in at 2 o clock in teh morning steal something and leave.Every house he went to cooperated because he had a gun.We'll a guy 4 houses down from me owns a handgun.<hr /></blockquote>Granted, in this case owning a handgun prevented his house getting robbed. But this is one incident, and depended entirely on the resolve of the criminal. I'd much rather have my house robbed than be shot in the chest, I wouldn't be willing to take the risk of pulling a gun on someone already pointing one at me.

Oh, and I forgot this point back at the top:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />A criminal would just shoot you if you have a taser. You would have to get within arms length to harm him, and he can be anywhere. Massy, did you suddenly go stupid? And as I said, most criminals don't have guns, and the ones who do aren't exactly the best shots. Of course when he can just keep shooting at you, because you just have a taser, his odds rise rapidly.<hr /></blockquote>Wait...so if most criminals don't have guns, why do we need them to protect ourselves? Surely a taser or pepper spray or a pointy stick is enough against someone who is unarmed? Conversely, how does having a firearm of your own defend you against a criminal with theirs? You have to get the jump on them to stand a chance, why by the nature of a criminal (Ie. someone attacking your person or your property) is unlikely.

[ April 22, 2002, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Massy ]

McFox · Apr 22, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gamer4Fire:
McFox, I ask you, how would you like it if your hunting license cost $5000 dollars instead of $50 (I'm not sure how expensive it is there, sorry). Wouldn't you think that was totally unfair? Or what if a good shotgun cost $20,000 instead of $200? Wouldn't you be mad at the companies for price gouging?<hr /></blockquote>OK I guess I worded my thinking wrongly. What I meant to say was, a lot of people think they need a gun for protection, when really, there isn't need for one.

The average criminal may or may not have a gun, but I relate it to what people tell you about wild animals, "they're more afraid of you than you are of them."

All they probably want is some money to buy whatever, but my bet would be (unless they have experience) that most of them are extremely afraid of being caught.

For myself, I know exactly where my metal baseball bat is in case of an emergency. I have a burglar alarm, so I know if I need to go get it.

Sorry G4F I guess I didn't really explain myself enough.

Gamer4Fire · Apr 22, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Massy:
As to the rest of your points, rendered helpless and flailing by that one: Why not use paintball guns for competition? If they can be made to replicate the action of a real gun, does it really matter if it can actually kill someone? As you so rightly pointed out, it's not like they're going to be used to shoot anyone, so as far as target shooting is concerned, where's the issue?<hr /></blockquote>Name one weapon that can shoot over two hundred meters within a centimeters accuracy, then ask me why we shouldn't use guns for competition.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Massy:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />A criminal would just shoot you if you have a taser. You would have to get within arms length to harm him, and he can be anywhere. Massy, did you suddenly go stupid? And as I said, most criminals don't have guns, and the ones who do aren't exactly the best shots. Of course when he can just keep shooting at you, because you just have a taser, his odds rise rapidly.<hr /></blockquote>Wait...so if most criminals don't have guns, why do we need them to protect ourselves? Surely a taser or pepper spray or a pointy stick is enough against someone who is unarmed? Conversely, how does having a firearm of your own defend you against a criminal with theirs? You have to get the jump on them to stand a chance, why by the nature of a criminal (Ie. someone attacking your person or your property) is unlikely.<hr /></blockquote>You forget the point that even if the majority of petty criminals don't use guns, many of them do. And as for getting the jump on them, it's your home turf. I can walk from my bedroom to my bathroom, take a piss, and walk back, blindfolded, in complete darkness and half asleep. I bet you can too. That lets you get the jump on them. You know your terrain, he doesn't, your at an advantage, use it. In the end, having a criminal break a window trying to get out without being shot beats getting beat up and robbed. (Many of these punks like to rough up their victims, "sad but true." -Metallica)

You think a person robbing your house knows about every squeaky floorboard? I bet you do.

PimpLuigi · Apr 23, 2002

I figure i'll bring in some fresh perspective.
So far the only valid points i see for owning guns is protecting your home, and hunting/competition; and the latter of which Massy already agreed that rifles and such are okay, so basically we're down to protecting your home and some really bad argument about protecting yourself from tyranny.

All that other stuff isn't largely relevant- such as british tyranny, the accuracy of the Patriot and such- (but hey Mel Gibson sure was pretty effing sick with that axe right?) <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Now on to home protection: from what i know of the brits(which admittedly isn't much) not even their police carry guns, and the whole no gun thing seems to be working out fine for them (along w/ the Netherlands and a myriad of other democracies who's names allude me- but somewhow rank higher among democracies). From what i know of america, i hear of alot more- some kid shot another, or some guy got drunk and shot someone than, "homeowner foiled attempted burgalarly on the news." And of course shooting largely removes you from intent. "Accidents" happen all the time, but whens the last time you heard someone accidentally stabbed their friend a couple of times? The trauma from having killed period shouldn't be confused. The main argument seems to be that guns will go on the black market like drugs once illegalized, and while it's possible i suppose, it seems like an unfair comparrison nonetheless. Drugs for one can be made alot easier than guns, for another they can be smuggled alot easier as well.

Despite all this however i still think guns should be legalized. Strict regulation naturally, you shouldnt be able to buy a gun imo unless it's registered. I think the government should be able to pull up records of every gun in the unitedstates. All this not registered stuff, is bull_****, like Massy said- change the problem. It's like having corrupt politicians- it's like h3ll, let's all just not vote.

Anyway i'm all for freedoms and less government control- while i don't think we would have the situation gamey mentioned, i don't think taking away another freedom is the answer either. Stricter regulation is a better idea in my opinion, and of course the big toys- ie. uzis and such should stay unobtainable. And if some nutjob takes his pistol and shoots a couple of people in public- oh well **** happens. Gamey's analogy may not have been perfect with the guy with the sword, but the basic intent is the same, nut jobs are gonna kill people one way or another, and it takes a nutjob to do it. Granted a gun would make it easier, y'know to down fleeing victims and such- but a nutjob is still a nut job and he's gonna find a way to kill people one way or another, if it's not a gun it's a timmothy Mcvay. A few incidents of violence are not enough to convince me we should ban something. But i definately think it should be much more controlled than it is now- at least as much as cars are. Worst comes to worst, consider it a form of mild population control.

-Pimp

p.s. oh and Massy Walmart is a superstore. I do recall some drugstores called walmart before the rise of the current industry giant, but i don't know if they are one in the same or the previous walmart has gone out of bussiness or what. Either way, neither sells groceries to my knowledge.

S_O_B_SlasherZ · Apr 23, 2002

Im not even going to argue the accuracy of the Patriot because Massy has never looked up any of the protrayed characters in the movie in a history book but enough about that.And Pimp Wal-Mart was a store that just sold everything it does now except groceries.The only reason its called a Supercenter now is because of all of them have groceries now ...anyways.Massy made a point about the Columbine shooting where he asked if the kids could have killed as much people with just guns and pipe bombs.If they didnt have guns they could have just made more pipe bombs which would have lead to more deaths then there was.One pipe bomb could kill more people then one handgun if put in the right place.Like a class room or a Cafeteria.And about what Pimp said he is for having freedoms and less government control,but its ok if they make the rules stricter.If they make the rules stricter then thats more government control then we have now, also the more control they get over a law the more easily they can remove it when they see fit.Next thing you know there will be stricter rules on the Freedom of speech.We'll anyways thats my two cents....

PimpLuigi · Apr 23, 2002

honestly slasher, not to be d*** or anything but i don't know if it's worth replying to you sometimes

S_O_B_SlasherZ · Apr 23, 2002

Either that or you have nothing to say.You said that you were all for freedoms and less government control,BUT you said the laws should be stricter.Thats a contradiction.If the government makes them stricter they have MORE control.You also compared it to cars.That they should be at least licensed like them.We'll could you please show me where in the constitution it says you have the right to own or drive a car?For example If you wanted to get a license and hadnt paid your taxes or had unpaid tickets the DMV could simply tell you no nice try and you dont have a license.So you think guns should be handled the same way?The end of the second amendment states "The rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."When you loose one constitutional right you loose the constitution.So your ignorant remark about being a d**** is true.We'll thats my two cents...

Massy · Apr 24, 2002

You have to back up your (weak) argument with something more than the constitution. It is not sanctified, it was written by fallible people. Saying "We should bear arms because the constitution says so." bears no more merit than "We should overthrow the government because I say so." unless you back it up.

I'm not going to bother addressing your points, because to be honest, arguing with you is like debating dialectical materialism with a flailing child.

S_O_B_SlasherZ · Apr 24, 2002

Pimp's arguement was about having freedoms with less government control. I was responding to his point.And show that the constition is a list of our freedoms so it would matter in this point.That if the Government makes stricter rules then they gain more control over your freedom which is listed in the Constition.That was my point.We'll that my two cents

Bumble Bee Tuna · Apr 24, 2002

I am opposed to the supposedly reasonable plan of requiring gun registration. You hear it time and time again... "I don't think the right to bear arms should be infringed on, but they should at least be registered." as if registration would somehow prevent criminals from getting guns. It is always thought by people that registration of weapons is some great reasonable middle ground. More control, but it doesn't ban guns.
Well, I fear tyranny. You say, how the **** could the US government become tyrannical? I think it doesn't seem THAT unlikely. Right now, probably now, but years in the future, you can never be sure. Look at the 2nd place showing in France by Le Pan (Massy surely knows more about this than I do). Things can happen. And a national registry of guns, where the government knows exactly who owns every single gun in the country, is scary. The first step in opressing people is taking their guns. Then it's a lot easier to round them up. Like G4F said, "Hitler killed lots of jews. Of course he confiscated all their guns first"(paraphrase). Frankly, I don't like to make that prospect any easier.

I'm opposed on other grounds as well to getting rid of guns, but this is my argument against registration.

Here's another argument that hasn't been brought up. I'm opposed to banning guns not to protect from criminals, though that's certainly a good reason as well. No, I think in our current times, a good reason to keep guns would be to protect oneself from terrorists. I think everyone who isn't squeamish should try to be armed when in public. A terrorist with an automatic weapon in a crowd of unarmed civilians is a scary thought. Forget being scared of flying, people would be scared to go out in public. In an armed crowd, He shoots for a little bit, and then the crowd shoots back and he's dead. A little bit better prospect, to me. Granted, it's not like this would be an everyday occurence but it's a point that nobody has brought up yet.

-B

ahf_chick17 · Apr 24, 2002

Ahh...I would have to agree with the fact that the person is the killer, not the gun. All the time, all over the news you see the headline of someone being killed. It's not the fact of what weapon they use, it's the fact that they killed someone. The gun didn't pull it's own trigger, the person did. Yes, I agree...guns are bad and the worse means of killing someone. With the whole Columbine incident...not as many people would have been killed if it was done with a knife or of some other sort. But, it could have been done just as easily with a bomb. All the point I am trying to make is...it's the person that makes the decision to do what they do, not the weapon. I'm glad to say that fire-arms are banned over here in England, but it doesn't make it much better. People are always smuggling them in or better still finding other sorts of weapons to do their damage. The person is the killer, not the gun. Why is it that the person is punished and not the weapon, by banning them?

JBird1203 · Apr 24, 2002

When I first read this topic, it reminded me of that guy from Happy Gilmore, whose shirt read, "Guns, don't kill people, I kill people."

What a refreshing, zestful, non-religious topic, to begin with. I happen to part with Massy on this issue. I'm still not even sure why anyone needs to hunt these days in the United States, because even in the most rural of areas, there's a decent grocer nearby that sells meat. As metioned, a gun has no other purpose but to kill. A knife is handy in the kitchen. Bombs/dynamite are used to excavate land for bridges/tunnels, etc. What does a gun do besides kill? It's used for absolutely NOTHING else but to kill, except for those who lack direction and feel like shooting bullets at a target. Even if guns were to be illegalized, these imbeciles could play darts or buy some Nerf brand toys.

And if guns were outlawed, how would the violence be increased? Think logically here, people. If they were illegal, the gun companies/corporations would be shut down, thus producing no new guns. Like any modern mechanism, the gun won't last forever. So when your precious .22 ceases to function, you skip-to-your-lou over to the gun store, wait a few days, and get a new one. That won't happen if guns were banned. To say that crime and the black market involving guns would rise because of it's government illegalization of it would be irrelevant and pointless, considering the amount of variables that could be added to each individual situation.

It's tough to compare the black market of drugs to the potential black market of firearms. With most recreational drugs that have been popularized in the United States, the product can be easily grown, over and over again. Tell me how a man from, say, Columbia, can grow a few guns, sell them at a decent price, and get so good at that, others refer to him as a, "gun lord." Besides, drugs, in the literal sense, aren't meant to kill, but rather make money and give people some euphoric feelings. Although there are some who get euphoric feeling after shooting a gun. Believe me, I'm not one of them.

Onto the horrendous juxtaposation of words that was Slasher's post:

"Im not even going to argue the accuracy of the Patriot because Massy has never looked up any of the protrayed characters in the movie in a history book but enough about that."

And you happen to know that for a fact...how? Massy never mentioned in his posts that he never studied a little, on his own. Who knows, there might someone a little more intelligence than you. You know, someone with an I.Q. in the triple digits. I doubt you studied yourself, so quit thinking so simple-mindedly(sp?).

"Massy made a point about the Columbine shooting where he asked if the kids could have killed as much people with just guns and pipe bombs.If they didnt have guns they could have just made more pipe bombs which would have lead to more deaths then there was.One pipe bomb could kill more people then one handgun if put in the right place."

This arguement is actually relevant. Then again, I would be able to stick that pipe bomb under your bed...if that's what you mean by, "the right place."

"And about what Pimp said he is for having freedoms and less government control,but its ok if they make the rules stricter.If they make the rules stricter then thats more government control then we have now, also the more control they get over a law the more easily they can remove it when they see fit.Next thing you know there will be stricter rules on the Freedom of speech.We'll anyways thats my two cents...."

Well it just so happens that it was that government that gave you those freedoms in the first place. It sounds to me like you're a little greedy, "GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME!" Realize that life, in general, is a, "give-and-take," game. To make an analogy, I bet you don't give your parents Christmas, Chaunakah, Kwanzaa, etc., presents each year. Who knows, that's just an assumption that I made. But my point here is, don't bite the hand that feeds you. And did you actually bring up the removal of freedom of speech? Please, speech has killed a marginal amount of people compared to firearms. Not to use a statistic there, but rather, common sense.

I'm through. Flame on.

[ April 24, 2002, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: JBird1203 ]

Gamer4Fire · Apr 25, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JBird1203:
What a refreshing, zestful, non-religious topic, to begin with. I happen to part with Massy on this issue. I'm still not even sure why anyone needs to hunt these days in the United States, because even in the most rural of areas, there's a decent grocer nearby that sells meat.

Your point? Hunting is cheaper and its a part of our heritage. You know, the one that goes back almost five hundred years. Should we stop celebrating New Years because of all the drunk driving deaths, so many that cabs are free for that night?

Guns are part of us as a people. Who cares if meat is cheap, hunted meat is cheaper and funner to get. It's a real part of growing up in America, the right of passage from being a kid to becoming a man in many areas in the U.S. This isn't just about getting food, it's about being a man and being an American.

As metioned, a gun has no other purpose but to kill. A knife is handy in the kitchen. Bombs/dynamite are used to excavate land for bridges/tunnels, etc. What does a gun do besides kill? It's used for absolutely NOTHING else but to kill, except for those who lack direction and feel like shooting bullets at a target. Even if guns were to be illegalized, these imbeciles could play darts or buy some Nerf brand toys.

I'll tell you what I told Massy, show me a weapon that can shoot two hundred meters with an accuracy of a centimeter, and I'll tell you why we shouldn't use guns for competition. We even have an olympic team for it.

And if guns were outlawed, how would the violence be increased? Think logically here, people. If they were illegal, the gun companies/corporations would be shut down, thus producing no new guns. Like any modern mechanism, the gun won't last forever. So when your precious .22 ceases to function, you skip-to-your-lou over to the gun store, wait a few days, and get a new one. That won't happen if guns were banned. To say that crime and the black market involving guns would rise because of it's government illegalization of it would be irrelevant and pointless, considering the amount of variables that could be added to each individual situation.

You have no idea how easy it is to make a gun, do you? You think they have a million moving parts like the space shuttle? They are actually quite simple, we've been making them for almost a thousand years. Of course our precision made Berretas are far more powerful, but still, a gun isn't exactly a complicated peice of machinery. In the fifties, gangers were making zip guns out of car radio antennas.

If you made guns illegal, there are also plenty of plants in Europe, Asia and Africa that can supply us. Many of them tied directly to the government of third world countries. How hard do you think it would be to lose several shipments and have them accidently end up in the market "Fresh Fruit, Perishable"? Of course we'd have gun lords.

It's tough to compare the black market of drugs to the potential black market of firearms. With most recreational drugs that have been popularized in the United States, the product can be easily grown, over and over again. Tell me how a man from, say, Columbia, can grow a few guns, sell them at a decent price, and get so good at that, others refer to him as a, "gun lord." Besides, drugs, in the literal sense, aren't meant to kill, but rather make money and give people some euphoric feelings. Although there are some who get euphoric feeling after shooting a gun. Believe me, I'm not one of them.

Muwahahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha

So, you don't know guns too well? You think its a drug? Please be aware of rule number 4. Using a gun does bring a sense of powe, but more importantly, a sense of responsibility. Statistics show that kids educated about guns are far less likely to commit a crime with one... In fact all studies show that education is the means to prevention. We can keep the guns, the drugs, the booze, et al, all we have to do is provide better education. Being were I am now (They just cut the budget for state education. All primary, middle, high and universities. Many are now bankrupt.) education is really important. I would take good education over a ban of anything, any day of the week and twice on Sunday. If I ever run for office, I think my motto will be "Education is the key to prevention."<hr /></blockquote>

PimpLuigi · Apr 25, 2002

I'm not going to bother responding to some of the- weaker debaters, i think we all know who they are. But i will say this:

I definately agree w/ gamey on the part about education, i think that would be an important step in the right direction, however i still disagree that guns(quality mind you) aren't nearly as easy to make and more importantly mass produce as are drugs. If we were to have an underground gun market it would almost have to be exclusively imported. To mass produce guns takes up alot more room than say, a meth lab. Drugs are everywhere, labs, hospitals, etc. -guns even currently legal, aren't. So i'm not saying there wouldn't be a black market for guns, i'm just saying it would be alot harder to obtain than are currently drugs.

On B's paranoia tangent, like someone else said, whether we have guns or not, your terrorist example is laughable at best and i'll take my chances on the U.S. tyranny thing. I personally don't understand why cars have to be registered, but the fact that they are, and people are getting away w/ not registering guns, i think is ludicrous. I don't even think that it's that big of a deal- if you have a gun, you should be forced to register it. It has nothing to do on my feelings on guns being legal or not. The government knows everything else about us anyway, i don't know whether you somehow think this empowers you by hiding this small thing, but it really doesn't. They (now you're making me sound paranoid) can find out the last time you took a **** if they wanted to, i don't think registering your gun is that big of a deal. If the u.s. governemnt somehow turns tyrannical overnight, a bunch of guys with shotguns aren't going to be able to stop anyone. Nevermind how farfetched that is to begin with. Anyway bottom line i want the government personally for my safety to know who has a gun, what type, and how many. It's alittle too late now to not trust the government, if they wanna screw you, you're gonna get screwed and hoarding a gun supplies not gonna change that.

-Pimp

Edit: As a sidenote, i know a number of european countries have outlawed guns, (and seem to be doing just fine that way) and i'm wondering for any of you who live in one of these countries, if you know how easy it is to obtain a gun and how bad is crime in general in regards to gun use.

[ April 25, 2002, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: PimpLuigi ]

S_O_B_SlasherZ · Apr 25, 2002

Im going to skip everything and go into the very ignorant remarks made by Jbrid

"Massy made a point about the Columbine shooting where he asked if the kids could have killed as much people with just guns and pipe bombs.If they didnt have guns they could have just made more pipe bombs which would have lead to more deaths then there was.One pipe bomb could kill more people then one handgun if put in the right place."

This arguement is actually relevant. Then again, I would be able to stick that pipe bomb under your bed...if that's what you mean by, "the right place."

Wow Jbrid nice come back that would follow on the Acts of Ignorance rule but who's keeping score right?Why even bother responding to it if you have no counter argument?

"And about what Pimp said he is for having freedoms and less government control,but its ok if they make the rules stricter.If they make the rules stricter then thats more government control then we have now, also the more control they get over a law the more easily they can remove it when they see fit.Next thing you know there will be stricter rules on the Freedom of speech.We'll anyways thats my two cents...."

Well it just so happens that it was that government that gave you those freedoms in the first place. It sounds to me like you're a little greedy, "GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME!" Realize that life, in general, is a, "give-and-take," game. To make an analogy, I bet you don't give your parents Christmas, Chaunakah, Kwanzaa, etc., presents each year. Who knows, that's just an assumption that I made. But my point here is, don't bite the hand that feeds you. And did you actually bring up the removal of freedom of speech? Please, speech has killed a marginal amount of people compared to firearms. Not to use a statistic there, but rather, common sense.

The government that gives me these freedoms?So your saying they have the right to take them all away?Thats very Communistic of you.And I couldnt believe you said "dont bite the hand that feeds you." So what you basically sumed this up too was if the government wants to take anything away from you let them.Seriously what was that?And your anaology on the "give and take".The United States government was established by the people FOR the people.They are supposed to serve YOU.Thats what Democracy is.There is no I give my Government one right in trade for another.The Governments role is supposed to be small(like you mentioned your I.Q was).Also the Government did'nt give me anything.The PEOPLE gave the government its power.Before you come on rambling at least know what Democracy is first.And my Freedom of Speech was an example.So dont think so single mindedly.We'll thats my two cents...

S_O_B_SlasherZ · Apr 25, 2002

"On B's paranoia tangent, like someone else said, whether we have guns or not, your terrorist example is laughable at best and i'll take my chances on the U.S. tyranny thing."

Hey Pimp today on the morning news the FBI said that they have come under information from reliable sources, of new Terrorist targets which are Supermarkets and Mall's so im afriad B isnt being paraniod but cautious.

"I personally don't understand why cars have to be registered,but the fact that they are, and people are getting away w/ not registering guns, i think is ludicrous."

Simply because if the police are chasing you in your car.And you loose them, the next day they can be at your house.Or if you hit someone on the street and leave them there, a witness can report you.There are many logical reasons why cars are registered watch "Cops" or "Police most scariest car chases" if you cant think of any.Besides it a whole lot easier to see the license plate of a car then the registration number of a gun would be. And if they did register guns whats to stop somone from breaking into your house while your not home and stealing your registerd gun, then killing someone with it and leaving it at the crime scene.Now your a suspect for Murder and all you did was go to the Movies.

" i don't think registering your gun is that big of a deal. If the u.s. governemnt somehow turns tyrannical overnight, a bunch of guys with shotguns aren't going to be able to stop anyone."

Like Gamer said you never know what could happen down the road. Also like Gamer said when being taken over they take your guns away from you first.Im going to point into in incedent in the Holocaust.The nazis put 4,000 Jews in a ghetto.And in a couple of Months shipped some to the nearest concetration camp.The Jews there had enough and somehow(book didnt say)they got a few supply of guns.They held out for 1 month inside German territory.With a small supply of guns.Maybe a group of guys couldnt stop it but an army could look at the Civil War.They were drastically outnumbered.Had little supplies.And they fought for years.Just farmers who had guns.We'll as always thats my two cents...

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

BRoomer

Smash Apprentice

BRoomer

PyroGamer

Smash Ace

PyroGamer

Smash Apprentice

PyroGamer

BRoomer

BRoomer

BRoomer

PyroGamer

Smash Lord

BRoomer

BRoomer

PyroGamer

Smash Cadet

Spread the Love

PyroGamer

Smash Journeyman

Skia Oura

Smash Apprentice

Carpe Mentis

Smash Apprentice

BRoomer

Spread the Love

PyroGamer

Agent Smith

Smash Apprentice

Agent Smith

Smash Apprentice

BRoomer

Smash Apprentice

Dolphin-Safe

Smash Apprentice

Sgt. Pepper

PyroGamer

Agent Smith

Smash Apprentice

Smash Apprentice

Information

Network