Gun Control

[Guerrilla Guy]

it’s stupid that we have to put liscence on guns nowadays!

[Darrigaaz]

@Guerrilla:

it’s stupid that we have to put liscence on guns nowadays!

hey, it keeps the anti gun nuts happy, and it doesnt bother me all that much, so i dont care.

[Guerrilla Guy]

@Darrigaaz:

@Guerrilla:

it’s stupid that we have to put liscence on guns nowadays!

hey, it keeps the anti gun nuts happy, and it doesnt bother me all that much, so i dont care.

the point is the “Nowadays”!

[cystic crypt]

@Guerrilla:

one point CC… the right to keep and bear killing machines? have you ever thought that the car you drive can kill someone? a gun is no different it’s just perticularly meant to kill or disable….

do i really have to insult your intelligence by explaining the difference between a car and a gun? and i have seen a car used as a weapon (on a patient), however its effectiveness relative to a weapon and . . .
really, this is just too inane for words.

[cystic crypt]

@Darrigaaz:

Just because the drug war isn’t working perfectly, doesn’t mean that it isn’t working.

Its not working at all. Its like killing a mosquito only to have ten thousand others swarm you.

i’d suggest that you would have a different result without any effort directed at drug-control.

All that the proliferation of guns does is enhance fear and paranoia.

Without this sounding like a personal attack, these really sound like symptoms your exhibiting. You seem Very sure that firearms are evil tools of satanic death delivering. :)

well, they’re pretty close. i think i’d be a lot more paranoid in a society as gun-happy as the US.

Since when is more slaughtered people and more people in jails preferable to a society with fewer slaughtering devices? Your priorities in this regard are completely whacked.

Its called responsibility. Parents are responsible for feeding, clothing, and sheltering their children. If they fail at this they are charged for criminal neglect or whatever (cant think of the actual crimes name)
P.S. saying my opinions are ‘whacked’ seems on par with saying to me ‘your an idiot’, it has no impact at all on this conversation other than being rude.

yeah, i think i’ll stand by my original stance on this one. A society where the right to have guns takes precedance over the lives of its citizens is a society with whacked priorities. A society with fewer guns has fewer gun deaths. I mean really - think about it. You basically said: so? If children are killed handling firearms, then their parents should go to prison. This society is eminantly more preferable to one where we can have a/many designated killing machine/s in most/every household? People have momentary lapses in judgement daily. Doctors, judges, politicians, parents - everyone. Someone has one of these, their child gets killed, and we say “oh well - better lock up the bad daddy” instead of just getting rid of the stupid things.

he also had access to a gun that killed his (adolescent) friend. The years of life lost in this regard are astounding. The “gee, that’s too bad, if only he had learned gun control” attitude is ridiculous when it would be much easier to restrict firearms from these adolescents.

Well i have access to my parents car and liquor cabinet. doesnt mean im driving down the road drunk and hollering “Hoo-Rah!” I have access to two sticks, that doesnt mean i go around lighting my neighbors houses on fire.

so?? Many kids are stupid. I was until i was 24 or so. It’s far too easy for the state to prevent a simple accident in this regard. But no - trampling the rights of people to own guns is soo much more onerous than people losing their lives to these guns.

i don’t really have a problem with this, but i am all about keeping all killing machines outside of the city.

Another point to keep in mind: with over 200 million firearms in the country, who do you think are going to be the only ones who dont hand them in when uncle sam comes calling?

this goes to my Deliverance statement . . . .

As the saying goes, when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.

lmao.
oooo right out of the NRA textbook. so clever and so empty. Saying “when you outlaw gun, fewer people will be killed by them and the outlaws owning guns will eventually be nailled by the appropriate authorities when our society pays more heed to preventative and protective strategies” is not nearly as clever.

Check this Statistic: twice as many inner city children are killed by knives than firearms. What should we outlaw butter knives?

lmao
you ask me not to insult you, and then you come up with something like this???
Please give me something to take seriously. In the meantime, examine a butter knife. Try to kill someone across the street with it without moving. Or someone in the next office.

[Janus1]

CC, thats where you are wrong. ive killed 30 people with a butter knife, from across the street.

they call me the butter-knife bandit

:roll:

[cystic crypt]

@Janus1:

CC, thats where you are wrong. ive killed 30 people with a butter knife, from across the street.

they call me the butter-knife bandit

:roll:

have you thought about entering the circus? it’s not just about juggling babies anymore.

[Darrigaaz]

All your “Save the children from the evil guns!” nonsense and you condone juggling babies? shame on you!

@cystic:

i’d suggest that you would have a different result without any effort directed at drug-control.

I predict that pehaps drug use in the country would increase about 3% of its current total TOPS.

well, they’re pretty close. i think i’d be a lot more paranoid in a society as gun-happy as the US.

yeah, i think i’ll stand by my original stance on this one. A society where the right to have guns takes precedance over the lives of its citizens is a society with whacked priorities. A society with fewer guns has fewer gun deaths.

lol seeing as your in a medical field, i figure you would realize that people dont live forever, so there would not be any less deaths. Maybe a few (FEW) less early deaths, but at what cost? As i said, cars kill people, so to save more people lets revert back to using horses. wait sometimes people get crushed by horses, so lets only walk. You ban weapons and you screw people out of something useful to them. I mean really - think about it.

You basically said: so? If children are killed handling firearms, then their parents should go to prison. This society is eminantly more preferable to one where we can have a/many designated killing machine/s in most/every household? People have momentary lapses in judgement daily. Doctors, judges, politicians, parents - everyone. Someone has one of these, their child gets killed, and we say “oh well - better lock up the bad daddy” instead of just getting rid of the stupid things.

Lets suppose some guy gets very drunk, and decides to get into a car and causes an accident that kills three kids on their way to soccer practice. What do we do? we arrest him. Do we ban the beer he drank? no. Do we recall all cars? no.

But no - trampling the rights of people to own guns is soo much more onerous than people losing their lives to these guns.

Yes it is, see above. Despite what your obvious beliefs are, you cant make the world danger-proof. And if you try, everyone would lose everything.

this goes to my Deliverance statement . . . .

How so? Because i speak the undeniable facts i’m some kind of toothless hick? Do you really expect all the bad guys that you seem so intent on taking these guns away from are going to stroll into the police office and say, “I’m here to hand over my Glock, sir.” What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

Saying “when you outlaw gun, fewer people will be killed by them and the outlaws owning guns will eventually be nailled by the appropriate authorities when our society pays more heed to preventative and protective strategies” is not nearly as clever.

Once again, back to the smuggling/prohibition arguement.

lmao
you ask me not to insult you, and then you come up with something like this???
Please give me something to take seriously. In the meantime, examine a butter knife. Try to kill someone across the street with it without moving. Or someone in the next office.

I could easily take this butter knife and put it On an arrow and shoot it across the street. True, i would need some practice to adjust my aim, but its possible.

And why do you think someone needs to stand still? I could easily sneek into my friends house with a butter knife and get close enough so that someone could kill him. Then my sean would probably kick my ass for breaking into his house, but i could easily prove you wrong.

Of course, i’m a bit too lazy to do so right now and seans off at college.

[Guest]

@Darrigaaz:

There are alot of private collectors out there, which brings me to you next point.

I have never heard that guns have another purpose than delivering death.

Collectors; guns are usually MORE valuable if nver fired. LouisXVI had a pistol that had about 3/4 of a pound of jewels on it, making it more of a trophy that “A SATANIC DEATH DELIVERING BEAST FROM HELL”. Many people go to rifle ranges as a source of fun. Yes, fun, or unmandated extracuricular activities.

Don’t shout.
Don’t imply that a phrase coined by you is taken any seriously by me.
For a collector, it is very simple to make the weapon unusable. (Not permanently, just by removing one or more inner parts, like the bolt (correct term?)).

EVEN WORSE THAT WE STILL HAVE THESE MECHANIZED DEATH BOXES ON THE ROAD! WHY STILL USE THESE DESTRUCTIVE AND UNCONTROLLABLE FORCES IF THEY KILL SCORES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE A DAY!

sigh i don’t have to comment that any further.

To a slightly different topic….

And: to use a car you have to do a license.

to use a gun, you do have to have a license.

And also a proven need.

Surely none of his (CC’s) fellow citizens. Surely none of mine. And it is less than 200 million in the country. That would be more than 2 rifles per person (of any age).

dont be so sure, unless you have scoured everyone of your neighbors houses, you cannot know for sure.
sigh
and yes, OVER 200 million. Most hunters own more than one rifle depending on the game and terrain they’re hunting in. Most police stations have mnay more firearms than the officers assigned there. most collectors have insane amounts of firearms. that figure is most definately correct.

It is not. It’s about 20 million, by police estimates. Weapons used with crimes are most likel to be illegal (96%).

You didn’t read my post did you?

Please, you anti gun people seem to enjoy using terms like “stupid” and “whacked”. They really do nothing than to send the impression that your not thinking rationally.

That is not my fault. Can you tell me how to counter your irrational arguments rationally? I don’t see that there is any way for that.

@Darrigaaz:

yeah, i think i’ll stand by my original stance on this one. A society where the right to have guns takes precedance over the lives of its citizens is a society with whacked priorities. A society with fewer guns has fewer gun deaths.

lol seeing as your in a medical field, i figure you would realize that people dont live forever, so there would not be any less deaths. Maybe a few (FEW) less early deaths, but at what cost? … I mean really - think about it.

I mean, really, read his post again: “gun deaths”, not “deaths”. The costs … how much is a human live worth? You seem to know the answer, and it doesn’t seem to be that much.
I agree totally with CC here, and whoever takes his own “rights” as more important than other peoples lives… i cannot respect, as they show a blatant selfish disrespect for the one most important and universal human right.

Lets suppose some guy gets very drunk, and decides to get into a car and causes an accident that kills three kids on their way to soccer practice. What do we do? we arrest him. Do we ban the beer he drank? no. Do we recall all cars? no.

As you probably don’t see the flaw:
Drunk driving is illegal.
Remember what you said yourself why you don’t “allow” thinking further your “drugs and weapons” thread: “if a law like this was ever passed, i’d be very pissed at the democrats but i would kindly oblige; then i would work to get it repealed.”
(…which is a good laugh by itself btw)

[cystic crypt]

@Darrigaaz:

All your “Save the children from the evil guns!” nonsense and you condone juggling babies? shame on you!

Whew!. Glad to see that you have a sense of humor after all.

@cystic:

well, they’re pretty close. i think i’d be a lot more paranoid in a society as gun-happy as the US.

yeah, i think i’ll stand by my original stance on this one. A society where the right to have guns takes precedance over the lives of its citizens is a society with whacked priorities. A society with fewer guns has fewer gun deaths.

lol seeing as your in a medical field, i figure you would realize that people dont live forever, so there would not be any less deaths. Maybe a few (FEW) less early deaths, but at what cost? As i said, cars kill people, so to save more people lets revert back to using horses. wait sometimes people get crushed by horses, so lets only walk. You ban weapons and you screw people out of something useful to them. I mean really - think about it.

A common unit of measurement in medicine is “years of life lost”. This is actually considered an important measurement and a useful endpoint when examining both prospective and retrospective trials. You can put any kind of spin on it that you like, but every gun death is absolutely preventable (as opposed to many medical illnesses where death is the endpoint). Furthermore every typical gun death represents many more years of life lost than a simple M.I. As far as your endless attempts to compare guns (units intended to kill) with automobiles (units intended to transport people), i really hope that this is another sign of your sense of humor (are you British by background?).

You basically said: so? If children are killed handling firearms, then their parents should go to prison. This society is eminantly more preferable to one where we can have a/many designated killing machine/s in most/every household? People have momentary lapses in judgement daily. Doctors, judges, politicians, parents - everyone. Someone has one of these, their child gets killed, and we say “oh well - better lock up the bad daddy” instead of just getting rid of the stupid things.

Lets suppose some guy gets very drunk, and decides to get into a car and causes an accident that kills three kids on their way to soccer practice. What do we do? we arrest him. Do we ban the beer he drank? no. Do we recall all cars? no.

hahaha, i get it. You’re being funny again!!

But no - trampling the rights of people to own guns is soo much more onerous than people losing their lives to these guns.

Yes it is, see above. Despite what your obvious beliefs are, you cant make the world danger-proof. And if you try, everyone would lose everything.

this goes to my Deliverance statement . . . .

How so? Because i speak the undeniable facts i’m some kind of toothless hick? Do you really expect all the bad guys that you seem so intent on taking these guns away from are going to stroll into the police office and say, “I’m here to hand over my Glock, sir.” What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

right. evidently not one where rationality and citizens lives takes precedence over the right to a little death-spitter.

Saying “when you outlaw gun, fewer people will be killed by them and the outlaws owning guns will eventually be nailled by the appropriate authorities when our society pays more heed to preventative and protective strategies” is not nearly as clever.

Once again, back to the smuggling/prohibition arguement.

unrelated. with prohibition - every citizen with the exception of teetollars wanted to drink and found ways of doing it. The odd drink was not difficult to obtain, and lasted maybe one evening. I look at other societies (i.e. the non-US/non-terrorist ones) where the use/ownership of firearms is significantly more restricted, and i don’t see your average citizen trying to get themselves a hot-weapon.

lmao
you ask me not to insult you, and then you come up with something like this???
Please give me something to take seriously. In the meantime, examine a butter knife. Try to kill someone across the street with it without moving. Or someone in the next office.

I could easily take this butter knife and put it On an arrow and shoot it across the street. True, i would need some practice to adjust my aim, but its possible.

And why do you think someone needs to stand still? I could easily sneek into my friends house with a butter knife and get close enough so that someone could kill him. Then my sean would probably kick my a** for breaking into his house, but i could easily prove you wrong.

Of course, i’m a bit too lazy to do so right now and seans off at college.

ok, you got me. very funny.

[Janus1]

how much is a human live worth?

$37,246.89

You can convert the currency yourself.

:roll:

[Guerrilla Guy]

@cystic:

@Guerrilla:

one point CC… the right to keep and bear killing machines? have you ever thought that the car you drive can kill someone? a gun is no different it’s just perticularly meant to kill or disable….

do i really have to insult your intelligence by explaining the difference between a car and a gun? and i have seen a car used as a weapon (on a patient), however its effectiveness relative to a weapon and . . .
really, this is just too inane for words.

Insult my intelligence? Heck, I think were all stupid! :lol:

The point is not wether it kills or not, the point is wether it should be outlawed… If someone is killed by a drunk driver do we outlaw cars… if someone is shot while a burglar is robbing a house do we outlaw the guns and prevent a person to defend themself?

GG

GG

[DeviantScripter]

DS, while i agree with you, please keep it civilized, this is a very fun topic to discuss and i do not want it to deteriorate into just blasting eachothers opinions.

Haha, sorry guys. :lol: I like to stoke it up every once in awhile. :P

[Guest]

@Guerrilla:

The point is not wether it kills or not, the point is wether it should be outlawed… If someone is killed by a drunk driver do we outlaw cars… ?

drunk driving is outlawed.

[DeviantScripter]

So is killing people.

You’re missing the point. :-?

[Guest]

Surely, the number of deaths through drunk driving would be reduced if we banned either alcohol or cars.
But … banning alcohol hasn’t worked that fine as history has shown, plus the cultural attachment to alcohol is much older than the affinity of your citizens to carry weapons.
Cars, as mentioned before, serve a useful purpose, and much effort is done to make them safer from generation to generation (of cars).

So, we have deaths through car accidents, and deaths through gun accidents (and reducing those is one of the goals of gun control).
We very rarely have cars used against human lives on purpose. This happens more frequently with guns (another thing that gun control wants to reduce).

To reduce teh number of car accidents, in my country there is “traffic education” in primary school, drivers licenses (in some contries you only get temporary permits and have to redo them every some years), speed limits and car developments.
What is on the “gun’s side”?
Has any effort been made (by anyone: manufacturers, legislation, whoever) to reduce the “use of weapons against humans on purpose”? That is where this comparison differs hugely, this is where you must do first action if you want to compare the two topics.

[Darrigaaz]

:sigh:

No CC, I’m Not british, my ancestors were british/Irish, but I was born and raised in MA.

F_alk, i may have misheard my source, as i was getting that info from an article at my grandfathers house, and while i admit 20 million seems more logical, until i can contact my grandfather again i will not recant my statements. (he’s in the hospital now)

Drunk Driving is Illegal. Being an ass and shooting someone is illegal.
Owning a gun is NOT illegal. Owning a car is NOT illegal.
Being a dumb@$$ is NOT illegal.
^ that is the fatal factor in either situation.

Please clarify this, i cant really understand your point:
Remember what you said yourself why you don’t “allow” thinking further your “drugs and weapons” thread: “if a law like this was ever passed, i’d be very pissed at the democrats but i would kindly oblige; then i would work to get it repealed.”

Weapons to be used with crimes are most likely to be illegal. You said it. That proves that the average good guy with a gun will not commit a crime with it. That point we can both agree on.

And yes, a gun license is a good idea.

Collectors removing the bolt could be done, but i dont see the need for it.
To CC’s arguement

The average citizen wouldnt be the one getting the “hot” gun (good adjective!). It would be the one who would use if for evil who would get the "hot gun. (:))

Quote:
You basically said: so? If children are killed handling firearms, then their parents should go to prison. This society is eminantly more preferable to one where we can have a/many designated killing machine/s in most/every household? People have momentary lapses in judgement daily. Doctors, judges, politicians, parents - everyone. Someone has one of these, their child gets killed, and we say “oh well - better lock up the bad daddy” instead of just getting rid of the stupid things.

Lets suppose some guy gets very drunk, and decides to get into a car and causes an accident that kills three kids on their way to soccer practice. What do we do? we arrest him. Do we ban the beer he drank? no. Do we recall all cars? no.

hahaha, i get it. You’re being funny again!!
Quote:
Quote:
But no - trampling the rights of people to own guns is soo much more onerous than people losing their lives to these guns.

Yes it is, see above. Despite what your obvious beliefs are, you cant make the world danger-proof. And if you try, everyone would lose everything.

Quote:
this goes to my Deliverance statement . . . .

How so? Because i speak the undeniable facts i’m some kind of toothless hick? Do you really expect all the bad guys that you seem so intent on taking these guns away from are going to stroll into the police office and say, “I’m here to hand over my Glock, sir.” What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

//\//////\right. evidently not one where rationality and citizens lives takes precedence over the right to a little death-spitter.

Um…. what does that have to do with my above statement? Anyway, i’ll adress it.
Before my rights to own a “death spitter” are violated, there are some things that should go first. Worried about the lives of the citizens? ban cigarettes and other tobacco products; theyre far more dangerous.

LoL if hunting rifles and shotguns were banned, Maine, Vermont and Michigan would cecede (Spelling?) from the union!

P.S. From what I’ve heard, Holland allows hunting rifles to be owned, but nothing else. Even that bothers me a bit.

Let me just run this by you on an unrelated issue; do you realize how much life would suck if ALL our rights were taken away?

Back to f_alks last post. Finally your being sensible in your debating. Traffic Education is here as well. When applying for a gun licence, i believe there is some form of testing in most areas. And as you said before, most guns that are used improperly are illegally obtained. You cant teach those people unless you teach all people. And many firearms come with a care and matenance, manual, wether from the dealer or manufacturer im not certain. that explains safety ETC.

QUESTION: Do any of you mind if i print out this topic to use for my debate team?

[cystic crypt]

@Darrigaaz:

The average citizen wouldnt be the one getting the “hot” gun (good adjective!). It would be the one who would use if for evil who would get the "hot gun. (:))

right,
but with fewer average citizens owning guns, there would be MANY fewer accidental shootings, fewer Columbines (did you guys just have another one of those recently??), fewer 2nd degree murders with firearms, etc. (and no, i would not have a problem if the proportional amount of knife-deaths increased relative to firearms as that would indicate that not only are firearm-related deaths dropping, but so are all deaths related to these two). So now we’ve reduced the number of guns in the general population, thus making it much more difficult for the bad guys to get them. On top of this, harsher laws for possession would put more bad guys behind bars, and more guns in incinerators. All very groovy man.

Before my rights to own a “death spitter” are violated, there are some things that should go first. Worried about the lives of the citizens? ban cigarettes and other tobacco products; theyre far more dangerous.

Believe me, my family is already doing all we can about tobacco. As for your rights to own a gun, i still don’t understand why these are so important to you. You don’t complain about the fact that there are many things you don’t have the right to (i.e. owning various kinds of explosives, walking into public buildings at night, setting fires on your front yard) - why is “the right to own a gun” so important?

LoL if hunting rifles and shotguns were banned, Maine, Vermont and Michigan would cecede (Spelling?) from the union!

ummm . . . isn’t this one more reason to ban these in addition to handguns? :)

P.S. From what I’ve heard, Holland allows hunting rifles to be owned, but nothing else. Even that bothers me a bit.
Let me just run this by you on an unrelated issue; do you realize how much life would suck if ALL our rights were taken away?

certainly - the right to free speach (without shouting fire in a crowded building, etc.), the right to assembly (without doing it to form a mob) etc. Still, it looks like you are applying the “slippery-slope fallacy” in order to force an argument. Not being allowed to own a firearm is completely unrelated to every other “right”. Removing this one does not go towards removing others, if anything, i’d suggest that it frees a society in many ways.

Back to f_alks last post. Finally your being sensible in your debating. Traffic Education is here as well. When applying for a gun licence, i believe there is some form of testing in most areas. And as you said before, most guns that are used improperly are illegally obtained. You cant teach those people unless you teach all people. And many firearms come with a care and matenance, manual, wether from the dealer or manufacturer im not certain. that explains safety ETC.

doesn’t change the fact that 5 year olds can’t read, that angry husbands forget not to shoot people, and 16 y/os learn reading in the schools they end up totin’ the family rifle to . . . .

QUESTION: Do any of you mind if i print out this topic to use for my debate team?

[Guerrilla Guy]

uh CC, have you ever heard of the mofia (HAHAHA…don’t say you do cause RI is all mofia and nothing else… :lol: 8) :-? ) that is just one “criminal” orginization that can get away with getting guns… once again, criminals can get guns illegally they don’t play by the rules anyway 8) … Furthermore if every student in Columbine was armed in some way that day maybe no one would have died… gotta go to bed for now but I’ll post later…

GG

[cystic crypt]

@Guerrilla:

uh CC, have you ever heard of the mofia (HAHAHA…don’t say you do cause RI is all mofia and nothing else… :lol: 8) :-? ) that is just one “criminal” orginization that can get away with getting guns… once again, criminals can get guns illegally they don’t play by the rules anyway 8) … Furthermore if every student in Columbine was armed in some way that day maybe no one would have died… gotta go to bed for now but I’ll post later…

GG

yes, i’ve heard of the mAfia. as well as the Hell’s angels, the Indian Posse, the Rock Machine, blah blah blah, so what’s your point? Certainly, i was talking about removing guns in general to limit their ability of falling into the hands of criminals. And so what if a member of the mafia etc. can obtain firearms? One more reason to arrest them, one more opportunity to conduct a search, one more crime to add x many more years to their sentance.
If every student in Columbine was armed . . . ???
I am begging God that all American’s do not think like this. That’s just too freakish.