please no guns.
i hate them.
i might as well be quaker
i hate them.
i might as well be quaker
Last edited by jermyang (2006-10-30 20:06:08)
As would I ATG, but that isn't possible, because if he didn't have guns that sick fuck would have done it anyway. And you know thats true, because that guy was one twisted mother.ATG wrote:
Fuck I'd give up my guns if I never had to hear about another batch of Amish girls being executed.
And besides, pissed of white guys use explosives to make a political point just as muslims do.
Commercial hydrogen peroxide and acetone = boomdiddty fucking boom.
Ok guys I have resived loads of complaints about this thread now I kept it open as I tought u guys can bihave, so now ether play nice or I will have to close this thread Thank
Peace Boris
Peace Boris
Well sorry if criminals in other countries arent gun toting psyco's, normally ciminals dont kill people, but yet aging you go to show that there is something flawed with you country. Thank you for proving my point.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
And you think criminals that are intending to KILL other human beings should be alive, assuming that they KILLED an innocent person, you really are screwed up. You'd rather have a criminal that was threatening someone's life kill that person and live. WeirdVilham wrote:
Sorry did you just read the stats? It quite clearly points towards guns mean more deaths be it criminals or civilians. Guns are UNESSECARY whereas cars are nessecary to society. Im more than willing to ban cigs.
Dont deny that access to guns makes it easier to kill because it does. Protecting yourself means killing or at least wounding so badly the person is fucked for the rest of their lives. Guns were designed for killing, its what they do well, they damage things. Stop pretending they are for anything else.
Guns have many uses, YES THEY DO KILL, but they also serve well in competition, hunting, and collecting, two of which involve no killing of any sort. Stop trying to pretend that KILLING is all they do.
That's pretty similar to the incident that led to the total handgun ban in the UK (the Dunblane massacre). Guess what, nothing like that has happened since.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
As would I ATG, but that isn't possible, because if he didn't have guns that sick fuck would have done it anyway. And you know thats true, because that guy was one twisted mother.ATG wrote:
Fuck I'd give up my guns if I never had to hear about another batch of Amish girls being executed.
And besides, pissed of white guys use explosives to make a political point just as muslims do.
Commercial hydrogen peroxide and acetone = boomdiddty fucking boom.
it just seems unwise to leave your and your family's protection in the hands of police forces that could be miles away from where an incident may occur
what would concern me greater, something you anti-gun americans should think about more, is the dangerous precedent that would be set by fucking with one of the original constitutional amendments
what would concern me greater, something you anti-gun americans should think about more, is the dangerous precedent that would be set by fucking with one of the original constitutional amendments
Erm, If you can't change the laws of your country then I'd be far more worried.kr@cker wrote:
it just seems unwise to leave your and your family's protection in the hands of police forces that could be miles away from where an incident may occur
what would concern me greater, something you anti-gun americans should think about more, is the dangerous precedent that would be set by fucking with one of the original constitutional amendments
A minority of Americans want guns to protect themselves and their families.
300,000 of these guns are stolen every year.
This attempt at protection has actually resulted in endangering not only the families of the gun owners, but everyone elses in the country.
hahaha i love your sig man ^^ and your right the amount of murders with legal guns in illegal murder is far less than legal gun used in legal self defense. I think the ratio in my last post showed it aptly 16000 murder per capita illegal murder 600 legal self defensive murders per capita and that statistics from the FBI so I'm inclined to believe they wouldn't lie .. for there is no reason too.
But if very few criminals have guns (which is what tends to happen in countries with strict gun control) it becomes far easier to defend yourself and your family. There is no reason to have a gun for defence if no one else has guns. Also, statistically speaking, you are far more likely to be killed by an intruder if you try to use a gun for defence (in the US at least).kr@cker wrote:
it just seems unwise to leave your and your family's protection in the hands of police forces that could be miles away from where an incident may occur
You don't think being able to change laws to meet the demands of an ever changing society is a good thing?kr@cker wrote:
what would concern me greater, something you anti-gun americans should think about more, is the dangerous precedent that would be set by fucking with one of the original constitutional amendments
Kr@cker, like I said before, criminals always have the upper hand. They have the initiative and surprise on their side. Having a gun usually means it gets you shot, because the criminal will shoot you if you are armed, or it will end up in his hand.kr@cker wrote:
it just seems unwise to leave your and your family's protection in the hands of police forces that could be miles away from where an incident may occur
Look, I'm against gun controls. I think if people want to have them, fine they have the right to. But it is an illusion to think your wife is gonna wake you up like in the movies saying "Honey, I hear something downstairs..."
There is no precedent, many countries have them and aren't comunist or anything. In fact are US allies. This is just the paranoia the neocons and NRA members like to push around to keep the status quo.kr@cker wrote:
what would concern me greater, something you anti-gun americans should think about more, is the dangerous precedent that would be set by fucking with one of the original constitutional amendments
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
There definitely is a precedent. It would indicate that the Bill of Rights is not a definite set of rules. What, then, if someone wants to change the first amendment, or the 5th?...after all, times change...
As the saying goes--If it is illegal to have guns, only criminals will have them.
As the saying goes--If it is illegal to have guns, only criminals will have them.
The interesting constitutional debate centers on what the right to keep and bear arms means in context. Given that the phrase is contained within language around the maintenance of a civil militia, you can (and many do) argue that this means that guns should be maintained as part of the militia, not part of the individual citizenry. Similarly, the counter-argument goes that militias, by definition, are composed of citizens and are therefore incapable of self-maintenance, so the right means that we can individually keep and bear arms for the purpose of participating in a civil militia.
We can currently see a test-bed of civil militias in Iraq. Apparently the difference between current Middle-East thought and the thoughts of our hallowed forebears is widely divergent...
My position is simple. Enforce existing gun laws correctly and see whether or not additional statues are required. My guess is that if you enforce existing code, you won't need new laws. Further, I think that some level of laws are required to ensure that children, the criminal, and the mentally ill do not have easy access to guns.
You are right that often guns end up in the hands of those you expected to defend against. You are also right that movies are not a good model. You, however, are wrong in that gun safety, gun carry, and gun use classes abound, so that if you will take the time and money, you can be more than sufficiently trained to defend yourself and your property.
I have a shotgun, pump-action, that exist for the sole purpose of defending my family. I will check to make sure my kids are safe in their beds, then tell the intruder that he/she/it may take everything from the downstairs, but if they come upstairs, they will die. I will thence pump the gun to make the point. My stairway takes a 180-degree jog, leaving me with ample cover AND a direct line of fire toward anyone who would dare challenge me. Moreover, the staircase is centered in the house somewhat, which means discharging the weapon will NOT involve making holes in my neighbor OR his house. The intruder WILL die.
We can currently see a test-bed of civil militias in Iraq. Apparently the difference between current Middle-East thought and the thoughts of our hallowed forebears is widely divergent...
My position is simple. Enforce existing gun laws correctly and see whether or not additional statues are required. My guess is that if you enforce existing code, you won't need new laws. Further, I think that some level of laws are required to ensure that children, the criminal, and the mentally ill do not have easy access to guns.
You are right that often guns end up in the hands of those you expected to defend against. You are also right that movies are not a good model. You, however, are wrong in that gun safety, gun carry, and gun use classes abound, so that if you will take the time and money, you can be more than sufficiently trained to defend yourself and your property.
I have a shotgun, pump-action, that exist for the sole purpose of defending my family. I will check to make sure my kids are safe in their beds, then tell the intruder that he/she/it may take everything from the downstairs, but if they come upstairs, they will die. I will thence pump the gun to make the point. My stairway takes a 180-degree jog, leaving me with ample cover AND a direct line of fire toward anyone who would dare challenge me. Moreover, the staircase is centered in the house somewhat, which means discharging the weapon will NOT involve making holes in my neighbor OR his house. The intruder WILL die.
texas has a high crime rateDezerteagal5 wrote:
Your overlooking the point here, killing people is a crime, and i can garentee the crime is less likely to be commited if you think your target is armed. Therefore, less people would try to rob you or kill you, and you would have a country/state is low crime rates.herrr_smity wrote:
guns don't kill people people kill people, maybe but the gun helps
Look at Texas for example, anyone there can own a gun, and there crime rates? LOW! But you take a place like New York City, where the average person cannot carry a weapon, and they get mugged and shot. Yet the scumbag gangsters still have weapons, BECAUSE THERE CRIMINALS. Fight fire with fire
not fully trueRoosterCantrell wrote:
I do believe in gun control but, "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".
i own legal weapons
but i know a few guys who got into the hobby and have a couple of illegal one's, and they are all straight edged , college graduate's who wouldnt harm a fly
in fact if we did outlaw guns, MILLIONS of americans would resort to obtaining them by other means then mail order or the local gun shop.
it's like when they outlawed booze in the 20s and 30's, people made it illegally and obtained it the same way
a ton of guys and gals in the US love guns and collect them, and i for one will be might tee'eed off if this happned
our forfathers came from your country amoung others, your point is mootVilham wrote:
Fair enough. However i believe it has alot to do with guns. Even if not directly, your culture stems from your constiution which allows guns, you past has involved a lot of warfare, again guns. While the states was being founded people would still use force to gain wealth, again guns.Turquoise wrote:
I'd say that you're both wrong, actually. While gun ownership is much lower in the U.K. than in America, less guns do not necessarily equal less murder. More guns do not necessarily equal it either.Phantom2828 wrote:
Your homicide rate is 6 times lower because you have way less than 6 times the people smart one.
I heard UK is notorius for its gangs and gang related deaths.
Finally, statistics suggest that the difference in homicide rates mostly stem from differences in culture and in wealth disparity. This has little, if anything, to do with guns.
Last edited by beerface702 (2006-11-01 05:43:05)
Do you have some form of intrusion detection system? Because if you don't, the criminal is going to get upstaris way before you wake up. And after he and his buddies pin you down, they'll probably find and use your own shotgun against you.[1stSSF]=Nuka= wrote:
I have a shotgun, pump-action, that exist for the sole purpose of defending my family. I will check to make sure my kids are safe in their beds, then tell the intruder that he/she/it may take everything from the downstairs, but if they come upstairs, they will die. I will thence pump the gun to make the point. My stairway takes a 180-degree jog, leaving me with ample cover AND a direct line of fire toward anyone who would dare challenge me. Moreover, the staircase is centered in the house somewhat, which means discharging the weapon will NOT involve making holes in my neighbor OR his house. The intruder WILL die.
Guns can only protect you if you are aware the there someone in your house. And criminals usually either wait for the house to be empty, or take all the steps necessary to get to you before you are aware of them.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
jesus enough with the hypotheticals
how about a real instance?
last year, someone broke into a law student's house just down the street from me. they turned the lights on and he got his gun while his girlfriend called 911. he informed the intruder that he was armed, the intruder came to the bottom of the stairs armed with a knife. the student ordered him to drop the knife. the intruder began coming up the stairs. the law student fired a warning shot. the intruder ignored it. the law student killed the intruder.
would the intruder have been armed if guns were outlawed?
yes
would the law student have been armed if guns were outlawed?
no
did the police get there in time to do anything?
no
would the student and/or his girlfriend be alive today had they not been armed?
no
and no this is not isolated, it has happened several times in both cities that i have lived in, miami and macon, to people we know and people we don't. sometimes the intruder is armed with a gun, usually not, they always end up dead or in the hospital at the hands of the legally armed citizen protect his (in one case her) family, self and property
how about a real instance?
last year, someone broke into a law student's house just down the street from me. they turned the lights on and he got his gun while his girlfriend called 911. he informed the intruder that he was armed, the intruder came to the bottom of the stairs armed with a knife. the student ordered him to drop the knife. the intruder began coming up the stairs. the law student fired a warning shot. the intruder ignored it. the law student killed the intruder.
would the intruder have been armed if guns were outlawed?
yes
would the law student have been armed if guns were outlawed?
no
did the police get there in time to do anything?
no
would the student and/or his girlfriend be alive today had they not been armed?
no
and no this is not isolated, it has happened several times in both cities that i have lived in, miami and macon, to people we know and people we don't. sometimes the intruder is armed with a gun, usually not, they always end up dead or in the hospital at the hands of the legally armed citizen protect his (in one case her) family, self and property
At kr@cker's above post:
Armed doesn't only apply to firearms, therefore:
Would the intruder have been armed if guns were outlawed?
Likely
With a gun?
Maybe
Would the law student have been armed if guns were outlawed?
Maybe
With a gun?
Unlikely
Did the police get there in time to do anything?
Yes. The paperwork.
Would the student and/or his girlfriend be alive/unharmed today had they not been armed?
Maybe.
From that, anyone can see where the advantage lies. Maybe we could outlaw self-defense, like the UN wants...only then, you'd make criminals out of anyone who doesn't want to be victimized and is put into a situation where they have to resist such action against them.
Armed doesn't only apply to firearms, therefore:
Would the intruder have been armed if guns were outlawed?
Likely
With a gun?
Maybe
Would the law student have been armed if guns were outlawed?
Maybe
With a gun?
Unlikely
Did the police get there in time to do anything?
Yes. The paperwork.
Would the student and/or his girlfriend be alive/unharmed today had they not been armed?
Maybe.
From that, anyone can see where the advantage lies. Maybe we could outlaw self-defense, like the UN wants...only then, you'd make criminals out of anyone who doesn't want to be victimized and is put into a situation where they have to resist such action against them.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-01 10:34:29)
I do have an intrusion detection system, which will also be of service when my girls are teenagers...lolEVieira wrote:
Do you have some form of intrusion detection system? Because if you don't, the criminal is going to get upstaris way before you wake up. And after he and his buddies pin you down, they'll probably find and use your own shotgun against you.
I also live in an incredibly safe location and doubt that I'll ever need to use the system or weapon...it's just nice knowing they're there.
i'll give you a couple of the maybes, but the reason i said "yes" to whether the intruder was armed was that he was armed with a knife, so guns being outlawed would not have made any difference, i also give the law student and/or his gf much less than favorable odds of surviving because i saw pictures of the intruder on the news, looked like a linebacker and he was supposedly geeked up at the time, not someone you want to get into CQC with, he was heading directly up the stair, straight at the student, his gf, and his dog, clearly intending bodily harm, he wasn't just hoping to make it out the door with the stereo.
i completely forgot about the UN thing, though i understand it got shot down again this year, thank god for john bolton, i don't care what party you're with, you gotta admire him for not being a UN pushover
i completely forgot about the UN thing, though i understand it got shot down again this year, thank god for john bolton, i don't care what party you're with, you gotta admire him for not being a UN pushover
Why are we not mental gun wielding killers then? Your point is stupid.beerface702 wrote:
our forfathers came from your country amoung others, your point is mootVilham wrote:
Fair enough. However i believe it has alot to do with guns. Even if not directly, your culture stems from your constiution which allows guns, you past has involved a lot of warfare, again guns. While the states was being founded people would still use force to gain wealth, again guns.Turquoise wrote:
I'd say that you're both wrong, actually. While gun ownership is much lower in the U.K. than in America, less guns do not necessarily equal less murder. More guns do not necessarily equal it either.
Finally, statistics suggest that the difference in homicide rates mostly stem from differences in culture and in wealth disparity. This has little, if anything, to do with guns.
Last edited by Vilham (2006-11-02 02:31:23)
Here in Sweden we stopped carrying weapons as our society evolved into a safe and good enviroment where no guns are needed for the purpose of selfdefense.....
to do list:
1 pwnerize sweden
2 enjoy hot chocolate and swedish porn
1 pwnerize sweden
2 enjoy hot chocolate and swedish porn
I´ll s(h)ave some blond girls for your pleasure.
SWEDISH BASKETBALL RULES!!!!
sorry i'm on a muppet kick
sorry i'm on a muppet kick